The "news" magazines offer a very friendly environment for Obama's cabinet members devoted to environmental issues. In this week's Time, they offer their "Ten Questions" for EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. They have a sympathetic tilt that Republicans are waging "war" on the EPA, instead of considering that the EPA is preparing to take command and control over the American economy. (Mario Loyola takes on Jackson and her Time interview at The Weekly Standard.) Time began with the softball from the liberal Republicans:
Two of your Republican predecessors recently wrote that the EPA is "under siege" from the GOP. Is there a war against the EPA?
There are certainly some members of Congress who have come in with an agenda that includes this agency. We hear words like scaling back and defunding.
A key point of contention is EPA regulations that could be coming on greenhouse gases. What is the EPA looking to do on this issue?
We're talking about updating standards under the Clean Air Act to address pollution. Although I joined the President in calling for legislation, that doesn't mean we can't get started using the Clean Air Act to take a series of moderate steps that would add up to real reduction.
Time utterly misses the idea that a Democrat-dominated House and Senate could not pass a "cap and trade" bill to regulate carbon emissions, but Jackson's pressing ahead despite public opposition. Remember the last administration, when reporters were constantly warning about executive branch dictatorship (when liberals wren't running the executive branch)? Now, it's apparently time to trash Congress for objecting to "moderate" executive branch overreach. Jackson sets it up so she and her fellow climate commanders are "Science" and Congress are just politicians:
Why should the EPA be regulating carbon?
Because it's the law. The Clean Air Act and Supreme Court cases have said the EPA must determine whether greenhouse gases endanger public health. We have determined, based on multiple lines of scientific evidence, that they do.
What would it mean if legislation to block those regulations were passed?
Congress would essentially be passing a law that says, We, as a bunch of lawmakers, have decided what the science is on this issue. I don't think that history will forget the first time that politicians made a law to overrule scientists.
Time also ended on how Republicans are ruining EPA morale:
You've frequently been called upon to testify before Congress. Are you being personally targeted?
I certainly hope not. Americans want a strong EPA that protects public health and reins in polluters. Inside the Beltway, they may be bombarded with different messages. [These hearings are] an opportunity for me to speak to what we're doing....
Given the criticism, how do you keep EPA workers positive?
The public knows that were it not for the work of this agency, there would be more sickness, more illness, more incidences of water that can't be used. So what I tell them is to keep their eye on their jobs, to do their jobs with impeccable science and integrity--and I feel confident the American people will turn to us as they should.
In Newsweek, there's a brief John Avlon interview with Steven Chu (a longer version, of course, on The Daily Beast). The main point for the reader is that Chu is dangerously smart:
Q: You are the first Nobel Prize winner to be named a Cabinet secretary. Did you ever tease Obama about not actually earning his Nobel Prize?Because he doesn't seem to think he deserved it.
A: No, I think he deserved it. He was being very gracious and overly modest. He likes to kind of occasionally yank my chain about being a nerd, which I love.
Q: In one sentence, describe your research.
A: We used laser light to cool down atoms to very, very low temperatures.
Q: Last summer you wrote a paper called ‘Subnanometer Singlemolecule Localization Registration and Distance Measurements.’ When asked about it, you said, “I consider it my equivalent of vegging out in front of the TV.”
A: The first 80 hours a week of my time goes to my full-time job at the Department of Energy. But in the wee hours of the morning, on airplane trips, I can go back and forth. It doesn't take much time and it's a good release. It is like vegging out in front of the TV.
Avlon did ask (without much sting) for Chu's thoughts on the gas price doubling under Obama, but he also pressed for an end to subsidies for the oil industry and asked tenderly about the prospects for "climate change" legislation. "You’ve said “science has unambiguously shown that we're altering the destiny of our planet.” Do you still hold out hope for climate-change legislation?
While Jackson drew a few (also sting-less) questions about the BP oil spill a year later, Newsweek didn't find that worth tossing at Chu.
