Image credit:Georgia Tech, Interactive image synthesis test results, Little River
Here's three terrific quotes from a seminal article in the National Journal. Read'em and tell us what you think.
EPA's current lawyers and scientists say that agency morale is almost as bad as it was in the early 1980s after President Reagan appointed pro-industry Anne Gorsuch Burford to head it. EPA's reputation fell so low under Burford that Reagan felt obligated to sack her and bring back William Ruckelshaus, the agency's beloved first administrator....
White House meddling has pulled EPA "off to the extreme end of the right-wing perspective on the environment, reflecting not even a consensus within the Republican Party but the views of some who are particularly hostile to the agency's historic mission," says Daniel Esty,...
EPA lawyers and scientists say that on some key issues Johnson has directed agency staffers to come up with legal and scientific justifications for regulatory decisions that the White House has already made. That's quite a turnabout from the agency's traditional practice: EPA's professional staff would craft a proposed regulation in response to a new law or to public health problems, and the White House and the Office of Management and Budget would then vet the agency's draft rule.
The entire article is seriously worth your time.
Turning to our headline question...this is something that no mainstream media seems willing to ask...which candidate is better qualified get EPA back in a position to lead the way on climate action?
Do you even want that to happen?