More

Obama Delivers Pep Talk To Beleaguered EPA Employees

First Posted: 01/10/12 05:11 PM ET Updated: 01/11/12 08:09 AM ET

Seeking to draw clear lines between himself and a field of Republican presidential hopefuls who have been openly hostile to environmental regulations -- and to shore up his own image among his environmental base -- President Barack Obama told a vocally appreciative gathering of Environmental Protection Agency employees Tuesday that they have his thanks and support.

"The EPA touches on the lives of every single American every single day," Obama said. "You help make sure that the air we breathe, the water we drink and the foods we eat are safe. You protect the environment not just for our children, but for their children."

The agency has unveiled a number of aggressive and in many cases expensive measures -- including tough new efficiency standards for vehicles, new limits on emissions of mercury and other air toxics from power plants, and vigorous rules aimed at curbing air pollution that crosses state lines -- often in the face of furious opposition from affected industries and their supporters on Capitol Hill.

Critics of the agency have argued that such aggressive measures act as a drag on the economy, killing jobs and otherwise holding the nation back as it struggles to rise out of a lingering recession.

EPA overreach has become a familiar refrain among GOP candidates in the run-up to the primary season, and a record number of bills aimed at reversing established environmental regulations or hobbling the agency's ability to introduce new ones were introduced in Congress in 2011.

"The EPA's unprecedented rash of regulations will cost our economy tens of billions of dollars and put at risk tens of thousands of jobs," House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said recently.

But Obama told the gathering of EPA staff that the agency's critics were often guilty of creating a spurious choice between environmental and economic health. "I don't buy the notion that we have to make a choice between having clean air and clean water and growing this economy in a robust way," Obama said. "I think that is a false debate."

Obama appeared alongside EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, who was reportedly blindsided by the president in September when he pulled the plug on tough new smog regulations that Jackson, whose own son suffers from asthma, had considered a cornerstone of her tenure at the agency. Questions about Jackson's willingness to remain at the agency quickly followed, but on Tuesday the EPA administrator declared herself and the agency lucky to have "the leadership of a president who supports our mission."

Despite EPA's raft of new regulations, the Obama administration has at times had a tenuous relationship with the environmental constituency that helped sweep him into office in 2008. Many were angered in 2010 when the administration announced plans to expand offshore drilling to new parts of the Atlantic and Alaskan coasts -- plans that were bollixed just a few weeks later when BP's Deepwater Horizon set off an unprecedented environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Others were dismayed by the shelving of EPA's smog rule last fall -- a move that prompted lawsuits.

More recently, environmental advocates have criticized the administration's opposition to new European rules aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions from the airline industry.

But speaking Tuesday, Obama told EPA employees that he remains committed to sensible environmental regulation. And he praised the agency's accomplishments over the last 40 years, noting that those who would do away with the EPA forget what life was like before it. The Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, the president noted, was so polluted with industrial toxins, that it literally -- and famously -- caught fire in the year before the establishment of the EPA.

On the Chicago River in his own hometown: "You probably could not find anything alive in there, four decades ago," Obama said. "Now, it's thriving."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

Seeking to draw clear lines between himself and a field of Republican presidential hopefuls who have been openly hostile to environmental regulations -- and to shore up his own image among his environ...
Seeking to draw clear lines between himself and a field of Republican presidential hopefuls who have been openly hostile to environmental regulations -- and to shore up his own image among his environ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 244
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
HopeWFaith
We the People
05:12 AM on 01/13/2012
The direct impact of the EPA could be much healthier, stronger, helping to sustain the planet, if given the backing to safeguard the land, water, and air. Our President and our Congress must establish the new standards with a much faster timeframe. Stop delaying on helping humankind to restore to health, the soil to be kept as organic as possible, the water to be pure and fresh again. Life on the planet is not a game or a partisan bickering party, for Republicans to play with. Our nation, our people, our air, water and land should be of the utmost importance, along with our food chain. Protect, energize, encourage, create jobs via this important agency. We need better action, stronger action, swifter action. Americans are worth it. The planet is worth it.
12:55 PM on 01/12/2012
People who say the EPA is a job killer have sliced out of the equation the cost of ecosystem services that we currently get for FREE due to a once healthy environment. Trees filter air, water and soil for free. Smaller plants do the same (BILLIONS). Migratory birds and bats keep insect species under control, and regulations create jobs in the green energy sector plus keeps us from having to pay for medication and hospital treatment (millions).
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
adoseofsanity
Recovering liberal.
03:34 PM on 01/12/2012
A "once healthy environment".......?! When would say that was.......sometime before the industrial revolution?!

Fact of the matter is that our environment is just fine and there is very little we can do to it that mother nature cannot take care of. We ought be good stewards of the planet, not slaves to it's supposed well-being. Furthermore, if you want to look at the destruction that can be reaped on this planet, I would submit there is almost nothing greater than the destruction the earth can do to itself. Examples would be: volcanic eruptions--in particular super volcano's and earth quakes. Don't believe me? Just google it.
07:28 PM on 01/12/2012
I have a Master's Degree in Science. You want to argue ecology? Go for it. I use published, peer-reviewed studies, not Google. Actually I agree with you - probably before the industrial revolution! Ruddiman's hypothesis argues that agriculture at the time of the Fertile Crescent is when global warming began, due to deforestation for agriculture. CO2 spiked with the rise of fossil fuels, which tracks with C13/C12 isotopes. Any opinions on that? (I mean scientific ones). Volcanoes contribute only 1% of global warming and Earth can recover and even benefit from the ash minerals in volcanic soils.
12:52 PM on 01/12/2012
What a load of bull. Obama waited until the last minute to even open his mouth about the environment. He needs to make tangible changes like kicking out Secretary Ken Salazar or making permanent national sanctuaries out of forests (preferably in the Northeast). Why should we believe him now after betraying basic conservation measures all this time?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
amwa
07:38 PM on 01/11/2012
Without the EPA we would be in serious trouble. Companies could pollute all they wanted just like oil companies have done to countries like Nigeria.
cdterm47
I am poor because I am a River to my People
06:49 PM on 01/11/2012
Apparently the Supreme Court does not share Obama's confidence in the competence of the EPA and the regulations it issues.
01:14 PM on 01/11/2012
Government, academic and other studies reveal that America's coal-burning power plants account for perhaps 0.5% of mercury in the air we breathe. The rest comes from forest fires, Chinese and Indian power generators, human cremation, and especially volcanoes, subsea vents and geysers. Even eliminating every milligram of EGU mercury will do nothing about the other 99.5%.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, blood mercury levels in U.S. women and children declined steadily during 1999-2008 and are already well below excessively "safe" levels set by EPA. Studies of Seychelles Islands children and analyses by the World Health Organization and U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry confirm that no American children are even remotely at risk from mercury.
photo
pleasantlyny
Addie, Carole, Cynthia & Denise, for you we fight
03:53 PM on 01/11/2012
So you agree - kudos to the EPA!

I just read up on that river that caught on fire... geesh things were really getting bad before the epa
09:52 AM on 01/11/2012
The EPA has done great work over the years but why does regulation have to continue to grow. Why can't we just keep regulations as they are and as long as business doesn't exceed these measures, let them work.

This idea that just because we have better instruments that can detect pollutants at parts per gazillion levels doesn't mean we have to regulate to the parts per gazillion level.
10:13 AM on 01/11/2012
Here is a great example of a clear-thinking principle that is the basis for dialog. Too many times we see sweeping unproductive characterizations of "liberals" as radical environmental proponents of paralyzing regulation, and "conservatives" as enemies of the environment and public health. Some of this is self-fulfilling and makes impossible a consensus approach for what we truly are committed and need to do which is the original charter of the EPA.
11:46 AM on 01/11/2012
Let me share with you now, because I work against polluters in Illinois. Big business/corporations, spend much time and money figuring out how to get around every regulation. And many are self monitoring if you can believe that and they do what they want.
Some times they just break the rules and even put it in writing but if someone is not constantly watching them they get away with it. Go to the Earthjustice site and check out coal ash.
Or check out the nuclear industry in IL or the oil refineries or "clean construction demolition debris". I think your head would spin.
04:30 PM on 01/11/2012
I have no doubts that you speak the truth in many cases. However, if what you say is true, the EPA should use it's resources to monitor those businesses rather than putting even more regulations on every business.

If they don't have the resources to properly enforce their current rules, why do they insist on congress giving them even more regulations to enforce?
09:42 AM on 01/11/2012
Beleaguered? Obama has overseen the single greatest metastasis of EPA authority in history. I'm glad the Cheerleader-In-Chief is talking up his little army, but if he's actually interested in "sensible" regulation, maybe he should throw in the towel in the Sackett case.
photo
pleasantlyny
Addie, Carole, Cynthia & Denise, for you we fight
03:54 PM on 01/11/2012
please give facts.
cdterm47
I am poor because I am a River to my People
06:52 PM on 01/11/2012
pleasantlyny

As usual, the fall back position of a clueless person. Heck, google Supreme court and Sacketts. You will get all the information you need. I doubt if you really care.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
bbrecht
"pray for the dead, fight like hell for the liv
08:38 AM on 01/11/2012
Dear President, you want us to see you as an environmental candidate? Keep your word on Keystone. Require that fracking be covered by the Clean Water Act. Tell us what's being dumped in backyards in the name of fracking. Put a moratorium on it until we know how to protect underground aquifers. Thank you.
cdterm47
I am poor because I am a River to my People
06:53 PM on 01/11/2012
bbrecht

You forgot to say " AMEN".
HopeWFaith
We the People
06:04 AM on 01/13/2012
Could not agree more! Well said.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
adoseofsanity
Recovering liberal.
08:18 AM on 01/11/2012
Nobody is against clean water or air. However, it is an agency that is out of control given so much power (and no accountability) that it often threaten the individual rights of the citizenry of this country, and makes the red tape (and costs) so obtrusive that it stifles economic opportunities. The EPA, and the power that it now has, needs to be fully reviewed and CURTAILED. That will only happen under a new administration with leadership that isn't led around by a virtual nose collar by the environmentalist left.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
bbrecht
"pray for the dead, fight like hell for the liv
08:34 AM on 01/11/2012
Do you even know what you are talking about? How about some details? I didn't think so....
09:56 AM on 01/11/2012
he's probably quoting Fox News, which does not like to give details like facts and figures
photo
pleasantlyny
Addie, Carole, Cynthia & Denise, for you we fight
03:55 PM on 01/11/2012
Please give examples!!!!!!!!!!!! you people just spout talking points.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
adoseofsanity
Recovering liberal.
04:24 PM on 01/11/2012
There is one pending before the Supreme Court right now. It is Sackett VS the EPA.Their are more examples but, you do have to dig. It is a very expensive proposition to take the EPA to court. Most folks don't have the pockets to take on the government.

As far as costs to an economy. The examples are numerous as well. Here is just one: http://news.agc.org/2011/09/12/epa-delays-rules-for-stormwater-runoff-from-already-developed-properties/
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:22 AM on 01/11/2012
First time ever he's visited the agency and he stayed 10 whole minutes; for that, they rented the mellon auditorium, had people going thru metal detectors starting at noon for a "hello" that lasted from 2:30 to 2:40 pm...now it's expensive to rent the mellon, and we're talking about thousands of employees who basically had the afternoon off with pay so they could go to this event. Most viewed it as a political event, timed to coincide with the Supreme Court review of the Sackett case which started Monday. Spoke to a friend who works there, and he said people were selected to meet him and of course they had to be "diverse".
02:14 PM on 01/11/2012
"he said people were selected to meet him and of course they had to be "diverse"."
That's just flat out untrue. I was there. The front row was reserved for disabled people on one side, and directors on the other. These people were best placed to shake Obama's hand at the end, but everyone had a chance to get up there.

Most people didn't show up until about 2:00pm - the meeting started then. Obama was the main event, but there was another meeting going on from 2:00 with the Administrator.

And the Mellon auditorium is owned by the GSA -so a very cheap venue for a federal agency.
photo
pleasantlyny
Addie, Carole, Cynthia & Denise, for you we fight
03:56 PM on 01/11/2012
AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH somebody that was there set you straight...... gotta love it.... the auditorium is used for all theagencies in that area to have large meetings nad they meeting was with the administrator started at 2..... your friend is so on point. lemme guess she/he is not a friend of our brown president.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:21 PM on 01/11/2012
aahhhhh back at you -- all this tells me is the EPA press office reads Hufpo along with any other media source about EPA and then responds with spin. The mellon is not cheap, and EPA doesn't get a bye. If people showed up at 2, they'd never get past the magnetometers in time to see the prez. I stand by my source, who voted for Obama the first time, but yeah your right, he/she probably won't again because he/she is smart. Now go back to work and spin some stuff for EPA.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lbsaltzman
Permaculture and Sustainability
05:52 AM on 01/11/2012
Republicans seem to be unable to think beyond short term profits of greedy corporations. Money is worthless if the land we are part of is unfit for human habitation. I guess in their world the short term profits of corporations are more important than global warming, cancer causing pollution and the many other harmful things the EPA tries to prevent.
cdterm47
I am poor because I am a River to my People
07:03 PM on 01/11/2012
ibsaltzman

Your first sentence is becoming boring since so many use it. The second sentence is pedantic. The third is sentence is utter ignorance. You, Sir, have hit the TRIFECTA -- boring, pedantic and ignorant comments strung together in one paragraph. HEMINGWAY WOULD BE PROUD.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lbsaltzman
Permaculture and Sustainability
10:30 AM on 01/12/2012
I would suggest rather than sling insults you responds with rational arguments and facts.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:48 AM on 01/11/2012
Sure, the EPA gets a lot of bad press, and many businesses that don't like regulations of any kind. But I'm glad for what they have done in this country. I still remember Love Canal and lakes and rivers on fire. Of course there will be some cases where individuals feel like victims of big government. I've dealt with a few on wetland issues. But I've also been told by other business people, farmers, and ranchers that say if you just get along with them, talk to them up front, it's so much easier, even if you don't agree. It's seems it's usually the stubborn, anti-gov anything people, the it's my land I can do what I want, or business types, that get sideways with EPA. Don't know all the facts yet on the Sackett case in North Idaho, but they sound like the it's my land group. Remember, it was the republican Nixon that signed the legislation creating the EPA. I really like cleaner air and water, and not seeing land tore up all over from mining.
Linus521
In wildness is the salvation of mankind
01:53 AM on 01/11/2012
Awww, exactly what the Earth requires to sustain all life, a prez who circumvented the ESA, the most vital law to protect this nations' ecosystems to appease the hooved locust loving Repubs. It's all about compromise, making the Repubs placated so they wont' blow. Appease, appease, compromise, compromise, so Earth is dangling in space to a fragile tether that can blow away in the wind.

In these ecologically challenging and deadly changes, the Earth requires a leader that is ecologically profound, educated in the science that articulates, all the reasons Earth and man exists. Nothing is as relevant as this issue, alone. Let's carry the future of the Earth and the fate of man into the future -- before it is too late!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
adoseofsanity
Recovering liberal.
08:34 AM on 01/11/2012
Great example Linus521 of the complete arrogance that so often characterizes liberals.
11:37 PM on 01/10/2012
Morw news you wont seeon this site:

"Ralph Nader said the Obama administration “jumped like a cat” to crush anyone who threatened to run against their boss for the Democratic Party presidential nomination in 2012. “The retaliation is incredible,” he said.

Last April,the consumer advocate and four-time presidential candidate vowed to organize a slate of 2012 Democratic primary challengers against Barack Obama. Nader hoped as many as half-a-dozen candidates would challenge Obama in the intraparty contests,each raising a separate issue on which the Left feels it has been betrayed. He told The Hill newspaper the Obama administration saw to it that did not happen.

“I hate to say but it’s over,”he told the newspaper. “The minute any name was mentioned…they made the calls.”Nader did not elaborate on the pressure the White House exerted on those who threatened to run against Obama in the primaries.

Currently,the only presidential hopeful following Nader’s model —running against Obama to raise a single issue —is pro-life activist Randall Terry,who is running for president as a Democrat.

Nader,an honest gadfly,stated forthrightly that“Obama should be impeached” in March 2011. Six months later,he reiterated “the only remedy left”for Obama’s violations of the Constitution “is…impeachment.”