On Taking Risks

Over the weekend I had a number of people approach me and mention they had seen this blog featured in last Friday’s Washington Post. Whether the coverage was flattering or not seems to be a matter of opinion, but a lot of them asked, “So, are you in trouble?”

No, I’m not.

The risks of blogging were well known when I started last July. We decided it was an acceptable price to pay for better communication and greater transparency in government.  Thankfully, other federal officials are coming to the same conclusion.  For instance, I welcomed the State Department to the fold when they started their blog last October. At the time they received a lot of flak. Now they receive approximately 55,000 page views a day and have a healthy public discussion going on in their comments section. This is all to the good.

I had coffee with a fellow employee recently. He said EPA staff face a problem of poor incentives. “You don’t get rewarded for taking risks, but you get punished for making mistakes.” I think that’s a problem throughout government. 

I take a risk every time I post to this blog and I appreciate the fact that the Administrator lets me continue to do that. But it’s an easy risk for me to take. I’m pretty senior and will be gone in a year. A good question is how do we encourage, rather than discourage, the rank and file in government to take risks and test innovative ideas?

Comments

[Stacy]

As government employees, we are ingrained with the idea that, "The last thing you want to do is end up anywhere in the Washington Post." However, I believe that sometimes, news coverage is OK, and this is one of them. I say well done, Marcus, for trying to connect with the employees of EPA--and all the rest of the taxpayers in the country. While I (and other EPA emplyees and taxpayers) may or may not agree with all that you say in your blog, you give insights into things that are not always easy to find out about. Your willingness to embrace a new form of techno-communication shows that you aren't afraid to provide information to your customers in a new way, and that you aren't afraid of a little criticism. Then again, I knew that about you already, since that is one of the many lessons I have learned from your blog--taking criticism can sometimes make you do your job better. Thanks for continuing to blog!

[Calley]

I think it's a great thing to raise awareness on the government agencies through blogging. TSA even started their own last week and is receiving LOTS of heat and criticism, however, I think in the end the work is appreciated. Keep it up, I enjoy reading the Flow!

[Tina Chen]

I enjoy reading the blog. Please keep it up!

[Peter Stinson]

Amen.

Keep at it.

[Kristy Miller]

All innovative leaders find themselves straddling the tension between fitting into the status quo and shaking it up, said a sage.

Your blog is an incredible education and communications tool; plus it does something much more than transfer information--it has the power to inspire us!

Now, that's real power!

Whether inside or outside of government, we all need more inspiration.

Your insights and stories are a forum that can point the way and help foster positive change--in ways some never thought possible. Even if some squall about a particular storyline, position or policy, you're in the arena and the debate is on! Your stories give us nuggets to tuck away for consideration and perhaps future enlightenment. (Whether we get it now or later or not at all is up to each one.)

We need more innovators, communicators and risk takers like you in government. Thanks for charting the course; I am already a bit concerned about who'll captain this ship if you leave.

[Scott :)]

Bravo Marcus! I guess you got a little bad news early with some of the responses to your Amy Winehouse blog and subsequent press. The news being there are still folks dramatically uncomfortable with Web 2.0 technologies, such as the purpose of blogs. Thanks for taking a risk, continuing to reach out to the public on environmental issues, and tying them to socially relevant topics like “don’t do drugs;” a PSA everyone can relate to.

[Marcus]

I've got a correction! The State Dept gets about 5,500 views a day on their blog, not 55,000. This is why I don't work as an engineer any more.

And thanks for the kind words folks.

[Robert Handelsman]

Listen to the scientists and not Republican ideologues when formulating policy.

You say," better communication and greater transparency in government." yet you and your boss IGNORE your own staff, lawyers and scientists if it means you can score political points with the president! If you truly want to better communicate and improve transparency in government, LET THE EPA STAFF DO ITS JOB WITHOUT POLITICAL INTERFERENCE!

[Jared Cornelia]

Mr. Peacock needs to learn that ignoring EPA scientists and analysts on an issue as central as global warming pollution from vehicles is not a way to “encourage risks and test innovative ideas.”

Global warming is a real problem and we need the highest possible fuel economy standards possible mandated on all vehicles.

Only by working together can we offset the damage we've already done.

[jean public]

we need hybrid vehicles. we need vehicles tha get l00 miles per gallon. we need less emissions polluting our air. why isnt our govt responding and letting auto mfrs get away with murder?

[Kevin OBrien]

Dear Mr. Peacock,
I must applaud your attempt to improve things there at an agency that has not been much supported by the current administration.
I ask you to do what you can to help the states in their efforts to set their own vehicle emission standards. Manufacturers tend to build for the place with the strictest rules. This way we can move forward even when the the EPA may be blocked by some in Washington. I hope future administrations will give the EPA more respect.

[Adrian]

Regulated CO2 output reduction and mandatory industrial CO2 sequestration need to be pushed as far as possible. The initiative of individual states to regulate to higher than the EPA standards should be helped not hindered, since they are steps in the right direction. Gas cannot be expensive enough and exhaust standards not strict enough if we truly mean dealing with the issue of global warming.

[Keath Rhymer]

Great that you had the courage to take a stance and write in public your thoughts. Now if we can get the EPA to back off and let the states set their own pollution rules since the government can't seem to do it and we will all be dead by the time they do.

[Patty Nolan]

PLEASE stand up for us, Americans concerned about the environment. I cannot understand why EPA is not leading the way in demanding higher fuel efficiency standards for cars. We could mandate a 25% increase in average CAFE tomorrow and our economy would be helped. Technologically it is feasible.

Nothing could be more urgent, more obvious, or simpler.

[Tim Martin]

Why are you talking openness and reacting against initiative.

[Kimberly Taylor]

I fear innovation in government, certainly under this administration, is oxymoronic. Look at the dismantling of EPA libraries, shrinking access to publicly funded science. Or, consider how Mr. Johnson ignored scientific evidence the advice of his staff in denying California's emissions waiver. I had the surreal experience of working in a federal agency for five years under President Bush and it was only recently that I felt comfortable enough again to find my voice to criticize. Risks and innovation have to be encouraged from the top. This is a topic worth revisiting next January.

[Kimberly Taylor]

I fear innovation in government, certainly under this administration, is oxymoronic. Look at the dismantling of EPA libraries, shrinking access to publicly funded science. Or, consider how Mr. Johnson ignored scientific evidence the advice of his staff in denying California's emissions waiver. I had the surreal experience of working in a federal agency for five years under President Bush and it was only recently that I felt comfortable enough again to find my voice to criticize. Risks and innovation have to be encouraged from the top. This is a topic worth revisiting next January.

[Joseph Van Blargan]

You guys are great! Really enjoy the blog, it's about time you had an opportunity to share your insights.
I'm sure you're aware of the research that shows microorganisms to hitch rides around the planet on particulate matter, dust and pollution. There is a real need for science to step up and protect Americans from dangers no border fence can defend against. America needs to be in this for the long haul, with an eye to the long-term welfare of the American people, not the short term economic benefits that will disappear overnight, just like so many MBOs and CDOs that have dropped US into a recession.

[Audrey Higbee]

You stated that "I’m pretty senior and will be gone in a year. A good question is how do we encourage, rather than discourage, the rank and file in government to take risks and test innovative ideas?"
I ask you, how do we encourage, rather than discourage, citizens and states to take risks and test innovative ideas to reduce global warming and to save life on this planet when you and others in the EPA block their attempts? We -- meaning the citizens of this country who are not part of the Bush power elite and the Bush EPA -- are trying to take effective actions while you are boasting about posting a BLOG. Shame, shame, shame.

[Ann Bornstein]

Not only are the citizens of the world getting sicker from pollution and global warming, so is our planet. We must take action, not put up road blocks to work on this very dire problem. I would like to see some real leadership initiatives from Government Officials.

[JUDITH SMITH]

Ignoring EPA scientists and analysts on an issue as central as global warming pollution from vehicles is not a way to “encourage risks and test innovative ideas.”

[Penelope Sallberg]

Thank god for people like you. I think you are a new breed of government official, somewhere between a whistle blower and an angel. It's good to know there are people like you so that I don't have to think that all government bureaucrats are mindless idiots with no guts. We are poisoning our own fishbowl with our gas hog, crap spewing automobils. It's not that hard to get better machines. It's just that when people invent some that are too good, they suddenly disappear. I'm really quite suspicious of conspiracy theorists, but I may become one. I have had first hand confirmation that people who invent cars that can run for 1500 miles on 1 gal. of gas seem to just "go away". (A Cal Tech man) And this guy isn't the only one. There is too much money to be made when cars use lots of gas inefficiently. Thank you for what you are doing, however, I think that ignoring EPA scientists and analysts on an issue as central as global warming pollution from vehicles is not a way to “encourage risks and test innovative ideas, it's criminally insane.

[Beth Moorehead]

Thanks for posting a blog, it gives the American public even more access to our government, of which I am grateful.
I was amused at your use of the term "communication and greater transparency in government" because as a Californian I have been repeatedly disappointed by the actions of your department. In a recent LA Times article it was discovered after a court order that the staff of the EPA may have decided California should indeed be able to set their own emission standards:
"Senate committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) released excerpts from documents she said her staffers were allowed to see but not copy. Boxer said Wednesday that Johnson had done a "terrible job," and accused him of stonewalling the committee's investigation."
I know that you're "pretty senior" but my kids aren't and they're going to be living (and I hope well) with the decisions you are making today.
Those who give me the most hope in this country are those that stand up and fight for what's right, like whistleblower Biologist Andrew Eller of the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service.

[Cassandra B. Lista]

I firmly believe that ignoring EPA scientists and analysts on an issue as central as global warming, pollution from vehicles is not a way to “encourage risks and test innovative ideas.”

The US, because of its power and standard of living has long been the example to the world of how to live. By refusing to acknowledge and mitigate the auto emission standards, the US is perpetuating global warming rather than helping to cure the problem, as well as setting a horrendously bad example.

[andrew smith]

why is it a risk to actually elicit public discussion? Is the government so insulated that actually hearing from the rabble, and thus being held accountable, is so risky? Look, I appreciate the gesture. It's about time our government at least paid lip service to the notion that it is indeed a government of the people. That being said, how about taking a risk and allowing states to actually enforce cleaner emissions standards. The last time I checked, states are free to set their own standards as long as they exceed EPA benchmarks. Where does the EPA get off in ignoring both sound science and the will of the electorate? It would be one thing if states were pushing for the removal of the Clean Air Act, but how are more stringent standards deleterious? I understand that enforcement is problematic because emissions don't follow borders (i.e. China's pollutants wind up on the West Coast). The EPA's hesitancy to to accept cleaner state-imposed standards just reinforces the notion that the EPA is simply a stooge for the administration.

[andrew smith]

why is it a risk to actually elicit public discussion? Is the government so insulated that actually hearing from the rabble, and thus being held accountable, is so risky? Look, I appreciate the gesture. It's about time our government at least paid lip service to the notion that it is indeed a government of the people. That being said, how about taking a risk and allowing states to actually enforce cleaner emissions standards. The last time I checked, states are free to set their own standards as long as they exceed EPA benchmarks. Where does the EPA get off in ignoring both sound science and the will of the electorate? It would be one thing if states were pushing for the removal of the Clean Air Act, but how are more stringent standards deleterious? I understand that enforcement is problematic because emissions don't follow borders (i.e. China's pollutants wind up on the West Coast). The EPA's hesitancy to to accept cleaner state-imposed standards just reinforces the notion that the EPA is simply a stooge for the administration.

[Dorothy Tompkins, MD]

Ignoring EPA scientists and analysts on pollution from vehicles is directly unhealthy to citizens and is NOT conducive to "encouraging risks and testing innovative ideas".

[Bruce]

I would like the EPA to take the risk of getting out of the way of the states!!

How about allowing states that want to do a better job of managing clean car standards to reduce global warming pollution from vehicles just "do it" as Nike might say?

Seems like Administrator Johnson continues to ignore both his own scientists’ and lawyers’ recommendations!

[ct]

Please adopt the state safety standards; lets get on this.

[Michael Hudson]

Thank you for allowing me to express my concern and dissatisfaction with the EPA's position on the States setting and enforcing stricter emission levels that those set by this agency. Please stop not doing your job, and stop interfering with choses who have picked up the torch that the EPA refused to carry, since the beginning of the Bush Administration.
This Blog is a wonderful Idea and I believe is highly representative of how use of the internet empowers government in the highest standard of democracy, by publicly sharing the opinions of it's constituents.

[Joan Mencher]

If you really want to open things up, then it is extremely important to look at the role of automobiles and other vehicles in polluting our air, and more essential in contributing to global warming. We could if the large Corporations were forced to, build cars that rely primarily on electric power-- for those living in private or small homes, cars that could be recharged at night using cheaper electric power- and if the EPA encouraged it, make greater use of solar electricity. In the past 2 years alone, the solar industry has made incredible jumps. In Germany (not a very sunny place) solar energy is being used widely. But, this industry would get a large incentive if the Automobile industry supported electric powered vehicles. Real courage comes from being willing to change Corporate America.

[owl]

I guess it's good that you're trying to communicate and be transparent. I'm sure that Americans are fully supportive of a blog in which the EPA makes opens its policy up for discussion. Most people probably want to see something other than your insight on the sinter Amy Winehouse, though--not only because thousands of others can voice the opinion equally or more eloquently, and thousands still are already tired of her, but also because you represent the EPA, not Rolling Stone. We want to know about EPA matters--such as pollution regulations. Many Americans already suspect that the EPA's interests lie elsewhere; we'd appreciate it if you'd at least not shove it in our faces.

[Jonathan]

Marcus, I want to first applaud your effort to create more transparency within the EPA and an open communication with citizens of the US like me.

Now to a more important issue, global warming may be heavily politicized, but the unbiased reporting of EPA scientists and others like them should not be prevented from having a voice. Why is it that people like Stephon Johnson are allowed to censor documents and silence the voices of well-respected scientists? This practice has become more evident as more research shows the dangerous path we now encounter, and one that transparency and open communication could end for the betterment of our nation and our world.

Please continue fighting for those things, we are counting on it.

[David Firshein]

WHY TAKE A CHANCE? WHY NOT ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION AND FIND A MORE PRODUCTIVE WAY TO EMPOWER THE HUMAN ENERGY QUESTION?!?

[mc]

Marcuc, I live in California and I can't believe you are trying to block us from regulating the green house gas emissions of automobiles by increasing the mpg requirements for cars sold in state. And i'm really sick of all this poppycock about how we need a national solution, not a patchwork of state regulations. That's just B.S. The Feds (as led by YOUR agency!) aren't doing anything about this issue, so it's up to the states to innovate. There's a lot of people would actually argue that that's entire point of the state-federal balance of power in the U.S. So do us all a favor, listen to your own staff (who support California's proposed rules), and get the heck out of our way!

THANK YOU!

[Margaret]

You need to set an example by going beyond words and "good intentions". It is time to take the overwhelming scientific evidence for global warming seriously and to demand changes in emission requirements. It is time to recognize we have a responsibility to our grandchildren and not just to the political and lobbying entities that keep our current lives lavish. We cannot make these changes as individuals - but collectively we can through our government. That is what your are hired to do. You only have a year left - take a real risk. Do what is right.

[kay stapleton]

It is like you have given up and think there is no hope to save the planet so wreck it as quickly as possible by ignoring EPA scientists and analysts warning of global warming pollution from vehicles. I see where “encourage risks and test innovative ideas” is rooted in "get it over as quick as possible" philosophy.

[Margaret]

You need to set an example by going beyond words and "good intentions". It is time to take the overwhelming scientific evidence for global warming seriously and begin to demand changes in emission requirements. It is time to recognize we have a responsibility to our grandchildren and not just to the political and lobbying entities that keep our current lives lavish. We cannot make these changes as individuals - but collectively we can through our government. That is what your are hired to do. You only have a year left - take a real risk. Do what is right.

[NealJKing]

If you're serious about not discouraging staff from taking risks, how about NOT over-ruling their recommendations for transparent political reasons?

Example: Your boss Johnson over-ruling staff recommendations to approve the California application for a waiver on C-O2 emissions standards.

[Philip DeMaertelaere]

Ignoring EPA scientists and analysts on an issue as central as global warming pollution from vehicles is not a way to “encourage risks and test innovative ideas”, as you purport to do.

[Jimy Uranwala]

Unlike some of my fellow environmentalists, I fully appreciate that government staff don't get rewarded for taking risks, but only get punished for making mistakes. However, the majority of scientists including EPA's, back the initiatives of California and other states to fight global warming. So it should be more risky to oppose them. Yet the EPA does so. which shows the real risk is opposing politicians and vested interests. So, the real solution is to have an enlightened government. For that, I suggest all EPA staff who can &/or will take some risks, form a unified group which can give backing and help to enlightened candidates to make the public aware of what it takes to really solve such problems.

[Lee Stanfield]

How can you claim that you want to "encourage risks and test innovative ideas" when you are still ignoring your own scientists and analysts recommendations regarding the need to allow the 13 states who have passed clean car standards to enact those standards. The real "risk" I see in this issue, is the risk you are willing subject every being on this planet to..... the risk that we are not doing enough soon enough to halt or even slow down global warming.

[Nadine Newlight]

Deputy Administrator Peacock: ignoring EPA scientists and analysts on an issue as central as global warming pollution from vehicles is not a way to “encourage risks and test innovative ideas”!

[Fritz Conle]

The Bush Administration's policy of ignoring science in order to downplay global climate change, while racking up the biggest deficits in the history of the United States, clearly illustrates the urgent need for regime change in the United States.

[Lorraine]

While blogging will allow some interchange, it seems like a small risk compared with stating the scientific truth to the EPA as one sees it, and then being censured for not following the party line.

I am surprised, with Mr Johnson refusing to let states try harder than the federal government to improve air pollution, that such an issue is not the subject of your blog, rather than being "risky" by writing of less important issues.

[Kathy Seal]

A blog is a terrific idea.
Having said that, and given that you're leaving in a year, could you let us know what steps are being taken to get the EPA to let California have its waiver on auto emissions? I'm out here in the golden state, and all the transparency and blogging in the world won't help the EPA and its employees if we can't get your help in slowing down global warming. I don't know your specific weather conditions in Washington, but out here the Sierra snowpack is retreating and predications are that our water supply will reduce by between 40 and 70 percent in the not to distant future. To me that spells c-a-t-a-s-t-r-o-p-h-e! So we passed a global warming law -- two, to be exact -- and the EPA is holding up implementation by not granting us the waiver.
I doubt that the moderator will post this, but thought I'd give it the old college try anyhow.

Worried and Upset in Los Angeles

[Donne Wedge]

Here's an idea, when considering environmental policies, remember your children and grandchildren are far more important than the auto industry. Get it?

[Neal]

Here is an idea; listen to the scientist and not the politicians. The scientists analysis aand report the facts. Politicians distort the facts to their liking. Your boss should stop blocking innovation at the local level. Give our lungs a break.

[Lapistola]

Ignoring EPA scientists and analysts on an issue as central as global warming pollution from vehicles is not a way to “encourage risks and test innovative ideas" Please reconsider for us and our future.

[Ernest B. Cohen, PE & Ph.D.]

It is essential that both the government and the people get uncensored scientific information. Of course, we could always go back to the days of Galileo, when religion and politics ruled over scientific truth. But, I hope that is not the American way.
It is essential that individual states be allowed to set tighter pollution rules on motor vehicles than the EPA rules. I thought that is why we had a Federal government, with 50 individual states. I intend to send these sentiments on to my representative in Congress.

[Ken Bookstein]

It is unconscionable that Mr. Johnson and the Environmental Protection Agency would block attempts by states to improve emissions standards of vehicles sold in those states. The name your Agency is the Environmental PROTECTION Agency. How does blocking these efforts help protect the environment? It obviously only serves to thwart efforts of those who are trying to protect the environment, while at the same protecting the petroleum and auto industries.
-Ken Bookstein
Portland, OR

[DWDALLAM]

I think this type of transparency is genius for two reasons:

1. It is hard for those who like a secret type government to nay say this sort of communication, since it is an open forum and underlies information that should be freely available to all peple in a free society. All people should have the freedom of expression, including government employees--especially government employees.

2. It allows poeple to interact one to one with "our" government, and thus allowing us to see how many people actually think as we do, without being told how we "should" think and act on issues. In other words, it allows "The People" to direct their lives with the help, not dictatorship, of experts.

After these eight years I'm very tired of our secret style government, a government that doesn't rely on science, but religious and corporate world views.

[Jessica]

Deputy Administrator Peacock, ignoring EPA scientists and analysts on an issue as central as global warming pollution from vehicles is not a way to “encourage risks and test innovative ideas.” Why are we behind China in our emissions standards?

[Ben Littauer]

Comments must be approved before posting? I guess you don't have the spam filters turned on for your blog. But it does put a bit of a question into both the "taking risks" and "transparency in government" bits.

Anyway, I thought the EPA's function was to protect the environment, not auto makers. Blocking state efforts to adopt clean air standards does not seem to further the EPA's function, but instead panders to the auto industry. Clean up your act!

[Conrado Acevedo]

The tread of global warming is real and we, as a human species, must not allow our self extermination as well as all other species.
The time for immediate action or for a short term goal which encampuses the long term objective should be in place.

[Ruth Smith]

i sure wish that you wouldn't ignore your own scientists & analysts on global warming. the pollution from co2 threatens all life on earth, including us. even if you were'nt absolutely sure, the threat is so great that it warrents immediate action. the most obvious of which is decreasing vehicular emmissions. ruth smith

[Jean Ennis]

So this is about getting the EPA connected to the public? Then let me respectfully ask just why is the EPA standing in the way of states that want to increase regulations on vehicle emmisions to reduce global warming?
Over the last five years, the number of states that have adopted clean car standards to reduce global warming pollution from vehicles has risen to thirteen, but Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Stephen Johnson has blocked their legal right to implement these important standards. A January 24 Senate hearing produced yet more conclusive evidence that, in rejecting the waiver these states needed to implement their laws, Administrator Johnson ignored both his own scientists’ and lawyers’ recommendations.
Why would an organization who is to protect the environment and the health or American citizens ever stand in the way of cleaner air or cleaner water?
These are sad times.

[Mark Hessel]

Hey,

A blog in the EPA. Good idea.

How come the EPA is blocking states
from asserting their own rigths on
pollution standards for cars and
trucks?

Thanks,
Mark

[Nancy]

I suppose the blog is a good thing -- and I should appreciate the fact that there is at least one employee at the EPA who can speak his or her mind.

But what I really care about is the EPA as a total department from the top down working on an aggressive approach to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions.. I don't feel that is happening, but I doubt if the head of the EPA reads the blog.

[Megan Parry]

Thank you for this blog and the opportunity to be heard. I believe that controlling global warming is the most important thing the EPA can do. Ignoring EPA scientists and analysts on an issue as central as global warming pollution from vehicles is not a way to “encourage risks and test innovative ideas.”

[Chris]

Striving to improve communication is certainly to be commended, but real communication involves listening as well as speaking out. As long as the EPA chooses to ignore the voices of states like California who want to improve clean air standards for automobiles, as long as the EPA chooses to ignore the advice and guidance of its own scientists and lawyers, the only risk taking by the EPA involves putting our environment at risk by promoting an even slower response to global warming.

[Robert StClair]

As a chemist who was actually regulated out of business by the EPA over 20 years ago, I still thought that the agency had a worthy purpose and needed to continue its work. Now, the agency looks like a political arm of the current administration and has completely lost my confidence. When the administrator ignores his own staff and the pleadings from dozens of states one has to wonder who has bribed whom this time. I hope the states that are suing the EPA will prevail. Will Steven Johnson proudly tell his grandchildren how he helped screw the environment?

[Chris]

Striving to improve communication is certainly to be commended, but real communication involves listening as well as speaking out. As long as the EPA chooses to ignore the voices of states like California who want to improve clean air standards for automobiles, as long as the EPA chooses to ignore the advice and guidance of its own scientists and lawyers, the only risk taking by the EPA involves putting our environment at risk by promoting an even slower response to global warming.

[Chris]

Striving to improve communication is certainly to be commended, but real communication involves listening as well as speaking out. As long as the EPA chooses to ignore the voices of states like California who want to improve clean air standards for automobiles, as long as the EPA chooses to ignore the advice and guidance of its own scientists and lawyers, the only risk taking by the EPA involves putting our environment at risk by promoting an even slower response to global warming.

[Robert StClair]

As a chemist who was actually regulated out of business by the EPA over 20 years ago, I still thought that the agency had a worthy purpose and needed to continue its work. Now, the agency looks like a political arm of the current administration and has completely lost my confidence. When the administrator ignores his own staff and the pleadings from dozens of states one has to wonder who has bribed whom this time. I hope the states that are suing the EPA will prevail. Will Steven Johnson proudly tell his grandchildren how he helped screw the environment?

[Robert Whitlock]

I am concerned about the issue of automotive pollution as it relates to global warming, specifically the contribution of automotive exhaust to atmospheric carbon levels.

It is important to give voice to scientists who can thereby inform the public and the rule-makers about the serious threats we face from global climate change.

Many scientists say that unless we begin to make substantial changes more or less immediately, that the consequences will likely be at least somewhat severe.

May the Environmental Protection Agency truly live up to its name and protect the environment for all of us on and on into the future!

[Chris]

Striving to improve communication is certainly to be commended, but real communication involves listening as well as speaking out. As long as the EPA chooses to ignore the voices of states like California who want to improve clean air standards for automobiles, as long as the EPA chooses to ignore the advice and guidance of its own scientists and lawyers, the only risk taking by the EPA involves putting our environment at risk by promoting an even slower response to global warming.

[Robert StClair]

As a chemist who was actually regulated out of business by the EPA over 20 years ago, I still thought that the agency had a worthy purpose and needed to continue its work. Now, the agency looks like a political arm of the current administration and has completely lost my confidence. When the administrator ignores his own staff and the pleadings from dozens of states one has to wonder who has bribed whom this time. I hope the states that are suing the EPA will prevail. Will Steven Johnson proudly tell his grandchildren how he helped screw the environment?

[Ross F. Guldenbrein]

Ignoring EPA scientists and analysts on an issue as central as global warming pollution from vehicles is not a way to “encourage risks and test innovative ideas". Please reconsider.

Ross

[Sandra Cole]

The ordinary guy/gal needs the encouragement that they are not alone in their perceptions of what is going on. I just retired after 30 years of working for the government at the state and city levels. Dealing with reality and good communications amongst the peons are not what management wants.
They need to isolate you, tell you what to think, control who you talk to and continuously confuse the issues. Where I was, most of us could tell what was going on and the lack of management action in addressing reality was extremely demoralizing. There was plenty of time and money, however, to address irrelevancies. People really need to know that their efforts make a difference for the better. A little light helps a lot.

[Patti Briones]

How do you encourage the rank and file to take risks and test innovative ideas? Try setting the example by NOT blocking 13 states' efforts to set high clean car standards. Here in Pasadena, CA I see almost as many hybrids as SUVs. We're trying to do our part but feel we have been abandoned by the EPA

[Robert Sherman]

A government, like individual human beings, is "only as sick as its secrets"!

[Joel Welty]

Making good solid decisions requires getting as many brains applied to the decision as possible. That means the opinions of agency experts and scientists must not be ignored.

[John Peck]

As for risks taken, surely Director Johnson's risk in ignoring his own analysts and EPA scientists was indeed a calculated risk, and precisely away from the public good.

As crap-shoots go, the risks put into play in such a gesture get rolled with corporatist dice, in a game as old as the Gilded Age, under a sign which reads, "Oligarchs Only." Do I exaggerate? Am I less than polite? So be it. One grows weary of the blatant, and responds in kind.

I do not implicate you directly, good Sir. But I do encourage you to consider our manifest long-term risks as a country, and even more as a species, with each such turn taken by the Agency. Pressing in on the common good, and on nature's great Congress of Kinds, those risks should guide and galvanize us all.

[Rose Ann]

It was months ago that the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA has not only the authority, but also the OBLIGATION to reduce global warming pollution. The Court further said that the EPA’s past arguments for not taking action did NOT allow it to "shirk its duty to protect the public health and welfare."

So why did EPA CONTINUE to delay a decision on the waiver states needed to implement crucial clean air standards ... only to ultimately deny that waiver ... when no less than twelve states, representing a third of the U.S. auto market, have adopted such standards to reduce global warming pollution from vehicles?

I am in the process of purchasing a new car; and I will be buying the most environmentally friendly, fuel-efficient 4 seat vehicle I can find. I would like a plug-in hybrid that runs off of the electricity generated by the solar panels I have recently installed (at great expense) on my home ... but I can't currently buy one unless I'm a city or a corporation which has the need and funds to purchase a 'fleet'. I think automakers should be producing the kind of cars that I and other consumers want. This planet can not afford to continue running on petroleum-based products; and we can not afford to allow the auto and oil lobbies to continue raking in record profits at the expense of our (and our childrens') quality of life. Who, afterall, is the Environmental PROTECTION Agency actually protecting? ... the environment? ... the public which relies on a healthy environment to stay healthy itself? ... or the auto industry and Big Oil? Given your prolonged inaction on this issue, together with the fact that your eventual decision went against the advice of your own scientists and analysts, that sadly seems to me to be a rhetorical question.

Surely you know that a third of all U.S. global warming pollution comes from vehicles. For environmental, as well as economic and quality of life, concerns, it is essential that we move the Nation’s energy consumption practices away from policies which allow the unrestrained emission of CO2 as quickly and thoroughly as possible. If we are ever to move towards sustainable energy independence, the time to act is now. We are releasing greenhouse gases at an exponentially dizzying pace, while at the same time reducing the environment’s ability to absorb them ...and doing so at our peril.

Our planet is quickly reaching a tipping point-of-no-return. The Arctic ice cap is melting even faster than previously thought and could completely disappear in as little as 34 years if we ... if EPA ... doesn't act decisively, responsibly, and, yes, transparently, NOW. If we allow the Arctic ice cap to melt, it won't come back in any time scale relevant to the human condition. If it is lost, so are we.

Is that really the legacy we want to leave for our children and grandchildren? We are wasting time we don't have. To achieve energy independence, we require a foundation of CLEAN energy and we require it NOW. Twelve states have shown they possess the leadership and courage to start making a positive difference; does EPA possess the integrity to support them? (I earnestly hope that too is not a rhetorical question.)Ignoring EPA scientists and analysts on an issue as central as global warming pollution from vehicles is not a viable nor honest way to "encourage risks and test innovative ideas."

I therefore urge EPA to take the first step towards "transparency in government" by admitting the agency's obvious Whitehouse bias, retracting your previous decision, and unconditionally granting California and other states the waiver they need to implement clean car standards.

The technologies and fuels needed to meet these common sense standards in every vehicle class already exist. Installing the technologies to reduce global warming pollution also helps drivers by allowing them to spend less on fuel. In addition to the clear economic and public heath benefits of curbing global warming pollution, the standards will lead to clean vehicle choices, fuel savings, and a market for low carbon alternative fuels, making them a winning proposition for farmers, families, drivers, as well as automakers and auto dealers.

The current Administration's short-sighted policies promoting continued dependence on oil consumption are putting our nation at long-term risk ... internationally, environmentally and economically. Moreover, they are selfishly threatening the future viability of our planet and the quality of life for all humanity.

It's about time someone in this government demonstrated the leadership to stand up to this Administration and be a real leader on this issue. Do you, Mr. Peacock, possess the courage and transparency to be that person?

[Marc Gregory]

There is no more time for equivocating about global warming. The world needs to act with meaningful cooperation to address this issue, the petulance of those who are childishly unresponsive to reality (like just about everyone in this administration) notwithstanding.

ignoring EPA scientists and analysts on an issue as central as global warming pollution from vehicles is not a way to “encourage risks and test innovative ideas.”

[Sally Small]

You ask how to encourage, rather than discourage, the rank and file in government to take risks and test innovative ideas. I would say this blog is a start. But I think the surest way to encourage risk taking and innovative ideas is for senior management to really listen to the staff level folks and if all the staff are saying one thing to not just summarily go a completely different direction. For example, the EPA recently denied California's waiver request so they could institute stiffer air-pollution and fuel-efficiency laws. Together with the 15 other states that also wish to adopt the same regulations, this represents a majority of American citizens and certainly the vast majority of the country's economic base. Based on the heavily redacted documents that EPA has released on it's decision, it is believed that EPA staff recommended that the waiver be granted. If you wish for the EPA to be seen as backward and a political puppet of the White House, this sure is the way to do things. This is a prime example of how not to inspire staff and the public at large.

[Bruce J Relyea]

Please head over to the EPA’s blog and explain to Deputy Administrator Peacock that ignoring EPA scientists and analysts on an issue as central as global warming pollution from vehicles is not a way to “encourage risks and test innovative ideas.” I believe that we ought to encourage/mandate availability of greener transportation choices, including trains, as well as more fuel-efficient cars and trucks.

[Steve Missal]

Essentially, taking risks is not an ambiguous concept. That thirteen or so states have bitten the bullet and are pushing that envelope says that the federal government has relinquished its role as innovator and risk taker. That the federal government has chosen rejection of the states' proactive moves is in and of itself a statement and an 'action'. We have become experts in spin and political double-speak...so much so that I'm afraid even administrators who have opened themselves up to criticism are in 'opaque' self-denial on their actions. Science is a non-partisan, relentless push for the truth and its application to our lives. To 'edit' science, to frustrate locally driven solutions based upon science, these are the hallmarks of a failed policy and outlook. In fact, if I may ask, what outlook DO they represent? If a saber-toothed tiger was creeping up on you, I'm pretty sure you'd want me to give you the straight info, not some doctored nonsense, or worse, silence. Why is it different here? Future generations will want answers as well. And they will not be as polite as I have been.

[Bob Karcich]

Sounds to me like Stephen Johnson is a great 'YES' man to what the Administrtion wants the public to hear when it comes to auto emissions standards. The States should go forward, united and insist the Government stay out of their decision to do something about auto emissions. Gas Companies rule! United States should Rule and demand responsibility.

[Anonymous in California]

Although it is hip to blog and connect with a younger generation, ignoring EPA scientists and analysts on an issue as central as global warming pollution from vehicles is not a way to “encourage risks and test innovative ideas.”

[Jeffrey Kalman]

Ignoring EPA scientists and analysts on an issue as central as global warming pollution from vehicles is not a way to “encourage risks and test innovative ideas.”

[Monroe Jeffrey]

Just because one ostensibly is opening 'channels' of communication does not necessarily mean that the resultant commentary therein will be heard or responded to.

[Brenda Pace]

Thank you for this opportunity. My suggestions should not involve any risk at all. I would suggest that EPA accept the results of their own scientists. And I would suggest that EPA allow states to do what they can do to augment the new Federal CAFE standards as they have many times before.

ignoring EPA scientists and analysts on an issue as central as global warming pollution from vehicles is not a way to “encourage risks and test innovative ideas.”

[Y. MacArthur PhD]

The initiative to put the EPA in front of the masses through a Blog is heartwarming: now we can reach you much better, instead of being put on hold for 3 hours and 40 minutes as happened to yours truly a few weeks ago.

Now, sweet EPA'ers, it is time to really start listening to your Americans. Most of your countrymen are very willing to help the environment in big ways and with that pitch in.
The surprising negative between all those positive people, is that some Government Bureaus find it necessary to make positive changes sheer impossible to implicate, let all alone give it a thought.

I am talking in this case about Global warming and cars. Somehow some people dont seem to understand the urgency in following the advice of EPA's scientists and analysts on something so simple as *cars exhausts and the effect on Global Warming* (and not to forget on everyones health: the air in America is getting polluted at such a rapid rate that in 7 years from now, if no change is being made, there shall be no clean air anywhere to be found)

I do understand that some of the people who block positive changes for the environment and the future of our planet, are more concerned about their own wellbeing and are looking forward to their retirement.
This is so very selfish, without any thought for anyone else, that it should become a felony thinking along those lines: getting paid for doing wrong things for the people of America and the world, is a criminal act (sorry to say).

Thirteen states in the USA already have adapted clean car rules, but your Department has blocked their legal right to implement these important standards. May I ask why and who IS your Department to make such irresponsible decisions?
I am not allowed to say this, but is there somewhere a kick-back along the line from the petrol companies for your Department?

I personally am doing all I can to countereffect the impact of thoughtless acts like your department is doing: I do not drive although I have a beautiful car: I bicycle.
Now, are you going to stop safe bike paths to be built as well?

thanks for you attention,
sincerely,

y.

As you noted above one of your employees stated “You don’t get rewarded for taking risks, but you get punished for making mistakes.” which you followed by stating "I think that’s a problem throughout government."

If that's a problem throughout governement, and obviously a problem inside the EPA, why the heck haven't the "pretty senior" guys running this agency done something about it? It's not enough to simply talk about it on your blog as you are "on your way out" and leave the mess for the next person...it seems that no one in upper management is willing to make hard decisions that are in the best interest of America and Americans.

In my opinion it shouldn't be about rewarding employees of the EPA for "taking risks" it should be about rewarding employees for doing the right thing for the American public and the environment- PERIOD. If you do what is right for the American public there isn't risk involved, except maybe political risk. And that's what bothers me the most about the "pretty senior" members of government. You guys appear to be all about politics and NOT about doing what is right for America and Americans at large. It's the rank and file that ARE trying to do what is right but they have continually been "outvoted" by the "pretty senior" guys for political reasons.

While you may claim you want more transparency since you will "be gone in a year" there are plenty of examples in the past several years where you and the EPA had plenty of options to be more transparent but weren't.

The EPA has flat out ignored transparency and punished, subjugated, harrassed, forced out employement, buried scientific data, and changed scientific reports/findings brought forth by your OWN scientists that clearly showed harm to the American public or the environment. WHY???? Could politics have played a role??? Heck yes! Why elso would you ignore conclusive scientific data? No wonder you have employees that are running scared after the years of being beaten down because politics is ruling the EPA instead of good sound science!

As an American I'm VERY disappointed in the political actions that override what is best for the American public. Instead, our government makes "back door" deals with big corporations (like the auto manufacturers against California's new clean air standards) and political action committees with money to support their campaigns...it's time that the EPA started thinking more about it's citizens and doing what is right for the environment.

Mike
Portland, Oregon

[Piet Van Allen]

Bush is trying to void all progress in preserving the environment, conservation achievements, and the planet itself. If California, et al, are punished for not meeting Clean Air Standards, then they must have the right to impose policies that will help them to meet those Standards. Certainly expecting us to pollute our own locales just because India or somewhere refuses to be obliged to protect THEIR air is no reason to poison and kill our children.

[Robert G. Lasheff]

If you look close enough you will find that a great deal of both our State and Federal Governments have become highly dysfunctional in many area's of responsibility. 12 year Study.

[Peter]

One good way NOT to encourage taking risks is to ignore advice of scientists and analysts on no-brainers that unfortunately have some political consequences. Yes, EPA ignoring overwhelming research and advice on global warming contribution from trucks/cars and sticking the head in the sand certainly reflects well on the idea of taking risks. No, the message is yet again, always yield to misguided/mistaken politics over solid research, and let it be someone else's problem down the road.

[Dan Henneberger]

Deputy Administrator Peacock, by you ignoring EPA scientists and analysts on an issue as central as GLOBAL WARMING POLLUTION from vehicles is not a way to "encourage risks and test innovative ideas". You need to wake up to reality. Action on Global Warming should have been taken years ago.
Good luck,
Dan Henneberger

[Cynthia Rabinowitz]

I think it behooves EPA officials to take seriously scientific findings by their own scientists and scientists connected with reputable institutions outside government and not make light of the emission standards revisions needs that are desperately warranted in this country.

[Liz]

I appreciate your openness and use of technology, but how about the fact that ignoring EPA scientists and analysts on an issue as central as global warming pollution from vehicles is not a way to “encourage risks and test innovative ideas.”

[David Wilton]

It saddens me to know that our government is out of control of the people but very much in control by big business. We have no say in our government. Big business has our government in their pocket including the EPA. Every day we are losing more of our freedoms. Soon we will be like Nazi Germany. You will not get away with your shananigans for the time will come when they will bite you in your behind. By that I mean an over heated earth will fry you. Marcus is to be applauded.

[David Heslam]

As a self employed member of the private sector and an observer of government, I am continually surprised by what public employees see as "risk."

It seems public employees often view endeavors requiring initiative, outspokenness and creativity as too "risky". Is it risky to spread your message on a blog? Not in this day and age. It is mundane at this point in time.

Right now we stand at the threshold of incredible environmental challenges, climate destabilization, water shortages, food web collapse. It is startling that the chief operating officer of the EPA is blogging about the existence of his blog as a risk. Let's focus on the real risks.

Perhaps, what is needed in the public sector is leadership. Leadership that promotes "risky" behavior like honestly confronting the environmental issues of our times, a leadership that decries censorship for the benefit of business interests, a leadership that says public employees work for the American people, not for "customers".

I would suggest every EPA employee have the opportunity to blog. They could share their publicly funded research with the widest audience possible. That would enable critical thinking in real time, greatly speeding the rate of progress that is needed to tackle the immense challenges of our time.

David Heslam

[david patenaude]

I would like to explain to Deputy Administrator Peacock that ignoring EPA scientists and analysts on an issue as central as global warming pollution from vehicles is not a way to “encourage risks and test innovative ideas.”

[Donald Hallock]

Dear Friends,
Many of us, as voting citizens, have been repeatedly disapointed in the Bush administration's stacking of federal agencies with those who will dependably impliment his narrow special interest policies (if you can actually call them policies, and not simple cronyism). The EPAs blocking of states' attempts to set in place 'clean car standards' is a particularly egeregous and obvious example. This is not only a short sighted move, but is hypocritical in the extreme. The EPA is mandated to protect the health of the people of this country by doing everything it can to protect the environment. I regret to say that it has not been doing it's job, and fails us all when it ignores reputable scientific and legal advice regarding global warming. Since Earth's environment is really only one set of continuous phenomena, in failing Americans the EPA fails the entire population of the world. True, the more elderly of us may not be around to witness it, but our present denial syndrome will eventually be a direct betrayal of our children, and their children, and childrens' children, for generations to come. I do wonder how you can sit in your offices day after day, drawing a government paycheck issued (actually, even if indirectly) by the people you are deserting and injuring, and rationalize to yourself (if not to your children) your conduct and choices. I encourage you to consult your consceinces and rather than creating self-serving blogging sites simply meant to justify your actions, help instead to create a truly transparent and responsible government. You must have that in you somewhere, so 'be all you can be.' Stop supporting the foot-dragging of industrial and commercial interests, and support those who rely on you, the Americn people and the human race at large. Yours, Donald Hallock

[cattwmn]

As a former employee with EPA , I appreciate the open blog. My concern with recent changes in the enforcement policy of the Agency is mirrored in the frustrations of my former co-workers that believe in the 'Mission of the Agency' but feel their hands are tied by Headquarters and the current Administration.

The recent media coverage re: California and Clean Cars is an example.

My former co-workers are leaving in droves. They feel powerless to utilize the experience and knowledge they worked hard to attain. One co-worker's comment to me was 'I was tired of playing dodge ball with Middle Management.'

Something is very wrong in the Regional offices.

[Marshalldoc]

Beurocracies are risk-averse institutions that cull those willing to take risks in defense of moral, albeit unpopular, issues while those unwilling to risk their supposedly "secure" futures look on in abject fear that they, too, might be somehow associated with the "sinner" and therefore subjected, in some part, to the feared punishment of banishment.

The punishments are dealt out quickly and often indiscriminately since the overwhelming fear of those at the top of the bureaucracy is that the peers of those taking action, recognizing the moral uprightness of the action, will also join in the action thus preventing the will of those directing the bureaucracy.

Thus did Daniel Ellsberg suffer alone, and the Viet Nam debacle grind on year after year, for wont of an outcry from those bureaucrats who knew the truth of its moral injustice.

Thus did many isolated "whistleblowers" labor and suffer alone.

The cure is, of course, more outspokenness, more activism, and more willingness to follow one's own moral compass. When sufficient numbers of people in a bureaucracy are moved, in unison, to act contrary to an immoral (or merely unproductive) policy, the more quickly we'll see it moderated or changed.

Until then, those within a bureaucracy, who are willing to take risks in defense of moral values will, sadly, so so alone.

Is this a democracy or not? How can you block States from exercising the right to clean air? Is someone at the EPA on the payroll for GM or taking bribes?

[Nancy LaPlaca]

Too bad that "sticking your neck out" at the EPA means telling the truth, being open adn responsive, and having government do what it's SUPPOSED to do: represent the interests of the people, not Halliburton (read "Dick Cheney"), Shell (read "Gail Norton") and on and on and on, in sickening ad infinitum.

Only these aren't games we're talking about, it's quite literally the future of our country and our world. The U.S. is 5% of the world's population but uses at least 25% of its resources.

This is sad. And worst of all, it's promoted by our GOVERNMENT! Of the people and by the people -- only if the folks you're talking about are named Cheney or JOhnson or Norton or Griles.

I'm sure JOhnson will get a plum job in industry. If he has a conscience, which he does not appear to have, he will have trouble sleeping as his children watch more and more intense hurricanes, rising seas, acidified oceans and other unimaginable "difficulties" for future generations.

Thanks a lot, Bush-Cheney! You've brought us real luminaries like Administrator Johnson and Stephen Griles, who last I checked, was headed to prison.

[Ciro Faienza]

I applaud your willingness to engage the risks here, but I have to ask if you've considered what it says about the EPA under the current administration that something as, frankly, benign (to the point of near sterility) as this blog is considered risky. Candid discussion of public regulation? Incorporating media trends and current modes of communication into the model of disclosure government ought to follow by default? Why is this risky? Why are we patting ourselves on the back when we still have yet to address the silencing and spin-doctoring of EPA global warming and vehicle pollution analysis?

It speaks volumes to me that this blog is a risk. It tells me I shouldn't be surprised that the EPA is stifling and biasing the requisite debate, which, though sometimes uncomfortable, is absolutely essential to scientific rigor.

I wonder what it tells you.

[Jan Steinman]

Marcus Peacock wrote: "... how do we encourage, rather than discourage, the rank and file in government to take risks and test innovative ideas?"

How about not censoring your own scientists, who take risks of being demoted or fired -- or at least, severely edited -- when they discover scientific truths that your administration disagrees with?

How about leading the way, instead of being in the way, as EPA is in the way in blocking many states' efforts to implement clean car standards?

How about enforcing the laws willingly, instead of grudgingly, after being hauled into court?

Quit patting yourself on the back for "taking risks" by finally discovering something most twelve-year-olds know how to do, and take some real risks by taking two words of your agency's name to heart: "Environmental Protection."

Given the current administration's dismal record on the environment, and their record in firing or demoting dissenting voices, that would be a real risk -- worth taking!

I understand the reasons this blog is "moderated." I wonder about the odds of this posting actually appearing.

[Todd]

"...how do we encourage, rather than discourage, the rank and file in government to take risks and test innovative ideas?"

Perhaps by not allowing anyone to censor your documents or ignore your scientists?

Just a thought.

[Leana Rosetti]

I respect your desire to take risks--but I just wanted to point out that ignoring EPA scientists and analysts on an issue as central as global warming pollution from vehicles is not a way to “encourage risks and test innovative ideas.” Allowing states to move ahead in their goals to curb their emissions, rather than posting a blog, would be a meaningful way to allow the government to be innovative.

[Robert Mac Nish]

I think anything that tends to encourage innovation and open communication in the government is great. Political appointees in government agencies should listen to, and act upon, the consensus opinions of their career scientists if they also seek to encourage innovation and open communication.

[Amazing Caso]

We must do what is right.

[Steve Brown]

If you're intelligent and have an informed opinion and you use a blog to express your views, then let's hope you're boss already knows what you think - whether he agrees or not. If you're in a job that requires intelligence and an ability to communicate, let's hope having ideas and expressing them convincingly is why you were hired and/or promoted in the first place. If you were to be fired for having intelligent ideas, then you probably should have quit already.

[Gail Murray]

Climate change, energy policy, homeland security, and economic growth - they all come together with a commitment to clean energy and the infrastructure needed to deliver it to every home in America. We have to be honest about the challenges before we devote the money, science, engineering, and human resources to create the future. There's stimulation to every level of the economy if we can just get serious about moving away from oil and developing natural energy sources. Imagine: Every gas station and every car will need to be converted to hydrogen fuel. Every home needs solar panels, super-insulation, and can be an independent energy generator. It's all possible - and very, very desirable.

[Chris Saia]

Exactly what environment are you protecting? Not the one we LIVE in.

[Marija Minic]

Just one quick comment, by ignoring EPA scientists and analysts on an issue as central and vital to our planet as global warming pollution from vehicles is definitely NOT a way to "encourage risks and test innovative ideas"!

Sincerely,
Marija

[Brent]

I appreciate your intention with this blog to increase transparency in the EPA. Perhaps you can help me understand an EPA issue that begs for transparency. I'm referring to the recent rejection by EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson of waivers for thirteen states to implement clean car standards to reduce global warming pollution. From my perspective as a tax payer and citizen, the waiver rejections appear to be negligence or mismanagement, but perhaps there is a significant detail I'm overlooking. Please help me understand how states' measures to protect the environment in ways that do not loosen or annul or in any way abrogate federal standards run afoul of the Environmental Protection Agency.
I fully support the EPA mission to protect human health and the environment. These thirteen states clearly do, too. I look forward to clarification on how the rejection of standards that allow less pollution into the environment, and into our lungs, supports this very noble mission.

Best Regards,

Brent Mesick

[Steve]

Transparency is a good thing, and I appreciate the opportunity to comment here. California and several other states have been trying to institute greenhouse emission caps for their states, but the EPA has attempted to nix their efforts, against even the advice of its own scientists. The EPA has held that emissions standards need to be a uniform, national standard, and that might be fair enough, except that the EPA has not set any such standard. It is indeed regretful that California has had to sue the EPA to secure real environmental protection in this regard.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment in this matter.

[Jon]

I appreciate the blog and believe that the more communication the better. I have been sincerely disappointed in the EPA response to the requested wavers lately. I can remember a time when your agency was an advocate for those who were willing to get out in front of resolving polution issues instead of the EPA blocking action that would take steps to improving our environment. But a lot has changed with this administration.

[Sharon Frederick]

First the kudos: This blog is a terrific idea and I applaud you for launching it. Now to my less-congratulatory comment: I'm incensed at EPA actions to block states like mine, California, from enacting tough standards for cleaner cars. I live in an area, Sacramento, that is out of compliance with federal standards for air quality. Why in the world are you blocking us from taking the tough steps needed to clean up air that WE are breathing? Please, please, please listen to we tax-payers who appear to be out in front of government agencies on this issue. WE NEED CLEAN AIR AND WE NEED CLEANER CARS TO GET THERE.

[John Cooper]

Deputy Administrator Peacock:
Ignoring EPA scientists and analysts on an issue as central as global warming pollution from vehicles is not a satisfactory way to "encourage risks and test innovative ideas."

[Michael Frazier]

Stop the reliance on foreign oil by allowing any State to impose a stricter efficiency rating for the autos in their State. I know about all that is being done to preserve the oil dependence of the American people despite the rhetoric. It is disgraceful this greed for money at the expense of our planet and peoples well being. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[L Askey]

Rather than blocking states that want to implement more stringent standards, federal agencies could choose to embrace those efforts as pilot programs and leadership efforts. Progress is progress, and sometimes a little is better than none at all.

[Skoglund]

Please head over to the EPA’s blog and explain to Deputy Administrator Peacock that ignoring EPA scientists and analysts on an issue as central as global warming pollution from vehicles is not a way to “encourage risks and test innovative ideas:

Please listen to the science group Union of Concerned Scientists for environment issues. They are the experts. We need a improved environment retroactive. Thank you

[Carroll Nast]

Mr. Peacock,ignoring EPA scientists and analysts on an issue as central as global warming pollution from vehicles is not a way to “encourage risks and test innovative ideas.”

[John Boylston]

Please pay attention to the desire of states and their citizens to implement measures to improve pollution by automobiles, and also to the unbiased information of the EPA's own scientists.

[Michael Scanlon]

Respect state rights for both clean air and global warming standards
Respect our scientist! Let the government scientist do their job! The world is not flat.

[Max]

How come you are spending all this time on this blog and not busy protecting the environment?

[Sylvia Simon Tansey, Ph D]

I am not a blogger nor a computer nerd, but I am an intelligent senior citizen, My opinion of the Bush administration cannot be printed here or anywhere else, but I am very happy that there is at least one person in the current goverment willing to talk the truth. And if the states are willing to do the right thing, why will the EPA not allow it??? How can the powerful corporations hurt the EPA???

[Linda Riebel]

Please take a risk and save the planet from global warming by car. Actually, it's a bigger risk NOT to do anything. Let California and the other states save the air and help us get EPA out of the way.

[John W]

Mr. Peacock,

Bravo to you for taking the initiative to create and maintain this blog - itself a risk in any organization, much less one that seems to these West Coast eyes to have been politicized. That said, while congratulating you for your own personal/professional risk, I suggest that ignoring scientists and analysts on an issue such as vehicle-originated global warming pollution is not a way to encourage risks in your organization - or anywhere else.

Numerous states have adopted clean car standards to reduce global warming pollution from vehicles, but your Administrator Stephen Johnson has blocked their implementation of these standards. A recent Senate hearing strongly suggests that, in doing so, Administrator Johnson ignored both his own scientists’ and lawyers’ recommendations.

Real transparency would be a clear and detailed expression of his reasons - and what he believes the affects on his own scientists has been to date and will be in the future. That would be a risk taken that is well worth applauding.

Thanks to you again for initiating the opportunity for this kind of dialog.

John Wallace
San Pedro, CA

[Erin]

I think the point of the Washington Post article was not to condemn nor promote governmental blogging, but rather to suggest that this particular blog be focused on issues relevant to the host website, namely the EPA. For example, maybe this blog should discuss why the EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson has decided to embroil the Agency in a lawsuit over a state's rights to curb greenhouse gases. Maybe we should talk about the consequences of postponing action to combat global warming. Or mitigation strategies for greenhouse gas emissions? CAFE standards?

[Cynthia]

Over the past 5 years, 13 states have adopted regulations designed to curb emissions which contribute to global warming. Despite widespread agreement throughout the scientific community that these types of regulations are necessary to slow global warming, the EPA has refused to grant the waivers necessary for these 13 states to implement these regulations. Why is the EPA ignoring its mandate to protect our environment by refusing to grant these waivers?

[Amazing Caso]

Do what is right.

[Sandra Couch]

For gods sake, what is Stephen Johnson's problem for allowing individual states to do what they feel is right for our environment???????????????????????????????
If Stephen has a problem with clean air, then he can get the hell out of his job and work in sewers, or an asbestos factory, or
in a coal mine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Groover]

Perhaps the EPA under the Bush Administration should be renamed the EDA, Environmental Destruction Agency. Ignoring scientists and analysts on global warming and denying states the right to implement their own clean car standards is not the way to "...encourage, rather than discourage, the rank and file in government to take risks and test innovative ideas", which, I believe, were Peacock's exact words regarding this issue.

[Sandra Couch]

For gods sake, what is Stephen Johnson's problem for allowing individual states to do what they feel is right for our environment???????????????????????????????
If Stephen has a problem with clean air, then he can get the hell out of his job and work in sewers, or an asbestos factory, or
in a coal mine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Spiro]

If someone is too afraid to do his/her job correctly for fear of losing it, then he/she should find another job or expose the person(s) that are creating this hostile work environment. Being an administrator for the EPA is a great responsibility. You have the ability to either help or hurt the planet and all of its inhabitants. Isn't it always best to error on the side of caution? Can we afford to be wrong about global warming among other things? Remember; there is no going back. You can't 'unkill' something.

[Alex Tinker]

Transparency in government is of the utmost importance, as is comprehensive review of available data on important issues.

That is why it is disgraceful that EPA Administrator Johnson ignored both his own scientists’ and lawyers’ recommendations regarding global warming pollution from cars.

The evidence is clear that we must take immediate action to curb greenhouse gas emissions, and that states can effectively do that with tailpipe regulation.

Ignoring EPA scientists and denying states their right to regulate emissions goes directly against "encouraging risk and test[ing] innovative ideas."

[Christine Muller]

I welcome communication between government institutions and citizens. As you are interested in listening to the opinions of citizens, I urge you to also listen to the voice of scientists. They say that reducing global warming pollution from vehicles is extremely important. It is unbelievable that EPA has blocked the legal right of states to implement higher emission standards. Wouldn't the support of such standards be the central obligation of an Environmental Protection Agency?

[Alex Tinker]

Transparency in government is of the utmost importance, as is comprehensive review of available data on important issues.

That is why it is disgraceful that EPA Administrator Johnson ignored both his own scientists’ and lawyers’ recommendations regarding global warming pollution from cars.

The evidence is clear that we must take immediate action to curb greenhouse gas emissions, and that states can effectively do that with tailpipe regulation.

Ignoring EPA scientists and denying states their right to regulate emissions goes directly against "encouraging risk and test[ing] innovative ideas."

[Stephanie Gleason]

I commend this blog as a welcome way to obtain more information about what is happening. It is refreshing to know that someone understands how many of us crave more information about how our government is addressing such important issues as those you tackle.

At the same time, I think that ignoring EPA scientists and analysts on an issue as central as global warming pollution from vehicles is not a way to “encourage risks and test innovative ideas.”

"better communication and greater transparency in government" are wonderful goals. It is nice to see efforts like this reach out to the community and help nudge the EPA in the intended direction.

I think the key to encouraging positive risk and innovation is to foster an environment of trust in a way that rank-and-file scientists feel like their scientific voice is not going to be stepped on by bureaucratic ideology that protects status quo. Unfortunately, the EPA’s recent actions on pollution standards,