backtop

Science EPA Chief Lisa Jackson to Step Down
Shane McGlaun (Blog) - December 28, 2012 9:31 AM
Print 42 comment(s) - last by Motoman.. on Jan 1 at 12:16 PM

Lisa Jackson
A list of potential replacements is already circulating

The head of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Lisa Jackson, has announced this week that she will step down from her position. The move comes after Jackson has fought hard against Washington politicians and lobbyists.

Jackson fought significant pushback from Republican lawmakers opposed to her efforts to fight climate change reports Reuters. She was also brought in front of Congress for multiple hearings during her tenure, and even fought dissension within the EPA.

President Obama thanked Jackson for her service and praised her work on several causes including assistance in setting up new fuel economy standards in the United States.

"Under her leadership, the EPA has taken sensible and important steps to protect the air we breathe and the water we drink," Obama said in a statement.

Jackson said in a statement she was "confident the (EPA) ship is sailing in the right direction."

Jackson is expected to step down from her cabinet position after President Obama delivers his State of the Union address in early 2013.

Source: Reuters


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
By Beenthere on 12/28/2012 10:01:17 AM , Rating: 2
The EPA has lost it's way IMO and they support absurd policies that are not in the best interest of the citizens of the U.S. I doubt it's one person's fault however.




By CrazyBernie on 12/28/2012 10:52:17 AM , Rating: 3
Unless you're moving to a man-made planet, you'll never get what you want. Even then you're pushing it.

Wake up and smell the reality.


By Camikazi on 12/29/2012 12:46:30 AM , Rating: 2
He wasn't denying climate change, he was letting you know that a set weather pattern for a planet is not possible. There are always changes that is why some deserts used to be jungles and some rain forests were plains long ago, climate does change and it is part of the planet, trying to stop it would do more harm than good. ANyone who has read about previous eras of this planet will see the weather patterns do not stay the same and will change as part of the way the planet works.


By Bad-Karma on 12/29/2012 1:22:18 AM , Rating: 3
You should never try to argue with an Idiot....Especially #77.


By JediJeb on 12/31/2012 2:39:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What's funny is they also think they're all scientists yet every global climate change denier has been thoroughly disproven. But why let 40 years of studies get in your way when you feel like you already know the answer?


Actually what is funny is how when a valid scientific study happens to refute something in those "40 years of studies" it is immediately labeled as junk science and someone spouts off about how the "consensus of all scientists" is against it. There are many Chemist and Physicists who question if man has much or any influence on the rate of change in the climate but since we do not decide to stick Climatologist at the end of our names we get called idiots. Funny how because a Climatologist says something must be true it has to be even though it may violate the laws of physics. We who are skeptics simply do not take every report at face value, we look into the science behind it and make educated assessments of how it was performed and check to see that the data also does not violate known physical and chemical properties. If a climatologist claims his data shows that rain can fall upwards, a skeptic would ask for data to show how gravity is being overridden, while a koolaide drinker simply cheers that a new phenomenon has been proven.


By Pneumothorax on 12/28/2012 10:58:00 AM , Rating: 2
Oh wait, I guess India/China and the other nations that produce 2/3rds (Suggesting that the US/EU will severely reduce CO2) of the world's CO2 production are going to seriously reduce their CO2 production along with us?


By FITCamaro on 12/28/2012 11:14:19 AM , Rating: 5
Considering we're not anymore, that's not a valid point period.


By Cheesew1z69 on 12/28/2012 1:08:20 PM , Rating: 3
Your name suits you very much...


By Chaser on 12/29/2012 10:24:08 PM , Rating: 2
It's just shameful to live in this country isn't it?


By Pneumothorax on 12/29/2012 10:50:59 PM , Rating: 2
Oh you mean how my stupid state of CA is going ahead with the bone-headed move of 'cap'n crap' CO2 reduction, causing multiple companies to move out of state? I guess we expect India/China to do the exact same thing as the other 49 states of our Union: NOTHING....


By FITCamaro on 12/28/2012 11:15:51 AM , Rating: 3
So right now we don't have clean air or water? And we didn't 5 or 10 years ago either?

Yeah we just constantly need more and more oppressive regulations. The economy and people's lives and property be damned. We're greedy capitalist pigs who need to be shown the way of the light right?


By Motoman on 12/28/2012 12:21:31 PM , Rating: 3
There have to be reasonable regulations - otherwise we'd have raw sewage still being pumped in to our waterways, along with untreated manufacturing byproducts and so on and so forth.

But the EPA really has started nuking the fridge lately, with BS like E15 and whatnot, and a 4-gallon purchase minimum, etc.

We need to smack the BS out of the EPA, but retain the portions that are actually reasonable.


By Mint on 12/29/2012 7:29:50 PM , Rating: 2
If Mick wrote articles with the purpose of informing instead of pushing his agenda, you wouldn't be so against E15.

E15 is not a mandate. It's simply a certification for another fuel option. Corn ethanol is no longer getting subsidies, either, and while I don't support its use, I don't see a need to ban it either. The 4-gallon minimum is only going to stop stations from offering it, so I don't see why you care.


By Motoman on 12/30/2012 7:39:28 PM , Rating: 2
You're catastrophically wrong.

Imagine you ride a motorcycle. Or a scooter...or you're just trying to fill your 2.5 gallon gas can for your lawn mower.

Blender pumps, which is what pretty much everyone is putting in these days, retain a lot of fuel in the hose system after the last purchase. If the person behind you bought E15, and you're trying to put just a couple gallons in your motorcycle, you'll never get the 93-octane premium you paid for...you'll get 2 gallons of E15. Which will destroy your motorcycle motor. Or scooter, or lawnmower, or whatever.

The 4-gallon minimum is the EPA "fixing" that problem by mandating, Marie Antoinette-like, that the people shall eat at least 4 gallons at a time, to dilute whatever was left in the hose system.

The problem being, of course, that the motorcycles, scooters, gas cans for lawn equipment, etc. are frequently not going to be able to accommodate a 4 gallon purchase.

Ergo, the simple act of letting E15 into the market guarantees blown motors. It's very existence is an act of abject stupidity...and the 4-gallon minimum is just another expression of that bottomless idiocy.


By JediJeb on 12/31/2012 11:59:23 AM , Rating: 2
And if someone only has $4 to put gas in their scooter how will they be able to do that with a 4 gallon minimum purchase? I haven't figured that one out yet.


By Motoman on 1/1/2013 12:16:36 PM , Rating: 2
They can't. Even if they wanted to, it's a physical impossibility.

This is why the E15 thing, especially when considered with blender pumps, is so maniacally retarded.

The gas tank on a scooter frequently holds about a gallon. Many motorcycles have gas tanks that are well under 4 gallons. And if the person ahead of you bought E15 (or E85), that's what you're going to get in your scooter or motorcycle.

...which, in time, will blow up, because you've been running too much ethanol through it. And who's going to foot the bill for repairs? The manufacturer is off the hook - they specified no ethanol over 10%. Is the EPA going to pay for all these repairs, because it was their policy that guaranteed widespread engine destruction?


By geddarkstorm on 12/28/2012 11:25:44 AM , Rating: 5
Climate is never stable. Didn't you see the other Dailytech article about the research suggesting human evolution and intelligence occurred exactly because of just how incredibly chaotic climate is?

People like you amuse me due to your horrific lack of modern historical knowledge (let alone geological history). Tornadoes on or near Christmas are also rather common historically for the United States. There was the tornado outbreak in 1982 on Christmas, or the New Year's Eve outbreak in 1947. In fact, there's been quite a number of tornado outbreaks in December/January throughout our records.

Learn some history and you'll and stop freaking out over ever little thing.


By JediJeb on 12/31/2012 1:58:22 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Only in the US can you be universally despised for wanting to make the environment cleaner.


Having worked with both sides of the fence where EPA and regulated industries are concerned I can definitely say that the EPA is not the glorious saviours of the environment as they have been held up to be. The Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act are good things, but their implementation has been used to get radical agendas in place bypassing congressional approvals for decades.

Also while there are a few scientists within the EPA that I do respect, the number of washouts that happened to land there far outnumber the good ones. There are some who could not make it in a private laboratory that ended up being hired by the EPA and I personally know of people who were fired for falsifying results who were quickly hired by the state level EPA.

The EPA has the same modern analytical instrumentation we have in our lab but the methods they force us to use to report compliance results are based on equipment that is decades old. I spoke with some of their chemist at a conference once about some of the new technology and was told they already use it to produce compliance data, yet when we try to use it we are not allowed to because the methodologies forbid it. When I asked how they can use something that is not approved the answer was "We are the EPA we can use whatever we want" even though if I reported data using that equipment to the EPA my clients would be fined for not having data provided by an approved method. Another instance was about 15 years ago when the pesticide Endothal was added to the list for required monitoring in drinking waters, we tried for almost a year to produce valid results using the EPA provided method of analysis, when we contacted the EPA and asked why it didn't work the answer was simply "That method does not work" turns out they had to have a method of analysis in place by a set deadline and they published what they had with no stipulation that it did not work, it took another year for them to publish one that did. There was also a method use to monitor waste waters for oil that used Freon as a solvent to extract the oil. The EPA banned Freon but did not provide an alternative method for that analysis and were requiring our clients to continue to monitor for the oil and required the same method of analysis even though Freon was now illegal to use. It took at least another year before an approved alternate method was released, while we had to purchase the Freon to use for the method up till then at prices that made an analysis that originally cost about $5 to perform cost us at least $50 for the Freon alone.

The EPA likes to make snap decisions to satisfy the scare tactic of the moment yet drag their feet when it comes to providing an official way to monitor for the new parameters they are enacting regulations on. If they could get rid of the overload of bureaucrats and bring in good reputable scientists then I believe the agency might be able to provide good guidance with realistic goals instead of simply over reacting to the current scare of the moment.


By rs2 on 12/29/2012 1:20:34 AM , Rating: 3
Huh? I think you have failed at basic acronyms. EPA stands for the Environmental Protection Agency. It is not their job to serve the interests of the citizens of the U.S., it's their job to do what best serves the environment.

That includes supporting/endorsing/enforcing policies that may inconvenience and place a financial burden on some U.S. citizens. The EPA isn't concerned with those sorts of problems, nor should it be. The environment is more important than your perceived "right" to drive a gas-guzzling 6-MPG SUV just because you happen to want to, or automakers' perceived "right" to produce and sell such vehicles.

If you think people should matter more than the environment, you really need to go and take a long hard look at the facts. We've only got one environment, and if we ruin it for stupid reasons we can't just go out and get another one.


By Chaser on 12/29/2012 10:28:49 PM , Rating: 2
You sir deserve a Noble Peace Prize -and a private jet. We need more heroes of the planet like you to remind us of this pivotal, dangerous slope us wasteful humans are on.

And to think before we infested the planet mother earth just took care of herself flawlessly. For billions of years. Where have we gone wrong?


By knutjb on 12/31/2012 1:29:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Huh? I think you have failed at basic acronyms. EPA stands for the Environmental Protection Agency. It is not their job to serve the interests of the citizens of the U.S., it's their job to do what best serves the environment.
You really need to stop smoking whatever it is you are. The ONLY purpose of ANY US government agency is to serve the citizens. They work for us, you know people. Pull your head out of your fundamentalist environmental ideology and recognize there are those who don't agree with your twisted view. You have the right to have such a view but not the right to force said view down other's throats. If you cannot convince me of the value or validity of your argument, your argument is lacking... So far I am not convinced.


By rs2 on 12/31/2012 9:34:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The ONLY purpose of ANY US government agency is to serve the citizens.


I see, so the military, the IRS, the DHS with its warrantless wiretapping and domestic spying, and the TSA with its bumbling incompetence are all just there to serve the whims of U.S. citizens? And I'm the one that's smoking something?

But there's a grain of truth in your nonsense; at the time these agencies were CREATED, it was done to serve the will of the electorate. So at some point, yes, citizens recognized that protecting the environment was important and the EPA was born. But once created, these organizations exist to serve the purpose for which they were created, not to serve the people who created them.

If the government buys a shovel and creates an agency to dig holes using the shovel, then that agency exists to dig holes. It doesn't exist so that Joe Citizen can come up and say "hey can I borrow the shovel, I've got some muskrats that I need to whack". And the EPA doesn't exist so that people can say "hey your environmental protections are inconvenient to me, get rid of them", it exists to protect the environment.

quote:
If you cannot convince me of the value or validity of your argument, your argument is lacking... So far I am not convinced.


Well then, I'm glad the world has you to serve as sole arbiter of what does and does not count as a valid argument. That should clear up a whole lot of messes.

And it's a dark day indeed when having common sense and not being stupid enough to believe that almost every scientist everywhere is part of some giant conspiracy to extort research grants is considered a "fundamentalist ideology".


Fought lobbyists? Or was bought by them.
By DaSHinVegas on 12/28/2012 10:20:00 AM , Rating: 2
I hardly think it's a appropriate to say she fought lobbyists. Ethanol is a lobbyist's wet dream. Instead of getting rid of it, as someone who fights lobbyists would do, she allowed the 15% blend to be approved which will increase vehicle waste and consumption of gasoline. On both counts the accomplishments are exactly opposite of good environmental protection.




RE: Fought lobbyists? Or was bought by them.
By idiot77 on 12/28/12, Rating: -1
By ClownPuncher on 12/28/2012 12:30:41 PM , Rating: 2
"Market options" via government mandate are pretty much always a bad idea, yes.


By Brandon Hill (blog) on 12/28/2012 10:30:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I hardly think it's a appropriate to say she fought lobbyists


Oil, Gas, Coal...?


By Firebat5 on 12/28/2012 12:28:52 PM , Rating: 2
Not really to your point but the lobbyists wouldn't be there if the EPA didn't have the power to skew the market and, essentially, regulate their chosen industry into or out of existence.


By ClownPuncher on 12/28/2012 12:31:26 PM , Rating: 2
Corn?


The possible real story is....
By KoS on 12/28/2012 12:12:14 PM , Rating: 2

Did EPA Chief Lisa Jackson resign because emails she sent from a secret alias account will go public next month?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2253999/Di...




RE: The possible real story is....
By superflex on 12/31/2012 9:51:29 AM , Rating: 2
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.
90% of this site will argue over global warming and resort to name calling of the opposition, but refuse to see the illegal activities Ms. Jackson has undertaken during her leadership of the EPA.
Must be nice having your head buried in the sand. I guess it makes the Obama anal lube that much easier to apply.


RE: The possible real story is....
By knutjb on 12/31/2012 1:12:03 PM , Rating: 2
If she leaves before congress can ask her questions, as a private citizen, she can plead the fifth and might not answer for her incredible tenure leading the EPA oligarchy. If she were to go back into government then she might have to answer, if they remember to ask.

She was yet another do as I say but not as I do bureaucrat. The laws apply to you, not me. In government, for those who have not had such pleasure, ALL emails must be archived whether you are the lowest entry level worker or the big cheese @ the top. It applies to any method used to send official business and private correspondence.


main issue is
By lenardo on 12/28/2012 11:32:29 AM , Rating: 3
under her leadership she said CO2 is a pollutant.

it is not a pollutant, it is a VITAL -trace- gas that without any on the planet, ALL plants would DIE.

i am a climate skeptic, calling most skeptic's deniers make YOU the denier, all scientific theories were made BY skeptics, they were skeptical of the accepted "consensus" and said, what if they are wrong, they performed experiments and proved that the Consensus was wrong.

all reputable climate change skeptics do not deny that the climate changes, they say it does, what they are skeptical about is CO2's & mankind's Role in the process.

according to all the major temperature compilation records, the temps for the past 16years, there has been no rise in temps. the temps have plateau'd that is not to say they will go up, but what it DOES say is that -despite CO2 rising ~12% in that time... "NATURE" has had a greater effect than CO2, all temperature rise for the past ~30 years can be natural in causation.

the main greenhouse gas is water vapor, and not ONE model that climatologists use, use water vapor correctly. not one. they Guess, they ASSUME, and you know what assumptions are. usually wrong. the latest water vapor studies published are saying that water vapor is most likely a negative climate feedback(more water vapor in atmosphere= lower temps), while all the models have water vapor as a postive climate feedback (more water vapor in atmosphere= higher temps)

IF the latest studies are correct (and ~80% of all scientific papers are incorrect or flat out wrong)then all models will have to be redone to accurately reflect a negative water vapor feedback role in the climate.




RE: main issue is
By ClownPuncher on 12/28/2012 1:05:23 PM , Rating: 2
You're also a Ninja Turtle, which is pretty nice.


Lisa Jackson
By mandoman on 12/28/2012 10:50:43 AM , Rating: 2
It's about d--n time! The EPA is killing this nation with ridiculous overbearing regulations. Let's get someone in there that 1) knows what their doing and 2) has some basic common sense.




RE: Lisa Jackson
By DockScience on 12/28/2012 3:46:48 PM , Rating: 2
The EPA has a lot of support from fellow greens who have no clue as to the costs of their passion for perfection.

The local Sierra Club pushed EPA (and got)for regulations to yet again reduce phosphorus and nitrogen from sewage.

The regulations require the retrofit of $10,000 PER CITIZEN of capital to sewage plants and a permanent doubling of sewage treatment costs for chemical binding agents.

The municipalities raised sewage rates drastically to cover the costs.

The Sierra Club was then upset that the rates had increased.

Not a clue.


Repeal the ESA
By PontiusP on 12/31/2012 4:39:53 PM , Rating: 2
I'd say the most heavily abused environmental law is the Endangered Species Act. It's implemented in such a heavy handed way, that it explicitly denies basic property rights.

There have been cases where a small critter showed up on somebody's land and the ESA tied them up in 10 years of litigation for it.

Meanwhile, people continue to question why the number of jobs isn't growing back since the meltdown.

The answer is easy. Ask yourself, would you want to invest in an environment where your life savings could be wiped out due to a small critter showing up on your land?

You have your answer. Repeal the ESA now!




"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher











botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki