|
News & Analysis | REG•WATCH Blog | Press Room
Friday, February 02, 2007
Tony Snow Addresses Amendments to Regulatory Process ... Sort of
Yesterday, a reporter asked White House Press Secretary Tony Snow about President Bush’s amendments to the regulatory process. In his response, Snow reached new heights of evasiveness. Instead of just admitting the White House dislikes regulations because they are perceived to be a burden to industry, Snow talked about how much they love the environment. Speaking of climate change:
But no administration in American history, and none on the face of the Earth, has been more aggressive in trying to do sound science on this than this administration.
Considering the administration was recently found to be manipulating climate science, it is hard to believe Snow said this with a straight face. Is it too late to nominate Tony Snow for an Oscar?
Here is the transcript from the White House website:
Q Tony, I have a question on the influence of presidential appointees on regulatory and environmental policy. There is an executive order that came out a few weeks ago that's drawn criticism because it would require all policy, regulatory review officers to be presidential appointees. And I just wondered your response to a concern that this will have a chilling effect and slow down the process --
MR. SNOW: I don't buy it. You have political appointees. You also have an administration -- and, Paula, we'll be happy to do chapter and verse with you -- where not only on regulation but also environmental issues, we've spent more money on environmental research than all the other governments of the world. This is an administration that actually has a better performance in terms of CO2 emissions. It is an administration where the President in the summer of 2001 was talking about man-made global warming and the need to address it through innovation, and created a panel that involves key Cabinet members in going after the sources of pollution and emissions.
So the fact is, we do have an aggressive set of regulations in place. And the other thing is, the process here is one that always ends up, in scientific peer review -- I would encourage people, rather than looking at whether somebody is a political appointee, to look at the process that has been laid out for reviewing regulations, because it's designed not to chill, but in fact to invigorate a process to make sure that you have thorough scientific review of all these things, as well as cost benefit analyses.
Q The other question, though, related to influence on environmental policy. There was a hearing a few days ago in which government scientists have said that their works have been either edited or censored if it does not support administration policy on climate change. As far as peer review, too, it's been a criticism that some of these boards are made up of somewhat industry-friendly members.
MR. SNOW: What's also the case is that some of the people who have been at the lead of making these allegations are not, themselves, scientists. I would just point to the fact that, for instance, the IPCC report, which will be coming out, makes use of U.S. scientists and U.S. scientific data. The largest source of scientific data on climate change comes from the United States. The incremental improvement in our ability to understand what's going on with climate change is a result of research that has been funded through the United States government.
So I understand that there will be people who say their voices are not heard, but we will be happy to provide you in great detail -- because I now have a stack that is about this thick -- that goes through the processes and the data that have been gathered. But no administration in American history, and none on the face of the Earth, has been more aggressive in trying to do sound science on this than this administration.
Q But the survey that was cited at that hearing was based on the respondents, who are all government scientists.
MR. SNOW: I understand that. As I said, I will be happy to provide you -- without getting into the vagaries of one survey, we'll be happy to swamp you with data so that you will be in a position to assess fully and completely the varying claims.
Posted by Matt Madia
|