Aug.
23, 2010's Federal Register had a mostly overlooked notice
calling for a 45-day public comment period for the draft document titled,
Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment: Four Case Studies of Water
Utility Practices
Ostensibly,
transparency from the agency is good. Transparency means the public gets to see
the rulemaking process, to see for ourselves that agency regulatory decisions
are not being hashed out in backroom deals.
The feasibility of increasing nuclear energy comes down to cost, says a senior Obama Administration official. Meanwhile, a show poll suggests many in the energy are not meeting the new carbon-counting regulations.
What happens when it's Generation X's turn to be the stewards of the Earth? What lessons have we learned from those who walked the (brown)fields afore us? Are we ready for this?
For
industry, it's not much of a stay of execution. Jackson is emphasizing a speedy
turnaround, followed by a same or, more likely more stringent rule.
If it's one or the other, I say we just do the auction, get it over with, see who we lose, and trust in our own ingenuity to bring us through in the end. It's worked before.
A trip through the late tuna fishing industry of San Diego provides important lessons for future global regulatory efforts, and the pitfalls of reactive regulation versus deliberative efforts.
The Federal Register on Feb. 5, 2009, included what could be a whopper of a change in how the White House directs environmental policy. The notice, included a Jan. 30th, 2009, executive order revoking executive orders 13258 of Feb. 26, 2002, and 13422 of Jan. 18, 2007, concerning regulatory planning and review. Among other changes, the executive order restores a large amount of independence to federal agencies like EPA.
It's nasty politics and horribly bureaucratic, but President Bush is right to give states and communities more say in their own environmental future. I just wish he did so eight years ago.
