Lisa Jackson, former head of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, for EPA:
But two years into Jackson’s tenure, the new system for cleaning up New Jersey’s 16,000 abandoned toxic waste sites still hasn’t been deployed.
“She identified this as her highest priority, but she never followed through,” says Jeff Ruch, executive director of the Washington D.C.-based Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, or PEER.
In a report released this summer, the EPA’s inspector general slammed New Jersey’s failure to clean up (PDF) several toxic waste sites in a timely manner, and accused the state’s environmental agency of going easy on polluters and failing to seek necessary support from the EPA. The report said the department bore at least partial responsibility for “not implement[ing] agreements on cleanup milestones, Agency responsibilities, and enforcement actions.”
The report even recommended that the EPA take over as the lead cleanup agency at seven sites — a surprising recommendation, since the inspector general has consistently bashed the Bush administration’s handling of Superfund sites.
“If the EPA is saying that New Jersey’s enforcement is bad, you know there is a serious problem,” says Robert Spiegel, executive director of the Edison Wetlands Association, a New Jersey based non-profit that closely monitors several Superfund sites throughout the state. Spiegel says he had urged Jackson to take more immediate action on some sites, and that Jackson’s field staff had done the same, but their pleas had been ignored.
Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack for Agriculture:
As a state senator, he voted for the infamous House File 519 in 1995, which stripped counties of the right to impose restrictions on CAFOs [Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations]. In 2005, as governor, he signed into law House File 642, which barred local governments from regulating the planting of genetically modified seed.
In 2001, the Biotechnology Industry Organization named him “governor of the year” for his “support of the industry’s economic growth and agricultural biotechnology research.” Vilsack also brisky promoted biofuels as governor; he served as chair of the Governors’ Ethanol Coalition.
After stepping down after his second term in 2007, Vilsack ran for president. When that bid failed, he joined the Minneapolis-based corporate law firm Dorsey & Whitney. The firm’s broad range of corporate clients include food giants Cargill and Conagra. He also serves as a distinguished fellow at Iowa State University’s Biosafety Institute for Genetically Modified Agricultural Products, where he sits on the advisory board with representatives of Monsanto, Dupont’s Pioneer Hi-Bred, and the World Bank.
Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar for Interior (see also here):
“The Department of the Interior desperately needs a strong, forward looking, reform-minded Secretary,” said Kieran Suckling, executive director of the Tucson-based Center for Biological Diversity. “Unfortunately, Ken Salazar is not that man. He endorsed George Bush’s selection of Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior, the very woman who initiated and encouraged the scandals that have rocked the Department of the Interior.”
While Salazar has promoted some good environmental actions and fought against off-road vehicle abuse, his overall record is decidedly mixed, and is especially weak in the arenas most important to the next Secretary of the Interior: protecting scientific integrity, combating global warming, reforming energy development and protecting endangered species. Salazar:
– voted against increased fuel efficiency standards for the U.S. automobile fleet
– voted to allow offshore oil drilling along Florida’s coast
– voted to allow the Army Corps of Engineers to ignore global warming impacts in their water development projects
– voted against the repeal of tax breaks for Exxon-Mobil
– voted to support subsidies to ranchers and other users of public forest and range lands
– threatened to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service when its scientists determined the black-tailed prairie dog may be endangered
– fought efforts to increase protection for endangered species and the environment in the Farm Bill“Obama’s choices for Secretary of Energy and his ‘Climate Change Czar’ indicate a determined willingness to take on global warming,” Suckling said. “That team will be weakened by the addition of Ken Salazar, who has fought against federal action on global warming, against higher fuel efficiency standards, and for increased oil drilling and oil subsidies.”
And Rep. Ray LaHood, an Illinois Republican, for DOT:
As Ryan Avent notes, there are now two possible conclusions one can draw from the choice: either Obama doesn’t intend the DOT secretary to do the heavy lifting on his transportation policies or he doesn’t really care about transportation. During the campaign, Obama made some bold statements about transit and the energy economy, so I’m not convinced the latter has any merit. The former seems more plausible. In the meantime, we’ll just have to wait and see what LaHood has to say on Friday.
Of these choices, I’m most disappointed by the selection of Vilsack. No, I wasn’t expecting Michael Pollan, but it seems like we could ask for more than a guy who supports GMOs, corn ethanol, confined feedlot operations, and Big Ag. But don’t listen to me. Listen to Pollan.
not everybody will be completely satisfied. about anything. ever.
NEXT —->
Another quarter page post by EBC. You can use smaller quotes. Of all the quotes, you only need the important parts. Limit them. Editing is key, but I guess that’s why you’re a writer, and not an editor.
Vilsack is a terrible choice, he is everything that is wrong with democratic Ag policy
You can listen to Pollan expand on his letter to Obama here, in an interview w/ John Battelle at the Web 2.0 Summit.
http://bit.ly/14sj1
Vilsack is awful, and these picks are not smart. Enviro stuff is the weakest part of the Republican’s support, and the one area where liberal Democrats can push a little and piss off the right without losing support. Bush’s recent anti-environment rule changes are opposed by 90% of the public.
And the missteps just keep coming. These should have been no-brainer picks. Vilsack is wretched and Salazar won’t be much better.
And that’s not change we can believe in!
Let’s see how strong a leader Obama is. Perhaps he can direct these folks to do better than we expect. Not holding my breath, but taking a wait and see approach. Def. not happy about Vilsack though.
Fuck, I should have supported Hillary: at least there would be no surprises in how she would fuck over liberals.
Hmm. I thought Ron Sims was a shoe-in for DOT.
Good choices by Obama. We’ve had enough ideologues in government over the past eight years, we don’t need more, no matter what side they’re on. I’d be worried if a special interest group DID like a cabinet pick.
Disappointing.
(Though of course one was told, wasn’t one, that O has his flaws and limitations, too? And that the “she’s a compromiser and too moderate” tag was not properly applied to HRC cuz….they all are, really.)
We had hoped for change esp. in greening the economy…Hopefully Obama will make thse picks dance to his tune and fulfill his promises.
LaHood a seven term GOP congressman you’ve never heard of is a real disappointment. People are into rail and rapid transit — good god Sims would have been a better pick, we need someone inspirational in this slot. What department is better suited to carrying out a CHANGE message than transportation? Even Schwarzenegger supported that big rail measure I think in CA, he’s been good on mileage standards, he would have been a better pick for transportation or the epa.
Make him make girly cars ‘n’ ‘lectric trains sexy. That’d be change.
And who’s this Joisey chick?
Gregoire (former state env. head, negotiated hanford clean up pact) is clearly better than her.
The Northwest is being left out — clearly.
We want change, Pres-O!
@2: The thing is, she bolds the important parts. If she just only quoted the boldface parts, she’d be doing fine!
Also, ECB, can you refresh my memory about why we hate GMOs again? It’s because the Bible says we shouldn’t play God with our human science, right?
PC, I was wrong in supporting Obama: I should have supported Hillary. Will you forgive me?
GMOs are good for the environment as they allow greater production of food out of a smaller area of land.
Its one of the real conflicted issues for environmentalists and suggests they’re more opposed to technology than in favor of the environment.
Really, really disappointing.
Not one of Obama’s cabinet picks is a strong progressive. NOT ONE.
just one bone was too much to ask for? progressives have only been right on everything that’s wrong, and we put your ass into office over hillary.
free the weed, and all is forgiven.
@15 – and they allow diseases to spread like wildfire and wipe out massive quantities of single-strain crops.
Which is good for the environment, cause that slaughters people in massive numbers.
Oh, you meant the Human environment …
HA! HAW!!…. This is hilarious! Seems like the liberals vetted Obama about as well as McCain vetted Palin!
Did you really expect anything different? Really?
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Why is it again that people who are right about things are condemned as mooslem, left-wing ideologues and excluded from government?
@ NaFun,
Don’t hold your breath; you’ll pass out.
@ Dan & Mike,
There’s strong suspicion that GMOs will eventually cause people to have teh cancer pouring out of their eyes, ears and everywhere else, but they’re so relatively new that we don’t have long-term human studies yet.
@ Max Solomon,
Sorry, it’s already an emphatic “no” on the bud. Full speed ahead for the failed Drug War.
Aside from ethanol, Vilsack sounds fine – not an anti-science zealot. The kind of guy I thought Slog readers would like, but I guess not.
@21
No one with that “strong suspicion” has any scientific reason for having it, they just want to believe it.
As far as being new, we’ve been alterating the genetics of plants for thousands of years by weeding the garden.
Be that as it may, it doesn’t alter my initial statement- GMOs are good for the environment as they allow greater production of food with less acreage under cultivation.
Opposition to GMO is more of a knee jerk anti-tchnology reaction than a reasoned environmental position.
Thank you, Mike. That’s what I was going for.
Why should environmentalists oppose crops that can produce greater yields–which benefit people in developing nations–while requiring fewer fertilizers and pesticides? Could it be because they’re ignorant, knee-jerk Luddites?
@13
But would teh boldz still be boldeded?
Meanwhile, here is someone we CAN support and lobby for NOW to help stem the tide of disappointing cabinet picks:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mary-Beth-Maxwell…
You probably all think that meat doesn’t come from murdering animals either.
The real fact is we are fucked. Overpopulation of the planet, starvation is a real issue, and so is energy. Chu and Vilsack can work together. He’s smart enough to change his opinion when he is wrong, he is teaching law at Havard at the moment.
Obama isn’t president yet at all. There is no magic bullet you motherfuckers. Face realilty.
@23
I guess the only way that these assholes will understand it, is that without genitcally modified plants there would be no kind bud. Ask most hippies if they are alive today if marijuana is stronger than it used to be.
You can also genetically modify plants without the use of chemicals, like picking weeds. Cultivating the stronger breeding plants, and getting rid of the weaker ones.
“Not one of Obama’s cabinet picks is a strong progressive. NOT ONE.”
His head of domestic policy and secretary of energy are fairly progressive.
HA!
I love it!
.
Erica. You Whore.
Bwa haw haw haw! You dumbass naive Seattle “progressive liberals” got duped again! Bwa haw haw! Really nothing is more entertaining than the myriad ways a Seattle “progressive liberal” tries to deny reality. Gawd you types are SO NAIVE! Keep it up! Your dumb-ass denial just makes me harder!