Smart Bombs: Politics pollute science
A group of scientists has come to the conclusion that lopping off the tops of mountains to gain better access to coal is bad for the environment. Never saw that one coming.
The predictable damage to streams, rivers and wildlife has been known for a long time. The grotesque appearance of these denuded landscapes speaks for itself. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency agrees, but it continues to grant permits. It’s like French Revolution-era doctors declaring that decapitation is bad for one’s health while handing out guillotines.
That’s why scientists were compelled to round up the evidence and publish it in the Jan. 8 edition of the journal Science.
I came to expect that politics would trump science under the Bush administration. It was clear that by “sound science” the White House meant the answers that political allies wanted to hear. And so we got rulings and rhetoric that ran counter to the science on issues such as global warming, evolution, lead poisoning, mercury emissions and over-the-counter sales of emergency contraceptives.
I figured the Obama administration would have greater respect for empirical evidence, and for the most part it has. The recent decisions to get stricter on air quality and carbon dioxide emissions flow directly from the data. But the president has offered some worrisome examples of how he is also susceptible to bending the facts for preferred political outcomes.
The EPA has never offered a cogent explanation for why it allows some mountaintop removals. However, there is a clear-cut political reason. Presidents need votes from coal country.
We’ve seen this play out closer to home with decisions to stymie efforts to determine whether Yucca Mountain in Nevada is a safe repository for nuclear waste. Washington state has a stake in this, because it needs a permanent home for the radioactive sludge stored in leaky tanks under the Hanford Nuclear Reservation.
Yucca Mountain looked promising, but then U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., was elevated to majority leader and his state is opposed to the project. Fearing for his overall political agenda, President Barack Obama has caved. Last year, his administration cut nearly $100 million from the effort to license Yucca Mountain with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
As a candidate, Obama said his administration “will make sure that the government does not distort the results of scientific research for ideological ends.”
It’s entirely possible that scientists would conclude that Yucca Mountain is the wrong site, but they won’t get the chance if they don’t get the money. In the meantime, those toxic plumes beneath Hanford continue to edge closer to the largest river in the West. Perhaps it’s time for another no-duh report: “Radioactive Waste Bad For Water.”
No and hell nO. The Washington and Idaho legislatures convene on Monday, and lawmakers face perhaps the most distressing sessions of their careers. No money means no new programs, which heads off a lot of bills. Perhaps to break up the monotony, they could learn to say “no” in a variety of ways.
Aid for college students? Nyet. Health care for the uninsured? Ahahahaha! Money to finance a basic education overhaul? When shrimp learn to whistle.
When the sessions are over they can write a book about it: “1,000 Ways to Get to ‘No.’ ” All proceeds would go to the general fund.
Win-win! The Washington Legislature is facing a $2.6 billion shortfall. The entire Idaho budget is $2.5 billion. Am I the only one who sees a solution here? Olympia gets Boise’s money, and Idahoans get to live the libertarian dream.