Lobbyists and Lobbyists

There are some areas in which I think people have become a bit inclined to overstate the difference between the political parties. I am, however, fairly certain that Garance Franke-Ruta is right about this:

When it comes to campaign finance laws, the devil really is in the details, which can rapidly render even the best-intentioned reforms meaningless. That said, I can't imagine that any one of the Democrats now vying for their party's presidential nomination would be so corrupt as to appoint a former mining industry lobbyist as deputy secretary of the Department of the Interior, as George Bush did, with the predictable and enraging result that "The Bush administration is set to issue a regulation on Friday that would enshrine the coal mining practice of mountaintop removal."

The sexier war n' torture issues and the fraught political dynamics surrounding them have sometimes tended to obscure this kind of run-of-the-mill graft and gross perversion of public purpose that have characterized Bush's approach to domestic policy issues.

Comments

Egads!

Heaven forbid we make it easier to use a plentiful domestic energy source to generate electricity! Maybe we can tap into Garance Franke-Ruta's ego as an alternate source.

Posted by Juan | August 23, 2007 4:40 PM

You really think Carl Levin and John Dingell haven't put their state's industries about the public safety on global warming?

Posted by Color me skeptical | August 23, 2007 5:24 PM

You really think Carl Levin and John Dingell haven't put their state's industries ABOVE the public safety on global warming?

Posted by Color me skeptical | August 23, 2007 5:47 PM

MTRM is a total fiasco. It is one thing to harness energy resources it's another to bury the headwaters of the U.S.'s major rivers in doing so. The best analogy is to think of these "empty hollows" that the rule would allow the industry to bury as the blood vessels that bring oxygenated blood from the lungs to the heart. Fill these hollows and there is nowhere for the rainwater to go, and instead of mountain streams bringing water to the Ohio River, you get floods of coal muck. Mining is dangerous period but no mention is made in the NYT of the people who have died or lost their homes in a matter of minutes in floods that resulted from MTRM practices. Don't believe me, see for yourself: http://custom.photoshelter.com/c/colinfinlay/gallery-show/G0000Y3KlAM7T3Z8/
or read the article: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/05/appalachia200605. Or read what the courts have said on this same issue: http://www.earthjustice.org/library/legal_docs/decision-on-mountaintop-removal-mining-permits.pdf
The point is that anyone who says there is no harm in MTRM or that it is worth the costs isn't being completely honest, particularly when other energy sources are available and other mining techniques are possible. Massey & Co. are trying to protect their profit margins, not the energy security of the United States.

Posted by JC | August 23, 2007 7:20 PM

As far as corrupt coal company lobbyists go, that didn't stop Bill Clinton from hiring Bob Uram to head the Office of Surface Mining back in 93 over the loud objections of grassroots groups in coal country. Uram was an industry lawyer specializing in helping companies avoid their legal responsibilities. Rumor had it that when he ran OSM you could get a violation erased just by sending him a bottle of Makers Mark.

Not saying that any of the current crop of candidates would repeat that mistake, but no matter who gets elected they will have to be watched and spanked if they do something stupid.

Posted by justawriter | August 24, 2007 9:34 AM

I'm sorry, but the Democrats are every bit the corporate whores that the Republicans are. Do you people even remember the Clinton Adminstration? Half of his appointees could have just as easily been appointed by the Republicans. A bunch of "washington consensus" types that are only interested in putting more money into corporate bank accounts.

Do you really think a second Clinton administration would be any better?

Posted by Soullite | August 24, 2007 9:50 AM

Look mining companies still have businesses to run. The goal is to get them to do it on the level and not to indulge fantasies about the efficacy of MTRM. The job of the agency is not to make it easier for mining companies to shirk their responsibilities it is to make them live up to their responsibilities under law. Yes Massey have put West Virginian politicians (Dem and Rep) on their payroll (and the effects of pro-coal policies might explain why WV is going red as Massey looks for new pol's to sponsor). Ultimately these agency appointments matter and are part of why (along with the probable retirement of Justice Stevens) who is the next president really does matter. The sad fact is that if coal companies had the guts to go to their shareholders and say we would make you more money in the long run if we invested in technology that does turn the Ohio river into a mine tail we probably wouldn't have to have this endless merry-go-round that is agency capture.

Posted by JC | August 24, 2007 1:59 PM

Mountaintop removal mining truly sets my teeth on edge. Essentially, the mining company that practices it maximizing its profit in the very short term (there are other ways to get the coal out of the ground), at outrageous expense to everyone else. It destroys billion-year-old landscapes that have touristic value and leaves surrounding communities -- generally very poor to begin with -- with land that has no economic value whatsoever. "Mitigation" is a joke.

The history of the rulemaking -- really, the whole exercise of Griles' appointment and tenure at Interior -- can't reasonably be explained as anything other than "run-of-the-mill graft and gross perversion of public purpose."

Heather Taylor's blog on NRDC's Switchboard site has a good piece on this latest news. Here are two background must-reads from OnEarth Magazine on the subject.

Posted by Ian Wilker | August 24, 2007 5:21 PM