Religion & Law

Back to Michael

By Rick Garnett

I am not sure that my friend Michael's post responds to my question.  So, a recap:  Michael posted a link to a piece from the New York Times and asked "MOJ Republicans" -- I guess that's me! -- "is there a way to understand this story such that what the the Bush Administration has done seems genuinely defensible?"  The Times piece stated, among other things, "the Bush administration pressured dozens of states to accept a scheme that would let some plants evade cleaning up their pollution[.]"  This "scheme", which would have let some plants "evade" cleaning up, was a cap-and-trade plan. 

So, rather than offer any opinions about whether or not what the Bush Administration was done was defensible, I simply asked Michael for the basis of (what I gathered from his post was) his opposition to such a plan.  (If I misunderstood, and he has no objections to cap-and-trade policies, then I'm sorry.)

Michael asks, "[d]id the federal court [that struck down the cap-and-trade plan] get it wrong?"  I have no idea; I am not an environmental- or administrative-law expert, and have not read the decision.  Did the court get it right?

Michael asks, "[w]asn't it legally wrong for the Bush Admin to have tried to prevent the states from being more strict against mercury than are the feds?"  I don't know.  Maybe, maybe not.  Sometimes the law invites state experimentation, sometimes it doesn't.  Sometimes a uniform solution is more efficient and beneficial, sometimes a thousand flowers should bloom.  Here, we are talking about "power plants", which -- I'm pretty sure -- serve customers in states beyond the ones in which they are situated.  Does that matter?  What's the relevant "legal[]" rule here?  I don't know, and didn't purport to know.  I just asked for the basis for what I understood to be Michael's objection to cap-and-trade programs.

Michael asks, "[d]oesn't every Admin, Democratic too, make morally indefensible choices?"  Of course.  I did not suggest, and never have suggested, otherwise.  Michael says, "[p]rotecting the interests of the economically powerful rather than protecting the public's health is indefensible."  Agreed!  And, one reason why I asked the question I did -- I did not, obviously, say that it was cool to protect "the interests of the economically powerful rather than protecting the public's health" -- was to gather information that might help me and others decide whether, in fact, pressuring states to stick with a nationwide "cap-and-trade" program really involves "protecting the interests of the economically powerful rather than protecting the public's health."  I will admit that it is not as obvious to me as, apparently, it is to Michael that for the administration to pressure states to stick with a nationwide program that -- as the Times reports -- "capped overall mercury releases from power plants nationwide" is best characterized as one that protects the powerful rather than the public's health.

Of course, for all I know, the plan was entirely foolish, and the relevant officials' motives entirely contemptible.  I don't know.  I am pretty sure I need more information than the Times story provided.  I do know, though, that it is not "indefensible" to think that cap-and-trade-type programs might be a good solution to many pollution problems.  Do you disagree, Michael?

Full post as published by Mirror of Justice on February 17, 2008 (boomark / email).