EEE会議（ブッシュ政権のエネルギー政策： NYT社説”The Fruits of Secrecy”）................03.11.08
3年近く前、ブッシュ政権が発足したとき、チェニー副大統領を主査とするエネル
ギー問題作業部会が中心になって多数の専門家や関係者から意見を聴取して積極的な
「国家エネルギー戦略」（NES)を纏めましたが、その中に環境保護グループはほとん
ど含まれておらず、大半がロビイストやエネルギー業界代表（大統領選挙の資金提供
者たち）であったとされています。これを不満とした勢力は、裁判所に訴えて、誰が
チェニー副大統領に最も接近していたか調査を請求していますが、ホワイトハウスは
名前の公表を拒否しています。
そこへ持ってきて、今週連邦政府の環境保護庁(EPA)は、大気保全法違反の疑いのあ
る１４０以上の電力会社、製油会社等への捜査を打ち切る決定を行いました。 これ
は、すでに法律に従って排出規制措置を講じた企業に対しても不公平ではないか。か
くなる上は、連邦政府に環境保護を期待するわけには行かぬから、州政府が中心に
なって、訴訟に訴えてでも環境保護、大気保全を図るべきだ---とNew
York Times
（昔から民主党系）は１１月８日付けの社説「密室の果実」(The Fruits
of
Secrecy)で強調しています。 ただ、民主党の大統領候補には、３年前のゴア候補の
ような強力な環境保護主義者はおらず、今のところ、ブッシュ陣営の独走を止められ
そうもありません。 一方、ブッシュ陣営もあまり強引にやりすぎると、イラク問題
も絡んで、国民の反感を買う惧れがあり、米国の政治天気図はこれからも激しく揺れ
動くでしょう。
--KK
***********************************************
The
Fruits of Secrecy
NY Times Editorial
November 8, 2003
One of
President Bush's first acts was to convene a task force to produce a
national
energy strategy. Led by Vice President Dick Cheney, the group met
secretly
with hundreds of witnesses. It heard from few environmentalists,
but many
lobbyists and executives from industries whose fortunes would be
affected by
any new policies. Despite lawsuits, the White House has refused
to divulge
the names of those privileged to get Mr. Cheney's ear. The
results, however,
have been plain as day: policies that broadly favor
industry - including big
campaign contributors - at the expense of the
environment and public
health.
That unfortunate bias was demonstrated anew this week when the
Environmental
Protection Agency decided to drop investigations into more than
140 power
plants, refineries and other industrial sites suspected of
violating the
Clean Air Act. The winner is industry; the loser, the
public.
The administration had already weakened the cases' legal
foundation: a
provision in the act that required companies to install
up-to-date pollution
controls whenever they increased harmful emissions by
making major upgrades
to their plants. The utilities had complained that the
rule kept them from
producing more power and discouraged investments in
energy efficiency.
Though the companies produced no convincing evidence, Mr.
Cheney's task
force swallowed the argument whole, and in due course it forced
Christie
Whitman, then head of the E.P.A., to jettison the rule in favor of a
more
permissive regime allowing companies to increase pollution without
paying
for new controls.
The administration insists lamely that a
handful of cases in litigation will
be pursued. It seems clear, however, that
the many investigations that have
not reached litigation will be dropped
altogether or at best restarted under
the new rules - rules so full of
loopholes that it is highly unlikely that
anybody will ever be found to have
violated them.
The administration swore to Congress months ago that this
would not happen,
that all the old investigations would be aggressively
pursued under the old
rules. So in addition to another rollback of
environmental law, we have here
another depressing example of official
mendacity. Abandoning these cases is
also deeply unfair to the companies that
have already installed pollution
controls in a good-faith effort to comply
with the law.
As is so often the case these days, the burden of defending
the environment
now falls to the states. Eliot Spitzer, the New York attorney
general who
has aggressively used the old rules to reduce pollution from
power plants,
has joined other states in suing the E.P.A. for weakening the
law. He has
also asked the E.P.A. to turn its files over to the states so
they can
pursue violators on their own. Finally, some in Congress are calling
for an
investigation into the administration's behavior. And why not -
Congress has
a right to be unhappy with a regulatory and judicial retreat
that undermines
much of what the Clean Air Act stands for.