The Environmental Protection Agency has ordered two of its attorneys to remove a video they posted on YouTube about problems with climate change legislation.
The couple had received clearance for posting the video but EPA took issue with its content following publication of an op-ed piece by the two in The Washington Post on October 31.
Read the EPA directive to remove the video
The video, entitled “The Huge Mistake”, was recorded by Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel. The two of them are EPA enforcement attorneys but state clearly that their views may not reflect those of the EPA. The video goes on to explain their thoughts on why the cap & trade plan endorsed by President Obama will not accomplish its goals,or effectively curb climate change.
On November 5, 2009, EPA ethics officials ordered the two veteran employees to –
- “Remove your climate change video from You Tube by the close of business on Friday, November 6, 2009″;
- “Edit your You Tube video…by:
- Removing the language starting at 1:06 min – ‘Our opinions are based on
more than 20 years each working as attorneys at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency in the San Francisco Regional Office.’ - Removing the images of EPA’s building starting at 1:06 min…
- Remove [sic] the language starting at 6:30 min – ‘In my work at EPA,
I’ve been overseeing California’s cap-and-trade and offset programs for
more than 20 years.’”
- Removing the language starting at 1:06 min – ‘Our opinions are based on
- “All future requests for approval of an outside writing activity must be accompanied by a
draft of the document that is the subject of the approval request…”
“EPA is abusing ethics rules to gag two conscientious employees who have every right to speak out as citizens,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, who has re-posted the original video and its script. “EPA reversed itself because someone in headquarters had a tantrum about their Washington Post essay.”
“How is government supposed to be transparent when public servants are forbidden from discussing the nature of their work?” asked Ruch. “EPA and every other federal agency should have simple, clear guidelines so that government workers can express themselves freely without political
prior restraints.”
In August, EPA Administrator Jackson issued an all-employee statement saying the agency will operate as if in a “fishbowl” but left ambiguous whether and how employees may publish papers or communicate with Congress and the media. By contrast, a few agencies such as the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service have dispensed with any pre-approval of employees’ unofficial expressions, as long as they are accompanied by a short disclaimer.
Source: Climate Justice 
photo credit: dantekgeek
Related posts:
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
Thanks for sharing this. I don’t think I’m understanding the rebates to consumers though. Are they proposing to charge high fees for energy and then provide rebates to only some consumers? How will consumers be encouraged to reduce their energy use?
Obama stated that “utility rates will skyrocket” under the proposed Cap & Trade (tax).
The proposals are to refund to low income individuals some of these increases. The remainder of us will pay the “skyrocket” increases. One could say that this is a “redistribution of wealth” from middle and higher wage earners.
These “skyrocket” increases will be passed through to consumers by all businesses in the form of higher prices – inflation – and most likely not benefit the environment (China constructing one new coal fired power plant a week).
Another “good government program” just like AMTRAK, medicaid, medicare, TVA, social (in)security, and others.
Keep it up Washington and we will be taxed to death.
Once again – Adam I would like to read your take on the IPCC e-mail and document scandal. No spin can possibly save the IPCC from its fraudulent reporting of data to favor their own agenda. We are now in the beginning stages of a 20+ year global COOLING period…and the IPCC are frauds…now what? Read some of the global alarmists e-mails (just click on “e-mails”) their quite informative as to what depths global warming alarmists will sinkhttp://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/2377-ipcc-researchers-admit-global-warming-fraud
Christopher, once again you’ve been listening to too much Glenn Beck and watching too much Fox T.V. If you looked past the media spin and did some research on your own without spouting right wing sheep speech, you would know that the word “trick” has many meanings. Used out of context, it is great for media hype. Used in context (in scientific circles) it means something else entirely.
If you have no idea what I’m talking about, then you are a sheep, and don’t even know what the email issue is all about.
Adam – I’m a 50 year old Biology teacher near your own stomping grounds of Grand Rapids, MI who has never seen Glen Beck and don’t watch Fox News. If you don’t mind me asking….how long will it take, and, what evidence will be required before you come to the realization that any climate change is cyclical? If you read the e-mails the members of the IPCC wrote themselves – there is no spin required…they are their own hangmen. Sheep…no I don’t think so..everyone else, if you have the time read the e-mails and come to your own conclusion. Anyone who tinkers with data loses ALL credibility…not a partial amount. Adam, I certainly realize the billions of dollars involved in this man-made CO2 scam. I’m just wondering, if we have 10 – 20 years of cooling – what will alarmists do then?