Whitman Warms the Bench

Christine Todd Whitman insists that she is a key player on the Bush team — even as she is isolated and undercut by her administration colleagues.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


After a recent Senate hearing — where Democrats blasted the Bush White House’s environmental record — Environmental Protection Agency chief Christine Todd Whitman maintained she has not been isolated within the administration. “I’m not a lone voice, I’m part of a team,” she asserted.

If Whitman is part of the team, she is, at best, a bench-warmer who rarely gets into the game. While the former governor of New Jersey has enjoyed a few notable victories since arriving in Washington, her losses far surpass her wins. And many of those losses have come at the hands of the very people who hired her.

Whitman received a boost when a recent profile in The New York Times declared that, after a rocky start, the administration’s environmental chief “seems to have parachuted to safety. She is being credited with savvier moves within the administration and even with prevailing on some high-profile disputes.”

The Times piece was an exercise in turning crumbs into cakes. It’s true that in the past few weeks Whitman prevailed in having the EPA order General Electric to pay nearly half a billion dollars to clean up PCBs it had dumped into the Hudson River in New York. And she did succeed in having the EPA revive the standards for arsenic in drinking water that were established by the Clinton administration (standards which the Bush crowd trashed early last year). On other pressing issues, however, Whitman has consistently been undercut by the president and more influential members of the administration, described even in the Times piece as a “boys’ club of former oil executives.”

In February, Bush unveiled his global warming policy — and it was a slap in Whitman’s face. Last year, he had humiliated Whitman by breaking his campaign promise to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and by pulling the United States out of the Kyoto accord on global warming. (Whitman had said she expected Bush to stand by his vow, and she had urged him to stick with the Kyoto process.)

Whitman, publicly defending Bush’s decision, had maintained the president’s alternative would be a serious proposal. Yet when Bush made public his plan, it contained only an offer “to reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions relative to the size of our economy.”

The Kyoto accord, endorsed by every industrialized nation but the United States, would force industrialized nations to reduce global warming pollutants below 1990 levels by 2010. The Bush proposal would actually allow emissions of global warming gasses, such as carbon dioxide, to increase. Since the US economy is growing, under the Bush plan global warming emissions could also continue to rise, provided the rate of emissions growth remains less than the rate of economic expansion.

Global warming may well be the most important environmental issue of the decade, and Whitman was slam-dunked by the president.

Another public embarassment came two weeks ago when the EPA’s top enforcement official, Eric Schaeffer, resigned. In a letter to Whitman, Schaeffer — who in August earned an award from Attorney General John Ashcroft for winning tough settlements in cases against polluters — complained that “we are fighting a White House that seems determined to weaken the rules we are trying to enforce.” He noted that major power companies that pollute the air were no longer willing to settle cases; instead, the firms were counting on receiving help from the White House. At a subsequent congressional hearing, Schaeffer noted that Bush budget cuts in the EPA budget “are going to affect our ability to protect the environment through enforcement actions.”

Recently, Whitman has been depicted as having achieved a policy triumph by demanding the administration issue new “Clear Skies” guidelines — which call for a 70 percent reduction in the emission of the worst air pollutants — before it relaxed rules on power plant lawsuits.

What a puny victory — and not a true victory at that. The “Clear Skies” initiative would delay by ten years pollution reductions already required by the Clean Air Act.

Washington environmentalists generally believe Whitman does try to fight within the administration for more environmentally sensitive policies, but, as one says, “we don’t know how effectively she’s fighting.” From the outside, it doesn’t look like she’s getting much in the way of results.

If Whitman were to leave the EPA, most enviros believe her successor would likely be less aggressive in pursuing green policies. But that doesn’t change the fact that Whitman remains a player of little visible influence. She claims to be an advocate for the environment, but she is working for — and supporting — an administration that usually does not share her concern.

For her part, Whitman says she will “stay [at the EPA] as long as I think I’m making a positive difference.” If she wanted to make a real difference, she could follow Schaeffer’s lead and resign. That would certainly draw attention to Bush’s anti-green record — and finally make Whitman truly relevant in the debate over enviromental policy.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate