Business as usual: the most encouraging news from Washington is a footnote.(Green matters: commentary on environmental policies and politics)(anti-obesity, federal energy bill, federal budject)

We were amused recently to read that the Bush administration, at least according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), was set on scuttling, weakening, or postponing the release of the World Health Organization's (WHO) anti-obesity recommendations.

We only mention it because the administration says it questions the "science" behind the study's conclusions. How long before the specter of "junk science" is raised and large numbers of people come to believe that no matter how many jelly doughnuts they eat, they won't get fat? Where have we heard this kind of talk before? Arguments against the Kyoto Protocol and global warming, of course.

Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Tommy Thompson, whose department is in charge of such things, says we have an "epidemic of obesity" in the United States. Did we mention that it was a top aide in Thompson's own agency (and George Bush Sr.'s godson) who wrote the memo questioning the science behind the WHO report? Thompson would do well to remember that former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief Christie Whitman's troubles began when she ran afoul of the administration's position on Kyoto and started down the road to "spending more time with her family."

Learning the ropes

Speaking of the EPA, Administrator Mike Leavitt, who took over the agency's reins from Whitman when she decided on a career change, seems to be learning the ropes. Rule number 1: Be nice to your boss's friends and contributors. You know, hobnob with them at some posh setting, maybe give them political advice on how best to further their environmental agenda.

No, we're not kidding. Leavitt, just a few months into his tenure, participated in a conference entitled "Environmental Issues 2004: How to Get Results in an Election Year." As a headliner, Leavitt apparently was to offer advice on "how to craft pro-industry environmental messages to influence the 2004 elections." The host of the affair was the National Association of Manufacturers, which observers say is not known for its environmentally friendly views.

Leavitt's first public address was to a pro-industry group as well--the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), which represents investor-owned utilities. Here, to his credit, he called on the utilities to "invest in clean air" and outlined a proposed cap and trade measure to reduce of S[O.sub.2] by 70% and N[O.sub.X] by approximately 65% from current levels. This seems reasonable enough, but a single reporter who showed up at the exclusive Arizona resort was denied admission, so we can only rely on "official transcripts" and the belief--or not--that those transcripts dutifully reflect everything that was discussed behind closed doors.