Bush plays Baker, part III

Krupp plays along

Posted by David Roberts at 3:39 PM on 03 Jan 2008

Read more about: politics | George Bush | messaging

My ongoing, borderline-obsessive series about how %$@! awful this Washington Post piece is continues. In this episode, we focus on Fred Krupp of Environmental Defense. I've tried to give Krupp the benefit of the doubt. The green movement needs somebody sucking up to corporations. (I say that with total sincerity.)

But it seems pretty clear that Krupp has, like so many people involved in the Beltway clusterfuck, become more interested in ingratiating himself with Serious People than in speaking truth to power. He's addicted to access, and throughout Baker's godawful piece he aids and abets White House spin.

It begins this way:

Among those who trekked to Texas while Bush prepared to run for president in 2000 was Krupp, who has been a pioneer in collaborating with business to forge market-based solutions to pollution. During a 1 1/2 -hour discussion at the governor's mansion, Krupp described working with Bush's father on sulfur dioxide emission trading and said a similar system would make sense with carbon dioxide. "He said if we were to go ahead with regulation, that is how we would do it," Krupp recalled. "But the 'if' was a big if."

Yeah, you could say that.

I give Krupp all credit for talking to Bush in 2000. It's great that Bush was around a friendly environmentalist, someone who could reach him and speak his language. It was an effort absolutely worth making.

But it failed. Bush pulled Krupp's chain -- lied to his face. He then proceeded to defecate on everything Krupp purports to hold dear, over and over again, lying to his face all the while. There can no longer be any doubt about Bush's agenda.

By mid-2006, Krupp was still giving the C Student in Chief second chances:

Krupp saw Bush in the same period [mid-2006] at an environmental documentary screening at the White House. "He was definitely in a different place," Krupp said. "He was saying, 'Just because I didn't go forward with Kyoto doesn't mean I don't want to do something.' That's when I detected there really was an evolution going on."

"Really an evolution"? Here we are at the end of 2007, and Bush has still done nothing but block other people's efforts to address the problem in a serious way. Surely by now Krupp is fed up, right? He's got some dignity. He's tired of being played.

Guess not. Here we are in Dec. 2007:

"They are more engaged in thinking about this in a way they were not before," said Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense, an advocacy group, who talks with White House officials. "That leads me to think things are still fluid there. The current public position is not what it needs to be, but I don't have the sense that it's cemented into place."

Seriously? We're seven years into an eight-year administration. Bush climate policy has been entirely consistent, despite occasional rhetorical shifts and rare tactical retreats. Policy is "still fluid"? It's not "cemented"?

When would it count as cemented? If Bush had a week left in office? A day? Maybe not. Maybe he'll ride a climate pony down Pennsylvania Ave. just as Hillary's being sworn in. Maybe he'll go back in a time machine, to 2001 when he broke Christie Whitman's heart.

What would it take for Krupp to stop providing this shameful administration with "this time they're really going green!" PR cover?

Krupp "talks with White House officials." That's what he stands to lose. What about the rest of us, though?

For story: Bush plays Baker, part III
3 Comments | Post a Comment

Collaborating indeed

What an interestingly ... historical . . . word choice.

The 5% Project

by JMG at 3:47 PM on 03 Jan 2008

Environmental Defense Responds

This won't surprise you, but we strongly disagree with Dave Roberts assessment of Fred Krupp. But rather than believe either of us, look at the record. Yes, when he thinks it might help push better environmental policy, Fred talks to the White House. And when they do something outrageous, like block California's clean car rule, he publicly calls them on it, like this from the Environmental News Service story:

Environmentalists are angry. Fred Krupp, president of the nonprofit Environmental Defense, called the denial "outrageous."
"Doing nothing about global warming is bad enough - but going out of your way to block the leaders who are trying to solve this is an outrage," said Krupp, adding that he will be working "with the rest of the environmental community to explore all legal avenues to fight this decision." [end of excerpt]

And, in fact, Environmental Defense has just sued the Administration over the decision. Just as we did to Duke Power over the Clean Air Act, recently beating them in the Supreme Court...even though we are also allies with Duke in the U.S. Climate Action Partnership.

The bottom line with Fred is the environment. That means he'll meet with people he disagrees with, or criticize them in public -- partner with them or sue them --depending on what's likely to produce environmental results. That may not make him popular on Grist, but it does lead to less acid rain, less DDT, and maybe a cooler planet.

Keith Gaby
Director of Communications, Climate Campaign
Environmental Defense
environmentaldefense.org

by Keith Gaby at 10:29 AM on 04 Jan 2008

I agree with Keith Gaby

I knew people who worked with ED in the legal department. ED is as aggressive in litigation as any of the major environmental groups. Fred Krupp is playing the role of good cop in the good cop/bad cop show in the political arena.

We enviros should try to avoid public infighting. The right has been successful in no small part because they don't.

by josullivan58 at 10:38 PM on 04 Jan 2008

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.