Members of Congress and business interests have debated whether the National Ocean Policy is “an executive power grab” or “makes smart business sense,” at insiders’ outlets like The Hill and Roll Call. But when the AP daybook announced that Obama’s environmental adviser, Nancy Sutley, would be visiting Maryland in February to promote the policy, the media didn’t bite. And when the House passed an amendment to a spending bill in May that blocked funding to implement the National Ocean Policy, almost no one noticed. In an editorial, The New York Times decried the attempt to kill the “worthy effort,” and urged the Senate to block its final passage into law. But that was about it.
There’s been almost nothing in the news about two years’ worth of fighting over a potentially pivotal policy that’s been needed for over a decade. Part of that could be the administration’s fault. Last week, the Joint Ocean Commission—a committee of distinguished marine experts from governmental and non-governmental organizations—issued its Ocean Policy Report Card for 2012, which gave the feds a ‘C’ in national support and leadership.
The recent clashes may be drawing the attention of more reporters, however. Now that her piece about wilderness protection is done, Eilperin is working on a piece for the Post about Obama’s record on offshore conservation. “I’ve been tracking how National Ocean Policy has gone from a wonky issue to a political flash point for several months,” she said in an interview, “and it speaks to how polarized national environmental policy has become.”
As Eilperin wrote in her piece earlier this week, the president’s “record remains largely unwritten,” but that’s not only because he might have four years left in office. It also has a more literal meaning—one which journalists need to correct.
Nice advocacy.
"There’s been almost nothing in the news about two years’ worth of fighting over a potentially pivotal policy that’s been needed for over a decade. Part of that could be the administration’s fault. Last week, the Joint Ocean Commission—a committee of distinguished marine experts from governmental and non-governmental organizations—issued its Ocean Policy Report Card for 2012, which gave the feds a ‘C’ in national support and leadership."
So, the press and the feds should conspire even more, to advance "environmental conservation." Well, what are they waiting for? According to you, there are all these unassailable, govt and "non-governmental" sources to back it up, and absolutely no worthy opposition!
#1 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Sat 16 Jun 2012 at 02:25 AM
Perceived problem?
A dozen Gubmint agencies regulate oceans and there is consequently all kinds of inefficiency.
Standard liberal solution?
Make a new Gubmint agency.
Utterly predictable outcome?
More inefficiency, greater cost, political infighting.
#2 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 17 Jun 2012 at 02:07 PM
"Deep dives into why better ocean management is needed were left to liberal advocacy outfits like ThinkProgress, which were too critical of Republicans to be convincing."
What constitutes too critical? The republicans defund the NOAA by your admission, multiple republican legislators are trying to eliminate language that's too climate changey, republicans fight emissions controls that would compel producers to reduce arsenic and mercury pollution, support lifting barriers to ocean shipment and development, on all fronts they are obstructing mindlessly. Don't know if you missed it, but since the 90's the republicans have been ultra-radical on environmental extraction. According to the nytimes
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/opinion/the-grand-old-party-and-the-sea.html
"Also caught in this antiregulation slipstream was President Obama’s National Ocean Policy, a White House effort to address ocean-related issues, ranging from municipal water pollution to wetlands preservation, that are now spread over 20 agencies operating under more than 140 laws. Republicans saw this blameless attempt to coordinate policy as a threat to jobs and pet programs, and voted to prohibit the use of federal dollars to carry it out.
The House imposed these prohibitions in a measure financing the Commerce Department and other agencies. The Senate, which is developing its own appropriations bill, must make sure that neither becomes law."
Mindless obstruction. How can be criticized "too much to be taken seriously"? You know who shouldn't be taken seriously? The party that gave up on science 30 fricken years ago.
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 18 Jun 2012 at 03:37 AM
"Mindless obstruction. How can be criticized "too much to be taken seriously"?"
Whoops paraphrased a bit there. Have a couple of things on the go at the moment.
At any rate, a pretty good summary of ocean policy wars featured in congressional quarterly.
http://public.cq.com/docs/weeklyreport/weeklyreport-000004098268.html
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 18 Jun 2012 at 04:01 AM
there is only one EARTH .its a gift other generations passed down to us , but we are killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Earth is in need of help now .
#5 Posted by gene martin, CJR on Tue 17 Jul 2012 at 06:30 PM