This week we celebrated our three-month anniversary with an extra special group of posts. Ok, it was really just an average week. We're just feeling chipper because the Interior Department is finally going to let us carry our concealed weapon in national parks. In other EnviroWonk news:

• You may have received your tax rebate this week. President Bush thinks you should spend it at the gas pump. We have some other options for you.
• The EU is considering a proposal that would allow its member states to tax truckers for "the costs they incur on society," a list that includes sleep disturbance.
• The California Assembly is considering a bill that would require manufacturers to phase out the use of hazardous materials in all consumer electronics. Will Arnold go along with the plan?
• We're still kind of stunned that Hillary Clinton is following John McCain's lead and calling for a fuel tax holiday this summer. We really liked Barack Obama's response to this idea.
• The feds have shut down salmon fishing along the West Coast for the first time in 160 years.
• And finally, yes, you heard us right. The Bush Administration thinks national park goers will be safer if they can carry concealed firearms. What could possibly go wrong with this plan?
  

Science is science...right? EcoGeeks should be allowed to perform their duties to {digg}http://digg.com/environment/Report_EPA_Heavily_Pressured_into_Bias_by_Bush_Admin{/digg}the best of their abilities. Even if they happen to work for a government that doesn't particularly love truth, they shouldn't feel any obligation to alter their studies or misrepresent their data. That's just not SCIENCE!

Well, throw away those notions, folks...the Union of Concerned Scientists just conducted a report in which they surveyed 1,586 people working for the EPA, and they found the following:

1. 889 report that they have personally experienced political pressure in the course of performing their duties.
2. 400 said that they had observed EPA administrators, appointed staff, and higher-ups misrepresenting their findings
3. 285 said that they had observed incomplete or biased information used to justify policies and management decisions.

OK...I would like to provide you with intelligent analysis of this situation, but I'm gonna have to take some time to calm down first.

Our brothers at EnviroWonk have this to say:

The report points to the White House Office of Management and Budget as one of the worst offenders, demonstrating where most of this pressure is coming from. While this is not terribly surprising, it does attest to the depth of the problems at the EPA under the Bush Administration, and to the frustration and low morale of an agency being tugged in two diametrically opposed directions.

Now, this was a questionnaire sent to 5,419 EPA staffers who voluntarily responded. It could be that those who had experienced political interference were most inclined to complain about it and return the survey. However, we EnviroWonks are everywhere, including at the EPA. The current and/or previous first-hand experiences of our brethren do nothing to disprove these allegations.

Somewhat mysterious...but telling.

What do we do when the major body controlling environmental law is so very easy to manipulate...not just into relaxing regulations, but into manipulating data. This is the stone and steel that we are supposed to be building the safety of our country upon. If it can bend so easily, I simply cannot see its strength.

Via UoCS and EnviroWonk