Posted on 12/29/2005 3:16:45 PM PST by NormsRevenge
The same environmental groups that lobby and sue the government over protecting air, water and human health also are collecting federal grant money for research and technical work, documents show.
More than 2,200 nonprofit groups have received grants from the Environmental Protection Agency over the past decade, including some of the Bush administration's toughest critics on environmental policy.
"It may be confusing to the public that with the right hand we're accepting government money and with the left hand sometimes we're beating up the government," said Charles Miller, communications director for Environmental Defense. The group has received more than $1.8 million from the EPA since 1995.
"But the government is a complicated beast. Some of the things they're doing we think are wrong. A lot of the things they're doing we think are right. We're using the grant money to further the environmental cause," Miller said.
One recipient, the Natural Resources Defense Council, recently was cited by auditors for failing to properly document more than one-third of the $3.3 million it received in three EPA grants.
The group used the money to conduct research and education on storm water pollution, and to develop and encourage energy-efficient technology, according to the EPA's inspector general, the agency's internal watchdog.
The council acknowledges record-keeping errors dealing with benefits, timesheets and indirect costs. It cited in part erroneous direction from the EPA about what was required.
"We're not running away from that and that's why we've offered to pay back the money," amounting to some $75,000, once the documentation was corrected, said the council's lawyer, Mitch Bernard. He noted there was no criticism of NRDC's research. The case is not finalized.
Groups such as the council, with their stables of scientists and extensive monitoring of environmental policy, often are seen as helping shape opinion on important issues.
Asked about potential conflicts between their watchdog role and their financial connections to EPA, the groups say grants for specific technical, research and education projects do not interfere with their advocacy, which they conduct with separate funds.
Others see such grants posing at least an appearance problem.
"It raises the specter of a conflict of interest. It's an ethical question," said Roberta Baskin, executive director for the nonprofit Center for Public Integrity, an investigative organization that accepts no government, union or corporate money.
"They're supposed to be watchdogs. Does it make you a lap dog if they're funding you? Is your loyalty to — the environment _or is it to the bottom line?" Baskin said.
The grants have drawn fire in recent years from conservatives, including Sen. James Inhofe (news, bio, voting record), R-Okla., chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Last year, he said environmental groups were "simply Democrat political machines."
The EPA does not turn away grantees because of their criticism or lawsuits, spokesman Bob Zachariasiewicz said. A new policy requires competitive bidding for any grant over $15,000 and the money cannot be spent on lobbying, political or litigation work.
NRDC spokesman Jon Coifman said there has been no dilemma for his $65 million a year organization whose government grants were less than 1 percent of its budget. He said that is "far too small to have any effect one way or the other on NRDC's broader policy decisions."
The council has sued the EPA 35 times the past two years, he said. "We don't feel that we've given up an inch of our integrity on this," Coifman said.
Other recipients made the same point, but acknowledged potential perception problems.
"It's a legitimate question," said Ben McNitt, spokesman for the National Wildlife Federation, recipient of $292,620 from the EPA. He said government grants in 2004 accounted for less than 1 percent of the federation's annual revenues, and the group's suits and vigorous criticism of EPA policies on wetlands, mercury emissions and other issues prove it is not co-opted.
The Pesticide Action Network, which advocates for reduced pesticide use, received a $97,000 grant to develop online information on pesticide use and water pollution, co-director Steve Scholl-Buckwald said.
"In every case we're asking the question: Is this money allowing us to do something we want to do and it or is it something someone else wants us to do?"
The EPA conducts about half of its work, or $4.3 billion in 2004, through grants, mostly to state, local and tribal governments.
Nonprofit groups account for about 7 percent of the total. Besides the environmental groups, many recipients are agriculture and industry allies with keen interest in EPA regulatory policies, along with academic, civic and other groups that advocate on health, the elderly and consumer issues.
Overall, the inspector general has cited grant oversight as an EPA weakness. In a September report, it said the EPA has improved but still needs to pursue greater accountability from project managers. Zachariasiewicz said that process is ongoing through new performance measurements.
___
On the Net:
Grant award database:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oarm/igms_egf.nsf/HomePage?ReadForm
As long as we maintain a government that give out "free" money (our taxes), people will eat at the trough. It never lasts though.
I remember a Forbes article on the EPA under Carol Browner. Just because Bush is president doesn't mean anything at all has been done about this cozy, revolving-door, mutual backscratching game.
One of the SOP's between enviros and their EPA bureaucrat sympathizers is for the enviros to "sue" the EPA and the EPA to give in.
I see no reason the EPA could not undertake a massive audit of said greenie contractors and sue THEIR pants off when their bookeeping comes up short.
Are liberals saying that the science that EPA relies upon can't be questioned?
That's a rather interesting take on "science," huh?
Uh, no, leftist hypocrisy is nothing new...
I would say that the erosion of our democracy is accelerated by these - environmental activists - people finding a way to vote themselves into my pocketbook. Tax money being awarded to the ACLU and environmental activists when they sue is just plain criminal.
Well, one reason may be the fact that EPA agents are allowed to carry weapons, HSD agents can't.
Right here would be a good place to use the veto pen.
Let's get Alito on the court and retry the line item veto bill.
Our Mission
Environmental Defense is dedicated to protecting the environmental rights of all people, including future generations. Among these rights are clean air, clean water, healthy food and flourishing ecosystems. (everybody else wants dirty air, water, food & ecosystems. /sarcasm)
We are guided by scientific evaluation of environmental problems(HA HA HA!), and the solutions we advocate will be based on science (YEAH, SURE!), even when it leads in unfamiliar directions.
We work to create solutions that win lasting economic and social support because they are nonpartisan, cost-effective and fair (LIARS!).
We recognize that low-income communities and communities of color have been disproportionately exposed to many environmental threats, and we seek answers that are equitable and just for all.
As an organization based in the United States, we pay special attention to U.S. environmental problems and to America’s role in causing and solving global problems, and we aim to share our approaches internationally.
******
We have also created several web sites to provide information on our activities and our recommendations on how to protect our environment. Whether you are a policymaker, businessperson, journalist or consumer, you will find information that can help you change the way you do business, save money and protect the planet.
Environmental Defense also maintains a 750,000-member Action Network, which joins environmental and social groups around the globe, and alerts an online community of activists to send emails and faxes on timely issues to legislators and other policymakers. This online tool has been successful in alerting concerned citizens to raise their voices about pending government actions and environmentally-unfriendly business practices.
Environmental Defense receives less than 1% of its financial support from corporate donors. We accept no payments from our corporate partners (such as McDonald's and FedEx). Generous individuals and foundations fund our corporate partnership work to ensure its independence and public credibility.
Proof that Americans are paying too much in taxes and that the government is wasting tax dollars that it steals from us.
Tell Automakers to Stop Fighting Progress on Global Warming Instead of burning less gas than the year before, new cars are producing more global warming pollution each year. Despite the increasingly visible effects of global warming, car makers continue to fight state and national efforts to reduce emissions. Ask automakers to support, not block, these policies.
Another of their "scientific facts"...
Global Warming: Undo It
Global warming is the #1 environmental issue facing the Earth. And while the world is moving forward against climate change, the U.S. continues to sit out the fight. The best first step to change this inaction is the Climate Stewardship Act, the country's best legislative tool to cut heat-trapping emissions. Sign the petition to let the President and Congress know you want the U.S. to lead -- not follow in -- the fight to undo global warming. Cut the emissions.
More nonsense...
Tell Congress - Don't Cut Conservation Programs for America's Farmers
Congress is considering cutting conservation programs that encourage America's farmers help the environment. These programs help farmers restore wetlands and other wildlife habitat and reduce sprawl. Take action - tell Congress to fully fund conservation programs that reward farmers for environmental stewardship.
LEAVE FARMERS ALONE!!! They are capable of "environmental stewardship" without LUNATICS telling them what they should do!
That happened a number of years ago, I think under Clinton, though I'm not sure. The reason given at the time was that EPA agents often walked into very volatile situations, and needed weapons to protect themselves.
Never mind that our Founding Fathers wrote limitations on government into the Constitution, to protect us from just such an abuse.
Did you know, at the time the Second Amendment was written, that private citizens owned warships? The founding fathers wanted to make sure that private citizens would be more powerful than the government. That was so that government officials would be be afraid of , and respectful to, those very same private citizens who had the power to train those warships on government officials.
How many private citizens own a Bradley tank today? Or a jet fighter?
We've fallen a long ways.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.