The Government Accountability Office — the research arm of Congress — released a report today on the federal government's responsiveness to climate change. Specifically, the report focuses on how officials who manage federal land and resources have planned for the effects of climate change. The report recognizes the danger extreme weather, rising sea level, and biological instability pose to our nation's waters, lands, and coastal areas. Yet, according to the report, the Bush administration isn't taking the danger seriously:

Yesterday, EPA held two public hearings on the agency's proposed revision to the national standard for ozone (a.k.a. smog) exposure. In June, EPA proposed tightening the standard within a range of 0.070 to 0.075 parts per million. The current standard is 0.084 ppm. The Philadelphia Enquirer and The Los Angeles Times report on the hearings in their respective cities. In both hearings, speakers expressed displeasure with the proposal. Public health advocates and local citizens demand an even stricter standard, while industry representatives want to maintain the status quo. Both articles offer compelling tales of speakers afflicted with asthma who feel as though the government has a responsibility to step in and ensure the safety of the human environment. Both articles also point out supporters of tighter standards outnumbered industry reps during the hearings. Industry representatives likely know EPA is under a legal and moral obligation to tighten the standard. But the manufacturing industry is concerned the proposal may hurt their bottom line. They resort to two arguments in attempts to defeat EPA's efforts.

The Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy has launched a new program which will increase the Office's interference in federal agencies' regulatory practices — specifically, in the selection of regulations agencies choose to review after they have already taken effect. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently issued a report which describes what it calls retrospective reviews. These reviews are attempts by federal agencies to assess the effectiveness of federal regulations and identify opportunities for improvement.

A recent spate of recalls involving toys and jewelry contaminated with alarmingly high levels of lead has revived the debate over whether the federal government should tighten standards on lead exposure. The Fashion Jewelry Trade Association is endorsing a tighter standard, according to BNA news service (subscription). Apparently, jewelry manufacturers are already complying with California regulations and would prefer a uniform national standard. Of course, this would have the added bonus of protecting all Americans from jewelry containing dangerous lead levels.