Last week, a group of EPA staffers wrote to administrator Stephen Johnson chiding him for the agency's recent decision to delay federal action on greenhouse gas emissions and the damaging climatic effects they cause. In July, EPA issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (a relatively minor step in the rulemaking process) that solicits public comment on various regulatory options for curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Strangely, the notice was accompanied by a raft of statements from senior officials across the Bush administration which ridicule the proposal and undermine it ultimate intent — to slow the effects of global climate change. Susan Dudley, head of the White House's regulatory clearinghouse, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, said the policy "cannot be considered Administration policy or representative of the views of the Administration." In their July 30 letter, the EPA staffers blasted Johnson for including the views of political officials (including the secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, and Energy) while basically ignoring the hard work of EPA experts: "The way in which you subverted the work of EPA staff in your preamble statement on the merits of the supporting rationale for the ANPRM was as unprecedented as it was stunning to your staff and damaging to EPA's reputation for sound science and policy." On one important point, the letter corners Johnson as a hypocrite. Johnson chose to include the views of officials in other agencies in the name of transparency. But when it comes to decision making on environmental policy, Johnson has been downright opaque over the past few months: The decision to publish the critiques of other agencies in the name of "transparency" in decision-making is both disingenuous and counterproductive. A far more direct contribution would be made to the credibility and transparency of EPA decision-making if you cooperated with congressional requests for documents and hearings. Johnson's refusal to cooperate with Congress isn't limited to the greenhouse gas rulemaking. Congressional committees have repeatedly requested information from Johnson on EPA's controversial revision to an air quality standard for smog and on his decision to refuse to let the state of California write its own rules to deal with climate change. On all of these issues, internal documents and anecdotal evidence show that the White House exerted some level of pressure on Johnson in order to sway his opinion. And when the Bush White House weighs in on environmental policy, it unfailingly does so on behalf of polluters, not the public. But when Congress subpoenas Johnson, Dudley, and others, they claim executive privilege. While they argue that these communications must be kept secret in order to ensure good government, EPA staffers say otherwise: The professional staff of EPA has nothing to hide. In fact, contrary to your assertions of executive privilege, the free flow of policy recommendations would be aided by opening up all (not just selected) communications to public scrutiny. Toward the end of the letter, the staffers say: "You were once one of us. We were proud when you were nominated as the first of us to occupy the Administrator's Office, and we expected great things. Our disappointment is profound."