...if one weren't familiar with the games of the Bush admin. Look at Colin Powell-- was he hired as a salesman-mouthpiece, or as an architect of policy?...

Thought so.

I was about to say much the same. The impenetrable armor of the Bush/Cheney oil posse about things environmental isn't going to be put in the closet because Paulsen comes onboard. Powell learned the hard way. This guy will too. Paulsen, unlike Powell, is rich enough not to be a lap dog. I doubt he will allow himelf to be repeatedly humiliated as Powell was.

On the balance, I could see how Republicans like Congressmen Latourette, Regula, and Senators Snowe and Mccain could steal the global warming issue away from the Democrats. They will not acknowledge that it was energy industry $$$ that put the gop in power. The Americans will be propagandized and too stupid to see through this.

Add Schwarzenegger to that list.

The Bush administration has ignored and undercut two Treasury secretaries in a row (O'Neill and Snow). It isn't known for giving any real power to the man in that seat.

I do think that this guy is sincere about the environment, and is about as good a nomination that we can expect from the Bush administration. But the anti-environmentalists don't have anything to worry about, I'm afraid; the guy isn't going to have any influence.

"White House budget director Rob Portman suggested to the New York Times that Paulson might not be eager to restrict economic activity for the sake of the environment."

The powers that be want to tell you that we either have to be dirty or poor. They ignore the facts, like that Toyota is kicking GMs ass, mainly by building clean, efficient automobiles rather than gigantic gas guzzlers. Or that, generally speaking, pollution is waste, and that if you can find a way to get more production from less energy input, not only do you generate less greenhouse gases, but your costs go down. If the US continues to resist Kyoto and similar efforts and our competitors don't, our products will be too dirty to buy, so everyone will buy from elsewhere.

I remember the wars about automobile pollution and efficiency regulations during the Reagan days. The prevailing view in Washington was that there was a conflict between the goal of a clean car and a fuel-efficient car. They thought this because of the Detroit approach to meeting Clean Air Act standards: take a really crappy engine that spews unburnt hydrocarbons and CO, and put a massive catalytic converter on the back, which immediately clogged up and killed the engine performance. People were illegally disconnecting the catalytic converters because of the terrible effect they had on performance. And then Honda came out with cars with engines that burned so clean that no exhaust system was needed to meet the standards, and they got terrific gas mileage. That's because pollution is waste, and an engine that is designed right produces almost nothing but CO2 and water, and relatively little of that.

There's a lot of money to be made in greenhouse gas reduction. The transition will hurt only those who are unwilling to invest in it.

Early on with this White House regime it was clear enough that there would be

little in the way of treehugging being promoted. G.W.Bush hardly seems to have

ever been much interested in conservative fiscal practice either. If indeed this

guy Paulson is only just some new wallpaper for the same room it will be easy

enough to see within one year. The record this White House has on rulemaking,

rule enforcement and being the energy industry's gofer on environment and

conservation matters is well established. The operative theme being that of

exploit,extract and exclude. As for fiscal matters the "cut taxes" mantra and

"borrow and spend" dogma of a Republican run federal government are in full

bloom. It will be a cliff jumpoff for Paulson or anyone currently on the

"Bush Team" to suggest otherwise. The fiscal fantasy of borrow and spend

the federal government is on while cutting taxes and revenue is a event horizon

not yet seen fully for the threat it is. The current spending free for all has

become so disconnected from fiscal prudence that it is going to require some

genuine strength of political leadership to get off the addiction. G.W.Bush has

been a wanton spender. G.W. Bush has not displayed any abiding interest in

the environment other than to unleash those who endorse extraction and exploitation

thinking from prior federal curbs or restraints. Mr.Paulson may be privy to

information not yet revealed to all but the record is clearly showing a GOP

regime that has engaged in fiscal fantasy and environmental backsliding or

worse simple indifference to facts and affects.

That this nominee gave 100K to the Bush campaign shows that his overriding priorities lie not with environmental causes, but with tax cuts for the wealthy and the slashing of living standards for the vast majority - the fundamental right-wing program that the Bush Administration epitomizes.

That another social parasite worth hundreds of millions is the primary economic advisor in this administration (and previous ones) in a society filled with struggling working people is statement enough about whose interests will be provided for in this appointment. That he returns some of this loot to his environmental hobbies and concerns is supposed to make him a cause celeb?

As for the rabid elements who oppose his 'environmental stands,' they are your standard far-right field crowd that thinks environmentalism is tantamount to being looney, if not downright ungodly. Does the opposition of the likes of this most backward, venal and ignorant layer of Rush Limbaugh wannabes constitute progressive bona-fides these days?

Perhaps if this were an Interior Secretary appointment, it might mean something. However, his position lies entirely elsewhere - specificallly, in protecting the financial interests of the narrow, fabulously wealthy layer of which he is a member in an increasingly tenuous overall economic environment.

One can be sure that, push come to shove, the nominee will protect the interests of his economic layer well. Perhaps a few birds and wilderness areas will even prosper and the nominee may even be a voice in the wilderness for measures against global warming, as well. There is nothing wrong with that, certainly, but I am hard-pressed to attach any significance to it whatsoever with regards either to this particular Wall Street insider or in the context of his position.