On Taking Risks

Over the weekend I had a number of people approach me and mention they had seen this blog featured in last Friday’s Washington Post. Whether the coverage was flattering or not seems to be a matter of opinion, but a lot of them asked, “So, are you in trouble?”

No, I’m not.

The risks of blogging were well known when I started last July. We decided it was an acceptable price to pay for better communication and greater transparency in government.  Thankfully, other federal officials are coming to the same conclusion.  For instance, I welcomed the State Department to the fold when they started their blog last October. At the time they received a lot of flak. Now they receive approximately 55,000 page views a day and have a healthy public discussion going on in their comments section. This is all to the good.

I had coffee with a fellow employee recently. He said EPA staff face a problem of poor incentives. “You don’t get rewarded for taking risks, but you get punished for making mistakes.” I think that’s a problem throughout government. 

I take a risk every time I post to this blog and I appreciate the fact that the Administrator lets me continue to do that. But it’s an easy risk for me to take. I’m pretty senior and will be gone in a year. A good question is how do we encourage, rather than discourage, the rank and file in government to take risks and test innovative ideas?

Comments

[Stacy]

As government employees, we are ingrained with the idea that, "The last thing you want to do is end up anywhere in the Washington Post." However, I believe that sometimes, news coverage is OK, and this is one of them. I say well done, Marcus, for trying to connect with the employees of EPA--and all the rest of the taxpayers in the country. While I (and other EPA emplyees and taxpayers) may or may not agree with all that you say in your blog, you give insights into things that are not always easy to find out about. Your willingness to embrace a new form of techno-communication shows that you aren't afraid to provide information to your customers in a new way, and that you aren't afraid of a little criticism. Then again, I knew that about you already, since that is one of the many lessons I have learned from your blog--taking criticism can sometimes make you do your job better. Thanks for continuing to blog!

[Calley]

I think it's a great thing to raise awareness on the government agencies through blogging. TSA even started their own last week and is receiving LOTS of heat and criticism, however, I think in the end the work is appreciated. Keep it up, I enjoy reading the Flow!

[Tina Chen]

I enjoy reading the blog. Please keep it up!

[Peter Stinson]

Amen.

Keep at it.

[Kristy Miller]

All innovative leaders find themselves straddling the tension between fitting into the status quo and shaking it up, said a sage.

Your blog is an incredible education and communications tool; plus it does something much more than transfer information--it has the power to inspire us!

Now, that's real power!

Whether inside or outside of government, we all need more inspiration.

Your insights and stories are a forum that can point the way and help foster positive change--in ways some never thought possible. Even if some squall about a particular storyline, position or policy, you're in the arena and the debate is on! Your stories give us nuggets to tuck away for consideration and perhaps future enlightenment. (Whether we get it now or later or not at all is up to each one.)

We need more innovators, communicators and risk takers like you in government. Thanks for charting the course; I am already a bit concerned about who'll captain this ship if you leave.

[Scott :)]

Bravo Marcus! I guess you got a little bad news early with some of the responses to your Amy Winehouse blog and subsequent press. The news being there are still folks dramatically uncomfortable with Web 2.0 technologies, such as the purpose of blogs. Thanks for taking a risk, continuing to reach out to the public on environmental issues, and tying them to socially relevant topics like “don’t do drugs;” a PSA everyone can relate to.

[Marcus]

I've got a correction! The State Dept gets about 5,500 views a day on their blog, not 55,000. This is why I don't work as an engineer any more.

And thanks for the kind words folks.

[Robert Handelsman]

Listen to the scientists and not Republican ideologues when formulating policy.

You say," better communication and greater transparency in government." yet you and your boss IGNORE your own staff, lawyers and scientists if it means you can score political points with the president! If you truly want to better communicate and improve transparency in government, LET THE EPA STAFF DO ITS JOB WITHOUT POLITICAL INTERFERENCE!

[Jared Cornelia]

Mr. Peacock needs to learn that ignoring EPA scientists and analysts on an issue as central as global warming pollution from vehicles is not a way to “encourage risks and test innovative ideas.”

Global warming is a real problem and we need the highest possible fuel economy standards possible mandated on all vehicles.

Only by working together can we offset the damage we've already done.

[jean public]

we need hybrid vehicles. we need vehicles tha get l00 miles per gallon. we need less emissions polluting our air. why isnt our govt responding and letting auto mfrs get away with murder?

[Kevin OBrien]

Dear Mr. Peacock,
I must applaud your attempt to improve things there at an agency that has not been much supported by the current administration.
I ask you to do what you can to help the states in their efforts to set their own vehicle emission standards. Manufacturers tend to build for the place with the strictest rules. This way we can move forward even when the the EPA may be blocked by some in Washington. I hope future administrations will give the EPA more respect.

[Adrian]

Regulated CO2 output reduction and mandatory industrial CO2 sequestration need to be pushed as far as possible. The initiative of individual states to regulate to higher than the EPA standards should be helped not hindered, since they are steps in the right direction. Gas cannot be expensive enough and exhaust standards not strict enough if we truly mean dealing with the issue of global warming.

[Keath Rhymer]

Great that you had the courage to take a stance and write in public your thoughts. Now if we can get the EPA to back off and let the states set their own pollution rules since the government can't seem to do it and we will all be dead by the time they do.

[Patty Nolan]

PLEASE stand up for us, Americans concerned about the environment. I cannot understand why EPA is not leading the way in demanding higher fuel efficiency standards for cars. We could mandate a 25% increase in average CAFE tomorrow and our economy would be helped. Technologically it is feasible.

Nothing could be more urgent, more obvious, or simpler.

[Tim Martin]

Why are you talking openness and reacting against initiative.

[Kimberly Taylor]

I fear innovation in government, certainly under this administration, is oxymoronic. Look at the dismantling of EPA libraries, shrinking access to publicly funded science. Or, consider how Mr. Johnson ignored scientific evidence the advice of his staff in denying California's emissions waiver. I had the surreal experience of working in a federal agency for five years under President Bush and it was only recently that I felt comfortable enough again to find my voice to criticize. Risks and innovation have to be encouraged from the top. This is a topic worth revisiting next January.

[Kimberly Taylor]

I fear innovation in government, certainly under this administration, is oxymoronic. Look at the dismantling of EPA libraries, shrinking access to publicly funded science. Or, consider how Mr. Johnson ignored scientific evidence the advice of his staff in denying California's emissions waiver. I had the surreal experience of working in a federal agency for five years under President Bush and it was only recently that I felt comfortable enough again to find my voice to criticize. Risks and innovation have to be encouraged from the top. This is a topic worth revisiting next January.

[Joseph Van Blargan]

You guys are great! Really enjoy the blog, it's about time you had an opportunity to share your insights.
I'm sure you're aware of the research that shows microorganisms to hitch rides around the planet on particulate matter, dust and pollution. There is a real need for science to step up and protect Americans from dangers no border fence can defend against. America needs to be in this for the long haul, with an eye to the long-term welfare of the American people, not the short term economic benefits that will disappear overnight, just like so many MBOs and CDOs that have dropped US into a recession.

[Audrey Higbee]

You stated that "I’m pretty senior and will be gone in a year. A good question is how do we encourage, rather than discourage, the rank and file in government to take risks and test innovative ideas?"
I ask you, how do we encourage, rather than discourage, citizens and states to take risks and test innovative ideas to reduce global warming and to save life on this planet when you and others in the EPA block their attempts? We -- meaning the citizens of this country who are not part of the Bush power elite and the Bush EPA -- are trying to take effective actions while you are boasting about posting a BLOG. Shame, shame, shame.

[Ann Bornstein]

Not only are the citizens of the world getting sicker from pollution and global warming, so is our planet. We must take action, not put up road blocks to work on this very dire problem. I would like to see some real leadership initiatives from Government Officials.

[JUDITH SMITH]

Ignoring EPA scientists and analysts on an issue as central as global warming pollution from vehicles is not a way to “encourage risks and test innovative ideas.”

[Penelope Sallberg]

Thank god for people like you. I think you are a new breed of government official, somewhere between a whistle blower and an angel. It's good to know there are people like you so that I don't have to think that all government bureaucrats are mindless idiots with no guts. We are poisoning our own fishbowl with our gas hog, crap spewing automobils. It's not that hard to get better machines. It's just that when people invent some that are too good, they suddenly disappear. I'm really quite suspicious of conspiracy theorists, but I may become one. I have had first hand confirmation that people who invent cars that can run for 1500 miles on 1 gal. of gas seem to just "go away". (A Cal Tech man) And this guy isn't the only one. There is too much money to be made when cars use lots of gas inefficiently. Thank you for what you are doing, however, I think that ignoring EPA scientists and analysts on an issue as central as global warming pollution from vehicles is not a way to “encourage risks and test innovative ideas, it's criminally insane.

[Beth Moorehead]

Thanks for posting a blog, it gives the American public even more access to our government, of which I am grateful.
I was amused at your use of the term "communication and greater transparency in government" because as a Californian I have been repeatedly disappointed by the actions of your department. In a recent LA Times article it was discovered after a court order that the staff of the EPA may have decided California should indeed be able to set their own emission standards:
"Senate committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) released excerpts from documents she said her staffers were allowed to see but not copy. Boxer said Wednesday that Johnson had done a "terrible job," and accused him of stonewalling the committee's investigation."
I know that you're "pretty senior" but my kids aren't and they're going to be living (and I hope well) with the decisions you are making today.
Those who give me the most hope in this country are those that stand up and fight for what's right, like whistleblower Biologist Andrew Eller of the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service.

[Cassandra B. Lista]

I firmly believe that ignoring EPA scientists and analysts on an issue as central as global warming, pollution from vehicles is not a way to “encourage risks and test innovative ideas.”

The US, because of its power and standard of living has long been the example to the world of how to live. By refusing to acknowledge and mitigate the auto emission standards, the US is perpetuating global warming rather than helping to cure the problem, as well as setting a horrendously bad example.

[andrew smith]

why is it a risk to actually elicit public discussion? Is the government so insulated that actually hearing from the rabble, and thus being held accountable, is so risky? Look, I appreciate the gesture. It's about time our government at least paid lip service to the notion that it is indeed a government of the people. That being said, how about taking a risk and allowing states to actually enforce cleaner emissions standards. The last time I checked, states are free to set their own standards as long as they exceed EPA benchmarks. Where does the EPA get off in ignoring both sound science and the will of the electorate? It would be one thing if states were pushing for the removal of the Clean Air Act, but how are more stringent standards deleterious? I understand that enforcement is problematic because emissions don't follow borders (i.e. China's pollutants wind up on the West Coast). The EPA's hesitancy to to accept cleaner state-imposed standards just reinforces the notion that the EPA is simply a stooge for the administration.

[andrew smith]

why is it a risk to actually elicit public discussion? Is the government so insulated that actually hearing from the rabble, and thus being held accountable, is so risky? Look, I appreciate the gesture. It's about time our government at least paid lip service to the notion that it is indeed a government of the people. That being said, how about taking a risk and allowing states to actually enforce cleaner emissions standards. The last time I checked, states are free to set their own standards as long as they exceed EPA benchmarks. Where does the EPA get off in ignoring both sound science and the will of the electorate? It would be one thing if states were pushing for the removal of the Clean Air Act, but how are more stringent standards deleterious? I understand that enforcement is problematic because emissions don't follow borders (i.e. China's pollutants wind up on the West Coast). The EPA's hesitancy to to accept cleaner state-imposed standards just reinforces the notion that the EPA is simply a stooge for the administration.

[Dorothy Tompkins, MD]

Ignoring EPA scientists and analysts on pollution from vehicles is directly unhealthy to citizens and is NOT conducive to "encouraging risks and testing innovative ideas".

[Bruce]

I would like the EPA to take the risk of getting out of the way of the states!!

How about allowing states that want to do a better job of managing clean car standards to reduce global warming pollution from vehicles just "do it" as Nike might say?

Seems like Administrator Johnson continues to ignore both his own scientists’ and lawyers’ recommendations!

[ct]

Please adopt the state safety standards; lets get on this.

[Michael Hudson]

Thank you for allowing me to express my concern and dissatisfaction with the EPA's position on the States setting and enforcing stricter emission levels that those set by this agency. Please stop not doing your job, and stop interfering with choses who have picked up the torch that the EPA refused to carry, since the beginning of the Bush Administration.
This Blog is a wonderful Idea and I believe is highly representative of how use of the internet empowers government in the highest standard of democracy, by publicly sharing the opinions of it's constituents.

[Joan Mencher]

If you really want to open things up, then it is extremely important to look at the role of automobiles and other vehicles in polluting our air, and more essential in contributing to global warming. We could if the large Corporations were forced to, build cars that rely primarily on electric power-- for those living in private or small homes, cars that could be recharged at night using cheaper electric power- and if the EPA encouraged it, make greater use of solar electricity. In the past 2 years alone, the solar industry has made incredible jumps. In Germany (not a very sunny place) solar energy is being used widely. But, this industry would get a large incentive if the Automobile industry supported electric powered vehicles. Real courage comes from being willing to change Corporate America.

[owl]

I guess it's good that you're trying to communicate and be transparent. I'm sure that Americans are fully supportive of a blog in which the EPA makes opens its policy up for discussion. Most people probably want to see something other than your insight on the sinter Amy Winehouse, though--not only because thousands of others can voice the opinion equally or more eloquently, and thousands still are already tired of her, but also because you represent the EPA, not Rolling Stone. We want to know about EPA matters--such as pollution regulations. Many Americans already suspect that the EPA's interests lie elsewhere; we'd appreciate it if you'd at least not shove it in our faces.

[Jonathan]

Marcus, I want to first applaud your effort to create more transparency within the EPA and an open communication with citizens of the US like me.

Now to a more important issue, global warming may be heavily politicized, but the unbiased reporting of EPA scientists and others like them should not be prevented from having a voice. Why is it that people like Stephon Johnson are allowed to censor documents and silence the voices of well-respected scientists? This practice has become more evident as more research shows the dangerous path we now encounter, and one that transparency and open communication could end for the betterment of our nation and our world.

Please continue fighting for those things, we are counting on it.

[David Firshein]

WHY TAKE A CHANCE? WHY NOT ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION AND FIND A MORE PRODUCTIVE WAY TO EMPOWER THE HUMAN ENERGY QUESTION?!?

[mc]

Marcuc, I live in California and I can't believe you are trying to block us from regulating the green house gas emissions of automobiles by increasing the mpg requirements for cars sold in state. And i'm really sick of all this poppycock about how we need a national solution, not a patchwork of state regulations. That's just B.S. The Feds (as led by YOUR agency!) aren't doing anything about this issue, so it's up to the states to innovate. There's a lot of people would actually argue that that's entire point of the state-federal balance of power in the U.S. So do us all a favor, listen to your own staff (who support California's proposed rules), and get the heck out of our way!

THANK YOU!

[Margaret]

You need to set an example by going beyond words and "good intentions". It is time to take the overwhelming scientific evidence for global warming seriously and to demand changes in emission requirements. It is time to recognize we have a responsibility to our grandchildren and not just to the political and lobbying entities that keep our current lives lavish. We cannot make these changes as individuals - but collectively we can through our government. That is what your are hired to do. You only have a year left - take a real risk. Do what is right.

[kay stapleton]

It is like you have given up and think there is no hope to save the planet so wreck it as quickly as possible by ignoring EPA scientists and analysts warning of global warming pollution from vehicles. I see where “encourage risks and test innovative ideas” is rooted in "get it over as quick as possible" philosophy.

[Margaret]

You need to set an example by going beyond words and "good intentions". It is time to take the overwhelming scientific evidence for global warming seriously and begin to demand changes in emission requirements. It is time to recognize we have a responsibility to our grandchildren and not just to the political and lobbying entities that keep our current lives lavish. We cannot make these changes as individuals - but collectively we can through our government. That is what your are hired to do. You only have a year left - take a real risk. Do what is right.

[NealJKing]

If you're serious about not discouraging staff from taking risks, how about NOT over-ruling their recommendations for transparent political reasons?

Example: Your boss Johnson over-ruling staff recommendations to approve the California application for a waiver on C-O2 emissions standards.

[Philip DeMaertelaere]

Ignoring EPA scientists and analysts on an issue as central as global warming pollution from vehicles is not a way to “encourage risks and test innovative ideas”, as you purport to do.

[Jimy Uranwala]

Unlike some of my fellow environmentalists, I fully appreciate that government staff don't get rewarded for taking risks, but only get punished for making mistakes. However, the majority of scientists including EPA's, back the initiatives of California and other states to fight global warming. So it should be more risky to oppose them. Yet the EPA does so. which shows the real risk is opposing politicians and vested interests. So, the real solution is to have an enlightened government. For that, I suggest all EPA staff who can &/or will take some risks, form a unified group which can give backing and help to enlightened candidates to make the public aware of what it takes to really solve such problems.

[Lee Stanfield]

How can you claim that you want to "encourage risks and test innovative ideas" when you are still ignoring your own scientists and analysts recommendations regarding the need to allow the 13 states who have passed clean car standards to enact those standards. The real "risk" I see in this issue, is the risk you are willing subject every being on this planet to..... the risk that we are not doing enough soon enough to halt or even slow down global warming.

[Nadine Newlight]

Deputy Administrator Peacock: ignoring EPA scientists and analysts on an issue as central as global warming pollution from vehicles is not a way to “encourage risks and test innovative ideas”!

[Fritz Conle]

The Bush Administration's policy of ignoring science in order to downplay global climate change, while racking up the biggest deficits in the history of the United States, clearly illustrates the urgent need for regime change in the United States.

[Lorraine]

While blogging will allow some interchange, it seems like a small risk compared with stating the scientific truth to the EPA as one sees it, and then being censured for not following the party line.

I am surprised, with Mr Johnson refusing to let states try harder than the federal government to improve air pollution, that such an issue is not the subject of your blog, rather than being "risky" by writing of less important issues.

[Kathy Seal]

A blog is a terrific idea.
Having said that, and given that you're leaving in a year, could you let us know what steps are being taken to get the EPA to let California have its waiver on auto emissions? I'm out here in the golden state, and all the transparency and blogging in the world won't help the EPA and its employees if we can't get your help in slowing down global warming. I don't know your specific weather conditions in Washington, but out here the Sierra snowpack is retreating and predications are that our water supply will reduce by between 40 and 70 percent in the not to distant future. To me that spells c-a-t-a-s-t-r-o-p-h-e! So we passed a global warming law -- two, to be exact -- and the EPA is holding up implementation by not granting us the waiver.
I doubt that the moderator will post this, but thought I'd give it the old college try anyhow.

Worried and Upset in Los Angeles

[Donne Wedge]

Here's an idea, when considering environmental policies, remember your children and grandchildren are far more important than the auto industry. Get it?

[Neal]

Here is an idea; listen to the scientist and not the politicians. The scientists analysis aand report the facts. Politicians distort the facts to their liking. Your boss should stop blocking innovation at the local level. Give our lungs a break.

[Lapistola]

Ignoring EPA scientists and analysts on an issue as central as global warming pollution from vehicles is not a way to “encourage risks and test innovative ideas" Please reconsider for us and our future.