— Unsolicited testimonial received from British scholar self-identified as petwem85, Manchester, UK, via Scholar.com
”The Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development (ITSSD) website displays an implicitly hegomonic ‘positive paradigm of sustainable development’. With foundations based loosely in generally accepted sustainable development publications, including the WCED’s Brundtland Report (1987) and the ‘three pillar’ environmental, economic and social elements of sustainability, the ITSSD, through its website, develops a set of principles, reflective of its position in this debate.
A commercially and politically independent organisation, the ITSSD is deeply supportive of traditional American imperial ideology, promoting unregulated and market-driven capitalist economics as the fundamental theory of this ‘positive paradigm’. Lawrence Kogan (2008) in an ITSSD released article, attacks external ideological and political power over the USA through an “environment-centric paradigm of sustainable development”. This website strongly encourages the anthropocentric capabilities of mankind, particularly Americans, in “developing scientific knowledge, new technologies and equipment.” The ITSSD’s ‘positive paradigm’ moves away from increasingly accepted environmental preservation, towards unanimous support for economic development (not just ‘meeting the needs’), “without requiring the absolute preservation of specific natural resources”.
The ITSSD provide a well-structured and easily navigated website, consistently informing the reader of this anthropocentric ‘positive paradigm’ and that sustainable development is an area of extreme importance, but that must be defined, academically and politically, with reference to the necessity of creative and forward thinking professionals. Kogan neatly concludes, “Do they not deem Americans worthy of the challenge?”
— Carol LaGrasse, President, Property Rights Foundation of America
“Larry, [ …] Again, thanks for such a fine presentation about international influences on U.S. government at the conference. […I] began reading your publisher advance copy [since finalized] of the article for Kentucky Journal of Equine, Agriculture & Natural Resources Law. This is a priceless contribution to the understanding of the forces affecting private property rights in the United States. Thank you!”
– Dr. John. D. Graham, Dean of the School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana Univ.; former Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”), White House Office of Management and Budget
“The WORKING PAPER [Revitalizing the Information Quality Act as a Procedural Cure for Unsound Regulatory Science: A Greenhouse Gas Rulemaking Case Study] attorney Lawrence Kogan has produced on this subject matter is quite detailed and informative. It clearly conveys the IQA’s key concepts and explains how OMB guidance serves the public interest by endeavoring to protect a stakeholder’s right not to be burdened by poor quality government-disseminated scientific and technical data. The manuscript also focuses on what IQA opponents have seized upon as its major putative weakness – the statute’s failure to expressly provide for judicial review. As Mr. Kogan correctly states, while ‘[a]gencies and their allies may believe that requests for correction are beyond the scrutiny of the courts, … this is not a conviction that OMB – the agency Congress charged with the IQA’s implementation – necessarily shares.’ For this reason, a 2002 OMB memorandum admonished agencies against including within their own guidelines any statements that ‘suggest they are free to disregard their own guidelines,’ and statements disclaiming judicial enforceability, which ‘might not be controlling in the event of litigation.’ It is on this final point that the paper arguably makes the greatest to public understanding of the potential reach of the IQA. Although I am not a lawyer, I can fully appreciate the care he has taken in analyzing the IQA and PRA statutes and the relevant IQA, APA and constitutional jurisprudence to date. I agree with his conclusion that Congress did intend for courts to determine the reviewability of agency denials of RFCs [Requests for Correction] on a case-by-case factual basis.”