by Jim Tankersley
In ruling last month that greenhouse gases posed health and safety risks, the Environmental Protection Agency brushed aside a memo from other federal agency staffs warning that the move was "likely to have serious economic consequences" for small businesses and the economy overall, according to documents obtained today.
The EPA finding was considered an important step toward the Obama administration's goal of taking major new action against carbon dioxide and other emissions that scientists say contribute to global warming.
The EPA was not bound by the staff analysis, which administration officials said was at odds with White House policy, but which echoed concerns raised by many Republicans and industry groups.
The staff assessment, prepared under standard federal government policy, said the endangerment finding could open the doors to lawsuits that might end up forcing the government to impose restrictions on such unrelated subjects as electromagnetic fields and even noise pollution.
The review team that prepared the assessment said the basis for the EPA's statement that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare "overwhelmingly" because they contribute to global warming was "especially weak."
Predictions of devastating climate change are "accompanied by uncertainties so large that they potentially overwhelm the magnitude of the harm," the report contended.
By contrast, the EPA's final conclusion was that the evidence in support of its finding was "compelling and, indeed, overwhelming... the product of decades of research by thousands of scientists from the U.S. and around the world. The evidence points ineluctably to the conclusion that climate change is upon us as a result of greenhouse gas emissions, that climatic changes are already occurring that harm our health and welfare, and that the effects will only worsen over time in the absence of regulatory action."
The EPA finding could lead to broad new regulations that could affect cars, power plants, factories and other emitters of the heat-trapping gases scientists blame for global warming.
A 2007 Supreme Court decision ordered the EPA to review the scientific case for regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The Bush administration essentially ignored the decision; before taking office, President Obama vowed to address it quickly.
Obama has pushed Congress to pass legislation that would not only limit greenhouse gas emissions but force power plants, factories and other major sources of those gases to obtain permits to cover their emissions.
Last month, the EPA proposed its so-called "endangerment finding," which is currently in the middle of a 60-day public comment period before it can be finalized.
The staff warnings over the EPA's "endangerment" proposal stemmed from a standard review process. When federal agencies propose rules, other agencies typically have the opportunity to comment on them. The White House Office of Management and Budget compiles those comments into memos and line-by-line critiques of the draft rules.
This morning, lobbyists began circulating an interagency critique of the proposed EPA rule around Washington.
The documents question the economic costs of regulating carbon dioxide emissions and raise concerns that the data supporting the EPA findings are based almost entirely on health research not conducted by the agency itself.
They also suggest the EPA rule could lead to a "relaxed and expansive new standard" for Clean Air Act regulations, warning that "EPA would be petitioned to find endangerment and regulate many other "pollutants" for the sake of the precautionary principle (e.g., electromagnetic fields, perchlorates, endocrine disruptors, and noise)."
One note directly criticized the EPA's finding that greenhouse gases "may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare due overwhelmingly to the effects of climate change."
"Obviously in forecasting any future event the degree of uncertainty is greater the farther out one is from the prediction, and acknowledging this is not an indication that inaction is the appropriate course of action. However, high degrees of uncertainty should never be the basis for strong findings, such as that GHGs 'overwhelmingly' endanger health and welfare," the note said.
Industry groups seized on the memos to renew their criticism of the EPA decision.
Scott Segal, an energy lobbyist for Bracewell & Giuliani in Washington, said in a statement that the memos show the EPA "may have cherry-picked public health literature" to support its endangerment finding, and that its rulings "could substantially expand EPA regulatory authority" in ways Congress never intended.
Environmentalists called the memos a "direct attack" on the EPA decision from federal bureaucrats.
"It is very clear from this that the Obama administration contains people who are trying to sabotage the administration's climate strategy," Frank O'Donnell, the president of Clean Air Watch, said in an e-mail.
The EPA appears to have modified several parts of its draft rule in response to the critiques, most notably by adding sections that predict warming temperatures could bring some benefits to parts of the United States.
"Like we would in any process," EPA press secretary Adora Andy said this morning, "we take these comments under advisement."
Comments
Jobs are overrated. Save the polar bears! Everyone knows that recent cooling in global temperature is the result of global warming. Years previous, the increase in global temps were the result of global warming. Ask celebs; they know!
Posted by: ObamabotsACTIVATE | May 12, 2009 3:17 PM
Look, whether green house gases cause global warming, climate change or Rush Lambagh to take more pills the bottom line is that Green House gases DO cause serious health issues for everyone around the world! Green House gases are caused by burning fossil fuels not farting for gods sake! We have to do something now and stop procrastinating around whether Global Warming and Climate Change (which are two completely different meanings by the way) is caused by man or not and move our asses towards a cleaner better and safer world around us. I know this is a bit too much to ask and expect from you right wing dinosaurs but the rest of the country and the world want to move forward not backwards
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | May 12, 2009 3:18 PM
The AP got this story wrong---many of the comments came from Republican Senators...
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-05-12-omb-epa-endangerment-finding
Posted by: Gary Grist | May 12, 2009 3:47 PM
"...Global Warming and Climate Change (which are two completely different meanings by the way..." Scott
Only because it isn't getting hot enough. LOL.
Do your part - hold your breath!
Posted by: Kathy | May 12, 2009 3:50 PM
Proof that Homer Simpson is a Republican:
"See in Texas we got rid of the enviroment and we've been better off since"
- Homer Simpson
Posted by: Elephant Herder | May 12, 2009 4:51 PM
Jobs are overrated. Save the polar bears! Everyone knows that recent cooling in global temperature is the result of global warming. Years previous, the increase in global temps were the result of global warming. Ask celebs; they know!
Posted by: ObamabotsACTIVATE | May 12, 2009 3:17 PM
**************
Teresa,
I get a kick out of knuckle-dragging Republicans like you.
Your heroes in BushCo not only destroyed the environment, you also destroyed the economy.
It's going to take years to fix up all of the f-ups that you clowns made when you were in charge of things.
Posted by: party gal | May 12, 2009 4:55 PM
Do your part - hold your breath!
Posted by: Kathy | May 12, 2009 3:50 PM
**********************
"Kathys" so environmentally conscious, she's been holding her own breath for about a year now. What you see here is the result. Some call it brain damage. I call it Republicanism.
Posted by: PalinbotsACTIVATE!....please? | May 12, 2009 5:03 PM
Party On: I know. The Bush-Cheney-Rove Hurricane Machine nearly destroyed New Orleans. Thank goodness you shut it down in time.
Once the earth's temperature stopped rising and actually began to cool, Global Warming Alarmists, the Fanatical Media, celebs, and Algore quickly revised the playbook as well as the name: Global Climate Change! Kyoto or Bust!
Posted by: ObamabotsACTIVATE | May 12, 2009 8:55 PM
The review team that prepared the assessment said the basis for the EPA's statement that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare "overwhelmingly" because they contribute to global warming was "especially weak." ~ J.T.
-----------------------------------
Shocking, Absolutely Shocking. If you have to quote Django, let's git it rite. "Lame" is what it is. It is "Especially Lame". No self-respecting scientist, sans agenda, can truly believe this Wrought-With-Fraud hypothesis. The whole CO2-Temperature relationship as propagated by the GW snake oil charlatans is a**-backwards. Thank you and chill on the plagiarizing.
Posted by: Django - N Exile In/Around the 30th Parallel | May 13, 2009 1:10 AM
I don't agree with the EPA's politick-science and would like to know what "public comment" the author is referring to. I have prepared comments for some time after publishing my DVD about AGW and would like to put them in the public record as part of the "public comment". EPA has many "public comments" including one from 7/08 on GHG emissions and one referenced in April described one issued in MARCH for which the comment period is apparently closed http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46186
Posted by: William A. Hoffman III, Ph.D. | May 13, 2009 5:59 PM
Following on to my previous post, the comment period is not over. Here is the link to EPA, and their tendentious Summary and proposal of finding http://www.epa.gov/EPA-AIR/2009/April/Day-24/a9339.htm
Public comment includes anyone. All comments will be included in the public docket. Sounds like some others here do not see a basis for her proposed finding, so write to the address shown at the link, keep it direct and factual, and civil. According to the linked information, even previously submitted comments must be resubmitted; apparently this is the one that counts.
Posted by: William A. Hoffman III, Ph.D. | May 13, 2009 7:18 PM
Co2 "is" the green gas, without out Co2 the planet would turn brown. The minimal ppm is some where around 200 ppm where plants begin to die of starvation. The upper safe limit for humans is 5000 ppm (mining safety standard). Plant life flourishes above 1000 ppm and as a rusult of satisfying their Carbon appetite, the pores close and conserve water. http://www.purgit.com/co2ok.html
The construction of buildings removes carbon and sequesters it in Concrete (calcium carbonate) and wood. It is imperative that we continue to burn (recycle) fosil fuel to replenish the atmosphere just to stay relatively even. If we burned all the fosil fuel available as fast as we could we would run out before ever causing Global Warming.
Posted by: ThomMoses | May 13, 2009 8:26 PM
"In higher animals, the carbon dioxide travels in the blood from the body's tissues to the lungs where it is exhaled"
Everyone, hold your breath. Flatliners, never mind, the quote is for higher animlas
Posted by: Terry | May 13, 2009 10:35 PM
"Your heroes in BushCo not only destroyed the environment, you also destroyed the economy."
I wish people would stop stupidly equating people that don’t believe the hoax of global warming to not wanting a clean environment.
The first Earth Day was back in the ‘70s when scientists and the press were saying the Earth was cooling. Pollution and the environment were important issues then and are important issues to people today that believe the rise in global temps can be explained by increased solar activity.
It is a scientific fact, not theory, there have been many periods of cooling and warming throughout the history of the Earth, Many of these periods occurred when there were no humans on Earth.
Not believing the ‘theory’ of global warming does not make someone pro-pollution, or anti-environment.
It is a scientific fact global warming fools are too stupid to realize that no matter how many lights are turned off, no matter how much you tax people to force them to use less energy, and no matter how many manufacturing jobs you destroy in the name of the environment, you won’t lower the temperature of the Sun one bit.
Posted by: Global Warming is still Caused by the Sun | May 15, 2009 9:58 AM