rushmc 23 #1 May 13, 2009 Go figure!!! Quote Obama Admin. Memo: EPA Climate Science is Shaky Wednesday, May 13, 2009 8:48 AM By: Tom LoBianco, The Washington Times Article Font Size A memo released Tuesday shows an agency within the Obama administration objected to a landmark Environmental Protection Agency ruling on global warming, arguing that it was not based on sound science and could prove costly to businesses. The dispute concerns the EPA's so-called "endangerment finding," in which the agency has tentatively found carbon dioxide is dangerous enough as a greenhouse gas to warrant regulation under the Clean Air Act - a ruling that could force federal action to address climate change even if Congress fails to act. Critics, including some within the administration, argue that the Clean Air Act is not an appropriate vehicle to deal with climate change and say the finding sets the stage for harmful regulations on businesses and industry. Republicans seized upon the memo as evidence that President Obama has broken his pledge to follow science rather than politics in making policy. But an administration official said the objection came from a single office that is headed by a Bush administration holdover. Sen. John Barrasso, Wyoming Republican, revealed the memo at a Senate hearing where he waving a copy at EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. "It's here, nine pages. This is a smoking gun," he said. The memo has comments from several federal agencies that reviewed the EPA's decision. It includes a complaint that the EPA's finding "rests heavily on the precautionary principle, but the amount of acknowledged lack of understanding about basic facts surrounding [greenhouse gases] seem to stretch the precautionary principle to providing for regulation in the face of unprecedented uncertainty." The White House defended the science EPA used and denied there was a policy split within the administration. The comments were compiled by the White House Office of Management and Budget as part of a standard interagency review process, and OMB Director Peter R. Orszag said that OMB agreed with EPA's initial finding. "The bottom line is that OMB would have not concluded [the] review, which allows the finding to move forward, if we had concerns about whether EPA's finding was consistent with either the law or the underlying science," he wrote. An administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the internal review process, said the comments challenging the science came from a single office, the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy. The office, an independent arm of the administration whose current chief was named by President George W. Bush, is charged with looking out for small-business interests as the federal government writes rules and regulations. Still, Republicans said the memo exposed a rift inside the administration. "The disclosure of this OMB memo suggests that a political decision was made to put special interests ahead of middle-class families and small businesses struggling in this recession," said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican. "It is unacceptable that this critical information was withheld and the regulatory process was abused in this fashion." At the hearing, before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Mrs. Jackson disputed Mr. Barrasso's characterizations, saying the EPA finding had been drafted under the Bush administration but held under lock and key until Mr. Obama took the White House. She said she reviewed and approved the finding. She also said the finding doesn't guarantee carbon dioxide would be capped under the Clean Air Act. "It does not mean regulation," Mrs. Jackson said. "I have said over and over, as has the president, that we do understand that there are costs to the economy of addressing global warming emissions and the best way to address them is through a gradual move to a market-based program like cap-and-trade." The cap-and-trade proposal would set an overall ceiling for greenhouse-gas emissions and allow businesses and other polluters to trade emission permits under the cap. An EPA spokeswoman said Mrs. Jackson would consider the dissenting views from within the administration when drafting a final "endangerment finding." "As we do with any proposed rule, EPA takes these interagency comments under advisement," said EPA spokeswoman Adora Andy. In making the initial finding, EPA acted in accordance with a court order, which said the agency must determine whether carbon dioxide was dangerous enough to deserve regulation under the Clean Air Act. The Obama administration has walked a fine line with the finding - playing down its potential for regulating carbon dioxide while supporters have heralded it as a backup plan should climate legislation fail. Mr. Obama's team has consistently said EPA regulations would be a dull tool and prefers that Congress come up with a solution. House lawmakers are weighing a plan to address climate change through the "cap-and-trade" system, but the proposal is facing early opposition in a House committee. The memo was first reported by Dow Jones Newswire, and the intra-administration dispute could give opponents ammunition for a legal challenge to EPA's finding. © 2009 Washington Times Copyright 2009 All Rights Reserved "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #2 May 13, 2009 Let me get this straight. This memo from a single agency, whose motives are to make sure there is as little regulation as possible, is a sign of a split within the administration? It's not bad for agencies to have diverging purposes and viewpoints -- if they were all the same, it'd be pretty stupid to have so many agencies, wouldn't it? It's good that the opinions are being aired. But I think that the current administration is going to go down an environmental protection path. Currently I'm more concerned about how far they're going down the "control business for America's sake" path. Mistakes we make in over-controlling the environment can have bad economic consequences, but the problems arising from that are less likely to be permanent than the problems arising from bad environmental decisions. At least in my 3 minutes' worth of analysis. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #3 May 13, 2009 Hmm. Looks like Obama is listening to both sides! Horrors! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #4 May 13, 2009 QuoteHmm. Looks like Obama is listening to both sides! Horrors! At least he is!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #5 May 13, 2009 QuoteLet me get this straight. This memo from a single agency, whose motives are to make sure there is as little regulation as possible, is a sign of a split within the administration? It's not bad for agencies to have diverging purposes and viewpoints -- if they were all the same, it'd be pretty stupid to have so many agencies, wouldn't it? It's good that the opinions are being aired. But I think that the current administration is going to go down an environmental protection path. Currently I'm more concerned about how far they're going down the "control business for America's sake" path. Mistakes we make in over-controlling the environment can have bad economic consequences, but the problems arising from that are less likely to be permanent than the problems arising from bad environmental decisions. At least in my 3 minutes' worth of analysis. Wendy P. Bad science, shaky science. the keys IMO It is what the "deniers" had pointed to all along."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #6 May 13, 2009 QuoteBad science, shaky science.A business entity is probably not the best possible source of evaluation. Their evaluation of the impact and cost of something should be taken into account, but their evaluation of the basic science is probably less reliable than that of real scientists. Note the "s" in there -- more than one scientist is required for a consensus, preponderance, or even a majority. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #7 May 13, 2009 Here's a link to the memo. http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?objectId=0900006480965abd&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf Here are some of my comments: The memo doesn't knock the underlying science. The memo indicates that the conclusions that the EPA Administrator reached could not be justified by the NPRM. The memo, in general, provides holes that the OMB wants to be filled. Here's an interesting section from me - on Page 2: QuoteIn the absence of a strong statement of the standards being applied in this decision, there is a concern that EPA is making a finding based on (1) "harm" from substances that have no demonstrated direct health effects, such as respiratory or toxic effects, (2) available scientific data that purports to conclusively establish the nature and extent of the adverse public health and welfare impacts are almost exclusively from non-EPA sources, and (3) applying a dramatically expanded precautionary principle. If EPA goes forward with a finding of endangerment for all 6 GHGs, it could be establishing a relaxed and expansive new standard for endangerment. Subsequently, 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). The OMB is saying that there is not an idea of the standards being used. The standards for the determination must be clearly laid out and the evidence and factors shown in order to come to the determination. Otherwise, they are pulling this out of their asses. It also says that if the standard is relaxed, then the EPA will be asked to regulate all kinds of new things. Fuindamentally, this memo is saying, "Explain yourselves better. This is what we need to see to make this solid." It also questions the reasoning for lumping the pollutants together. Fundamentally, this explains why the move might not withstand scrutiny. Specifically, the section about "the finding rests heavily on the precautionary principle" was specifically intended to discuss that the reader cannot determine with certainty how the Administrator made her decision. Ruight below it says: QuoteThis could be remedied by expanding the discussion on pp. 25-31 to articulate more clearly how the Administrator weighed the scientific evidence related to each impact or how/whether she gave more or less weight to particular impacts for either the public health or the welfare finding and how she weighed uncertainty in her deliberations. The memo just says that she should explain herself much better and more clearly. The reasoning in relation to existing standards isn't there and the OMB wants to see more reasoning behind it. (Note also that the OMB has it's worrries - how the eefects of thsi rule can screw with revenues. The OMB said: QuoteMaking the decision to regulate CO2 under the CAA for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities. So the OMB has its issues mainly relating to economic slowdowns making their job much more difficult. And they've got a point - there should be some cost-benefit analysis with the endangermnent doctrine. As a denier, I still think that criticism of this memo is misdirected. The OMB memo addresses serious issues of failing to demonstrate the reasoning of the conclusions. Yes, leaving out the science. So the question is whether the scientific explanations were left out due to laziness, oversight, or inability to provide a reasonable explanation for regulating these gases under the rules that the Administrator desires. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #8 May 13, 2009 QuoteMistakes we make in over-controlling the environment can have bad economic consequences, but the problems arising from that are less likely to be permanent than the problems arising from bad environmental decisions. The memo points out that if endangerment is the reason, then a cost-benefit analysis should be performed that includes the economic possibilities. I think that this is valid. I further think that the OMB did something good for the EPA - it laid a roadmap for the EPA Administrator to make this regulation more solid. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #9 May 13, 2009 QuoteThe memo points out that if endangerment is the reason, then a cost-benefit analysis should be performed that includes the economic possibilities. I think that this is valid. It is valid if the discussion is about policy. It is not valid if the discussion is about science.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #10 May 13, 2009 Seeing as how this is about the EPA taking the policy position to regulate, I'd call that policy. So this isn't about science. The OMB is saying that there are requirements that are not being met. They are saying that based upon what the EPA it going to invoke science to regulate something under a rule, it better explain the science and how the rule let's it regulate. This is policy. I didn't see anything in the memo saying the underlying science is invalid. Just that the EPA did not explain how the science allows them to invole jurisdiction. Yeah - policy. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #11 May 13, 2009 QuoteSeeing as how this is about the EPA taking the policy position to regulate, I'd call that policy. Agreed. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites