Administrator Jackson and the EPA and Strong Arm Tactics

In April 2009, the EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson signed a proposed endangerment and a cause or contributes findings for greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. If you will recall at the end of the comment period Alan Carlin and John Davidson of the US EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics detailed their concerns about the science underpinning the agency's "endangerment finding" for carbon dioxide. The two said the US EPA accepted findings reached by outside groups, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, "without a careful and critical examination of their own conclusions and documentation." The duo raised questions about what data if any that EPA had used to develop the proposed finding. The EPA dismissed these concerns and barred the two from working in this area in the future.

The hacked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) a collaborator with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the recent revelations from the IPCC provide support for the concerns of Alan Carlin and John Davidson. The US EPA is required to make its own evaluation of the underlying science not depend on the findings of others for its Endangerment Determination and must determine that greenhouse gases are harmful to human health based on the science. Phil Jones, the University of East Anglia scientist and a target of the e-mail hack, acknowledged that there hasn't been statistically significant climate warming since 1995; thought the carbon dioxide level has continued to rise. In an interview with the BBC, he said "the vast majority of climate scientists" do not believe the debate over climate change is settled. Mr. Jones continues to believe in global warming but acknowledges there's no consensus in the scientific community.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) purported to proclaim the final word on Climate Change in 2007, in a 3,000 page report that have been revealed to be less than scientific truth. The IPCC now admits that its prediction that the Himalayan glaciers might disappear by 2035 was a mistake, based on an inaccurate citation to the World Wildlife Foundation. This advocacy group was also the basis for a claim the IPCC has backed away from—that up to 40% of the Amazon is endangered. Now the IPCC has also backed away from the predicted impacts of climate change on agriculture in Africa. The IPCC report mistakenly doubled the percentage of the Netherlands currently below sea level to the dismay of the residents. John Christy, a former lead author of the IPCC report, now says the "temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change." As these fictions have been revealed, the top U.N. climate-change bureaucrat, Yvo de Boer, announced his resignation.

Although the EPA could have delayed until March the announcement of findings, they instead choose to announce their Endangerment Determination in the wake of the disclosure of emails hacked from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU). The emails released revealed some researchers willingness to suppress or massage data, hide weather data and rig the peer-review process to control the publication of scholarly work, the EPA dismissed any questions raised as a the “couple of naysayers,” deniers and dismissed them out of hand. The Endangerment Determination was a political decision and not a scientific finding. The Administration chose the first day of the United Nations global warming conference in Copenhagen as a way to signal full US acceptance of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change determinations. However, support for an accord had eroded and despite the President’s arrival at Copenhagen no accord was reached.

Rather than make an independent determination whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, the EPA made a political determination and in the process crushed two dedicated employees for the greater political good. Those kinds of actions should not happen in the United States. Administrator Jackson owes and apology to Alan Carlin and John Davidson and the American people. The true shame is that we should be paying attention to the carbon dioxide level in the atmospheres; w e remain ignorant of the true functioning of the climate system. Hiding and distorting data, dismissing other points of view as deniers is not how we will come to understand the climate system. The University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) should release the data to the scientific community to allow them to utilize what data we have to further our understanding of the climate system instead of pushing on political agenda. On Monday, the EPA announced that it would comply with the request from Kenneth Cuccinelli, Attorney General of Virginia and several other states to delay regulation of carbon dioxide from point sources. The endangerment determination should be reexamined in light of the recent disclosures.

The EPA Endangerment Determination

Back in April 2007, in a suit filed by Massachusetts against the US EPA the Supreme Court found that greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The case was brought to force the US EPA to determine whether or not emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision.

Two years later in April 2009, the EPA Administrator signed a proposed endangerment and a cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.  (That links to the draft of 2007 since the final was taken down. EPA held a 60-day public comment period, which ended June 23, 2009. If you will recall at the end of the comment period Alan Carlin and John Davidson of the US EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics detailed their concerns about the science underpinning the agency's "endangerment finding" for carbon dioxide. The two said the US EPA accepted findings reached by outside groups, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, "without a careful and critical examination of their own conclusions and documentation." They raise questions about data that EPA used to develop the proposed finding.

The EPA dismissed these concerns and barred the two from working in this area in the future. The hacked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) a collaborator with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reveals support for the concerns of Alan Carlin and John Davidson who said the EPA accepted findings reached by outside groups, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, "without a careful and critical examination of their own conclusions and documentation." More importantly, the US EPA is required to make its own evaluation of the underlying science not depend on the findings of others for its Endangerment Determination and must that greenhouse gases are harmful to human health.

Though these days when you say greenhouse gasses most people think carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse substances in the earth's atmosphere are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide represents less than 0.04% (386 parts per million) of the atmosphere and its increase over the past hundred years or so is no doubt due to man’s impact on earth. The other greenhouse gasses are methane (1.8 parts per million), nitrous oxide (0.3 parts per million), hydrofluocarbons (0.00025 parts per million), Perfluorocarbons (0.00086 parts per million), and sulfur hexafloride (0.000006 parts per million). Ozone is also a greenhouse gas, but is not part of the endangerment finding.

On December 7, 2009, EPA Administrator Jackson signed two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:
Endangerment Finding:

The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six
key well-mixed greenhouse gases--carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous
oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6)--in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of
current and future generations.

Cause or Contribute Finding:

The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed
greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines
contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and
welfare.

Administrator Jackson explained her decision "relied on decades of sound, peer-reviewed, extensively evaluated scientific data." The declaration has been expected for months, after the Obama administration said earlier this year that it would act on a 2007 Supreme Court decision that found carbon dioxide and five other so-called greenhouse gases are pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. To use that law to regulate greenhouse gases, the EPA has to prove those gases are harmful to human health. As Kim Strassel or the Wall Street Journal points out, The EPA must prove first that carbon dioxide will cause global warming and that a warmer earth will cause Americans injury or death. Given that most climate scientists admit that a warmer earth could provide "net benefits" to the West, this may not be possible to demonstrate.

Although the EPA could have delayed until March the announcement of findings, in picking this time the administration chose to signal the US’s dismissal of any questions raised by the disclosure of emails hack from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) a collaborator with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Though the emails released appear to reveal some researchers willingness to suppress or massage data and rig the peer-review process and control the publication of scholarly work, the Administration has dismissed any questions raised as a the “couple of naysayers,” deniers and dismissed them out of hand. The emails do raise new questions about how honest the peer-review process was. The Administration chose the first day of the United Nations global warming conference in Copenhagen as a way to signal full US acceptance of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change determinations and that President Obama wants to demonstrate to other nations that the U.S. is committed to cut its greenhouse gas emissions either through legislation or regulation.