The undated and unsigned government memo, prepared by the White House Office of Management and Budget, said that the proposed finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare was not based on a systematic analysis of costs and benefits and fell short of scientific rigor on a number of issues.
E.P.A.’s Greenhouse Gas Proposal Critiqued
By John M. Broder
New York Times
May 12, 2009, 2:39 pm
The Environmental Protection Agency ignored major economic and scientific questions in its April proposal to regulate carbon dioxide and other climate-altering gases, according to an internal government critique.
The undated and unsigned government memo, prepared by the White House Office of Management and Budget, said that the proposed finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare was not based on a systematic analysis of costs and benefits and fell short of scientific rigor on a number of issues.
It also said that the E.P.A.’s proposal to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act would have “serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities.”
The document also raised questions about the E.P.A.’s inclusion of gases that are believed to contribute to global warming without proving that they have direct health effects.
The memo reflects views from unnamed officials within the government as part of an inter-agency review of the proposed regulation. Some of the objections mirror criticism of the proposed E.P.A. action from Republicans and business lobbies who say that the Clean Air Act is the wrong instrument to attack global warming and such regulation will have devastating effects on the economy.
Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming, waved the nine-page document at Lisa P. Jackson at a hearing of the Environment and Public Works committee this morning (see video above). He called it a “smoking gun” that proved the proposed finding was based on politics, not science.
“This misuse of the Clean Air Act will be a trigger for overwhelming regulation and lawsuits based on gases emitted from cars, schools, hospitals and small business,” Mr. Barrasso said. “This will affect any number of other sources, including lawn mowers, snowmobiles and farms. This will be a disaster for the small businesses that drive America.”
Ms. Jackson replied that she did not have the document in front of her but said the E.P.A. was obligated by the Supreme Court to decide whether greenhouse gases posed a danger to human health and the environment. She said much of the analysis behind the proposed finding had been done before she assumed office in January. She added that the comments reflect “people’s opinions” and were not binding on the agency.
She also repeated the Obama administration’s preference for a legislative solution based on a cap-and-trade program for heat-trapping gases to a regulatory scheme dictated by the E.P.A.
“We do understand there are costs to the economy of regulating greenhouse emissions,” she said.
Some environmentalists said the memo was an effort by anonymous bureaucrats to derail the proposed finding. Frank O’Donnell of Clean Air Watch said, “It is very clear from this that the Obama administration contains people who are trying to sabotage the administration’s climate strategy. It shows there are a lot of knives within the bowels of the bureaucracy.”
Scott Segal, a lobbyist for utilities, one of the industries that would be most heavily affected by the proposed rule said that the comments prepared by the White House budget office confirmed many of the industry’s objections to the E.P.A. process.
“In clear and concise analysis, the O.M.B. demonstrates that the agency may have cherry-picked public health literature and did no original research on the topic,” Mr. Segal said in a statement. “Further, the O.M.B. notes that the type of indirect health impact methodology used by E.P.A. could substantially expand E.P.A. regulatory authority in ways that may not have been contemplated when Congress wrote the applicable environmental statutes.”
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
New York Times story link |
