iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

EPA Pushes Back Against Report Alleging Agency Cut Corners On Climate Finding

Epa

First Posted: 09/28/11 07:22 PM ET Updated: 11/28/11 05:12 AM ET

WASHINGTON -- The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday pushed back against an inspector general report alleging the White House cut corners in concluding that greenhouse gasses pose a threat to human health, a finding that helped form the legal basis for the EPA's climate change regulations.

“The report does not question or even address the science used or the conclusions reached — by the EPA under this and the previous administration — that greenhouse gas pollution pose a threat to the health and welfare of the American people," said EPA in a statement on Wednesday. "Instead, the report is focused on questions of process and procedure."

The investigation, requested by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), set aside the science behind the EPA's conclusion that greenhouse gases threaten humans, instead probing whether the EPA should have engaged in a more thorough process of review before reaching its conclusion. Specifically at issue is whether the EPA followed the necessary procedures for reviewing scientific material, as required under White House Office of Management and Budget guidelines.

"While it may be debatable what impact, if any, this had on EPA's finding, it is clear that EPA did not follow all the required steps," Inspector Arthur A. Elkins, Jr. said in a Wednesday statement. Neither the EPA nor OMB support the inspector general's claim.

The EPA said in a Wednesday statement that the agency "undertook a thorough and deliberate process in the development of this finding, including a careful review of the wide range of peer-reviewed science."

"Since EPA finalized the endangerment finding in December of 2009, the vast body of peer reviewed science that EPA relied on to make its determination has undergone further examination by a wide range of independent scientific bodies," the statement continued. "All of those reviews have upheld the validity of the science."

Even though the report focused on procedure and not science, it may provide ammunition for climate deniers like Inhofe, who said in a statement Wednesday that the inspector general's report showed "the very foundation of President Obama's job-destroying agenda was rushed, biased and flawed."

Environmentalists were quick to join the regulatory agency in striking back against opponents of emissions controls like Inhofe.

“The EPA Inspector General in no way questions the science underlying the endangerment finding," said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee. "It is time to move on to protect the American people from the impacts of climate change, which we are already beginning to see.”

The report comes just two days after a Daily Caller reporter erroneously reported that in phasing in carbon emissions regulations, the EPA was looking to vastly expand its power, "asking taxpayers to fund up to 230,000 new government workers."

The story seemed wrong -- there are only 17,000 employees at EPA, for starters -- and it was. Yet Daily Caller editor David Martosko is defending it, not because it the numbers are at all accurate, but because he thinks it plays into a compelling narrative, and one that's likely to appeal to opponents of the EPA's greenhouse gas regulations.

"The EPA is well-known for expanding its reach, especially regarding greenhouse gas emissions. What's 'comically wrong' is the idea that half of Washington won't admit it. The EPA's own court filing speaks volumes," Martosko said in an email.

"What's more likely: that the Obama administration's EPA wants to limit its own power, or that it's interested in dramatically increasing its reach and budget? Anyone who has spent more than a few months in Washington knows the answer."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

WASHINGTON -- The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday pushed back against an inspector general report alleging the White House cut corners in concluding that greenhouse gasses pose a threat t...
WASHINGTON -- The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday pushed back against an inspector general report alleging the White House cut corners in concluding that greenhouse gasses pose a threat t...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 403
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:24 AM on 10/01/2011
inhofe is a poster child for fossil fuel fas*cism......
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
canuckhoser
Don't mind the man behind the curtain
01:06 AM on 10/01/2011
There really needs to be a book compiling the irrational hysteria the right pumps out on a weekly basis. It would be epic in scope and size, but continually throwing a 100 balls up in the air hoping one sticks is starting to wear even the most ardent person pushing back against all this white noise...Maybe publish it as a companion book to the Darwin Awards each year...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:25 AM on 10/01/2011
Carlin sure thinks so

http://www.carlineconomics.com/
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:30 PM on 09/30/2011
inhofe and his brother split their father's inheritance and then after inhofe had blown his half including defrauding insurance policy holders and his brother prospered his half inhofe sued his brother for half of his also !!!!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:17 PM on 10/02/2011
sources?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
vetxcl
08:24 PM on 09/30/2011
It's the oil, natural gas and coal industries that have way too much influence in DC. Anything the EPA does, irregardless of whether every i is dotted and every t crossed, is just fine with me.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
vetxcl
08:22 PM on 09/30/2011
Sen Inhuffnpuff again is on the attack against clean air, water and soil. It's a repeating theme with him. This is the same arrogant know-nothing that encourages doubt and dissention about climate change/global warming. Typical RepugnantCON tactics here. The ends justify the means to a CON like him. He's out to find fault and hamstring the EPA anyway he can.
08:18 PM on 09/30/2011
As soon as I see James Inhofe's name associated with anything about global warming, I immediately don't believe it. He is totally owned by the oil industry and therefore will not use his God-given brain to actually study the issue of global warming and evaluate the multitudes of data which provide more than ample evidence that global warming is occurring. When it's money vs. environment, money almost always wins.
foresure
Brash and Harsh
12:54 AM on 09/30/2011
Yes, of course the scientific conclusions were correct.

But, really, why didn't the EPA understand that they had extremely politically sensitive work to do, and therefore had to be super meticulous in how they went about their work?

We do not accept "junk" reports from the SEC, so why should be be kind when the EPA falls below the highest standards?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrisd3
Excelsior!
08:11 AM on 09/30/2011
Perhaps, but it seems to me that the first two sentences of the IG's report say it all:

"EPA met statutory requirements and generally followed requirements and guidance related to ensuring the quality of the supporting technical information. Whether EPA's review of its endangerment finding TSD met Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requirements for peer review depends on whether the TSD is considered a highly influential scientific assessment."

EPA doesn't think it's a "highly influential scientific assessment," and I agree with that. It's really nothing more than a review of the state of climate science and the weight of scientific opinion on climate. It wasn't intended to change anyone's mind about climate science or to present any new evidence. And the underlying science was peer-reviewed.

Furthermore, EPA -DID- conduct a review as required. The IG is upset not because it wasn't done but because it wasn't publicly reported, and because 1 of the 12 reviewers was an employee. I dunno, this strikes me as nitpicking. Certainly Inhofe has blown it all out f proportion (what a shock).

I hear what you're saying, and I do wish that the EPA had taken the extra small step that would have allowed the IG to say "The TSD is fine," since that would have left no wiggle room for people like Inhofe. But I have NO difficulty viewing this as a difference of opinion, and I certainly wouldn't consider the TSD to be "junk."
foresure
Brash and Harsh
12:53 PM on 09/30/2011
chris3

Thank you for your intelligent and useful reply. You are clearly correct in your thinking, including my use of the word "junk". I meant it only to mean that all independent agencies owe the public the very highest standards of work. For the very reason you mention, so evil doers life Infhofe can't find anything to work with.

Actually, this may be an example of the government working as it is supposed to. The I.G. is supposed to be the strict nitpicker of the agency.

If it results in better work from the EPA, then, by accident, Inhofe has helped the agency.

Fanned.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robco1
12:02 PM on 09/30/2011
When the agents of a wealthy and powerful industry are spending any and all expense to attack your work, eventually they will find an un-dotted i or uncrossed t. That Inhofe is behind this should come as no surprise. And considering his record of playing fast and loose with the truth, it would also not surprise me that this IG report turns out to have the stink of oil on it.

What does surprise me is why congress has not called for an investigation of Inhofe's plagiarized and falsified Wegman Report, or that Willie Soon has not been tried for lying to congress about his funding from fossil fuel interests when he shilled for them before congress. Those are felonies, committed in an act of fraud.
foresure
Brash and Harsh
01:00 PM on 09/30/2011
Robco1

I think chrisd3, above, has answered both of us.

I have no idea what you are talking about in the second paragraph. I would like to learn more. Please explain.

The bigggest sin I have seen regarding the EPA, is President Obama's overriding of that INDEPENDENT AGENCY to placate the interests of polluters.
photo
ibsteve2u
Someone who cares - to his unending regret
02:35 PM on 09/29/2011
I would observe that Inhofe doesn't strike me as the kind of individual who would take a political risk such as possibly receiving IG confirmation of EPA conclusions unless he knew in advance what he would receive - and knew in advance that he could rely upon the results backing his political position up.

Like some kind of telepathy, or something.
01:55 PM on 09/29/2011
would someone who cares about the field of science (which i have a deep respect for) PLEASE take back and restore its good name before it is rendered completely illegitimate.
photo
CivilDebate10
Low Info People = Statism's Best Friends
02:23 PM on 09/29/2011
I agree. Tell that to the left wing loonies who are opposing the Keystone Pipeline while ignoring the science that says it is no risk to the aquifer.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
canuckhoser
Don't mind the man behind the curtain
02:40 PM on 09/29/2011
Bald faced l_ie
ubrew12
that crazy uncle from Amarcord
04:33 PM on 09/29/2011
Just generally, when you find yourself carting the worlds dirtiest oil across country to be cleaned in Texas, maybe its time to underwrite your civilization with another source of power.

Coal: they're blowing the tops off mountains now to get what's left.
Nat Gas: they're breaking apart the crust under our feet to get what's left.
Oil: they're drilling in the newly ice-free Arctic ocean to get what's left.

Maybe its time to move on.
10:55 PM on 09/29/2011
Well, I'm a scientist, and I think it's doing just fine.

The problem is, you're listening to a loud disinformation campaign which is smearing science. Academic science is just about the least corrupt enterprise on the planet. The oil and coal industries, and their handmaidens in the right wing echo chamber -- perhaps not so much.
04:42 PM on 10/01/2011
ACTUAL science is doing just fine. The good name of the profession has been hacked and its value is compromised as a result. Professional associations and the like usually engender certain ethics and what David Michaels (Doubt is Their Product) refers to as the product defense industry seems to have no qualms doing science in bad faith. There are many potential consequences of this bad faith science and the political fallout is just one, but one that I think is particularly dangerous.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rshrink
01:19 PM on 09/29/2011
Here is a quote just about the deaths. This does not take into account the number of people who are having chronic and acute health issues related to fossil fuel usage, the cost of that and the cost of reduced productivity because of the health problems.

"Photo from the Climatic Research Unit The 700 to 800 deaths which study author Mark Jacobson, a Civil and Environmental Engineering Professor at Stanford, attributed to carbon dioxide pollution were lung and heart ailments linked to polluting particles and ozone in the air, themselves generally thought to be the result of human produced CO2.

Jacobson also predicted a rise in carbon dioxide pollution related deaths as the world’s carbon emissions continue to rise. A death toll of 1000 people per year in the US due to carbon dioxide pollution is predicted if global temperatures rise 1.8°F. Jacobson said the worldwide death toll would be over 20,000 should the planet reach that temperature, which is predicted within 100 years by some climate change scientists."

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/carbon-dioxide-might-cause-deaths/670
photo
CivilDebate10
Low Info People = Statism's Best Friends
01:15 PM on 09/29/2011
All of this needs to be examined. It is clear that this administration now uses environmental "crises" as an excuse to take more control over our lives and to dish out massive loans to the politically connected. Just today, over $700 million was provided to Nancy Pelosi's brother in law..... yeah, I'm sure that was just a coincidence......
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rshrink
01:21 PM on 09/29/2011
What for?
photo
TheEmptyMonty
President of Antarctica
01:26 PM on 09/29/2011
Climate science has been around about 184 years longer than the Obama administration.

By the way, how exactly does this have anything to do with control over your life?
photo
CivilDebate10
Low Info People = Statism's Best Friends
02:20 PM on 09/29/2011
Wow, you have no clue. A carbon tax would affect every part of our lives. Current regulations affect the type of toilet we have, car we drive, light bulb we use, cost of manufacturing items, etc etc etc.
01:10 PM on 09/29/2011
Inhofe is liar
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lambdin1
What's this?
01:08 PM on 09/29/2011
Wouldn't you know that a Republican Senator, Inhofe, is involved! It is known that Republicans and their supporters will try and make hay out of something.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
labrown
Studio Musican/Composer