The Senate Appropriations Committee is expected to vote this week on whether or not to undercut the EPA's intention to regulate greenhouse gasses. The specific wording of the amendment is not known, but support from both Republicans and moderate Democrats is likely to make it pass. While it should be under the purview of the legislature make such laws, of concern here is more the way it is being accomplished.
The Clean Air Act (PDF) is the responsibility of the EPA to administer. Section 202(a) of the act provides for the agency to classify new pollutants to be regulated based on studies done by the National Academy of Sciences, and also requires those findings to be submitted to the House. The House of Representatives is within its right to reject those findings. In fact, that was attempted back in June, and the motion failed.
Of concern is the wording of the specific motion. The motion rejected the finding that CO2 poses an endangerment and that there is a human cause or contribution to greenhouse gas levels. In essence, they're trying to rule on the validity of the science. They are saying they reject the National Academy of Sciences results and even reject the 2007 Supreme Court ruling that found carbon dioxide a pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. It seems that refuting all that data and analysis should require a bit more than a vote.
It would be one thing if the Congress changed the Clean Air Act to specifically exclude greenhouse gasses or if they changed the process by which new pollutants are identified. But that is not the tack being taken. The Senate is trying a similar end-around by hobbling an appropriations bill. Again, basically saying to the EPA they are thwarting their legal ability and obligations to use the best environmental science available to make policy.
There are certainly ample political reasons to sometimes ignore science. Fine. Say that. But discounting or demonizing science for political ends needs to stop. Science is not subject to legislation. It's one thing to make the case that we cannot afford to deal with greenhouse gasses right now. It's another entirely to claim greenhouse gasses are not putting us at risk.
Comments
I completely agree; it is frustrating to watch our legislators try to take big steps back in progress for the sake of letting our businesses pollute more.
I saw a fairly recent interview with Noam Chomsky (http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2010/09/war-crimes-in...) and he generally comes off as a bitter old man, as bitter old men are wont to do. However, he had one iron-clad point that I am going to repeat, often, to others:
"In the US, there is basically one party - the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies. By and large, I am opposed to those policies. As is most of the population." -Noam Chomsky
It was a clarion call to me, one I'd thought of before, but which seemed a bit too ludicrous to believe as a whole piece. The evidence is everywhere — look at the top 5 groups of political campaign contributors. They're the same groups of people for D & R, just in a slightly different order for each. (here's a very brief link, there is more at the source: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/industrybucks.htm)
? I think looking at the real science (not the cooked up IPCC garbage) is one of the first responsible things this administration has done to date. Maurice Strong and Al Gore using their political clout to promote bad science in the name of their business interests is atrocious. This article does a decent job of spinning the truth around, though.
Typical denier propaganda. The "real science" provides us with strong evidence that anthropogenic global warming is real, and happening. Stop listening to charlatans like the clowns at WUWT.
Ahhh...Ok, so that's why the AGW theory and the IPCC have been in a tailspin after Climategate. It must be because everyone is waking up and looking at the CRU's flawed scientific method and seeing various discrepancies, coverups, etc in the data. Denier propaganda? You may want to read a little more about the subject instead of drinking the cool-aid. Did you know that Maurice Strong and Al Gore (biggest AGW supporters) are greatly vested in the CCX? That's the carbon trading Wall Street, if you didn't know. Did you know that over half of the climate data stations are next to airports, parking lots and other paved surfaces? Did you know that the CRU reduced the amount of research stations from 4000 to 1200? Why would they do that if they wanted to learn more about climate research? It looks like they're hand picking their data to me and evidently, now, many others believe the same. Wake up, buddy.
Assuming that the science is complete B.S., as you would have everyone believe based on your post.
Please consider this:
EPA's power would be extremely limited in scope, if based solely on the authority granted from the CAAA (1990). i.e They would only have the power to regulate industry within the authority of the statute. Read the CAAA... what in it are you so against?
i dont know where to begin with this. what tailspin are you talking about, they are doing fine and the 'climategate' thing has been shown to be pure denier ignorance. of course you might know this if you followed the issues or, god forbid, looked in to them for yourself.
by 'climate data stations' you mean the temp tracking units? there is a vast amount of sources for data to track temp changes and even more sources that go into tracking the change in climates. of course the difference in those terms probably escapes you so there is no need to 'discuss' this with you further. fool.
"CO2 poses an endangerment"
Shouldn't that be simply 'danger'?
The Clean Air Act uses the term "endangerment" and so does the House motion. I preserved it so as not to be accused of using the scarier sounding "danger" or of distorting the facts. Otherwise, I agree with you.
I think if they are going to rely on a single-source for their science, they should not be able to veto it in such a haphazard way. On the other hand, it would be more scientifically sound to have multiple sources of data, especially if they truly want to find facts, rather than just paying lip-service to the science involved.
The National Academy (http://www.nationalacademies.org/) is a single source of science kind of like the NCAA is a single source of basketball.
Cooked Data and Scare Tactics. They ignored Europe's mini-ice age and custom picked their tree-ring data to the trees that most supported their hypothesis. Implement the IPCC's desired policies and the only think you'll ensure is the future need of welfare and unemployment as businesses go under.
Life will survive our disregard of Mother Earth. Maybe not mammalian life, but life nonetheless.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!