EPA determined in December 2009 that climate change caused by emissions of greenhouse gases threatens the public’s health and the environment. Since then, EPA received ten petitions challenging this determination. On July 29, 2010, EPA denied these petitions.
The petitions to reconsider EPA’s “Endangerment Finding” claimed that climate science can’t be trusted, and asserted a conspiracy that calls into question the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) , the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program. After months of serious consideration of the petitions and of the state of climate change science, EPA found no evidence to support these claims.
The scientific evidence supporting EPA’s finding is robust, voluminous, and compelling. Climate change is happening now, and humans are contributing to it. Multiple lines of evidence show a global warming trend over the past 100 years. Beyond this, melting ice in the Arctic, melting glaciers around the world, increasing ocean temperatures, rising sea levels, altered precipitation patterns, and shifting patterns of ecosystems and wildlife habitats all confirm that our climate is changing.
That’s the EPA today in its “Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration of the Endangerment.” See, there can be science-based denial after all! Nick Sundt has a good post on this, reprinted below:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today (29 July 2010) denied petitions challenging the scientific basis of its finding in December 2009 that greenhouse gases (GHGs) endanger the health and welfare of Americans. The EPA said the science was strong when it issued its finding late last year, and that it has “been reinforced by recent additional major science assessments and individual studies.” The agency announced its decision just a day after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released State of the Climate in 2009 , adding to the growing mountain of evidence that climate change is underway (see In “State of the Climate” Report, Scientists from All Continents Confirm that Climate Change is Underway ).
“The EPA’s response to the petitions is the strongest and most detailed rebuttal by the U.S. Government of specific arguments levied against climate change science – and scientists – since late 2009. We applaud the administration for taking on the denialists head on and clearly conveying the urgency of acting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and preparing ourselves immediately for the disruptive and potentially catastrophic consequences of climate change,” said Keya Chatterjee, acting Director of WWF’s Climate Change Program.
Immediately after the EPA issued its Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (its “Endangerment Finding”) on 7 December (see U.S. EPA: Greenhouse Gases “Threaten the Public Health and Welfare of the American People,” 7 Dec 2009), climate change denialists filed petitions requesting that EPA reconsider its finding. The EPA received petitions from the Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Commonwealth of Virginia (see our posting, Virginia Researchers and Planners Warn of Climate Change Impacts on Coastal Areas, As Attorney General Challenges the Science, 23 Feb 2010), Competitive Enterprise Institute, Ohio Coal Association, Pacific Legal Foundation, Peabody Energy Company, Southeastern Legal Foundation, State of Texas, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and one private citizen.
According to the EPA, the petitioners “argued that the science underlying EPA’s determination is flawed or that the review process has been corrupted.” The agency formally announced today that it found “that the evidence provided does not support these claims.”
Here are a few highlights of the decision, as summarized in a fact sheet [PDF] issued by EPA today. References to the CRU are to the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom:
- “Petitioners questioned the reliability of the global temperature record and the finding that observed recent warming is unusual and based on increasing levels of greenhouse gases. However, three global temperature records””including CRU’s””indicate increasing temperatures, and there are other lines of evidence, such as rising sea levels, linking recent global warming to human activities. Petitioners’ criticisms of the CRU record are unfounded and speculative. “
- “Petitioners asserted that warming has slowed or stopped over the last decade, contrary to scientists’ expectations, and in spite of increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In reality, the last decade was warmer than the previous decade, and warming has not stopped. Climate change is a long-term phenomenon, unlike day-to-day variations in weather. Thus, climate change trends should be discussed over the long term, as opposed to on a year-by-year or even a decade-by-decade basis.”
- “Petitioners claim that new studies not previously considered contradict key conclusions in the Endangerment Finding. EPA examined each of these new studies and documented that they neither undermine the key scientific findings nor change the scientific basis for the Endangerment Finding.”
- “Petitioners claimed that recently found and alleged errors in IPCC’s [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] Fourth Assessment Report undermine IPCC’s credibility, and by extension, EPA’s use of the report as a reference document. EPA has carefully reviewed each of the alleged errors. Collectively, they are minor and have no bearing on the Endangerment Finding, are not relied on by EPA to support the Finding, or are actually not errors. The very few factual errors in a document the size of IPCC’s 3,000-page Fourth Assessment Report do not substantiate petitioners’ claim that IPCC science, as a whole, is not credible.“
- “Petitioners asserted that the IPCC has a policy agenda and is not an objective scientific body. EPA finds that this assertion is not backed up by credible evidence. The Agency has carefully examined the extensive process used by IPCC as well as the U.S. government’s approach to approving IPCC documents, and found that they are well grounded and based on science rather than policy considerations.“
- “Petitioners claimed that the scientific assessments of the U.S. Global Change Research Program and the National Academy of Sciences are not separate and independent assessments from IPCC. This is not correct. Each of these organizations is separately administered and relies on its own scientific processes and collaborating scientists. That similar and consistent conclusions are reached by each body does not substantiate the petitioners’ claim. To the contrary, when independent institutions reach similar findings, it strengthens confidence in those findings.“
- “Petitioners asserted that improper data sharing, peer review, and editorial practices biased the underlying scientific literature used by the major assessments. EPA finds that this assertion of an extensive, concerted effort to manipulate peer-reviewed literature is unsupported. The CRU e-mails, for example, show a small group of scientists privately discussing their scientific views of a handful of papers. The petitioners raised concerns that certain research papers were kept out of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, but these concerns are unfounded; the papers did appear in the IPCC assessment.”
- “Several independent committees have examined many of the same allegations brought forward by the petitioners as a result of the disclosure of the private CRU e-mails. Their conclusions are consistent with EPA’s review and analysis. The independent inquiries have found no evidence of intentional data manipulation on the part of the climate researchers associated with the e-mails.“
Congressional Efforts to Obstruct EPA’s Ability to Protect Americans’ Health and Welfare Under the Clean Air Act
As EPA was considering the petitions challenging its endangerment finding, some in Congress have sought to obstruct EPA through legislation. On 10 June the Senate debated and defeated S.J.Res.26 (Murkowski Resolution), a resolution that would have effectively vetoed EPA’s endangerment finding. Russell Train, WWF’s Founder and Chairman Emeritus, and EPA administrator during the Nixon and Ford administrations responded at the time:
“Today, the Senate rightly rejected a proposal to overturn science and replace it with politics. The resolution offered by Senator Murkowski would have undermined the authority of the EPA and its ability to protect the health and welfare of the American people. That the Senate would even consider taking such a step when the nation is facing the most destructive environmental disaster in its history, is nothing less than outrageous. The last thing the senators should be doing at this moment is attempting to weaken longstanding environmental laws. I commend those senators who voted to preserve the role of science in critically important environmental decisions, and I urge all senators to now refocus their time and energy on real solutions to our current challenges. In particular, the Senate should now work with vigor and urgency to pass comprehensive climate and energy legislation that will break our oil addiction and place firm limits on fossil fuel pollution. In doing so, it should preserve the essential tools that are provided to the EPA under the Clean Air Act.”
“The defeat of the Murkowski resolution is a victory for sound science,” said Lou Leonard, WWF’s Director of US Climate Policy. “Only in Washington could the Senate waste precious time debating the basic science of climate change on the same day that NASA announced the warmest spring in recorded history. But this vote should finally allow us to move on from political attacks on science to creating solutions that break our addiction to oil and other dirty fuels and move America to a clean energy economy. “
Though the legislative effort to veto EPA’s endangerment finding failed, there are other efforts being made in both the House of Representatives and the Senate to impede EPA’s effort to execute the provisions of the Clean Air Act as they relate to greenhouse gas emissions. These include measures that would delay for years EPA action under the act. Given the current prospects of comprehensive energy and climate legislation in the Senate (see WWF Statement on Senate’s Failure to Pass Clean Energy & Climate Legislation, 27 July 2010), it will be especially important to maintain progress under the Clean Air Act to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
“The EPA just reconfirmed that climate change is a danger to public health,” said Keya Chatterjee. “Despite the dangers of inaction, last week the Senate failed to act in the interests of the public and advance climate and clean energy legislation. It is now even more urgent that EPA continue to commit itself to acting on climate change and that Congress zealously protect EPA’s capacity to address the problem under the Clean Air Act.”
– This article is reposted from the World Wildlife Foundation Climate Blog.
Related Resources from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
- Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act
- Decision document: Pre-publication copy of FR Notice (PDF) (217 pp, 536K)
- Preface (PDF) (7 pp, 39K)
- Volume 1: Climate Science and Data Issues Raised by Petitioners (PDF) (166 pp, 1.2MB)
- Volume 2: Issues Raised by Petitioners on EPA’s Use of IPCC (PDF) (84 pp, 368K)
- Volume 3: Process Issues Raised by Petitioners (PDF) (116 pp, 575K)
- Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.
- Petitions for Reconsideration of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
This “ice-block” took awhile to melt :)
btw.
Dr Roy Spencer, normally a darling of the septics, is getting the full denialist savaging over at his own blog for daring to defend the physical basis for the greenhouse effect. http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/07/eating_their_own.php
General Electric has agreed to pay $23.5m to settle allegations from US regulators that its subsidiaries bribed Iraqi officials to win contracts under the United Nations Oil for Food Programme between 2000 and 2003.
Now we find the temps were “adjusted upward” to help set heat records?
Peter Smith #2. Can you give a reference for your comment “Now we find the temps were “adjusted upward” to help set heat records?”
Thanks
Hey Peter Smith, are you like a parody of a Ditto-Head or what?
Might there be a pulse in that Climate Bill yet?
“endanger public health” Not a single example shared in the above talking points that refers to human health.
[JR: Uhh, read the original finding!]
Peter Smith, the EPA was responding to petitions to scrap its endangerment finding. If the petitioners didn’t raise the issue of public health, that’s their fault, not the EPA’s.
And you still haven’t defended your absurd statement in comment #2 – “Now we find the temps were “adjusted upward” to help set heat records”. Who’s “we”, you and Glenn Beck?
Peter appears to be a WUWT troll. His reference to temps adjusted was from a Steve Goddard article at WUWT claiming that the Hadcrut temp set had recently been adjusted upwards to make warming seem higher in recent decades (years?). The clear implication is that the adjustments were unwarranted and there is a warming conspiracy.
This is just part of the WUWT crowd trying to cast aspersions on the global temp records, all of them. Basically throwing spaghetti on the wall and seeing if any sticks.
To me, this (along with the many previous pronouncements of the world’s leading scientific organizations) means that industries and companies that are denying the science, blocking reforms, and misleading the public on such matters are substantially endangering MY health and future, YOUR health and future, the health and future of FUTURE GENERATIONS, the health and future of BILLIONS OF PEOPLE around the world, and the viability of many species.
In other words, this is SERIOUS STUFF.
At this point, there should be massive boycotts of companies who mislead the public on this issue. At this point, we should insist that the news media’s coverage be dramatically improved, or we should promptly stop buying papers that don’t improve, stop watching TV networks that don’t improve, and so forth.
It is completely Orwellian to hear all the world’s scientific organizations warn us, and the EPA affirm matters, only then to sit and witness the mumbo-jumbo we get from the mainstream media and the irresponsible comments and inaction (and excuses) we get from most politicians. It is completely Orwellian. Then — and also, I’m afraid to say — I’m starting to feel that it is just as completely Orwellian for us to think that more e-mail messages to Senators will do the trick.
Let’s see if, and where, and how well, The New York Times covers this announcement by the EPA tomorrow. On the front page?? For once??
I also continue to be interested in the open letter that Andy will be writing containing his assessment of the news media’s, and journalism’s, coverage of the climate and energy matters as well as his suggestions for what needs to be improved, if anything. According to the EPA and all leading scientific organizations, we are in a real situation, and the stakes are high. How are the media doing in that case, Andy?
Sigh,
Jeff
Jeff, I know it feels good to rail against “industries and companies that are denying the science”, but there are legitimate reasons to hold the EPA accountable:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/comment-on-the-denial-of-petitions-for-reconsideration-of-the-endangerment-and-cause-or-contribute-findings-for-greenhouse-gases-under-section-202a-of-the-clean-air-act/
Michael,
Did you actually read the Pielke article? He is basically complaining that the EPA did not listen to HIS OWN PAPERS. That his opinion and his published research should somehow be given equal status to that of hundreds, if not thousands, of other climate scientists is laughable. As a layman, it’s obvious to me what the vast vast majority opinion of actual climate scientists is. Pielke doesn’t support their conclusions, which is fine, but that doesn’t mean the EPA has to agree with him.
EPA’s CO2-endangerment “responses to comments” [of doubters, mostly] – a fine compendium of debunkings – recently became available in HTML, with permalinks for the various arguments debunked -
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html#comments
(this is the same URL as previously)
It would be just swonderful to see the Environmental Prostitution Agency morph into a REAL Environmental Protection Agency, after the egregious abuses of the Bush administration. I would like to see nothing better! This is a great start but there needs to be so much honesty in this part of government as in many others, and I worry that obfuscation and mendacity are so entrenched that it will take TOO long to ferret them out.
I read a fascinating and disturbing comment today, towards Jeffrey Sach’s article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/jul/28/sachs-obama-climate-change), referencing the Minerals Management Service and the government’s revolving door, which I’ll copy below.
But first here’s a link to my own conversation with an EPA spokesperson, today:
http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2010/07/evidence-that-toxic-emissions-in.html
Here’s the comment:
“Strangely, despite being a candidate of change, Obama has not taken the approach of presenting real plans of action for change. His administration is trapped more and more in the paralysing grip of special-interest groups. Whether this is an intended outcome, so that Obama and his party can continue to mobilise large campaign contributions, or the result of poor decision-making is difficult to determine – and may reflect a bit of both.
Well, this is because he’s been getting rotten advice on economic and energy issues from his close circle of advisers, in all likelihood for a decade or so. He hasn’t conducted any kind of major energy policy review along the lines of the Cheney Energy Task Force, for example – or if he has, he’s keeping it even quieter than Cheney did. More likely, what is really going on is that the fossil fuel industry is setting government policy at the major federal energy agencies like the DOE. How? BP’s ex-Chief Scientist is in charge of all science programs at the DOE, for example – it’s a revolving door, just like at the Minerals Management Service.
This business-as-usual fossil fuel sector is faced with relying on ever-more-expensive and ever-more-dirty sources of energy, at the same time that prices for renewables are falling to parity with fossil fuels (and solar is already equivalent to nuclear, using traditional cost estimates that don’t include externality issues like waste disposal).
Their plans are to exploit coal-to-gasoline, tar sands, shale gas, heavy crudes and offshore deepwater resources as a means of meeting domestic and global energy demand, and they are trying to shape government policy to assist in this goal, with great success – take the $18 billion loan guarantee for a pipeline to bring natural gas to Alberta for tar sand production. This is of course and ecological disaster and another massive source of fossil CO2 emissions – but never worry, they tell us, “carbon capture and sequestration” will solve all those worries.
More than a few poorly informed economists (including the author of this piece) have stumped for CCS, even though anyone with a few courses in thermodynamics could point to the obvious problems (energy costs!) and the lack of transparency by the relevant interests isn’t encouraging, either – any FOIA requests for CCS data to the DOE are rejected because of the proprietary interests of their private partners and contractors, for example.
Obama more or less spent his early Senate career boosting Illinois coal interests, in any case – he introduced coal-to-gasoline subsidies to Congress on their behalf – so why should it be surprising that he’s continued in this behavior? Many people don’t know this – but that’s because the media never raised these issues during the pre-election period in any detail. When Kucinich tried to talk about fossil fuels and oil, ABC booted him out of the debates, correct?
So, why the naivete, Professor Sachs? Why the surprise? A coal-state Democrat that’s beholden to the fossil energy industry, or an oil-state Republican that’s beholden to the fossil energy industry – and they seem to pursue similar energy policies – just look at the budgetary outlays.
At least, answer this: why won’t reporters and commentators examine or question Obama’s energy budgets?”
I’m unsure what impact the EPA will have if any? By the time lobbyists and corporate wrangling adds further delay to any remediation, then at what time can we expect some watered down measures by the EPA to have any effect? We need clear and immediate legislation.
In the meantime there may be some bigger fish to fry, pun intended, on the not too distant horizon.
———————-
“Global warming blamed for 40 per cent decline in the ocean’s phytoplankton
Microscopic life crucial to the marine food chain is dying out. The consequences could be catastrophic:”
“The microscopic plants that support all life in the oceans are dying off at a dramatic rate, according to a study that has documented for the first time a disturbing and unprecedented change at the base of the marine food web.
Scientists have discovered that the phytoplankton of the oceans has declined by about 40 per cent over the past century, with much of the loss occurring since the 1950s. They believe the change is linked with rising sea temperatures and global warming.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/the-dead-sea-global-warming-blamed-for-40-per-cent-decline-in-the-oceans-phytoplankton-2038074.html
————————-
So the 1973 movie, “Soylent Green”, wasn’t all science fiction after all and here I though that was an era when everyone was caught up in worrying about the next ice age. Say goodbye to our planetary support system.
Michael W wrote: “there are legitimate reasons to hold the EPA accountable”
I agree.
The EPA should be held strictly accountable for doing what the law requires it to do.
That’s EXACTLY what the EPA has done by issuing its endangerment finding.
Now the EPA must be held accountable for regulating CO2 emissions in accordance with the endangerment finding, a responsibility given to the EPA by Congress and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court.
Here is another take on the ruling that is succinct and from a Texas-centric perspective.
http://texasclimatenews.org/FeatureStories/72910EPArejectsTexaschallenge/tabid/1760/Default.aspx
Also, I want to add that the difference between the Obama EPA and the Bush EPA are profound and far reaching. Texas is in a major tiff right now because the EPA since Clinton has allowed the State to gut the Clean Air Act’s enforcement capacity. GW Bush got his idea that industry should be allowed to reduce pollution on a voluntary basis came from their operation in Texas, with the result being that Texas has lagged behind in achieving clean air and water. Obama is seriously cracking down – follow the links in the above article for more information on this battle.
And it isn’t just the EPA; other agencies have changed such as the BLM’s decision to choose the “No Drill” option in their management plan for the Vermillion Cliffs (High Country News – subscription required). http://www.hcn.org/
For me at least, the election of Obama has produced very tangible and positive changes.
According to WUWT Inhofe is calling for “open and fulsome debate”. So not only is he scientifically illiterate, he is literally illiterate.