Late in June, the EPA was accused by the Competitive Enterprise Institute of suppressing a report that questions global warming, and specifically questioning the regulation of carbon dioxide in the “Cap and Trade” Bill.
According to internal emails (they’ll bite you, every time!) in March, an EPA Director, Al McGartland, squelched a report that warned, in part, against making “decisions based on a scientific hypothesis [that being the global warming we've all been warned of in varied doomsday prophesies] that does not appear to explain most of the available data.”
(emphasis mine)
The EPA researcher, Alan Carlin, isn’t a new kid on the block, he’s been a researcher for 38 years. Carlin says that the EPA is relying on old data, questions the theory (recognized by and acted upon by the EPA) that greenhouse gases are the cause of global warming, and further that global warming may not be happening at all.
Carlin pointed out that global temperatures peaked in 1998 and have been falling ever since. He went on to suggest that the cap-and-trade regulation isn’t necessary, and would probably have little overall effect on global temperatures. (And it is going to cost you a lot of money. Well, only if you drive a car, or use electricity.)
The Competitive Enterprise Institute obtained a copy of the report and posted it on their website on 6/25/2009. They also have all the emails, but the best one is this from McGartland to Carlin, telling him to shush.
“I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process and that would be a very negative impact on our office.” /s/ Al McGartland, PhD., Director, National Center for Environmental Economics.
You may or may not know that at the end of March, the EPA formally submitted its pro-regulation [cap-and-trade] recommendation to the White House. While they sat on this report that says the country doesn’t need the cap and trade regulation.
Regardless of the report, EPA center director, Al McGartland, commented to Carlin via email on 3.17 :
“The administrator [of the EPA] and the administration [yep, that'd be Obama] has (sic) decided to move forward…and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.”
CBSNews.com reports in EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming that Carlin, author of the report remarked in a telephone interview that McGartland was being pressured . . .
“It was his view that he either lost his job or he got me working on something else,” Carlin said. “That was obviously coming from higher levels.”
E-mail messages released by Competitive Enterprise Institute show that McGartland ordered Carlin not to “have any direct communication” with anyone other than his group at the EPA on the topic of climate change, and was told that his report would not be shared with the EPA group working on the topic of global warming.
Sam Kazman, General Counsel at Competitive Enterprise Institute cites multiple violations by the EPA, and suggests that they should immediately make Mr. Carlin’s study public, enter it into the Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171, and either extend or reopen the comment period in this proceeding to allow public responses to that study.
Saving the best for last, he shows us that the President’s “Transparency and Open Government” might have been a worthy goal, but it has fallen by the wayside in six short months.
C. Violations of EPA’s Commitment to Transparency and Scientific Honesty:
Finally, the emails suggest that EPA’s extensive pronouncements about transparency and scientific honesty may just be rhetoric.
Shortly before assuming office, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson declared: “As Administrator, I will ensure EPA’s efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: sciencebased policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency.” Jan. 23, 2009, http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/2297c12a9f4773d285257547006497d4!OpenDocument.
See also Administrator Jackson’s April 23 Memo to EPA Employees, “Transparency in EPA’s Operations”.
These follow the President’s own January 21 memo to agency heads on “Transparency and Open Government”. And in an April 27 speech to the National Academy of Sciences, the President declared that, “under my administration, the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.”
And here, Mr. Kazman delivers his best line:
“Because of ideology, however, it was this back seat to which Mr. Carlin’s study was relegated; more precisely, it was booted out of the car entirely.“
Nowhere else in mainstream media are they reporting this. Only at CBS.Com. . . . And in the meantime, it is going to cost you a lot of money . . . gotta cover those trillions that Obama is spending to shore up the economy (groan) . . .
The House passed (219-212) the “Cap-and-Trade” bill that President Obama intends to have . . . as noted above by Al McGartland, on June 26.
The bill requires a 17% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and an 83% cut by 2050, reductions to be accomplished by putting a price on carbon dioxide through a cap-and-trade system. It also requires that at least 20% of electricity comes from renewable sources and increased energy efficiency by 2020.
Experts on either side, including President Obama, agree that Cap-and-Trade will result in higher energy prices, and that means higher prices for fuel, home heating and cooling.
Peter Orszag, Obama’s budget director, told Congress last year that
“Those price increases are essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program.”
Earlier this year President Obama not only concurred that they would rise under his cap-and-trade plan, he said
“electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”
Gary D. Halbert has a great article putting all of this together, detailing the bill, they whys and the wherefores. . . . He said, and I wholeheartedly agree,
“The bottom line is, it is all about intrusive government control of our lives, from what cars we can drive to how much energy we can use in our homes and businesses. It is not about carbon emissions or global warming (if it exists). It’s about expanding government and indirectly raising our taxes.”
And he asks,
“If the “cap and trade” bill is such a good idea, [and not just a source of funds for the money being squandered in Washington faster than we can calculate] why did the EPA bury a major study which concludes that global warming may not be happening, and that regulating carbon emissions is not needed?”