Memo: EPA's case for CO2 regs 'weak'

by Jim Tankersley

In ruling last month that greenhouse gases posed health and safety risks, the Environmental Protection Agency brushed aside a memo from other federal agency staffs warning that the move was "likely to have serious economic consequences" for small businesses and the economy overall, according to documents obtained today.

The EPA finding was considered an important step toward the Obama administration's goal of taking major new action against carbon dioxide and other emissions that scientists say contribute to global warming.

The EPA was not bound by the staff analysis, which administration officials said was at odds with White House policy, but which echoed concerns raised by many Republicans and industry groups.

The staff assessment, prepared under standard federal government policy, said the endangerment finding could open the doors to lawsuits that might end up forcing the government to impose restrictions on such unrelated subjects as electromagnetic fields and even noise pollution.

The review team that prepared the assessment said the basis for the EPA's statement that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare "overwhelmingly" because they contribute to global warming was "especially weak."

Predictions of devastating climate change are "accompanied by uncertainties so large that they potentially overwhelm the magnitude of the harm," the report contended.

By contrast, the EPA's final conclusion was that the evidence in support of its finding was "compelling and, indeed, overwhelming... the product of decades of research by thousands of scientists from the U.S. and around the world. The evidence points ineluctably to the conclusion that climate change is upon us as a result of greenhouse gas emissions, that climatic changes are already occurring that harm our health and welfare, and that the effects will only worsen over time in the absence of regulatory action."

The EPA finding could lead to broad new regulations that could affect cars, power plants, factories and other emitters of the heat-trapping gases scientists blame for global warming.

A 2007 Supreme Court decision ordered the EPA to review the scientific case for regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The Bush administration essentially ignored the decision; before taking office, President Obama vowed to address it quickly.

Obama has pushed Congress to pass legislation that would not only limit greenhouse gas emissions but force power plants, factories and other major sources of those gases to obtain permits to cover their emissions.

Last month, the EPA proposed its so-called "endangerment finding," which is currently in the middle of a 60-day public comment period before it can be finalized.

The staff warnings over the EPA's "endangerment" proposal stemmed from a standard review process. When federal agencies propose rules, other agencies typically have the opportunity to comment on them. The White House Office of Management and Budget compiles those comments into memos and line-by-line critiques of the draft rules.

This morning, lobbyists began circulating an interagency critique of the proposed EPA rule around Washington.

The documents question the economic costs of regulating carbon dioxide emissions and raise concerns that the data supporting the EPA findings are based almost entirely on health research not conducted by the agency itself.

They also suggest the EPA rule could lead to a "relaxed and expansive new standard" for Clean Air Act regulations, warning that "EPA would be petitioned to find endangerment and regulate many other "pollutants" for the sake of the precautionary principle (e.g., electromagnetic fields, perchlorates, endocrine disruptors, and noise)."

One note directly criticized the EPA's finding that greenhouse gases "may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare due overwhelmingly to the effects of climate change."

"Obviously in forecasting any future event the degree of uncertainty is greater the farther out one is from the prediction, and acknowledging this is not an indication that inaction is the appropriate course of action. However, high degrees of uncertainty should never be the basis for strong findings, such as that GHGs 'overwhelmingly' endanger health and welfare," the note said.

Industry groups seized on the memos to renew their criticism of the EPA decision.

Scott Segal, an energy lobbyist for Bracewell & Giuliani in Washington, said in a statement that the memos show the EPA "may have cherry-picked public health literature" to support its endangerment finding, and that its rulings "could substantially expand EPA regulatory authority" in ways Congress never intended.

Environmentalists called the memos a "direct attack" on the EPA decision from federal bureaucrats.

"It is very clear from this that the Obama administration contains people who are trying to sabotage the administration's climate strategy," Frank O'Donnell, the president of Clean Air Watch, said in an e-mail.

The EPA appears to have modified several parts of its draft rule in response to the critiques, most notably by adding sections that predict warming temperatures could bring some benefits to parts of the United States.

"Like we would in any process," EPA press secretary Adora Andy said this morning, "we take these comments under advisement."

Q&A: Recession Hits Social Security, Medicare Funds

Social Security's trust fund will be essentially used up by 2037 — four years sooner than last year's estimate, its trustees reported Tuesday. Medicare won't be able to meet its obligations beginning in 2017 — two years sooner than previously projected, they said. The condition of both trust funds has worsened because of the recession and because people are living longer.