The EPA apparently doesn’t care about any negative comment of their GHG Endangerment findings, even internally, so the exercise in Democracy we did yesterday apparently was for naught.
“The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision… 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.”
– Internal EPA email, March 17th, 2009
The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) has caught EPA administration red-handed in concealment of internal dissent as well as apparently proceeding with plans in advance.
From this PDF circulated today by CEI, here are the points:
EI is submitting a set of four EPA emails, dated March 12-17, 2009, which indicate that a significant internal critique of EPA’s position on Endangerment was essentially put under wraps and concealed. The study was barred from being circulated within EPA, it was never disclosed to the public, and it was not placed in the docket of this proceeding. The emails further show that the study was treated in this manner not because of any problem with its quality, but for political reasons.
CEI hereby requests that EPA make this study public, place it into the docket, and either extend or reopen the comment period to allow public response to this new study. We also request that EPA publicly declare that it will engage in no reprisals against the author of the study, who has worked at EPA for over 35 years.
The emails, attached hereto, consist of the following:
1) a March 12 email from Al McGartland, Office Director of EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE), to Alan Carlin, Senior Operations Research Analyst at NCEE, forbidding him from speaking to anyone outside NCEE on endangerment issues;
2) a March 16 email from Mr. Carlin to another NCEE economist, with a cc to Mr. McGartland and two other NCEE staffers, requesting that his study be forwarded to EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, which directs EPA’s climate change program. The email notes the quantity of peer-reviewed references in the study, and defends its inclusion of new research as well. It states Mr. Carlin’s view that “the critical attribute of good science is its correspondence to observable data rather than where it appears in
the technical literature.” It goes on to point out that the new studies “explain much of the observational data that have been collected which cannot be explained by the IPCC models.” (Emphases added);
3) a March 17 email from Mr. McGartland to Mr. Carlin, stating that he will not forward Mr. Carlin’s study. “The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision… 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.” (Emphasis added);
4) a second March 17 email from Mr. McGartland to Mr. Carlin, dated eight minutes later, stating “ I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change.”
Mr. McGartland’s emails demonstrate that he was rejecting Mr. Carlin’s study because its conclusions ran counter to EPA’s proposed position. This raises several major issues.
A. Incompleteness of the Rulemaking Record: The end result of withholding Mr. Carlin’s study was to taint the Endangerment Proceeding by denying the public access to important agency information. Court rulings have made it abundantly clear that a rulemaking record should include both “the evidence relied upon [by the agency] and the evidence discarded.” Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 541 F.2d 1, 36 (D.C. Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 941 (1976).
B. Prejudgment of the Outcome of the Endangerment Proceeding: The emails also suggest that EPA has prejudged the outcome of this proceeding, to the point where it arguably cannot be trusted to fairly evaluate the record before it. Courts have recognized “the danger that an agency, having reached a particular result, may become so committed to that result as to resist engaging in any genuine reconsideration of the issues.” Food Marketing Institute v. ICC, 587 F.2d 1285, 1290 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
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: science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency.” Jan. 23, 2009, link. 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.”
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.
For these reasons, we submit that EPA should immediately make Mr. Carlin’s study public by entering it into the Endangerment docket, and that it should either extend or reopen the comment period in this proceeding to allow public responses to that study. It should do so, moreover, while publicly pledging that Mr. Carlin will suffer no adverse repercussions from agency personnel. Mr. Carlin is guilty of no wrongdoing, but the tenor of the emails described above suggests he may well have reason to fear reprisals.
Read the EPA internal emails, including photographs of the originals here.
Call your congressional representative. This is legally wrong and makes a mockery of the public comment process.
Tell them here: 202-224-3121.
Carlin’s website
http://carlineconomics.googlepages.com/
He has serious credentials
Not sure about the timing of the issue though. It seems that the email dialogues between the 2 parties happened 3 months ago. Why do they disclose it now, one day after EPA closed the public commentary?
Spread the link above, news sites like hits, and will continue to write about anything that brings them traffic
If the EPA had their facts correct, they might be forced to arrive at the opposite conclusion from where their biases led them in the first place.
Fire. Them. All.
After a little speed reading my guess is that Carlin poured cold water on the economics of cap n’ trade. I’d hazard the guess that he has an open mind on AGW; likes the science but needs to keep his job.
His views will be played down coz he’s not a scientist but primarily an economist.
At the risk of sounding redundant, let me say this again: Our government is run by criminals. Once you accept that everything else falls in place.
Obama’s EPA screws the whole country. Meanwhile, Drudge is more concerned with reporting that SC Governor Sanford cheated on his wife. If Drudge can’t get it right, what of the rest of the media?
“. . . and that would be a very negative impact on our office.”
This shows a TRI-polar nature in our society. The statement is quite correct, I suspect, for a portion of folks want to believe in their new government and will consider dissension within the EPA as surprising and negative. Another portion believes the end justifies the means and so will not be turned aside by this inconvenience. The third group – colour (color) us skeptical – already have such a negative view of the government on this issue that it is not possible for this to increase our negativness.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) needs to notify every news organization in the Nation and keep them informed. My congressional representatives are all sure of their position on such things and will not be persuaded by a few more e-mails. A National kerfuffle about this might cause some of them some embarrassment if they were not to speak out about this failure of democratic processes.
The new administration is having its North Korean learning experience, and an Iranian moment – maybe this could be its CO2 moment. Hope so.
The FCC does the same thing. Got caught being selective with the facts regarding interference caused by BPL, broadband over powerlines. Thank goodness for the American Radio Relay League (ham radio). Took them to court over it and the FCC was forced to release all the data. Not sure if the FCC has actually done that yet.
Next should we expect police enforcement seizing Climate realists’ blogs? After all this Climate Change business is becoming a state affair and usually states will use any means at their disposal to implement their policies.
gt (13:59:53) :
Not sure about the timing of the issue though. It seems that the email dialogues between the 2 parties happened 3 months ago. Why do they disclose it now, one day after EPA closed the public commentary?
As the advert says, ‘simples’ he’s given them time to recant. That time is passed now!
DaveE.
Morning students.
This module is Group-Think 101.
There must be some mistake. Everyone knows that only Republican administrations suppress inconvienent findings by career scientists, right? I confidently await the outrage and investigation by Congress.
“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.”
I think of another impact of ignoring public comments. How about we vote the bums out. Barbara Boxer is the key Senate voice for the climate scam lobby.
Vote Chuck Devore in 2010. That will be the loudest comment you can make on the climate scam in California. (http://www.chuckdevore.com/)
Send Boxer back home to Marin county.
Send the EPA a clear uniquivocal message of what you think.
It’s the only way to be sure.
wow.
We are so screwed.
welcome to the USSA!
As with everything in this administration, the likely response will be, “This simply could not wait. The situation is so dire that we have to move forward as quickly as possible.”
“You may have heard that our budget was cut by 66%.” – McGartland PhD – EPA
Chart of EPA Funding Under Obama Administration
Gee I guess the EPA did not get the Stimulus Memo…
Yes I realize his department may have been cut back on, but with a doubling in budget one would expect his funding would remain intact a the very least.
So does this mean this is actually “Bush’s Third Term” ? 🙂
Hi all,
Anthony, I contacted EPA and received a very quick and (I think) fairly open response. Apparently CEI may have exaggerated hugely. EPA emailed this statement to me:
“This Administration and this EPA Administrator are fully committed to
openness, transparency and science-based decision making. These
principles were reflected throughout the development of the proposed
Endangerment finding, a process in which a broad array of voices were
heard and an inter agency review was conducted. In this instance,
certain opinions were expressed by an individual who is not a scientist
and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue.
Nevertheless, several of the opinions and ideas proposed by this
individual were submitted to those responsible for developing the
proposed endangerment finding. Additionally, his manager allowed his
general views on the subject of climate change to be heard and
considered inside and outside the EPA and presented at conferences and
at an agency seminar. The individual was also granted a request to join
a committee that organizes an ongoing climate seminar series, open to
both agency and outside experts, where he has been able to invite
speakers with a full range of views on climate science. The claims that
his opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false.”
– EPA Press Secretary Adora Andy
When Enron conspired with the Vice President of the United States to develop a program of Carbon emission credits similar to their lucrative SO2 trading scheme, they did so in total disregard of an internal Enron study/report that cast doubt on the AGW effects of CO2.
Has anything changed?
Incidently, THAt VP was a Democrat named Al Gore.
Sorry chaps but we are seeing the end of representative democracy throughout the western world.
The fact is that most voters are too busy getting on with their lives to make the effort required to second guesss the ‘establishment’.
Many years ago the ‘establishment’ realised that allowing a decline in intellectual rigour in the education system was entirely to it’s own advantage.
All that post World War 2 prosperity and freedom has rendered the average voter over confident and complacent about the preservation of the basic rules of a democratic system.
The irony is that the process is being driven by all those 60s radicals who were such a noisy nuisance 50 years ago.
No one ever guaranteed that the democratic experiment started by the UK 500 years ago and consolidated by the US Constitutuion would be a permanent phenomenon.
We are seeing the end game for good or ill.
Supra Governmental organisations such as the UN and the European Union are in the ascendant and will not be denied.
The future will be determined by the extent to which the emerging world including China and India is prepared to go along with it.
I suspect that the Orwellian vision of a world split into 3 major power blocs (possibly only 2) was not far off the mark.
Of course, anyone who commented on the endangerment finding is now on a “list” somewhere. I’m probably on several. 😉
People, assume NOTHING! I just contacted my rep…House Minority Leader J. Boehner and gave the nice lady on the phone this piece. She actually called up the web page as we spoke.
I suggested that the links provided could provide the basis for a nice floor speech.
Will it do any good? Dunno, the vote is this Friday. Never the less, call anyway; the honest ones will listen, the crooks will probably either [A] hang up on you, or [B] give you a verbal ‘pat on the head’ and send you on your way.
At any rate, remember this BS when 2010 comes around.
robert wood posted the link this morning
I referred to it 2 hours later. Glad to see it up as a new topic.
I don’t know how long it was before CEI found the e-mails. this is an old EPA issue but only recently uncovered.
I do wonder…are the comments only for the sake of humoring people’s opinions?
I suppose it is nice and all…but it seems to be rather unneccesary and deceiving to think they would ever have any influence on the outcome of the policies made.