Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Most folks would not be surprised if I were to make the claim that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did not properly consider the science when it issued its “Endangerment Finding” saying that CO2 was a pollutant and a danger to humanity. It is that scientifically unsupported finding that allows them to regulate CO2.
And you likely would not be surprised if I made the claim that:
1. The EPA did not release the findings supporting its Technical Support Document (TSD), as is required by law. Instead, it has kept them secret.
2. The EPA was supposed to get a panel of outside scientists to provide an impartial analysis of the science. Instead, it put an EPA employee on the panel. If I were a cynical sort of fellow, I’d say that the employee in question was instructed to find in favor of the Persecution rather than in favor of the Defense …
3. The EPA has different regulations for normal decisions and for a “highly influential scientific assessment”. Anyone with half a brain would certainly say that a ruling that will cost billions and billions of dollars and affect nearly every single business in America is a “highly influential scientific assessment”. However, the half-brains at the EPA says not so, they say it’s just an ordinary old plain vanilla assessment, no need for special caution or extra due diligence …
Most folks know that I’m a climate heretic, so it’s no surprise that I might hold such outrageous views. However, here’s what might surprise you.
Those are not my views. They are the published views of the US EPA Office of the Inspector General, as expressed in their latest official report on the question.
Now, in any well run organization, this official finding by the Inspector General of flagrant flouting of the scientific requirements would call for an immediate do-over … but this is not a well run organization, it is the US Government, sub-species EPA.
So what did the EPA bureaucrats do in response to the IG’s Report?
Well, they promised that they would never, never ever do such a thing again, cross their heart they won’t.
Don’t you feel better now? Good to know that the government has our back.
Hey, if you don’t believe me, read the US EPA Inspector General’s Report (summary and full report [710 Kb PDF]). As the saying goes … it’s worse than we thought …
And the AGW supports claim that we skeptics are the ones “denying the science”???
Regards to everyone,
w.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m thinking you meant to say Prosecution but Persecution might actually convey a more accurate meaning.
Please tell us you were not surprised. Managing expectations and all.
Naw … you’re kidding right? Govt agency ignoring ‘the process’ (and maybe even the science) – that happens?
What does ‘the policy lass’ say about the ignoring the policy part?
Crickets?
.
Related news…
““Hiring the 230,000 full-time employees necessary to produce the 1.4 billion work hours required to address the actual increase in [CO2] permitting functions would result in an increase in Title V administration costs of $21 billion per year,” the EPA wrote in the court brief.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/26/epa-regulations-would-require-230000-new-employees-21-billion/#ixzz1ZJeCX8il
The beauracracy is expanding to cater for the expanding beauracracy.
I am not in least surprised that established policy was abandoned in this effort. They are saving the planet, and they have only four years to accomplish their work.
They would have much preferred to have a new law, but they have a great crew of NGO and university trained experts who know how to get stuff done without such trivialities as laws.
I predict that no matter which way the election goes next year, we will see a great flurry of rule making happening between the first week in November 2012 and the third week of January 2013.
I don’t think that the EPA has ever been a non-political entity. It needs its wings clipped – badly.
The estimated direct labor and travel costs for this report are $297,385.
Money well-spent, in my estimation….
Al Gored says:
September 28, 2011 at 10:21 pm
“Hiring the 230,000 full-time employees necessary to produce the 1.4 billion work hours required to address the actual increase in [CO2] permitting functions would result in an increase in Title V administration costs of $21 billion per year,” the EPA wrote in the court brief.”
The green jobs they promised have to come from somewhere.
Meanwhile, the Canadian equivalent of the E.P.A., Environment Canada…
Budget cuts pummel Environment Canada
Grants, operating and capital expenditures down $70 million – a 31 per cent decrease
Read more: http://www.canada.com/business/Budget+cuts+pummel+Environment+Canada/5471122/story.html#ixzz1ZK7mZswf
And unsurprisingly, having postponed the issuance of their final rules (for political reasons, namely, the election campaign of their ultimate boss Mr. Obama), no lawsuit challenging their endangerment finding can be commenced or maintained. EPA hopes everyone forgets later on, then they will issue their otherwise unlawful rules. Very unsurprising, indeed.
If and when the lawsuit is finally brought, if I were the attorney bringing it (oh, I so wish I was), Willis, you’d be one of my first witnesses.
No, Willis, you are not a climate heretic. The true climate heretics are the AGW closed minds fanatics (who I call climate deceivers).
Al Gored says:
September 28, 2011 at 10:21 pm
I saw that, but I haven’t been able to track down the underlying document yet (the court brief) so I haven’t discussed it. The current number of EPA employees is about 18,000, so the claim set off my bad number detector. I hate to get caught passing on bad information.
w.
If the Green Jobs are the expansion of the EPA and it’s budget, then the Green is actually caused by cutting off the circulation of blood to the economy, resulting in more jobs for the Gang at EPA.
Or, more precisely, GangGreen Jobs. So what if 10 private sector jobs are consumed for each new GangGreen Job.
Willis,
More of the paper trail. Specific references to the costs etc are on page 27. http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/tailoring-rule-case.pdf
Ken
Willis, don’t you ever get tired of hitting home runs?☺
This prroblem relates directly to Bastiat’s broken window fallacy. Every invented, unnecessary government job sucks two+ jobs out of the productive sector.
HankH says:
No, I think he knows what he was saying.
EPA did this again concerning the regulation of GHGs. They issued the “Tailoring Rule” after the endangerment finding. In this rule, they determined actually complying with the exact provisions of the Clean Air Act would lead to an “absurd result.” (This is because the authors and the congressmen that drafted and passed the CAA had no intensions of regulating CO2. It’s like digging a hole with an axe, it is a tool not appropriate for the job.)
As long as it leads to more rules and more control, EPA usually thinks “absurd” results are fine, no matter what the costs or impacts there are on the regulatees. But at least they realized that, even if they could ramp up EPA manpower in response, it would still grind the entire country to a halt. So EPA just changed the rules passed by Congress, which is possibly illegal. Rules are for the little people, not EPA.
EPA will go ahead no matter who is “elected” in 2012. Romney will be the “opposition party” nominee, and he’s just as firmly in the pocket of Wall Street as Obama.
In fact Romney will find it easier to push green terror, because he won’t have to fight Congress. The Dems will go along with him because they enthusiastically agree, the Reps will go along with him because they’re mindless partisans. Only James Inhofe will stand against it, and one man can’t do anything.
(If Christie gets into the race, it could change things. He’s verbally pro-Green but he’s also thoroughly sensible, so he might make some sane decisions. Wild card.)
Congress’s “Power of the Purse” sure doesn’t mean much if it’s the size of a MacTruck and you can’t easily pick it up, swing it swiftly, and bash an uppity agency’s head in. Does it?
Compliance with pesky laws has never been a high priority for the current administration. Once you’ve set out on a crusade to save mankind from itself, an “end justifies the means” mentality inevitably sets in. That’s the seed that grew into practically every oppressive government in modern history.
“(If Christie gets into the race, it could change things. He’s verbally pro-Green but he’s also thoroughly sensible, so he might make some sane decisions. Wild card.)”
Drudge has a quote from Christie stating that no new coal plants will be permitted in NJ, and he intends to make NJ a leader in wind energy.
Christie is deeper in the tank for AGW than even Romney.
Only Rick Perry has had the courage to call Social Security a Ponzi scheme and AGW a fraud. He has other liabilities, including an incompetent campaign staff, but he is the only one to say that the Emperor has no clothes.
Regards,
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)
According to Climate Progress, the conclusion of the IG report was that:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/28/330967/inhofe-inspector-general-epa-endangerment-finding/
Al Gored says:
September 28, 2011 at 10:21 pm
“Hiring the 230,000 full-time employees necessary to produce the 1.4 billion work hours required to address the actual increase in [CO2] permitting functions would result in an increase in Title V administration costs of $21 billion per year,” the EPA wrote in the court brief.”
———————————
That works out to $91,304.35 per employee annually. Makes sense given you have to allow for benefits on top of wages. Where are these new emplyees going to work? I would double that number for the new offices, rental space etc.
My estimate is $50 Billion a year – a nice round number .
Go big or go home – right?