Outgoing Obama EPA Chief Gina McCarthy thinks President-elect Donald Trump will not be able to change EPA policy towards CO2, because it will be too difficult to undo her policy initiatives.
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
EPA chief says Trump has limited room to scrap climate rules
McCarthy says any attempt must be scientifically justified under Clean Air Act.
The chief architect of President Barack Obama’s climate change policies has warned the incoming Trump administration that US law and the scientific evidence of global warming will constrain any attempt to overturn her work.
With the outlook for global climate action uncertain after the US election, Gina McCarthy, the top US environmental regulator, told the Financial Times that climate change sceptics led by Donald Trump would have limited room for manoeuvre.
“It’s going to be a very high burden of proof for them,” said Ms McCarthy, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, outlining why US law would ensure that Mr Trump could not easily abolish climate change regulations.
…
To replace Ms McCarthy, Mr Trump has nominated Scott Pruitt, a politician who has repeatedly excoriated the EPA and made it his mission to try to scupper her signature achievements.
…
Read more: https://www.ft.com/content/e4759fea-c491-11e6-8f29-9445cac8966f
I can’t help thinking Obama appointees like Gina McCarthy are in total denial about the magnitude of their loss of support. President-elect Donald Trump has an enormous mandate to liberate America from the shackles of bureaucrats like McCarthy. In a few short years, nobody will remember who she was.
I think the AGW movement does not correctly appreciate just how much of their success is due to intimidation. A whole slew of Republicans have run away rather than risk being called a “climate change den1er” or “anti-science”. One thing Trump has shown is he is not afraid to be called names. We are indeed in for interesting times.
Yes, it is encouraging and starting to be inspirational.
What can be done with a pen and a phone can be undone with a pen and phone.
+1
All agencies are required to have Data Quality Standards. The EPA has them.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/epa-info-quality-guidelines.pdf
These, among other things, require the EPA to determine that data it uses meets quality standards. “Objectivity focuses on whether the disseminated information is being presented in an accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased manner, and as a matter of substance, is accurate, reliable, and unbiased. “Integrity” refers to security, such as the protection of information from unauthorized access or revision, to ensure that the information is not compromised through corruption or falsification. “Utility” refers to the usefulness of the information to the intended users.” (Pls. pardon all the quotes, they were in the text).
Like most regulations now, the whole thing is a conglomeration of CYA in multiple documents, but from what I have been able to wade through the information and data in the Endangerment Finding, which incorporates and disseminates outside information such as that from the IPCC, doesn’t meet this standard. The IPCC reports are not accurate, clear, complete and unbiased. Nevertheless, the EPA accepted the conclusions and so violated its own standards. This alone ought to invalidate the whole finding.
A 2 step approach is needed.
Yes, the CO2 Endangerment Finding will fall in a new review that will be ordered by Scott Pruitt, the soon-to-be EPA Chief. The Clean Power Plan is already DOA in the courts for violation of Separation of Powers. But killing the endangerment finding will hobble states like California who use it to give cred to their own state rules and laws.
But then Congress must amend the Clean Air Act to restrict and prevent a future Democrat administration from acting beyond the intent of the law passed by Congress.
True. California will just sue the EPA if Congress doesn’t amend the Clean Air Act.
I used to think that another vehicle for getting a rule pulled would be for it not to go thru the formal rulemaking process. If the pdf at the link is correct, the process is whatever the agency claims it is.
OTOH, this allows the following administration to change the process on last minute rule making after the fact. I don’t think McCarthy and the green blob is going to enjoy what is about to happen a lot. The rest of us will, though. Cheers –
https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaking_process.pdf
I don’t think it is going to be ” a high burden of proof” to scientifically prove that human- caused global warming is false. There is reams of evidence, provided by many credible scientists and others. It just goes to show that Gina McCarthy has never read the arguments on the other side of the debate. She just chose the side that supports her world-view and makes her feel morally righteous.
The Brits have a saying: “Well she would say that, wouldn’t she?”
Ok, up to now the Alarmists acted like they were Evolutionists combating Creationism. They refused to engage in debate.
That ends now.
Require them to rationalize their retooling of the world economy.
Force them to prove that Solar and Wind energy are dependable and cheap for residential and industrial customers.
Force them to demonstrate an alarming and unprecedented increase in global temperatures.
Make it a condition of their funding.
Which is why the Perry-run DOE and the Scott Pruitt-run EPA will first target the one-sided, fraudulent Social Cost of Carbon study.
https://www.epa.gov/climatechange/social-cost-carbon
Two major flaws in the EPA’s CO2-SSC study will be its downfall in the revision.
The SCC:
-It uses a set of unrealistic (too low, and violates GSA-CBO-WH budget rules on discount rates) discount rates to calculate future costs.
-It focuses solely on costs and not the benefits of more atmospheric CO2, like enhanced biological productivity and moderating temperatures to save lives (from hypothermia-cold) and heating costs.
oddly such approaches may make the nuclear option more not less likely for the EPA , after all it may be easier to take the lot out then spends endless amount of time fighting small wars .
I don’t know what turnip truck she fell off of, but she sure doesn’t understand how the government of the USA works. THE PEOPLE just made it loud and clear they want that crap she has been peddling to go away. And go away it will, her delusions not withstanding. There can be no question there is a strong backlash against people just like her, and if this election doesn’t fix it, we got a bigger problem. By it’s very nature our government is designed to undo oppression. Sheesh!
Steve,not a turnip truck, but Gina McCarthy is a poster girl, I mean person, for the failures of the US government and education system. Her undergraduate degree is in Social Anthropology (not just regular Anthropology?) with two senior SJW bureacrat masters degrees from Tufts–Environmental Health Engineering and Planning and Policy. My best guess is that none has any real science education (I was an Anthro minor, and it was very loose even 40 years ago).
Ms. McCarthy thinks that US law will constrain President Trump in overturning her work. What if the law was changed?
Years ago I used to be a member of a local community council. Whenever our discussions came up against “the law says” roadblock, another member would always say, “We can change the law.” His day job was lobbyist.
97% of all laws passed are extinct. Think about that statement.
As a British person i do wish you well in your endeavours to rid your dear country of the vile left and all the total bull that they have inflicted on you via the EPA, this nonsense has been inflicted on us to via the EU our politicians have been in thrall to olbarmy and his global warming gloop.
It is to laugh. Total denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.
I agree that it should be relatively easy to scientifically and legally rescind the more “noxious” EPA rulings and to dismantle a significant part of the EPA/NASA climate bureaucracies.
But there is a YUGE PR component to this.
The challenge for DJT will be to do it in a way that does not open him to being labeled by the Green Blob as being “anti-science”, a “den***”, “working in the interests of the rich” etc. A huge part of the US population would be more than ready to believe such nonsense. (see the opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline because of the alleged violation of “Sacred Indian Grounds”, or continuing credibility given to Al Gore ). This tendency to emotion over logic unfortunately is characteristic of current and recent college grads. And of course the “opposition” can rally many “sciency” people to their side (Nye, Mann, Oreskes et al as well as most of the MSM).
I believe the Trump transition team can do this, but they have to be very careful in how they proceed.
The best way to deal with that I believe is to get fully tooled up with the right people and the whole squad hit the floor running from day one. A silent tsunami of change spreading out in all directions simultaneously – which the people have voted Trump in to enact – without fanfare or fuss. Hit everything at the same time. All of the useless departments and agencies including DoE and EPA, immigration, pipeline projects, drilling, fracking, nuclear … The press won’t know which way to turn and will hoot and holler and meltdown and generally look even more like the hysterical leftist nut jobs they have been for some considerable time. By the time the dust settles it will all be a fait accompli.
If Trump follows my advice, he and his appointees will 1) call for a series of detailed scientific debates on the dozens of contested aspects of AGW and CAGW, similar to the Dutch site already doing that, Climate Dialog; 2) they will ask for universities to provide a forum for such online debates by setting up unofficial “climate courts” for this and other scientific heterodoxies; and 3) they will call for a half-dozen two-hour oral debates, to be broadcast to the public, at a less detailed level.
Sounds like a threat. Play ball with EPA employees or you’ll lose your job.
Just watch him. Take the money away and it will shrivel up and die. Thank God.
Gina, it is people like you who helped elect Mr. Trump. Thank you very much. You are “the swamp” we have heard so much about that will now be drained, including all your “work”….Trump has a phone and a pen…
Good assessment! Her comments could be summed up as, The swamp called, Croak!!
The guy we said would never win the Republican nomination and would never become President will NEVER be able to do anything now he is. Hmm, I see a pattern here.
Well said.
Guys, this is not a joke, this is exactly how it will be played by the left, they are in survival mode and this is their final gambit, as I said yesterday with 97% certainty in the “Can the Left Adapt to the Trump Era” topic, the left will assert the green infrastructure is in place and cannot be dislodged, we may need it someday so it is now up to TRUMP to prove CO2 is a sham or shut up. Scientifically, it can be proven it’s a AGW is a sham, but politically and thru the social media is another matter. The left has used this gambit many many times in the past to save their pet projects and it usually works. The green infrastructure will survive Trump unless he is truly willing to do battle.
I am a Trump voter and am now up to 99% certainty this is how it will be played.
While I am profoundly relieved that he was able to dispatch the unspeakably loathsome Hillary, there are nonetheless things about Trump that worry me. Being unwilling to do battle is not one of them.
Trump could turn his IG loose on the EPA and investigate McCarthy and her senior staff for collusion with the Green Lobby, as well as falsification of internal studies, etc… Those findings could be used as a “big stick” to keep the permanent bureaucracy in line. Nothing puts fear into a bureaucrat than a federal prosecutor with a hunting license. A RIF (Reduction in Force) is sorely needed at the EPA, an organization that has over 15,000 employees.
Trump named Oklahoma State Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the EPA. That nomination prompted some Green wienie in Fairfax Co., VA to editorialize, “Scott Pruitt heading the EPA is akin to hiring a pyromaniacal Fire Chief”.
Fairfax County is one of the Top 3 richest counties in the US, being home to tens (hundreds?) of thousands of highly paid bureaucrats. I’d say that Trump’s message to the trough feeders was akin to news of an outbreak of hog cholera.
Right. A few examples must be made, with the lid nailed down tight, chapter and verse, photographs with circles and arrows and paragraphs on the back.
So far the IG and congress hearing have resulted in? Lois, Hillary, IRS, VA all walking away laughing
New administration and Congress?
And he and congress could appoint a special prosecutor.
“…the scientific evidence of global warming will constrain any attempt to overturn her work.”
It should be a piece of cake to overturn her work then, seeing how there isn’t much to constrain them.
My understanding is that the U.S. Supreme Court looks to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to determine what a “pollutant” is. So, the Supreme Court itself does NOT decide this – the EPA does, and the EPA has to justify its determination with evidence that supports whether a substance in the air poses public health threats or not.
A given regime at the EPA, then, can put forth “evidence” that CO2 poses public health threats. A different regime at EPA seemingly could refute this “evidence” by putting forth counter evidence showing that CO2 does NOT pose public health threats. EPA fine tunes the law, and so EPA can change or amend the law, and still be within the Supreme Court’s approval.
Is this correct ?
If so, then the “room to maneuver”, seems to be in gaping spaces left by firing people at the EPA who put forth shoddy evidence as justification for its ruling on CO2.
You are generally correct. It is called the doctrine of regulatory deference. Even trial courts are supposed to defer to regulatory agency determinations of fact. But those can still be attacked if it can be shown the agency did not consider all evidence, did not follow process, or is just wrong. However, the greens can walk down that two way street also, countering with the IPCC.
And then the IPCC authority can be countered with something like this:
https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY-WState-JChristy-20160202.pdf
… which seems to show pretty clearly that not only was all the evidence not considered in the current regulations, but also that the evidence might have been manipulated to appear more truthful than it actually is.
It’s nearly impossible, and very time-consuming, to fire a federal civil servant.
Nearly impossible for a president who’s catchphrase was until recently “Your’re fired”? It’s just Carter era legislation that makes it difficult to fire a federal employee, and the GOP now has the full monty to change that legislation. It would be a fight but definitely winnable.
One new entity with staff is going to be needed and that is the Truth and Reconciliation Court to look into all of the warped science, admin., grants and lending, “news”, and policy over the last eight years.
The Endangerment Finding rests on a supposition, that does not hold. Namely, the warmer it is, the greater the danger for human health or welfare.
Now, life expectancy is an excellent proxy for human health or welfare. The US is a large country, there is enough state by state variation in both average annual temperature (Alaska: 26.6°F, Florida: 70.7°F) and average life expectancy (Mississippi: 75 years, Hawaii: 81.3 years) to determine dependency of the latter one on the former variable, if any.
Turns out life expectancy does increase by increasing average temperature, by 0.001 years/°F. In other words, there is no dependency at all in a temperature range an order of magnitude larger, than anything projected by climate scientists for the next several centuries, the trendline is utterly flat.
Therefore average outdoor temperature has no effect on human health or welfare whatsoever under the current lifestyle of the American population. This is why it does not matter, if climate projections have anything to do with reality or not, the Endangerment Finding is false anyway.
ST temp life pop (million)
AK 26.6 78.3 0.74
AL 62.8 75.4 4.85
AR 60.4 76.0 2.99
AZ 60.3 79.6 6.73
CA 59.4 80.8 38.80
CO 45.1 80.0 5.36
CT 49.0 80.8 3.60
DE 55.3 78.4 0.94
FL 70.7 79.4 19.89
GA 63.5 77.2 10.10
HI 70.0 81.3 1.42
IA 47.8 79.7 3.11
ID 44.4 79.5 1.63
IL 51.8 79.0 12.88
IN 51.7 77.6 6.60
KS 54.3 78.7 2.90
KY 55.6 76.0 4.41
LA 66.4 75.7 4.65
MA 47.9 80.5 6.75
MD 54.2 78.8 5.98
ME 41.0 79.2 1.33
MI 44.4 78.2 9.91
MN 41.2 81.1 5.46
MO 54.5 77.5 6.06
MS 63.4 75.0 2.98
MT 42.7 78.5 1.02
NC 59.0 77.8 9.94
ND 40.4 79.5 0.74
NE 48.8 79.8 1.88
NH 43.8 80.3 1.33
NJ 52.7 80.3 8.94
NM 53.4 78.4 2.09
NV 49.9 78.1 2.84
NY 45.4 80.5 19.75
OH 50.7 77.8 11.59
OK 59.6 75.9 3.88
OR 48.4 79.5 3.97
PA 48.8 78.5 12.79
RI 50.1 79.9 1.06
SC 62.4 77.0 4.83
SD 45.2 79.5 0.85
TN 57.6 76.3 6.55
TX 64.8 78.5 26.96
UT 48.6 80.2 2.94
VA 55.1 79.0 8.33
VT 42.9 80.5 0.63
WA 48.3 79.9 7.06
WI 43.1 80.0 5.76
WV 51.8 75.4 1.85
WY 42.0 78.3 0.58
Think of the children…er, the snail darters, the purple-throated wombat, the lesser tit, Grossinger’s iguana–there must be something that’s harmed by higher temperatures, even if it’s a bacterium. That will suffice for the EPA’s purposes.
Nope. The Clean Air Act is about human health or welfare, other creatures are not even mentioned. EPA can’t possibly operate outside the law.
Simples. Use all the same tactics to undo what was done. Nuclear option? Sure. Executive order? Why not? Declare something a pollutant? Undeclare it. The difference this time with control of the House, Senate, Executive Branch, AND SCOTUS we should be able to make it permanent. Easier said than done but possible. The hubris of the outgoing administration in thinking they made permanent policy changes will soon be demolished. If anything Trump loves a challenge and to prove he’s right he loves even more.
His son said the best way to get DOTUS to do something was to tell him it wasn’t possible. Thanks, Gina. Many thanks. Brilliant strategic move, not.
Donald Of The US
THANKS FOR THAT!!!