The Obama administration’s Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, Lisa P. Jackson has flatly denied a collection of petitions that alleged the agency’s scientific determination that global warming is real and is a threat to public health and welfare.
In a formal announcement, EPA said:
The petitions to reconsider EPA’s Endangerment Finding claim that climate science cannot be trusted, and assert a conspiracy that invalidates the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program. After months of serious consideration of the petitions and of the state of climate change science, EPA finds no evidence to support these claims. In contrast, EPA’s review shows that climate science is credible, compelling, and growing stronger.
Among other challenges to the EPA findings, petitions were filed by several coal companies and industry groups, including the Ohio Coal Association, Peabody Energy Co., and Massey Energy.
The detailed EPA response is posted here, and this EPA page has a long list of scientific references that back up the agency’s findings. EPA also has a helpful “Facts vs. Myths” page located here.
Jackson said today:
The endangerment finding is based on years of science from the U.S. and around the world. These petitions — based as they are on selectively edited, out-of-context data and a manufactured controversy — provide no evidence to undermine our determination. Excess greenhouse gases are a threat to our health and welfare. Defenders of the status quo will try to slow our efforts to get America running on clean energy. A better solution would be to join the vast majority of the American people who want to see more green jobs, more clean energy innovation and an end to the oil addiction that pollutes our planet and jeopardizes our national security.
Subscribe to the Coal Tattoo
In the meantime it’s being reported that global warming is undeniable:
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/07/29/climate-change-study-noaa.html
Elections have consequences. In this case, the consequence is that scientists are in charge of EPA scientific findings. I’m proud of them for what they are doing to try to restore integrity to government.
Does this integrity and adherence to scientific fact present a “threat” to burning lots of coal without capturing the carbon?
Yes, indeed, and that’s not good news for West Virginia coal jobs and income.
However, the solution to this problem for West Virginia and other coalfields areas is not some bizarre political effort to change the facts — a fruitless effort that will only worsen the situation. The solution is to put a price on carbon emissions and create a market for carbon capture.
The UMWA approved this path. Senator Byrd was open to it. We need our leaders to get on with it. The alternative is almost too terrifying to contemplate.
Tom,
I’m not sure which “path” you are saying the UMWA approves.
I don’t believe the UMWA supports EPA regulation of carbon dioxide emissions … Phil Smith from the union can correct me if I’m wrong about that.
I believe that the UMWA has said that it accepts the science and believes something should be done, but believes CCS is the solution and supports efforts in that direction. The union did not support Waxman-Markey, but also said it would assure the future of the coal industry.
Here’s just one of many Coal Tattoo posts that have tried to outline the union’s position on these matters:
http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2009/09/15/umwa-global-warming-is-real-so-lets-deal-with-it/
Ken.
Good point, Ken, I was apparently engaging in wishful thinking.
I would have been closer to accurate to say that the UMWA and Senator Byrd were open to a legislative path that puts a price on carbon emissions, like Waxman Markey does.
I went back and looked at your earlier post; it has a lot of interesting quotes from Cecil Roberts. Where will we get the money to deal with the burdens that climate policy will inevitably place on coalfields workers — except from putting a price on carbon emissions? I think the UMWA realizes this, too.
I have no idea how the UMWA feels about EPA’s independent efforts on carbon emissions, but the union probably strongly favors a legislative approach where they can have more influence.
Nevertheless, with no legislation forthcoming (and no money to help affected miners), EPA has to obey the law and follow the science. EPA’s coming regulations will be an important albeit incredibly messy step in the process of changing our economy to try to avoid global catastrophes.