EPA Rejects 10 Endangerment Challenge Petitions

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on July 29 denied 10 petitions challenging its 2009 determination that climate change is real, is occurring due to emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities, and threatens human health and the environment.

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.

“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,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “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.”

The basic assertions by the petitioners and EPA responses follow:

Claim: Petitioners say that emails disclosed from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate global temperature data.
Response: EPA reviewed every e-mail and found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets. Four other independent reviews came to similar conclusions.

Claim: Petitioners say that errors in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report call the entire body of work into question.
Response: Of the alleged errors, EPA confirmed only two in a 3,000 page report. The first pertains to the rate of Himalayan glacier melt and second to the percentage of the Netherlands below sea level. IPCC issued correction statements for both of these errors. The errors have no bearing on Jackson’s decision. None of the errors undermines the basic facts that the climate is changing in ways that threaten our health and welfare.

Claim: Petitioners say that because certain studies were not included in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC itself is biased and cannot be trusted as a source of reliable information.
Response: These claims are incorrect. In fact, the studies in question were included in the IPCC report, which provided a comprehensive and balanced discussion of climate science.

Claim: Petitioners say that new scientific studies refute evidence supporting the Endangerment Finding.
Response: Petitioners misinterpreted the results of these studies. Contrary to their claims, many of the papers they submit as evidence are consistent with EPA’s Finding. Other studies submitted by the petitioners were based on unsound methodologies. Detailed discussion of these issues may be found in Volume 1 of the response to petition documents, on EPA’s Website.

Climate change is already happening, and human activity is a contributor. The global warming trend over the past 100 years is confirmed by three separate records of surface temperature, all of which are confirmed by satellite data. Beyond this, evidence of climate change is seen in melting ice in the Arctic, melting glaciers around the world, increasing ocean temperatures, rising sea levels, shifting precipitation patterns, and changing ecosystems and wildlife habitats.

“America’s Climate Choices,” a report from the National Academy of Sciences and the most recent assessment of the full body of scientific literature on climate change, along with the recently released “State of the Climate” report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration both fully support the conclusion that climate change is real and poses significant risk to human and natural systems. The consistency among these and previously issued assessments only serves to strengthen EPA’s conclusion.

The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) noted that EPA’s endangerment determination provides the basis for clean car standards adopted in April of this year. The new clean car standards were broadly supported by states, America’s automakers, the United Auto Workers union and environmentalists. The clean car standards will reduce oil consumption by 1.8 billion barrels, cut climate-disruptive gases by 960 million tons, and save consumers an estimated $3,000 at the gas pump over the life of their car.

Also, EDF said the petitions seeking reconsideration of EPA’s science-based finding were filed by coal companies, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the State of Texas, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and other interests.

Comments

Thu, Aug 19, 2010 Ed PA

By the way, geological and historical climate trends and cycles indicate we are entering a cyclical 30-year cooling period, as well as the100,000-year cycle leading to the next ice age.

Thu, Aug 19, 2010 Pam T PA

It's a simple mass balance problem. Take carbon (coal, methane, oil, biomass) that has been sequestered for MILLIONS of years. Burn it = CO & CO2. Throw most of that into the atmosphere. Then, subtract the mechanisms that sequester it. Diatoms, plant life, dissolved in the oceans, plastics. Has man put a lot in the atmosphere - yes. More than can be removed by nature and us. How does that affect climate - I don't think we know for sure. BUT, we are warming. So, why not do what we can to minimize our contribution so the effects slow down. Afterall we will run out of oil, coal, and natural methane someday. It takes millions of years to make more.

Thu, Aug 19, 2010 Alchemist Oregon

Where do all these people come from? I must admit I am not pro EPA usually because they do not do enough regulation but then when they do finally squeeze out something that might actually do some good all I hear is a bunch of money grubbing conservatives wining about taxes and their old money inheritance made from the backs of the middle class. Money, Money… What about clean air, water and soil for many generations to come? To tell you the truth I would not care if it was a 50% split or even a 25% minority that thought climate change was real. We are talking about our home, our planet. Fools… if it was your child that had 100 doctors and 10 of them said he/she had cancer would you take no action?

Wed, Aug 18, 2010 California

The old adage "Follow the money," obviously applies here. The power and money is behind a carbon tax, but there is no need for a carbon tax without climate change. Therefore, climate change must exist for the new tax to exist. The carbon tax scheme is a vast transfer of more wealth from individuals and businesses to the government, and to the government connnected cronies (including some with Nobel prizes) who expect their companies to profit from the carbon trade. No surprise that the agency reviewing this found the way the executive signing their paychecks and assigning budget and postitions wished the agency to find. The only way to stop this in the US is to block it in court. It is an illegal action, and an illegal tax, period.

Thu, Aug 12, 2010 Wyoming

As an environmental proffessional with a masters degree and 30 years experience it appears to me EPA has completely failed to provide an objective review of the global warming issue. Anyone how claims the science on the subject is settled is either dishonest, or very ignorant & unobjective. There are literally thousands of peer reviewed scientific articles challenging the endangerment finding. Also over 30,000 scientists have signed a petition challenging this finding. That is many more than have even contributed to the IPCC reports. It is obvious that good science will not longer be listened to by this administration. We are headed back to the dark ages.

Thu, Aug 5, 2010 conservit

columbus, the Chinese are laughing at us so hard that they have committed to a reduction of 40% in CO2 intensity by 2020. How are you doing on that? Larry, the earth is always in a "natural" climatic cycle, but it is very much affected by the insults of man. Don't need to look much farther than the gulf coast or a Michigan river to see that. Has anyone noticed that the growing season zones in the US have moved north about 150 miles? Although this is a "weather" vs. a climate phenomenon, did anyone notice the new heat record just set in Pakistan last month? 128 degrees.

Thu, Aug 5, 2010 Larry AZ

The earth is in a natural climatic cycle and is relatively unaffected by the insults of man - anyone who has experienced a hurricane, tornado, volcano eruption, or other force of nature can testify to this. These attempts by those with a financial or philosophical interest are nothing new. The only science that is allowed is that the supports the contention even if it is extremely week. Welcome to the World of the Absurd.

Thu, Aug 5, 2010 Pete Murray Pennsylvania

Good for the EPA. It's real, it's happening, everyone knows it except for a few non-believers (apparently the coal companies that contribute and a few other special interests) and others who do not think on their own but are told how to think by those special interests. Now rather than bury our heads in the sand like some want to do, what do we all do about it is the next step.

Wed, Aug 4, 2010 columbus

The Chinese are laughing at us all the way to the bank. I am in the service station servicing business and I can tell you the new fuels are causing headaches and lots of extra expense for everyone involve. It seems to me the EPA is out to line a select few peoples pockets with out regard to the truth, which concensus science isn't.

Tue, Aug 3, 2010 Bob B Arizona

I strongly agree with the comments above. However, my favorite misleading statement is from the EDF stating how much money on Gas the Clean Car standards will "save" consummers at the gas pump. Yes, they may "save" $3,000 in gas cost over the life of the car, but the car is likely to cost at least that much more at purchase, and maintenance of new technologies will be very expensive and difficult to find trained mechanics for. So your "savings" is likely to COST consumers an ADDITIONAL $10,000 more than a standard low emission vehicle. But who care's, its just money and EPA never takes costs into consideration because the gov't has an unlimited supply - Right?

Tue, Aug 3, 2010 jim zinkan

I was involved in the start up of the NPDES program and the EPA failed then and has continued to fail to recognize the real world of managing the environment. So why is everyone surprised by this latest ruling.

Tue, Aug 3, 2010 Les Stuart Hermitage, TN

Is anyone surprised that the EPA would find against the petioners? I have been dealing with EPA on a consulting engineering level since 1975 and the one thing that has been consistent is EPA's unwillingness to objectively look at requests for anything that challenges or might alter their findings or determinations. Once the EPA makes a determination, very seldom is that altered, other than from those within the Administration. The Clean water Act has been in existence for over forty (40) years, for example and dry ditches are still designated as viable for water recreational activities and NPDES permits reflect this ridiculous categorization. The EPA had overwhelmed us with arbitrary and capricious regulations that do not enhance the public welfare or safety but do ensure their (EPA's) existence until the Congress wakes up and realizes the ridiculous waste of public funds that result from this dinosaur agency. Man does impact the environment, but we have been unable pretent to accurately measure envionmental conditions for less than 300 years when the thermometer was first modified with graduations representing the temperature. When Columbus set out on his voyage, those educated authorities(the EPA.s of the time) adamanetly vowed that the earth was flat. To pretend that we have any real(not thepretical) knowledge of the condition of the planet we call "Earth" at that time is mostly conjecture and bad theroy as it certainly isn't fact. This is a never ending debaucle that we call "EPA" ; we should abolish the agency and try to return to some common sense approach to protecting not only our environment but our fiscal expenditures to actually accomplish something of value.

Tue, Aug 3, 2010 Bill Bider Topeka, KS

EPA and this newsletter appear unwilling to consider dissenting opinions and continue to claim scientific consensus as related to human caused global warming. TI strongly recommend reading the comments made by hundreds of very credible scientists assembled in a document that can be accessed through the following link: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/un_scientists_speakout.pdf

Add your Comment

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above