Reversing the Endangerment Finding: Burying the Union of Concerned Scientists Case Against It
By Steve Milloy
Excerpt: The Trump EPA is planning to reconsider the 2009 Obama EPA Endangerment Finding (EF) that labeled greenhouse gas emissions as a threat to public health. Here is the first effort [Web | PDF] by a leftist group against that. Let’s take a look at it, line-by line with my comments [bracketed in bold].
In a blitz of destructive actions [Destructive to the green agenda, that is] announced by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin last month, he specifically called for a reconsideration of the 2009 Endangerment Finding. A formal proposal for reconsideration of the Finding (and all the agency regulations and actions that depend on it) is expected this month. [Don’t look for the proposal this month or even next month.] The science underpinning the Endangerment Finding is airtight [It’s about as airtight as a butterfly net.], but that won’t stop the Trump administration from setting up a rigged process [Psychologists call this “projection.” It was the Obama EPA that rigged the process in 2009.] to try to undo it and give a blank check to polluters [Greenhouse gases are colorless and odorless. Carbon dioxide is plant food. Calling emissions pollution has no basis in reality.] The Union of Concerned Scientists will fight back to defend climate science and protect public health safeguards. [Good luck based on the falsehoods offered so far.]
In an earlier post, I laid out some of the history and context for the 2009 science-backed Endangerment Finding and the Cause or Contribute Finding. [I’ll have to address that next.] These findings followed from the landmark 2007 Mass v. EPA Supreme Court ruling which held that greenhouse gas emissions are unambiguously air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. [Massachusetts v. EPA was incorrectly decided. Congress never authorized EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Clean Air Act co-author Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) explained that here.] Together, these establish the clear basis for EPA’s authority and responsibility to set pollutions limits for heat-trapping emissions from vehicles, power plants and other sources of these pollutants, under the Clean Air Act. [The actual holding of Massachusetts v. EPA is that EPA may, but doesn’t have to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. EPA is free to reverse its 2009 EF.]
Attacks on the Endangerment Finding and EPA’s Clean Air Act authority from industry interests are nothing new. Importantly, courts have repeatedly upheld both, including in a resounding 2012 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals–D.C. Circuit in Citizens for Responsible Regulation v. EPA. [EF science has never actually been reviewed by a court because federal judges decided long ago to defer to agency science decisions.] But those who have long sought to overturn or weaken regulations to limit heat-trapping emissions [There is no scientific evidence showing that emissions have trapped any heat whatsoever.] now have Administrator Zeldin in their corner. [President Trump has determined that climate is a hoax. Administrator Zeldin is implementing administration policy.] And he has shown himself to be an unbridled purveyor of disinformation and proponent of harmful attacks on bedrock public health protections, [There is no scientific evidence that emissions threaten public health.] as my colleague Julie McNamara highlights.
The details of what will be included in the reconsideration proposal are unclear at this point. But we do know some of the trumped-up lines of attack the Zeldin EPA could advance to try to invalidate these Findings because many of these tired arguments are outlined in EPA’s reconsideration announcement.
Here are the facts:
Fact #1: The science backing the Endangerment Finding is beyond dispute [There is nothing but dispute about EF “science.” There is no science demonstrating that emissions have any effect other than as plant food (carbon dioxide).]
Every major scientific society endorses the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change driven by GHG emissions. [Every major scientific society has been taken over by leftist climate hoaxers.] The Fifth National Climate Assessment and the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report are two major recent authoritative summaries of peer-reviewed climate science, which show that the science on climate change has only become more dire and compelling since 2009. [These reports are not science but propaganda. Science is not conducted by consensus nor is there anything authoritative about so-called “climate science.” No climate model has correct predicted anything. No climate prediction has ever come true.]
The impacts of climate change on human health are also starkly clear and backed by overwhelming evidence. [What “climate change” is being referred to and what evidence is there that emissions are responsible for it?] Here’s the main finding from the NCA5 chapter on public health, for instance:
Climate change is harming physical, mental, spiritual, and community health [Assertions are not science.] through the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme events, [No sort of weather even correlates with emissions on a climatic scale.] higher incidences of infectious and vector-borne diseases, [No disease rates correlate with emissions on a climatic scale.] and declines in food and water security. [Thanks to emissions, the world is carrying more people who are consuming more food and water than ever.] These impacts worsen social inequities. [Thanks to emissions, there are more people living healthier, wealthier, longer and freer lives than ever before.] Emissions reductions, effective adaptation measures, and climate-resilient health systems can protect human health and improve health equity. [Emissions reductions have never occurred and there its no evidence that anyone or anything would be better off with fewer emissions.]
As just one example, climate change is contributing to worsening extreme heat which exerts a punishing toll on people’s health, including that of outdoor workers. Heat is already the leading cause of extreme weather-related deaths in the United States and studies show that heat-related mortality is on the rise. [We know from US data that there is no correlation between emissions and heatwaves. Heatwaves have actually been declining in the US over the past 90 years.]
Looking around the nation, with communities reeling from extreme heatwaves, intensified hurricanes, catastrophic wildfires and record flooding, climate impacts are the lived reality of all too many people. [No sort of weather event, extreme or not, correlates with emissions.] To deny that or obfuscate about the underlying causes is not only disingenuous, but actively harmful and outright cruel. [Eyeroll.]
Fact #2: The law requires an independent scientific determination of endangerment, unhindered by cost considerations
A Finding of Endangerment under the Clean Air Act is specifically focused on a threshold scientific determination of whether the pollutant under consideration harms public health or welfare. Costs to industry of meeting any subsequent regulations are not relevant per the statute. [The only true sentences so far.]
