In The News
Rush Limbaugh Show: Smoking Gun Memo on C02 Myth
Friday May 15, 2009
Now, you haven't heard about this, you had to have seen C-SPAN to know about this, but this memo is out there that CO2 is not a pollutant, that there's no evidence that CO2 is leading to the warming of the planet. There is a memo that pretty much debunks everything environmental wackos and global warming people are putting out, and it came from the Obama administration. And what's interesting about it is that the EPA was just given the authority by the Supreme Court to regulate CO2 as a pollutant. So the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee had a hearing on the proposed fiscal 2010 budget for the EPA. Senator John Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming, had a conversation with the EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson. Now, Barrasso opened and he said this.
Politico: Barrasso’s a YouTube hit
Friday May 15, 2009
E & E News: Barrasso accuses White House of playing politics with OMB memo
Wednesday May 13, 2009
News Round-up: OMB Memo Warns of Economic Consequences
Tuesday May 12, 2009
Posted by: Matt Dempsey Matt_Dempsey@epw.senate.gov
EPW NEWS ROUND-UP
Murky reg-review process set stage for frenzy over OMB climate memo – New York Times – May 14, 2009Link to Article
The political frenzy sparked by a White House memo that raised questions about U.S. EPA's handling of a proposed "endangerment finding" on greenhouse gas emissions was rooted in what experts say are muddled procedures for reviewing proposed federal regulations. At issue was a flurry of press reports Tuesday about an unsigned, undated document from the White House Office of Management and Budget that laid out serious concerns about the possible damaging economic effects of EPA's proposed finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. The document was quickly seized by Republican lawmakers and industry groups, which cited the memo as proof that the Obama administration had ignored scientific and economic realities when issuing the proposal last month. Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) labeled the memo a "smoking gun" proving EPA's finding had been based on politics rather than science. But in the wake of the media craze, the Obama administration divulged that some of the comments in question had been submitted by an independent advocacy office within the Small Business Administration whose mission is to reduce the burdens of federal policies on small firms. The office's chief advocate was appointed under the Bush administration, although she initially came into office under President Clinton.
A new Memogate? White House document reveals serious concerns with EPA’s GHG policy – May 13, 2009
Last month the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its so-called ‘endangerment findings’, an announcement that set the table for future federal CO2 regulations under the Clean Air Act on the basis of greenhouse gases (GHG) representing a threat to human health and welfare. The EPA’s landmark announcement was released at a time when public skepticism about the root causes of climate change is on the rise, and the sizable group of critics that oppose the endangerment findings were given a boost of ammunition this week. The release of an undated and unsigned White House of Management and Budget memorandum (marked as ‘Deliberative - Attorney Client Privilege’) provides nine pages of critiques and challenges to the EPA’s assertion that GHG are a threat to human health and welfare. The memo is based on a collection of opinions from representatives of various federal agencies. The memo questions the scientific rigor employed by the EPA in preparing its endangerment findings report, and even suggests that the proposal to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act “would have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the US economy, including small businesses and small communities”.
Memo exposes global warming dispute – Washington Times – May 13, 2009
A memo released Tuesday shows an agency within the Obama administration objected to a landmark Environmental Protection Agency ruling on global warming, arguing that it was not based on sound science and could prove costly to businesses.
The dispute concerns the EPA's so-called "endangerment finding," in which the agency has tentatively found carbon dioxide is dangerous enough as a greenhouse gas to warrant regulation under the Clean Air Act - a ruling that could force federal action to address climate change even if Congress fails to act. Critics, including some within the administration, argue that the Clean Air Act is not an appropriate vehicle to deal with climate change and say the finding sets the stage for harmful regulations on businesses and industry.
Document Is Critical of E.P.A. on Clean Air – New York Times – May 13, 2009
An internal government memorandum that came to light on Tuesday challenged the scientific and economic basis of a proposed Environmental Protection Agency finding that climate-altering gases are a threat to human health and welfare.The undated and unsigned government document, marked “Deliberative — Attorney Client Privilege,” was compiled by the White House Office of Management and Budget from comments offered by various agencies. A White House official said that many of the criticisms and suggestions came from holdovers from the administration of President George W. Bush and had been rejected by Obama appointees.The nine-page document was part of a multiagency review of the proposed E.P.A. finding and had little impact on the final agency document, which was issued on April 17, officials said. But opponents of the Obama administration’s approach to the regulation of heat-trapping gases seized on the memorandum in a flurry of press statements and in a Senate hearing on Tuesday.
OMB climate memo creates circus – E & E News – May 13, 2009
Political fireworks flew yesterday between the White House and conservative critics about an administration memo slamming U.S. EPA's recent proposal to regulate greenhouse gases. Analysts across the ideological spectrum, however, said that the ensuing hoopla could be more of a sideshow than a true hindrance to President Obama's global-warming agenda. The firestorm started with a nine-page document from the Office of Management and Budget warning that EPA's April decision to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act "is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities. "The unsigned document submitted to EPA also questioned whether the agency incorrectly concluded that heat-trapping gases truly have demonstrated health effects. The paper, titled "Deliberative -- Attorney Client Privilege," argued that curbing six greenhouse gases under the act was such a loose interpretation of law that it could open the door to regulation of things such as noise." This will be used by opponents of the Waxman bill, no question about it," said Rena Steinzor, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Law, about the document's impact on climate legislation under consideration in the House, sponsored by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.).
Republicans Pounce on OMB Memo – WSJ – May 12, 2009
Republicans pounced Tuesday on a White House document that said regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act “is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities.” The document, a combination of government agencies’ comments that the Office of Management and Budget sent the Environmental Protection Agency earlier this year, presents a grim view of the consequences of regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Last month, the EPA issued a proposed finding that greenhouse gases “endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.” Asked about the memo at a Senate hearing Tuesday, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson emphasized that the agency’s declaration is preliminary and might not lead to regulations. She reiterated the administration’s preference for legislation such as Rep. Henry Waxman’s plan to cap and gradually reduce emissions, while allowing companies to buy and sell emissions permits.
###
Barrasso Questions Jackson
Tuesday May 12, 2009
Posted by Matt Dempsey matt_dempsey@epw.senate.gov
During today's EPW Committee hearing, Senator Barrasso questioned EPA administrator Jackson about the OMB "smoking gun" memo.
Chicago Tribune: Keep Yucca Mountain project alive
Tuesday May 12, 2009
Obama's decision to zero out the Nevada nuclear waste repository is a betrayal of his Illinois constituents, forcing nuclear power plants here to continue to "temporarily" store more than 7,000 tons of dangerous, radioactive waste -- more than any other state -- in cooling ponds near rivers and Lake Michigan. It would mean that the $10 billion that Commonwealth Edison and other utility customers already have sunk into the repository have disappeared down a dark hole.
OMB Memo: Serious Economic Impact Likely From EPA CO2 Rules...In Case You Missed It
Tuesday May 12, 2009
The nine-page document also undermines the EPA's reasoning for a proposed finding that greenhouse gases are a danger to public health and welfare, a trigger for new rules.
The memo, an amalgamation of government agencies' comments sent from the Office of Management and Budget to the EPA, is in stark contrast to the official position presented by President Barack Obama and his Cabinet officials. It is likely to give critics of greenhouse-gas regulation ammunition in their political salvos against the administration.
EPW POLICY BEAT: ACID RAIN REDUX
Monday May 11, 2009
We hope this semantic shift prompts an end to the inapt comparisons between the 1990 Acid Rain Program and cap-and-trade for carbon-but we have our doubts. As we've noted before, Laurie Williams and Allen Zabel, career employees of the Environmental Protection Agency, who support instituting a carbon fee to address climate change, wrote in a recent paper about the "Acid Rain Myth." "Those who champion using cap-and-trade to address climate change claim that it has been ‘proven' to work in the U.S. Acid Rain program," they wrote. "However, this assertion ignores crucial distinctions between the challenges we faced in 1990 with Acid Rain and the challenges we face today with global warming."
WSJ Editorial: Carbon Reality, Again
Monday May 11, 2009
Senator John Barrasso: Environmental Group Will Sue Small Business
Friday May 8, 2009
Kassie Siegel, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute, was quoted in the Wall Street Journal saying her group is prepared to sue for regulation of smaller emitters if the EPA stops at simply large emitters.
Special interest groups around the country are scheming to sue the EPA to prosecute hospitals, farms, nursing homes, commercial buildings and any other small emitter of greenhouse gasses. These regulations are a dangerous loose cannon in the wrong hands.