Can the EPA Rely on UN Science?

pajamas media ^ | April 28, 2010 | Jeffrey Bossert Clark

[opentalk]

When did America risk coming to be ruled by foreign scientists and apparatchiks at the United Nations? The answer, it would seem, is ever since Lisa Jackson, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under President Obama, chose to issue a rule determining that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger the public health and welfare.

Administrator Jackson acted to make her so-called “endangerment finding” on December 7, 2009, and befitting the historically tone-deaf selection of Pearl Harbor day for her announcement, the precipitous action embodied in the endangerment rule will also unleash immense negative consequences for the American economy entirely unexpected by most of the citizenry.

What would come as an even greater surprise to the public is that the endangerment rule is inextricably rooted in science performed by UN-designated scientists and reports written by UN bureaucrats. “I cannot think of any instance where the EPA depended so heavily on non-EPA synthesis reports to justify proposed regulatory action in [its] almost 39 years of existence,” noted Dr. Alan Carlin alarmingly.

Economist Dr. Carlin has been an employee of the EPA for 38 of those 39 years, performing complex risk assessments for EPA regulations. So his qualifications to look back with a keen eye across EPA’s history are tough to match. And yes, this would be the same Dr. Carlin that the EPA attempted to muzzle last spring and summer for arguing, within the halls of the agency, that the endangerment rule was unsupported. In an administration that congratulates itself for being the most transparent in history, Dr. Carlin was directly told to stop his work on the endangerment rule.

EPA’s abdication of responsibility to the UN is troubling not just because it risks erosion of American sovereignty, but because it poses other serious legal issues. The Clean Air Act commits discretion to the EPA administrator to exercise “her judgment” to decide whether to promulgate an endangerment rule. Yet much of the critical science that she invoked was not open to the public because it was not performed under EPA auspices. The EPA administrator’s judgment is arguably on UN auto pilot, and that’s quite disturbing given the recent revelations in “Climategate” concerning the manipulation of data and the suppression of dissenting scientific viewpoints that several parties have raised in pending litigation in the D.C. Circuit brought to challenge the issuance of the endangerment rule.

[opentalk]

Full article at link

[Diogenesis]

What is driving this is a Democrat patent on GW credits.

Run by .....

“Fannie Mae Chief Executive Officer Franklin Raines, two of his top underlings and select
individuals in the "green" movement were inventing a patented system to trade residential carbon credits.
Patent No. 6904336 was approved by the U.S. Patent and Trade Office on Nov. 7, 2006 --
the day after Democrats took control of Congress. Former Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H.,
criticized the award at the time, pointing out that it had "nothing to do with Fannie Mae's charter, nothing to do with making mortgages more affordable."

"It wasn't about mortgages. It was about greenbacks. The patent, which Fannie Mae confirmed it still owns with Cantor Fitzgerald subsidiary CO2e.com, gives the mortgage giant a lock on the fledgling carbon trading market, thus also giving it a major financial stake in the success of cap-and-trade legislation."

---

“Here comes the next bubble -- carbon trading
Forget CDOs and other inventions of the great credit bubble. That’s all old hat.
Investment bankers are moving on to an area of securities trading that is potentially even
more lucrative, and what’s more, even has a social value – saving the planet.
….According to Mr Schapiro, carbon trading is now the fastest growing commodities
market on earth. Since Kyoto signatories bought in to the cap and trade concept in 2005,
there have been more than $300bn carbon transactions, prompting several investment
banks, including Goldman Sachs and Barclays, to set up their own carbon trading desks.
But that’s just the start. If President Obama and his supporters can institute a cap-and-
trade system in the United States – and that’s a big if for this increasingly marooned
presidency – demand could explode into a $2 to $3 trillion market.

And here’s the great thing about it. Unlike traditional commodities markets, which will
eventually involve delivery to someone in physical form, the carbon market is based on
lack of delivery of an invisible substance to no-one. Since the market revolves around
creating carbon credits, or finding carbon reduction projects whose benefits can then be
sold to those with a surplus of emissions, it is entirely intangible.

“Carbon developers”, many of them employed by large multinationals, travel the world
in search of carbon reduction projects to sell, while firms of carbon accountants have been
established to verify on the United Nations’ behalf that those reductions are real.
The whole thing, though well intentioned, looks wide open to abuse and scams. “

[BitWielder1]

EPA will happily rely on any science that supports the position they already have.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[G Larry]

There is NO “Science” involved in these considerations.

These policies are all about wealth redistribution, focused on the graft of foreign leaders, while undermining and destroying America......because that is “fair”.

everybody loves a winner....except for all of the losers in the world.