Posted on 05/13/2009 6:34:24 PM PDT by Libloather
OMB memo raises doubts about EPA findings
May 12, 2009 @ 4:17 pm by Eric Zimmermann
An EPA finding last month that greenhouse gases are a danger to public health rests on dubious assumptions and could have negative economic impacts, a memo from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) warned.
The memo has no listed author but is marked "Deliberative–Attorney Client Privilege." A spokesman for OMB told Dow Jones Newswires that the brief is a "conglomeration of counsel we've received from various agencies" about the EPA finding, the conclusions of which would trigger regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
The author(s) of the memo suggest the EPA did not thoroughly examine the relationship between greenhouse gases and human health.
"In the absence of a strong statement of the standards being applied in this decision, there is concern that EPA is making a finding based on…'harm' from substances that have no demonstrated direct health effects," the memo says, adding that the "scientific data that purports to conclusively establish" that link was from outside EPA.
Additionally, the new regulations triggered by the finding would likely harm the economy, the brief warns.
"Making the decision to regulate CO2…is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities," the memo reads.
Finally, in language sure to anger climate change activists, the memo questions whether climate change might bring benefits that would mitigate the costs.
"To the extent that climate change alters out environment, it will create incentives for innovation and adaption that mitigate the damages," the memo reads. "The [EPA finding] should note this possibility[.]"
The memo goes so far as to suggest that global warming might be a net positive for certain regions of the United States.
"It might be reasonable to conclude that Alaska will benefit from warmer winters for both health and economic reasons," the authors note.
At a Senate hearing today, Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) grilled EPA administrator Lisa Jackson about the memo.
"This is a smoking gun," Barrasso said, accusing the EPA of making the finding for political reasons.
Jackson responded that the finding was based on science and was in no way politicized.
"That analysis had been done really before I took the oath of office," Jackson said.
She acknowledged that curbing climate change might have economic impact, and added that the costs could be minimized through the administration's favored cap-and-trade system.
"We do understand that there are costs to the economy of addressing global warming emissions, and that the best way to address them is a gradual move to a market-based program like cap-and trade," Jackson said.
No health needed after the seas rise.
Algore IS a total boob.
What she means is the the *fantasy* of manipulating the climate will bankrupt us. The argument is dead before cost even comes into it. It can't be done because we aren't causing it.
Boobs are much better than Algore. :D
Algore IS a total boob.
True. Boobs are at least fun.
You have do a severe injustice to "boobs" everywhere!
“Makes Algore look like a TOTAL boob!”
Algore has done a fine job of that on his own. Ever notice how babies just flock to him! HEY, Mommy! Look at that big boob!
Algore is a moob.
That's not a hard task.
“The author(s) of the memo suggest the EPA did not thoroughly examine the relationship between greenhouse gases and human health.”
Must be pretty hard to prove that the air you breathe out(CO2) is dangerous to your health...lol. Leave it to the democrat fascists to try to tax every American’s exhale.
OK, Nobody exhale, no human caused C02, problem solved
The environmentalist “movement” lost its intellectual and moral bearings decades ago.
if it were not for the “evil, exploitative, ravages” of humans “destroying natural ecosystems” with “invasive species,” then:
1. There would be NO edible or flowering plant species anywhere in Hawaii.
2. Edible plants in the New World would be limited to maize, yams, cranberries, huckleberries, and pawpaws.
Obviously, the human race has caused immense harm to “biodiversity.” /sarc
Consider, also:
1. There are more trees on the North American continent then when Christopher Columbus landed.
2. The Amazon rainforest is expanding, not shrinking.
3. If not for those “evil, exploitative, white Europeans;” the indigenous tribes of the North and South America would still be stuck in the Stone Age without either the wheel or the horse.
Two other realities:
1. Plant life is “starving” for carbon dioxide. The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is the critical limiting factor for plant growth. (The availability of phosphorous as a nutrient is second).
2. Water vapor is orders of magnitude more effective as a “greenhouse” gas and orders of magnitude more prevalent in the atmosphere than CO2. To the extent that there is ANY effect on the climate from a doubling, tripling, or even quadrupling of the few parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere, the effect is in the statistical “noise” and impossible to measure
3. Correlation is not causation, but to the extent that periods of increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere correlate to periods of increased temperature, the increases in CO2 concentrations are more likely to be the result of expanded growing seasons and an increase in the area of existing landmass that would have a long enough and warm enough growing season.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.