HEADLINE: “Reversing the Endangerment Finding: Burying the Union of Concerned Scientists Case Against It”, By STEVE MILLOY

“Science isn’t 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.”

CO2

Reversing the Endangerment Finding: Burying the Union of Concerned Scientists Case Against It

1 minute ago

Guest Blogger

From JunkScience

1. Steve Milloy,

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.]

The original Endangerment Finding was reached in the context of the vehicle emissions, per section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, partially excerpted below:

The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.

In its 2012 decision, the DC Circuit was also clear is noting that “By employing the verb “shall,” Congress vested a non-discretionary duty in EPA.” That duty is not circumscribed by cost considerations. [If there is no EF, then the “shall” is not relevant to greenhouse gas emissions.]

Of course, the impacts of climate change are themselves incredibly costly and those costs are mounting as heat-trapping emissions rise. [Global GDP has increased 447% since the climate hoax began around 1990. There is absolutely no harm to anyone or anything that can be scientifically attributed to emissions.] Unsurprisingly, the social cost of greenhouse gases, a science-based estimate of those costs, is another metric that the Trump EPA is seeking to undermine in yet another blatant attempt to put a thumb on the scale in favor of polluting industries. [There is no such thing as a “social cost of greenhouse gases.” There is only a social benefit.“]

Fact #3: EPA used well-established methodologies in its assessment of six GHGs

As noted in the 2009 endangerment finding, the EPA defined the pollutant contributing to climate change as “the aggregate group of the well-mixed greenhouse gases” with similar attributes. The attributes include that they are sufficiently long-lived, directly emitted, contribute to climate warming and are a focus of science and policy. [There was in 2009, and there remains no evidence that greenhouse gas emissions have had any effect on the atmosphere.]

The EPA used a very well-established scientific methodology to combine emissions of GHGs on the basis of their heat-trapping potential, measured in CO2 equivalents. In the case of passenger cars, light- and heavy-duty trucks, buses, and motorcycles—the transportation sources EPA considered for the original endangerment finding—they emitted four key greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons. [You may add, subtract, multiply or divide emissions anyway you want. There is no evidence they cause any harm.]

False, glib claims in the reconsideration announcement baselessly accuse the 2009 Endangerment Finding of making “creative leaps” and “mysterious” choices. There is nothing mysterious about the heat-trapping attributes of greenhouse gases, nor their impact on public health. It’s called science. Once again, relying on the mountain of evidence in the peer-reviewed scientific literature would make that readily apparent. [It is important to distinguish between greenhouse gases and emissions of them. Carbon dioxide, for example, is an important greenhouse gas. But its effects fall off dramatically toward zero as concentrations increase in the atmosphere. We are at a point where effects of emissions, if there are any, are not measurable.]

Fact #4: EPA has the responsibility and authority to regulate major sources of GHGs [Once again, under Massachusetts v. EPA, EPA only “may” regulate greenhouse gases. It has no “responsibility” to do so. and its “authority” is in doubt.]

The Cause or Contribute Finding—which specifically established that greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles contribute to the pollution that harms public health—may also come under attack. This finding has been extended to other major sources of GHGs, including power plants and oil and gas operations. However, the Trump administration could attempt to use accounting tricks to avoid regulating emissions—as it has tried before. [Indeed. With the EF reversed, all federal climate regulations;ation will come to a halt.]

In its first term, the administration attempted multiple underhanded maneuvers along these lines, including in the context of methane and VOC regulations in the oil and gas sector . For these regulations, the administration split up segments of the source category, designated them as separate source categories, used that manipulation to claim inability to regulate certain segments, and asserted that methane emissions from the remaining segments were too small and regulating them would not provide additional benefits, so those too could not be regulated. Separately, in the final days of the administration, EPA released an absurd framework attempting to set thresholds for determining “significance,” trialed in the context of power plants.

This irrational approach could be used to artificially segment components of power plants or the power system, for example, and then claim no regulations are required. This kind of rigged math wouldn’t fool a kindergarten child but there’s no telling where this administration might go in its desperate attempt to undo or weaken regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. [None of this is relevant to the EF.]

Zeldin’s relentless subversion of EPA’s mission [EPA has no “mission”. It was never established by Congress, only by Nixon Executive order. It is not subversion to end mindless, junk science-fueled over-regulation.]

Under Administrator Zeldin, EPA’s mission to protect public health and the environment has been completely subverted. His shocking rhetoric lays bare how far he will go to protect polluters at the expense of the public. Here he is, for instance, crowing about going after 31+ EPA regulations and guidance, as well as the enforcement of pollution standards meant to protect all of us:

“Today is the greatest day of deregulation our nation has seen. We are driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion…”

EPA even set up an email address for polluters to send an email to get a presidential exemption from complying with regulations on toxic pollution, such as mercury emissions, regulated under the Clean Air Act! [Not relevant to the EF.]

Zeldin is fervently committed to dismantling public health protections and rolling back enforcement of existing laws passed by Congress. Going after the Endangerment Finding is an integral part of this all-out assault because, in the Trump administration’s harmful calculation, revoking the Finding is a potential means to rolling back all the regulations that depend on it. [Still no evidence that emissions are harming anyone or anything.]

Ironically, some utilities and oil and gas companies have spoken out in favor of keeping the Finding intact, as they fear a greater risk of climate damages lawsuits in the absence of EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases. Of course, this just exposes that they know their products are causing damage. What they seek is the weakest possible exercise of EPA authority so they can continue to reap profits while evading accountability for those harms. [Big Oil, utilities and other big companies want to leave the EF in place so they can steal the taxpayer subsidies through the Green New Scam.]

We can fight back with science [Climate hoaxers have zero science on their side. Their emissions-driven models don’t work. None of their predictions have come true.]

But none of this is a foregone conclusion. The legal and scientific basis for the Endangerment Finding is incredibly strong. The false claims Zeldin and other opponents have trotted out are full of bombast but weak on substance. [Still waiting for the evidence.]

The science on climate change is so indisputably well-established, that it’s hard to see how any court would uphold a challenge to it. That’s not to say Zeldin won’t try to find a cabal of fringe “scientists” to try to attack it, but they’re unlikely to succeed on the merits. [We will certainly find out if/when the issue gets to the Supreme Court.]

Public comments on the proposal to reconsider the Endangerment Finding can help set the record straight on facts. And if the Zeldin EPA ignores them and finalizes a sham Finding or revokes the Finding with a faulty rationale, that will be challenged in court. [Good luck.]

UCS will be closely following the details of EPA’s proposal to reconsider the Endangerment Finding when it is released. And we will let you know how you can add your voice to bolster this crucial science-based Finding, and the public health protections that flow from it. [There is no “science-based finding” nor any “public health protections that flow from it.”] So, stay tuned! [EF defenders have a whole lot of nothing to support the 2009 Obama EPA determination.]

BOTTOMLINE: “Once again, under Massachusetts v. EPA, EPA only “may” regulate greenhouse gases. It has no “responsibility” to do so. and its “authority” is in doubt.”