December 2009:
The US Environmental
Protection Agency issued its
Endangerment Finding (EF).
Carbon Dioxide ( CO2 )
and other “greenhouse gases”
(GHGs) were officially claimed
to endanger the health and welfare
of Americans.
In reality, carbon dioxide enables
plants to grow, which makes life
on Earth possible.
CO2 is not a pollutant.
But if CO2 is officially declared
to be a “dangerous pollutant”,
then fossil fuels must be phased out.
The EF was used justify climate
change research, anti-fossil fuel
regulations, wind and solar
energy subsidies; President Obama’s
signing of the Paris climate treaty,
and then Obama squandering
$1 billion on the related
green (slush) fund.
The EF would also justify
the Green New Deal, to
destroy the US economy,
as we know it.
There was never any formal,
public review of the EF conclusion.
No questions or public hearings.
Because there never was a valid
scientific basis for the EF,
the EPA shoved a predetermined
EF outcome down our throats.
President Trump may appoint
a Presidential Committee
on Climate Change, to review
“dangerous manmade climate
change” claims by the EPA.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute
filed a formal petition with the EPA, asking
that the agency stop using the EF until
it is given a “high level” peer review,
required by the Information Quality Act.
EPA’s “Clean Power Plan”
to shut down coal power plants
would cost $2 to $3 billion
in annual compliance costs.
The Green New Deal would cost
$50 to $100 trillion over ten years,
not including large disruptions
to US economic growth.
The EPA had deliberately
refused to allow citizens,
independent energy,
climate and health experts,
or even scientific and
professional societies
to nominate potential
reviewers or participate
in the EF analysis.
The EPA used an
internal review process,
conducted by its
own federal employees,
who would then be writing,
implementing and enforcing
regulations based on that
work.
The EPA review team
summarily dismissed
one of EPA’s senior
energy and economic
experts, because
his probing questions
and comments
“do not help the
legal or policy case”
for the EF decision.
The EPA never let
internal peer reviewers
see any of the
public comments
that outside experts
and organizations
submitted to the agency.
None of the EPA
peer review panel’s
questions and
responses
have ever been
made public.
Two years after
the Endangerment
Finding was issued,
the EPA’s own
Inspector General
found the EPA
violated rules
... but nothing was done
to correct the violations.
The EPA built its case
on circumstantial evidence,
and testimony only from
agency officials.
EPA reviewers ignored
contrary evidence,
and colluded
to prevent witnesses
for the CO2 defendant
from presenting
any defense,
or cross-examining
agency witnesses.
The EPA ignored
all climate science
that contradicted
the EF.
Their junk science was
driven by ideology,
using computer games
to make wrong predictions
of the global climate
100 years in the future.
That junk science
led to the demand
that the US must
significantly reduce
fossil fuel use.
Poor and developing
nations in Asia, Africa
and Latin America
are building, or planning
to build, over 2,000
coal and gas-fueled
electric power
generating plants.
They are building
fossil fuel power plants,
driving millions more
cars and trucks,
and emitting far more
CO2 than the US.
Why should the US
attack its own economy,
by slashing the use of
coal, oil and natural gas,
based on the junk science
supporting the EPA’s
Endangerment Finding ?
There is no logical reason to be
attacking our own economy.