|
Heartland Institute A finding by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that carbon dioxide, one of several
greenhouse gases, endangers human health or welfare may come as soon as April
2, 2009. This finding will trigger federal regulation of carbon dioxide
emissions from new motor vehicles and may lead to further regulation of CO2
emissions from numerous small and large sources, including commercial and
industrial buildings. This finding may also require that new sources of these
emissions, as well as those undergoing major modifications, obtain federal
preconstruction permits. Under the federal
Information Quality Act, such a regulatory juggernaut must be based on
"accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased" scientific information.
In addition, EPA rules require "the best available science and
supporting studies conducted in accordance with sound and objective
scientific practices" before imposing such requirements. EPA has no such
information showing carbon dioxide to be a dangerous pollutant. EPA relies primarily on
two science sources: the most recent report from the 2007 UN International
Panel on Climate Change report and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
synthesis reports. The IPCC reports were promulgated by government
bureaucrats, however, and their predictions of climate change are based on
discredited computer models. As for the synthesis
reports, more recent and more reliable science shows that human-induced
climate change is not taking place, that anthropogenic carbon dioxide does
not cause global warming, and that a period of global cooling appears to be
taking place. The Heartland Institute
and the Cato Institute, among others, have objected to EPA's use of this data
because it is unsound and violates the Information Quality Act. The following climate and
legal experts may be quoted or you may choose to contact them directly. Maureen Martin, senior
fellow for legal affairs for the Heartland Institute, (920) 229-6670 or at
martin@heartland.org.: "The proposed federal
regulation of carbon dioxide is flatly illegal." S. Fred Singer, president
of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, professor emeritus of
environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, and Distinguished
Research Professor at George Mason University (singer@sepp.org): "The CO2 wars have
begun. Presumably under White House direction, the EPA is ready to issue an
'Endangerment Finding' on carbon dioxide, paving the way for regulations to
control CO2 emissions." He adds that "CO2 is not a 'pollutant.' And
the climate has not been warming since 1998-in spite of steadily rising CO2
levels." Craig Idso, chairman of
the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
(cidso@co2science.org): "Although the IPCC
claims to be unbiased and based on the best available science, such is not
the case. In many instances conclusions have been seriously exaggerated,
relevant facts have been distorted, and key scientific studies have been
omitted or ignored." Patrick J. Michaels, a
professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and a
senior fellow of Washington's Cato Institute (pmichaels@cato.org): "It is becoming
increasingly clear that the midrange computer models [those whose predictions
are at or near the median] used by the United Nations' Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for its projections of global warming are
failing by any reasonable scientific standard. If we have no valid
projections, we have no defensible policy." Comment on this story, by email comment@newsblaze.com
Click here
to get NewsBlaze News in your email Comment on this story, by
email comment@newsblaze.com
Click here
to get NewsBlaze News in your email
|