Editor’s Note: The CRE letter requesting that EPA conduct a structured peer review as mandated by the Data Quality Act is in this letter to EPA on peer review ff
CRE is reflecting upon on the strong opposition to its very straight forward proposal that EPA conduct a structured peer review of the CCS technology as mandated by the Data Quality Act. In our view we simply asked EPA to follow the law. Why then the strong negative reaction to the CRE proposal?
Support for the unilateral adoption of CCS as the technology of choice for GHG control is a result, in part, by the actions by two major groups: the proactive support of some(not all) national environmental organizations and by the passive support of a select number of industrial sectors comprised of technology vendors, regulated firms who can pass on the added cost of environmental control to the consumer or by other affected organizations, including national and state goverments, whose risk adverse corporate boards or policy officials will blindly accept the alleged existence of a control technology to simply get the matter behind them.
If CCS is not a viable control technology who is the loser? In such an event the public is the ultimate loser: GHG emissions will continue to increase and at higher cost to consumers.
The bottom line is that EPA should implement the policy neutral peer review process dictated by its exemplary EPA Peer Review Handbook not withstanding the presence of the aforementioned environmental industrial alliance.