The Ominous Presence of an Environmental Industrial Alliance on GHG Control

 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.

Leave a Reply