Comments on: Science Does Not Matter in the EPA Endangerment Finding

By: thomas hine

thomas hine — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:50:41 +0000

The weakest link

I have just read the EPA tech document for the endangerment finding: “Assessment of the Impacts of Global Change on REgional Air Quality: A Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts on Ground-Level Ozone.”

I am bewildered by the findings, and as a government air quality regulator am distrubed by the findings. Specifically the kind of daisy chain they have produced.

“GLOBAL CHANGE” = aka, climate change ->change in natural vegetation ->isoprene->VOC->ground level O3->HUMAN ENDANGERMENT

They should be consulting your father, and also taking a stand on land-use changes if they believe all this, as ground level O3 is formed by urban pollution and variance in UV rays from the sun (and cloud cover). Nothing will change the UV radiation from the sun, and CO2 only absorbs IR energy and has nothing to do with ground level O3 formation. OTH it was found in wyoming this winter that snowcover can reflect UV and create an enhanced Ozone problem (3 times the health-based standard in Pinedale). It seems the authors know that they cannot directly link greenhouse gases to ground level ozone formation, so they have created this strange daisy chain to get us to human endangerment, because if anyone is to logically consider preventing this daisy chain, they would have to target urban land use issues/pollution specifically.

Ozone is a criteria pollutant and a danger to public health. We (government) can regulate these pollutants and their precursors under the Clean Air Act. Carbon Dioxide can not be regulated in the same way, because the goal of cleaning up the air of criteria pollutants results in converting compounds to the (up till now) more favorable by-product, CO2.

By: EDaniel

EDaniel — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 22:31:43 +0000

Is there any other example of any substance that is absolutely necessary for healthy and safe lives, for every single person on the planet, being determined to be dangerous and thus requiring controls that will eliminate non-natural sources of that substance. The controls will, without any doubts whatsoever, result in pain and suffering for those same persons?

By: EDaniel

EDaniel — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 22:24:40 +0000

dean, if it’s much easier to estimate costs of mitigation, why has everything that’s been tried so far been failures at the scale of debacles?

Apparently it’s not so much easier to estimate costs that will be effective for actually achieving an objective.

By: jae

jae — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 22:20:47 +0000

“There is certainly nothing unusual in the concept that something which is harmless or even beneficial in smaller amounts (or other locations) can be harmful in larger amounts (or other places). That’s why drug prescriptions have dosages. And even though we want the low-altitude ozone to go away, we don’t want high-altitude ozone to go away.”

Then you should also have no objection to EPA regulating water as a pollutant. It causes a lot of endangerment, and it is toxic in large doses.

By: dean

dean — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:24:29 +0000

There is certainly nothing unusual in the concept that something which is harmless or even beneficial in smaller amounts (or other locations) can be harmful in larger amounts (or other places). That’s why drug prescriptions have dosages. And even though we want the low-altitude ozone to go away, we don’t want high-altitude ozone to go away.

It’s completely appropriate that climate changing emissions come under the jurisdiction of the EPA. I’m not against including cost in the calculation in some way, but is much easier to estimate costs of mitigation than adaptation, or of long-term impacts. So that difficulty needs to be taken into account.

By: maxlybbert

maxlybbert — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:19:21 +0000

The only question before the judges is whether the EPA has the power to do what it is doing – that’s a judicial determination, not a scientific one.

Correct. And the law was written in a way that increased concentrations of a naturally-occurring gas could be declared “pollution” and regulated.

By: Jon Frum

Jon Frum — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:44:24 +0000

Courts do not – in cases like this – seek to find truth in science. Judges are not scientists. The executive branch carries the burden of determining the value of scientific advice, and we, as voters, have to power to replace the executive branch every four years. I’d rather have to deal with elected politicians than appointed judges. The only question before the judges is whether the EPA has the power to do what it is doing – that’s a judicial determination, not a scientific one.

By: Maurice Garoutte

Maurice Garoutte — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:55:56 +0000

It’s true that the quality of science has no part in the proposed EPA regulations. Why should it? The Supreme Court case that led to the action (Massachusetts V. EPA) did not evaluate the science. The argument of the majority was an appeal to authority where the IPCC was the ultimate authority.

Tellingly the first two sentences of the majority opinion were: “A well-documented rise in global temperatures has coincided with a significant increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Respected scientists believe the two trends are related.”

I know the point has been made on this site before but here it is again. Courts are a poor place to find the truth in science.

By: jae

jae — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:14:05 +0000

Well, I probably should have said “checks and balances,” rather than “shackles.” At the very least, EPA should be required to consider economic consequences on ALL regulations. If there are matters so dire that economics should not be considered, Congress could take them up separately.

By: jae

jae — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:57:00 +0000

I agree. And if it happens, perhaps that will finally lead to some much-need shackles on the EPA. It has far too much control over our lives, already.