Washington, D.C. —
Senator John Thune today sent a letter to Bill Roderick, Acting Inspector General at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), asking him to investigate the apparent suppression of scientific views dissenting from the EPA's April 17, 2009 Endangerment Finding for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses, including methane. Recently discovered emails indicate Dr. Al McGartland, Director of the National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE), kept Dr. Alan Carlin, an economist at NCEE, from presenting his view that the EPA was incorrect in determining that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses should be regulated under the Clean Air Act. The EPA's Endangerment Finding is the regulatory measure which has generated concerns about not only regulating greenhouse gasses but also a potential tax on livestock emissions.
"The emails made public by the House Energy and Commerce Committee show a high ranking EPA official apparently suppressing scientific views that run counter to the Obama Administration's determination to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses," said Thune. "As Congress considers costly climate change legislation that has the potential to reshape our entire economy, a robust debate on the issue is necessary. I am concerned about the credibility of the Obama Administration's arguments in favor of increased environmental activism and government regulation now that it is clear that legitimate differences of opinion are not tolerated within the EPA."
The April 17, 2009 Endangerment Finding cites the increased concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere as the cause of increased global temperatures and other climatic changes. As a result of this finding, the EPA is calling for regulation of carbon dioxide, methane, and other gasses as pollutants under the terms of the Clean Air Act, which would have broad impacts on every sector of the economy.
Senator Thune's letter raises a number of important questions including what EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson or Carol Browner, Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, or any other high-level EPA officials knew about this dissenting scientific information and did they knowingly exclude this information from the endangerment finding.
Senator Thune has introduced bipartisan legislation (S. 527) that would prohibit the imposition of a fee or tax on livestock emissions such as carbon dioxide and methane through the Clean Air Act.
The text of the letter follows:
June 30, 2009
Mr. Bill A. Roderick
Acting Inspector General
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (2410T)
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Roderick
I am writing to ask that you investigate whether the recent conduct of senior Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials and National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE) officials complied with the Administrative Procedures Act and all EPA regulations, orders, and policies during consideration of the endangerment finding for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
On April 17, 2009, the EPA issued a proposed endangerment finding for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171). I understand that EPA issued an endangerment finding through the lens of global climate change. According to EPA's proposed rule:
"Concentrations of greenhouse gases. are the unambiguous result of human emissions, and are very likely the cause of the observed increase in average temperatures and other climatic changes. The effects of climate change observed to date and projected to occur in the future. are effects on public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act."
This endangerment finding will have broad consequences on virtually every part of our economy. It is critical that this proposed endangerment finding be based on accurate and balanced science relating to the potential impact of greenhouse gas emissions.
I am deeply troubled by the recent discovery of internal EPA e-mails depicting a clear attempt to stifle scientific dissent with EPA on a matter of great importance to our environment and our economy. On June 24, 2009, the House Energy and Commerce Committee made public an e-mail chain between Dr. Alan Carlin and his superior, Dr. Al McGartland, Director of EPA's NCEE. Dr. McGartland's e-mails indicate an apparent attempt to suppress information that would have contradicted EPA's preconceived conclusion that certain greenhouse gasses contribute to climate change, and therefore, are harmful to human health. Specifically, Dr. McGartland writes:
"The time for such discussion of fundamental issues as passed for this round. The administrator and administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office."
On March 9, 2009, President Obama issued a memorandum to all heads of executive departments and agencies calling for higher standards of scientific integrity. The executive memorandum notes, "The public must be able to trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decisions. Political officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions." On April 23, 2009, Administrator Jackson issued a similar memo entitled "Transparency in EPA's Operations," which reiterates her pledge for open and transparent rulemakings that consider contrasting view points.
I respectfully request that you address the following questions relating to events surrounding EPA's endangerment finding:
Did Administrator Jackson or Ms. Browner, Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, or other high-level environmental policy officials within the administration have knowledge of dissenting scientific information within the EPA on the matter of the carbon dioxide endangerment finding? If so, when did they have knowledge of this information and to what extent did they suppress this information?
Did Administrator Jackson, Ms. Browner, or other high-level environmental policy officials within the administration knowingly exclude or authorize other EPA personnel to knowingly exclude dissenting scientific information with regard to the endangerment finding?
In light of Mr. Carlin's emails, could EPA's proposed endangerment finding or actions in refusing to properly weigh Mr. Carlin's research mean that EPA's endangerment finding could be considered arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act?
In addition to Mr. Carlin's research, what other studies, reports, testimony, or information in whatever form did the EPA consider that did not support its endangerment finding?
What other correspondence or electronic communication in whatever form was generated by the EPA or other high-level environmental policy officials within the administration relating to the EPA's decision about what studies, reports, testimony, or information in whatever form should be or were considered by the EPA when making its endangerment finding?
Did the relevant group assigned to work on the endangerment finding within EPA accept new information or modifications to previously submitted information on or after March 16, 2009?
Again, I ask that you investigate whether the recent conduct of senior EPA officials and NCEE officials complied with the Administrative Procedures Act and all EPA regulations, orders, and policies during consideration of the endangerment finding for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
Thank you in advance for pursuing this investigation as soon as possible. I look forward to reviewing your findings as soon as they are available.
Sincerely,
JOHN THUNE
United States Senate
"The emails made public by the House Energy and Commerce Committee show a high ranking EPA official apparently suppressing scientific views that run counter to the Obama Administration's determination to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses," said Thune. "As Congress considers costly climate change legislation that has the potential to reshape our entire economy, a robust debate on the issue is necessary. I am concerned about the credibility of the Obama Administration's arguments in favor of increased environmental activism and government regulation now that it is clear that legitimate differences of opinion are not tolerated within the EPA."
The April 17, 2009 Endangerment Finding cites the increased concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere as the cause of increased global temperatures and other climatic changes. As a result of this finding, the EPA is calling for regulation of carbon dioxide, methane, and other gasses as pollutants under the terms of the Clean Air Act, which would have broad impacts on every sector of the economy.
Senator Thune's letter raises a number of important questions including what EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson or Carol Browner, Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, or any other high-level EPA officials knew about this dissenting scientific information and did they knowingly exclude this information from the endangerment finding.
Senator Thune has introduced bipartisan legislation (S. 527) that would prohibit the imposition of a fee or tax on livestock emissions such as carbon dioxide and methane through the Clean Air Act.
The text of the letter follows:
June 30, 2009
Mr. Bill A. Roderick
Acting Inspector General
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (2410T)
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Roderick
I am writing to ask that you investigate whether the recent conduct of senior Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials and National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE) officials complied with the Administrative Procedures Act and all EPA regulations, orders, and policies during consideration of the endangerment finding for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
On April 17, 2009, the EPA issued a proposed endangerment finding for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171). I understand that EPA issued an endangerment finding through the lens of global climate change. According to EPA's proposed rule:
"Concentrations of greenhouse gases. are the unambiguous result of human emissions, and are very likely the cause of the observed increase in average temperatures and other climatic changes. The effects of climate change observed to date and projected to occur in the future. are effects on public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act."
This endangerment finding will have broad consequences on virtually every part of our economy. It is critical that this proposed endangerment finding be based on accurate and balanced science relating to the potential impact of greenhouse gas emissions.
I am deeply troubled by the recent discovery of internal EPA e-mails depicting a clear attempt to stifle scientific dissent with EPA on a matter of great importance to our environment and our economy. On June 24, 2009, the House Energy and Commerce Committee made public an e-mail chain between Dr. Alan Carlin and his superior, Dr. Al McGartland, Director of EPA's NCEE. Dr. McGartland's e-mails indicate an apparent attempt to suppress information that would have contradicted EPA's preconceived conclusion that certain greenhouse gasses contribute to climate change, and therefore, are harmful to human health. Specifically, Dr. McGartland writes:
"The time for such discussion of fundamental issues as passed for this round. The administrator and administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office."
On March 9, 2009, President Obama issued a memorandum to all heads of executive departments and agencies calling for higher standards of scientific integrity. The executive memorandum notes, "The public must be able to trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decisions. Political officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions." On April 23, 2009, Administrator Jackson issued a similar memo entitled "Transparency in EPA's Operations," which reiterates her pledge for open and transparent rulemakings that consider contrasting view points.
I respectfully request that you address the following questions relating to events surrounding EPA's endangerment finding:
Did Administrator Jackson or Ms. Browner, Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, or other high-level environmental policy officials within the administration have knowledge of dissenting scientific information within the EPA on the matter of the carbon dioxide endangerment finding? If so, when did they have knowledge of this information and to what extent did they suppress this information?
Did Administrator Jackson, Ms. Browner, or other high-level environmental policy officials within the administration knowingly exclude or authorize other EPA personnel to knowingly exclude dissenting scientific information with regard to the endangerment finding?
In light of Mr. Carlin's emails, could EPA's proposed endangerment finding or actions in refusing to properly weigh Mr. Carlin's research mean that EPA's endangerment finding could be considered arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act?
In addition to Mr. Carlin's research, what other studies, reports, testimony, or information in whatever form did the EPA consider that did not support its endangerment finding?
What other correspondence or electronic communication in whatever form was generated by the EPA or other high-level environmental policy officials within the administration relating to the EPA's decision about what studies, reports, testimony, or information in whatever form should be or were considered by the EPA when making its endangerment finding?
Did the relevant group assigned to work on the endangerment finding within EPA accept new information or modifications to previously submitted information on or after March 16, 2009?
Again, I ask that you investigate whether the recent conduct of senior EPA officials and NCEE officials complied with the Administrative Procedures Act and all EPA regulations, orders, and policies during consideration of the endangerment finding for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
Thank you in advance for pursuing this investigation as soon as possible. I look forward to reviewing your findings as soon as they are available.
Sincerely,
JOHN THUNE
United States Senate