Saturday
Feb082014
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Showing one's hand
Feb 8, 2014 Bureaucrats Climate: Parliament Republican lawmakers in Washington have introduced a bill into Congress that would force the Environmental Protection Agency to reveal the science behind new regulations it puts in place.
“Public policy should come from public data, not based on the whims of far-left environmental groups,” Arizona Rep. David Schweikert, the author of the bill, said in a statement.
...
“For far too long, the EPA has sponsored regulations that have placed a crippling financial burden on economic growth in this country with no public evidence to justify their actions,”
Reader Comments (30)
Shock horror a government institution that is funded by the public and greatly affects government policy, should justify its work.
Whatever next, publically funded data being made available! Climate "scientists" being honest!
Is there no end to this evil.
If only we had more politicians like that here in the UK.....
Sorry, it won’t work: too rational; too reasonable; too scientific. The whole AGW charade is one of the many tentacles of the Frankfurt School, and such logic will not be allowed in its thinking.
CharmingQuark
That made me smile :-)
Enviro-extremists have had a free run far too long. Time to reign them in.
Wow. Just.... wow.
It is a nice idea but if adopted will make no difference whatever. As democracies we seem to have no way to suppress nonsense. Having some people recognize nonsense for what it is doesn't seem to get the job done. Alas.
Nice thought, but it has no chance of getting through the Senate, let alone being signed by Obama.
I look forward to hearing the objections...
In the short term a lot of regulations based on pseudo-science will be struck off. That is eminently sound.
The long-term consequence will be that environmental regulations with sound scientific evidence will be struck down by the courts because some of some minor objections, or some spurious contradictory "scientific" evidence. The very possibility will get Democrats, funded by the powerful green lobby groups, seeking to block the idea – or overturn the legislation as soon as they get back to power.
There needs to be some method in decision-making that evaluates the evidence for and against, and a level of certainty that is less than 100%. Before regulation is enacted there also needs to be a cost-benefit analysis. Further, if the likely benefits accruing to the USA are less than the costs in the USA, then the decision needs to be taken at a democratic level.
As bloke says, thus won't get past the Senate let alone past Barry O.
The only way this could ever get passed is if the media latched on to it and given the vast majority of the alphabet mfm are nothing more than Barry O propaganda love machines that will never happen.
Mailman
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
This will not work. How are Congress to enforce it? Cut off EPA funds?
One of the advantages of the privatization of UK utilities has been that the state can fine a privatized company to the detriment of shareholders interests and, as a result, objectives set for the companies have been achieved more often than was the case pre-privatization. In those days, objectives were set for the predecessor bodies but lack of effective sanctions meant that unwanted objectives were routinely ignored. And nothing could be done .....
So if Congress want to ensure that they get good information they have firstly to privatize the EPA. Then beware UK experience with the UEA and give it carefully crafted objectives and ensure that they are pursued. Fat hope!
So why does not Congress not get out of environmental control altogether? Let matters take their course. Court cases would very probably achieve a more satisfactory result than is achievable by any system involving government.
What possible objection could any reasonable individual have to this legislation. It will be interesting to see the arguments put forward in objection to this and, more interestingly, who makes them.
AGW is based on emotion, not reason. Don't pretend you didn't know!
A fine team of pacers, this gathering of non-alarmist lawmakers in Great Britain and the former colonies. Let them walk calmly through the chaotic barnyard, never minding the flutterings of the headless chicken little brigades.
=================================
"This will not work. How are Congress to enforce it? Cut off EPA funds?"
Congress already has this ability. The EPA does have some ability to levy fines to help pad its coffers, but I do not think they would be able to fund their entire existence this way.
I sometimes wonder if our Congress critters actually understand how laws work? Yeah, supposedly they craft the laws, but in reality, they don't, lobbyists, consultants, dude off the street, really anyone, wind up writing them. They are almost always either toothless, or devastating.
The law that created the EPA was devastating. A law that says "you must show us your science first" is toothless. They already have that power granted by control of their purse strings. Furthermore, once the EPA has offered up their "evidence," exactly what ability does Congress have to stop them from implementing their whim anyway? Cut off their funding? This is circular. The EPA works for the executive branch, aka, the President, a nice result of Congress abdicating their own responsibility in the first place - take that away from the President by passing a law disbanding the EPA, that is the only way.
Mark
I think most of you miss the point. The EPA is working exactly as the democrats want it to...hence why the Democrat controlled senate will kill the legislation as soon as they get a sniff of it.
Mailman
I can already anticipate the objections and the reason this bill will not be effective even if passed.
In 2007 SCOTUS ruled that EPA could regulate CO2 IF the EPA could show that CO2 was a pollutant through an EPA Endangerment Finding. That would normally mean that EPA's own scientists would conduct studies under a written protocol covering such findings. That protocol was swept aside by Lisa Jackson who instead pointed to the IPCC and declared in so many words, "the IPCC says it is a pollutant and that's good enough for us!"
In a perfect world, this bill might have had a chance if it said that the Finding had to be performed by EPA's own scientists with the required public reviews. (For example, would the EPA accept a "finding" from Canada that the Keystone pipeline was safe?)
However there is no chance today of an EPA Finding on this subject being unbiased since the new EPA director on her first day, assembled the entire staff and declared "there is no room for deniers" in her organization.
This is worth a read and the video clip is very moving and disturbing.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/02/the-dangers-of-certainty/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
The justification might change with the times but the resulting behaviour remains the same.
If the law is passed the EPA will present the scientific literature on global warming and climate change as their evidence.
The Republicans will then deny it all.
How is this supposed to be useful?
"If the law is passed the EPA will present the scientific literature on global warming and climate change as their evidence."
Why haven't they already?
Andrew
Superficially, this sounds reasonable. However, powerful people have never had trouble mustering scientific support for their profit-making schemes, or crackpot fads. Does no-one remember Lysenkoism, phrenology, inherent racial superiority or national exceptionalism? These are merely a random few of a vast array of examples where scientists (and numerous others) made rational, but unprincipled, decisions to follow the money. The idea that legislation will somehow overcome the fundamental corruptibility of human nature is absurd.
You might also consider the historical reality that money is always on the Right. If Green (Lefty) groups are suddenly in possession of unaccustomed wealth there is an excellent chance that at least some members of the Right-wing establishment have seen these groups as useful tools for the extension of their power.
For the average conservative non-thinker the AGW scandal is a godsend. Finally, their natural reaction to any innovation ("Fuck it! I'll do what I want!") is supported by decent science. You will find that the number of people who actually care about the science (and want to reach strictly objective conclusions on which sensible policy may be based) is very small.
I have long a feeling that there is something inherently wrong with allowing bureaucrats to set environmental standards. They set a standard; everyone complies; and the bureaucrat then faces the problem that his job will be reduced to that of a policeman unless he reduces the standard further, so he reduces the standard. Because lower standards are 'obviously' better environmentally, everyone cheers except the poor people who now have to try to meet the new standard. Politicians and NGO's pat themselves on the back that they have succeeded in saving the world from being poisoned.
The new lower standard is no sooner universally achieved than the cycle repeats itself. Ultimately the standard is so low that no amount of technology allows further reductions without massive economic implications, and the bureaucrat turns his sights on some other unfortunate pollutant.
So, for instance, from mid-2010 the USEPA standard for sulfur dioxide is 75 parts per billion averaged over 1 hour. "The requirement that primary standards include an adequate margin of safety is intended to address uncertainties associated with inconclusive scientific and technical information available at the time of standard setting. It is also intended to provide a reasonable degree of protection against hazards that research has not yet identified. Both kinds of uncertainties are components of the risk associated with pollution at levels below those at which human health effects can be said to occur with reasonable scientific certainty. Thus, in selecting primary standards that include an adequate margin of safety, the Administrator is seeking not only to prevent pollution levels that have been demonstrated to be harmful but also to prevent lower pollutant levels that may pose an unacceptable risk of harm, even if the risk is not precisely identified as to nature or degree.of protection against hazards that research has not yet identified." http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-06-22/html/2010-13947.htm
"On April 30, 1971, the EPA promulgated primary SO2 National ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). These primary standards - - were set at 0.14 parts per million (ppm) averaged over a 24-hour period, not to be exceeded more than once per year, and 0.030 ppm annual arithmetic mean. In 1982, EPA published the Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter and Sulfur Oxides along with an addendum of newly published controlled human exposure studies, which updated the scientific criteria upon which the initial standards were based. In 1986, EPA published a second addendum presenting newly available evidence from epidemiologic and controlled human exposure studies. In 1988, EPA published a proposed decision not to revise the existing standards. However, EPA specifically requested public comment on the alternative of revising the current standards and adding a new 1-hour primary standard of 0.4 ppm (400 ppb) to protect asthmatics against 5-10 minute peak SO2 concentrations."
"EPA published a second proposal on November 15, 1994, which was based in part on a supplement to the second addendum of the criteria document, which evaluated new findings on 5-10 minute SO2 exposures in asthmatics. As in the 1988 proposal, EPA proposed to retain the existing 24-hour and annual standards. EPA also solicited comment on three regulatory alternatives to further reduce the health risk posed by exposure to high 5-minute peaks of SO2 if additional protection were judged to be necessary. The three alternatives were: (1) Revising the existing primary
SO2 NAAQS by adding a new 5-minute standard of 0.6 ppm (600ppb) SO2; (2) establishing a new regulatory program - - to supplement protection provided by the existing NAAQS, with a trigger level of 0.6 ppm (600 ppb)
SO2, one expected exceedance; and (3) augmenting implementation of existing standards by focusing on those sources or source types likely to produce high 5-minute peak concentrations of SO2."
"On May 22, 1996, EPA announced its final decision not to revise the NAAQS for SOx. EPA found that asthmatics--a
susceptible population group--could be exposed to short-term SO2 bursts resulting in repeated `exposure events' such that tens or hundreds of thousands of asthmatics could be exposed annually to lung function effects ``distinctly exceeding * * * [the] typical daily variation in lung function'' that asthmatics routinely experience. Nonetheless, the agency concluded that ``the likelihood that asthmatic individuals will be exposed * * * is very low when viewed from a national perspective'', that ``5-minute peak SO2 levels do not pose a broad public health problem when viewed from a national perspective'', and that ``short-term peak concentrations of SO2 do not constitute the type of ubiquitous public health problem for which establishing a NAAQS would be appropriate.'' . EPA concluded, therefore, that it would
not revise the existing standards or add a standard to specifically address 5-minute exposures."
"The American Lung Association and the Environmental Defense Fund challenged EPA's decision not to establish a 5-minute standard. On January 30, 1998, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that EPA had failed to adequately explain its determination that no revision to the SO2 NAAQS was appropriate and remanded the determination back to EPA for further explanation."
"In response, EPA has collected and analyzed additional air quality data focused on 5-minute concentrations of SO2. These air quality analyses conducted since the last review helped inform the current review, which (among other things) address the issues raised in the court's remand of the Agency's last decision."
"EPA's draft Integrated Review Plan for the Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Sulfur Dioxide was made available in April 2007 for public comment - - . As noted in that plan, SOX includes multiple gaseous (e.g., SO3)
and particulate (e.g., sulfate) species. Because the health effects associated with particulate species of SOX have been considered within the context of the health effects of ambient particles in the Agency's review of the NAAQS for particulate matter (PM), the current review of the primary SO2 NAAQS is focused on the gaseous species of SOX and does not consider health effects directly associated with particulate species."
"On December 8, 2009 EPA published its proposed revisions to the primary SO2 NAAQS, which presented a number of conclusions, findings, and determinations proposed by the Administrator. EPA invited general, specific, and/or technical comments on all issues involved with this proposal, including all such proposed judgments, conclusions, findings, and determinations. EPA invited specific comment on the level, or range of levels, appropriate for such
a standard, as well as on the rationale that would support that level or range of levels. These comments were carefully considered by the Administrator as she made her final decisions, as described in this notice, on the primary SO2 NAAQS"
I have quoted this at length, because I think it illustrates that one can reach a curious end point even with much public involvement. The 75ppb level will protect an asthmatic against injury while exercising, which sounds great - until you see what the EPA advised residents of Honolulu to do when the volcano erupted. "The elderly and asthmatic are advised to stay indoors and shut the windows when sulfur dioxide levels exceed 500ppm." 500ppm? That's around 7 000 times the statutory limit. If 75ppb were just safe, you would have expected 500ppm to be just cause for evacuating asthmatics and elderly. But then the level is set "also to prevent lower pollutant levels that may pose an unacceptable risk of harm, even if the risk is not precisely identified as to nature or degree.of protection against hazards that research has not yet identified." That sounds to me like a license to dial yourself a continued job!
The Ice Man Cometh. Excellent post. The problem is partly due to the fact that many environmental scientists have a poor grasp of maths, chemistry and physics . Compare the grades in maths,physics and chemistry between someone reading chemical engineering at Cambridge or Imperial and environmental science at a minor university.
In environmental there is often very poor quality control over location of sampling points, sampling , and analysis compared to say the rigour of building a chemical plant. Sampling points often end up in locations where they are easy to reach and do not become damaged , not where they are needed.
Very few environmental scientists can derive the equations which underpin their science from first principle. Yet the real World is far more complex than a laboratory. Consequently vast over simplifications occur.
If one compares James Hansen with the mathematical skills of Freeman Dyson ( Cambridge ) or Lindzen ( Harvard), the latter are far superior.
The reality is that in environmental science there are often not enough sample point to accurately measure the complexity and very of the scientists have the ability to understand how complex is the real World.
Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies
SUBJECT: Transparency and Open Government
My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.
[ ... ]
BARACK OBAMA
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-zeller-jr/obamas-secretive-side-a-b_b_3111699.html
Obama says his is ‘most transparent administration' ever
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/283335-obama-this-is-the-most-transparent-administration-in-history
The GOP awakens ??
What I can't understand is why such a law is needed at all. Perhaps one of our US readers could enlighten us?
In Westminster (ish) parliamentary systems, proposed regulations have to be tabled in Parliament and can be disallowed. Furthermore, the basis for them not only has to be tabled as well, the details are subject to FOI.
Do US regulatory agencies have unilateral power to make regulations without reference to the legislature? If so, maybe that is the core problem that needs addressing.
Iceman: excellent post.
I also suspect that, in many areas, the circular process has been ratcheted along by improvements in measuring technology. Nowadays we can detect specific compounds at extraordinarily low levels and the knee-jerk regulatory reaction is that even the most minute dose might be damaging.
Charlie
It is indeed a problem. A planet is a much larger, more complex and less easily controlled system than a chemical plant. If you can suggest ways of applying your simplified methods on a planetary scale, they could be very useful.
Entropic Man
The existing models over simplify because they are based upon over simplifications. The actual data, from thermometers on land, sea, in balloons and satellites show there has been no warming for 13-16 years. Computers models are theories which do not agree with reality and therefore they are wrong- read R Feynman on this subject.
Only those with the maths skills of Dyson or Lindzen appreciate that the World's climate is too complex to model but we can measure it.