| February 22, 2010 |  |
Lawsuits Against EPA Misrepresent Climate Science
Blocking EPA Would Hamper Clean Car Rules, Climate Action
The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) April 2009 finding that global warming emissions are pollutants that endanger public health is coming under fire in the courts. Oil and coal industry groups, their allies, and three states have filed 16 legal challenges to the agency's "endangerment finding." Additionally, some state legislators in Missouri and Utah are supporting nonbinding resolutions opposing EPA action on climate change.
These court challenges are based on disingenuous, uninformed attacks against climate science. If successful, they would prevent the EPA from requiring coal-fired electric power plants and other major polluting facilities to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases. They also would thwart the agency from implementing new clean car rules that, according to a Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) analysis, would save drivers tens of billions of dollars at the pump and reduce U.S. oil consumption by some 1.3 million barrels a day by 2020, nearly as much as what the nation currently imports from Saudi Arabia.
The EPA was required to make its endangerment finding by the Supreme Court, which ruled in 2007 in Massachusetts vs. EPA, that heat-trapping emissions should be considered a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.
Opponents of the EPA finding falsely claim that emails stolen from climate scientists and small errors in the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report undermine EPA's conclusion that heat-trapping gases and global warming endangers public health. According to UCS, the stolen emails reveal nothing that casts doubt on the science. Similarly, Factcheck.org concluded,"[M]any of the e-mails that are being held up as 'smoking guns' have been misrepresented by global-warming skeptics eager to find evidence of a conspiracy. And even if they showed what the critics claim, there remains ample evidence that the earth is getting warmer."
The IPCC's overall conclusion that human activity is driving global warming remains indisputable. The conclusion that global warming causes more extreme-heat days and can lead to higher levels of lung-damaging ground-level ozone pollution, among other health-damaging consequences, is not in question.
Some of the challenges are based on the erroneous assumption that the EPA based its finding solely on IPCC reports. A review of the agency's "Technical Support Document for the Findings" (pdf) shows that it drew on scientific data from a number of institutions, including: the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the non-profit research organization, CNA Corporation, IPCC, National Aeronautical and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Research Council, National Snow and Ice Data Center, NOAA National Climatic Data Center, U.S. Climate Change Science Program, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and U.S. Navy.
Finally, some challengers are exaggerating the role of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, which housed the stolen emails, in the IPCC report. In fact, the IPCC cites around 20,000 papers from researchers and institutions around the world. Further, the CRU is one of at least three major institutions that maintain independent records of recent global temperature records. Others include NASA, NOAA and the Japan Meteorological Agency. A few stolen emails do not undermine this robust body of scientific research.
Thus far attorneys general in Alabama, Texas and Virginia are seeking to block the EPA from acting on its finding along with 13 members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Sixteen other states, meanwhile, have intervened in support of EPA's finding (pdf): Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.
The parties challenging the endangerment finding include the American Iron and Steel Institute, Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Gerdau Ameristeel Corp., National Mining Association, Ohio Coal Association, Peabody Energy Co., Portland Cement Association, Southeastern Legal Foundation, the American Farm Bureau Federation, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Utility Air Regulatory Group.
Another suit was filed by a coalition that includes the American Petroleum Institute, Corn Refiners Association, National Association of Home Builders, National Association of Manufacturers, National Oilseed Processors Association, National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, and the Western States Petroleum Association.
The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet's most pressing problems. Joining with citizens across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future.
