Hill Heat

Despite his protestations, Kempthorne’s decision clearly calls into question the legality of the sale of oil and gas drilling rights in polar bear habitat on February 6, while the polar bear decision was being illegally delayed.

Kempthorne complained that the Endangered Species Act is “one of the most inflexible” pieces of legislation because it didn’t allow him to consider economic impacts when protecting species like the polar bear from extinction.

From the Department of Interior press release on the 368-page rule:

To make sure the ESA is not misused to regulate global climate change, Kempthorne promised the following actions:

• The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing a 4(d) rule that states that if an activity is permissible under the stricter standards of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, it is also permissible under the ESA with respect to the polar bear. This rule, effective immediately, will ensure the protection of the bear while allowing us to continue to develop our natural resources in the arctic region in an environmentally sound way.
• Director Hall will issue guidance to staff that the best scientific data available today cannot make a causal connection between harm to listed species or their habitats and greenhouse gas emissions from a specific facility, or resource development project or government action.
• The Department will issue a Solicitor’s Opinion further clarifying these points.
• The Department will propose common sense modifications to the existing ESA regulatory language to prevent abuse of this listing to erect a back-door climate policy outside our normal system of political accountability.

Andy Revkin at Dot Earth concludes, “So this leaves everything as it was, in a way, with the bears facing a transforming ecosystem and environmentalists successful in their litigation, but not necessarily empowered by the listing.” At Climate Progress Joe Romm calls the decision “bye-polar disorder.”

Sierra Club spokesman Josh Dorner tells the Wonk Room, “This is the regulatory equivalent of a signing statement—only this one gets to be challenged in court.”

Thank you all very much. I appreciate the hospitality of Vestas Wind Technology. Today is a kind of test run for the company. They’ve got wind technicians here, wind studies, and all these wind turbines, but there’s no wind. So now I know why they asked me to come give a speech.

Every day, when there are no reporters and cameras around to draw attention to it, this company and others like it are doing important work. And what we see here is just a glimpse of much bigger things to come. Wind power is one of many alternative energy sources that are changing our economy for the better. And one day they will change our economy forever.

Wind is a clean and predictable source of energy, and about as renewable as anything on earth. Along with solar power, fuel-cell technology, cleaner burning fuels and other new energy sources, wind power will bring America closer to energy independence. Our economy depends upon clean and affordable alternatives to fossil fuels, and so, in many ways, does our security. A large share of the world’s oil reserves is controlled by foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart. And as our reliance on oil passes away, their power will vanish with it.

In the coming weeks I intend to address many of the great challenges that America’s energy policies must meet. When we debate energy bills in Washington, it should be more than a competition among industries for special favors, subsidies, and tax breaks. In the Congress, we need to send the special interests on their way – without their favors and subsidies. We need to draw on the best ideas of both parties, and on all the resources a free market can provide. We need to keep our eyes on big goals in energy policy, the serious dangers, and the common interests of the American people.

Today I’d like to focus on just one of those challenges, and among environmental dangers it is surely the most serious of all. Whether we call it “climate change” or “global warming,” in the end we’re all left with the same set of facts. The facts of global warming demand our urgent attention, especially in Washington. Good stewardship, prudence, and simple commonsense demand that we to act meet the challenge, and act quickly.

Some of the most compelling evidence of global warming comes to us from NASA. No longer do we need to rely on guesswork and computer modeling, because satellite images reveal a dramatic disappearance of glaciers, Antarctic ice shelves and polar ice sheets. And I’ve seen some of this evidence up close. A few years ago I traveled to the area of Svalbard, Norway, a group of islands in the Arctic Ocean. I was shown the southernmost point where a glacier had reached twenty years earlier. From there, we had to venture northward up the fjord to see where that same glacier ends today – because all the rest has melted. On a trip to Alaska, I heard about a national park visitor’s center that was built to offer a picture-perfect view of a large glacier. Problem is, the glacier is gone. A work of nature that took ages to form had melted away in a matter of decades.

Our scientists have also seen and measured reduced snowpack, with earlier runoffs in the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere. We have seen sustained drought in the Southwest, and across the world average temperatures that seem to reach new records every few years. We have seen a higher incidence of extreme weather events. In the frozen wilds of Alaska, the Arctic, Antarctic, and elsewhere, wildlife biologists have noted sudden changes in animal migration patterns, a loss of their habitat, a rise in sea levels. And you would think that if the polar bears, walruses, and sea birds have the good sense to respond to new conditions and new dangers, then humanity can respond as well.

We have many advantages in the fight against global warming, but time is not one of them. Instead of idly debating the precise extent of global warming, or the precise timeline of global warming, we need to deal with the central facts of rising temperatures, rising waters, and all the endless troubles that global warming will bring. We stand warned by serious and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the dangers are great. The most relevant question now is whether our own government is equal to the challenge.

There are vital measures we can take in the short term, even as we focus on long-term policies to mitigate the effects of global warming. In the years ahead, we are likely to see reduced water supplies … more forest fires than in previous decades … changes in crop production … more heat waves afflicting our cities and a greater intensity in storms. Each one of these consequences of climate change will require policies to protect our citizens, especially those most vulnerable to violent weather. Each one will require new precautions in the repair and construction our roads, bridges, railways, seawalls and other infrastructure. Some state local governments have already begun their planning and preparation for extreme events and other impacts of climate change. The federal government can help them in many ways, above all by coordinating their efforts, and I am committed to providing that support.

To lead in this effort, however, our government must strike at the source of the problem—with reforms that only Congress can enact and the president can sign. We know that greenhouse gasses are heavily implicated as a cause of climate change. And we know that among all greenhouse gasses, the worst by far is the carbon-dioxide that results from fossil-fuel combustion. Yet for all the good work of entrepreneurs and inventors in finding cleaner and better technologies, the fundamental incentives of the market are still on the side of carbon-based energy. This has to change before we can make the decisive shift away from fossil fuels.

For the market to do more, government must do more by opening new paths of invention and ingenuity. And we must do this in a way that gives American businesses new incentives and new rewards to seek, instead of just giving them new taxes to pay and new orders to follow. The most direct way to achieve this is through a system that sets clear limits on all greenhouse gases, while also allowing the sale of rights to excess emissions. And this is the proposal I will submit to the Congress if I am elected president—a cap-and-trade system to change the dynamic of our energy economy.

As a program under the Clean Air Act, the cap-and-trade system achieved enormous success in ridding the air of acid rain. And the same approach that brought a decline in sulfur dioxide emissions can have an equally dramatic and permanent effect on carbon emissions. Instantly, automakers, coal companies, power plants, and every other enterprise in America would have an incentive to reduce carbon emissions, because when they go under those limits they can sell the balance of permitted emissions for cash. As never before, the market would reward any person or company that seeks to invent, improve, or acquire alternatives to carbon-based energy. It is very hard to picture venture capitalists, corporate planners, small businesses and environmentalists all working to the same good purpose. But such cooperation is actually possible in the case of climate change, and this reform will set it in motion.

The people of this country have a genius for adapting, solving problems, and inventing new and better ways to accomplish our goals. But the federal government can’t just summon those talents by command – only the free market can draw them out. A cap-and-trade policy will send a signal that will be heard and welcomed all across the American economy. Those who want clean coal technology, more wind and solar, nuclear power, biomass and bio-fuels will have their opportunity through a new market that rewards those and other innovations in clean energy. The market will evolve, too, by requiring sensible reductions in greenhouse gases, but also by allowing full flexibility in how industry meets that requirement. Entrepreneurs and firms will know which energy investments they should make. And the highest rewards will go to those who make the smartest, safest, most responsible choices. A cap-and-trade reform will also create a profitable opportunity for rural America to receive market-based payments - instead of government subsidies - for the conservation practices that store carbon in the soils of our nation’s farms.

We will cap emissions according to specific goals, measuring progress by reference to past carbon emissions. By the year 2012, we will seek a return to 2005 levels of emission … by 2020, a return to 1990 levels … and so on until we have achieved at least a reduction of sixty percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050. In the course of time, it may be that new ideas and technologies will come along that we can hardly imagine today, allowing all industries to change with a speed that will surprise us. More likely, however, there will be some companies that need extra emissions rights, and they will be able to buy them. The system to meet these targets and timetables will give these companies extra time to adapt—and that is good economic policy. It is also a matter of simple fairness, because the cap-and-trade system will create jobs, improve livelihoods, and strengthen futures across our country.

The goal in all of this is to assure an energy supply that is safe, secure, diverse, and domestic. And in pursuit of these objectives, we cannot afford to take economic growth and job creation for granted. A strong and growing economy is essential to all of our goals, and especially the goal of finding alternatives to carbon-based technology. We want to turn the American economy toward cleaner and safer energy sources. And you can’t achieve that by imposing costs that the American economy cannot sustain.

As part of my cap-and-trade incentives, I will also propose to include the purchase of offsets from those outside the scope of the trading system. This will broaden the array of rewards for reduced emissions, while also lowering the costs of compliance with our new emissions standards. Through the sale of offsets – and with strict standards to assure that reductions are real – our agricultural sector alone can provide as much as forty percent of the overall reductions we will require in greenhouse gas emissions. And in the short term, farmers and ranchers can do it in some of the most cost-effective ways.

Over time, an increasing fraction of permits for emissions could be supplied by auction, yielding federal revenues that can be put to good use. Under my plan, we will apply these and other federal funds to help build the infrastructure of a post-carbon economy. We will support projects to advance technologies that capture and store carbon emissions. We will assist in transmitting wind- and solar-generated power from states that have them to states that need them. We will add to current federal efforts to develop promising technologies, such as plug-ins, hybrids, flex-fuel vehicles, and hydrogen-powered cars and trucks. We will also establish clear standards in government-funded research, to make sure that funding is effective and focused on the right goals.

And to create greater demand for the best technologies and practices in energy conservation, we will use the purchasing power of the United States government. Our government can hardly expect citizens and private businesses to adopt or invest in low-carbon technologies when it doesn’t always hold itself to the same standard. We need to set a better example in Washington, by consistently applying the best environmental standards to every purchase our government makes.

As we move toward all of these goals, and over time put the age of fossil fuels behind us, we must consider every alternative source of power, and that includes nuclear power. When our cap-and-trade policy is in place, there will be a sudden and sustained pursuit in the market for new investment opportunities in low-emission fuel sources. And here we have a known, proven energy source that requires exactly zero emissions. We have 104 nuclear reactors in our country, generating about twenty percent of our electricity. These reactors alone spare the atmosphere from about 700 million metric tons of carbon dioxide that would otherwise be released every year. That’s the annual equivalent of nearly all emissions from all the cars we drive in America. Europe, for its part, has 197 reactors in operation, and nations including France and Belgium derive more than half their electricity from nuclear power. Those good practices contribute to the more than two billion metric tons of carbon dioxide avoided every year, worldwide, because of nuclear energy. It doesn’t take a leap in logic to conclude that if we want to arrest global warming, then nuclear energy is a powerful ally in that cause.

In a cap-and-trade energy economy, the cost of building new reactors will be less prohibitive. The incentives to invest in a mature, zero-emissions technology will be stronger. New research and innovation will help the industry to overcome the well known drawbacks to nuclear power, such as the transport and storage of waste. And our government can help in these efforts. We can support research to extend the use of existing plants. Above all, we must make certain that every plant in America is safe from the designs of terrorists. And when all of this is assured, it will be time again to expand our use of one of the cleanest, safest, and most reliable sources of energy on earth.

For all of the last century, the profit motive basically led in one direction—toward machines, methods, and industries that used oil and gas. Enormous good came from that industrial growth, and we are all the beneficiaries of the national prosperity it built. But there were costs we weren’t counting, and often hardly noticed. And these terrible costs have added up now, in the atmosphere, in the oceans, and all across the natural world. They are no longer tenable, sustainable, or defensible. And what better way to correct past errors than to turn the creative energies of the free market in the other direction? Under the cap-and-trade system, this can happen. In all its power, the profit motive will suddenly begin to shift and point the other way – toward cleaner fuels, wiser ways, and a healthier planet.

As a nation, we make our own environmental plans and our own resolutions. But working with other nations to arrest climate change can be an even tougher proposition. China, India, and other developing economic powers in particular are among the greatest contributors to global warming today—increasing carbon emissions at a furious pace – and they are not receptive to international standards. Nor do they think that we in the industrialized world are in any position to preach the good news of carbon-emission control. We made most of our contributions to global warming before anyone knew about global warming.

This set of facts and perceived self-interests proved the undoing of the Kyoto Protocols. As president, I will have to deal with the same set of facts. I will not shirk the mantle of leadership that the United States bears. I will not permit eight long years to pass without serious action on serious challenges. I will not accept the same dead-end of failed diplomacy that claimed Kyoto. The United States will lead and will lead with a different approach—an approach that speaks to the interests and obligations of every nation.

Shared dangers mean shared duties, and global problems require global cooperation. The United States and our friends in Europe cannot alone deal with the threat of global warming. No nation should be exempted from its obligations. And least of all should we make exceptions for the very countries that are accelerating carbon emissions while the rest of us seek to reduce emissions. If we are going to establish meaningful environmental protocols, then they must include the two nations that have the potential to pollute the air faster, and in greater annual volume, than any nation ever in history.

At the same time, we will continue in good faith to negotiate with China and other nations to enact the standards and controls that are in the interest of every nation – whatever their stage of economic development. And America can take the lead in offering these developing nations the low-carbon technologies that we will make and they will need. One good idea or invention to reduce carbon emissions is worth a thousand finely crafted proposals at a conference table. And the governments of these developing economic powers will soon recognize, as America is beginning to do, their urgent need for cleaner-burning fuels and safer sources of energy.

If the efforts to negotiate an international solution that includes China and India do not succeed, we still have an obligation to act.

In my approach to global climate-control efforts, we will apply the principle of equal treatment. We will apply the same environmental standards to industries in China, India, and elsewhere that we apply to our own industries. And if industrializing countries seek an economic advantage by evading those standards, I would work with the European Union and other like-minded governments that plan to address the global warming problem to develop a cost equalization mechanism to apply to those countries that decline to enact a similar cap.

For all of its historical disregard of environmental standards, it cannot have escaped the attention of the Chinese regime that China’s skies are dangerously polluted, its beautiful rivers are dying, its grasslands vanishing, its coastlines receding, and its own glaciers melting. We know many of these signs from our own experience—from environmental lessons learned the hard way. And today, all the world knows that they are the signs of even greater trouble to come. Pressing on blindly with uncontrolled carbon emissions is in no one’s interest, especially China’s. And the rest of the world stands ready to help.

Like other environmental challenges - only more so - global warming presents a test of foresight, of political courage, and of the unselfish concern that one generation owes to the next. We need to think straight about the dangers ahead, and to meet the problem with all the resources of human ingenuity at our disposal. We Americans like to say that there is no problem we can’t solve, however complicated, and no obstacle we cannot overcome if we meet it together. I believe this about our country. I know this about our country. And now it is time for us to show those qualities once again.

Thank you.

EPA SCANDAL	CURRENT STATUS
The denial of the California waiver petition.	January 8: California and 15 other states sue to overturn denial. April 9: Waxman issues latest subpoena for documents involving White House. April 22: NHTSA issues fuel-economy standards that it claims preempts state global warming standards; states warn of lawsuit.
Failure to obey Supreme Court mandate to make a global warming pollution endangerment finding.	March 27: EPA announces it will ask for a new round of comments. April 2: Officials of 18 states sue to require the EPA to act within 60 days April 2: EPA documents are subpoenaed by House Global Warming Committee; the documents have not been turned over. April 18: Court orders EPA to file its response to the state suit by May 8.
White House interference in ozone standards.	April 16: Waxman subpoenas White House documents. May 8: Date of scheduled Oversight Committee hearing with Administrator Johnson; postponed when Johnson refuses to appear.
Mary Gade firing.	May 1: EPA Region V Administrator Mary Gade resigns, saying “There’s no question this is about Dow.” Sen. Whitehouse (D-RI) and Rep. Dingell (D-MI) announce intent to investigate. May 7: Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington file two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with the EPA regarding Gade’s resignation.
Politicization of the EPA.	April 23: Union of Concerned Scientists issues survey of 1600 staff scientists describing mass politicization and political interference. April 29: Sen. Boxer (D-CA) releases Goverment Accountability Office report detailing politicization of toxic regulation. May 7: Senate Environment and Public Works Oversight Subcommittee holds hearing into politicization of EPA.

9:30 Boxer Implications for children’s health.

9:48 Whitehouse IRIS. Mary Gade. The EPA is being polluted.

9:55 Inhofe I don’t believe Johnson is corrupt. I believe in “sound science.” We are passing economic burdens onto the states. What we have are more environmental regulations hindering environmental progress.

10:00 George Gray I serve as the Agency’s science adviser. EPA views the relationship between science, science policy, and regulation as a continuum. Our scientists are encouraged to publish. The scientific method encourages critical thinking and disagreement. We rely on policy processes to make decisions. From the lab bench to the Administrator’s desk, we follow a science-to-decision-making continuum in common with other federal agencies that rely on both science and science-policy considerations in decision-making.

10:06: Whitehouse If what you said is true, why did 889 scientists report political interference?

Gray We have to be careful about those numbers. This report provides useful information. It’s not statistically appropriate view of the EPA.

Whitehouse Just the raw data point.

Gray The number is unacceptable to me.

Whitehouse Why doesn’t your testimony reference this in any way? In the last two hearings we’ve heard enormous criticism about how OMB has been stuffed into even in the beginning of the process. These are fairly serious people making this challenge. There appears to be significant support for these concerns. And you act as if nothing is going on. There’s nothing going on but ‘yammering critics’?

Gray This agency relies on the best available decisions. We are very transparent in the way that we do things.

Whitehouse How are the secret meetings with OMB jibe with your claim that this is done transparently?

Gray Transparency is key to the way we do our assessments. The discussions we have with the rest of the federal agencies are kept deliberative. In the end of the IRIS, the assessment must pass strict peer review. There’s not room for monkeyshines.

Whitehouse Is it your testimony that OMB involvement is purely scientific?

Gray The development of scientific assessment involve science and science policy considerations. At the end, the decisions are transparently described.

Whitehouse The OMB and interagency IRIS review lack transparency.

10:12 Alexander How many scientists are employed by the EPA?

Gray Around 7000.

Alexander The recent ozone decision. How many scientists involved?

Gray Up to a hundred.

Alexander In the scientific advisory committee made a recommendation to the administrator.

Gray Yes.

Alexander The recommendation was that the standard should go to .06-.07. Is it possible those scientists would say it was political interference with the decision?

Gray Well..

Alexander Would you say one scientist might say their decision was overruled by political interference?

Gray I suppose so.

Alexander What factors caused the administrator to ignore the recommendation?

Gray He takes very seriously the advice.

Alexander You don’t know why. Lots of county mayors said they didn’t want it because they would lose auto jobs. Might have he considered economic factors?

Gray By law he is not allowed to consider that. There’s a lot of science.

Alexander Are the CASAC recommendations public?

Gray Yes.

Alexander Did the administrator explain why he made a different decision?

Gray He followed the requirement to do that.

Alexander That sounds like what senators do every day.

10:17 Boxer I wanted to show you a series of charts with headlines. This hearing is extremely important. If you just read the Supreme Court case decided in February 2001 written by Scalia. The Clean Air Act unambiguously bars economic cost considerations. They are not to allow politics into this. We can listen to the special interests. They’re not supposed to. It’s a disgrace. Politics is front and center at the EPA. The GAO knows what they’re talking about. The scientists are not being listened to and the special interests are invited in and everything is kept secret. I have to say, Mr. Gray. What do you mean when you say it’s transparent?

Gray We lay out the scientific and other bases for our decisions.

Boxer Do you support keeping the meetings secret?

Gray I disagree with GAO.

Boxer You agree with OMB that these documents have to be kept secret. You agree with keeping it secret and yet you say you believe in transparency.

Gray At the end of the process we are very transparent.

Boxer You have lost all credibility with me. It’s an outrage. Be honest, say you don’t agree with transparency.

10:23 Inhofe The UCS is a “radical green group.”

Gray There has been reluctance among some to acknowledge the degree of uncertainty in our science. It’s been really important that for the credibility of our decisions we have to characterize uncertainty.

Inhofe How has the ORD improved air quality?

Gray Our science helps support decisions about ambient air standards. The tightening of the particulate matter standard, ozone standard, lead standard.

10:29 Klobuchar In Minnesota we believe in science. CDC director Julie Geberding’s testimony was redacted. And now Mary Gade was forced out.

Gray In this case I have no direct knowledge. I cannot comment on an internal personnel matter.

Klobuchar How can we restore the credibility of the agency?

Gray The credibility of this agency is enhanced by the quality of our work. In our office we have no restrictions on our scientists or discussions with the press.

Klobuchar Why can’t we see the comments?

Gray You can see what outside scientists recommend.

Klobuchar Why did the administrator ignore the CASAC recommendation?

Gray The administrator did not ignore CASAC. That is the basis of his ultimate decision. He made a different choice based on his view of the science.

Klobuchar It was the unanimous recommendation of the advisers.

Gray Ultimately it is the administrator’s decision.

10:34 Whitehouse You admit other considerations would be illegal. What other science did Administrator Johnson look to on the ozone standards?

Gray This is a very good example of how uncertainty in science plays a factor.

Whitehouse You’re telling me the unanimous decisions of the advisory panels creates uncertainty?

Gray I certainly do. The panels put particular weight on the Adams study. The author said they misinterpreted it.

Whitehouse Frankly, I can’t see a legitimate explanation for this chain of events. This is not an alien group.

Gray We certainly never ignore the recommendations.

Whitehouse We can’t see the reasoning. Nobody can show me where the science is. Frankly, uncertainty is a lousy justification. In fact, because your job is to protect people, one would think you would err on the low side.

10:38 Alexander Did they not recommend .61? .62? .63? .64? They disagreed between .60 and .70. The scientists disagreed among themselves more than the administrator did. They can’t even agree between .06 and .07. In my opinion they disagreed more between themselves than the administrator did with them. Whose responsibility is it?

Gray The administrator’s.

Alexander Is the panel’s recommendation advisory?

Gray Yes.

Alexander The administrator’s decision was closer to the top range of the committee than the top range was to the bottom range. The only objection was that there was an interagency review. And that review isn’t public.

Gray That’s correct.

Alexander The Republican senators had a private discussion. I would think the Executive Branch is like that.

10:41 Boxer Comparing EPA to us doesn’t even make sense. They according to Justice Scalia cannot consider all these things we can consider. Your continuous claim that there’s transparency is ludicrous. This is Alice in Wonderland. There is no transparency. They didn’t follow the science. They went over the level any scientist recommended. Do you know why Administrator Johnson could not be here?

Gray I don’t know, but he’s been out of work because of his back.

Boxer There are serious charges that the White House interfered with this. The administrator needs to be up here. Do you know we have yet to receive emails from the White House dealing with the California waiver?

Gray No.

Boxer Will you find out and send me a letter?

Gray I can do that.

Boxer It is not a game. We have had a stall for seven and half years on climate change. There is no transparency here.

10:45 Klobuchar I want to follow up on the perchlorate hearing we held yesterday. Why has the EPA failed to issue a standard?

Gray Under the Clean Air Act there are no consideration of costs. Perchlorate is a very serious issue. We are moving to have a decision on perchlorate by the end of the year.

Klobuchar How long have we known since this was a risk?

Gray We are looking a toxicological models.

Gray Scientific information never converges on a single point. We try to reflect the uncertainty on that.

Klobuchar Do you think good science comes from the Annapolis Center? You were on the board. They just gave an award to Sen. Inhofe.

Gray I haven’t been on the board for the last eight years.

Boxer The statement that costs are not a consideration are a big lie. For you to sit here and say you follow the science. You’ve lost every lawsuit. I’m counting 11. You have tried to defend the indefensible and you have failed, as far as this senator is concerned.

Alexander I would ask consent to put into the record the recommendation of CASAC and the response of the EPA Administrator which under the law he has the sole authority to make. He agreed with the top range of the advisers more than the top range agreed with the bottom range.

Klobuchar I would like to put into the record the many health associations who agreed with the .060 standard.

11:14 George Thurston When the administrator ignores CASAC he ignore the Congress. It’s just untenable to cite uncertainty in choosing a standard less stringent. The Clean Air Act states that in the face of uncertainty a more stringent standard must be chosen. There is no uncertainty that there are adverse health effects at .075 level. The only uncertainty is the amount. Sen. Inhofe and I apparently agree on using “sound science.” And that is defined by law as CASAC.

11:19 Scientists understand science but they also have personal opinions.

11:35 Baucus I urge the EPA to make decisions based on science.

11:41 Whitehouse It’s important to remember when we discuss these process questions that has real consequences for real people. They have to stay inside or risk real medical problems. When EPA strays from its own science is it evenly balanced between straying too far towards the environment or too far towards industry?

Balbus In all of the cases I’m aware of, the decisions were tilted toward industry.

12:00 Whitehouse Dr. Grifo. When you have OMB with the ability to have secret meetings in the science stage of the EPA determination and inject its point of view, what safeguards are you aware of in the process that would restrict the OMB input to prevent, to put it bluntly, shilling for industry?

Grifo Nothing that I’m aware of.

Whitehouse Dr. Michaels, as you’ve looked at institutional forces to twist the science, there’s the legendary ones like the American Tobacco Institute and the American Lead Institute. Have you ever come across the Annapolis Center to which Mr. Gray belonged?

Michaels I address that very question in my book. The Center was founded by a vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers, and was funded by Exxon. Their mantra is “uncertainty.” There’s no science there. Unfortunately we’re seeing a whole industry of for-profit scientist consultants and front groups. You can always find someone who appears to be a scientist to complain. They talk about “sound science” but it just sounds like science.

Whitehouse Other people have been cleared out of positions on advisory boards. One of them includes Deborah Rice. They even scrubbed the record of anything she said. The reason was an asserted conflict of interest. She had stated her professional view on an issue on behalf of the state of Maine in a regulatory hearing. Is that generally understood as a conflict of interest? A conflict of interest is a financial link. I ask this because as we were preparing for this hearing we had scientists who said that they would love to testify but they fear retaliation and her name was invoked.

Michaels It is truly Orwellian. Dr. Rice is a respected toxicologist working for the state of Maine.

12:09 Boxer It’s a sin to have that attitude. I believe that attitude prevails in the EPA. I believe our children’s health is expendable to those folks in the EPA. Just as I believe the tobacco industry made that decision. This committee has a job to do, and it’s very important to blow the whistle.

Thurston There are epidemiological studies that show effects below the standard the administrator set. In 1984 we followed children in western New Jersey. We demonstrated lung-function decrements at well below the 100ppb ozone one-hour standard. At the time the standard was 120 ppb, and they used controlled exposure studies to deny the epidemiology. We have the same problem today. Real people getting real exposure in the real world show these effects. Hospital admissions. There are mortality effects of ozone. We know there are mortality effects. The OMB and the RIA does consider economics.

Boxer I predict a lawsuit on this and the people will win this. Could you describe your concern with the children’s chemical evaluation program?

Balbus EDF was involved in the development of this program. We were highly critical in the multi-tier structure. This pilot study started in 2000 and I was part of the original peer-review panel. The major issue is its incredibly slow pace. It’s been a slow walk ground to a halt.

Boxer The EPA’s chemical assessment management program. North American Competitive Council: Chevron, GM, Lockheed Martin. Their mission isn’t protecting children’s health.

Balbus I don’t know exactly what their role is.

Boxer The EPA when they deal with these pollutants in the air, by law, they must only consider the health of the people. I want to send a message to the workers over there: Change is coming. You’re going to be able to proud once again.

12:24 Whitehouse It has been a pleasure for me listening to the panel. I think we learned a lot today. I have an awful lot of alarm bells that are ringing right now. There’s the ozone standard with no visible means of support. It appears that whenever the EPA has departed from scientific recommendations it has done it on behalf of industry. In contrast to Dr. Rice, Robert Shatner, an employee of ExxonMobil, James Klonig, Dale Thickles. I have to applaud Dr. Gray for his ability to say completely preposterous things with a straight face. It’s a skill but not what we want. We stand adjourned.