I wish I had time to do this one more justice, but I’ve been trying to a finish a couple of projects before I leave for vacation on Sunday. If you haven’t yet read the newest chapter in the story of the EPA, the Clean Air Act, and the White House, check it out. I’ll break it down for you list-style, in typical Asthma Mom fashion:
If We Don’t Admit It, We Don’t Have to Fix It
1. Up until last year, the EPA did not address greenhouse gas emissions like carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act.
2. Last April, the Supreme Court decided carbon dioxide fits the definition of a pollutant under the Clean Air act.
3. That meant the EPA can regulate CO2 like other pollutants–and, in fact, should–but the Supreme Court stopped short of forcing the EPA to regulate it in a 5-4 decision. As the New York Times notes,
The 5-to-4 decision was a strong rebuke to the Bush administration, which has maintained that it does not have the right to regulate carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases under the Clean Air Act, and that even if it did, it would not use the authority. The ruling does not force the environmental agency to regulate auto emissions, but it would almost certainly face further legal action if it failed to do so.
4. And that means the EPA emailed the White House a draft for emissions limits under the Clean Air act, based on their danger to public health and compelled by the ruling. Or, the EPA tried to email it, to be more accurate.
5. Because someone in the White House or the OMB–no one knows who, so far–called then-EPA Associate Deputy Administrator Jason Burnett not to send the message.
6. Since Burnett had already sent it, this unidentified person ordered Burnett to un-email the message.
7. Burnett refused,
8. Much like the way my 6 year-old pretends she doesn’t notice when she drops toys or books in order to avoid picking them up, the White House then just refused to open the email.
9. And it’s still unopened.
10. Meanwhile, Burnett has resigned, saying the Bush administration is dumping emissions regulation on the lap of the next president.
11. Instead of that original email that’s still sitting in limbo, the EPA has been getting ready to release a much weaker version. (Does this sound familiar? New, not-quite-strict-enough smog limits, anyone?)
12. On June 25, the Times indicated just how weak.
Over the past five days, the officials said, the White House successfully put pressure on the E.P.A. to eliminate large sections of the original analysis that supported regulation, including a finding that tough regulation of motor vehicle emissions could produce $500 billion to $2 trillion in economic benefits over the next 32 years. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter.
13. As Grist reported,
But White House officials have asked that the EPA delete references to greenhouse-gas emissions endangering public welfare (which would legally allow them to be regulated); how they could be regulated (the document suggests a cap-and-trade system similar to those in place for acid rain and mercury); and the cost of such regulation (according to the document, “The net benefit to society could be in excess of $2 trillion.”). In effect, says one source, White House officials want the document to instead demonstrate that “the Clean Air Act is broken and can’t be used to regulate emissions.”
Dot Earth’s Andrew C. Revkin explains how this fits the pattern.
Grist talks to Jason Burnett.
Marty Kaplan considers further innovations of the hands-over-eyes,ears variety at the Huffington Post.
I’d like to claim that I’m speechless, but that wouldn’t be believable. Neither is the administration’s actions in this instance. It sounds to me like Burnett was exactly right.
And this is the second time he left. The first, in 2006, happened after a disagreement with the EPA over regulating soot:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/30/151639/765