Environmental News and Issue Thread

Originally posted by Scriabin
Can you help me find my old pair of green jackboots?

Were you of age in 1990 when I was still fairly new at EPA and had to deal with the same right wing arguments you now use?

Do you have any rational basis to say all the environmental regulation of which you complain is based on "false science?"

What is your evidence for so broad an assertion?

well, i said i would come up w/ a list of scientist supporting my claims about it being a false science and there is just too many to write out.But,the "petition project" has been signed by 31,000 american scientist alone! you can find it at http://www.oism.org/pproject

Originally posted by utherpendragon
well, i said i would come up w/ a list of scientist supporting my claims about it being a false science and there is just too many to write out.But,the "petition project" has been signed by 31,000 american scientist alone! you can find it at http://www.oism.org/pproject

for the sake of balance you can go to the following for a list of 100 or so most prominent climatologist who believe "man made catstraphoic global warming". for the record about a dozen are actual scientist the rest are experts mostly like al gore,michael moore, jon bon jovi,prince charles of wales,alanas morresett,willie nelson,daryl hannah and so and so forth.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/05/31072-american-scientist-against-agw.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3563532/The-world-has-never-seen-such-freezing-heat.html

Looks like the data is being fudged on the side of global warming. My guess is Carbon taxes are going to be with us even if the public becomes aware of global warming falsehood.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
yes i was of age long before 1990. I was being facetious about the green shirts, so put your boots back if you find them.🙂Now,to some of my claims.man-made global warming is damm near turning into a religion not a science. and there are many scientist world wide who assert this.If anything its a global cooling.I assume we r close in age and thats all ...[text shortened]... ark johnson(meterologist AMS CBM/NWA)-don easterbrook(geologist,western washington university)

Do we have to talk about climate change?

I'm actually in favor of global warming -- I hate cold weather; I've got a beach house on the Delaware shore that is 3 blocks back from the sea and I've always wanted beach front property.

Is climate change really the most important environmental issue to discuss?

How about coal ash, which contains selenium and arsenic in dangerous levels and is widely held nationally in ponds, often held together by earthen berms?

How about water pollution, generally, and drinking water, specifically?

Why are we so obsessed with health and living longer when we have managed in our lifetimes to completely destroy our supply of clean, cheap water?

How about air pollution from power plants, especially particulates from burning coal? Don't we simply move that pollution around by scrubbing it out of stacks with baghouses and then dump it into containment ponds with the ash, risking the kind of disaster that recently happened in Tennessee?

How about the other unquestioned scientifically established health threats posed by air pollutants under the Clean Air Act's six criteria pollutant standards?

Can we talk about these subjects and leave the political hot potato of climate change for another thread?

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/19487/EcoMisanthropes_Want_Better_Living_Through_Mass_Death.html

Removing people is one answer to pollution. All pollution. Problem I have with this suggestion is that those calling for it haven't committed suicide yet. Plus that, with all the bogus envirenmental science, what do we base actions on?

SUBJECT: Scientific Integrity: Our Compass for Environmental Protection

FROM: Lisa P. Jackson
Administrator

TO: All EPA Employees


On March 9, President Obama issued a Memorandum on Scientific Integrity underscoring that the “public must be able to trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decisions.” The public health and environmental laws that Congress has enacted depend on rigorous adherence to the best available science. That is why, when I became Administrator, I pledged to uphold values of scientific integrity every day.

Science must be the compass guiding our environmental protection decisions. We cannot make the best decisions unless we have confidence in the integrity of the science on which we rely. Therefore, it is my promise that scientific integrity will be the backbone of my leadership of the Agency.

The President’s Memorandum provides important guideposts for how EPA should conduct and use science. Most notable is that “political officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions.” While the laws that EPA implements leave room for policy judgments, the scientific findings on which these judgments are based should be arrived at independently using well-established scientific methods, including peer review, to assure rigor, accuracy, and impartiality. This means that policymakers must respect the expertise and independence of the Agency’s career scientists and independent advisors while insisting that the Agency’s scientific processes meet the highest standards of rigor, quality, and integrity.

The President’s Memorandum stresses that “scientific information … developed and used by the Federal government should … ordinarily be made available to the public” and that, where permitted by law, “there should be transparency in the preparation, identification and use of scientific and technological information in policymaking.” Consistent with this principle and my commitment to transparency, I believe that the methodologies and guidelines that EPA uses for scientific analyses should be shared fully with the public. Our regulatory decisions should include a full explanation of the science issues addressed by the Agency, the data relevant to those issues, and the interpretations and judgments underlying the Agency’s scientific findings and conclusions.

Like other aspects of our programs, environmental science is complex and multi-faceted. Able scientists may not always agree on what methodologies should be employed or how studies should be interpreted. I am committed to fostering a culture of robust scientific debate and discussion within the Agency, recognizing that in the end senior scientists must take responsibility for resolving differences of opinions using established science policies and their best professional judgment. I intend to work with our science leadership, unions, and career staff to make sure that we respect and encourage free and honest discussion among our scientists while bringing to closure issues that we must resolve to support decision making.

EPA already has a strong foundation of policies and procedures that support the President’s goals. EPA’s Principles of Scientific Integrity, developed in 1999 and reaffirmed in 2002, foster honesty and credibility in the science conducted by and used by the Agency. The Quality Program further ensures that the data relied upon for decision making is of known and documented quality and is based on sound scientific principles. EPA’s Peer Review Handbook is recognized as a model for good peer review practices. The Agency’s regulatory development process provides for Analytic Blueprints that formalize scientific input. EPA also has strict rules in place to address scientific misconduct and whistleblower protections not only for the scientific process, but for all of EPA’s activities.

However, we should build on this foundation and look for opportunities to strengthen the policies and procedures that ensure scientific integrity within the Agency. I have asked EPA’s Science Policy Council, which provides leadership in cross-Agency science and science policy issues, to take the lead on this effort. The SPC at my request is inventorying all our guidelines and policies that relate to scientific integrity to look for gaps and possible areas for improvement. One SPC focus, for example, will be updating and reaffirming EPA’s Peer Review Handbook and recommending how we can improve implementation of our peer review policies across our programs and regions. I also have asked the SPC to work the National Partnership Council to reaffirm the Agency’s Principles of Scientific Integrity and update the Principles of Scientific Integrity online training.

The President’s Memorandum on Scientific Integrity assigns the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy the responsibility to make recommendations within 120 days to achieve the “highest level of integrity in the executive branch’s involvement with scientific and technological processes.” EPA’s active involvement with OSTP in this Presidential directive will strengthen our ability to produce top-quality science that meets the highest standards of integrity. Accordingly, I have asked our Acting Science Advisor, Kevin Teichman, in consultation with the SPC, to work closely with OSTP. After OSTP issues its recommendations, I will work closely with the SPC to make sure we are fully applying them at EPA.

The Presidential Memorandum on Scientific Integrity provides us with a unique opportunity to once again demonstrate our deep commitment to scientific integrity in the pursuit of our vital mission of protecting human health and the environment. Let us seize this opportunity by always minding the direction of our compass.

http://www.fairhome.co.uk/2009/04/27/climate-change-deniers-revealed-as-frauds/

And a bit of interesting psychology:

http://climatedenial.org/2009/04/09/what-makes-climate-change-deniers-tick/

ACTIVISTS SEE ECONOMY TRUMPING CLIMATE IN OBAMA AUTO TASK FORCE
Environmentalists say economic concerns among members of the Obama administration’s auto industry task force appear to be winning out over environmental priorities -- including calls to reduce the sector’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and increase its fuel economy requirements.

EPA EXPANDING USE OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE IN POTW ENFORCEMENT
A recently proposed consent agreement between a Missouri publicly owned treatment works (POTW) and EPA highlights a slowly building effort to include “green” infrastructure stormwater retention projects in enforcement actions against sewage treatment operators while the agency is also pushing to include the techniques in new Clean Water Act (CWA) permits.

FORMER EPA MERCURY EXPERT FAULTS FIRST-TIME FDA RISK-BENEFIT STUDY
EPA’s former top expert on mercury is faulting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) analysis of the risks and benefits of consuming fish due to what the expert says is flawed modeling, improper data selection and insufficiently protective analysis in FDA’s first-time effort.

ACTIVISTS EYE OBAMA SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY REVIEW TO AIR BROAD CONCERNS
Activists will use President Barack Obama’s recent request for comment on policies to ensure scientific integrity in the White House as a vehicle to voice their broad concerns about interference with science and the need for EPA and other agencies to ensure transparency, urge greater whistleblower protections and air other concerns.

OBAMA PICKS FOR TOP EPA, DOE CLEANUP POSITIONS DRAW ACTIVISTS’ IRE
President Barack Obama’s nominees for the top waste office slots at EPA and the Department of Energy (DOE) are drawing the ire of environmentalists who fear that the candidates will not pursue sufficiently stringent cleanups at contaminated sites, and may even relax cleanup standards in favor of economic redevelopment.

EPA CITES ‘BANNER YEAR’ FOR FEDERAL FACILITIES UST ENFORCEMENT
EPA is touting fiscal year 2008 as a record-breaking year for its efforts to clamp down on violations by federal facilities, including military bases, of regulations on underground storage tanks (USTs), citing a 300 percent increase in enforcement actions taken and settled against federal facilities from levels seen in FY06 and FY07

ACTIVIST REPORT STIRS CONTROVERSY OVER PRIVATIZED MILITARY CLEANUPS
A Colorado-based citizen activist group, in a new report, is outlining perceived problems encountered during years of military cleanups at sites in the state, particularly criticizing the practice of turning polluted sites over to private ownership prior to full site remediation. Other experts in military environmental cleanup, however, strongly refute the report’s findings, arguing that taking cleanups out of Defense Department (DOD) hands generally leads to faster, more effective cleanups, which are vital to reducing a large backlog of sites awaiting cleanup

DOD PUSHING FOR FUNDING BOOST TO SPEED CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION
Defense Department (DOD) chemical demilitarization officials are proposing to boost the budget for the long-scrutinized chemical destruction program over the next six years in an effort to finish destruction of the last two chemical weapons stockpile sites closer to a 2017 congressional deadline for destruction, according to an informed source.