EPA Substitutes Ideology In Place of Scientific Integrity

Michele Bachmann
|
Posted: Jul 01, 2009 12:27 PM
Last week, the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey climate change bill, also referred to as cap-and-trade, or cap-and-tax, or the national energy tax, on the premise that if we don't act now to cut carbon emissions, our planet's environment will incur irreversible damage.

Now, we know that cap-and-trade is an absolutely disastrous economic policy, resulting in higher costs for every single American on energy and all manufactured goods. It is an economic time bomb for our nation's already struggling economy that will serve merely as a huge revenue booster for the federal government. We know that.

So supporters of this legislation claimed that we had to pursue this disastrous public policy because science says we must do it to save the environment. Enter the EPA, and its new administrator Lisa Jackson.  You’ll recall that the EPA made a similar announcement not long ago, making an endangerment finding and stating that it would have to regulate carbon dioxide if Congress didn’t.

Last week, CBS News reported that "the Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government." 

CBS states that "the EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an email message to a staff researcher on March 17: 'The administrator [Jackson] and the administration has decided to move forward... and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.'"  The report's author, a 38 year employee of the EPA, was diverted to other work.

In other words, two weeks before the EPA submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, the EPA center director suppressed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."

But, wait, there’s more.

If we go back to January of this year, it was the EPA's Lisa Jackson who said, " I will ensure EPA's efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency."

It seems to me that Jackson substituted ideology in place of scientific integrity in this case. If Jackson really meant what she said, this report should not have been quashed but instead given ample consideration and debate. But in rushing through a major policy initiative of this White House and Congress, I guess you can't let the facts and the truth get in the way of action.