I have previously discussed how important it is for the US Environmental Protection Agency to revisit and revoke the EPA Endangerment Finding for Greenhouse Gases issued in 2009. To date the USEPA has not decided to do so. I have suggested how anyone who pays electric bills can petition the USEPA to do this. What follows is a press release by one group that did so primarily based on 2016 research which provides the necessary new research results that justify a revisit and revocation. I do not know for sure whether others have submitted such petitions other than one from the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Science and Environmental Policy Project on February 17 (as updated February 23), which was previously published by Inside EPA.
Key Points of Council Press Release:
1. If the Endangerment Finding is not vacated, whether the current Administration likes it or not, it is certain that electric utilities and many other industries will face ongoing EPA CO2 regulation.
2. This regulation will raise energy prices thereby reducing economic growth and jobs.
3. New research findings make it all but certain that CO2 is not a pollutant but rather a beneficial gas that should not be regulated.
Text of April 9, 2017 Council Press Release
The Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council today praised President Trump for his recent Executive Order on climate and energy policy. However, the Council further called on the President and EPA, as part of the process initiated by the Executive Order, to revisit and revoke the scientifically invalid Endangerment Finding on which Obama-era greenhouse gas regulations are based.
On Inauguration Day, January 20, 2017, the Council submitted a Petition to EPA, demanding that it revisit and revoke the Endangerment Finding because that Finding has been scientifically invalidated. The Petition demonstrates that the Endangerment Finding is nothing more than a scientific hypothesis that has been disproved by the best empirical evidence from the real world.
The Endangerment Finding is the fundamental foundation on which all greenhouse gas policy and regulation of the Obama era rest – including the Clean Power Plan and U.S. involvement in the Paris Climate Accord. The Endangerment Finding purported to “find” that human-generated greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, constitute a “danger” to human health and welfare because of their effect in warming the atmosphere. However, the Endangerment Finding has been invalidated, and with it the foundation for regulation. As a result, there exists no scientific basis for any of ex-President Obama’s greenhouse gas-restricting policies or regulations.
The Council Petition to EPA is based in part on the September 21, 2016 Research Report by James Wallace, John Christy and Joseph D’Aleo. That Report demonstrated by clear scientific proof the invalidation of each of the three lines of evidence on which EPA relied in the Endangerment Finding to attribute global warming to human emissions of greenhouse gases.
The Research Report was peer-reviewed by eleven eminent and highly qualified scientists, engineers and economists, all of whom agreed with its conclusions. Those conclusions are definitive and unequivocal. As stated in the Research Report itself, “[T]his analysis failed to find that the steadily rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 critically important temperature time series data analyzed.”
In testimony before Congress on March 29, 2017, Dr. Christy reiterated the key findings of the Research Report. Dr. Christy stated:
- “The IPCC climate models performed best versus observations when they did not include extra GHGs [anthropogenic greenhouse gases]…. The basic result of this report is that the temperature trend of several datasets since {1959/} 1979 can be explained by variations in the components that naturally affect the climate [that is, excluding anthropogenic greenhouse gases].”
The scientific invalidity of the Endangerment Finding is now obvious, undeniable and easily demonstrated. It is time for an honest and rigorous scientific re-evaluation of this Obama-era political document. We have been taken down a tragically foolish path of pointless regulations and wasteful mal-investments to “solve” a problem which does not actually exist. Our leaders must summon the courage to acknowledge the truth and act accordingly.
The Council brought its Petition because the Obama-era greenhouse gas regulations threaten, as President Obama himself conceded, to make the price of electricity “skyrocket.” All Americans will benefit from a new era of regulation where the cheapest sources of energy can also compete and prevail in the marketplace.
The Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council is a group of homeowners concerned about the dramatic increases in the costs of household electricity brought about by the government-mandated shift of electricity generation from inexpensive and reliable fossil fuels to expensive and unreliable “renewables” like wind and solar. The Council receives no funding from any industry source.
For more information, contact:
Francis Menton
Law Office of Francis Menton
85 Broad Street, 18th floor
New York, New York 10004
(212) 627-1796
fmenton@manhattancontrarian.com
[…] concerns are understandable given that, as CHECC argues in its petition, the flimsy evidence on which EPA based its endangerment finding has now been proven false beyond […]
Morning Justbeau,
In a normal political environment I concur with your assessment that it might be wise to just continue limping along (drift) on dealing with the false claims of the CIC on the existential threat of C02 levels in the atmosphere. I’ve used persuasion (ala Scott Adams) in leveraging every tool available to find ways to “Implementing the reversal”(1) of various weighting factors used to objectively determine which project would be the one to work on during any given time period. I have just started digesting the concepts in paper, but like Dr. Carlin I feel the “Timing” criteria of Dr. Shapaizman’s for the 1.2) “Conditions for drift reversal” is NOW.
It’s too late (ie timing) to address the false claims for residents of the state of CA (2). It’s not too late to prevent this from happening to the residents of the Midwest and Florida:
“PG&E said that between December 2015 and December 2016, “a number” of approved rate increases resulted in residential rates increasing 21 percent. Rates increased 7 percent on Jan. 1, 2015, and then a further 13 percent on Aug. 1, with at least three rate increases for electricity happening in the last year alone.
Her neighbor, Janet Youngdale, agreed, saying her bill went up $200 from the same time period last year, to a total of $511 in January.
“I paid .42 cents per kilowatt hour for more than half of my total usage and we aren’t flagrant over consumers,” Youngdale told the Business Times. “I feel so ripped off. I’m looking at solar, but I know that’s not an option for a lot of people. It’s disgraceful that PG&E can do that to people.”…
Ms. Youngdale likely noticed an insert in her April bill- letting her know that she got a bill credit entitled the “California Climate Credit.” She likely didn’t notice that that credit ($17.40) was 40% less than her last credit! She is likely unaware that she is going to be paying for all the “overgeneration” occurring this month on the CA grid- http://euanmearns.com/concentrated-solar-power-in-the-usa-a-performance-review/#comment-28635
(1) Page 5 Shpaizman I. Policy drift and its reversal: The case of prescription drug coverage in the United States, Public Admin, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12315
a. “Policy drift….. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/padm.12315/full “ was referenced by Max Grossmann on twitter
(2) http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2017/02/07/pge-hikes-rates-gas-electricity-pcg-utility.html
The power to get things done in Washington resides partly on popularity and trust. The administration needs to build popularity with voters. If the president is above 50 percent, then congressmen will be encouraged to back his policies.
The endangerment finding is esoteric. Those who know if it may support it. Repealing it may not be a big deal with voters, one way or the other.
The administration may want to focus on biggies like health and taxes.
Repealing endangerment is likely way down the priority, even if very popular at this site.
Good essay.
They better not imagine a carbon tax could offset lowering the corporate tax rate. There is no rationale for a carbon tax. That would be an idea befitting president gore.
Imports are socially unhelpful so deserve taxation, whereas CO2 is harmless so does not.