This comes from the New York Times. Yes, the New York Times.
An internal government memo critiques the Envirnomental Protection Agency’s proposal to regulate CO2. The memo, prepared by the White House Office of Management and Budget says that the issue behind the proposal was “not based on a systematic analysis of costs and benefits and fell short of scientific rigor.”
According to John M. Broder:
|[T]he E.P.A.’s proposal to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act would have “serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities.”
The document also raised questions about the E.P.A.’s inclusion of gases that are believed to contribute to global warming without proving that they have direct health effects.
It didn’t take long for Congress to get wind of this document.
|Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming, waved the nine-page document at Lisa P. Jackson at a hearing of the Environment and Public Works committee this morning. He called it a “smoking gun” that proved the proposed finding was based on politics, not science.
“This misuse of the Clean Air Act will be a trigger for overwhelming regulation and lawsuits based on gases emitted from cars, schools, hospitals and small business,” Mr. Barrasso said. “This will affect any number of other sources, including lawn mowers, snowmobiles and farms. This will be a disaster for the small businesses that drive America.”
But don’t expect the socialist Obama administration to start looking into the real science behind climate change. It would only muddle the emotionalisms they want to exploit.
You can access the complete article on-line here:
E.P.A.’s Greenhouse Gas Proposal Critiqued
John M. Broder
New York Times
May 12, 2009