One of the ongoing fights we shouldn’t have to be having with the EPA is over particulate matter (PM2.5), and its risk to public health. While some of the PM2.5 denial-driven policies have been backburnered, it remains a pressing issue. A new study adds to the weight of evidence showing the importance of reducing PM2.5, finding that 40,000 lives were saved by regulations in 2010.
News of this study came, of all places, from Watts Up With That, where Anthony Watts suggested that the reduction in deaths thanks to past regulations means that there’s less reason to implement new laws.
Um, if policies are reducing deaths, wouldn’t that mean more policies would further reduce mortality? And wouldn’t that be a good reason for ramping up efforts, as opposed to winding down and letting more people die?
Sadly, this sort of stupid reasoning may be even more welcomed at the EPA if polluters have their way and install even more of their own experts on the EPA’s Science Advisory Board.
Back in June, we found out that the “expert” Pruitt selected to chair one of the EPA’s science advisory boards was hand-picked by a major Republican donor and the industry-funded Texas Public Policy Association. Then on Thursday, E&E’s Sean Reilly reported that Tony Cox, who Pruitt chose as chair of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, was nominated by Dan Byers, a senior US Chamber of Commerce executive.
Specifically, Byers is the vice president for policy for the chamber’s Global Energy Institute, whose position on climate and energy is made clear by an August post headlined “Seven ways EPA’s Affordable Clean Energy Rule is a better approach than the Clean Power Plan.”
Unfortunately, it’s about to get worse. The EPA released the finalists for the next round of Science Advisory Board, and the list of 174 nominees includes all too many names we recognize. As Scott Waldman reported in E&E, it includes such luminaries as tobacco-funded and Heartland-affiliated James Enstrom, as well as consultant Richard Belzer, whose clients include Exxon Mobil and Fitzgerald Glider Kits.
Then there’s satellite lover John Christy, a favorite witness of congressional Republicans because of his steadfast commitment to being wrong. Should someone whose work has, for decades, required correction be sought to offer advice? Not if you’re looking for correct answers. But if you’re looking for politically correct answers…
Christy, then, is a prime choice for those favoring denial over accuracy. As is another nominee, Heritage Foundation’s Kevin Dayaratna, who worked hard to cook the books and provide economic justification for Trump’s Paris pull-out.
Then there’s William Happer, who perhaps takes the cake as most willing to provide preferred answers in exchange for a paycheck. We’ll remind you that Happer was caught in a sting in 2015 accepting an offer from a group he believed to represent Middle Eastern oil interests. In exchange for a generous “donation” to his denial non-profit, Happer was willing to author a report extolling the benefits of CO2.
Though that was a Greenpeace sting, we do know that Happer’s CO2 Coalition has been funded by all sorts of really nefarious forces, including the Trump-backing Mercer family.
With multiple nominees paid by fossil fuels to take anti-climate positions, as well as John Christy who just so happens to make mistakes for decades to downplay warming in the satellite record, odds are good at least one of these goons makes it on the Science Advisory Board.
Fortunately, the public comment period is open until November 7th, so if you’d rather the EPA not take advice from deniers, send an email detailing your concerns to Mr. Thomas Carpenter, Designated Federal Officer at carpenter.thomas@epa.gov.
Sure, it can be boring to bore into the boors on these boards, but if they’re allowed on board, we can’t be sure the advice these boards give is all above board.