EPA Decision Repudiates White House Position

Tue, 2007-04-03 17:36Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

EPA Decision Repudiates White House Position

A memo exclusively leaked to the DeSmogBlog demostrates how completely the U.S. Supreme Court decision forcing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate greenhouse gas emissions is a repudiation of the Bush administration's position.

White House policy on climate change and GHG emissions was revealed, most embarrassingly, by one Phil A. Cooney, a lobbyist with the American Petroleum Institute (API). President George W. Bush had hired Cooney as chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, from which position Cooney rewrote a host of scientific reports, editing out references to the threats of climate change, regardless that he had no scientific basis or background on which to do so. When he got caught in June 2005 (thanks to Rick Piltz ), Cooney resigned and slipped quietly into a better-paying job at ExxonMobil.

The attached memo shows that as early as 1999, Cooney was leading the campaign to prevent the EPA from regulating CO2 and three other GHGs. It was Cooney's goal as chief API lobbyist to demonstrate “industry's unity and resolve” in opposing any EPA action.

Regardless of the court decision last week, Cooney probably feels a sense of pride: he and his fellow lobbyists succeeded for at least eight years in keeping the U.S. from making substantive improvements in national energy consumption. Of course, the damage to the environment - and to America's international reputation - could be significant and lasting, but at least we haven't disrupted Exxon's profit potential.

AttachmentSize
API CO2 petition response.pdf374.82 KB

Comments

At the Senate Hearing on Integrity in Science Mr. Cooney said his comments were subject to the authority of the director of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Dr. John Mahoney until 2006 and a Deputy Director of NOAA. A larger share of the blame should be going to Mahoney. When is that going to happen? If not, why not.
Last I heard, it is not a crime for any individual, business, or organization to voice their dissent or opposition to government policy.

This is, of course, “inconvenient” for Global Warming Theocracy, which would prefer these heretics be subject to a swift auto-de-fé.
But when the individual in question has a long history of stifling science that is politically inconvenient it becomes extremely relevant and something that should be documented in the public record for all to see and all to remember for years to come.
I fail to see how this apparently widely distrubuted “top secret” fax documents any “stifling of science”, as you characterize it. In fact, it seems to outline some very reasonable points, which shouldn’t be surprising that sectors of of industry have a legitimate interest in discussing.
I pointed to a history of stifling, with appropriate links, I am not claiming that this memo is example of that. This memo is more about industry third party groups fighting the inevitable, which unfortunately they did quite well.
Most would agree that every accused rapist has the right to put their defence case in court, no matter how damning the evidence, Mr. Fumble-fingers “eifjk dlkfj”. However they’re supposed to do it from the witness stand in public, rather than secretly from the judge’s bench. There are standards. Not everyone is in favour of corporate anarchy, like you are.