Sentences with phrase «endangerment finding in»

... EPA made an Endangerment Finding in court filings based upon the science of IPCC.

The Obama EPA made the endangerment finding in 2009.

«Following that was the endangerment finding in 2009, which eventually led to the Paris discussion and clean power plan, all the rulemaking and the climate action agenda of the previous administration,» he recalled.

Not exact matches

Monsignor William Lynn, 61, was found guilty in June of one count of child endangerment, the first time a U.S. church leader has been convicted of such a charge.

The EPA's stance, however, was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in April 2007, and one of the first actions of Lisa Jackson, the new EPA administrator under the Obama administration, was to declare CO2 and other greenhouse gases a threat to public health and welfare and release a proposed endangerment finding largely built on the earlier ignored analysis.

The «rule» that Murkowski's measure would strike down was the endangerment finding proposed officially in December — which EPA called a rule because it was released in the rulemaking process with public comments and reviews.

The EPA has yet to issue its «endangerment finding,» despite pressure from environmental groups who first sued the agency to start the rulemaking process in 2010.

Judges David Tatel and Patricia Millett noted in one paragraph that EPA in 2009 issued an «endangerment finding» determining that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare.

Newly examined video of Kemp's ridley sea turtles, which are found primarily in the Gulf of Mexico, shows that the species» recovery from endangerment has stalled at less than one - tenth of historic nesting levels.

CTA and other environmental groups have written the EPA Administrator demanding that the agency implement the Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts, et al v. EPA (CTA Global Warming Case) by issuing proposed regulations and an endangerment finding.

Wigley, in a private email not intended for public consumption, muses about «reopening the public comment period» for Michael's PhD (this is an allusion to Michaels calling for a reopening of the EPA's endangerment finding on CO2).

S.J.Res.26 would overturn the EPA's endangerment finding, a December 2009 rulemaking in which the agency concluded that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare.

Instead, the two go out on the road, finding whatever underground robot fighting rings they can with their new discovery: a years - old sparring robot called Atom, which they find in the dump (Child endangerment is another of Charlie's virtues).

From my initial readings, it is a superior document than the draft of the Unified Synthesis Product released for comment by the USCCSP earlier this summer (for which the public comments were sufficient to have the CCSP rethink the contents and release date of the final document), but, it is still in need of some modification and, most importantly, its support of an endangerment finding is still in question.

Obama is, in fact, basically stating, in a fairly reasonable fashion, that he is going to actually follow the Supreme Court ruling and allow EPA to find endangerment which will require action.

The saga of the endangerment finding that wasn't now seems similar to how a great many decisions were made in the Bush White House: (via the NY Times)

But the newly obtained documents show that Dr. Carlin's highly skeptical views on global warming, which have been known for more than a decade within the small unit where he works, have been repeatedly challenged by scientists inside and outside the E.P.A.; that he holds a doctorate in economics, not in atmospheric science or climatology; that he has never been assigned to work on climate change; and that his comments on the endangerment finding were a product of rushed and at times shoddy scholarship, as he acknowledged Thursday in an interview.

In World Climate Report yesterday, we have this note about EPA economist Alan Carlin's «suppressed» piece on the proposed EPA Endangerment Finding.

The endangerment finding was so unexceptional that not even the four justices who said in the 2007 decision that CO2 was not a pollutant were interested in it.

The Coalition for Responsible Regulation filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency in 2009 to challenge the latter's endangerment finding over Greenhouse gases [2].

The EPA argues that it need not undertake a new endangerment finding to adopt the proposed standard, because the agency already determined in December 2009 that «air pollution» related to greenhouse gas emissions «may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare.»

The «final» Endangerment Finding came on December 7, 2009, just in time to provide the United States credibility at the then - starting Copenhagen Conference, a United Nations affair at which a replacement to the failed Kyoto Protocol was to be enshrined.

the [endangerment finding] legislation is fundamentally anti-science, just as the rhetoric that supports it is grounded in wilful ignorance.

The process matters, but the science matters more and in this endangerment finding, the science is accurate.

EPA seeks comment on the best available science for purposes of the endangerment discussion, and in particular on the use of the more recent findings of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.

The endangerment finding will «set the stage for an economic train wreck and a constitutional crisis,» wrote the Competitive Enterprise Institute and seven other «free market» groups in a letter sent to EPA's Jackson on Wednesday.

In his two years as attorney general, Cuccinelli petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider its «endangerment finding» that greenhouse gases pose a threat to human health.

«It seems clear to me that the administration will do what they can to limit the damage of an endangerment finding under the Clean Air Act,» he said, pointing to Obama's recent comments at a press conference that concerns about impacts on consumers should be taken into account in cutting emissions.

The most important is to withdraw the USEPA GHG Endangerment Finding so that the expensive, counter-productive climate alarmist policies required by this Finding can not be brought back at the next change in Administrations.

[3] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, «Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act,» in Federal Register, Vol.

«The messages of the two points outlined in the extract above are: (1) the claims about increases in frequency and intensity of extreme events are generally not supported by actual observations and, (2) official information about climate science is largely controlled by agencies through (a) funding choices for research and (b) by the carefullyselected (i.e. biased) authorship of reports such as the EPA Endangerment Finding and the National Climate Assessment.»

On 15 April 2009, AFP joined with other conservative groups in a letter challenging the EPA's endangerment finding, claiming:

I post it on Open Market and GlobalWarming.Org because it is hard to find on the Internet, and Dr. Christy makes a key point that will need to be made again and again in the upcoming Senate battle over the Murkowski resolution of disapproval to veto EPA's endangerment finding.

In the wake of the recent «endangerment finding, the IPI analysts conclude that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has sufficient authority under the Clean Air Act to create a cap - and - trade system all by itself, without Congressional input:

On February 12, three organizations filed a Petition for Reconsideration in which they stated, «EPA's Endangerment Finding is based on non-scientific reports by the IPCC and scientifically indefensible global temperature datasets.»

Once the endangerment finding for carbon pollution had been published, the EPA was assigned by law to become the central coordinating agency of government in crafting a regulatory pathway which mitigates the dangers of carbon pollution, as those dangers are described in the finding; and further, to do so to an extent which is commensurate with the stated dangers.

Two years later, the EPA confirmed that, releasing an «endangerment finding» that concluded that «the current and projected concentrations» piling up up in the atmosphere from human activity «threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.»

This is the EPA's role under current law, but the EPA is not fulfilling its assigned mission nearly to the extent that current law not only allows, but also expects, given the stated dangers as listed in the endangerment finding.

As I remarked to Rud and to David, now that the endangerment finding for carbon pollution has been published and has been successfully defended in the courts, the EPA is assigned by law to act as the central coordinating agency of government in crafting a regulatory pathway which mitigates the dangers of carbon pollution, as those dangers are described in the finding.

Rud, when I talk to those of the Progressive Left who are most concerned about climate change, and who want the United States to become the leader in finding ways to reduce carbon emissions, they pretty much go silent when I inform them that the EPA has legal authority under the Clean Air Act and the 2009 Endangerment Finding to do much more in placing limits on carbon emissions than the agency is actuallyfinding ways to reduce carbon emissions, they pretty much go silent when I inform them that the EPA has legal authority under the Clean Air Act and the 2009 Endangerment Finding to do much more in placing limits on carbon emissions than the agency is actuallyFinding to do much more in placing limits on carbon emissions than the agency is actually doing.

Moreover, under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is charged with mitigating those dangers to an extent which is commensurate with the stated gravity of those dangers, as they are described in the endangerment finding.

EPA acted on the court's decision with its 2009 «endangerment finding,» which exhaustively reviewed the science and concluded that, without action, rising CO2 emissions would likely result in dangerous warming trends harmful to human health and the economy.

But even with the «environmental» groups» strong influence, the Obama Administration may not have trusted the SAB to render the invalid scientific conclusions on climate alarmism they wanted in their Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding and failed to submit their GHG Endangerment Finding to the SAB for review despite the clear need for it to do so on such an important and influential issue.

Together, the Supreme Court ruling and the Endangerment Finding mean the EPA is legally obligated to regulate carbon dioxide in such a way as to mitigate its threat to public health.

The basis for the EPA's GHG Endangerment Finding is their three lines of evidence, as found in the EPA EF Technical Support Document (page 47):

If it does not, liberal states and environmental groups are likely to sue the agency based on its carbon endangerment finding — an agency review ordered by the Supreme Court in 2007.

These assertions include: — Supposed «out of date» findings from the IPCC and USCCP reports — Supposed decline in global temperature (already debunked dozens of times)-- Supposed lack of endangerment from anthropogenic global warming imputed from past improvements in measures of U.S. health and welfare

As a member of the large plaintiff group in Massachusetts v. EPA, we celebrated the Supreme Court's April 2007 decision declaring CO2 a pollutant under the Clean Air Act and ordering the Environmental Protection Agency to take the next step toward regulation by making what's called the «endangerment finding» — an agency determination that a pollutant «endangers public health and welfare,» leading directly to controls on that pollutant.

The cases may well follow the pattern that played out after EPA's «endangerment» finding, motor vehicles rule, and new source review rules: More than 100 lawsuits were filed, but all were brought together for joint argument in court.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/phil-jones-and-ben-santer-comment-on-cei/ Prof. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK and Ben Santer at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory comment in response to a petition to EPA by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Pat Michaels, which misleadingly seeks to obstruct EPA's process in making an «endangerment» finding on greenhouse gases.