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.
Not exact matches
The White House is sitting on EPA's proposed public welfare «
endangerment»
finding on greenhouse emissions, the Interior Secretary sits on a science - based listing of the polar bear as threatened with extinction, the White House censors testimony by the CDC director on health effects, the Transportation Dept. tries to bury a major study on climate change impacts on Gulf Coast transportation infrastructure, and
so forth.
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.
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.
So there is no direct legal attack on the EPA
endangerment finding beyond bad process.
We should never have gotten here if the court had required the EPA to provide evidence for the
endangerment finding using mandated scientific methods but they dropped the ball there
so here we are.
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.
«Why I Spend
So Much Time and Effort on Climate Skepticism New Research Report on the Validity of Global Average Surface Temperature Data and EPA's GHG
Endangerment Finding»
The Court might not have been
so quick to dismiss the risk of «extreme measures» had it understood how a section 202
endangerment finding would affect EPA's obligations under other provisions of the Act.
So what started out as a scientific issue concerning a proposed
Endangerment Finding has now escalated into a major legal and even Constitutional issue concerning Presidential powers.
And
so before EPA
finds «
endangerment,» it first must define it.»
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last December formally issued a
so - called «
Endangerment Finding» declaring carbon dioxide, the very substance human beings exhale, is a danger to our health and the future of life on the planet as we know it.
The EPA has ignored the Chamber and seems to be moving forward with their
so - called
Endangerment Finding, which says that global warming is a danger to public health.