Blog Posts of Rachel Sauter*

EPA Rejects Challenge to Climate Change Finding

 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on July 29 denied 10 petitions challenging its 2009 finding that climate change caused by greenhouse gases poses a threat to human health and the environment. EPA made the endangerment finding in response to a 2007 Supreme Court case that held that greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act, and are therefore subject to regulation by EPA.

The petitions, filed by GOP attorneys general from Texas and Virginia, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other conservative groups, alleged that the endangerment finding was based on faulty science, and that attempts to regulate greenhouse gases would be harmful to the economy. The petitions were in large part focused on the groups’ claim that stolen emails from climate scientists revealed a conspiracy to cover up evidence that could call into question the science behind climate change.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson shot back at these allegations in a strongly worded statement announcing EPA’s decision. “The endangerment finding is based on years of science from the U.S. and around the world. These petitions -- based as they are on selectively edited, out-of-context data and a manufactured controversy -- provide no evidence to undermine our determination. Excess greenhouse gases are a threat to our health and welfare,” said Jackson. “Defenders of the status quo will try to slow our efforts to get America running on clean energy. A better solution would be to join the vast majority of the American people who want to see more green jobs, more clean energy innovation and an end to the oil addiction that pollutes our planet and jeopardizes our national security.”

Environmental groups have hailed EPA’s decision. “Today, the EPA took the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other climate deniers to school,” said Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune. “Lisa Jackson’s announcement demonstrates once again the undeniable scientific evidence linking greenhouse gas emissions and pollutants to climate change and public health issues.” But opponents to greenhouse gas regulation are still attacking EPA on all fronts. Industry groups have filed a barrage of lawsuits against EPA’s efforts to protect public health from greenhouse gases, and members of Congress have made numerous attempts to pass legislation that would limit or overturn the finding.

The most recent of these attacks comes once again from Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who earlier this week proposed an amendment to a small business bill that would delay regulation of greenhouse gases for two years. Last month, Murkowski tried and failed to pass a resolution that would have overturned the endangerment finding entirely. It is unlikely that Murkowski’s latest effort to block the rule will succeed. Even if the proposed amendment survives, any attempt to suspend greenhouse gas regulations will be met by a veto, a White House official said last week.

(Rachel Sauter* 07/30/10; 0 comments)

New Study Finds High Levels of Controversial Plastics Chemical in Paper Receipts

 

A new analysis by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) suggests that many Americans are at risk of exposure to a dangerous chemical that has been found in baby bottles, the lining of food and beverage containers, and now paper receipts. Significant levels of bisphenol-A (BPA), a controversial chemical that is not currently regulated by the Food and Drug Administration or the Environmental Protection Agency, was found in 40 percent of paper receipts collected from major retailers, grocery stores, convenience stores, gas stations, fast-food restaurants, post offices and ATMs.

Exposure to BPA has been linked to developmental disorder, cancer, heart diseases, and other health problems. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that nearly all Americans have some level of BPA in their bodies. The recent finding that there are high levels of BPA in receipts from stores that most Americans visit regularly could provide an insight as to why exposure is so widespread. BPA is already known to leach into food and beverage products through packaging, but EWG’s study found that BPA can easily rub off paper receipts onto hands and food. The Washington Post spoke with Sonya Lunder, a senior analyst with EWG:

"We've come across potentially major sources of BPA right here in our daily lives," Lunder said. "When you're carrying around a receipt in your wallet for months while you intend to return something, you could be shedding BPA into your home, into your environment. If you throw a receipt into a bag of food, and it's lying there against an apple, or you shove a receipt into your bag next to a baby pacifier, you could be getting all kinds of exposure and not realize it."

So why is BPA flying under the radar of the agencies that have been entrusted to protect public health? In January, FDA announced the results of a scientific evaluation of BPA and found that there is “reason for some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children.” But instead of laying out a regulatory path for protecting consumers from exposure to BPA, FDA merely stated that it “recognizes substantial uncertainties with respect to the overall interpretation of these studies and their potential implications for human health effects of BPA exposure.”

Many consumer advocacy groups found this non-conclusion unsatisfactory, and on June 28, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) sued FDA in an effort to force the agency to set safety standards for BPA in food. On March 29, EPA announced that it would add BPA to its list of “chemicals of concern,” pledging to look more closely at BPA’s potential health impacts. While both these developments provide some hope that BPA will soon be regulated on a federal level, many state and local governments have taken public safety into their own hands through legislative bans on the chemical.

(Rachel Sauter* 07/28/10; 3 comments)

Gary Bass, Executive Director of OMB Watch Expected to Testify Before House Subcommittee Today

 

OMB Watch Executive Director Gary Bass is expected to testify today at a hearing on federal rulemaking and the regulatory process before the House Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. The hearing is scheduled for July 27 at 11:00 a.m. Cass Sunstein, Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is also expected to testify, as well as Sally Katzen of Podesta Group, Richard Williams of George Mason University’s Regulatory Studies Program and Government Accountability Project, and Curtis Copeland, of the Congressional Research Service.

In prepared testimony (PDF), Bass urges President Obama to reform the regulatory process and establish its vision for the role of regulation.

In a recent article in the Huffington Post, Bass spoke out against the latest attacks by business lobbyists and members of Congress on food safety protections, workplace safety standards, financial reform and coal ash regulation. Bass argues that strong public protections are needed now, more than ever, in light of recent disasters like the BP oil spill and the West Virginia mine explosion that killed 29 workers in April.

(Rachel Sauter* 07/27/10; 0 comments)

New Oil Industry Suit Challenges Obama’s Latest Effort to Pause Offshore Oil Drilling

 

A Texas-based deepwater drilling contractor has filed a lawsuit in federal district court, seeking to block the Obama administration’s latest effort to temporarily halt new offshore drilling operations while the Department of the Interior investigates safety and technology concerns in light of the April 20 explosion of BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig. Ensco Offshore argues in their July 20 suit that the drilling suspension issued by the Interior is “substantially the same” as an earlier moratorium that was struck down in federal district court.

The administration originally issued a moratorium on deepwater drilling on May 28 that prohibited certain drilling operations from beginning work until November 30. However, this moratorium was struck down when a federal district court ruled in favor of a coalition of oil industry representatives, including Ensco, holding that the administration had not made sufficient findings that the banned drilling operations posed a threat of irreparable harm. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals then denied the administration’s motion to temporarily reinstate the moratorium pending the appeal. Read more.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar issued a new drilling suspension on July 12 to address many of the concerns that prompted the district court to grant the injunction against the May 28 moratorium. While the suspension still prohibits many offshore drilling operations until November 30, it is based on new findings that some operations pose a substantial risk of irreparable harm due to safety concerns, insufficient blowout containment resources, and the strain on cleanup capabilities caused by the ongoing BP disaster. Unlike the May 28 moratorium, the suspension largely focuses on drilling technology, rather than water depth.

Ensco’s July 20 suit argues that the administration’s revised ban on offshore drilling is a “thinly-veiled and impermissible attempt” to comply with the district court’s original order. The suit alleges that the new suspension creates “a state of uncertainty and confusion with resulting dire consequences upon the domestic offshore drilling industry in the Gulf of Mexico.” Ensco filed its suit before Judge Martin Feldman, the district court judge who struck down the first moratorium.

Feldman will also consider the administration’s motion to dismiss the original case in light of the revised drilling ban, which the administration claims supersedes the May 28 moratorium and renders the original case moot. Oil industry representatives claim that Feldman’s order should stay in place because the moratoria are substantially the same. Feldman recently issued an order declining to recuse himself from the proceedings, despite having a significant financial interest in the success of the oil industry’s case. Feldman has not commented or issued an order in either case, but his past rulings and financial holdings indicate that he may be more sympathetic to the oil industry.

On the same day that Ensco filed its suit, Salazar and two former Interior secretaries testified before a House joint committee hearing to discuss the BP oil disaster. Salazar defended the administration’s decision to continue fighting for the drilling ban, saying that he believes “it would be irresponsible to take our hand off the pause button given the current circumstance." If Feldman again strikes down the drilling ban, it is likely that the administration will appeal to the Fifth Circuit.
 

(Rachel Sauter* 07/21/10; 0 comments)