Environmental Defense Fund has uncovered a document that provides a disturbing look at the White House's views on global warming science, views that were revealed as part of White House efforts to interfere with progress at EPA. On June 20, the White House Office of Management and Budget transmitted a fax to EPA with numerous comments on a critically important EPA technical document examining how global warming endangers human health and the environment.

The summary below highlights a few remarkable examples from the White House fax [PDF].

Example 1 – On Abrupt Changes (page 58, comment A29).

EPA scientists: "Abrupt climate changes are an important consideration because, if triggered, they could occur so quickly and unexpectedly that human or natural systems would have difficulty adapting to them (NRC, 2002)." See p. 58.

White House comment A29: "If referring to changes that take decades, one would think that human systems could adapt. Not sure what this is referring to."

Example 2 – On Hurricane Intensity (page 67, comment A39).

EPA scientists: "The IPCC (2007d) also projects likely increases in intense tropical cyclone activity as described in Section 6(b). Increases in tropical cyclone intensity are linked to increases in the risk of deaths, injuries, water and foodborne diseases as well as post-traumatic stress disorders (IPCC, 2007b)."

White House comment A39: "Is this relevant to the US?"

EPA scientists document the devastating impacts of Hurricane Katrina only a few lines later: "In 2005, Hurricane Katrina claimed over 1800 lives in the vicinity of the low-lying U.S. Gulf Coast and lower income groups were most affected (Graumann et al., 2005 in Nicholls et al.; Guidry and Margolis, 2005 in Confalonieri et al., 2007)."

Example 3 – On Water Contamination (pages 67, 91 and 92; comments A38, A65 and A66).

EPA scientists: "Flooding may also lead to contamination of waters with dangerous chemicals, heavy metals, or other hazardous substances, from storage or from chemicals already in the environment (Confalonieri et al, 2007)." (page 67)

White House comment A38: "What waters? The SDWA and EPA regulations protect our drinking water supply – thus clarification here is needed."

EPA scientists: "Increasing nutrient and sediment loads due to more intense runoff events will negatively affect water quality, possibly rendering a source unusable unless special treatment is introduced." (page 91)

White House comment A65: "Unusable for what? IF you are talking about drinking water we have a regulatory structure to protect us. Please clarify."

EPA scientists: "[E]xtreme events, such as floods and droughts, will likely reduce water quality. Increased erosion and runoff rates during flood events will wash pollutants (e.g., organic matter, fertilizers, pesticides, heavy metals) from soils into water bodies, with subsequent impacts to species and ecosystems." (page 92)

White House comment A66: "Are you referring to drinking water? Please clarify – we have a regulatory structure in place to ensure quality."

Example 4 – On Harm from Global Warming (page 92, comment A68).

EPA scientists: "Climate-induced environmental changes (e.g., loss of glaciers, reduced river discharge, reduced snow fall in winter) will affect park tourism, winter sport activities, inland water sports (e.g., fishing, rafting, boating), and other recreational uses dependent upon precipitation (Field et al., 2007). While the North American tourism industry acknowledges the important influence of climate, its impacts have not been analyzed comprehensively."

White House comment A68: "Can we talk about a longer warm season and the positive impacts on watersports as well to balance? This should be added."

Ultimately, instead of forcing EPA to accept the White House comments, the White House pursued a cabinet-level campaign to undermine EPA action. Nevertheless, these comments speak volumes about the misguided views within the White House Office of Management and Budget that have long obstructed and derailed EPA action to address global warming.

This post is by Vickie Patton, deputy general counsel at Environmental Defense Fund, and former attorney in EPA's General Counsel's office.

Yesterday, the D.C. Circuit denied the petition for writ of mandamus filed by a coalition of states and environmental organizations to enforce the Supreme Court's landmark decision on global warming in Massachusetts v. EPA. The coalition asked the court to instruct EPA to carry out its duty, under the Supreme Court's decision, to determine within 60 days whether global warming pollution endangers human health and welfare.

EPA's response to the petition relied heavily on its plans to issue an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would examine all major issues for public comment. EPA pointed out to the court that it had extensive plans, actively under development, to examine both the endangerment finding and associated greenhouse gas emission standards.

Paradoxically, the court's order was issued just when reports were emerging that major aspects of EPA's draft advanced notice of proposed rulemaking are being excised by the White House. This document is the core basis for EPA's explanation to the court that it's on track in addressing its obligations under the Supreme Court's decision.

EPA made strenuous claims of steady progress in addressing global warming in its submittals to the court. The question remains — and will be closely watched — whether EPA will promptly fulfill its commitments to the court. The U.S. releases seven billion tons of heat-trapping gases each year. The costs of delay are grim.

Judges Sentelle, Randolph, and Tatel were on the three-Judge panel. Judge Tatel concurred in part and dissented in part, stating that he would have ordered EPA to provide regular reports on its progress.

One year ago, the Supreme Court rejected the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claim that it lacked legal authority to regulate global warming pollution (for example, from vehicle tailpipes). EPA administrator Stephen Johnson promised a firm and prompt response to the high Court's decision, but a year passed with no action.

Then on March 27, Johnson recanted his commitment.

So today, a broad coalition of 18 states, 3 cities, and 11 non-profit organizations (see full list*) took legal action to compel EPA to comply. The parties are led by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and include Environmental Defense Fund.

The first step is to obtain EPA's formal determination of whether global warming pollution endangers public health or welfare. This determination was transmitted to the White House in December and improperly withheld from the public.

So the parties filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the federal court of appeals in Washington, D.C., asking the court to direct EPA to issue its determination within 60 days.

The petition [PDF] documents EPA's defiance of the Supreme Court:

As EPA's own statements and a Congressional inquiry demonstrate: the Administrator publicly set a firm deadline for making the endangerment determination by the end of 2007; the agency has already completed all of its work on issues that, under the Supreme Court's decision, are relevant to that determination; the Administrator has in fact made an internal decision in favor of endangerment; and the Administrator has forwarded the full formal write-up of that determination to the White House Office of Management and Budget. The publication of the endangerment determination, however, is now being withheld. The Administrator has refused to give the petitioners or Congress a timetable for action, and he has explained his delay by reference to considerations that are not legally relevant under the Supreme Court's ruling.

For more on the background of this standoff, see today's Washington Post editorial, "Ignoring the Supreme Court".

*Note: this list has been updated.

The parties joining this Petition for Mandamus are: the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the States of California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, the District of Columbia, the City of New York, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Advocates, Environmental Defense Fund, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, International Center for Technological Assessment, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and U.S. Public Interest Research Group. In addition, the following states have joined as amici curiae to express their support for the petition: Arizona, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, and Minnesota.

Two lawsuits were filed today against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which sits in San Francisco. The first lawsuit was filed by California, and the second by several environmental organizations – Environmental Defense, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Conservation Law Foundation, and the International Center for Technology Assessment.

The lawsuits challenge EPA's denial of California's request for a preemption waiver under the Clean Air Act to implement the state's landmark standards for greenhouse gas emissions – requests that have been granted by EPA over 50 times in the past 40 years [PDF].

The EPA's decision relies on a flawed argument that the federal courts already have rejected and are likely to reject again.

In denying California's request, EPA paradoxically argued that California's innovative clean car program must be disallowed because global warming is a pervasive problem that does not affect California alone. But EPA's decision would deny remedies to the most widespread, profound harm to the climate – vehicle emissions.

Besides, California has its own compelling stake in stabilizing the climate and in speeding the transition to cleaner cars:

• California is home to one in seven Americans.
• California has more than 32 million registered vehicles, far more than any state.
• Climate change is a clear and present danger.
• California's coasts, its people, and its economy are vulnerable to sea level rise.
• Climate change threatens its precarious water resources.
• California is distinctly prone to wildfires.
• California is already afflicted by the death and disease associated with the worst air quality in the nation, and higher temperatures will increase the intensity and frequency of unhealthy smog days.

In other words, California's innovation is born of necessity. EPA had no basis for denying California's request to carry out a bold new Clean Car program that limits greenhouse gases.

The lawsuits were filed today because time is of the essence. California's Clean Car standards, which will cut fleet-wide emissions for passenger cars and trucks by 30 percent, are scheduled to take effect in model year 2009. Many greenhouse gases persist in the atmosphere for decades, so every ton of global warming pollution eliminated now is critical in stabilizing the climate.

California's innovation in addressing global warming is cascading across the land. Seventeen other states have adopted or committed to adopt California's standards. Collectively, these states account for nearly one-half of the U.S. population and about one-half of all new motor vehicle sales nationwide.

There is strong state support for California's legal action. We anticipate that 15 other states will immediately file motions to intervene in support of California's case.

EPA should be leading the nation to address the global warming crisis. Instead, EPA is obstructing state leadership. Today's legal action should not be necessary.

Two years ago, California asked the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to pave the way for landmark standards to limit global warming from motor vehicles. Seventeen other states plan to implement the Clean Car standards, pending the EPA decision. But today – after two years of stalling – EPA said no. This decision is virtually unprecedented; EPA has granted similar requests over 50 times in 40 years.

The Bush administration is putting the brakes on state action to address the global warming crisis. Doing nothing about global warming is bad enough – but going out of your way to block the state leaders who are taking action is just plain shocking.

For decades, EPA administrators have recognized the important role that California plays in innovating new air pollution limits for motor vehicles to fight pollution, and to deliver cleaner, healthier air. The 18 states that plan to implement the Clean Cars program account for nearly 50 percent of the total U.S. population and 45 percent of new automobile sales. Their implementation of the Clean Cars program would make a significant dent in global warming pollution, securing a 30 percent pollution cut by 2016 and eventually preventing 100 million tons of carbon dioxide annually, equivalent to removing 20 million cars from the road.

EPA said that new fuel economy standards in the recently authorized energy bill would suffice to reduce global warming emissions from new automobiles. But the Clean Cars program secures deeper pollution reductions faster. The California clean car standards will start in Model Year 2009, fully phasing in by 2016. Science says we can't wait; global warming is already occurring. We must take action now. Every ton of global warming pollution prevented today is critical in stabilizing the climate.

The Supreme Court ruled in April 2007 that EPA has the authority and the obligation to regulate global warming pollution. When automakers sued, two federal courts – in Vermont and in California – affirmed states' rights to proceed with the Clean Cars program. Federal district court Judge Anthony Ishii ruled just last week that EPA's duty to protect human health and welfare from global warming pollution is more expansive than the nation's fuel efficiency laws:

Given the level of impairment of human health and welfare that current climate science indicates may occur if human-generated greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated, it would be the very definition of folly if EPA were precluded from action."

Given the grim urgency of the global warming crisis, EPA's own decision to put the brakes on state action is more than folly – it is tragic.

The 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals just issued a 90-page opinion overturning major aspects of the Bush administration's flawed fuel economy standards for light-duty trucks. Sean Donahue argued the case for Environmental Defense and Susan Fiering for the California Attorney General's office – on behalf of a larger group of state and environmental petitioners.

Among other things, the court held that the Department of Transportation (DOT):

1. Failed to account for the value of reducing heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions in setting the standards,

2. Failed to close the SUV loophole,

3. Failed to set fuel economy standards for all vehicles in the 8,500 to 10,000 pound gross vehicle weight class (for example, the Ford Excursion, the Hummer H2, and the F-250 pickup), and

4. Failed to carry out an adequate environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The court ordered DOT to take corrective action immediately.

The opinion was by penned by Judge Betty Fletcher who was joined in her opinion by Judge Michael Daly Hawkins and Judge Siler. There was a very limited, narrow dissent by Judge Siler.