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.

Despite EPA's refusal to formally acknowledge the danger of greenhouse gases in its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), two recently released EPA reports detail the health dangers of greenhouse gases.

The first, a support document for the ANPR [PDF], summarizes the extensive body of science showing that global warming pollution presents a serious threat to human health and the environment. The document is labeled "draft" and stamped "do not circulate or cite", but is listed on the EPA Web site as one of the supporting documents for the released ANPR. From the Executive Summary:

Without increased investments in countermeasures, hot temperatures and extreme weather are likely to cause increased adverse health impacts from heat-related mortality, pollution, storm-related fatalities and injuries, and infectious diseases.

and

Declining air quality in cities is a virtual certainty due to warmer and fewer cold days and nights and/or warmer/more frequent hot days and nights over most land areas.

This study provides overwhelming support for an eventual endangerment finding during the next administration (see this Washington Post article for more on the current administration's decision not to act).

Then just last week, EPA released another comprehensive report, titled Analyses and Effects of Global Change on Human Health and Welfare and Human Systems. Commissioned by EPA, the authors come from universities, government, and environmental groups throughout the country. I was a contributor to chapter 2 – Human Health.

The report summarizes the scientific literature of the past five years, and concludes that climate change will place an additional stress on our already stretched public health system. We have the resources to protect the health of our citizens; the question is whether we will spend those resources effectively and in time.

EDF's recent report on public health preparedness (released in partnership with the National Association of County and City Health Officials and George Mason University) provides a snapshot of local health departments' level of awareness of climate change. It, too, underlines the importance of starting now to make improvements.

Check out Stephen Colbert on the EPA's decision to delay regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. It's hilarious.

Last Friday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finally released its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking – EPA's answer to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that greenhouse gases fall within the Clean Air Act's definition of "pollutant".

There are a number of differences between the final document and the leaked May 30th draft. (See this post from a Georgetown Law professor praising the draft's balance and expertise.) Most significantly, EPA chief Stephen Johnson prefaced the document with a series of denunciations by White House officials. And then, adopting the views of the White House, he disparaged the work of his own staff.

The final version also included some disturbing changes to the analysis itself.

For example, to minimize the benefits of addressing global warming under existing law, the final version assumes that gasoline prices will average just over $2 per gallon from 2008 to 2030 – clearly absurd. Moreover, it ignores the benefits of addressing global warming (wisely included in the draft). As a result, the final version estimates the net benefit of regulating greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks over the next three decades to be only up to $830 billion, versus the $2 trillion estimated in the draft.

Even the leaked May draft is watered down from a draft that EPA sent to the White House in December. Sent in an email message that the White House refused to open, the December draft concluded that greenhouse gases are dangerous pollutants that must be controlled. The May draft and the final version released on Friday leave this as an open question.

A senior EPA official told the New York Times that the December and May drafts "showed that the Clean Air Act can work for certain sectors of the economy to reduce greenhouse gases. That's not what the administration wants to show. They want to show that the Clean Air Act can't work." That's certainly the case. Johnson wrote in his preamble:

I believe the ANPR demonstrates the Clean Air Act, an outdated law originally enacted to control regional pollutants that cause direct health effects, is ill-suited for the task of regulating global greenhouse gases.

The bottom line is that Johnson and the White House ignored the scientific imperative to act, and defied the Supreme Court edict that they do so. With the required 120 days for comments after stalling for so long, there is no way that EPA could put out new regulations before the end of the Bush presidency.

On the plus side, EPA staff have a head start in getting the ball rolling in a new administration.

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.

Just before Christmas – after two years of stalling – the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) denied California's request to set its own, tougher vehicle-emissions standards. In denying the request, EPA Administrator Johnson said:

The Bush Administration is moving forward with a clear national solution – not a confusing patchwork of state rules – to reduce America's climate footprint from vehicles."

What's wrong with this statement? Well, among other things, the word "patchwork". Under the Clean Air Act, there are only two possible standards for motor vehicles:

1. Federal standards
2. California standards, which are tougher than federal standards and other states may adopt.

A choice between two options is hardly a "confusing patchwork". So where did this idea come from?

The "patchwork" argument originates with the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM). (Thanks to cleanairwatch.org for the references.)

Fred Webber, AAM, before the California Air Resources Board (CARB), 9/23/04:

The U.S. Congress reserved the issue of regulating vehicle fuel economy to the federal government to balance all sectors of the economy and to avoid a patchwork quilt of state regulations which hurt businesses and, perhaps more importantly, consumers. It is a simple fact. This regulation is federally preempted.

Steven Douglas, AAM, before EPA, 5/22/07:

In this light, a patchwork of state-level fuel economy regulations, as is now proposed by California, is not simply unnecessary, it's patently counterproductive.

Ellen Gleberman, AAM, Submitted to EPA Docket, 6/15/07:

The regulation of greenhouse gas emissions therefore requires a coordinated national approach rather than a patchwork of state approaches. This is especially true for the automobile industry where Congress – through the preemption provisions of EPCA and the Clean Air Act – has recognized the need for a uniform, nationwide approach for standards that impact the design and manufacture of automobiles.

A mischaracterizing word can have a lot of power, and unfortunately this one has been repeated by major news organizations. But California Air Resources Board Chair got it right in her explanation, as reported by the New York Times:

[CARB chair] Ms. Nichols pointed out, in a telephone news conference, that the Clean Air Act did not permit a patchwork of individual state regulations; it permits California to have independent rules on air pollutants, and permits other states to choose between the federal standards or more stringent standards set by California.

So don't be fooled by the "patchwork" argument, and tell your friends – California's waiver request is about two choices, not 50.

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.

A federal judge in California today rebuked the auto industry's attempt to block California and 16 other states from setting tough new limits on global warming pollution from automobiles, calling these efforts "the very definition of folly."

Environmental Defense was a defendant-intervener in the case. We worked closely with California state officials and several other environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Blue Water Network, Global Exchange, and Rainforest Action Network.

In the ruling, Federal District Court Judge Anthony Ishii rejected the auto industry's claim that federal fuel economy standards preempted the authority of California and other states to limit global warming pollution from automobiles.

This ruling comes three months to the day after a similar ruling by a federal judge in Vermont, and just eight months after the historic Supreme Court decision in early April that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has an obligation to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act.

These are huge victories. Today's ruling shifts the focus to the EPA where a decision on whether to grant California's waiver request to tighten auto emission standards has been pending for two years.

I have just issued a press statement calling on EPA Administrator Steve Johnson to "immediately grant California's request to move ahead with this program. All similar California air pollution requests have been approved. Not one has been turned down in EPA history."

In his ruling, Judge Ishii alluded to the importance of EPA granting the waiver. He wrote:

"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."

Environmental Defense played a big role in these historic court rulings. I owe a huge debt of gratitude to our General Counsel Jim Tripp and our Regional Director of our Climate and Air Program Jim Marston, who worked so hard on this case.

As we look ahead to the new year and the need for a national, economy-wide cap on global warming pollution, please join me in celebrating today's terrific news. We are making progress!