Today Ranking Member Henry A. Waxman sent a letter to Chairman Fred Upton highlighting the views of former-EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson, articulated in a private letter to President Bush in 2008, that the climate change science supported the agency’s positive endangerment finding on carbon emissions.
It shows that even during the Bush years the EPA knew that the science behind global warming was accurate, that they had to act, and that if they didn’t negative consequences would abound.
The full text of the letter is below:
February 4, 2011
The Honorable Fred Upton
Chairman
Committee on Energy and Commerce
U.S. House of Representatives
2125 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515Dear Chairman Upton:
I am writing you to share with you a letter that has an important bearing on tomorrow’s hearing on your legislation to overturn EPA’s scientific determination that carbon emissions endanger public health and welfare. The letter is a private letter that former EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson wrote to President Bush on January 31, 2008. It addresses the same issue as your legislation: whether carbon emissions endanger the public.
Administrator Johnson wrote: “the latest science of climate change requires the Agency to propose a positive endangerment finding, as was agreed to at the Cabinet-level meeting in November.” According to Mr. Johnson, “the latest climate change science does not permit a negative finding, nor does it permit a credible finding that we need to wait for more research.”
Administrator Johnson also wrote: “A robust interagency policy process involving principal meetings over the past eight months has enabled me to formulate a plan that is prudent and cautious yet forward thinking. … [I]t … creates a framework for responsible, cost-effective and practical actions.” He added that actions to reduce carbon emissions “should spur both private sector investment in developing new, cost-effective technologies and private sector deployment of these technologies at a large scale.”
Administrator Johnson released an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking in July 2008, which solicited public comment on an endangerment finding. The final endangerment finding was made by Administrator Lisa Jackson in December 2009
As Administrator Johnson’s letter makes clear, both Republican and Democratic Administrations have had the same view of the science: carbon emissions are a serious threat to our nation’s welfare. I urge you to leave the science to scientists and drop your effort to use legislation to overturn EPA’s endangerment finding.
Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman
Ranking Member
You can read the letter from Johnson To Bush here (pdf)
Below is the text of the letter, read the pdf to see the handwritten notes and other details.
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
You have committed the US to pursue new, quantifiable actions to reduce carbon emissions. These new actions should spur both private sector investment in developing new, cost-effective technologies and private sector deployment of these technologies at a large scale. I believe legislation is the best approach to achieve this. However, your Administration is compelled to act on this issue under existing law given the many lawsuits and petitions before the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It is my intent to do so in a way that is responsible and that does not foreclose a superior legislative solution.
First, the Supreme Court’s Massachusetts v EPA decision still requires a response. That case combined with the latest science of climate change requires the Agency to propose a positive endangerment finding, as was agreed to at the Cabinet-level meeting in November. Some have noted that the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) enables implementation of your 20-in-10 plan without an endangerment finding. Even if that is true, a finding is still required by the Supreme Court case, and the state of the latest climate change science does not permit a negative finding, nor does it permit a credible finding that we need to wait for more research. EISA also did not change EPA’s obligation regarding the regulation of vehicles although it did expand the Department of Transportation’s authority in a way that will facilitate a joint rule making.
A second set of actions will be required by other imminent lawsuits and petitions. For instance, EPA has pending before it petitions seeking greenhouse gas standards for aircraft, marine vessels, and off-road vehicles. Also within the next several months, EPA must face regulating greenhouse gases from power plants, some industrial sources, petroleum refineries and cement kilns.
A robust interagency policy process involving principal meetings over the past eight months has enabled me to formulate a plan that is prudent and cautious yet forward thinking. This plan will fulfill your Administration’s obligations under the Supreme Court decision and also will provide a response to the multiple pending lawsuits and petitions rather than risk additional unfavorable court action. Further, it follows your May l4rh 2007 Executive Order and creates a framework for responsible, cost-effective and practical actions,
I want to thank you for talking with me about this plan when we met last month and, of course, I welcome your guidance as \rye move forward. After careful and sometime difficult deliberation, I have concluded that it is in the Administration’s best interest to move forward with this plan in the next few weeks. I appreciate the senior-level discussions that have enabled me to develop this approach, and I look forward to working with other members of your team to discuss details and a rollout. Attached is my plan.
Privileged Communication to the President EPA Climate Change Plan
Phase I
In response to the Supreme Court mandate in Massachusetts v EPA, issue a proposed positive endangerment finding for public notice and comment as agreed to in the policy process.
In response to the direction in EISA, issue a proposed vehicles rule jointly with the Department of Transportation to implement the new EISA and address issues raised in the Supreme Court case.
To address requirements under the Clean Air Act, issue a proposed rule to update the New Source Review program to raise greenhouse gas thresholds to avoid covering small sources and to better define cost-effective, available technology.
Timing: Proposal in March or April. Final by the end of 2008.
Phase 2
Issue advanced notices covering remaining petitions, lawsuits and court required deadlines. This would enable EPA to frame issues for the legislative debate and to channel future rulemakings to pursue environmental protection in context of benefit-cost analysis, availability of existing technologies, energy security, and remaining useful life of affected facilities.
Timíng: Spring 2008.
Phase 3
As required by EISA, issue a proposed renewable fuels rule following new authority provided by EISA. Note that the new EISA significantly altered the regulatory approach that EPA, in coordination with Department of
Energy and the Department of Agriculture, must take.
Timing: Proposal by September 2008. initial rule in 2009. Additional administrative steps will be taken in 2008.