http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/example_global_warming.htm
Examples
of the Bush Administration's Interference with science:
[
See this article
about how the Bush Administration tried to oust Dr. Robert Watson,
Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)...
]
Global Warming
When President Bush
rejected the Kyoto Protocol on
greenhouse gas emissions, he promised the American people
that "my Administration’s climate change policy will
be
science-based."[1] In fact, however, the Bush Administration
has repeatedly manipulated scientific committees and
suppressed science in this area.
Chair of International
Science Panel
In early 2002, the
State Department successfully opposed
the re-appointment of a leading U.S. climatologist to the
top position on the preeminent international global warming
study panel.[2]
Dr. Robert Watson had
been chair of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) since 1996. An internationally respected
scientist and recipient of numerous awards and honors, Dr. Watson
had been the Director of the Science Division at the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration and chief scientist at the
World Bank. Under his leadership, the IPCC had produced a report
predicting an increase of 2.5 to 10.5 degrees Fahrenheit in average
global temperatures by 2100[3] and concluding that "[t]here
is new
and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the
last 50 years is attributable to human activities."[4] These
conclusions were affirmed by the National Academy of Sciences.[5]
After the release of
the 2001 report, ExxonMobil lobbied the
Bush administration for Dr. Watson’s ouster. A February
6, 2001
memo sent by ExxonMobil to John Howard of the Council on
Environmental Quality at the White House criticized Dr. Watson
and asked, "Can Watson be replaced now at the request of
the U.S.?"[6] ExxonMobil opposes the regulation of carbon
dioxide emissions that contribute to global warming and
gives over a million dollars a year to groups that question
the existence of global warming.[7]
Subsequently, the State
Department opposed Dr. Watson’s
reelection to head the panel. The Department gave no scientific
rationale for this decision. In April 2002, lacking the support
of his home country, Dr. Watson lost his position as chair.[8]
One leading researcher,
Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton
University, commented to Science: "It is scandalous . . .
.
This is an invasion of narrow political considerations
into a scientific process."[9]
Information
about Global Warming
The Bush Administration
has also suppressed scientific
evidence on global warming. In September 2002, the section
on global warming was removed from an annual report on the
state of air pollution.[10] Then, in June 2003, the
Administration published a supposedly "comprehensive"
report on the environment without any information on climate
change. According to EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman,
the Draft Report on the Environment used "the most sophisticated
science ever" and represented "a comprehensive roadmap
to ensure
that all Americans have cleaner air, purer water and better
protected land."[11] However, this report contained no
information on global warming. Instead, the document stated,
"This report does not attempt to address the complexities
of this issue."[12]
Politics, not the complexities
of science, led to the deletion
of the section on global warming. The New York Times reported
that when an earlier draft of the report containing a section
on global warming was sent to the White House, the President’s
advisors demanded major revisions. [13] Specifically,
the White House opposed mention of research demonstrating
sharp increases in global temperature over the past decade
compared to the previous millennium. The White House even
objected to the reference to a National Academy of Sciences
report on the human contribution to global warming that
the White House itself had requested and that had been
endorsed by President Bush in speeches that year.[14]
Administration officials replaced these sections with
a reference to a study funded by the American Petroleum
Institute questioning climate change evidence.[15]
The White House even
sought to replace the scientifically
indisputable statement that "[c]limate change has global
consequences for human health and the environment" with a
statement about the "complexity of the Earth system and
the interconnections among its components."[16]
An internal EPA memorandum
circulated during the editing
process noted that after these changes, the section
"no longer accurately represents scientific consensus
on climate change."[17] Another memo stated that
by accepting the White House changes, "E.P.A.
will take responsibility and severe criticism
from the science and environmental communities
for poorly representing the science."[18]
In the end, EPA officials
chose to eliminate the section
on global warming entirely. Russell Train, who served
as EPA Administrator to Presidents Nixon and Ford,
wrote in a letter to the New York Times:
I can state categorically
that there never was such
White House intrusion into the business of the E.P.A.
during my tenure. The E.P.A. was established as an
independent agency in the executive branch, and so it
should remain. There appears today to be a steady
erosion in its independent status. I can appreciate
the president’s interest in not having discordant
voices within his Administration. But the interest
of the American people lies in having full disclosure
of the facts, particularly when the issue is one
with such potentially enormous damage to the
long-term health and economic well-being of all
of us.[19]
Analyses Requested
by Congress
EPA has long had the
important role of providing technical
support to Congress by analyzing proposed legislation upon
request. During the Bush Administration, however, EPA has
refused to conduct or release analysis of several key
pieces of legislation related to greenhouse gases that
are opposed by the Administration.
President Bush has
proposed the Clear Skies Act,
which would reduce emissions of three pollutants
from power plants but would not regulate carbon
dioxide, a key greenhouse gas. In July 2002, Senator
Thomas Carper of Delaware introduced competing
legislation that sets tighter emissions limits and
includes carbon dioxide.[20] Senator Carper requested
that EPA provide a detailed analysis of his legislation,
as it had done for Clear Skies, to enable Congress
to compare the two approaches.
EPA, however, refused
to release its analysis of
Senator Carper’s bill for months. When the agency
finally released some information, it limited the
report to the costs of the bill, continuing to withhold
the information on benefits.[21] EPA’s complete analysis,
which was not released, showed that Senator Carper’s
legislation would be more effective and only slightly
more expensive than the President’s Clear Skies Act.
Specifically, it projected that Senator Carper’s bill
would reduce emissions to levels lower than those
projected under the Clear Skies Act, cost only
two-tenths of a cent per kilowatt hour more than
the President’s plan, and save 17,800 more lives,
as well as including controls on carbon dioxide.[22]
In addition, EPA has
refused to complete an analysis
that could demonstrate the feasibility of controlling
greenhouse gas emissions. Senators John McCain and
Joseph Lieberman have introduced legislation to establish
national mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions.
The Bush Administration opposes this legislation.
In the past, EPA has analyzed numerous proposals
for regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, and the
Senators specifically requested EPA to analyze the
costs and benefits of their bill. However, the
Administration blocked the completion of the EPA
analysis, which preliminarily found a $1 billion
to $2 billion impact to the economy, in favor of
an Energy Department study, which concluded that
the impact would be $106 billion.[23]
Commenting on EPA’s
refusals, William Ruckelshaus,
the first EPA Administrator under President Nixon,
told the New York Times:
Whether or not analysis
is released is based on at
least two factors . . . . Is the analysis flawed?
That is a legitimate reason for not releasing it.
But if you don’t like the outcome that might result
from the analysis, that is not a legitimate reason.[24]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] White House, President’s
Statement on Climate Change
(July 13, 2001) (online at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/07/20010713-2.html).
[2] Battle Over IPCC
Chair Renews Debate on U.S. Climate Policy,
Science (Apr. 12, 2002).
[3] Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001:
The Scientific Basis, Summary for Policymakers (2001)
(online at http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/008.htm).
[4] Id. at Preface
(online at
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/004.htm).
[5] National Academy
of Sciences, Commission on Geosciences,
Environment and Resources, Climate Change Science:
An Analysis of Some Key Questions (2001).
[6] Memo from Randy
Randol, ExxonMobil Washington Office,
to John Howard, White House Council on Environmental
Quality (Feb. 6, 2001) (online at
http://www.nrdc.org/media/docs/020403.pdf).
[7] Exxon Backs Groups
That Question Global Warming,
New York Times (May 28, 2003).
[8] Global Warming
Official Out, Atlanta Journal-Constitution
(Apr. 20, 2002).
[9] Battle over IPCC
Chair Renews Debate on U.S. Climate Policy,
Science (Apr. 12, 2002).
[10] Jeremy Symons,
How Bush and Co. Obscure the Science,
Washington Post (July 13, 2003).
[11] EPA, EPA Announces
Unprecedented First "Draft Report
on the Environment" (June 23, 2003).
[12] EPA, Draft Report
on the Environment 2003, 1-11
(online at http://www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/html/roeAirGlo.htm).
[13] Report by E.P.A.
Leaves out Data on Climate Change,
New York Times (June 19, 2003).
[14] Id.
[15] Id.
[16] Id.
[17] Id.
[18] Id.
[19] Russell E. Train,
When Politics Trumps Science (Letter
to the Editor), New York Times (June 21, 2003).
[20] S. 3135, 107th
Cong. (2002).
[21] EPA Withholds
Air Pollution Analysis, Washington Post (July 1, 2003).
[22] Id.
[23] New Estimates
on Senate Carbon Dioxide Plans, New York Times
(July 30, 2003).
[24] Critics Say E.P.A.
Won’t Analyze Clean Air Proposals
Conflicting with President’s Policies, New York Times (July
14, 2003).
