Seems like basic administrative law to me, including the Administrative Procedure Act and Data Quality Act.
Judge Orders EPA to Produce Science behind Pruitt’s Warming Claims
The EPA head has suggested humans are not the main cause of climate change
By Scott Waldman,
E&E News on June 5, 2018
EPA must produce the opposing body of science Administrator Scott Pruitt has relied upon to claim that humans are not the primary drivers of global warming, a federal judge has ruled.
The EPA boss has so far resisted attempts to show the science backing up his claims. His critics say such evidence doesn’t exist, even as Pruitt has called for greater science transparency at the agency.
Now, a court case may compel him to produce research that attempts to contradict the mountain of peer-reviewed studies collected by the world’s top science agencies over decades that show humans are warming the planet at an unprecedented pace through the burning of fossil fuels.
Not long after he took over as EPA administrator, Pruitt appeared on CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” where he was asked about carbon dioxide and climate change. He said, “I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.”
The next day, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, or PEER, filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking the studies Pruitt used to make his claims. Specifically, the group requested “EPA documents that support the conclusion that human activity is not the largest factor driving global climate change.”
On Friday, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Beryl Howell, ordered the agency to comply.
“Particularly troubling is the apparent premise of this agency challenge to the FOIA request, namely: that the evidentiary basis for a policy or factual statement by an agency head, including about the scientific factors contributing to climate change, is inherently unknowable.”
If the case proceeds, it could mean that Pruitt would have to produce such research in the coming months or next year.
That’s good news for those fighting the administration’s regulatory rollbacks, because it would demonstrate that the scientific backing of President Obama’s climate policies is solid, said Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University.
“I expect the documents will show the scientific case for Pruitt’s claim is not only thin, but positively anorexic,” he said. “They may reveal even greater contacts with the climate denial community than has already been shown.”
Gerrard added, “This could also strengthen the challenges to some of the deregulatory actions by the administration, showing they have no valid basis.”
Climate scientists have established that the planet is warming at an unprecedented pace because of humanity’s consumption of fossil fuels. Pruitt and other Trump administration officials have questioned those findings but have never produced any research backing up their assertions.
Emails recently released to E&E News under a FOIA request show that in the early days of the Trump administration, officials who reject established climate science were looking for ways to attack it.
David Schnare, a member of Trump’s EPA “beachhead” team, prepared a document in February 2017 that listed administration priorities, including reopening the endangerment finding, which allows EPA to regulate greenhouse gases and is a foundation of many environmental regulations.
Schnare wrote that they would gather a group of researchers who claim humans are not the primary drivers of climate change as part of the effort to pull back the endangerment finding.
“We bring on contractor support (Judith Curry’s group, supplemented by John Christy, Craig Idso, Roger Pielke, and others) to formulate analysis of the science,” he wrote in the detailed plan.
Those are some of the handful of researchers often cited by those who reject mainstream climate science, and each has worked with conservative groups fighting climate regulations.
The FOIA case could be the second court case that would force the Trump administration to produce its version of climate science in a courtroom within the next year.
----------
Pres release from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER):
For Immediate Release: Jun 04, 2018
Contact: Kirsten Stade (202) 265-7337
Contact: Kirsten Stade (202) 265-7337
COURT ORDERS PRUITT TO PRODUCE HIS ALTERNATE CLIMATE SCIENCE
EPA Must Look for Any Scientific Study Supporting Pruitt’s Doubts on Human Role
Posted on Jun 04, 2018
Washington, DC — A federal court has rejected the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s refusal to search for scientific information Administrator Scott Pruitt relied upon in claiming that human activity is not a “primary contributor” to climate change, according to a ruling upholding the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit brought by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The agency must also produce any studies EPA possesses that support Pruitt’s stated skepticism of anthropogenic climate change by July 11.
In a March 9, 2017 interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” Pruitt stated with respect to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases created by human activity “I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.” He added “there’s a tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact” of “human activity on the climate….” The next day PEER filed a FOIA request asking to see the studies upon which Pruitt based his claim and whether there are any EPA scientific studies that find human activity is not the largest factor driving global climate change.
Not only did EPA fail to respond within the statutory deadline, but even after PEER filed suit to compel production the agency contended that it would not respond because the suit is “a trap” in the form of an improper “interrogation” and a “fishing expedition” to explore Pruitt’s “personal opinion.”
In a June 1 ruling, Beryl Howell, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, brushed aside EPA’s objections, calling them “a reach too far” and “not persuasive”, observing that –
“Particularly troubling is the apparent premise of this agency challenge to the FOIA request, namely: that the evidentiary basis for a policy or factual statement by an agency head, including about the scientific factors contributing to climate change, is inherently unknowable.”
“Particularly troubling is the apparent premise of this agency challenge to the FOIA request, namely: that the evidentiary basis for a policy or factual statement by an agency head, including about the scientific factors contributing to climate change, is inherently unknowable.”
“The beauty of FOIA is that a government agency can run but ultimately can’t hide,” stated PEER Senior Counsel Paula Dinerstein, noting that Pruitt was on TV identified as EPA Administrator and purporting to speak in his official capacity with no disclaimer that he was expressing his personal views. “This suit forces EPA to determine whether Mr. Pruitt’s statements had a factual basis or were full of hot air.”
For the past few months, Mr. Pruitt has promised to initiate a controversial “red team, blue team” review of climate science. He has persisted despite mounting scientific consensus, including the most recent interagency U.S. Climate Science Special Report that concluded it is “extremely likely,” with a 95 to 100% confidence, that humans are driving warming on Earth.
“How can there be a debate when the red team is hiding below the podium?” asked Dinerstein. ““In essence, we are asking Mr. Pruitt to put up or shut up on climate change.”
###
No comments:
Post a Comment