People in the United States generally feel very lucky to live here (even in winter!) and consider our quality of living, our policies, our freedoms things that we’re fortunate to enjoy. We use the results of studies by agencies like the EPA to create those policies, and if the research is flawed, the regulations are, too. Not just the standards for fuel emissions and other car topics important around here, but how businesses impact the safety of our water and air. We can’t stand for that.

After bringing the political influence at the EPA to light last week, the Union of Concerned Scientists is asking for our help in assuring the people looking out for our well-being feel supported in reporting truth in environmental research. They’ve started a letter writing campaign to get the message across that the public does care about accurate results. *thumbs up*

Image: David Niblack

Post from: EveryJoe

EPA scientists need our help

It was frustrating, but not surprising given the government’s habit of putting their two cents in along with their funding.

To prove that point further, the results of a five-year study published by the Union of Concerned Scientists on Wednesday says 889 of the staff scientists working for the EPA (56% of respondents) were unduly pressured to skew their findings to fit political objectives.

Follow the link for an in-depth dissection of the study. Here are some highlights:

Nearly 100 scientists identified the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as the primary culprit. In scientists’ responses to an essay question, “How could the integrity of scientific work produced by the EPA best be improved?,” OMB took center stage:

- “Currently, OMB is allowed to force or make changes as they want, and rules are held hostage until this happens,” said a scientist at the agency’s Office of Air and Radiation. “OMB’s power needs to be checked as time after time they weaken rulemakings and policy decisions to favor industry.”

– “OMB and the White House have, in some cases, compromised the integrity of EPA rules and policies; their influence, largely hidden from the public and driven by industry lobbying, has decreased the stringency of proposed regulations for non-scientific, political reasons,” said a scientist from one of the agency’s regional offices. “Because the real reasons can’t be stated, the regulations contain a scientific rationale with little or no merit.”

In addition to looking over the EPA’s ruling on the California waiver, Congress is also investigation government interference with a toxicity review and a new ozone standard. (Which isn’t to say this is the only time we’ve face these problems or that we won’t have them in the future. This isn’t “attack President Bush” day. There were just a lot of political issues to bring to your attention.)

If anything this is a wake-up call to the fact that our scientists aren’t protected. We need to stand behind them, and support them in asking  Congress to put regulations in place which prevent this abuse by any administration. We can’t successfully fight the planet’s issues without first having an honest understanding of them.

Post from: EveryJoe

Interference at EPA – Who’s surprised??

Thanks to Jason over at Uncover the Internet who posted yesterday about a Senate GOP subcommittee releasing a report debunking the universal acceptance of global warming.

I understand the scientists who are lashing out. If you’re familiar with homeschooling, you may have heard of a group called the HSLDA. They pretend to represent all of us and often make statements on the behalf of homeschoolers when they know full well that many of us disagree with their take on things. It’s so frustrating to have someone speak your mind for you on ideas that you invest so much of yourself into.

The report is right. Global warming is a THEORY, and just like Darwin’s evolutionary theory or the Big Bang, there are well-educated, intelligent, respectable scientists who disagree … or just plain don’t think there’s enough evidence to substantiate global warming claims.

But, it’s important to distinguish between “disputed” and “disproven”. The report shows no evidence that global warming itself has been debunked, and in fact, seems pretty mired down in political muck.

The first evidence being … it was released the day after the President blocked California’s new law on auto emissions – a copycat bill intended to be adopted by at least 12 more states – and at least 8 states have voiced an intension to sue over the decision.

More importantly though, the first scientist comment focuses exclusively on nuclear energy as the alternative to a depleting supply of fossil fuels instead of any of the clean energy alternatives that have been developed or that are currently being developed. That doesn’t make sense unless…

If you’re familiar with Bush’s energy plans, you know the President is leaning heavily toward reprocessing nuclear fuels, and that the few supporters he has are beginning to back away. I didn’t read the whole report, because honestly, seeing that was enough to know it was a sales pitch for the Pres’s “pipe” dream, which is – very simply – a bad idea.

My question, and my concern, is that people who would have been swayed to do something better for the environment will look at this and think, “Oh, global warming isn’t a problem. Emissions aren’t a problem. I’m going to buy that Hummer after all.”

Whether or not global warming is real is pretty much moot, in my opinion. Smog does enough damage on its own without the world needing to heat up enough to cause an Apocalypse. We should cut emissions to look after the health of the people we have living here now…and for those in the future. BUT, even with 400 scientists saying it may not be real, there are plenty of well-educated, intelligent, respectable scientists who say it is.

Who do you believe? Well, I didn’t watch an Inconvenient Truth. I didn’t watch Who Killed the Electric Car, either. In my opinion, both had too much potential to be biased to the point of misinformation. They were created, mainly, to engage and entertain, much like the movies of Michael Moore – talented at stirring up discussion, but presenting the facts? Debatable. (Not to say they wouldn’t be a good starting point for doing research.)

I would tell anyone who is really interested to look up all the actual research they can, from both sides of the argument, and see which makes the most sense to you. Like the above nuclear argument which clearly doesn’t make sense when we’re developing so many opportunities which are affordable, accessible, and less harmful to us and the environment.

Post from: EveryJoe

Emissions Lead to More Than Global Warming