The EPA’s Elusive Climate Change Endangerment Report
In December 2007, the White House blocked the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. During the process, the White House ignored a scientific report by the EPA, redacted almost half of the congressional testimony by the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)1, and blocked a permit allowing California (and 19 other states) to enact state-wide greenhouse gas regulations.
White House refused to read EPA report
In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that EPA had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the existing Clean Air Act (CAA). The Court also declared that if the EPA Administrator finds that green house gas emissions endanger the public health or welfare then he "must" regulate those emissions under the CAA.2 In response, the EPA spent much of 2007 and 2008 internally reviewing the likely impacts of climate change to determine if global warming would "endanger" the public. Jason Burnett, a high-level EPA advisor who coordinated agency climate change actions and was a lead author of this endangerment report, alleged that the EPA's report faced intense resistance from the White House. Burnett resigned in June 2008 over his objections to this White House interference.3
According to Burnett, EPA scientists realized early on that the only scientifically defensible conclusion would be that climate change did in fact endanger the public, and that finding would trigger nationwide regulation of carbon emissions. To shore up support for this course of action, the EPA held multiple meetings during the fall of 2007 with various government organizations and White House staff.4 Burnett also double-checked with OMB, including reading portions of the report out loud to them, to make sure they agreed with the wording and were prepared to receive the report.5
By November 2007, there was support within the administration for proceeding and EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson was given the go-ahead from the White House to submit the endangerment finding.6 But despite this careful consensus building, the EPA's scientific findings were ultimately rejected by the White House.
On December 5, 2007 Burnett emailed the EPA’s finalized endangerment report to the White House Office of Management and Budget. Minutes later Johnson received a phone call from the White House instructing EPA to retract the email and say it had been sent in error.7 Johnson refused, saying that the email had not been sent in error and was in fact consistent with previous instructions from the White House. The White House then requested that EPA send an email asking the White House not to review the document because provisions in the Energy Bill, then under consideration in Congress, might make the finding moot; Johnson again refused.8 The White House then decided it would not open the EPA's email,9 because doing so would require them to move ahead with the formal regulatory process and make the documents public.
EPA's response
After the White House refused to even read the original endangerment report, the EPA reworked it into a May 2008 draft Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), which is a preliminary step towards enacting regulation. Neither this draft nor the original December 2007 report were ever made public, although congressional staff from the Senator Barbara Boxer's Environment and Public Works (EPW) committee and Representative Edward Markey's House Select Committee on Global Warming were allowed to view copies of the documents and take "reasonable notes."10 The May 2008 draft ANPR was also leaked to various news outlets.11 The EPA released a final ANPR on July 11, 2008.12
Investigations by Senator Boxer13 and Representative Markey14 show that pressure from the White House resulted in progressively weaker documents from the EPA. For example:
- The December 2007 report found that "elevated levels of [greenhouse gas] concentrations may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public welfare" and proposed regulation of carbon emissions from cars and light trucks. The endangerment finding and the proposed regulation were stripped out of the ANPR, which only seeks public comment asking "whether" green house gases pose a danger.
- The December 2007 report admitted the existence of some positive benefits of climate change but concluded that they were outweighed by more numerous and serious negative effects. This language was changed in the draft and final ANPR to ask for public comment on this balance.
- The December 2007 report and the May 2008 draft ANPR included analysis estimating the economic benefits to greenhouse gas regulation, including up to $2 trillion in consumer benefits by the year 2040. All such analysis was removed from the final ANPR.
The same day the EPA released the ANPR, the White House released a 14-page policy memo that rebuts the findings of the report and can be summed up in their own words: "The EPA staff draft does not represent administration policy."15 The final July 2008 ANPR set a comment period of four months, thereby ensuring that no regulation of greenhouse gas emissions will be finalized under the current administration.
The CDC testimony
In October 2007, CDC Director Julie Gerberding testified before Congress on the public health effects of climate change. According to Burnett, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) asked him to "convince CDC to delete particular sections of their testimony" in order to "keep options open" for EPA's endangerment finding, which was then in mid-process. In other words, the CEQ did not want official government testimony stating that climate change would affect public health, as that would require the EPA to include such findings in their endangerment report. Burnett refused to participate in deleting any of Gerberding's testimony, but said that both the CEQ and the Office of the Vice President took part in removing 7 pages of official written testimony. Read more about the CDC's testimony being edited here.
California's greenhouse gas waiver
During sworn testimony before the EPW committee, Burnett also drew connections between the national endangerment finding and EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson's 2007 decision to deny California's request to regulate its own greenhouse gas emissions. Under the Clean Air Act, the state of California has the right to enact more stringent regulations than what the Federal government requires, provided the EPA issues a waiver allowing them to do so. On December 19, 2007, Johnson denied California's request for a waiver, the first time that such a request had ever been turned down.
Burnett revealed that this unprecedented denial was due to direct political interference from the White House. Burnett testified that, contrary to Johnson's own statements on the matter, Johnson and his advisors had agreed that California should be granted a waiver and notified the White House of their decision. But after a last minute trip to the White House Johnson reversed course and denied California's request.16 California is suing the EPA over this matter and it is yet unresolved.
To read more about political interference at the EPA, see the UCS report here.
1. Gerberding, J. Draft Written Testimony for hearing entitled, "Examining the Human Health Impacts of Global Climate Change." U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. 23 October 2007; Comparison of original testimony wording and IPCC report.
2. U.S. Supreme Court, Massachusetts v EPA, Decided April 2, 2007, Docket #05-1120.
3. Boxer, B. 2008. Letter to Jason K. Burnett. July 1; Burnett, J.K. 2008. Letter to Senator Barbara Boxer. July 6. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is the Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee.
4. Burnett, J.K. 2008. Testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. July 22.
5. Ibid.
6. Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming Majority Staff. 2008. Investigation of the Bush Administration’s Response to Massachusetts v. EPA. July 18, p. 8.
7. Eilperin, J. 2008a. White House tried to silence EPA proposal on car emissions. Washington Post, June 26.
8. Burnett, J.K. 2008b. Interview with staff of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. July 15.
9. Barringer, F. 2008. White House refused to open pollutants e-mail. New York Times, June 25.
10. Eilperin, J. 2008b. EPA e-mail concluded global warming endangers public health, senator says. Washington Post, July 25.
11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act. Draft dated 5-30-08. Part 1 and Part 2 online at the Wonk Room blog. Cited in Johnson, B. 2008. Bush Hiding Truth: Global Warming Regulations Worth $2 Trillion Benefit. Wonk Room blog post, June 30.
12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act. July 11.
13. Eilperin 2008b.
14. Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming 2008, p. 32.
15. White House Policy Memorandum. 2008. Environmental Protection Agency Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Clean Air Act. July 11.
16. Burnett testimony, July 22, 2008; Eilperin, J. 2008c. Ex-EPA official says White House pulled rank. Washington Post, July 23.
