NY Post misleadingly quotes from EPA finding to claim it says “anything goes -- whether science justifies it or not”

From the December 8 New York Post editorial:

“This action poses a threat to every American family and business,” says Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute. “It could chill job growth and delay business expansion.”

“Individual American consumers and businesses alike will be dramatically affected by this decision,” Charles Drevna, president of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, insists. He says the move “is based on selective science, a weak legal and policy foundation and a failure to account for numerous uncertainties.”

Actually, the agency itself explicitly admits that last part: “The [EPA] administrator acknowledges the many uncertainties in these areas,” the finding says.

It notes that EPA boss Lisa Jackson “is using her judgment ... to assess whether these risks ... endanger public health.”

That is, anything goes -- whether science justifies it or not.

NY Post cropped quote to suggest EPA administrator can disregard science. The Post editorial stated that the EPA finding “notes that EPA boss Lisa Jackson 'is using her judgment ... to assess whether these risks ... endanger public health,'” adding, “That is, anything goes -- whether science justifies it or not.” In fact, the EPA finding actually states: [emphasis added]

The Administrator is using her judgment, based on existing science, to weigh the threat for each of the identifiable risks, to weigh the potential benefits where relevant, and ultimately to assess whether these risks and effects, when viewed in total, endanger public health or welfare.

EPA: Supreme Court “interprets the statute to allow for the consideration only of science.” Additionally, the finding stated of the 2007 Supreme Court decision establishing that the EPA has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses: "[I]n Massachusetts v. EPA, the court clearly indicated that the Administrator's decision must be a 'scientific judgment.' 549 U.S. at 534. She must base her decision about endangerment on the science, and not on policy considerations about the repercussions or impact of such a finding." The EPA finding also stated:

EPA agrees with the commenters who argue that the Supreme Court decision held that EPA is limited to consideration of science when undertaking an endangerment finding, and that we cannot delay issuing a finding due to policy concerns if the science is sufficiently certain (as it is here). The Supreme Court stated that “EPA can avoid taking further action only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do” 549 U.S. at 533. Some commenters point to this last provision, arguing that the policy reasons they provide are a “reasonable explanation” for not moving forward at this time. However, this ignores other language in the decision that clearly indicates that the Court interprets the statute to allow for the consideration only of science. For example, in rejecting the policy concerns expressed by EPA in its 2003 denial of the rulemaking petition, the Court noted that “it is evident [the policy considerations] have nothing to do with whether greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change. Still less do they amount to a reasoned justification for declining to form a scientific judgment” Id. at 533-34 (emphasis added).

Jackson: "[W]e relied on decades of sound, peer-reviewed, extensively evaluated scientific data." In remarks made on December 7, Jackson stated, “It's time that we let the science speak for itself. In making this finding, we relied on decades of sound, peer-reviewed, extensively evaluated scientific data. That data came from around the world and from our own U.S. scientists.” The EPA finding stated that "[t]he major assessments by the U.S. Global Climate Research Program (USGCRP), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the National Research Council (NRC) serve as the primary scientific basis supporting the Administrator's endangerment finding." A summary of these assessments is provided in the EPA's Technical Support Document.

NY Post suggested EPA acknowledged “many uncertainties” in its overall decision but that quote specifically addressed “changes in aeroallergens.” The EPA report stated: “The Administrator finds that six greenhouse gases taken in combination endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.” In claiming that the EPA "itself explicitly admits" that its finding is based on “a failure to account for numerous uncertainties,” the Post misleadingly quoted a portion of the EPA finding stating, “The Administrator acknowledges the many uncertainties in these areas.” In fact, “these areas” referred specifically to “changes in aeroallergens,” not to the scientific support for the endangerment finding in general. From the EPA finding:

There is some evidence that elevated carbon dioxide concentrations and climate changes can lead to changes in aeroallergens that could increase the potential for allergenic illnesses. The evidence on pathogen borne disease vectors provides directional support for an endangerment finding. The Administrator acknowledges the many uncertainties in these areas. Although these adverse effects provide some support for an endangerment finding, the Administrator is not placing primary weight on these factors.

The EPA's finding that the greenhouse gases endanger public health is based on an evaluation of “the risks associated with changes in air quality, increases in temperatures, changes in extreme weather events, increases in food and water borne pathogens, and changes in aeroallergens.” The EPA's finding that the greenhouse gases endanger public welfare is based on an evaluation of “risks to food production and agriculture, forestry, water resources, sea level rise and coastal areas, energy, infrastructure, and settlements, and ecosystems and wildlife.”