More fraudulent science from EPA
Finalized Tier 3 gasoline sulfur rules will bring bogus benefits at high health and welfare price
Paul Driessen
The
Obama Environmental Protection Agency recently slashed the maximum
allowable sulfur content in gasoline from 30 parts per million to 10 ppm.
The agency claims its new “Tier 3” rule will bring $7 billion to $19
billion in annual health benefits by 2030. “These standards are a win
for public health, a win for our environment and a win for our
pocketbooks,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy insists.
It’s
all hokum. Like all too many rules emanating from EPA these days, the
gasoline regulations are a case study in how America’s economy, jobs,
living standards, health and welfare are being pummeled by secretive,
deceptive, and indeed fraudulent and corrupt government practices.
Since
the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, America’s cars have eliminated
some 99% of pollutants that once came out of tailpipes, notes air
quality expert Joel Schwartz. Since 2004, under Tier 2 rules, refiners
have reduced sulfur in gasoline from an average of 300 ppm to 30 ppm – a 90% drop, on top of pre-2004 reductions. In addition, because
newer cars start out cleaner and stay cleaner throughout their lives,
fleet turnover is reducing emissions by 8 to10 percent per year,
steadily improving air quality.
The net result, says a 2012 Environ International study, is that ground-level ozone concentrations will fall even more dramatically by 2022. Volatile organic pollutants will plummet by 62%, carbon monoxide by 51% and nitrous oxides by 80% – beyond reductions already achieved between 1970 and 2004.
EPA
(which once promised to be ultra-transparent) claims its rules will add
less than a penny per gallon to gasoline prices; but it won’t say how
it arrived at that estimate. Industry sources say the Tier 3 rules will
require $10 billion in upfront capital expenditures, an additional $2.4
billion in annual compliance expenses, significant increases in refinery
energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, an extra 5-9 cents per
gallon in manufacturing costs, which will certainly hit consumers at
the pump.
But regardless of their ultimate cost, the rules will reduce monthly ozone levels by just 1.2 parts per billion
during rush hour, says Environ. That’s equivalent to 12 cents out of
$100 million or 1.2 seconds out of 32,000 years. These minuscule
improvements could not even have been measured by equipment existing a couple decades ago. Their contribution to improved human health will be essentially zero.
Not
so, say the EPA, Sierra Club and American Lung Association (ALA). The
rules will reduce asthma in “the children,” they insist. However, asthma
incidences have been increasing, while air pollution has declined –
demonstrating that the pollution-asthma connection is a red herring. The
disease is caused by allergies, a failure to expose young children to
sufficient allergens to cause their immune systems to build resistance
to airborne allergens, and lack of sufficient exercise to keep lungs
robust. Not surprisingly, a Southern California study found no
association between asthma hospitalizations and air pollution levels.
Moreover, EPA paid the ALA $20 million
between 2001 and 2010. No wonder it echoes agency claims about air
quality and lung problems. The payments continue today, while EPA also
funnels millions to various environmentalist pressure groups – and even
to “independent” EPA scientific review panels – that likewise rubber
stamp too many EPA pollution claims, studies and regulatory actions.
As Ron Arnold recently reported in The Washington Examiner,
15 of EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee members have
received $180.8 million in EPA grants since 2000. One CASAC panelist (Ed
Avol of USC) received $51.7 million! The
seven CASAC executive committee members pocketed $80.2 million. Imagine
Big Oil paying that kind of cash to an advisory group, and calling it
“independent.” The news media, government and environmentalists would
have a field day with that one.
The Clean Air Act, Information Quality Act, Executive Order 12866
and other laws require that agencies assess both the costs and benefits
of proposed regulations, and implement them only if the rules’ benefits
clearly exceed and justify their costs. However, EPA and other agencies
systematically and illegally violate these rules, routinely inflate the
alleged benefits of their rules, and habitually minimize or ignore
their adverse impacts on energy supplies and prices, jobs, the economy,
and human health and welfare.
Reporting
on a hearing held by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the House
Science, Space and Technology Committee, Arnold noted that CASAC members
say they weren’t even aware that they are obligated to advise EPA on
both benefits and costs. Former EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation Jeff Holmstead testified, “As far as I know, CASAC never fulfilled this requirement as it relates to the ozone standard or any other” rule.
Former
CASAC chairman Dr. Roger McClellan told Rep. Smith he did not think the
panel “ever advised EPA to take account of the role of socioeconomic
factors, unemployment or other risk factors” adversely affecting
people’s health. Another former CASAC member testified that the advisory
committee was not even “allowed to discuss any of the adverse
consequences” associated with new rulemakings.
EPA regulations impose countless billions of dollars in annual impacts on the US economy, according to studies by the Heritage Foundation, Competitive Enterprise Institute and Government Accountability Office. Estimates of total compliance costs for all federal regulations range to nearly $2 trillion per year. Some may bring benefits, but many or most also inflict significant harm on human health.
They
mean millions of layoffs, far fewer jobs created, and steadily
declining quality of life for millions of Americans, who cannot heat and
cool their homes properly, pay the rent and mortgage, or save for
retirement. They mean increased commuting to multiple jobs, poor
nutrition, sleep deprivation, higher incidences of depression and
alcohol, drug, spousal and child abuse, and lower life expectancies.
In
another example, EPA justifies its onerous carbon dioxide regulations
by asserting that Earth’s climate is highly sensitive to C02, hypothesizing every conceivable carbon cost, and imputing huge monetized damages from hydrocarbon use and CO2 emissions ($36/ton of CO2 emitted). This completely ignores the most obvious and enormous job, health and welfare benefits of using fossil fuels; the benefits of higher carbon dioxide levels for food crops, forests and grasslands; and even the harmful effects that these regulations are having on energy prices and reliability, and thus people’s jobs, health and welfare.
The
EPA, ALA and CASAC likewise insist that new Mercury and Air Toxic
Standards for coal-fired power plants will bring huge health benefits.
However, the mercury risks were hugely overblown, the proclaimed dangers from fine particulates were contradicted by EPA’s own illegal experiments on human subjects – and the agency never assessed the health and welfare damage that the MATS rules will impose by causing the loss of 200,000 jobs and 23,000 megawatts of reliable, affordable electricity by 2015.
Similarly,
EPA and CASAC blithely failed to consider the human carnage that will
result from their new 54.5 mpg vehicle mileage standards, as people are
forced into smaller, lighter, less safe cars. Having based numerous
regulations on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports that
have been roundly criticized as erroneous and even fraudulent, EPA now
refuses to reconsider any of its rules, even though there has been no
warming for 17 years and the IPCC itself is back-peddling on previous claims.
Ignoring
all these facts, the nation’s automakers nevertheless supported EPA’s
Tier 3 sulfur rules. They prefer to have a single national standard,
instead of one for California and one for the other 49 states. But to “Californiacate”
America’s regulatory system is exactly the wrong direction to go. The
once-Golden State has among the most perverse taxes and regulations –
and thus some of the highest unemployment rates, especially for blacks,
Hispanics and inland communities. Instead of emulating its strangulation
by regulation proclivities, we should be forcing it to adopt more
commonsense, scientifically sound rules.
Congress,
state legislatures, attorneys general, people and courts need to exert
much greater control over now unaccountable government agencies. We need
to terminate regulations based on the absurd view that there is no safe
pollution threshold. The dose always makes the poison.
We
also need to end the million-dollar payoffs to advisory groups, make
them represent multiple interests and viewpoints – and ensure that
government agencies fully and honestly assess and account for the
harmful effects of regulations on human health and welfare, as required
by law.
************************************
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death.
No comments:
Post a Comment