EPA Head "Declines To Explain" How Report Explicating Climate Dangers To Humans = No GHG Action

[hatrack]

WASHINGTON - Environmental Protection Agency chief Stephen Johnson has declined to explain before Congress how a conclusion he made last year that global warming put the public in danger could lead to a decision not to regulate greenhouse gases.

In a 28-page document the White House and EPA have refused to release, the agency last December said global warming could endanger public welfare, according to excerpts released Thursday by a Senate committee. The hearing, which was going to examine the role of the White House in EPA decisions, particularly on global warming, was canceled.

The White House allowed the Senate Environment Committee's staff to examine the draft findings Wednesday night. The panel's chairwoman, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., released brief excerpts from it Thursday. "Given the stated vulnerabilities, risks and impacts from climate change on air quality, agriculture, forestry, water resources, ecosystems, coastal areas, the energy sector, infrastructure ..., the administrator is proposing to find that elevated levels of greenhouse gas concentrations may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public welfare," the senator's office quoted the document as saying.

EDIT

The Senate committee's staff viewed the document for about three hours Wednesday night, under the supervision of three White House aides. The conditions: they couldn't copy it or take copious notes. Boxer and Democratic Sens. Benjamin Cardin of Maryland and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota reviewed a copy Thursday morning. When asked why the administrator refused to appear before Congress, EPA Press Secretary Jonathan Shradar said that he was busy. He also added that the administrator had testified before this session of Congress 17 times.

EDIT

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080724/ap_on_go_ot/epa_climate_change_1;_ylt=Agj7Q3RNRP..PBZUBXmk5O9rAlMA

[BridgeTheGap]

1. "they couldn't copy it or take copious notes" - what kind of shit is this?

I guess if the Senate staff try to quote from it, the WH will deny it.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. I want an environmentalist to head up the EPA already.

[XemaSab]

3. I think the EPA head should have the following:

-Young relatives

-A C or better in a college-level chemistry class, a college-level ecology class, and a college-level statistics class.

Is this asking too much?

[Trillo]

5. It seems the possession of a college degree

increases the personal chances of deception, instead of decreasing them. I'd be very surprised if Mr. Stephen Johnson lacked a college degree.

Theoretically, one would think advanced training in a specialty would help in regulating that specialty, but when it carries a risk of increased deceptiveness, coupled with the hierarchical nature of being able to influence millions or billions of others by using that deception in a powerful executive position, the downside of such a lack of ethics clouds the issue of whether possession of such college certificates is, indeed, better.

[kestrel91316]

4. Mr. Johnson is guilty of a crime against humanity for this.

He is attempting the genocide of anyone who is not RICH ENOUGH to buy their way out of the consequences of global warming.

I just call 'em as I see 'em.