CEI argues against global warming (05/27/06)

The illustration is from Mindfully.org.  Yesterday, the Annenberg Political Fact Check sent me an analysis of the Competitive Enterprise Insitute’s (CEI) new ad buys to argue against global warming.

On August 6, 2003, the CEI filed a lawsuit against the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and the National Science and Technology Council arguing that the National Assessment of Climate Variability and Change (National Assessment) and EPA’s Climate Action Report 2002 should be invalidated because it failed to meet scientific standards for objectivity and utility.  This peer-reviewed study documenting global warming and identifying its dangers was cited  in the EPA’s Climate Action Report 2002, produced by the United States pursuant to its obligations under the 1992 Rio Treaty on climate change. 

The CEI attracted the attention of the attorneys general for Maine and Connecticut,  as they they wrote  John Ashcroft  on  August 11, 2003, about a June 3, 2002  email received under the Freedom of Information Act regarding the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).

Phil Cooney, the Chief of Staff at CEQ contacted Myron Ebell, Director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy at CEI to request CEI’s assistance in dealing with this “crisis.” Mr. Ebell’s response to this request reveals great intimacy between CEI and CEQ in their strategizing about ways to minimize the problem of global warming.  It also suggests that CEQ may have been directly involved in efforts to undermine the United States’ official reports, as well as the authority of the EPA Administrator.

On June 3, 2002,  Ebell had written Cooney revealing their relationship,

Thanks for calling and asking for our help.  I know you’re in crisis mode, but from our end it is a most welcome change from the Administration’s SOP, which is to tell conservatives to stop bothering them and to shut up.  So it’s nice to know we’re needed once in a while.  I want to help you cool things down, but after consulting with the team, I thing that what we can do is limited until there is an official statement from the Administration repudiating the report to the UNFCCC and disavowing larbge parts of it blaming EPA for freelancing.  It seems to me that the folks at EPA are the obvious fall gues, and we would only hope that the fall guy )or gal) should be as high up as possible.  I have done several interviews and have stressed that the president needs to get everyone rowing in the same direction. Perhaps tommorow we will call for Whitman to be fired.  I know that that doesn’t sound like much help, but it seems to me that our only leverage to push you in the right direction is to drive a wedge between the President and those in the administration who think that they are serving the president’s best interests by pushing this rubbish.

The references in the National Assessment in the report are the most hurtful to us because we dropped our lawsuit last September 5th after receiving a written assurance that the National Assessment did not represent “policy positins or official statements of the U.S. governemnt.” The previous communications from the U. S. government to the UNFCCC was a detailed criticism of the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report that reflected that agreement and also implied a cisavowal of the NAtional Assessment. So the new transmittal to the UNCCC looks to us much like it looks to the New York Times.

So I’m willing and ready to help, but it won’t be possible to do much without some sort of backtracking from the Administration. Inless that occurs, then you have handed an awful lot of ammunicition to Jim Jeffords, and the only way we will be able to fight him and all his allies in Congress is to get much more strident and noisy.  Even if the administration does move quickly to get back on the right side of the issue, it may be too late to save our side in the Senate from being squashed.  If it were only this one little disaster we could all lock arms and weather the assault, but the Adminisgtration has managed, whther therugh incompetence or intention, to create one disaster after another and then to  expect its allies to clean up the mess.  I don’t know whether we have the resources to clean up this one.


The attorneys general conclude that

 We are concerned that the new litigation is an improper product of that close relationship and we therefore ask that you investigate this.


The AG’s  had joined the Massachusettes AG in suing the EPA over CO2 emmissions June 4 of that year.  September 3, they challenged EPA’s ruling that they had no authority over the emissions.  They also sued the EPA over greenhouse emission   and to to block the EPA’s new rule that would consider

any modification costing up to 20 percent of the replacement cost of the unit [as] routine maintenance, therefore exempt from pollution controls, even if the plant modification results in much higher levels of air pollution. 

So far, the federal courts have sided with the EPA.  The fight still continues, as 10 states sued again April 27, 2006. 






One Response to “CEI argues against global warming (05/27/06)”

  1. Marquis Says:

    Do you think that if there is a Global Warming Issue then that it is the cause of the crazy weather we have been having? I know i was watching CNN weather and they predicted massive hurricans to hit the New York area

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: