The Voice of Reason: Politics, Not Science, Driving Obama's Environmental Policy

When protecting the environment, one would think that our government would rely on science to drive policy changes.  What we've learned recently is that politics, not science, is currently determining policy changes in the U.S.

A few weeks ago, I attended an environmental conference sponsored by the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce.  The key points I learned at this conference from the various state and national experts were very alarming:

• The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently deciding what policy they want to implement and then find scientific studies to back up what they believe.
• The EPA weights various environmental studies, which allows them to consider multiple independent studies as "junk science" when those studies oppose what the EPA wants to prove, while pointing in some cases to a single study that agrees with the EPA.
• In some cases, the EPA has considered one part of a scientific study as "junk science," while touting another part of the same study that might agree with what the EPA wants to prove.

In short, President Obama's EPA is deciding the policies it wants to change, and then finds science to back up what it wants to do. The reverse should be occurring -- science should be driving the policy.

One example of EPA Science running amock is the recently finalized Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule addressing mercury emissions from power plants.  If allowed to be implemented, this new rule will put electric reliability at risk in the U.S. and cost electric ratepayers $10 billion or more, with little if any benefit to public health. In justifying its policy change, the EPA's claims of benefits from MATS are the result of its counting coincidental reductions of “particulate matter” below the standards that the EPA has already determined are necessary to protect public health.
http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/233361-mercury-rule-could-upset-energy-supply-should-be-reset

So what impact will MATS have on the mercury in our air?  Negligible.  In fact, if every U.S. coal fired power plant were shut down, it would result in a reduction of mercury of less than .5%.  The other 99.5% of the mercury in our air would not be affected.  Sources such as forest fires, volcanoes, human cremation, subsea vents, geyers and power plants in other countries would continue to put the majority of mercury in our air. http://www.dailymail.com/Opinion/Editorials/201206210125
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703421204576329420414284558.html

Although the impact on public health would be negligible, the effect on an industry employing a few hundred thousand Americans directly and indirectly could be catastrophic.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_and_jobs_in_the_United_States

"The Navy SEALs shot Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan and Lisa Jackson (head of the EPA) shot us (coal industry) in Washington," Cecil Roberts, president of the UMWA, said in an interview in April on the West Virginia radio show MetroNews Talkline.
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/219919-mine-union-chief-coal-industry-could-suffer-same-fate-as-osama-bin-laden

In the interview, Roberts said that new coal-fired power plants would have to install technology to capture carbon dioxide emissions in order to comply with the rules. The problem is that this technology, known as carbon capture and storage, "is not commercially available," Roberts said.

At a time when millions of Americans are out of work or have quit looking for work, can we really afford these policy changes by the Obama Administration that will cost ratepayers $10 billion or more, and put our nation's electric reliability and the jobs of hundreds of thousands of Americans at risk?

Voters will have the opportunity to voice their opinions in November.