User:Oceanflynn/sandbox/Endangerment Findings (EPA)

Endangerment Findings is a climate endangerment science-based determination, prompted by the 2007 Supreme Court case Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) that forced the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs) as pollutants, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride. They are air contaminants (CACs)—a set of air pollutants that cause smog, acid rain, and other health hazards. CACs are typically emitted from many sources in industry, mining, transportation, electricity generation and agriculture. In most cases they are the products of the combustion of fossil fuels or industrial processes. In Massachusetts v. EPA, the justices determined that these greenhouse gases are air pollutants according to the Clean Air Act and require regulation.

Massachusetts v. EPA (2007)
As a result in 2009, the EPA Administrator found that under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act greenhouse gases threaten both the public health and the public welfare, and that greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles contribute to that threat. This final action has two distinct 'findings,'—"Endangerment Finding" and the "Cause or Contribute Finding,"

"[Endangerment finding]...the mix of atmospheric concentrations of six key, well-mixed greenhouse gases threatens both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations. These six greenhouse gases are: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These greenhouse gases in the atmosphere constitute the "air pollution" that threatens both public health and welfare."

- Endangerment finding

"[Cause or Contribute Finding]...in which the Administrator found that the combined greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines contribute to the atmospheric concentrations of these key greenhouse gases and hence to the threat of climate change."

The court made the decision that the EPA must determine whether greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles "cause or contribute to air pollution which may be reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision" (EPA's Endangerment Finding).

According to Supreme Court decision, the EPA determined that there are six greenhouse gases that need to be regulated. These include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). This action allowed the EPA to set the greenhouse gas emission standards to light-duty vehicles proposed jointly with the Department of Transportation's Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards in 2009.

Competitive Enterprise Institute
In June 2009, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington D.C. based think tank, and Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) claimed that the EPA had suppressed a report co-authored by Alan Carlin and a coworker in which they attempted to cast doubt on the EPA's Endangerment Finding for for greenhouse gases, the existence of global warming, and the need to regulate CO2 emissions. Senator Inhofe wrote a letter to the EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, requesting that the agency reopen this matter and called for a congressional investigation of the “suppression”. The EPA Press Secretary Adora Andy, responded,"

"Claims that this individual’s opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false. . . . The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless the document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding. Additionally, his manager has allowed his general views on the subject of climate change to be heard and considered inside and outside the EPA and presented at conferences and at an agency seminar. And this individual was granted a request to join a committee that organizes an ongoing climate seminar series, open to both agency and outside experts, where he has been able to invite speakers with a full range of views on climate science."

- EPA Press Secretary Adora Andy June 29, 2009

''Internal e-mails related to the alleged suppression of Carlin's report were released under the Freedom of Information Act. In them, Carlin, was discouraged by his superior at EPA, Al McGartland, from filing comments on the proposed finding and told ... that whatever he submitted was not likely to affect the final report, suggesting to some that the decision had already been made by early March 2009. After receiving Carlin’s comments, McGartland told him that he would not forward them to the office preparing the final report. 'The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round,' he wrote on March 17. 'The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.' A few minutes later, he instructed Carlin to 'move on to other issues and subjects.' He also told Carlin not to discuss climate change with anyone outside his immediate office." Carlin also acknowledged in the article that his report had been produced under short deadline and, as critics have said since, was not fully or cleanly sourced, and there was no restriction on his contact with the media. Andy was quoted as calling "the accusation that Carlin had been muzzled for political reasons 'ridiculous.' 'There was no predetermined position on endangerment, and Dr. Carlin’s work was not suppressed,' Andy said in an e-mail response to questions. 'This administration has always welcomed varying scientific points of view, and we received much of it over this process.'" No further Congressional action was reported, in the September report.  (This section is from the article on Alan Carlin Content will be summarized.''

Current
By 2017, those who support gutting of climate endangerment finding include the Heartland Institute.