You are here

Pesticides, Communication Privacy and Climategate's Impact

Daily Update

Title

Pesticides, Communication Privacy and Climategate's Impact

The Environmental Protection Agency proposes incorrectly labeling new biotech fruit as containing pesticides.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission requires employees to keep records of their off-the-record communications.

Climategate has had a significant impact on green policy initiatives.

1. HEALTH

The Environmental Protection Agency proposes incorrectly labeling new biotech fruit as containing pesticides.

CEI Expert Available to Comment: Senior Fellow Gregory Conko on why the agency proposal is off-base.

“Unlike insect-resistant crops, bioengineered to produce a protein that is toxic to caterpillars, virus-resistant plants fend off infection without generating new proteins. Classifying this plum variety as a biopesticide is legally suspect, and it cannot be justified by any concerns about the environment or human consumers.”

 

2. REGULATION

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission requires employees to keep records of their off-the-record communications.

CEI Expert Available to Comment: Warren Brooks Fellow Ryan Young on the bureaucratic logic.

“[So] off-the-record communications aren’t really off the record. In fact, 18 CFR 385.2201(b) requires FERC to post a notice in the Federal Register whenever this happens. There was one today, for example. It’s public! Which brings up the following conundrum: if FERC policy is that off-the-record communications are actually on the record, then there are no off-the-record communications. Therefore, regulations applying to off-the-record communications are at best redundant, because there are no off-the-record comments.”

 

3. ENVIRONMENT

Climategate has had a significant impact on green policy initiatives.

CEI Expert Available to Comment: Policy Analyst William Yeatman on why Climategate matters.

“Climategate has raised many questions about the reliability of key temperature records as well as the objectivity of the researchers and institutions involved, but it is far from the only global warming-related controversy.  It has been followed by revelations that some of the most attention-grabbing claims in the 2007 UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report - the supposed gold standard of climate science - were simply made up.  Before laws regulating energy use are enacted that could well cost trillions of dollars, it is crucial to understand the extent to which the alleged scientific consensus supporting global warming alarmism has been discredited by these scandals.”