More than 60 Climate Experts Support Reconsideration of EPA’s Endangerment Finding
Today, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) sent a letter to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt signed by more than 60 climate and public health experts, urging him to reconsider EPA’s 2009 “Endangerment Finding” for Greenhouse Gases.
The letter requests Administrator Pruitt to grant two petitions asking the EPA to reconsider the Endangerment Finding because of growing evidence that greenhouse gases pose no global climate threat. The first petition was filed in January 2017 by the Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council. A month later, CEI and SEPP jointly filed a similar petition. EPA has not yet acted on either of these filings.
CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman said the following about the letter:
“As our petition points out, there are huge problems with the computer models on which the Endangerment Finding was based, which means our government’s climate policy rests on bad science. Since the time we filed our petition, new papers by climate alarmists themselves have conceded that their models overestimate global warming. The Endangerment Finding needs to be reexamined so that sound policy is based on sound science. Failure to do so threatens affordable energy, millions of jobs, and lives and the world.”
SEPP President Ken Haapala said the following about the letter:
“If we learned anything from the Vietnam fiasco, it is that government policy must be questioned by responsible citizens. We have done so. EPA has consistently failed to produce hard, physical evidence that greenhouse gases are a cause of atmospheric warming. According to reports by the GAO and the Congressional Research Service, the government has spent more than $40 billion on climate science since 1993. Yet no government climate model has been verified or validated. It is irresponsible to base government policy on such unvalidated models, especially when those models are contradicted by real-world data.”