Ah...What We Find, When We Dig.

From today's Tuesday Takes:

The prospects for reining in the Obama administration's out-of-control Environmental Protection Agency are brighter because the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether it has overstepped the authority to regulate “greenhouse gases” it was granted by the justices in 2007's Massachusetts v. EPA .

You'll note, of course, that the irony quotes are there for a reason.  But that's not what we're here for.  Scaife's braintrust does the usual "liberal EPA overstep" dance blah-blah-blah.  But let's take a look at what the Supreme Court actually said:

12-1146 ) UTILITY AIR REGULATORY GROUP V. EPA
12-1248 ) AM. CHEMISTRY COUNCIL, ET AL. V. EPA, ET AL.
12-1254 ) ENERGY-INTENSIVE MANUFACTURERS V. EPA, ET AL.
12-1268 ) SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL FOUNDATION V. EPA, ET AL.
12-1269 ) TEXAS, ET AL. V. EPA, ET AL.
12-1272 ) CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, ET AL. V. EPA, ET AL.

The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted limited to the following question: “Whether EPA permissibly determined that its regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles triggered permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources that emit greenhouse gases.” The cases are consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.

You'll note that nestled warmly among all the pro-business groups challenging the EPA in the list of cases to be consolidated is something called the "Southeastern Legal Foundation."

Guess who's given more than 58% of all the foundational support to the Southeastern Legal Foundation?

That's right, Tribune-Review owner Richard Mellon Scaife.

According to the Bridgeproject, the Southeastern Legal Foundation has received a total of $3.817 million dollars from various foundations over the years.  $2.225 million of which has come from either the Sarah Scaife or Carthage foundations, both controlled by Tribune-Review owner Richard Mellon Scaife.  Unless my math is wrong, that's a tad more than 58% of the total.

Hmmm...so a legal foundation's challenge to the EPA has made it to the Supreme Court and a conservative editorial board cheers them on - all with no mention whatsoever of the millions that their boss has funneled to it.

Ah, the things you find when you dig, just a little.

Frack me? No, no! Frack you!

Anyone who has spent any time listening to the pro fracking crowd knows that pretty much the first thing out of their mouths is the assertion that there's never been a proven case of fracking contaminating underground drinking water -- it's been their mantra. I maintain that that is pretty much a red herring as you do not need to pollute groundwater to harm the water supply. The water used in fracking has to go somewhere and very little is being recycled. Aside from illegal dumping and leaching from fracking pools, water treatment facilities simply aren't equipped to handle even the legal disposal of the witches' brew of toxicity found in the "flowback" water.

That said, guess what? Turns out there is a very well documented case of this very thing and the EPA has known about it for decades. Count me not shocked that they've all been lying to us this whole time.

In Pittsburgh, the City Council voted 6-3 to allow residents to decide if they want fracking in the city, but even though that's a veto-proof majority, the Mayor could simply sit on the bill making it too late to get on the November ballot as a referendum. Council requested that Lil Mayor Luke return it to them by the 8th at 4:30 PM, but we know how well the Mayor listens to Council -- the majority anyway -- so if you believe the citizens should have a say, contact the Mayor now:

Email: luke.ravenstahl@city.pittsburg​h.pa.us
Phone: 412-255-2626

Lastly, Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato has poked his head above ground to weigh in on the referendum. Via the Trib:

Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato said Wednesday he has "serious concerns" about the legality of Pittsburgh City Council's proposed ballot referendum banning natural gas drilling within city limits.

Council on Monday approved legislation that would ask voters to decide in November whether to add the ban to the city's Home Rule Charter. Council banned Marcellus shale gas drilling within city limits in November.

Councilman Doug Shields proposed the bill, saying a charter amendment would make the ban harder to overturn. Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, who said he has concerns about the legality of the ban, is considering a veto.

In a written statement, Onorato said he directed the county solicitor and Elections Department to review and analyze the referendum.

[sigh]
.

It's Not Only In The House

The anti-science, I mean.

Yesterday I blogged on this curious piece of anti-science legislation. In it all the House Republicans and 19 House Democrats (including our own local Jason Altmire) voted in favor of, among other things, voids the EPA finding that:

[G]reenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare.

The EPA administrator based that finding on science. The House of Representatives didn't.

The thing I didn't notice last night was that the legislation has oozed it's way over to the Senate as an amendment from our good friend Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. The amendment, to S.493, is according to Thomas.gov:

SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011 - Title I: Reauthorization of the SBIR and STTR Programs - (Sec. 101) Amends the Small Business Act (the Act) to reauthorize through FY2019 the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs of the Small Business Administration (SBA).

The SBIR and STTR programs are meant to spur on scientific and technological innovation. How you get that from voting down a scientific finding is beyond me.

Guess, just guess, who's a cosponsor of this lil bit of anti-science?

Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey.

Looks like more evidence supporting the general idea that the GOP is the anti-science party.

Jason Altmire And The EPA

We'll start, yet again, at Chris Potter's slagheap:

[US Rep. Tim] Murphy is among 95 cosponsors of House Resolution 910, the "Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011" being discussed in the House today. As such, he joins such devotees of reason as Michele Bachmann and Joe Barton, the guy who apologized to BP after the gulf oil spill. This is not great company to be in, especially on matters of energy policy and science.

The upshot of the bill, in fact, is to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from acting on the science of climate change. Specificially, the bill bars the agency from issuing "any regulation concerning, tak[ing] action relating to, or tak[ing] into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change." [Link to thomas.gov in original corrected]

Potter says, a paragraph later:

HR 910 is, in fact, all about the power of positive thinking. It seeks to void a series of previous EPA actions, including a 2009 finding that "greenhouses gasses ... endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations." HR 910 formally deems that this finding is "repealed and shall have no legal effect."

Poof! Problem solved! In the unlikely event this bill became law, the EPA couldn't regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses, because the scientific basis for doing so would have been repealed.

Here's the part of the legislation that voids the finding:

(4) CERTAIN PRIOR AGENCY ACTIONS- The following rules and actions (including any supplement or revision to such rules and actions) are repealed and shall have no legal effect:
`(A) ...
`(B) `Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act', published at 74 Fed. Reg. 66496 (December 15, 2009).

And here's the summary of that December, 2009 finding:

The Administrator finds that six greenhouse gases taken in combination endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations. The Administrator also finds that the combined emissions of these greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas air pollution that endangers public health and welfare under CAA section 202(a).

These Findings are based on careful consideration of the full weight of scientific evidence and a thorough review of numerous public comments received on the Proposed Findings published April 24, 2009.

And this is from the overview:

Pursuant to CAA section 202(a), the Administrator finds that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare. Specifically, the Administrator is defining the ‘‘air pollution’’ referred to in CAA section 202(a) to be the mix of six long-lived and directly-emitted greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). In this document, these six greenhouse gases are referred to as ‘‘well-mixed greenhouse gases’’ in this document (with more precise meanings of ‘‘long lived’’ and ‘‘well mixed’’ provided in Section IV.A).

The Administrator has determined that the body of scientific evidence compellingly supports this finding. The major assessments by the U.S. Global Climate Research Program (USGCRP), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the National Research Council (NRC) serve as the primary scientific basis supporting the Administrator’s endangerment finding.

This is what the House Republicans voided by majority vote.

Aye, but it's not only Republicans who are looking to overturn science by legislative fiat.

From the NYTimes:

If there was any doubt about which Democratic House members are worrying most about their re-election prospects in 2012, one only had to look at yesterday's roll call vote on the Republican bill to strip U.S. EPA of its ability to regulate greenhouse gases.

Nineteen moderate and conservative Democrats joined 236 Republicans in supporting the bill, which was sponsored by House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.). Not coincidentally, some had close calls during last year's Republican wave, and most are significant GOP targets in this election cycle.

Guess which conservative Democrat is among those 19?

Pennsylvania Rep. Jason Altmire, who won re-election by 2 percentage points in 2010 and will either be targeted through redistricting or with a tough challenger.

This is disappointing to say the least. Science is science. It simply can't be overturned by a 236 Republicans and 19 Democrats sitting in the United States House of Representatives.