Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Issa Statement on EPA Inspector General Report…

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://oversight.house.gov/

Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Issa Statement on EPA Inspector General Report on Greenhouse Gas Findings

By Juliet Eilperin,

(WASHINGTON)—House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) today released the following statement regarding an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Inspector General report critical of the agency's greenhouse gas findings scientific assessment process:

"The report released today by the Environmental Protection Agency Inspector General validates what the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and others have said about regulations pushed through the Obama EPA: they are done quickly, in a sloppy fashion that seems more intent on forced outcomes than on following the fair and open rulemaking process established by Congress and without consideration for their job-killing implications.

"In tough economic times, every regulatory action has the potential of stifling economic growth and inhibiting job creation. That is especially true when it comes to far-reaching rules promulgated by the EPA governing nearly every aspect of our economy.

"No one questions that the EPA has a key role in ensuring clean air, clean water and protecting our natural resources. But that effort should not be undertaken in haste, without rigorous adherence to the peer review and rulemaking process, including a thorough cost benefit analysis.

…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/issa-probes-epas-role-in-limiting-vehicles-emissions/2011/09/30/gIQATzBjAL_story.html

Issa probes EPA’s role in limiting vehicles’ emissions

By Juliet Eilperin,

The House Oversight Committee is expanding its probe of the Obama administration’s rules limiting greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks, according to a letter it sent to the head of the Environmental Protection Agency.

The investigation led by committee chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) reflects the ongoing battle between House leaders and the administration over the extent to which EPA can address climate change without congressional input.

In the 13-page letter committee sent Friday to EPA administrator Lisa P. Jackson, Issa suggested that by pressing ahead with regulations to curb greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, Jackson “set in motion a series of events which have led inexorably to the expansion of power exercised by EPA. Not only has this expansion occurred without the express consent of Congress, but it also appears that EPA has successfully avoided scrutiny of its actions by the Judicial branch of government as well.”

The White House has brokered two sets of agreements between automakers and state and federal regulators on fuel economy over the past 21 / 2 years that cut greenhouse gas emissions, both of which have come under fire from Issa and some other congressional Republicans as federal overreach.

…

[Angry Dragon]

1. 'including a thorough cost benefit analysis'

I wonder how much a life is worth to this congressperson.......
If someone is injured by pollution how much does that cost??

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. Benefit-Cost Analysis of Environmental Projects: A Plethora of Systematic Biases

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1655629

Benefit-Cost Analysis of Environmental Projects:
A Plethora of Systematic Biases

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=81479">Philip E. Graves
University of Colorado at Boulder - Department of Economics

August 9, 2010

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1655629##">CESifo Working Paper Series No. 3144

Abstract:
There are many reasons to suspect that benefit-cost analysis applied to environmental policies will result in policy decisions that will reject those environmental policies. The important question, of course, is whether those rejections are based on proper science. The present paper explores sources of bias in the methods used to evaluate environmental policy in the United States, although most of the arguments translate immediately to decision-making in other countries. There are some “big picture” considerations that have gone unrecognized, and there are numerous more minor, yet cumulatively important, technical details that point to potentially large biases against acceptance on benefit-cost grounds of environmental policies that have true marginal benefits greater than true marginal costs, both in net present value terms. It is hoped that the issues raised here will improve future conduct of benefit-cost analyses of environmental policies.

…