Mike Thinks: EPA CASAC Data Needs To Be Cast Into Perspective

The Trump administration is very good at capturing small victories and casting them in the light of significant 'rollbacks of the Obama administration.' As a viewer and a voter, each of us should be aware of what a victory means. How does an administration cast a small win as a large victory? A significant win would be to totally rollback the Clean Water Act instituted by the Obama administration. The problem, as I have explained in previous blog posts (see bottom of the blog post), is that to 'rollback' an existing regulation, a better law needs to be proposed.

What am I talking about concerning environmental victories touted by the Trump administration?

The small victories won in the courts (which are few) have been a re-evaluation of the methods used to calculate pollution. Pollution defined broadly as GHG, water pollution, air pollution, particulate matter, etc. What scientific methods (i.e., experimental models) are used to calculate the distribution of pollution in the environment? The models can vary depending on the parameters entered into the models. Can one scientific model differ widely from another and be accepted? Most likely not.

Why?

Each model needs to be explained in court if challenged. At the very least, before that occurs, models are tested in Congressional hearings when approved by either governing body with testimony from the current Environmental Protection Agency Administrator in power at the time.

According to Politico Energy, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler has successfully undermined science with the following ruling on the particulate matter:

EPA SCIENCE ADVISERS GRAPPLE WITH KEY AIR RULE: This week could prove to be a tipping point in Wheeler's effort to reshape how his agency uses science in rulemakings — or what his critics call a "war on science." The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, whose seven members are all Wheeler or Scott Pruitt appointees, will meet in North Carolina today and Friday to discuss the science underlying EPA's review of the particulate matter standard.

Why it's important: Most of the meeting will consist of dry debate over wonky issues, but the panel may ultimately give Wheeler justification to avoid imposing new regulations on polluting sources like power plants and cars. "They're laying the groundwork that provides Administrator Wheeler the political cover to retain the standard," said Gretchen Goldman of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

At issue is a lengthy report written by EPA scientists that concluded recent science supports lowering the annual exposure limit for fine particulate matter, or PM2.5, by as much as one-third. Several outside groups have supported that finding, including the dismissed group of experts who continued their work anyway (Goldman and UCS helped organize that effort). But as Pro's Alex Guillén reported , two CASAC members with a history of pushing back on regulations tightening air quality limits have already indicated they disagree with the EPA report and don't see public health benefits from lowering the standard.

Federal courts give major credence to CASAC's recommendations , so if the two skeptical members can win over others, a recommendation to simply retain the current standard could give Wheeler a shield against future legal attacks. "The question is whether they're going to win over the other CASAC members at the meeting this week," Goldman said.