EPA Chief Returns Fire in War Over Science

WASHINGTON, DC - SEPTEMBER 20: Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy addresses a breakfast event at the National Press Club September 20, 2013 in Washington, DC. McCarthy announced that the EPA is proposing regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions, which requires future coal burning power plants to decrease 40 percent of their emission. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
National Journal
Jason Plautz
April 28, 2014, 8:21 a.m.

En­vir­on­ment­al Pro­tec­tion Agency Ad­min­is­trat­or Gina Mc­Carthy fired back in the war over her agency’s sci­ence, slam­ming crit­ics who “man­u­fac­ture un­cer­tain­ties that stop us from tak­ing ur­gently needed cli­mate ac­tion.”

The agency’s sci­entif­ic stud­ies have be­come an in­creas­ingly con­veni­ent tar­get for in­dustry groups and con­gres­sion­al Re­pub­lic­ans bent on stop­ping EPA reg­u­la­tions. Re­pub­lic­ans have sub­poenaed sev­er­al health stud­ies that EPA re­lies on for its air-pol­lu­tion rules, and in­creas­ing at­ten­tion has been heaped on the agency’s sci­entif­ic re­view pan­els.

Speak­ing at the an­nu­al meet­ing of the Na­tion­al Academy of Sci­ences on Monday, Mc­Carthy went after the “small but vo­cal group of crit­ics” who she said were more in­ter­ested in “look­ing to cloud the sci­ence with un­cer­tainty “¦ to keep EPA from do­ing the very job that Con­gress gave us to do.”

Mc­Carthy also touched on the agency’s con­tro­ver­sial use of hu­man test­ing to meas­ure the im­pact of air pol­lu­tion, the sub­ject of a re­cent In­spect­or Gen­er­al re­port that largely said the agency fol­lowed prop­er pro­ced­ure. Crit­ics have said that the hu­man tests put the sub­jects at risk.

In her speech, Mc­Carthy countered that the hu­man tests helped sci­ent­ists to “bet­ter un­der­stand bio­lo­gic­al re­sponses to dif­fer­ent levels of air pol­lut­ants.”

“Sci­ence is real and veri­fi­able,” she said. “With the health of our fam­il­ies and our fu­tures at stake, the Amer­ic­an people ex­pect us to act on the facts, not spend pre­cious time and tax­pay­er money re­fut­ing man­u­fac­tured un­cer­tain­ties.”

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
10 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
11 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×