Heksenjacht is begonnen; veel kranten misten deze "zaak", maar de machtige US KVK heeft de net zo machtige EPA nu wel in een houdgreep. EPA mag kiezen:public trial of rechtzaak. Zie NY Times bericht:
The nation's largest business group is asking U.S. EPA to hold a public debate on climate change science -- or face litigation -- as the agency prepares to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.
In April, EPA said it planned to declare that emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride from new automobiles and their engines contribute to air pollution that endangers public health and welfare. The proposal, which does not include any regulations, comes in response to the Supreme Court's 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA ruling.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a 21-page petition with EPA today, asking the agency to approve an on-the-record proceeding with an independent trier of fact who would allow EPA and environmental and business groups to engage in a "credible weighing" of the scientific evidence that global warming endangers human health.
EPA has hosted two public hearings and received more than 300,000 public comments on the matter already.
"They don't have the science to support the endangerment finding," Bill Kovacs, the chamber's vice president for environment, regulatory and government affairs, said in an interview. "We can't just take their word for it."
Kovacs envisions the EPA proceeding as a modern-day "Scopes Monkey Trial," where the science of global warming -- rather than evolution versus creationism -- would be debated. The 1925 trial, which pitted prominent defense attorney Clarence Darrow against three-time presidential candidate Williams Jennings Bryan, centered on the prosecution of John Scopes for violating a Tennessee law by teaching evolution in a high school classroom.
Much is at stake in the modern climate change debate. Declaring greenhouse gases as pollutants from automobiles would trigger Clean Air Act regulation of other emission sources, such as power plants and oil refineries, Kovacs said.
"An endangerment finding would make EPA the regulator of the U.S. economy," he warned.
EPA Deputy Press Secretary Brendan Gilfillan rejected the chamber's claims. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson based her proposed endangerment finding on "the soundest peer-reviewed science available, which overwhelmingly indicates that climate change presents a threat to human health and welfare," he said.
"While she knows the rigorous process would stand up to any frivolous legal challenge, the administrator doesn't think a new Scopes trial is the best way to move America forward on this issue," Gilfillan added.
Litigation is a "certainty," regardless of EPA's next move, Kovacs said.
If EPA denies the chamber's petition for climate science debate, the 3-million-member business group would have 60 days to challenge the decision, Kovacs said. The chamber would have an equal amount of time in which to challenge EPA's final endangerment finding.
EPA is reviewing the public comments and preparing the final rule, Gilfillan said.
"What we're calling for is real transparency," Kovacs said. "They have taken the position that they want integrity in science."
