Research Briefing

Carol Browner Has Long History Of Politicizing Science As She Pushes Obama’s Job-Killing Cap-And-Trade Scheme

OBAMA PROMISED TO RESTORE SCIENCE TO “ITS RIGHTFUL PLACE”: “We Are Restoring Science To Its Rightful Place.  On March 9th, I Signed An Executive Memorandum With A Clear Message: Under My Administration, The Days Of Science Taking A Back Seat To Ideology Are Over.” (President Barack Obama, “Remarks At The National Academy of Sciences,” The White House, 4/27/09)

BUT AS OBAMA PUSHES JOB-KILLING REGULATIONS ON CARBON EMISSIONS …

Dissatisfied With Senate’s Progress On “Cap-And-Trade,” Obama Moves Forward With New Emission Regulations. “Unwilling to wait for Congress to act, the Obama administration announced on Wednesday that it was moving forward on new rules to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from hundreds of power plants and large industrial facilities.” (John M. Broder, “E.P.A. Moves To Curtail Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” The New York Times, 9/30/09)

And Obama’s Energy Czar Carol Browner Threatening More Emission Regulations To Prod Businesses Into Accepting Cap-And-Trade. “‘We also have the reality of EPA, under current law, moving forward...to start the traditional regulatory clock,’ Browner said when asked… about the difficulties of passing the stalled energy/climate bill--which would implement a cap-and-trade carbon emissions scheme--through the Senate.  Starting that ‘clock,’ as Browner puts it, would ‘obviously encourage the business community to raise their voices in Congress’--since businesses could wind up with a less cohesive regulatory scheme, more difficult to comply with in multiple states, if the EPA moves forward on its own.” (Chris Good, “Energy Czar Raises Possibility Of EPA Implementing Cap-And-Trade,” The Atlantic, 10/2/09)

Regulations’ Costs Would “Far Exceed Those Of … Cap And Trade.” “The EPA has now formally made an ‘endangerment finding’ on CO2, which will impose the command-and-control regulations of the Clean Air Act across the entire economy. Because this law was never written to apply to carbon, the costs will far exceed those of a straight carbon tax or even cap and trade …” (Editorial, “The ‘Absurd Results’ Doctrine,” The Wall Street Journal, 10/4/09)

And Dems’ Cap-And-Trade Scheme Could Mean Nearly 1 Million Jobs Lost Per Year. “Overall, a cap-and-trade system that reduces annual GDP by 0.34 percent per year can be expected to reduce U.S. employment by roughly 964,900 jobs per year, reduce household earnings by $37.8 billion, and reduce total U.S. economic output by $136.1 billion.” (Andrew Chamberlain, “Who Pays For Climate Policy?,” Tax Foundation, 3/09)

OBAMA’S ENERGY CZAR HAD HISTORY OF PLACING POLITICS OVER SCIENCE WHILE AT EPA …

Browner Known For “Capricious Rule-Making, Politicized ‘Science’ And Lack Of Accountability” While Leading EPA. “[R]egulatory zealot Carol Browner has established environmental rules that were opposed in some cases even by EPA’s own scientists. We’ve had enough of the Browner gang’s capricious rule-making, politicized ‘science’ and lack of accountability.” (Editorial, “EPA -- Clean It Up,” The Cincinnati Enquirer, 12/26/00)

Browner’s EPA Committed To Conclusions Before Research Had Even Begun.  “EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun, adjusted scientific procedure and scientific norms to validate the agency’s public conclusion, and aggressively utilized authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict Plaintiff’s products and to influence public opinion.” (J.R. Clark, “EPA Corrupting Science For Political Purposes,” Chattanooga Free Press, 10/11/98)

Misuse of Science “Well Known” In Browner’s EPA. “EPA’s abuse and misuse of science is no surprise and well known to those who follow the agency closely.” (“Commentary: Political Science At The EPA,” The Electricity Daily, 6/19/00)

Browner’s Tenure Was “Most Politicized EPA” In History. Director of Michigan’s Department of Environmental Quality Russell J. Harding: “This is by far the most politicized EPA I’ve seen in my three decades of working in state governments … It is an agency driven more by sound bites than by sound science.” (Pranay Gupte and Bonner R. Cohen, “Carol Browner, Master Of Mission Creep,” Forbes, 10/20/97)

In 2000, After “Abysmal” Browner Performance, Paper Questioned If EPA Should Be Abolished. “When the Clinton administration arrived in Washington in 1993, there was considerable interest in elevating EPA to cabinet status. From the abysmal performance of the agency under Administrator Carol Browner, one wonders whether the question today shouldn’t be: why not abolish the EPA?” (“Commentary: Political Science At The EPA,” The Electricity Daily, 6/19/00)

FIRING DISSENTERS, IGNORING SCIENTISTS, AND USING TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO FUND CONGRESSIONAL LOBBYING EFFORTS

Six EPA Scientists Lost Jobs For Disagreeing With EPA. “EPA has had to reverse previous policies found to be scientifically flawed and to amend statistical ‘errors’ it used to argue for new policies. And it has a habit of punishing those who dare point out its flaws. Two years ago, six EPA scientists lost their jobs after writing a letter to a newspaper saying that EPA regulations ‘stand to harm rather than protect public health and the environment.’” (Editorial, “EPA -- Clean It Up,” The Cincinnati Enquirer, 12/26/00)

And Browner Refused EPA Scientist’s Findings On Drinking Water. NPR’s Bob Edwards: “A federal court earlier this year overturned an Environmental Protection Agency rule regarding a chemical in drinking water. The decision was made after EPA administrator Carol Browner declined to follow the findings of the agency’s own scientists as to what was safe.” (NPR’s Morning Edition, National Public Radio, 7/27/00)

Browner’s EPA Directed Taxpayer Dollars To “Ostensibly Apolitical Organizations” To Lobby Congress. “The EPA has also benefited from giving taxpayer dollars to ostensibly apolitical organizations. Earlier this year it was disclosed that the EPA funded the National Parent Teachers Association (PTA) in order to develop support for EPA regulatory programs. According to an internal Agency memo obtained by the newsletter EPA Watch, funds from the EPA’s Office of Radon would fund a ‘cooperative agreement’ with the association. For its part, the PTA will produce ‘an environmental awareness newsletter that will potentially reach millions of PTA members nationwide.’ This would benefit the EPA because, according to the memo, ‘the newsletter will include environmental buzz words, terms and definitions, hotlines, and news items.’ The memo concluded that ‘the PTA could become a major ally for the agency in preventing Congress from slashing our budget, but their voices need to be heard.’” (Jonathan Adler, “Environmental Protection Payoffs,” The Washington Times, 5/24/96)

And In 1995, EPA Scientists Were Advised By Supervisors To Lobby Congress Against Specific Legislation. “On Mar. 15, 1995 David Lewis, an EPA scientist attached to the agency’s laboratory in Athens, Ga., was told by his supervisor that EPA employees with connections to members of Congress should use their influence to sway lawmakers against a bill proposed by Representative Clifford Stearns (R-Fla.) -- if it could be done ‘without getting into trouble.’ Stearns’ bill would have reduced funding for EPA. The scientist later said in a deposition: ‘We were being asked to do this during government business hours, and the purpose was to protect EPA funding levels.’” (Pranay Gupte and Bonner R. Cohen, “Carol Browner, Master Of Mission Creep,” Forbes, 10/20/97)