A refreshing editorial from Bloomberg:
… Moreover, it’s impossible to know for sure whether ozone causes death. The EPA cites a review by the National Research Council that said ozone exposure is “likely” to “contribute” to premature death. But the review of studies doesn’t establish causality with certainty. Rather, it leans on human tests showing ill effects from exposure to ozone at doses much higher than current standards allow and on observational studies that attempt to draw a correlation between ozone levels and health data.
Many such studies show a positive association between elevated ozone levels and ill health, yet quite a few show no association or an inverse one. In its report, the National Research Council stresses the uncertainty of its finding and urges the EPA to conduct further work before drawing conclusions from it…
I started doing the environmental management bit 30 years ago. During that time the EPA has piled on rule after rule with no better than flimsy evidence. This is an inevitable result of this long and drawn out process. It is happening faster because the far left Obaminites know that they only have one term to break all the eggs. We will not have the political will power to unbreak them.
The EPA is the poster child for government abuse, and the perfect reason to cut the federal government’s spending by 40% or more.
There is not a single function the EPA provides that could not be better provided by the various State’s EPAs, agencies which are both accountable for and not immune for their actions.
As the old adage goes, “Even a blind dog sometimes finds a bone.”
The public review process of EPA proposed rules is stacked in EPA’s favor. These rules receive as much “peer” review by realist scientists as the U.N. IPCC AR’s. Who, beside federally funded agencies, has the time and the money to review the myriad health risk assessments and economic analyses? EPA knowingly exploits this by using the “pal” review process by solely using input from their friends at the ALA. Congress must find a way to make the public review process a true debate instead of a one-sided rubber stamping exercise of friend’s studies. Perhaps after each public review process is complete then Ms. Jackson should be required to testify before Congress to justify changing NAAQS by providing real world proof of health benefits along with those who find just cause for dissent. This is true for the fine PM standard as well. Even then, who has the time and resources to bring an opposing argument? Federal funding goes only to institutions in the tank for EPA. The whole system is stacked in EPA’s favor.