The Science on Global Warming

Following lobbying by ExxonMobil, the State Department successfully opposed the re-appointment of a leading U.S. climatologist to the top position on the preeminent international global warming study panel.

When President Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions, he promised the American people that “my Administration’s climate change policy will be science-based.”[1] In fact, however, the Bush Administration has repeatedly manipulated scientific committees and suppressed science in this area.

Chair of International Science Panel
In early 2002, the State Department successfully opposed the re-appointment of a leading U.S. climatologist to the top position on the preeminent international global warming study panel.[2]

Dr. Robert Watson had been chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since 1996. An internationally respected scientist and recipient of numerous awards and honors, Dr. Watson had been the Director of the Science Division at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and chief scientist at the World Bank. Under his leadership, the IPCC had produced a report predicting an increase of 2.5 to 10.5 degrees Fahrenheit in average global temperatures by 2100[3] and concluding that “[t]here is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.”[4] These conclusions were affirmed by the National Academy of Sciences.[5]

After the release of the 2001 report, ExxonMobil lobbied the Bush administration for Dr. Watson’s ouster. A February 6, 2001 memo sent by ExxonMobil to John Howard of the Council on Environmental Quality at the White House criticized Dr. Watson and asked, “Can Watson be replaced now at the request of the U.S.?”[6] ExxonMobil opposes the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to global warming and gives over a million dollars a year to groups that question the existence of global warming.[7]

Subsequently, the State Department opposed Dr. Watson’s reelection to head the panel. The Department gave no scientific rationale for this decision. In April 2002, lacking the support of his home country, Dr. Watson lost his position as chair.[8]

One leading researcher, Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University, commented to Science: “It is scandalous . . . . This is an invasion of narrow political considerations into a scientific process.”[9]

Information about Global Warming
The Bush Administration has also suppressed scientific evidence on global warming. In September 2002, the section on global warming was removed from an annual report on the state of air pollution.[10] Then, in June 2003, the Administration published a supposedly “comprehensive” report on the environment without any information on climate change. According to EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman, the Draft Report on the Environment used “the most sophisticated science ever” and represented “a comprehensive roadmap to ensure that all Americans have cleaner air, purer water and better protected land.”[11] However, this report contained no information on global warming. Instead, the document stated, “This report does not attempt to address the complexities of this issue.”[12]

Politics, not the complexities of science, led to the deletion of the section on global warming. The New York Times reported that when an earlier draft of the report containing a section on global warming was sent to the White House, the President’s advisors demanded major revisions. [13] Specifically, the White House opposed mention of research demonstrating sharp increases in global temperature over the past decade compared to the previous millennium. The White House even objected to the reference to a National Academy of Sciences report on the human contribution to global warming that the White House itself had requested and that had been endorsed by President Bush in speeches that year.[14] Administration officials replaced these sections with a reference to a study funded by the American Petroleum Institute questioning climate change evidence.[15]

The White House even sought to replace the scientifically indisputable statement that “[c]limate change has global consequences for human health and the environment” with a statement about the “complexity of the Earth system and the interconnections among its components.”[16]

An internal EPA memorandum circulated during the editing process noted that after these changes, the section “no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change.”[17] Another memo stated that by accepting the White House changes, “E.P.A. will take responsibility and severe criticism from the science and environmental communities for poorly representing the science.”[18]

In the end, EPA officials chose to eliminate the section on global warming entirely. Russell Train, who served as EPA Administrator to Presidents Nixon and Ford, wrote in a letter to the New York Times:

I can state categorically that there never was such White House intrusion into the business of the E.P.A. during my tenure. The E.P.A. was established as an independent agency in the executive branch, and so it should remain. There appears today to be a steady erosion in its independent status. I can appreciate the president’s interest in not having discordant voices within his Administration. But the interest of the American people lies in having full disclosure of the facts, particularly when the issue is one with such potentially enormous damage to the long-term health and economic well-being of all of us.[19]

Analyses Requested by Congress
EPA has long had the important role of providing technical support to Congress by analyzing proposed legislation upon request. During the Bush Administration, however, EPA has refused to conduct or release analysis of several key pieces of legislation related to greenhouse gases that are opposed by the Administration.

President Bush has proposed the Clear Skies Act, which would reduce emissions of three pollutants from power plants but would not regulate carbon dioxide, a key greenhouse gas. In July 2002, Senator Thomas Carper of Delaware introduced competing legislation that sets tighter emissions limits and includes carbon dioxide.[20] Senator Carper requested that EPA provide a detailed analysis of his legislation, as it had done for Clear Skies, to enable Congress to compare the two approaches.

EPA, however, refused to release its analysis of Senator Carper’s bill for months. When the agency finally released some information, it limited the report to the costs of the bill, continuing to withhold the information on benefits.[21] EPA’s complete analysis, which was not released, showed that Senator Carper’s legislation would be more effective and only slightly more expensive than the President’s Clear Skies Act. Specifically, it projected that Senator Carper’s bill would reduce emissions to levels lower than those projected under the Clear Skies Act, cost only two-tenths of a cent per kilowatt hour more than the President’s plan, and save 17,800 more lives, as well as including controls on carbon dioxide.[22]

In addition, EPA has refused to complete an analysis that could demonstrate the feasibility of controlling greenhouse gas emissions. Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman have introduced legislation to establish national mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions. The Bush Administration opposes this legislation. In the past, EPA has analyzed numerous proposals for regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, and the Senators specifically requested EPA to analyze the costs and benefits of their bill. However, the Administration blocked the completion of the EPA analysis, which preliminarily found a $1 billion to $2 billion impact to the economy, in favor of an Energy Department study, which concluded that the impact would be $106 billion.[23]

Commenting on EPA’s refusals, William Ruckelshaus, the first EPA Administrator under President Nixon, told the New York Times:

Whether or not analysis is released is based on at least two factors . . . . Is the analysis flawed? That is a legitimate reason for not releasing it. But if you don’t like the outcome that might result from the analysis, that is not a legitimate reason.[24]

[1] White House, President’s Statement on Climate Change (July 13, 2001) (online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/07/20010713-2.html).

[2] Battle Over IPCC Chair Renews Debate on U.S. Climate Policy, Science (Apr. 12, 2002).

[3] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Summary for Policymakers (2001) (online at http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/008.htm).

[4] Id. at Preface (online at http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/004.htm).

[5] National Academy of Sciences, Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (2001).

[6] Memo from Randy Randol, ExxonMobil Washington Office, to John Howard, White House Council on Environmental Quality (Feb. 6, 2001) (online at http://www.nrdc.org/media/docs/020403.pdf).

[7] Exxon Backs Groups That Question Global Warming, New York Times (May 28, 2003).

[8] Global Warming Official Out, Atlanta Journal-Constitution (Apr. 20, 2002).

[9] Battle over IPCC Chair Renews Debate on U.S. Climate Policy, Science (Apr. 12, 2002).

[10] Jeremy Symons, How Bush and Co. Obscure the Science, Washington Post (July 13, 2003).

[11] EPA, EPA Announces Unprecedented First “Draft Report on the Environment” (June 23, 2003).

[12] EPA, Draft Report on the Environment 2003, 1-11 (online at http://www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/html/roeAirGlo.htm).

[13] Report by E.P.A. Leaves out Data on Climate Change, New York Times (June 19, 2003).

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] Id.

[17] Id.

[18] Id.

[19] Russell E. Train, When Politics Trumps Science (Letter to the Editor), New York Times (June 21, 2003).

[20] S. 3135, 107th Cong. (2002).

[21] EPA Withholds Air Pollution Analysis, Washington Post (July 1, 2003).

[22] Id.

[23] New Estimates on Senate Carbon Dioxide Plans, New York Times (July 30, 2003).

[24] Critics Say E.P.A. Won’t Analyze Clean Air Proposals Conflicting with President’s Policies, New York Times (July 14, 2003).