The consequences of treating Orwellian “double speak” as “science”.

In our most recent comment, we discuss three scientific studies that show how the EPA has been able to dramatically improve the quality of life for and the health of millions of Americans. See, e.g., An Association Between Air Pollution and Mortality in Six U.S. Cities, The New England Journal of Medicine (Six Cities Study); Particulate Air Pollution as a Predictor of Mortality in a Prospective Study of U.S. Adults, Am J Respir Crit Care Med Vol 151. pp 669-674, 1995 (151 Cities Study); Reanalysis of the Harvard Six Cities Study and the American Cancer Society of Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality, Particle Epidemiology Reanalysis Project © 2000 Health Effects Institute, Cambridge MA [includes all three studies]  The proposed regulation undercuts “good science” while promoting “junk science”. Put another way, the EPA seeks to undo years of progress under the guise of encouraging scientific “transparency”.

The consequences of the weighty scientific evidence are three-fold. First, the evidence that the proposed regulation is bad compels the conclusion that the proposal should be rejected on the merits. Second, the arbitrary and capricious proposal violates the APA. Third, given that there is no non-frivolous argument that any categorical NEPA exclusion could apply (see our joint comment dated May 24, 2018,, an EIS that fully discloses the environmental impact of the proposal is required by NEPA.

Ironically, the most transparent aspect of the proposed rule is its nefarious motive.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s