EPA’s Gina McCarthy “didn’t mince words” in interview with Rachel Maddow, although Gina’s sense of history isn’t good and her memory is even worse. Consequently, I am writing up a list of the things she said in this interview, along with the many counterpoints to her. Part 2….
4. Gina’s point/ The White House is denying the EPA’s work on climate change, denying the science, denying history:
Counterpoint/ First, anybody who uses the Internet knows they can Google the previous section on Climate Change easily. Seriously, the EPA has been hiding details of the 2 scientific studies from the public and Congress for 17 years, The Harvard Six City Study and the American Cancer Society study, know as ACS II. These two undisclosed studies form the basis for the EPA’s climate change regulations. Also, the EPA never disclosed that 17 of the 20 members of the EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASCA) Ozone panel received $192 millions in grant from the EPA. Finally, you never acknowledged that a key person in the formation of the EPA policy, John Beale, defrauded the EPA and federal government out of $900,00, much of which was done while working for you directly.
There are too many other examples to mention, such as the request for all EPA internal communications with environmental groups, inter-agency and the White House.
5. Gina’s point/ The current EPA is trying “to dismantle the very fabric of the environmental protection that we have relied on to keep our children safe.”
Counterpoint/This is such an exaggeration that I won’t even bother citing chapters and verses.
6. Gina’s point/ Nobody seems to realize that there are costs, but there are benefits, too
Counterpoint/ The EPA during the last administration was never strong on doing Cost/Benefit analysis. For example, the EPA did an early cost/benefit analysis that showed the Clean Power would cost over $8 billion with immediate health benefits approximately $9 million. In fact, the EPA never did another official benefit/benefit analysis, even after the 2015 Harvard /Syracuse Health Study, discussed the ethereal “indirect health benefits,” which would “avoid 3,500 premature deaths, 1700 non-fatal heart attacks, 90,000 asthma attacks in children and 300,000 missed days of work or school.” Did I mention that the Harvard/Syracuse Health study participants received $43 million in grants from the EPA?
Then, there is the matter of the Clean Power Plan’s forecast of robust job creation, with consumers saving $155 billion in energy costs from 2020-2030. Steve]