The Senate Appropriations Committee is expected to vote this week on whether or not to undercut the EPA’s intention to regulate greenhouse gasses.  The specific wording of the amendment is not known, but support from both Republicans and moderate Democrats is likely to make it pass.  While it should be under the purview of the legislature make such laws, of concern here is more the way it is being accomplished.

The Clean Air Act (PDF) is the responsibility of the EPA to administer.  Section 202(a) of the act provides for the agency to classify new pollutants to be regulated based on studies done by the National Academy of Sciences, and also requires those findings to be submitted to the House.  The House of Representatives is within its right to reject those findings.  In fact, that was attempted back in June, and the motion failed.

Of concern is the wording of the specific motion.  The motion rejected the finding that CO2 poses an endangerment and that there is a human cause or contribution to greenhouse gas levels.  In essence, they’re trying to rule on the validity of the science.  They are saying they reject the National Academy of Sciences results and even reject the 2007 Supreme Court ruling that found carbon dioxide a pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. It seems that refuting all that data and analysis should require a bit more than a vote.

It would be one thing if the Congress changed the Clean Air Act to specifically exclude greenhouse gasses or if they changed the process by which new pollutants are identified.  But that is not the tack being taken.  The Senate is trying a similar end-around by hobbling an appropriations bill.  Again, basically saying to the EPA they are thwarting their legal ability and obligations to use the best environmental science available to make policy.

There are certainly ample political reasons to sometimes ignore science.  Fine.  Say that.  But discounting or demonizing science for political ends needs to stop.  Science is not subject to legislation.  It’s one thing to make the case that we cannot afford to deal with greenhouse gasses right now.  It’s another entirely to claim greenhouse gasses are not putting us at risk.