The OMB takes a poke at the EPA

The following sizable excerpt is taken from the Hill.com:

May 12, 2009
OMB memo raises doubts about EPA findings
@ 4:17 pm by Eric Zimmermann

An EPA finding last month that greenhouse gases are a danger to public health rests on dubious assumptions and could have negative economic impacts, a memo from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) warned.

The memo has no listed author but is marked "Deliberative–Attorney Client Privilege." A spokesman for OMB told Dow Jones Newswires that the brief is a "conglomeration of counsel we've received from various agencies" about the EPA finding, the conclusions of which would trigger regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

The author(s) of the memo suggest the EPA did not thoroughly examine the relationship between greenhouse gases and human health.

"In the absence of a strong statement of the standards being applied in this decision, there is concern that EPA is making a finding based on…'harm' from substances that have no demonstrated direct health effects," the memo says, adding that the "scientific data that purports to conclusively establish" that link was from outside EPA.

Additionally, the new regulations triggered by the finding would likely harm the economy, the brief warns.

"Making the decision to regulate CO2…is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities," the memo reads.

Finally, in language sure to anger climate change activists, the memo questions whether climate change might bring benefits that would mitigate the costs.

"To the extent that climate change alters out environment, it will create incentives for innovation and adaption that mitigate the damages," the memo reads. "The [EPA finding] should note this possibility[.]"

The memo goes so far as to suggest that global warming might be a net positive for certain regions of the United States.

"It might be reasonable to conclude that Alaska will benefit from warmer winters for both health and economic reasons," the authors note."

The OMB seems to be oriented toward data accuracy and has not yet capitulated to political needs for dressing things in different clothes. It would seem that declaring human exhalant to be toxic waste for regulation by the Feds might be a politically stupid maneuver... but who knows for certain?

Perhaps we should watch for a political shake-up in the OMB in order to bring them into the consensus. After all aren't AGW deniers on the Government's terrorist list?