E-mails obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency show that Harvard University, Syracuse University and two of their researchers appear to have falsely claimed a study supporting EPA\u2019s upcoming global warming rules was conducted \u201cindependent(ly)\u201d of the agency.<\/p>\n
In early May, a study published in the journal Nature Climate Change purported to support a key EPA claim about its forthcoming global warming rules aimed at coal-fired power plants. The New York Times\u2019 headline, \u201cEPA Emissions Plan Will Save Thousands of Lives, Study Finds,\u201d typified the media coverage.<\/p>\n
Across the media, the authors were innocuously described as simply university-affiliated \u201cresearchers.\u201d After all, the researchers had declared they had \u201cno competing financial interests\u201d in their study. Both universities had issued media releases heralding the study as the \u201cfirst independent, peer-reviewed paper of its kind.\u201d<\/p>\n
Study co-author Charles Driscoll of Syracuse University told the Buffalo News, \u201cI\u2019m an academic, not a politician. I don\u2019t have a dog in this fight.\u201d The claim of independence was also emphatically asserted by study co-author Jonathan Buonocore of Harvard University. \u201cThe EPA, which did not participate in the study or interact with its authors, Buonocore says, roundly welcomed its findings.\u201d<\/p>\n
But a closer look at these claims of independence raises serious doubts.<\/p>\n
An online search of EPA\u2019s web site revealed that Syracuse\u2019s Driscoll has previously involved as a principal investigator in studies that received over $3.6 million in research grants from EPA. Co-author Dallas Burtraw, a researcher at the think tank Resources for the Future, had been involved in previous EPA grants totaling almost $2 million. Harvard co-author Jonathan I. Levy had been involved in over $9.5 million worth of grants. Co-author Joel Schwartz, also of Harvard, had been previously involved in over $31 million worth of grants from EPA.<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
Intrigued by Bounocore\u2019s odd assertion of absolutely no involvement with EPA, I submitted a request to EPA under the Freedom of Information Act for email between the study authors and EPA staff.<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
The emails reveal that study co-authors Driscoll, Buonocore, Schwartz and Harvard\u2019s Kathy Lambert were definitely in contact with key EPA staff regarding this research.<\/p>\n
A July 8, 2014 email shows Lambert arranging a conference call with EPA staff to get EPA\u2019s input on the study. One of the EPA staff involved was the contact person for agency\u2019s Clean Power Plan cost-benefit analysis. A subsequent e-mail shows that the top EPA staffer on the Clean Power Plan cost-benefit analysis was added to the call.<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
A November 7, 2014 e-mail from Lambert to EPA about the study reads, \u201cWe would like to follow back up with you by phone to discuss possible next steps in this analysis and what role you might be able to play.\u201d<\/p>\n
This issue goes deeper than mere truth-telling. The EPA\u2019s controversial Clean Power Plan hinges on the notion that shuttering coal plants will save lives.<\/p>\n
The EPA\u2019s proposed global warming plan ostensibly focuses on reducing carbon dioxide emissions from coal plants. But the bulk of the alleged benefits of the plan actually arise from collateral projections of lives supposedly saved by reducing coal plant emissions related to particulate matter and ozone.<\/p>\n
As EPA values each life \u201csaved\u201d at about $10 million, the claim that the rules will save 6,600 lives per year puts the rules\u2019 alleged benefits on the order of $66 billion per year, far in excess of industry projections of the rules\u2019 costs.<\/p>\n
These EPA claims, however, are controversial to say the least. A compelling alternate view is that no lives will be saved because, for one reason, EPA\u2019s own extensive clinical research shows that particulate matter and ozone in outdoor air do not kill anyone.<\/p>\n