Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- Five Facts About America's Pathological Wealth Distribution
- Obamacare Architect Leaves White House for Pharmaceutical Industry Job
- A Sign That Obama Will Repeat Economic Mistakes
- A Time-Lapse Map of Every Nuclear Explosion Between 1945-1998
- Local Hero: Trump Nemesis and Feisty Farmer Wins Top Scot of the Year Award
Popular content
Today's Top News
Warming Is Major Threat To Humans, EPA Warns
WASHINGTON - Climate change will pose "substantial" threats to human health in the coming decades, the Environmental Protection Agency said yesterday -- issuing its warnings about heat waves, hurricanes and pathogens just days after the agency declined to regulate the pollutants blamed for warming.
In a new report, the EPA said "it is very likely" that more people will die during extremely hot periods in future years -- and that the elderly, the poor and those in inner cities will be most at risk.
Other possible dangers include more powerful hurricanes, shrinking supplies of fresh water in the West, and the increased spread of diseases contracted through food and water, the agency said.
The strong warnings highlighted the contorted position that the EPA has staked out on climate change. Last week, the agency decided not to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, at least not until after President Bush's term ends.
A former EPA official told a House panel this week that senior administration officials and several Cabinet members supported regulating the emissions before the White House changed course and barred the EPA from concluding that they endanger public welfare.
In a closed interview Tuesday, former EPA deputy associate administrator Jason K. Burnett told the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming that Joel D. Kaplan, Bush's deputy chief of staff for policy, originally signed off on the decision to regulate emissions from both vehicles and stationary sources such as power plants and refineries. The decision came in response to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that instructed the administration to determine whether carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases should be regulated under the Clean Air Act.
"There was a general belief that moving forward with a challenge and establishing a precedent in channeling regulation would serve the country better than leaving the challenge to the next administration," Burnett said in the interview, according to a transcript obtained by The Washington Post. "The chief of staff's office then appears to have changed its mind."
Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who chairs the House panel, said in a statement: "Today typifies the climate-change schizophrenia in the Bush administration. On one hand, government scientists are saying that global warming poses grave threats to our health and our welfare, and, on the other hand, [there] are White House political hacks following the oil industry's bidding to do nothing."
The EPA report yesterday was less notable for its warnings -- similar problems have been predicted by other scientists and by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- than for its source. The Bush administration has resisted the conclusion that increasing temperatures will harm human health, but in yesterday's report, that finding was unmistakable.
"We . . . anticipate substantial human health impacts," the document said.
In the West, it found, changing weather patterns could thin snowpack that feeds rivers, affecting hydroelectric dams and water supplies. In coastal areas, it could bring a sea-level rise that eats away at dry land and storm surges that can wash it away in a flash.
In Washington and other Eastern cities, the report said, a warmer climate is likely to produce more bad-air days, because heat speeds up the process by which exhaust byproducts are cooked into smog. The report also found that rising temperatures are likely to mean more periods of sustained summer heat.
"It's going to be hotter, it's going to be hotter sooner in the year than it was in the past," said Kristie Ebi, an Alexandria-based consultant and one of the report's authors.
She said that young people living in the D.C. area now will notice a difference before they reach middle age. "They're going to look back and think back about how nice the summers used to be," she said. "Within 20, 30 years, on average, the [public] should notice that it's warmer."
The report was prepared under the EPA's leadership but released by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, which coordinates research among several federal agencies. Joel D. Scheraga of the EPA's Global Change Research Program said that there was no political interference in the report's findings or the timing of its release.
"The answer is unequivocally 'no,' " he said.
EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar said there was no conflict between the warnings in the report and the agency's conclusion last week that regulation should be put off.
"Climate change is a serious problem that our nation needs to address. But we need to address it correctly," Shradar said.
Last Friday, the EPA announced that it would solicit comments on the idea of regulating greenhouse gases under the federal Clean Air Act. But at the same time it released a lengthy preamble, with messages from EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson and four other Cabinet members, saying that this idea was ill-advised.
Burnett said that this, too, was ordered by administration officials: "We were told . . . that the [document] should not establish a path forward or a framework for regulation, but should emphasize the complexity of the challenge."
He also told the panel that senior EPA officials met with representatives from Exxon Mobil, the American Petroleum Institute, and the National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association, who argued that Bush should not undermine his legacy by regulating greenhouse gases.
White House spokesman Tony Fratto said yesterday that the EPA administrator chose his course on his own.
"Steve Johnson, as he has said repeatedly, and in sworn testimony, made his own decision," Fratto said. "And so whatever anyone's views were at that time are fairly irrelevant because the administrator chose to go a different route."
© 2008 The Washington Post Company
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

64 Comments so far
Show AllGreat info rumiluv.
Thanks Kem, you should see this hat, it's a caramel coloured Panama with a jaunty red feather.
GLOBAL WARMING DOES NOT MEAN THE GLOBE IS UNIFORMLY HEATING UP.
THEREALWOOD writes: "...I personally prefer global warming to global cooling but I must be crazy."
Global warming DOES NOT mean the globe is uniformly heating up. Global warming is short for GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE INCREASE. It's the temperatures in every country, in every region - plus the temperatures of the atmosphere above the seas and oceans - added together, and then the MEAN found.
Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of averages understands that this means some parts of the world may witness very hot weather, while other parts may see temperatures plummet.
"Global warming" for some, "Global cooling" for others. Enjoy! :)
liberal with an attitude writes: "People need to get it through their thick skulls that this thing is a serious Code Red right now. Not tomorrow, not 10 years from now."
"OMG! IMMINENT DESTRUCTION!" It's this attitude that is making me see CommonDreams as nothing but a bunch of extreme lefties screaming "THE END IS NIGH" about anything and everything. And that's quite something given that my views are considered left-wing.
Bombing Iran was meant to be the end of the world as we know it - Oh, hang on, though, Iran hasn't been bombed yet, has it?
I would have thought that after Americans screamed "IMMINENT DESTRUCTION IF WE DON'T BOMB THE HELL OUT OF IRAQ AND MASSACRE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN", calmer heads would now prevail.
Clearly not!
Well, I'd better go out now - while there's still time! - and get my gravestone carved. :)
All pertinent concerns maybe found here.
http://www.theonion.com/content/infograph/climate_changes_security
Kem - Thank you for pointing out MiMi's oft repeated erroneous and misleading 'science' that comes from oil industry mouthpieces. I swear, MiMi 'cherry picks' climate data the way Bushco did with Middle East intelligence data.
Not to mention that MiMi is a hard core 'Bomb Bomb' McCain supporter...
staying sane,
do some research, go read scientific american and learn the effects of global warming, theres a very good article in this months rolling stone about the melting of greenland, all of this has very serious implications, you may think its a joke but its already happening, the crab population in the pacific nw has washed up dead on the shore, this effects much more than the weather, disease, famine, droughts, floods. do some research and then when informed lend your input.....
baruch July 19 5:09am
That piece on narcissism and binary thinking you wrote on your linked site from above is a little gem. It concisely goes to the center of what we need to be confronting and changing about ourselves as increasingly wayward creatures.
I see that you're a retired psychotherapist on sabbatical in Italy, but I hope you'll return to the states at some point and consider re-opening your practice in Washington, D.C. instead of Vermont.
Actually, Americans direly need someone of your talents in an officially created position, right in the center of the Empire: Psychotherapist General. But one thing at a time.
You're a credit to the human race. Keep writing at least...
We should rename the EPA to DOH! (the Department of Hypocrisy).
"It's going to be hotter, it's going to be hotter sooner in the year than it was in the past," - I think that this fact has already been established a long time ago. There does not need to be scientific data to establish this. If you pay attention you will notice the changes already. Hell, I can look back now and say 15 years ago the weather was a lot more stable, moderate and predictable, scientific data only tell us why this is so.
Hotter? Thank you Al Gore for the nice graphics and pictures that put the data into an understandable presentation for the neanderthals and simians like me, or is that Simeon - same difference.
"Bush should not undermine his legacy by regulating greenhouse gases" - WHAT LEGACY? 1. Worst president ever; 2. Single handed (Cheney as the puppet-master) destruction of the constitution; 3. Destruction of the Iraqi nation. 4. Destruction of the U.S. economy, etc... I see no notable "legacy" that needs to be protected. We can also add delayed any attempt to protect the planet's inhabitants for the dangers of green house gasses once the threat was discovered - Hmmm, looks like he did a similar thing before on 9/11.
"George W. Bush was the Homer Simpson of the American Presidential legacy". - You can quote me on that.
I just could not resist the Homer Simpson comments - DOH!
Okay, I'm done.
If you read the book 'The Last Generation' you will find a quote from Bush's climate science advisor.
"We are on a greased slope to hell."
By distinction, Tom Brokaw's Bush-era book, 'The Greatest Generation,' helped to foster the fatal illusion that America, really, had nothing to worry about.
If we are indeed on a "...greased slope to hell," as even Bush's own inner circle dissenters say, it would certainly now be fair to ask the maudlin patriot Brokaw: did the slide into mindlessness self-destruction of Post WW II America begin as the gift of inattention from our fathers and mothers? Or more likely did it begin by the overvaluation of their single-dimensioned duty - by a long line of subsequent flag waivers like you?
As one who has been observing the decline of our planet for six decades ... it is sad. I have traveled and seen a lot. The clearest piece for me is to see the places of my childhood change from butterfly and bee friendly places to places of hot concrete/asphalt - places hostile to life. The planet itself is tending toward the direction of the slums of India. Its scary and sad. I guess the "ideal" is presently seen to be a combination of competing gigantic cities (covered by bubbles so the air there is breathable?) surrounded by surrounding slums (without bubbles), and with the rest either enormous mega-farm factories producing pseudo-food or "waste sites" that are too polluted to support any healthy life.(Maybe a "bone" will be thrown in the form of token "natural areas" that are struggling not to be overcome by the envelope of pollution covering the planet. I guess that's the "good" scenario. The other is a less pleasant prospect, I guess. Gotta keep that grin on, though!
Thank you Common Dreams for contributing to this priority subject. I hope we will see many more articles on global warming and the related energy crisis. Thanks again
Do you want to help and be part of the solution?
Join "WE" . Go to www.wecansolveit.org
Thank you Common Dreams