Multiple Industry-Funded Nominations to EPA's Clean Air Advisory Committee

authordefault
on

This is a guest post byย ClimateDenierRoundup.

Back inย March, and then again inย May, we flagged efforts by Pruitt and the GOP toย bend the knee to the tobacco and fossil fuel industriesย and grant pro-pollution voices even more of a say on science advisory panels. One such panel is the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), which according to its website, โ€œprovides independent advice to the EPA Administrator on the technical bases for EPA‘s National Ambient Air Qualityย Standards.โ€

The nominations for new members of the CASAC are in,ย and while most of the names look like solid scientists (.pdf list here), there are a few with affiliations and funding that might raise some eyebrows. (Fortunately, the public comment period is open, so interested persons have until September 18th to email their concerns to Mr. Aaron Yeow, designated federal officer, atย [email protected].)

A quick scan of the list shows that a handful of nominees disclose funding from theย Health Effects Institute, a public/private project funded half by the auto industry and half by the EPA. There is also an ExxonMobil scientist, Jeffrey Lewis. These affiliations arenโ€™t necessarily bad by default, or make a nominee immediately untrustworthy: there is, after all, some utility in hearing from some honest industryย voices.

We do, however, see three nominees whoย shouldย be ringing alarm bells: Louis Anthony Cox Jr., Deane Waldman and S. Stanley Young.ย ย 

Private consultant Louis Anthony Cox Jr. has produced a number of studies casting doubt on the benefits of theย Clean Air Actโ€™s PM2.5ย andย ozoneย standardsย for public health. Though heโ€™s worked with respectable groups like the National Academies, National Research Council and EPA in the past, heโ€™s also done multiple projects for corporate interests like the American Petroleum Institute (disclosed here), smoking giant Philip Morris International, fossil fuel lobby groups like the Western States Petroleum Association and Western Oil and Gas Association, and for other special interest groups like the National Mining Association and National Pork Board (disclosed here .pdf). Perhaps most troublingly, Cox has alsoย testified in Congressย in support of the Secret Science Act, which was (andย new iterations continue to be) strongly opposed byย mainstream science groups.

Then thereโ€™sย Deane Waldman. Waldmanโ€™s curiously short bio ends by stating that his goal as a member of the advisory board would be to make sure the EPA policies are โ€œbased on reliable scienceโ€ that can โ€œdirectly connect Clean Air standards to the health status of Americans.โ€ If that sounds like industry-funded doublespeak, that may be because Waldman is theย directorย of theย Koch/Exxon/tobacco industry-fundedย Texas Public Policy Centerโ€™s Public Health Center. His relative lack of commendable credentials and paycheck from big business calls into question his interpretation of โ€œreliableย science.โ€

Finally, thereโ€™s S. Stanley Young, who is affiliated with theย industry-funded Heartland Institute. He also serves as an advisor to the American Council on Science and Health, which as far back asย 1979 was described by the FDAโ€™s information directorย as โ€œa sham, an industry front.โ€ Per the bio, Youngโ€™s recent research was funded by theย deceptiveย andย fossilfuelย backedย National Black Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleumย Institute.

Bringing Youngโ€™s worrisome credentials home for regular Climate Denier Roundup readers, Young teamed up earlier this year with JunkScienceโ€™sย Steve Milloy toย attack the NAS on PM2.5ย research. If Young makes it on the board, it will be a clear victory for Milloy, who hasย consistently pushedย for the EPA to listen more closely to whatever would maximize profits for hisย tobacco and fossil fuel friends.

It seems to us if members of CASAC have financial relationships with the industries the group is supposed to be regulating, it would hamper their ability to provide โ€œindependentย advice.โ€

Not that a conflict of interest ever held anyone in Trumpโ€™s administration backย โ€ฆ

Main image: Rally for clean air outside of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s D.C. offices. Credit:ย Karen Murphy,ย CC BYNDย 2.0

authordefault

Related Posts

on

DeSmog estimates raise questions over climate benefits as EU officials consider whether the technology should qualify for billions of euros in subsidies.

DeSmog estimates raise questions over climate benefits as EU officials consider whether the technology should qualify for billions of euros in subsidies.
Analysis
on

Experts accuse Farageโ€™s party of a โ€˜deliberate campaign of misinformation about climate changeโ€™ in the House of Commons.

Experts accuse Farageโ€™s party of a โ€˜deliberate campaign of misinformation about climate changeโ€™ in the House of Commons.
on

A Conservative peer and former UK trade advisor were among those who spoke at the summit.

A Conservative peer and former UK trade advisor were among those who spoke at the summit.
on

All Conservative appointees to the Board of Trade have been binned by the new Labour government.

All Conservative appointees to the Board of Trade have been binned by the new Labour government.