EPA email shows desperate climate change agenda

By |2015-02-05T14:56:53+00:00February 2nd, 2015|CFACT Insights|17 Comments

With public concern about climate waning, the EPA turned its anti-fossil messaging campaign to fear-mongering about child health impacts. 

An internal 2009 email to top officials recognized that, “The number of Americans who say the global warming threat has been exaggerated is at an all-time high,” and that outreach pitches directed to polar ice cap and polar bear “mascots” were losing effectiveness.  [Note: the poll at left is from 2010.  Source: BBC.]

Accordingly, it urges the agency to shift its emphasis to respiratory illness justifications which will “make this issue real for many Americans who would otherwise oppose many of our regulatory actions.”

Newly released by Anthony Watts at the popular blog site, “Watts Up With That,” the memo was obtained by attorney and Competitive Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Chris Horner through a Freedom of Information Act request. That copy was addressed to “Richard Windsor” — an alias used by then-EPA Director Lisa Jackson’s secret email account — which she has defended, upon investigation, as necessary for personal, unofficial uses. Titled “Strategic Communications Conversation,” it clearly dispels that ruse.

Circulated just months after President Obama took office, the memo states: “Most Americans will never see a polar ice cap, nor will ever have a chance to see a polar bear in its natural habitat. Therefore it is easy to detach from the seriousness of the issue. Unfortunately, climate change in the abstract is an increasingly — and consistently — unpersuasive argument to make.”

Then, pivoting entirely from CO2 climate-based anti-fossil arguments to unrelated regulatory justifications based upon particulate emissions, it goes on to say: “However, if we shift from making this issue about polar caps [to being] about our neighbor with respiratory illness, we can potentially bring this issue home to many Americans.”

What is “this issue” they didn’t want to be “all about polar caps” and was somehow connected “with respiratory illness”? It is obviously the “health argument,” for a war on coal and other fossils, whereby the memo adds: “There will be many opportunities to discuss climate-related efforts this year. As we do so, we must allow the human health argument to take center stage.” 

Conflating separate issue associations in the public’s mind regarding concerns about global warming, the safety of water they drink, and the air they breathe, the memo states, “We must begin to create a causal link between the worries of Americans and the proactive mission we’re pushing.” That “mission” is to advance EPA’s sweeping regulatory authority and restrictions by any and all means possible.

The strategy emphasizes a need to “reach beyond those inside the tent.” This, it says, means not only that the EPA must continue to “ensure we maintain a constant pipeline to that ever-important cadre of reporters,” but also pursue “a bloc of reporters who would fall outside the typical press gallery of EPA.” It specifically notes and includes the ethnic minority press [African-American, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American], women-oriented press, youth press, urban radio, bloggers and key columnists.

Referring to engaging those already inside the EPA tent who are concerned about protecting “caribou, polar bears and sea otters,” which “obviously does not reflect our caribouday-to-day work,” the new strategy is to rebrand the EPA “mission” to be about equal justice.

“It is important for us to change this perception, particularly among those who are critically impacted by EJ [equal justice] issues, but are otherwise ‘unchurched.’” By “unchurched,” the memo clarifies this to “mean they are not affiliated with a group or effort that would self-identify as EJ or environmentalist.”

Speaking to the Daily Caller News Foundation, Chris Horner observed that the memo reflects the EPA’s “breathtakingly disingenuous shift” from its failing global warming campaign, to making its case be about respiratory illness. He said, “It also shows the conviction that if they yell ‘clean air’ and ‘children’ enough, they, the media, and the Green groups will get their way.”

So far, it’s all working out just as planned. We can thank the EPA’s conflation of CO2 as a public health-influencing “pollutant” for its first-ever regulations on greenhouse gas tailpipe emissions issued in 2012, along with the Obama Administration’s new Clean Power Plan, which will impose draconian CO2 restrictions upon existing coal-fired plants. Neither have anything to do with reducing smog or harmful asthma-causing particulates.

On the other hand, the public health of the American economy and household budgets will very much be impacted. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates that these new EPA rules will shut down hundreds of generators, cost the U.S. economy 2.3 million jobs and half a trillion in lost GDP over the next 10 years, and add $289 billion in consumer electricity costs to lower household disposable incomes by $586 billion by 2030.

Those burdens will weigh heaviest upon the poorest among us. “Equal justice” be damned.

About the Author:

Larry Bell
CFACT Advisor Larry Bell heads the graduate program in space architecture at the University of Houston. He founded and directs the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture. He is also the author of "Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax."


  1. topperj February 4, 2015 at 4:55 PM

    It’s all about P-O-W-E-R.

  2. Michael Sweny February 4, 2015 at 5:00 PM

    Actually these people really are insane!

    • Midas Mulligan February 4, 2015 at 10:21 PM

      Evil actually.

  3. marlene February 4, 2015 at 5:18 PM

    LIAR, LIAR. Evil Pants Afire – EPA – abolish it, it’s the law.

  4. Tesla_X February 4, 2015 at 5:40 PM

    I vote we judge them by the same standards espoused by one of their own:

    CRUCIFY THEM (in Congress), then DISSOLVE THEM.

    The EPA has outlived its usefulness, and the first DUTY of the next President elect should be to amputate their worthless organization from the body of the government with a very big blunt axe, or executive order, if that is easier.

  5. John Swallow February 5, 2015 at 4:33 AM

    The EPA said “However, if we shift from making
    this issue about polar caps [to being] about our neighbor with respiratory
    illness, we can potentially bring this issue home to many Americans.”

    “There will be many opportunities to discuss climate-related
    efforts this year. As we do so, we must allow the human health argument to take
    center stage.”

    It appears The EPA does not recall this Billings Gaz. article.

    3 Montana counties get failing grades for air quality.

    “HELENA — The American Lung Association is ranking three Montana counties as having some of the worst air quality in the nation with regards to particulates on a 24-hour basis.

    Particulates would include the contents of wood smoke, both that produced by wildfires and also from homeowners who use wood as a source of heating during the winter months.

    Receiving a failing grade from the American Lung Association State of the Air 2013 report are Lewis and Clark, Ravalli, and Butte-Silver Bow counties. Lewis and Clark
    County ranked 23rd worst in the nation for short-term particulate pollution,
    while Butte-Silver Bow County came in at 25th, according to the association’s

    “The report, said Kim Davitt, with the American Lung Association’s office in
    Missoula, is based on a three-year average and involves 2009, 2010 and 2011.

    Helena had an average of 6.8 days with unhealthy particulate pollution levels annually during those three years, a news release notes.”


  6. John Swallow February 5, 2015 at 4:40 AM

    The EPA would not publicize this either out of Australia.

    May 28, 2014
    Wood-heating Industry opposed cleaner wood-heaters

    The Senate Inquiry “Impacts on health of air quality in Australia” concluded that the failure to manage wood-heater pollution was“a failure of the technical committee to reach consensus within the meaning of Standards Australia’s rules, which according to the minutes supplied to the committee was a result of opposition from industry representatives.” What a terrible tragedy that the health benefits of new vehicle standards are being undone by increased wood-heater use.
    Largest source of PM2.5 pollution increasing due to regulatory failure

    As shown in the NSW EPA graph (latest emissions inventory data – for the year 2008, published 2012), wood-heaters cause the lion’s share of Sydney’s wintertime
    health-hazardous PM2.5 emissions. Other major sources, road transport,
    industry, and non-road equipment are a much smaller fraction of the total.

    Do people know that new wood-heaters emit more PM2.5 pollution (the most health-hazardous air pollutant) per year than 1,000 petrol or 200 diesel cars, or are they
    deceived by slick advertising?

    PM2.5 pollution of 25 ug/m3 = everyone smoking 3
    cigarettes per day = as damaging as current smoking rates


    Friday, August 22, 2014
    New Report: “Green” Biomass Electricity More Polluting Than Coal
    Renewable energy biomass plants are avoiding regulation, burning contaminated fuels, and threatening air quality

  7. John Swallow February 5, 2015 at 4:43 AM

    Here is some more info that the EPA will not want to be made public.

    “Asthma cases have been on the rise in New Haven, where pollution and pollen are common triggers and people still breathe second-hand smoke in public places.”

    No mention of coal in this report.
    “What Causes Asthma?

  8. hardy February 5, 2015 at 8:24 AM

    Articles on climate change and respiratory issues seem to blossom in 2009 per google.

  9. moops February 5, 2015 at 4:24 PM

    EJ stands for environmental justice, not equal justice

  10. Tony Lear February 6, 2015 at 6:20 AM

    Irony; it was the introduction of coal fired electricity and natural gas that warmed the homes and cleared the rooms of smoke not to mention the air outside from the pea soup fog of log fires.
    This reduced respiratory diseases down to near nothing by comparison, these idiots can’t take a trick!

  11. alpha2actual February 7, 2015 at 9:48 AM

    The average American spends approximately 90 percent of their time indoors. And while most people are aware that outdoor air pollution can damage their health, many do not know that indoor air pollutants can also do the same. Indeed, studies of human exposure to air pollutants by EPA indicate that indoor levels of pollutants may be 2 to 5 times – and occasionally more than 100 times – higher than outdoor pollutant levels. Indoor air pollutants have been ranked among the top five environmental risks to public health. The problems they cause can be subtle and do not always produce easily recognized or immediate impacts on health. http://www.epa.gov/region1/communities/indoorair.html

    Weatherizing buildings to increase their energy efficiency could backfire by creating new health risks for occupants, according to a new report that warns climate change and efforts to combat it could worsen indoor air quality. Bottom line, if you weatherize your house be sure to install an air exchanger.

    If indoor pollution is the primary driver of adverse health outcomes and ventilation of outside air is a solution then why is the agency fixated on atmospheric CO2 and Methane. Could it be that there is an agenda running amok here, driven by a Legislation by other means EPA?

  12. Tab Numlock February 7, 2015 at 9:58 PM

    It began with them referring to odorless, colorless CO2 as black, sooty “carbon”.

  13. Frederick Colbourne February 16, 2015 at 9:42 PM

    The issue is what the text of the Clean Air Act permits. The Act permits a substance not in the pollutant list, such as CO2, to be controlled for the purpose of protecting health and welfare, presumably of humans. Section 111(d) is the relevant section for CO2.

    Effectively, the Administrator can define any substance as a pollutant with the proviso that the purpose of the regulation is to promote health and welfare, without explicitly defining whose health and welfare.

    Congress did not mention polar bears. The section implies that the intended beneficiaries of regulations are Americans and residents. Thus neighbors are mentioned in the memo.

    However, the President and the Administrator have justified the new regulations by benefits to the health and welfare of the global population, of which Americans make up about 5% and foreigners 95%.

    So Americans get 5% of the benefits and pay 100% of the cost, something so far removed from what Congress intended that the EPA has to slant the policy towards depicting your neighbor getting the flu or bronchitis and maybe passing it to you and your children.

    What is bizarre about the memo’s slant is that most Americans associate respiratory illness with colds and the associate colds, with colder weather not warmer weather.

    This does not fit with the related slant in which every change in weather is touted as proof of humans causing climate change. Unless increasing CO2 causes both warming and cooling of the Earth’s climate.

  14. Don September 10, 2015 at 4:00 AM

    Not many scientists contributing to this discussion are are there….

  15. Don September 10, 2015 at 4:23 AM

    According to a search of Google Scholar, Larry Bell has never published
    an article in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate.

Comments are closed.