Janet McCabe’s defense of EPA implementation of the Clean Air Act reaches back 45 years, at a time when environmental targets were large and easily defined (Letters, July 15). Yet, to date, the chemistry of ozone depletion in the upper atmosphere related to chlorine chemistry remains unsettled science. How does the EPA measure the success of replacing chlorofluorocarbon for refrigerants said to promote ozone depletion with the potent greenhouse gas hydrofluorocarbon?
Ms. McCabe states that, “With every rule the EPA creates, the agency is committed to meeting the law’s letter and spirit, while following strict procedures for public review and input.” She also says “the courts have upheld the EPA’s air rules.” Is the EPA’s apparent collusion with radical environmental activists in the orchestrated “sue and settle” consent decrees part of these “strict procedures” as they skirt the Administrative Procedures Act and avoid congressional and public scrutiny?
EPA Clean Air Act policy continues in a self-perpetuating bureaucratic endeavor far removed from its original congressional mission. Questionable data and secret science are used to justify the EPA’s continuing ratcheting down of environmental “safe levels” without concern for cost-benefit justification.
Charles G. Battig
VA Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment, Charlottesville, Va.
NOTE: This letter to the editor was posted in the Wall Street Journal on July 20.