Jump to content

User:Oceanflynn/sandbox/Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act
Great Seal of the United States
Other short titlesHONEST act
Long titleTo prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from proposing, finalizing, or disseminating regulations or assessments based upon science that is not transparent or reproducible.[1]
Enacted bythe 115th United States Congress
Citations
Public lawPub. L. Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "?".
Legislative history

The Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act (Pub. L. Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "?"., H.J.Res. ?) (H. R. 1430) (Report No. 115–59) is a bill introduced in First Session of the of the United States House of Representatives by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) on March 8, 2017 and passed by 115th Congress on March 29, 2017 to "prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from "proposing, finalizing, or disseminating regulations or assessments based upon science that is not transparent, [...] reproducible,"[1] and "publicly available".[2]

Actions

[edit]

Lamar Smith (R-TX), Henry Cuellar (D-TX), Frank Lucas (R-OK), Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Jim Banks (R-Indiana), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Bill Posey (R-FL), Mo Brooks (R-AL), Randy Weber (R-TX), Brian Babin (R-TX), Gary Palmer (R-TX), Clay Higgins (R-LA), Randy Hultgren (R-IL), Jim Bridenstine (R-OK), Ralph Abraham (R-LA), Darin LaHood (R-IL), Daniel Webster (R-FL), Roger Marshall (R-KS), Neal Dunn (R-FL), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), David Schweikert (R-UT), Bruce Westerman (R-AR), Steven Palazzo (R-MS), Don Young (R-AK), Joe Barton (R-TX), Steve Pearce (R-NM), Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Scott Tipton (R-CO), and Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) introduced the bill.

It passed 228-194[2] on March 29, 2017 and was referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology on March 29, 2017.[1]

Historical context

[edit]

The American Cancer Society undertook a series of Cancer Prevention Studies to study links between tobacco and cancer. The three studies began with the recruitment of subjects in October 1959 and eventually included over a million subjects.[3][4] The second study revealed an increase in lung cancer mortality rates in women who smoked.[5] The Cancer Prevention Study II was "a key guide to national policy and changing public attitudes" in terms of the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.[6][7][8]

In 1993 Harvard researchers published their findings from the federally-funded Six Cities Study in which they had "followed more than 8000 participants for 14 to 16 years and found an association between death rates and particulate matter, or soot, in the air". The "groundbreaking paper on the impact of air pollution"... "informed EPA’s 1997 decision to tighten its air quality standards and continues to underpin Clean Air Act regulations."

Lamar Smith (R-TX), the "senior Republican on the House of Representatives science committee" "repeatedly requested that EPA hand over raw data from the "Six Cities Study" and from a related (and much larger) federally-funded American Cancer Society study known as "Cancer Prevention Study II," plus all subsequent reanalysis of the studies. He accused the [EPA] of using "secret science" to justify environmental regulations."[9][10] The EPA argued that handing over the raw data "would violate the trust of hundreds of thousands of Americans who had participated in the Six Cities Study and other research included in the subpoena."[9]

Smith subpoena's EPA for raw data (2013)

[edit]

On August 1, 2013, Lamar Smith, the "senior Republican on the House of Representatives science committee", "issued a controversial subpoena" to EPA ...for all the federally-funded raw health data from a number of government-funded studies that linked "air pollution to disease" and which "underpin a number of far-reaching federal regulations."[10]

Resetting U.S. Climate Policy

[edit]

Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute, called for the Trump administration to defund and eventually replace the EPA with agencies at the States level at their 12th annual conference entitled "Resetting U.S. Climate Policy" held in Washington, D.C. on March 23-24, 2017.[11] Bast argued that climate change was a "remote threat." "I don't see a grassroots movement in the United States saying ... we want to keep this global warming thing going. I think that's collapsing pretty fast." [12][10]

Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method

[edit]

Michael E. Mann was one of four expert witnesses on a panel along with Judith Curry, Roger A. Pielke Jr. John Christy at a March 29, 2017 House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology hearing entitled "Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method" chaired by Lamar Smith. Mann was the sole scientist on the panel who "espoused views and research" that represented the "mainstream scientific consensus surrounding anthropogenic climate change".[13] During the hearing, Mann cited a March 24, 2017 article by Jeffrey Mervis published in Science—the peer-reviewed academic journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science[14][15] (AAAS) and one of the top scientific journals globally.[16] which Mervis claimed that Smith had spoken at the Heartland Institute’s 12th annual conference entitled "Resetting U.S. Climate Policy" held in Washington, D.C. March 24, 2017.[12] chairman Smith was on record at the Heartland Institute — which Mann described as a Koch-brothers-funded "climate change denying" agency, Koch Brothers funded outlet that has a climate change denier conference every year Smith dismissed "commentary presented during testimony on climate change because it came from the journal Science — one of the oldest and most prestigious scientific publications in existence".[13] During a "testy exchange" between Smith and Lamar, Lamar cited Smith claimed that "That is not known as an objective writer or magazine."[13] Curry called on the Trump administration to "preserve and even increase funding for climate observation systems, threatened by Trump’s "skinny budget".[17]

Observing systems — ocean and satellite — is money very, very well spent. I urge you to support continued funding of these."

— Judith Curry "Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method" March 29, 2017


Representative Elizabeth Esty (D–CT) called for funding robust open-sourced researched. "At some point we have to go with consensus while continuing research."[17]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b c d e 115th Congress (2017) (March 8, 2017). "H.R. 1430 (115th)". Legislation. GovTrack.us. Retrieved April 3, 2017. HONEST Act{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ a b House votes to restrict EPA’s use of science, The Hill, April 3, 2017, retrieved April 3, 2017 {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  3. ^ "Current Cancer Prevention Studies". American Cancer Society. Retrieved 27 August 2015.
  4. ^ Thun, MJ; Calle, EE; Rodriguez, C; Wingo, PA (September 2000). "Epidemiological research at the American Cancer Society". Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. 9 (9): 861–8. PMID 11008901.
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference acs was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ "American Cancer Society launches third survey". Atlanta Journal-Constitution. May 29, 2012. Retrieved August 27, 2015.
  7. ^ "Current Cancer Prevention Studies". American Cancer Society. Retrieved 27 August 2015.
  8. ^ Thun, MJ; Calle, EE; Rodriguez, C; Wingo, PA (September 2000). "Epidemiological research at the American Cancer Society". Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. 9 (9): 861–8. PMID 11008901.
  9. ^ a b Kelly Servick (August 2, 2013), House Panel Subpoenas EPA for Air Pollution Data, Science, retrieved March 31, 2017 {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  10. ^ a b c Kelly Servick (September 5, 2013), In Battle Over EPA Subpoena, Privacy Remains Sticking Point, Science, retrieved March 31, 2017 {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  11. ^ Resetting U.S. Climate Policy, March 23–24, 2017, retrieved March 31, 2017{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)
  12. ^ a b Jeffrey Mervis (March 24, 2017), Lamar Smith, unbound, lays out political strategy at climate doubters’ conference, Science, retrieved March 31, 2017 {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  13. ^ a b c Chair of House Science Committee Says the Journal ‘Science’ Is Not Objective, Snopes, March 29, 2017, retrieved March 31, 2017 {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  14. ^ "AAAS – AAAS News Release". Aaas.org. Retrieved May 15, 2010.
  15. ^ "AAAS Annual Report-Science". Aaas.org. Retrieved May 15, 2010.
  16. ^ Lemonick, Michael D. (March 7, 2011). "Alien Life Discovered in a Meteorite! Or Maybe No" (online web page). Time. Retrieved October 3, 2011. The paper, meanwhile, had been published in Science, one of the world's top scientific journals, which gave it even more apparent gravitas. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  17. ^ a b Hearing- Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method, Washington: House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, March 29, 2017, retrieved March 31, 2017

Category:Acts of the 115th United States Congress

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User:Oceanflynn/sandbox/Honest_and_Open_New_EPA_Science_Treatment_Act_of_2017&oldid=807228793"