McCarthy, Gina

---

2013 to 2017 epa admin, NB 1 of 3 scalps? 2 AA?

---

ff ceo

31 pp

https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/2022-12-09.COR_Supplemental_Memo-Fossil_Fuel_Industry_Disinformation.pdf

concl [redactions hilarious]

The American Petroleum Institute also improperly withheld documents from the Committee, including materials prepared for its Executive Committee and Board of Directors and relating to API’s activities surrounding major federal climate policy proposals. For example, API redacted emails to representatives of other oil and gas trade associations, including the American Gas Association and Independent Petroleum Association of America with the subject line “reconciliation coordination,” referring to the budget reconciliation bill that culminated in President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act.114

API also redacted communications regarding pending Securities and Exchange Commission regulations that would require companies to disclose their climate impacts, and documents describing meetings with Administration officials, including a document outlining industry’s priorities for a March 22, 2021, meeting with President Biden’s then-National Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy.115

:{:{}:

• The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been especially obstructive and evasive in its response to the Committee’s subpoena. The Chamber excluded almost all internal documents from its production, preventing the Committee from evaluating whether external positioning and internal rhetoric are aligned. Instead, the Chamber produced documents that it knew were tangential to the Committee’s investigation, including mass mailer publications, newsletters, mass letters to Congress, mass emails to congressional staff, and press releases. The Chamber also produced printouts from its website, comment letters to federal agencies and departments, widely distributed event invitations, and daily news clippings— while refusing to produce the internal documents that are required by the Committee’s subpoena. The Committee continues to seek full compliance with its subpoenas in this investigation. Despite obstruction from Big Oil over the last year, the Committee’s investigation has uncovered troubling evidence of a long-running greenwashing campaign by the fossil fuel industry—all while doubling down on long-term production of oil and gas and reaping record profits at the expense of American consumers. The evidence obtained by the Committee shows the vital importance of the Committee’s investigation to uncover the truth about Big Oil’s role in the climate crisis and the industry’s inaction and misinformation that continue to exacerbate the crisis.

---

https://www.alternet.org/2020/07/deregulations-deadly-consequences-report-breaks-down-how-trumps-assault-on-government-exacerbated-pandemic/

Trump’s ongoing efforts to roll back regulations designed to protect the environment, workers, and public health likely played a significant role in the spread of Covid-19 in the United States.

That’s according to a new report released Tuesday by New York University School of Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity (IPI), a nonpartisan policy think tank.

The 45-page report titled “Weakening Our Defenses” (pdf) details how Trump’s far-reaching deregulatory push has exacerbated several major risk factors for contracting and spreading Covid-19, such as high levels of air pollution, hazardous working conditions, and lack of adequate health insurance.

“President Trump’s deregulatory agenda has affected all those factors, and, therefore, the disproportionate racial and economic justice impacts of deregulation are now most likely compounding in deadly ways in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic,” the report says.

“Even before the pandemic,” the report continues, “those regulatory decisions collectively were already causing dire consequences for public health and safety, the environment, and economic conditions—but we now know that those regulatory decisions have likely also increased our collective susceptibility to Covid-19."

[twt]

the report cites the Trump administration’s rollback of restrictions on nearly 2,000 forms of hazardous air pollution in 2018, weakening of the Clean Power Plan, and gutting of vehicle fuel efficiency standards in 2020 as examples of environmental deregulatory actions that left the U.S. more vulnerable to Covid-19. The U.S. currently has the most confirmed coronavirus cases and deaths in the world.

“These rollbacks have put all of us—especially low-income communities, Black people, and people of color, and essential workers—at higher risk of contracting and dying from Covid-19,” said Gina McCarthy,former Environmental Protection Agency administrator and current president of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The report also points to the Trump administration’s weakening of workplace safety standards at meatpacking plants, which have become major Covid-19 hotspots.According tothe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 16,200 meat and poultry processing workers have contracted Covid-19 at 239 facilities in the U.S.

“In October 2019, the Trump administration’s Department of Agriculture finalized a rule to ‘modernize’ swine slaughter inspections,” IPI’s report says. “The new program, which pig processing plants may opt into, reduces the number of food safety inspectors in plants and removes caps on pig slaughter line speeds.”

By forcing workers to perform their jobs in close proximity to one another, the report notes, the prioritization of speed over safety forces “likely puts meat processing workers at greater risk for Covid-19.”

The Trump administration’s efforts to undermine the Affordable Care and limit Medicaid eligibility by approving state-level work requirements also may have contributed to the spread of Covid-19, according to the new report.

“Though some of these state requirements have since been invalidated by the courts, other state programs could yet be implemented, and even the temporary loss of coverage in some states could be significant—particularly during a pandemic,” the report says.

Dr. Kathleen Rest, executive director of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that the Trump administration’s “failure to listen to and act on the best available science is irresponsible and dangerous.”

“From day one, the Trump administration has attempted to roll back not only existing public health protections, but the scientific basis on which all public health protections are based,” said Rest. “That’s short-sighted and foolish at the best of times, but they have continued to dismantle safeguards even as the country faces the threat of Covid-19, one of the biggest public health crises in our history.”

---

https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-limits-science-public-health-2645395622.html

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) used the cover of Super Tuesday to put out an update to its plans to limit scientific research in its decision-making on Tuesday evening, as the mass media world had its eyes focused on the election results trickling in.

The proposal, called Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science, is part of the agency's ongoing push to rewrite "the foundation on which public health and environmental rules are crafted," as E&E News reported.

As Common Dreams reported, the timing of the release was curious. In a tweet, Rebecca Leber from Mother Jones wrote, "an incredible news dump by EPA this evening. After delays, EPA just moved forward its most controversial proposal of the Trump administration, limiting science and medical data that can be used by the agency. Still far from a final rule but inching closer."

Experts say the move, which would restrict the type of research that can be considered in public health and environmental regulations, is one of the government's most far-reaching restrictions on science, according to The New York Times.

The proposal, which was first put forth in April 2018 by former EPA administrator Scott Pruitt, looked to exclude research where all the underlying data was not publicly available, even if that meant data was not shared because it would have violated medical privacy laws.The so-called "secret science" proposal received more than 600,000 comments during the public comment period. Most of them were critical of a proposal that would stop the agency from considering landmark public health research, according to The Hill. For example, under the proposal, the EPA would downplay studies that "definitively linked air pollution to premature deaths but relied on the personal health information of thousands of study subjects who had been guaranteed confidentiality," according to The New York Times.

"They're putting in nonscientific criteria to decide what science the agency can use," said Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, as The New York Times reported. "Now the most important thing is whether the data is public, not the strength of the scientific evidence."

The new proposal makes a slight alteration. It would not flatly reject studies without publicly available information. Instead, it would create a tiered-system and give lower priority to studies where some of the data, even sensitive medical data, is not made public, according to The New York Times.

"In the midst of a public health crisis, Americans deserve a government that relies on the best available science to protect everyone against harm. This proposal does the opposite," said Gina McCarthy, former EPA administrator and now president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council, in a statement.

"Now is not the time to play games with critical medical research that underpins every rule designed to protect us from harmful pollution in our air and in our water," McCarthyadded. "This move is even more egregious than the last proposal, which the administration's own hand-picked scientists criticized."

The proposal seems to be in lockstep with the administration's systematic efforts to dismantle environmental regulations and to finalize the rollbacks before this year's election. The effort to dilute scientific-research is particularly beneficial to the fossil fuel industry, which is often hampered by studies about the climate crisis, air pollution or the safety of drinking water, as The New York Times reported.

"These additions and clarifications to the proposed rule will ensure that the science supporting the agency's decisions is transparent and available for independent validation while still maintaining protection of confidential and personally identifiable information," said Andrew Wheeler, the EPA's administrator, as E&E News reported.

However, observers have a much different take on the intent of the rule.

"It's increasing the damage of the proposed rule," said Betsy Southerland, former director of EPA's Office of Science and Technology and a member of the Environmental Protection Network, as E&E News reported.

"Number 1, it expands the scope of the rule, and number 2, by no means does it demonstrate they have a legal authority to do this rulemaking.

"While our world is burning, President Trump is adding fuel to the fire by taking away our right to be informed and to protect ourselves from irreparable harm," said Gina McCarthy, the new president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). McCarthy, who served as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in the Obama administration, added: "We will use every tool in our toolbox to stop this dangerous move and safeguard our children's future."

---

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/247064-epa-head-slams-gop-budget-cuts

The head of the Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday castigated congressional Republicans for seeking to cut the agency’s budget, saying the cuts threaten core environmental protections.

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said her agency has been trying to become more “lean,” including cutting a sixth of its workforce, but the GOP, which now controls both chambers of Congress, is going too far.< “Taking away our core budget doesn’t just impact the Clean Power Plan and problems of the future,” McCarthy told reporters, referring to the agency’s highly controversial proposed carbon dioxide limits for power plants.

“It definitely impacts our ability — which I think the general public has relied on — to protect their direct public health and the environment,” she said.

The House will vote this week on an appropriations bill for fiscal 2016 that would cut the EPA’s funding by 9 percent and block Obama administration priorities such as carbon rules and the expansion of federal jurisdiction over waterways.

The Senate Appropriations Committee has passed its own EPA spending bill that cuts the agency’s funding by nearly 7 percent and has many of the same policy provisions.

McCarthy said the proposed bills would eat into the agency’s ability to protect air and water from pollution.

“We’re not talking about worrying just about the problems of the future and the new ones today, but we’re talking about threats to clean air, clean water,” she said.

“States calling us all the time, congresspeople calling us all the time when there are challenges in their communities,” McCarthy continued. “Who are they going to call if it’s not EPA? Ghostbusters won’t answer the phone for this one.” “This administration has been hell-bent on implementing all sorts of regulations that are harmful to both our economy and our energy security,” House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) said.

“Bill-wide, we have included several important policy provisions aimed to stop this sort of overzealous bureaucratic red tape.”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the EPA’s budget, said their bill “pulls back on EPA’s regulatory overreach.

---

ref above

The House Appropriations committee approved a $30.17 billion Interior and Environment spending bill on Tuesday that cuts Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funding by 9 percent and blocks key Obama administration climate rules.

Lawmakers approved the bill on a mostly partyline vote, and much of the debate centered on measures in the bill targeting EPA policies. Republicans said the measures are necessary to rein in what committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) called an “unnecessary, job-killing regulatory agenda.”

“This administration has been hell-bent on implementing all sorts of regulations that are harmful to both our economy and our energy security,” Rogers said. “Bill-wide, we have included several important policy provisions aimed to stop this sort of overzealous bureaucratic red tape.” Democrats slammed the bill for both the EPA funding levels — it cuts the agency’s funding by $718 million — and provisions blocking its rule-making, including a water oversight rule and forthcoming greenhouse gas regulations for power plants.

Republicans also approved an amendment to the bill Tuesday stopping an upcoming EPA smog rule. They also approved a provision blocking funding for a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rule regulating hydraulic fracturing on federal lands.

“The air every American breaths, the water every American drinks, are all at risk because of the funding cuts and policy attacks in this bill,” said Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), the ranking Democrat on the Appropriations interior and environment subcommittee.

Republicans defeated her amendment to undo the riders, which she called “veto-bait” for President Obama, and a handful of other Democratic attempts to change the bill’s policy provisions.

“This administration’s appetite for new regulations and disregard for Congress has left us little choice but to block the president’s overzealous regulatory agenda in this bill,” Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee’s interior and environment subcommittee, said.

Shaun Donovan, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, said Monday that the White House opposed the bill. He cited the riders, as well as funding levels below those Obama proposed for most programs in the budget.

“These riders stand in the way of meeting these responsibilities - hamstringing permitting and future regulatory work, and creating significant ambiguity regarding existing regulations and guidance,” Donovan wrote in a letter to lawmakers.

Overall, the GOP's bill spends $30.17 billion next fiscal year, $246 million less than current levels and $3 billion less than what Obama requested in his budget.

The bill increases funding for wildfire prevention and some Native American programs. It includes small cuts to the U.S. Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service, and provisions blocking Endangered Species Act listings for certain animals, something Democrats fought on Tuesday.

The bill, as with all other appropriations measures this session, turned into a proxy for the broader fight over top-line government spending levels. Republicans wrote the bill so it conforms to the sequestration spending caps, and Calvert said they made a “sincere effort to prioritize needs” within those caps.

In his 2016 budget proposal, Obama undid those caps and looked to increase funding for most of the provisions in the Interior and Environment budget. In his letter, Donovan wrote that the administration opposes funding levels below what he had proposed.

Appropriations ranking member Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) said the caps “led to a bill that severely underfunds far too many priorities.”

But Republicans defended the budget and the provisions within it.

“This bill makes great strides to budget responsibly, investing in proven programs while making cutbacks were we can,” Rogers said. “The EPA is one such agency that can certainly make do with less.”

---

vitter report bs:

related to attack nazi on UNC E&E? pm 2.5 ozone

Harvard study and Am Lung assoc?

On May 9, 2013, the EPW Republicans boycotted the Committee nomination vote of McCarthy. The boycott was specifically related to the lack of transparency at the Agency, and in significant part to the EPA failing to uphold its agreement to finally acquire and release the underlying data to the key studies. In committing to the boycott, Senator JohnBarrasso (R-WY), said: The new nominee to be EPA Administrator has been extremely unresponsive with the information we requested. We’re not asking to amend any bedrock environmental laws. We’re asking for access to the scientific data and reasoning behind the justification for expensive new rules and regulations that continue to cause high unemployment. We’re simply requesting that Ms. McCarthy and this Administration honor its commitment to transparency-that's what they promised.432

In a letter dated June 12, 2013, EPW Republicans reiterated their request for the underlying data, saying, “EPA has continually refused to make public the basic scientific data underlying virtually all of the Agency’s claimed benefits from Clean Air Act rules. Everyone agrees on the importance of clean air, but EPA needs to release the secret data they use in formulating rules.”433In addition, the letter highlighted: The EPA’s new Clean Air regulations, including the upcoming ozone standard, are expected to be some of the most costly the federal government has ever issued. Relying on secret data to support these rules is not acceptable. The public and outside scientists must be able to independently verify the EPA's claims, especially when the results are contradicted by so many other studies.434 Finally, on July 9, 2013, the EPA acquiesced to EPW Republicans’ transparency requests, including initiating the process of acquiring and turning over the data available to the Agency. EPW Republicans agreed to stop blocking nominee McCarthy in exchange for EPA initiating the process of obtaining the requested scientific information, as well as reaching out to relevant institutions for information on how to de-identify and code personally identifying information from any of the data the institutions and the Agency continued to withhold. The agreement included the understanding that for the first time outside verification would be possible so as to permit independent re-analysis of the benefits claims for a suite of major air regulations developed under the system established by Brenner and Beale

===

Building on decades of successful water protections, the Clean Water Rule will defend sources of safe drinking water for one in every three Americans by clarifying protections that had come under challenge from some of the country’s biggest polluters.

The new rule is a victory for all of us, if we can keep it from being thwarted by its foes and their allies in Congress.

Republican leaders in the House and Senate have already teed up a showdown over this needed rule, a largely partisan battle that pits oil and gas companies, shopping center builders, Big Agriculture and others against the basic American right to clean water.

The Republican-led House sided earlier this month with the polluters.

We’re counting on the Senate to stand up for clean water.

For more than four decades, American waters have been protected by the Clean Water Act, passed by overwhelming Republican and Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress in 1972.

In recent years, though, this important law has come under withering attack by interests that stand to profit from weakening the protections the law provides.

In essence, these groups claim the Clean Water Act shouldn’t apply to vast reaches of streams and wetlands because these bodies of water are too remote, too small or too dependent on seasonal rains to count.

That, of course, is nonsense.

Even mighty rivers start small, taking on volume from wetlands and tributaries as water flows downhill.

Pollution at any point along the journey threatens all the waters downstream.

That’s why state and local officials, members of Congress, advocates for industry, agriculture, the environment and others, as well as members of the public at large, have asked the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers to clarify the reach of theClean Water Act.

The agencies have participated in more than 400 meetings on the issue nationwide. Over just the past year, they’ve reviewed more than a million comments from people who depend on clean water for things like raising food, running their businesses, attracting tourism or fishing and hunting.

And here’s what they’ve found: 87 percent of the people who commented want the waters of America protected.....

http://ecowatch.com/2015/05/28/epa-clean-water-rule/

http://scorecard.lcv.org/roll-call-vote/2013-180-confirming-clean-air-champ-epa vote

---

appt 2009

http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/administrator-gina-mccarthy

---

Regina "Gina" McCarthy is an American public administrator and an environmental health and air quality expert, currently administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.^[1][2] On March 4, 2013, President Barack Obama nominated McCarthy to replace Lisa Jackson as head of the EPA.^[3] Confirmation hearings started April 11, 2013.^[4] On July 18, 2013 she was confirmed after a record 136-day confirmation fight, becoming the face of Obama's global warming/climate change initiative.^[5][6][7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_McCarthy

...

919

On May 27, 2015, McCarthy finalized a rule under the Clean Water Act which proposed a new detailed and inclusive definition of "waters of the United States".^[19] Thirteen states sued, and U.S. Chief District Judge Ralph R. Erickson issued an injunction blocking the regulation in those states.^[20]

In a separate lawsuit, on October 9, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Judge David McKeague, joined by Judge Richard Allen Griffin stayed the rule's application nationwide; judge Damon Keith dissented.^[21] Congress passed a joint resolution under the Congressional Review Act overturning the "WOTUS" rule,^[22] but President Obama vetoed the measure.^[23]

On June 25, 2015, McCarthy finalized the Clean Power Plan under the Clean Air Act, seeking to reduce coal use pursuant to the Paris Agreement.^[24] Challengers failed to get the regulation stayed by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, but on February 9, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States voted 5-4 to grant the stay, the first time the Supreme Court had ever stayed a regulation prior to lower court review.^[25]

On March 17, 2016, McCarthy and Michigan Governor Rick Snyder testified before the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform regarding the Flint water crisis.^[26] Snyder apologized for the state's mistakes.^[26] McCarthy, however, insisted the EPA had done nothing wrong and that "there is no way my agency created this problem", causing her to at times be shouted down by outraged members of Congress.^[26] In October 2016, the EPA's inspector general concluded that the EPA had wrongfully delayed issuing an emergency order regarding Flint, Michigan.^[27]

Harvard C-CHANGE director

In late May 2018, Harvard School of Public Health announced the formation of a new climate science center - C-CHANGE, Center for Climate, Health and the Global Environment - with McCarthy as its director.^[28][29] The center aims to do research in various environmental areas, as well as present results of climate change research in formats and venues accessible to the common person.

Pegasus Capital

In 2017, McCarthy joined Pegasus Capital Advisors, a private equity firm, where she serves as an operating advisor focused on sustainability and wellness investments.^[30]

ref 27#

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/us/epa-waited-too-long-to-warn-of-flint-water-danger-report-says.html

Julie Bosman

Oct. 20, 2016
-

CHICAGO — In a pointed rebuke to the Environmental Protection Agency, an internal watchdog concluded on Thursday that the agency should have acted more swiftly to warn residents of Flint, Mich., that their water was contaminated with lead.

The report, issued by Arthur A. Elkins Jr., the inspector general for the E.P.A., blamed the federal government for inaction in Flint, echoing the sentiments of many Republicans who have said for more than a year that the agency failed in its oversight role.

Gov. Rick Snyder of Michigan, a Republican, has said that while he accepts his share of blame for the contamination of Flint’s water, he also believes officials on the local and federal levels were partly responsible.

In an 11-page report, Mr. Elkins said that E.P.A. officials had enough information and authority to issue an emergency order under the Safe Drinking Water Actas early as June 2015. At that time, officials knew that “systems designed to protect Flint drinking water from lead contamination were not in place, residents had reported multiple abnormalities in the water, and test results from some homes showed lead levels above the federal action level.”

“These situations should generate a greater sense of urgency,” the report said. “The E.P.A. must be better prepared and able to timely intercede in public health emergencies like that which occurred in Flint.”

The E.P.A. did not issue an emergency order until Jan. 21, 2016, seven months later.

Because the E.P.A. did not intervene strongly enough, the report added, “the conditions in Flint persisted, and thestate continued to delay taking action to require corrosion control or provide alternative drinking water supplies.”

The E.P.A. learned in April 2015 that Flint was not adding a chemical to its water that would prevent pipes from corroding. Miguel Del Toral, a drinking-water expert at the E.P.A., sounded the alarm about Flint’s water supply in a memo to fellow E.P.A. officials and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality in June 2015.

But Gina McCarthy, the administrator of the E.P.A., told a Congressional committee last March that her agency had been repeatedly misled by state employees in Michigan and was not responsible for creating the lead problem.“I wish we had gone farther, I wish we had yelled from the treetops,” she told the committee, adding that state officials had agreed to add corrosion controls to Flint water but delayed in doing so.

“E.P.A. issued an order to the City of Flint and the State of Michigan as soon as it became apparent that the city and state were failing to address the serious problems with the Flint drinking water system,” Monica Lee, a spokeswoman for the E.P.A., said in a statement. She added that the E.P.A. would continue to review the inspector general’s findings.

Ms. Lee said the agency has already completed much of the training that was recommended in the report. Susan Hedman, the agency’s regional administrator overseeing Michigan, resigned earlier this year.

Karen Weaver, the mayor of Flint, said in a statement that it was “deeply troubling to learn that according to the review, the E.P.A. had reliable information indicating that the water in Flint was contaminated and residents were at risk several months before the E.P.A. took action and issued an emergency order.”

The inspector general’s office is expected to issue another report when its evaluation of the E.P.A.’s response to the water contamination in Flint is complete.

Flint’s water supply became contaminated after the city, then under the control of a state-appointed emergency manager, switched its water source to the Flint River in April 2014, partly to save money.

WEST VIRGINIA DEMS MEET WITH McCARTHY ON COAL: Gina McCarthy, get ready to hear from the coal crowd. West Virginia Democrats — including Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin, Rep. Nick Rahall, lawmakers from the state legislature and state party officials — have a meeting today with McCarthy and other administration officials to talk over regulations they say are hurting coal. (State Republicans are reportedly grumbling none of them were invited to the meeting.) Tomblin told WCHS yesterday that he plans to push the human angle in the meeting. "Look beyond the clean air and clean environment. We all want that," Tomblin said. "There are ways to do it but you have to be realistic. You also have to look at the human part. Look at the jobs that are being lost in coal mining and what that's doing to families." More: http://bit.ly/14DNkNQ

What McCarthy may say: Earlier this week McCarthy rebutted the “war on coal” argument critics of the agency have leveled at the administration. “We don’t have a war on coal,” she told employees, according to the New York Times. “We’re doing our business, which is to reduce pollution. We’re following the law.” http://nyti.ms/13pTG3d

approved in showdown.

Green groups, liberal Democrats and public health organizations have applauded the EPA’s efforts. They say the agency’s actions have helped clean up the air and water, in turn, slowing the effects of climate change and improving people’s health.

McCarthy fired back at critics in the video and exhorted her employees to buckle down for the fight.

“This agency has the courage to act. We can make it happen — but we need all hands on deck,” she said.

The agency figures to remain in the crosshairs of Republicans on Capitol Hill.

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) is pushing legislation to handicap the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. And Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), who heads an Appropriations subcommittee, has promised to make the House EPA spending bill a "battleground" for the administration's climate agenda.

:{:{}:

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/312561-new-epa-chief-to-staff-this-is-a-defining-time-for-epa#ixzz2a4lj5RRz

---

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's top environmental official wasted no time Tuesday taking on opponents of the administration's plan to crack down on global warming pollution.

In her first speech as the head of EPA, Gina McCarthy told an audience gathered at Harvard Law School in Cambridge, Mass., that curbing climate-altering pollution will spark business innovation, grow jobs and strengthen the economy. The message was classic Obama, who has long said that the environment and the economy aren't in conflict and has sold ambitious plans to reduce greenhouse gases as a means to jumpstart a clean energy economy.

McCarthy signaled Tuesday that she was ready for the fight, saying that the agency would continue issuing new rules, regardless of claims by Republicans and industry groups that under Obama the EPA has been the most aggressive and overreaching since it was formed more than 40 years ago.

"Can we stop talking about environmental regulations killing jobs? Please, at least for today," said McCarthy, referring to one of the favorite talking points of Republicans and industry groups.

"Let's talk about this as an opportunity of a lifetime, because there are too many lifetimes at stake," she said of efforts to address global warming.

In Obama's first four years, the EPA has issued the first-ever limits on toxic mercury pollution from power plants, regulated greenhouse gases for the first time, and updated a host of air pollution health standards.

McCarthy acknowledged the agency had been the most productive in its history. But she said Tuesday that "we are not just about rules and regulations, we are about getting environmental improvement."

But improvement, she said, could be made "everywhere."

That optimistic vision runs counter to claims by Republican lawmakers and some industry groups that more rules will kill jobs and fossil fuel industries. The EPA under Obama has already put in place or proposed new rules to reduce carbon pollution from cars and trucks, large smokestacks, and new power plants - regulations that McCarthy helped to draft as head of the air pollution office. Next on its agenda is the nation's existing fleet of coal-fired power plants, the largest single source of carbon dioxide left. Obama in a June speech gave the agency until June 2014 to draft those regulations.

===

By Valerie Volcovici

WASHINGTON, June 27 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama made a plea this week for the U.S. Senate to confirm his choice to head the agency that will oversee the core of his new climate change plan, but nominee Gina McCarthy's prospects seem increasingly in doubt.

McCarthy was nominated by Obama in March to lead the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency where she is currently the top air quality official.

She has yet to receive a vote in the full U.S. Senate after narrowly being approved by the Senate Committee for the Environment and Public Works on a party-line vote.

In his speech Tuesday laying out a climate action plan, Obama said McCarthy was well qualified for the job and has bipartisan credentials. The Senate should confirm her "without any further obstruction or delay," Obama said.

McCarthy has worked for several Republican governors, including 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts. She was seen by many as a choice that could work with lawmakers from both parties.

But many Republicans are bitterly against proposed new regulations from the EPA on coal-fired power plants and could seek to block McCarthy's confirmation.

"Sad to say, but I think (Obama) may have effectively sacrificed her confirmation," said Manik Roy, vice president for strategic outreach for the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.

McCarthy has received public support from industry representatives and environmental groups alike for her ability to navigate political divisions.

Roy and other analysts have said opposition to her confirmation has less to do with her and more to do with ideological opposition to regulation.

Republican Senator Roy Blount maintains a hold on her nomination over a river project in his state, while members of the Senate environmental committee continue to press McCarthy and the EPA over the transparency of the agency's emails and the economic analysis that goes into its rulemaking.

Reaction by some Senate Republicans to Obama's climate plan signal a tough fight for McCarthy.

Republican Senator John Barrasso said regulations targeting coal-powered plants will strangle the economy. And he suggested McCarthy had lied when asked at her confirmation hearing in April about the agency's plans to regulate existing power plants.

"The agency is not currently developing any existing source greenhouse gas regulations for power plants," McCarthy told the panel.

Speaking on the Senate floor, Barrasso said, "She has recently reported to the Senate that the things the president is talking about today are things she has known nothing about. So either she was ignorant about what's going on at EPA, a place where she's been an assistant director for the last four years, or she is arrogant.

"Either way, I think this tarnishes her chances of being approved by the Senate, tarnishes her nomination."

Senator Barbara Boxer, the Democrat who chairs the environment panel, told reporters last week that she will lead a public campaign for McCarthy.

Roy said that even if the current acting administrator, Bob Perciasepe, stays on in his role, McCarthy will be able to take the lead on Obama's climate agenda.

Allison Macfarlane, another member of Obama's energy team, was confirmed by the Senate on Thursday to a full term as chairwoman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which she has led since July 2012. (Additional reporting by Douwe Miedema, Editing by Ros Krasny and Eric Walsh)

---

http://grist.org/news/gop-throws-tantrum-over-obamas-epa-nominee/

...Then, this morning, right before the scheduled committee hearing, the eight GOP members sent a letter saying they were going to boycott.

From Politico:

“This has nothing to do with Gina McCarthy,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who charged that the boycott has more to do with a desire to obstruct EPA’s role in climate change regulations. …

Committee ranking member David Vitter (R-La.) announced the boycott by all eight GOP members around 8:30 a.m., saying they would deny the panel a quorum because McCarthy and the EPA haven’t provided answers to the questions they’d posed.

Democrats have noted that the questions totaled more than 1,000 — what they call a record. Republicans also had five “requests” for EPA on issues such as how the agency handles outside groups’ threats of litigation — though Democrats said the GOP senators were actually asking the agency to offer major concessions in how it conducts public business. …

“As you know, all Republicans on our EPW committee have asked EPA to honor five very reasonable and basic requests in conjunction with the nomination of Gina McCarthy which focus on openness and transparency,” the GOP members wrote. “While you have allowed EPA adequate time to fully respond before any markup on the nomination, EPA has stonewalled on four of the five categories.”

John Walke sums up the Republicans’ logic at NRDC’s Switchboard blog:

[A] group of eight conservative Senators has staked their opposition to McCarthy on a mixed procedural-political syllogism that could fit on a bumper sticker: “Transparency good; EPA not transparent; therefore McCarthy bad.” …

The Republican Senators’ demands are less about transparency than wrapping anti-health grievances and obstructionist tactics in the pleasing garb of transparency concerns.

Walke then painstakingly explains why the GOP’s demands are ridiculous....

---

cf also trms

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/5/10/headlines#51010

Senate Republicans blocked a confirmation vote on President Obama’s pick to lead the Environmental Protection Agency by boycotting a committee meeting Thursday. They are accusing Gina McCarthy of issuing "unresponsive answers" to more than 1,000 written questions about EPA policies and practices. McCarthy currently leads the EPA’s office of air and radiation after being easily confirmed for that post by the Senate in 2009. The move came one day after Senate Republicans delayed a vote on Obama’s pick for labor secretary, Thomas Perez.

===

What You Need to Know About Obama's Picks to Head the Department of Energy and the EPA

Obama's choice to replace Lisa Jackson as the Environmental Protection Agency is Gina McCarthy. McCarthy has served for the past four years as the assistant administrator of EPA's Office of Air and Radiation where she has been referred to [11] as Obama's "green quarterback."

She previously worked in government environmental posts, including as a regulator under then-Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. She also headed Connecticut's Department of Environmental Protection and is seen as a pioneer in state-based cap-and-trade programs that seek to curtail greenhouse gas emissions. Eight years ago, McCarthy was instrumental in putting togetherRegional Greenhouse Gas Initiative [12] the nation's first mandatory cap-and-trade program.

In her current post, she has been the point person to curtail air pollution from power plants, particularly toxic chemicals like mercury from coal-fired plants. She was also deeply involved in the move to more strictly control automobile tailpipe emissions. She is widely seen as more of a fighter than Bob Perciasepe, who has served as interim EPA chief since Jackson left. At the same time, she is not seen as quite so much of the in-your-face figure that Jackson was.

Coral Davenport reports [11]:

If nominated, she’ll face a fiery confirmation hearing from Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The panel’s ranking Republican, Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana, and senior Republican member John Barrasso of Wyoming hail from states where oil and coal production are big parts of the economy—and EPA regulations are viewed as straight-up job-killers.

The view of most Republicans, those who won't want to dismantle the EPA altogether, has long been, despite a Supreme Court ruling to the contrary, that the EPA has no business trying to control greenhouse gas emissions.

Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters praised [13] her:

Gina McCarthy cares about progress not partisanship. She’s worked for administrations from both parties and made extraordinary progress protecting the air we breathe and defending public health. Republicans and Democrats easily confirmed Gina McCarthy as head of the EPA’s clean air division, and we hope they move swiftly to confirm her as head of the agency. We look forward to working with her to combat the climate crisis, protect our air and water, and advance chemical policy reform.

The NRDC also backed her, as did Fred Krupp at the Environmental Defense Fund, and Sierra Club's Brune said [10]:

We welcome the nomination of Gina McCarthy to head the Environmental Protection Agency. Assistant Administrator McCarthy has a strong record of protecting the health and safety of millions of Americans by limiting dangerous pollution in our air and supporting programs that help get America's kids outside.

One group that has had big problems with the EPA recently is the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. The president and CEO, Mike Duncan, said [14] Monday:

We congratulate Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy on her nomination to be the next EPA Administrator, and we hope for a more constructive working relationship with the EPA under her leadership. We hope that if she is confirmed she can put EPA on a more balanced path that recognizes America’s continued need for coal, and the importance of clean coal technology.

More constructive? In other words, ACEEE's question for her is along the lines of why can't you be more like Stephen Johnson, the EPA's second director under George W. Bush, who Naturemagazine in an editorial stated [15] had displaced a "reckless disregard for law, science or the agency's own rules—or, it seems, the anguished protests of his own subordinates."

---

820 on energy poverty BS, i look for her admission that regs will not help agw

no lnx

E&E Legal Logo

Search for:

gina mccarthy

Washington Examiner: Gina McCarthy and NRDC, together again Gallery

Washington Examiner: Gina McCarthy and NRDC, together again

Washington Examiner: Gina McCarthy and NRDC, together again

January 6th, 2020|Conflict of Interest, EPA, Green Groups, Media Coverage, Scandal, Transparency

by Brian Anderson Washington Examiner Congratulations are in order for former Environmental Protection Agency administrator Gina McCarthy. As of this week, she has been tasked with running an environmental group that, for many years, appeared to be running her federal agency. The Natural Resources Defense Council, a behemoth among environmental nonprofit organizations, has named McCarthy [...]

Horner: EPA’s Gina McCarthy broke the law by destroying official text messages and should resignGallery

Horner: EPA’s Gina McCarthy broke the law by destroying official text messages and should resign

August 5th, 2014|EPA, Horner, Media Coverage, Transparency

by Chris Horner As Appearing in the Washington Examiner Text messages sent on a private telephone between Maureen McDonnell, wife of Bob McDonnell, and businessman Johnnie Williams are key evidence in the corruption trial of the formerVirginia governor, according to the Washington Post. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s aides also produced text messages in the “Bridgegate” investigation, again using private telephones. [...]

Press Release: Statement by E&E Legal General Counsel Re: EPA Administrator McCarthy Deliberately Withholding Public Records Due to WHO Pressure

Press Release: Statement by E&E Legal General Counsel Re: EPA Administrator McCarthy Deliberately Withholding Public Records Due to WHO Pressure

October 25th, 2016|Conflict of Interest, EPA Collusion, Press Releases, Schnare

For Immediate Release: October 25, 2016 Contact: Craig Richardson Richardson@eelegal.org 703-981-5553 Washington, D.C. - The following statement is from Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) General Counsel David W. Schnare, in response to two significant developments: Reuters reporting that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) instructed U.S. public employees to withhold documents being sought by open records [...]

Washington Free Beacon: McCarthy Dodges Environmentalist Coordination Questions Gallery

Washington Free Beacon: McCarthy Dodges Environmentalist Coordination Questions

Washington Free Beacon: McCarthy Dodges Environmentalist Coordination Questions

January 16th, 2014|EPA, Media Coverage, Transparency

BY: Lachlan Markay The Washington Free Beacon Environmental Protection Agency administrator Gina McCarthy dodged questions on Thursday about internal emails that appear to show top EPA officials using agency events to help environmentalist groups gather comments on agency rules. Sen. John Barrasso (R., Wyo.) grilled McCarthy on the issue at a Thursday hearing of the [...]

Daily Caller: Obama-Era EPA Chief Becomes Head Of One Of The Country’s Largest Enviro GroupsGallery

Daily Caller: Obama-Era EPA Chief Becomes Head Of One Of The Country’s Largest Enviro Groups

January 7th, 2020|Conflict of Interest, EPA, Green Groups, Media Coverage, Scandal, Transparency

by Chris White Daily Caller Former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy joined an environmental group that was one of the chief lobbyists for former President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan. McCarthy announced her decision to lead the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Monday on Twitter, notifying her followers of the new gig. Reports show [...]

Walcher: Revolving doors save energyGallery

Walcher: Revolving doors save energy

November 15th, 2019|Conflict of Interest, Media Coverage, Walcher

by E&E Legal Senior Policy Fellow Greg Walcher As appearing in The Daily Sentinel

One of the largest and most powerful environmental industry groups, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRCD), has hired former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy as its new president. Although NRDC put out press releases, the hiring escaped the notice of nearly every reporter [...]

Milloy: Scott Pruitt should stay at EPA

Milloy: Scott Pruitt should stay at EPA

April 30th, 2018|"Scare Pollution", EPA, Media Coverage, Milloy

by Steve Milloy, E&E Legal Senior Policy Fellow & Junkscience.com Publisher As Appearing in USA Today What Pruitt is really 'guilty' of is reining in the rogue Environmental Protection Agency President Trump should ignore calls to fire Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt. As mountains are made of molehills and double standards are everywhere, regulatory [...]

Read More

Breitbart: Delingpole: The New York Times Is 100 Percent Wrong About Scott Pruitt

Breitbart: Delingpole: The New York Times Is 100 Percent Wrong About Scott Pruitt

April 2nd, 2018|"Scare Pollution", Bad Science, Corrupt and Fake News, Media Coverage, Milloy

by James Delingpole Breitbart President Trump is winning at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). There can be no better proof of this than the latest anguished editorial in the New York Times, lamenting the changes made by EPA administrator Scott Pruitt. The EPA, it claims, is the “epicenter of denial.” Its new regime is “terrified” [...]

Natural News: BUSTED: The EPA spent millions in taxpayer dollars to push climate change propaganda via social media Gallery

Natural News: BUSTED: The EPA spent millions in taxpayer dollars to push climate change propaganda via social media

December 10th, 2017|Conflict of Interest, EPA, Transparency

by Jayson Veley Natural News (Natural News) Under the Obama administration, the Environmental Protection Agency was one of the most tyrannical, lawless institutions in the entire country, spitting out tens of thousands of unconstitutional regulations each year and compelling businesses to abide by the left’s radical climate change agenda. Mind you, these are regulations that [...]

Read More

Press Release: As COP-23 Kicks Off, E&E Legal Releases Energy Poverty Video Calling on Pres. Trump to Withstand Pressures to Impose Devastating Paris Climate Treaty

Press Release: As COP-23 Kicks Off, E&E Legal Releases Energy Poverty Video Calling on Pres. Trump to Withstand Pressures to Impose Devastating Paris Climate Treaty

November 6th, 2017|2015 Paris Talks, Energy Poverty, Paris Climate Treaty, Press Releases, Richardson, Video

Washington, D.C. – Today, the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) released a video calling on Pres. Trump to withstand pressures by global elites to impose the devastating "climate" policies, and reverse his pledge to withdraw from the Paris Climate Treaty, as the world's global elites kick off the United Nation's Climate Change Conference in Bonn, Germany. The video elaborates [...]

LOAD MORE RESULTS

---