Global warming may save more lives than it costs, its effect on climate-sensitive diseases in the U.S. may be minimal, and global warming science itself is uncertain.
This assessment appears in an internal White House memo entitled "Deliberative-Attorney Client Privilege," which was compiled from the opinions of 12 federal agencies and departments that had concerns with a proposed EPA finding in April that greenhouse gases pose dangers to public health and welfare.
The thrust of the memo was to demonstrate the EPA was coming to conclusions that were unsubstantiated and sometimes misinformed, and to encourage the EPA to address many deficiencies in its finding. The deficiencies include:
• "The finding rests heavily on the precautionary principle, but the amount of acknowledged lack of understanding about basic facts surrounding GHGs seem to stretch the precautionary principle to providing for regulation in the face of unprecedented uncertainty."
• the EPA Administrator should explain how she "weighed the scientific evidence related to each impact or how/whether she gave more or less weight to particular impacts for either the public health or the welfare finding and how she weighed uncertainty in her deliberations."
• "The Finding should also acknowledge that EPA has not undertaken a systematic risk analysis or cost-benefit analysis."
• " there is a concern that EPA is making a finding based on … ‘harm’ from substances that have no demonstrated direct health effects, such as respiratory or toxic effects"
• "there should be a consideration of the fertilizing effect of CO2, which may overwhelm the negative impact of additional hot days on agricultural yields in some regions of the US. In others regions, the net effect is likely to be negative.
In addition, the memo indicated that the EPA’s Finding could lead to needless and costly regulation.
Energy Probe 