Junk analysis


The Washington Post reported this morning that the EPA chose to ignore a scientific study showing that stricter controls on mercury power plant emissions could potentially save $5 billion a year in health costs—over 100 times more than the EPA’s own estimation. And yet:

Top agency officials ordered the finding stripped from public documents, said a staff member who helped develop the rule. Acknowledging the Harvard study would have forced the agency to consider more stringent controls, said environmentalists, and the study’s author.

When asked why the agency had not included the report, one of the EPA’s chief economists claimed it was submitted too late to be factored in and that crucial elements of the analysis were flawed. Yet interviews and documents show that the EPA had been aware of the study since August, and had received its results by the January 3rd deadline.

Prepared by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, the report was commissioned and paid for by the EPA, co-authored by an EPA scientist and peer-reviewed two other EPA scientists. As the Post notes, the Harvard group’s expertise has been widely cited by the Bush Administration before, a fact which caused the Harvard Center’s Director, James Hammitt to question why it went ignored this time around:

“I didn’t think that was terribly fair,” Hammit said. “Now here we are doing the same kind of analysis and it comes out in a more environmentally protective direction than EPA is, and they ignore it. There is an irony in that.”

The report, which also details new evidence that mercury causes heart attacks in adults, is not the first report to criticize the EPA’s new mercury rule. An internal investigation by the EPA discovered major flaws in the EPA’s plan and found that the agency had issued orders to disregard analysis that would have suggested more stringent emissions controls were needed. And a report by the Government Accountability Office, as detailed here by Chris Mooney, illustrates how the EPA rigged its economic analysis to favor its preferred cap and trade solution to mercury.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.