Organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), the letter says in part

Because the EPA's finding is based on solid science, this amendment also represents a rejection of that science. The EPA's endangerment finding is based on an exhaustive review of the massive body of scientific research showing a clear threat from climate change."

The letter further urges Congress to…

…oppose an imminent attack on the Clean Air Act (CAA) that would undermine public health and prevent action on global warming." Adding that "Because EPA's finding is based on solid science this amendment also represents a rejection of that science."

At least 10 international science academies and 18 scientific organizations within the US, including the National Academy of Sciences, support the underlying science upon which the EPA's finding is based, scientists say in the letter.

Michelle Robinson, director of the Clean Vehicles Program for the UCS said:

These resolutions not only threaten public health, they would force Americans to spend more on gasoline by rolling back new vehicle standards that will save consumers billions of dollars at the gas pump" said Michelle Robinson, director of the Clean Vehicles Program at UCS. "Congress should be protecting public health and listening to the best science, not sending more money overseas for oil."

Americans spend $13 million dollars every minute on foreign oil.

Following is the full text of the letter: (or see the pdf version with the complete list of signatories)

Protect the Clean Air Act:

A letter signed by 569 U.S. Scientists

Dear Congress,

We the undersigned urge you to oppose an imminent attack on the Clean Air Act (CAA) that would undermine public health and prevent action on global warming. This attack comes in the form of House and Senate resolutions that would reverse the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) finding that global warming endangers public health and welfare. Because the EPA’s finding is based on solid science, this amendment also represents a rejection of that science.

The EPA’s “endangerment finding” is based on an exhaustive review of the massive body of scientific research showing a clear threat from climate change. The 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that global warming will cause water shortages, loss of species, hazards to coasts from sea level rise, and an increase in the severity of extreme weather events.¹

The most recent science includes findings that sea level rise may be more pronounced than the IPCC report predicted² and that oceans will absorb less of our future emissions³.

Recently, 18 American scientific societies sent a letter to the U.S. Senate confirming the consensus view on climate science and calling for action to reduce greenhouse gases “if we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change.” The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and ten international scientific academies have also released such statements.⁴ Unfortunately, these resolutions would force the EPA to ignore these scientific findings and statements.

The CAA is a law with a nearly 40-year track record of protecting public health and the environment and spurring innovation by cutting dangerous pollution. This effective policy can help address the threat of climate change – but only if the EPA retains its ability to respond to scientific findings. Instead of standing in the way of climate action, the Senate should move quickly to enact climate and energy legislation that will curb global warming, save consumers money, and create jobs. In the meantime, I urge you to respect the scientific integrity of the EPA’s endangerment finding by opposing Senate and House attacks on the Clean Air Act.
Sincerely,

—————-
1 IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (AR4). S. Solomon et al. eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and NY, USA. More than 450 lead authors, 800 contributing authors, and an additional 2,500 reviewing experts from more than 130 countries contributed to AR4.
2 Stroeve, J. Marika M. Holland, Walt Meier, Ted Scambos, and Mark Serreze (2007) Arctic sea ice decline: Faster than forecast Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 34, L09501, Doi: 10.1029/2007gl029703
3 Canadell, J.G., C. Le Quéré, M. R. Raupach, C. B. Field, E. T. Buitenhuis, P. Ciais, T. J. Conway, N. P. Gillett, R. A. Houghton, and G. Marland. 2007. Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth from economic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency of natural sinks, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
4 A list of these scientific societies and academies and links to their statements is available at http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html

The GOP minority quickly turned the budget meeting into a battle of wills, saying that hacked emails from climate scientists at East Anglia Univesity showed bias against countervailing opinion disputing evidence that the principal driver of current climate change is from human activity. Inhofe also used errors in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report from the  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to base his case that the entire body of scientific evidence is flawed.

GOP Senators also used the heavy winter snow in Washington last week as further proof that the EPA's Endangerment Finding, signed by Jackson last December, that  carbon emissions pose a threat to human health and welfare is founded on what Inhofe often calls a "hoax."

We've been told that the science still stands," Inhofe said. "We've been told that the IPCC's mistakes are trivial. We've been told that Climategate is just gossipy e-mails between a few scientists.

"But now we know there's no objective basis for these claims," he added. "Furthermore, Climategate shows there's no 'consensus;' the science is far from settled."

The science behind climate change is settled," Jackson fired back, "and human activity is responsible for global warming. That conclusion is not a partisan one. Not only have America's top scientific institutions come to that conclusion," she added, "but so have numerous other industrialized countries.”

EPA continues to take meaningful, common sense steps to address climate change." Jackson said. "Making the right choices now will allow the agency to improve health, drive technology innovation, and protect the environment; all without placing an undue burden on the nation's economy."

Reinforcing the the scope of the evidence, both scientific and empirical, that climate change is real and something which Congress should urgently act upon, committee chair Barbara Boxer urged Senators to lead instead of obstruct.

While the world is going green, the one place where we can't seem to address climate change directly is here in the Senate," said Boxer.

The Senator cited reports from the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program detailing independent research showing ongoing and projected consequences of climate change that is now clearly evident.

Of the accusation that EPA regulations will be a "job killer," Boxer countered:

One of the reasons I am so pleased EPA is addressing climate change is that when we do so, we create millions of jobs. The efforts by some to bottle up clean energy and climate proposals in the Congress have caused firms to hold off on major investments, stifling job growth."

Even with the wide consensus from independent scientific organizations around the world on the reality of and principal cause for climate change, administrator Jackson made clear her support for the overall conclusions and methods of the IPCC, saying that she does not "agree that the IPCC has been totally discredited in any way."

Senator Bernie Sanders, an Independent from Vermont, angrily expressed his frustration with his Republican colleagues over their denial of climate science, and even science in general.

This country faces many many problems, not the least of which, we have national leaders rejecting basic science," he said. "I find it incredible, I really do, that in the year 2010 on this committee, there are people who are saying there is a doubt about global warming. There is no doubt about global warming."

Given the contentious nature of the issue among Senators, key allies say the announcement yesterday that the EPA does not plan to impose any regulations on stationary sources of greenhouse gas emissions (like power and other industrial plants) until 2011 gives legislators some "breathing room" to move forward with climate legislation.

Additional sources and further reading
New York Times (Greenwire)
Media Newswire
Environmental News Service

The Give and Take of Washington: If You Can't Take It, Then Don't Give It…

In a press release last week, Greenpeace announced the launch of PolluterHarmony. The parody website, created through Greenpeace's PolluterWatch, seeks to match "lobbyists. CEO's, and propagandists" with easy and willing public officials to help ease the path to buying and selling influence and "sabotage our clean energy future without ever leaving the house."  The site is a spoof on the popular matchmaking site eHarmony.

The parody site claims (in jest) it is  "the #1 matchmaking site for polluters, industry lobbyists, & politicians!" with a video of man explaining how he is a corporate lobbyist in the throws of new love with a woman named "Lisa" (read Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski). The man, at one point almost in tears because the new relationship makes him so emotional, tells the viewers that his time with Lisa has "…been just magical." The video shows scenes of romantic nights gutting clean energy bills, juxtaposed with the man and "Lisa" strolling hand-in-hand through the damp streets of Washington.

Murkowski is seeking to stop the EPA's endangerment finding that CO2 emissions pose a threat to human health and welfare. It has been widely reported that Murkowski's proposed amendment to block EPA regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act had a lot of help from energy lobbyists.

Last week it was also reported by Greenwire and the New York Times that oil and gas lobbyists spent a record $154 million (at least) in 2009 to shape and influence climate and energy policy, up 16 percent from the $132 million spent in 2008. The electric utility industry spent $134.7 million in 2009, for a combined total of $288.7 million  - more than a quarter-billion dollars – to peddle influence. That's almost ten times the $29 million alternative energy interests spend on their lobbying efforts (not including the $21.3 million spend on lobbying by environmental organizations).

In addition to the PolluterHarmony website, faith-based and environmental activists last week launched a series of radio ads targeting eight key senators when Murkowski's amendment, characterized as "The Dirty Air Act", comes to a vote. Other environmental advocacy groups said last week they plan on putting up billboards critical of Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln, one of the three moderate Democrats that have signaled support for Murkowski's proposal.

Murkowski spokesman Robert Dillon "condemned" the opposition to his boss, saying that "This type of personal attack is highly offensive and clearly crosses the line."

This is a perfect example of what's wrong with Washington," Dillon said. "Too often outside groups go for the personal attack when they can't win on the merits. Rather than have a legitimate debate about the policy, they launch a smear campaign."

One might wonder where Dillon has been up until now in this debate, with the constant barrage of mocking and character assassination against proponents of clean energy and climate action the rule of the day for years, on full display last week during the harsh winter weather in, well, winter, and practically a matter of executive fiat under the Bush administration.

What crosses the line is Senator Murkowski's blatant attempt to gut the Clean Air Act in order to satisfy her dirty industry lobbyist backers," said PolluterWatch director Kert Davies.  "If she objects to the scrutiny her conduct has received, she should consider putting her constituents ahead of Washington lobbyists," Davies said. "Until then, we will continue to hold her accountable for her close ties to influence peddlers like Jeffrey Holmstead."

Additional source and further reading:
Huffington Post
New York Times