CARB in conflict with the truth again

Russ Steele

First it was CARB AB-32 Scoping Plan economic analysis that failed peer review, and now we find out that there are some major issues with the studies that support the new diesel regulations. At the PolitickerCA.com we learn that:

"Chris Reed, an editorial writer for the San Diego Union-Tribune, reports that the California Air Resources Board is investigating whether one of the scientists who authored a study used by the board to justify new limits on emissions lied about his education."

Digging a little deeper at the San Diego Union Tribune blog we find that this little bit of deception was uncovered when CARB refused to accept a study showing that there was insufficient statistical evidence to support the claims made against diesel exhaust. 

Chris Reed writes on his blog:

This was my reaction today after reading the detailed criticism of the sham science that CARB used to justify its decision last Friday to sharply cut down on diesel emissions. The criticism came from a distinguished group: James E. Enstrom, Ph.D., M.P.H., a 35-year lifestyle epidemiologist with the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center; Anthony Fucaloro, Ph.D., a 35-year chemist with public policy expertise from Claremont McKenna College Joint Science Department; Matthew A. Malkan, Ph.D., a 25-year astrophysicist with the UCLA Department of Physics and Astronomy; and Robert F. Phalen, Ph.D., a 35-year air pollution toxicologist with UC Irvine Air Pollution Health Effects Laboratory.

The criticism was every bit as sharp as that made by the economists who looked at CARB's "scoping plan" for AB 32. Here are their ...

Specific Concerns Regarding October 24, 2008 CARB Staff Report on PM 2.5 [that's the shorthand term for fine particles 2.5 micrometers in diameter and smaller] and Premature Deaths

1) Authors have no relevant peer reviewed publications and lead author has misrepresented his "Ph.D."

2) Report and public comments were never shown to outside reviewers as stated in Executive Summary.

3) Five independent sources indicate no current relationship between PM2.5 and deaths in California.

4) California has fourth lowest total age-adjusted death rate among US states and ew "premature deaths."

5) Diesel toxicity and fine particulate air pollution in California are currently at record low levels.

6) Before approving new diesel regulations, CARB should fully evaluate PM2.5 and deaths in California.

Conclusion: Important epidemiologic and toxicologic evidence does not support adverse health effects of diesel claimed by CARB and new diesel regulations should be postponed until above issues are fully and fairly evaluated.

These new CARB regulations are come at a great cost to industry and governments that have to install filters or re-engine their diesel powered equipment. We paying those cost now in Nevada County. It appears that CARB cherry picks their data for both climate change and air quality, all based on a predetermined agenda. It is time for some house cleaning at CARB, but that will have to start in the Governors Office. On the left side of the screen is the contact information for the Governor and our Legislators. Please let them know you are not happy with the science CARB is using to establish policies detrimental or our local economy.