The Evidence is in: Endangerment Finding was Pre-cooked

 The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has raised concerns about the legality and fairness of the Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) 2009 Endangerment Finding (EF) regarding greenhouse gases. Internal communications reveal that the decision to declare greenhouse gases as harmful was made prematurely, leading to calls for rescinding the finding.

1. Predetermined Decision-Making:

• Internal emails from the Obama administration's EPA officials indicated a predetermined decision on the EF shortly after the administration began, showing a lack of genuine deliberation.

• The officials referred to the EF as a "decision ready to go" and treated it as an undeniable fact, suggesting a pre-organized agenda that disregarded public input.

2. Sham Regulatory Process:

• The regulatory process leading to the EF is described as truncated and lacking proper internal and public engagement, violating the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and Due Process Clause.

• The timeline for the EF was politically motivated, with the goal of aligning the announcement with significant anniversaries and international events.

3. Legal Concerns and Court Challenges:

• The GAO emphasizes that the EF was the result of closed-minded decision-making and warrants legal scrutiny, potentially involving the Supreme Court.

• The Supreme Courts 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA decision granting the EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases presents challenges for any future attempts to rescind the EF purely on jurisdictional grounds.

4. Arguments for Rescission:

• The GAO recommends that the EPA document the predetermination and flawed process in any official rescission of the EF, to prevent future administrations from reestablishing it based on a compromised record.

• Acknowledging this history could support the EPAs stance in court, affirming the impropriety of the original finding.

5. Evidence of Closed Minds:

• Instances of internal communication reveal that relevant EPA officials were more focused on the timing of their announcement than on evidence-based decision-making. This suggests a lack of open-mindedness in determining the EF's validity.

• Senior officials, including Lisa Heinzerling, played crucial roles in ensuring the outcome favored their pre-existing beliefs, undermining regulatory integrity.

6. Internal Harbingers of Trouble:

• Communications reveal significant pressure and political maneuvering behind the scenes to finalize the EF quickly, despite reservations from scientists about the adequacy of the review process and supporting data.

• The reliance on predetermined outcomes reflects a concerning trend where scientific considerations were overshadowed by political ambitions.

The GAO asserts that the EPA must acknowledge the flawed foundation of the Endangerment Finding in its efforts to rescind it. By doing so, the agency not only aims to rectify past injustices but also seeks to safeguard against future administrations potentially misusing the tainted process. The evidence of predetermined decision-making is compelling enough to warrant legal reconsideration of the EF, thereby requiring careful handling to ensure compliance with legal standards and restore public trust in the regulatory framework. 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/02/09/the-evidence-is-in-endangerment-finding-was-pre-cooked/