What does an Environmental Protection Agency do?

You have to love the US’ administration’s approach to climate change.  If you stick your fingers in your ears and shut your eyes then maybe you wont have to do anything about it.  What ever you do don’t open email from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  And if that fails then put someone into the top job that will ignore the organisation’s name.

Last night a 149 page document was released which lays out the grave risks that climate change poses to human health, and to the supplies of food, water and energy on which populations depend.

The document has come in response to a Supreme Court ruling that the EPA must regulate greenhouse gases unless it could provide a scientific reason not to do so.

According to the Times it’s ‘a more absolute pronouncement on the science of climate change than the White House has so far been prepared to accept, they said that global warming was “unequivocal,” and that humans were to blame.’

It shouldn’t be news but for some reason it is for certain sectors.  According to the report extreme weather events will increase in frequency and death from insect borne diseases will too.

Speaking to the Times, Vickie Patton, deputy general counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund, said:

“This is a long-awaited EPA analysis that has been kept under wraps by the White House,”. “This document inescapably, unmistakably shows that global warming pollution not only threatens human health and welfare, but it is adversely impacting human health and welfare today.

The bit that Greenbang really loves in the story is about EPA chief Stephen Johnson.  Mr Johnson has for a long time remained controversial by refusing to do anything about his scientists’ findings and once again has signalled that he would not bow to the court’s demands.

At least Bush is heading out at which point the EPA can get back to doing what it’s name suggests it should.