Transparent Presidency? Obama Caught Trying to Sneak Through Significant Change to "Social Cost Of Carbon"

What does the President of the most transparent administration in history do when his global warming nonsense is opposed by the majority of Congress and American people? Why--figure out a way to sneak your policy through with nobody noticing. Sadly for President Barack "Mr. Transparent" Obama he got caught by the Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. 

The Senators sent a letter to administration officials (embedded below) saying they’re concerned the higher “social cost of carbon” authorized by the Obama administration will be used to justify more aggressive greenhouse gas emission rules.

We are troubled by reports on the updated estimate, especially the continued use of lower discount rates that appear to diverge from the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) own existing guidance and the apparent lack of stakeholder involvement in the effort.[3] While the discount rates remain unchanged from 2010, the fact remains that the new SCC for 2013 increased from $22 to $36 per ton of carbon dioxide emitted (a more than 60 percent increase). This is a significant change to an already highly controversial estimate, and as such requires transparency, open debate, and an adherence to well-understood and previously agreed-upon rule

We are troubled by reports on the updated estimate, especially the continued use of lower discount rates that appear to diverge from the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) own existing guidance and the apparent lack of stakeholder involvement in the effort.[3] While the discount rates remain unchanged from 2010, the fact remains that the new SCC for 2013 increased from $22 to $36 per ton of carbon dioxide emitted (a more than 60 percent increase). This is a significant change to an already highly controversial estimate, and as such requires transparency, open debate, and an adherence to well-understood and previously agreed-upon rule - See more at: http://www.noodls.com/view/6AE2884395344D4870BDF9615491721AF89BC95D#sthash.LTUvi2OW.dpuf

We are troubled by reports on the updated estimate, especially the continued use of lower discount rates that appear to diverge from the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) own existing guidance and the apparent lack of stakeholder involvement in the effort.[3] While the discount rates remain unchanged from 2010, the fact remains that the new SCC for 2013 increased from $22 to $36 per ton of carbon dioxide emitted (a more than 60 percent increase). This is a significant change to an already highly controversial estimate, and as such requires transparency, open debate, and an adherence to well-understood and previously agreed-upon rule - See more at: http://www.noodls.com/view/6AE2884395344D4870BDF9615491721AF89BC95D#sthash.LTUvi2OW.dpuf

We are troubled by reports on the updated estimate, especially the continued use of lower discount rates that appear to diverge from the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) own existing guidance and the apparent lack of stakeholder involvement in the effort.[3] While the discount rates remain unchanged from 2010, the fact remains that the new SCC for 2013 increased from $22 to $36 per ton of carbon dioxide emitted (a more than 60 percent increase). This is a significant change to an already highly controversial estimate, and as such requires transparency, open debate, and an adherence to well-understood and previously agreed-upon rule - See more at: http://www.noodls.com/view/6AE2884395344D4870BDF9615491721AF89BC95D#sthash.LTUvi2OW.dpuf

We are troubled by reports on the updated estimate, especially the continued use of lower discount rates that appear to diverge from the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) own existing guidance and the apparent lack of stakeholder involvement in the effort.[3] While the discount rates remain unchanged from 2010, the fact remains that the new SCC for 2013 increased from $22 to $36 per ton of carbon dioxide emitted (a more than 60 percent increase). This is a significant change to an already highly controversial estimate, and as such requires transparency, open debate, and an adherence to well-understood and previously agreed-upon rule - See more at: http://www.noodls.com/view/6AE2884395344D4870BDF9615491721AF89BC95D#sthash.LTUvi2OW.dpuf

“As you are aware, the SCC [social cost of carbon] estimate is crucial to the Administration’s climate change agenda because the higher the number, the more benefits can be attributed to costly environmental regulations and standards,” they wrote.

The administration quietly raised the SCC figure — which assigns a monetary value to health, property and other damage associated with carbon pollution — in May to $36 per ton of carbon dioxide emitted, up from $22.

“This is a significant change to an already highly controversial estimate, and as such requires transparency, open debate, and an adherence to well-understood and previously agreed-upon rules,” the GOP senators, led by committee ranking member David Vitter (R-La.), wrote to agency chiefs at the Energy Department, White House Office of Management and Budget and the EPA.

The GOP senators requested responses on the process behind revising the social cost of carbon by July 2.

They have previously requested more information from the EPA about what data it uses to craft its air- and water-pollution rules, which Republicans oppose as economically burdensome.
They said the administration’s decision to raise the social cost of carbon meant getting that information was all the more necessary.

“In addition to real and ongoing concerns about the lack of openness and transparency throughout this Administration, we are troubled by any characterization of the reworked interagency estimate as relatively minor,” they said.

Proponents of the global warming hoax will use the social cost of carbon revision to try and bolster their efforts to slow down the economy even further. 

Once again we see that the promise of the most transparent administration in history is just that--a promise.

SocialCostCarbon letter by Jeffrey Dunetz