What the data says about climate change: What we know now
In December, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Enforcement (OEE) announced the creation of an independent monitoring team to monitor greenhouse gas emissions.
This was in part to avoid any “false positives” in the agency’s carbon emissions analysis of the effects of global warming.
But the team has since failed to deliver on its promises, as its work has been criticized by some scientists, the media, and even some members of Congress.
The OEE’s own website says that the EPA’s carbon monitoring team will be able to “identify and track the emissions of various types of greenhouse gases,” and will include representatives from the public and companies.
But this doesn’t seem to be the case.
According to a new report by the nonprofit Carbon Tracker, which tracks CO2 emissions from fossil fuel plants, the EPA has “not conducted a comprehensive analysis of greenhouse gas emission data from all sources of fossil fuel power generation and utilization in the United States.”
Instead, Carbon Tracker found that the OEE has only used data from two major coal power plants in Alabama and Kentucky, and only measured emissions from coal plants in two other states, South Carolina and Mississippi.
This is troubling, because the EPA itself has said that its carbon monitoring program is meant to help ensure the agency is accurately measuring carbon emissions from the nation’s fossil fuel sources.
This could be because it is possible for a single source to have a large number of data points that have different characteristics.
But Carbon Tracker argues that the data the EPA uses to make its assessments of CO2 emission from fossil fuels should include “all sources, regardless of how many they are, where they are located, or their overall emissions.”
In short, the OIE is simply failing to produce accurate and comparable information on the CO2 emitted from power plants.
Carbon Tracker says the lack of complete and comprehensive information about CO2 production from coal and other fossil fuel generators is the result of “an incomplete understanding of the source of emissions.”
The OIE has repeatedly claimed that it is committed to creating “data-driven” regulations, and has recently released its “first-ever data-driven rule” aimed at making the CO 2 emissions of power plants more accurate.
The OCE has been particularly vocal about its desire to increase the amount of carbon emissions emissions that can be captured and tracked by fossil fuel companies.
“This is a crucial moment in the nation,” said Robert Pappalardo, a senior vice president at Carbon Tracker.
“We can’t afford to have the United Kingdom go back to a pre-industrial-era era of low emissions.
It’s a really big mistake for the Trump administration to not address this issue.”
The lack of transparency in the OCE’s reporting of carbon emission data has been widely reported by climate scientists and advocates.
The report also shows that the agency has not even been able to properly document the CO 3 emissions that are produced in coal plants and the other fossil fuels that power plants use.
For instance, the Carbon Tracker report found that when the OTE looked at the CO emissions from two of the largest coal power generators in the U.S., the Murray-Darling and Powder River Basin, it only saw the CO emitted by two coal plants.
When the OPE looked at all coal plants, it did not see any CO emissions at all.
This was not surprising to Dr. John Christy, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), who told ABC News that he believes the lack on the OSE’s part of accounting for CO 2 emitted from fossil power plants is due to “the lack of a comprehensive and accurate analysis of fossil gas emissions.”
“What the OE report is saying is, you know, we’re not taking into account the CO that’s produced in a coal plant, but we’re just using the amount that’s emitted by the coal plant,” Christy told ABC.
“And if we were taking into consideration that the CO produced by coal plants is about half as much CO 2 as what’s emitted into the atmosphere, then I think that would make sense.”
The EPA has not responded to a request for comment about the Carbon Tracking report.
The EPA’s press office did not immediately respond to a similar request.
Follow Jonathan on Twitter: @CitizenJunkie