EPA Holding a Smoking Gun Memo

Smoking gun memo saying that the findings were political, not scientific. Obama is again caught in a LIE. He is like a thug don, because he always denies he knows what the people he appointed and directs are doing. Because of this the public blames others for obama's own deception and lies. It is obama who is the liar and a fraud. A thug from chicago who hides behind; Plausible deniability which is the denial of blame in loose and informal chains of command where upper rungs quarantine the blame to the lower rungs. In the case that illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any awareness of such act or any connection to the agents used to carry out such act.

It's people's opinions in the Obama White House. CO2 not a pollutant. The smoking gun that exposes Obama EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, as an idiot or a liar. She is an idiot and a liar as is her leader obama.

.....................................................................................
The actual memo..that is a smoking gun!
The SMoking Gun memo Link...Read it yourself
.......................................................................................
DELIBERATIVE—ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE
1
Discussion of scientific support and analysis.
The NPRM fails to articulate the process by which the Administrator came to the
conclusion on p. 30, line 41-46:
“The Administrator believes that the scientific findings in totality point to
compelling evidence of human-induced climate change, and that serious risks and
potential impacts to public health and welfare have been clearly identified, even if
they cannot always be quantified with confidence. The Administrator’s proposed
endangerment finding is based on weighing the scientific evidence, considering
the uncertainties, and balancing any benefits to human health, society the
environment that may also occur.”
The finding document remains very separate from the TSD, with only occasional
references to the IPCC or particular CCSP report findings, and it is up to the reader’s
interpretation of the TSD to determine how the evidence has been weighed to arrive at
the conclusions above. The finding rests heavily on the precautionary principle, but the
amount of acknowledged lack of understanding about basic facts surrounding GHGs
seem to stretch the precautionary principle to providing for regulation in the face of
unprecedented uncertainty. (The TSD notes several areas where essential behaviors of
GHGs are "not well determined" and "not well understood" (e.g., why have U.S. methane
levels decreased recently?).) This could be remedied by expanding the discussion on pp.
25-31 to articulate more clearly how the Administrator weighed the scientific evidence
related to each impact or how/whether she gave more or less weight to particular impacts
for either the public health or the welfare finding and how she weighed uncertainty in her
deliberations.
For example, the NPRM and TSD outline the following 5 human health effects from
climate change: temperature effects, air quality changes, extreme events, climatesensitive
diseases and aeroallergens. It is unclear whether temperature effects will result
in net mortality increases or decreases and the scientific literature does not provide
definitive data or conclusions about aeroallergen impacts. Further, the impact of climatesensitive
diseases may be minimal in a rich country like the US.
Hence, it seems that the Administrator’s public health endangerment conclusion is based
on the other two impacts, with the most significant health risks being posed by air quality
changes. If so, the discussion here should state this explicitly. Further, the argument for
why the increases in ozone from climate change pose a health impact could be fleshed
out more thoroughly (p. 27, line 34-39). Since tropospheric ozone is already regulated
under the Clean Air Act, EPA should explain why those regulations are inadequate to
protect public health from the ozone impacts of climate change.
In addition, the finding could be strengthened by including additional information on
benefits, costs, and risks (where this information exists); meeting appropriate standards
for peer review; and accepted research protocols. Some issues to cover that would
address costs, benefits, and risks include the following:

DELIBERATIVE—ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE
2
o Methodology or methodologies used for weighing risks and various
outcomes and the risks associated with each;
o Confidence intervals related to model results at the regional and local
scales;
o Underlying assumptions of findings, publications on which the findings
are based, and “business-as-usual” scenarios;
o Quality and homogeneity of temperature data from surface networks that
may affect estimates of past temperature trends, and calibration and
verification of models;
o Impacts of climate change on the value of net economic benefits.
The Finding should also acknowledge that EPA has not undertaken a systematic risk
analysis or cost-benefit analysis.
In the absence of a strong statement of the standards being applied in this decision, there
is a concern that EPA is making a finding based on (1) "harm" from substances that have
no demonstrated direct health effects, such as respiratory or toxic effects, (2) available
scientific data that purports to conclusively establish the nature and extent of the adverse
public health and welfare impacts are almost exclusively from non-EPA sources, and (3)
applying a dramatically expanded precautionary principle. If EPA goes forward with a
finding of endangerment for all 6 GHGs, it could be establishing a relaxed and expansive
new standard for endangerment. Subsequently, EPA would be petitioned to find
endangerment and regulate many other “pollutants" for the sake of the precautionary
principle (e.g., electromagnetic fields, perchlorates, endocrine disruptors, and noise).
Endangerment without consideration of regulatory consequences.
EPA should explain whether it considered a finding that methane and the other four non-
CO2 GHGs do in fact contribute to climate change, based on their higher warming
potential, but that overriding policy concerns make such a finding infeasible concerning
CO2. Because methane and the other four non-CO2 GHGs are either already regulated
under the CAA or are functionally equivalent to pollutants typically regulated under the
CAA, an endangerment finding for these GHGs would be relatively routine. Because
GHGs are understood to be long-lived, well-mixed in the atmosphere, and generated by
many nations around the globe, the most analogous regulatory approach for controlling
GHGs would seem to be Title VI of the CAA. EPA's relevant experience with
controlling ozone-depleting substances should inform its decisions on an approach to
regulating GHGs.
In contrast, an endangerment finding under section 202 may not be not the most
appropriate approach for regulating GHGs. Making the decision to regulate CO2 under
the CAA for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated
entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities.
Should EPA later extend this finding to stationary sources, small businesses and
institutions would be subject to costly regulatory programs such as New Source Review.

DELIBERATIVE—ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE
3
The role of mitigation, adaptation, and/or benefits of climate change
To the extent that climate change alters our environment, it will create incentives for
innovation and adaptation that mitigate the damages from climate change. The document
should note this possibility and how it affects the likely impacts of climate change.
For example, climate change is likely to unfold slowly and people may migrate from hot
regions (e.g., Arizona) to more temperate regions (e.g., Minnesota) and this would
mitigate the adverse impacts on health (although people would incur migration costs).
Further, climate change is likely to lead to innovation that mitigates the ozone related
health impacts; it seems reasonable to assume that in the absence of regulation of GHS,
new medicines that lessen the health impacts of ozone will be developed. Moreover,
advances in technology and the development of public health programs (e.g., cooling
centers) are likely to lessen the negative welfare impacts of heat waves.
Similarly, the document would appear more balanced if it also highlighted whether
particular regions of the US would benefit, and to what extent these positive impacts
would mitigate negative impacts elsewhere in the United States. For example, it might be
reasonable to conclude that Alaska will benefit from warmer winters for both health and
economic reasons. Deschenes and Moretti (2007 Review of Economics and Statistics)
demonstrate that extremely cold days are more dangerous to human health than extremely
hot days. Please add this paper to the literature review in Section 7(a) of the TSD.
Further, there should be a consideration of the fertilizing effect of CO2, which may
overwhelm the negative impact of additional hot days on agricultural yields in some
regions of the US. In others regions, the net effect is likely to be negative.
Agency compliance with other environmental mandates
There is some concern that an endangerment finding, and some of the language used to
support the finding, will make it more difficult to comply with NEPA and other
environmental planning statutes.
• This finding and the associated emission standards for these six greenhouse gases
may make it much more expensive and difficult to develop other air quality
standards (NAAQS in particular). For example, EPA has recently asked BLM to
use models that sometimes exceed current budgets in developing resource
management plans and environmental impact statements. Also, there are
currently no models available that forecast the potential impacts of greenhouse
gases on climate change at the regional or local level, which are the levels at
which our decisions are made. This rule also could make findings that would
leave agencies vulnerable to litigation alleging “inadequate NEPA” due to new
information (i.e., the endangerment finding) that was not considered when the EIS
was developed. Without a model available, an agency would be left with little
ability to respond because (i) there are no standards to serve as thresholds, (ii)
there are no tools to analyze impacts, and (iii) the cost of analyzing impacts could
be exorbitant.

DELIBERATIVE—ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE
4
• Unnecessarily broad or expansive language with respect to the effects of GHGs or
the certainty with which effects will occur could create a basis for finding all
GHG emissions significant for purposes of NEPA analysis, thus requiring an EIS
for all direct and indirect effects that change GHG emissions in any amount.
Similarly, EPA should be very careful to state which effects are significant and
their scale to avoid unintentionally trigger NEPA for Federal actions not
otherwise considered to have environmental impacts.
Four chemicals v. six chemicals
EPA proposes to make an endangerment finding on six directly emitted and long-lived
GHGs—carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons
and sulfur hexafluoride, treated as a group as an air pollutant. The proposal, however,
defines the terms “air pollution” and “air pollutant” for purposes of section 202(a) as the
six GHGs, two of which are not addressed in the underlying petition and which EPA
recognizes are not emitted by new motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines, and on page
two, this action is characterized as a “response” to the Supreme Court’s decision in
Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), which arose from a petition with respect to
the four GHGs. Although the latter two GHGs have similar characteristics and are
addressed in UN documents, it is not clear why they are included in the endangerment
and “cause or contribute” findings. While it appears that section 202(a) provides
sufficiently broad authority for EPA to do so and the draft explains this decision as based
on the uniform, global nature of GHG ambient concentrations, a seemingly simpler
regulatory action might be to base the definition of “air pollution” or “air pollutant” on
the four GHGs emitted by new motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines.
• This raises the question of the extent to which EPA intends or does not intend
this finding to extend beyond section 202 to the same terms used in other key
parts of the CAA, e.g., section 101(a) (general findings and purpose), section 108
(National Ambient Air Quality Standards), and section 111(b) (New Source
Performance Standards). EPA would benefit from making its position explicit in
this proposal. Commenters are sure to take this important issue on in some
fashion so EPA may as well do what it can to shape the debate and the comments
being invited. For example, it could note that the same terms are important parts
of other key CAA provisions, but then state that EPA at this time is only
addressing and seeking comment on issues directly associated with section 202.
Alternatively, it could state that it views these findings as to GHGs to be broadly
applicable to the Act as a whole, but nonetheless make clear that EPA is not in
this rulemaking attempting to consider or address any of the other regulatory
findings that would be necessary to trigger GHG regulation under other CAA
programs. A third option would be to invite comment on whether interested
parties believed there was any basis for distinguishing the understanding of the
terms in the section 202 context from the understanding of the terms in other parts
of the Act.

DELIBERATIVE—ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE
5
• EPA fails to make a case of why the six GHGs should be treated as a single
pollutant and why all six should be treated as a group. Treating the gases as a
group yields the indefensible result that emissions of PFCs, SF6 and HFCs other
than HFC-134a from motor vehicles are asserted to “cause or contribute: to air
pollution, when there are no such emissions from motor vehicles. Further, EPA
states that: "Depending on the circumstances... it may be appropriate to set
standards for individual gases [of the 6], or some combination of group and
individual standards." EPA asserts that these regulatory flexibilities would exist
whether or not greenhouse gases are treated as multiple pollutants or as individual
pollutants. [See discussion on page 32-33.]
• These greenhouse gases differ significantly in terms of physical properties,
formation mechanisms, and possible mitigation techniques.
• Mobile source CO2 is formed by burning fossil fuels. Virtually all of the
carbon in the fuel is converted to CO2. The more efficient the combustion
process, the more complete the conversion to CO2. Unlike for traditional
criteria pollutants (e.g., NMHC, CO, NOX), which can be converted to other
substances through emissions aftertreatment (i.e., catalytic converters), no
mobile aftertreatment device can convert CO2 to something that does not
contribute to global warming.1 Therefore, mobile source CO2 emissions can
only be reduced by burning less fossil fuel, either by improving fuel economy
or converting to less carbon-intensive fuels.
• Mobile source CH4 and N2O emissions are by-products of fossil fuel
combustion. However, burning less fossil fuel does not necessarily mean
reducing CH4 and N2O emissions. For example, using methane (CH4) rather
than petroleum could increase CH4 emissions
• Mobile source HFC emissions arise from releases of HFC refrigerants from
mobile air conditioners. Therefore, mobile source HFC emissions can only be
reduced by using different refrigerants and/or “hardening” mobile air
conditioners to reduce the potential for refrigerant leaks.
• Mobile source CO2, CH4, N2O, and HFC emissions not only have different
global warning potentials, they remain in the atmosphere for different
amounts of time and are removed from the atmosphere by different
mechanisms.
• In contrast to EPA’s citation of Class I and Class II substances under Title VI,
under Title II, EPA’s treats mobile source NHMC and NOX as separate pollutants,
even though both are precursors to the formation of tropospheric ozone (i.e.,
urban smog), and both are mitigated through a combination of fuel improvements,
1 In fact, current catalytic converters operate by convert HC, CO, and NOX into CH4, N2O, and CO2 (and
water).
DELIBERATIVE—ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE
6
combustion process changes, and emissions

DELIBERATIVE—ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE
6
combustion process changes, and emissions aftertreatment. Considering that
mobile source CO2, CH4, N2O, and HFC emissions are even more distinct from
one another than are mobile source NHMC and NOX emissions, and that EPA
classifies NMHC and NOX as separate pollutants, EPA should classify these as
separate pollutants or, alternatively, classify CO2 as one pollutant, classify CH4
and N2O as another pollutant (class), and classify HFCs as a third pollutant
(class).
Accounting for the Global Nature of Greenhouse Gas Pollution in the Findings
In this draft proposal, EPA finds under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 202(a) that (1) “air
pollution” in the form of the global mix of six greenhouse gases (or the GHGs) may be
reasonably anticipated to endanger public health and welfare (the endangerment finding);
and (2) emissions of an “air pollutant” in the form of the global mix of the GHGs from
new motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines cause or contribute to that air pollution (the
contribution finding). The agency characterizes the “global” nature of the GHG
emissions and concentrations (page 16), notes the effects of GHG emissions globally in
making the endangerment finding (page 29), and assesses the contribution of the GHGs
emitted by section 202(a) sources as a percentage of global emissions (page 36). The
proposal appears to assume, but does not explicitly discuss why (or solicit comment on
whether) these are relevant legal inquiries under section 202(a) the Clean Air Act. This is
virtually certain to be a subject of public comment; and we recommend that EPA directly
address this matter in the proposal.
EPA also factors international considerations into the endangerment and contribution
findings differently. On page 29, the agency states: “The Administrator judges that
impacts to public health and welfare occurring within the U.S. alone warrant her
proposed endangerment finding.” On page 36, however, EPA bases its finding on the
“significance” of the GHG emissions from section 202(a) sources for purposes of the
contribution finding in part on their global contribution:
It is the Administrator’s judgment that the collective GHG emissions from section
202(a) source categories are significant, whether the comparison is global (over 4
percent of total GHG emissions) or domestic (24 percent of total GHG
emissions). The Administrator believes that consideration of the global context is
important for the cause or contribute test but that the analysis should not solely
consider the global context.
It is unclear from the proposal why a difference in treatment of the two findings is
necessary or appropriate. Because the Administrator regards the domestic contribution
comparison in itself to be significant, it may be simpler (and less open to challenge) to
base the contribution finding solely on domestic considerations. (This would not
foreclose a discussion of global contribution, provided, as requested above, it is made
clear how relevant this is under section 202(a)).
Group Versus Individual Approach to “Air Pollutant”

DELIBERATIVE—ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE
7
On page 32, EPA proposes to designate the six GHGs, collectively, as the "air pollutant"
for which the endangerment finding is being made. The proposal, however, then goes on
at pages 33-40 to analyze the contribution issue both as to the six GHGs collectively, and
as to each individually. Although EPA hints that it believes either a collective or
individual approach could be valid and would reach similar results, see page 34, the
agency never really says expressly whether or not it is soliciting comment on these issues
and whether it would be open to considering a pollutant-by-pollutant-based approach for
the final rule. We recommend that this be made explicit.
Comment Solicitation
EPA limits solicitation of comment on the proposal to the simple statements on page six
to the effect that it seeks comment on all aspects of this action (data, methodology, and
major legal and policy considerations). While this is efficient and legally sufficient, the
agency may want to highlight a few key areas in which comment would be most useful.
The first two issues that we’ve identified above might be worthy of an express request for
comment. EPA may also need to clarify the relationship between comment on this
proposal and the July 30, 2008 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Greenhouse
Gas Emissions (ANPR). In footnote 11, EPA indicates that it is responding to a few key
comments from the ANPRM in this proposal related to the endangerment and
contribution findings and asks commenters to “submit to the docket for today’s action
any comments they want EPA to consider as it makes a decision on this proposed
determination.” We recommend that EPA move the footnote 11 discussion up to the
main body of the proposal at page 6 and explicitly state that commenters may not rely on
prior submission of comments to the ANPR and that if parties wish EPA to consider
comments made in response to the ANPR or other rulemakings, they should re-submit
those comments here with an appropriate explanation as to how the commenter believes
those comments relate to issues raised in this proposal. We can imagine a party trying to
make out a challenge to this endangerment finding based on arguments that were raised
entirely or primarily in comments submitted in response to the ANPR, not this proposal
(a prospect that is somewhat more likely due to the fact that EPA in various places
discusses comments made in response to the ANPR).
Agricultural Production
The proposed Finding erroneously suggests that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) predicts an increase in both crop and forest production in the U.S. (e.g.,
pg. 28 lines 21 and 34 of the Proposed Finding, pg 80 line 26, page 87 line 9). The IPCC
findings refer to North America, not the U.S.
The Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.3 (SAP 4.3) “The Effects of Climate Change on
Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the United States”
(U.S. Climate Change Science Program/Backlund et al. 2008), which includes more
recent and more geographically-specific publications, tempered IPCC’s findings
substantially, citing water limitations, northward progression of production zones,
diminished grain set period, pest infestations, nutrient limitations, air pollution, and
wildfire, among other dampening factors to production in agriculture and forestry in the U.S. Significant increases in production may be possible within North America as a
whole, but are unlikely within the U.S. itself.
The Findings document should be corrected to reflect that IPCC is referring to North
America rather than the U.S. More importantly, the Findings document should be revised
to accurately reflect the discussion in the Technical Support Document (TSD).
In addition, the placement of the IPCC prediction near the beginning of each section in
the absence of any summarization gives the impression that large production increases
are conclusive. This overrides the very salient and far more equivocal discussion which
follows, leaving readers with the mistaken impression that climate change is a boon to
U.S. agriculture and forestry. A summary statement which more accurately reflects the
content of the technical discussions should be composed to lead each section.
Emissions from the combustion of different fuels vs. emissions from different mobile
source categories.
Mobile source CO2 is formed by burning fossil fuels. Virtually all of the carbon in the
fuel is converted to CO2. Therefore, and considering that CO2 remains in the atmosphere
for a long time, national aggregate consumption of different types of fuels provides the
most accurate basis for estimating CO2 emissions.
IPCC guidelines for national reporting of GHG emissions account for this fact, and EIA
and EPA both use fuel consumption—not vehicle sales and fuel economy—as a basis for
estimating and reporting CO2 emissions. According to the IPCC (emphasis added),
“Emissions of CO2 are best calculated on the basis of the amount and type of fuel
combusted (taken to be equal to the fuel sold, see section 3.2.1.3) and its carbon
content.”2
Such reporting addresses petroleum consumption in the aggregate and for different
petroleum-based fuels, such as shown below from EIA
(http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/carbon.html):

.....................................................................................
RUSH LIMBAUGH CAUGHT OBAMA IN A BIL LIE AGAIN!

.....................................................................................

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: The EPA put out a memo. It's an Obama administration memo. This memo admits that CO2 is not a pollutant. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. This memo alludes to the fact that there is no proof. Somebody in the Obama administration really goofed up.

Now, you haven't heard about this, you had to have seen C-SPAN to know about this, but this memo is out there that CO2 is not a pollutant, that there's no evidence that CO2 is leading to the warming of the planet. There is a memo that pretty much debunks everything environmental wackos and global warming people are putting out, and it came from the Obama administration. And what's interesting about it is that the EPA was just given the authority by the Supreme Court to regulate CO2 as a pollutant. So the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee had a hearing on the proposed fiscal 2010 budget for the EPA. Senator John Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming, had a conversation with the EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson. Now, Barrasso opened and he said this.

BARRASSO: In a memo that I received this morning, and it's marked "deliberative attorney-client privilege," nine pages, you are mentioned on every page of this memo, it is a White House memo, counsel in this administration repeatedly, repeatedly questions the lack of scientific support that you have for this proposed finding. It's here. Nine pages. This is a smoking gun saying that your findings were political, not scientific. Here, page two. There's concern that the EPA is making a finding based on harm from substances that have no demonstrated direct health effects such as respiratory or toxic effects.

RUSH: Folks, do you understand what you're hearing? This is a Republican Senator from Wyoming talking to the Obama EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, saying White House counsel's put together a memo saying everything about CO2 is a myth, that there was no science in the formulation of this, that it was pure politics. He then said this to her.

BARRASSO: Making the decision to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the US economy, including small businesses and small communities. How do you square that when you say, "I don't want any overriding effect on the economy or small businesses," but this own internal document marked deliberative attorney-client privilege says everything you're proposing is going to have serious economic consequences for our businesses in this nation. Would you like to comment?

RUSH: Lisa Jackson. Here's her answer. It says the memo is basically only somebody's opinion.

JACKSON: The Supreme Court ruled two years ago that EPA owed the American people a determination as to whether greenhouse gases, either in whole or individually, endanger public health and welfare. We reviewed the science of it; we went through interagency review through the White House, so again I'm not sure what that document may say. It's deliberative, so obviously it's people's opinions.

RUSH: It's people's opinions in the Obama White House. CO2 not a pollutant. CO2 can't be said to be raising -- all of this is speculative, that it has all been arrived at politically, not with science. That treating CO2 as a pollutant, which is the precursor, by the way, to Obama's cap-and-trade, somebody put this together in the White House, and this has to be a huge leak, attorney-client privilege. I mean, whoever put this to paper has seriously undermined the cause. Of course, without C-SPAN or me telling you this you wouldn't know about it, I'm sorry. Nobody knows this. She says, "Well, it's just somebody's opinion." And then she went on and added this.

JACKSON: I have said over and over, as has the president, that we do understand that there are costs to the economy of addressing global warming emissions and that the best way to address them is through a gradual move to a market-based program like cap and trade. Under the Clean Air Act have the potential to regulate all those sources you talk about now for other contaminates -- schools and hospitals and farms and Dunkin Donuts, and we don't because we use -- we -- we make regulations smartly to address the threats in the best way possible and with an eye towards understanding that we don't want to unduly affect those who can least afford to pay. So I do believe that the regulatory process allows us the opportunity to make those decisions and to do it, but we're not at that point yet.

RUSH: She didn't answer the question. She did not answer the question in any way, shape, manner, or form. She said, nah, this is somebody's opinion, precursor to cap-and-trade, then she throws in this business that they're not going to tax people who can least afford to pay it. But the dirty little secret is that that's who always gets hurt with liberalism. That's who always gets hurt, the people who can least afford it. The little guy either loses his job, increased taxes or what have you. But there you've heard it, this memo is out, attorney-client privilege from the White House, the Obama White House, and just to paraphrase what Barrasso said, it's nine pages, Lisa Jackson, the EPA administrator mentioned on every page, the memo questions the lack of scientific support for the finding that CO2 is a pollutant. It's a smoking gun memo saying that the findings were political, not scientific.

On page two, quote, "There is concern that the EPA is making a finding based on harm from substances that have no demonstrated, direct health effects such as respiratory or toxic effects. Making the decision to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the economy, small business, small communities." Obama administration's own memo, own lawyers. I don't know how this got out, and I don't know how Senator Barrasso from Wyoming got it, but he put it to Lisa Jackson. This is, again, not a surprise to me because we exhale CO2. If it were a poison it wouldn't be part of the way we stay alive.
END TRANSCRIPT




Acorn operates in the same way. It is also a sham that is operated out of chicago. It looks like the US is run by thus for real!