An ExxonMobil-funded think tank is offering scientists or economists $10,000 to dispute the international climate report released last week that attributes climate change to human activities, the London Guardian reported. The American Enterprise Institute will also pay for travel expenses and make additional payments in an attempt to undercut the findings of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose report is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review of the state of climate change science. AEI has received more than $1.6 million from ExxonMobil, and former ExxonMobil head Lee Raymond serves as vice-chairman of its board of trustees. In the wake of this revelation, the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights called on Congress to subpoena ExxonMobil's records and probe the oil giant's funding of organizations involved in disputing global warming.

Meanwhile, another ExxonMobil-funded think tank held a press conference today to release a report attacking the IPCC's findings. The conservative Fraser Institute, which has received $120,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998, claimed the IPCC report released last week was a "negotiated text that is not produced by the scientific community." In fact, the IPCC report was written by some of the world's most respected climate scientists without political interference, while the Fraser report's staff includes about 50 junior and retired scientists, many of whom have connections to the energy industry.

The New Standard reports that neither the FDA nor the pharmaceutical industry have proven the safety of hundreds of drugs already approved for the market. How does such a regulatory gaff occur? From the article by Michelle Chen:

Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the FDA can approve drugs despite unresolved safety concerns, but it can also require further studies by the manufacturer once a drug is released onto the market.

The problem is manufacturers aren't holding up their end of the bargain. According to an FDA notice in the Federal Register, for FY 2006, 71 percent of the required further studies are pending and 3 percent are delayed. Meanwhile, only 15 percent are ongoing and a mere 11 percent have been submitted.



Posted by Matt Madia, 04:23:06 PM



Latest Watcher

Be sure to check out the latest issue of our biweekly newsletter, The Watcher. Reg policy articles this time:

Media, Congress Begin to Examine Bush's Executive Order on Regulatory Process

Congress Steps Up Oversight of Executive Branch

Yesterday, President Bush released his budget for FY 2008. Many of the president's budgetary priorities are hostile toward Americans, but three will particularly hinder the federal government's ability to regulate.

• Bush is calling for a $300 million slash in the EPA's budget. In a press statement, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson defended the cut, proving he is more interested in toeing the administration line than sticking up for his own agency or protecting the environment.
• Bush is also continuing his war on climate science by cutting the budget of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) by seven percent, according to BNA news service (subscription).
• Finally, Bush is calling for only a nominal increase in the budget of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the independent agency that is charged with recalling potentially dangerous products. The increase amounts to a budget cut when adjusted for inflation. According to BNA, the proposal includes calls for the lowest staffing levels in the agency's history.

Yesterday, a reporter asked White House Press Secretary Tony Snow about President Bush’s amendments to the regulatory process. In his response, Snow reached new heights of evasiveness. Instead of just admitting the White House dislikes regulations because they are perceived to be a burden to industry, Snow talked about how much they love the environment. Speaking of climate change:

But no administration in American history, and none on the face of the Earth, has been more aggressive in trying to do sound science on this than this administration.

Considering the administration was recently found to be manipulating climate science, it is hard to believe Snow said this with a straight face. Is it too late to nominate Tony Snow for an Oscar?

Read Tony Snow's comments here

Posted by Matt Madia, 01:11:49 PM