On Friday, the Environmental Protection Agency finally released its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking asking for public comment on the issue of greenhouse gas emission regulation. The notice — which is not a formal policy proposal but merely a suggested framework for future action — is accompanied by statements from senior officials from across the Bush administration that disavow the document's substance. Susan Dudley, head of the White House's regulatory clearinghouse, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, said the policy "cannot be considered Administration policy or representative of the views of the Administration." Other letters of disapproval came from the heads of the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, and Transportation, the White House Council of Economic Advisors and the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy, and the White House Council on Environmental Quality. The ANPRM and the accompanying letters mark the end of a successful campaign, waged primarily by White House officials, to whittle into virtual nothingness any meaningful federal action on greenhouse gas emissions. After a March 2007 Supreme Court case, Massachusetts v. EPA, found that EPA must regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act or give good cause as to why it should not, President Bush signed an executive order forming an interagency team to evaluate the case and future regulatory action. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson promised he would propose a new rule by the end of 2007. But those promises were merely a mask for the gross deception that was forthcoming. EPA staff spent who-knows-how-many hours preparing a draft proposed rule and an "endangerment finding," a document saying greenhouse gases are detrimental to public welfare. An endangerment finding is a legal trigger for regulatory action under the Clean Air Act. But acknowledging that global warming poses a danger to society is not this administration's cup of tea; and we know that it has little or no interest in regulations to protect the public. When EPA sent the documents to OMB for review, OMB officials refused to open the email. Since OMB wouldn't read the documents — the bureaucratic equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ear and yelling, "I can't hear you" — EPA was forced to go back to the drawing board. Then, in March 2008, Johnson faulted on his earlier promise to propose new federal requirements, instead pledging the agency would publish an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to solicit public comment. But even after White House officials had forced EPA to do as little as possible, they still weren't done meddling with the substance of EPA's work. As the Wall Street Journal recently reported, "The White House's Office of Management and Budget has asked the EPA to delete section of the document that say such emissions endanger public welfare, say how those gases could be regulated, and show an analysis of the cost of regulating greenhouse gases in the U.S. and other countries." The economic analysis referred to also mysteriously underwent editing that downplayed the economic benefits of regulation, according to The Los Angeles Times: In a draft of the document completed in May, EPA staff members concluded that regulations reducing greenhouse gas emissions could save $2 trillion through lowered gasoline costs and other benefits over 30 years. In the final document, that figure was slashed more than 50%, to $830 billion. The lower figure is based largely on an estimate that gasoline will cost $2 a gallon over the next three decades, less than half the current price. Finally, Friday afternoon, the American public received the final slap in the face from the Bush administration which is asking for comments on a document that it does not support, on proposed policy it has no intention of pursuing, and on a problem it is not willing to acknowledge exists.