They have failed by trying to scare people into using less and paying more for energy with the global warming hoax. Now they're using the bullying and extortion tactics of the EPA and The Department Of The Interior, all while circumventing Congress and the Constitution. Some call that treason. The following article says it well.
Peter
Destroying America by Denying Access to Energy
Posted: 22 Jan 2012 08:46 AM PST
It is the crime of the century that America, home to some of the world’s greatest reserves of coal, natural gas and oil, is being deliberately destroyed by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Interior as they do everything in their power to restrict access and drive energy producers out of business.
It is common sense that a nation that cannot produce sufficient electricity to turn on its lights and power its manufacturing sector will be destroyed if current Obama administration regulations and actions continue. Our vital transportation sector and all others that utilize petroleum-based products will suffer, too.
con't here
Showing posts with label EPA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EPA. Show all posts
Monday, January 23, 2012
Friday, January 28, 2011
Is This The End Of The Man-Caused Global Warming Myth?
If the resignation of Carol Browner as described in the following article signals the end of the great hoax that has been the myth of man-caused global warming, it couldn't happen soon enough. The next step is to terminate the ridiculous and reckless spending on "alternative" sources of energy such as ethanol, wind power, and solar energy. There is nothing wrong with seeking alternatives to oil, gas, and coal, it is wasted and fraudulent spending of taxpayers dollars as funding and subsidies that is the problem. Let's get all of this out in the open and be honest about what the real alternatives and options are.
We've been lied to by people like Al Gore (and Carol Browner) long enough. Read on, and for some background on these issues, search the archives of this blog and others. Books will be written on this whole issue for decades to come and Al Gore will go down in history as thoroughly discredited as the namesake of the "Ponzi Scheme" or all others who defraud the public on a massive scale. The truth will prevail.
Peter
We've been lied to by people like Al Gore (and Carol Browner) long enough. Read on, and for some background on these issues, search the archives of this blog and others. Books will be written on this whole issue for decades to come and Al Gore will go down in history as thoroughly discredited as the namesake of the "Ponzi Scheme" or all others who defraud the public on a massive scale. The truth will prevail.
Peter
Browner Resignation, Obama Omission Could Spell the End of Global Warming Policy, Say Climate Change Analysts
Friday, January 28, 2011
Carol Browner speaking at a press conference with U.S. President-elect Barack Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden, on Dec. 15, 2008. (Wikipedia Commons)
(CNSNews.com) – The abrupt resignation of Carol Browner, President Barack Obama’s global warming czar, and the omission by Obama of global warming from his State of the Union speech on Tuesday could mean that the White House has given up on global warming, according to climate change analysts.
Browner, who announced her resignation Tuesday, led the White House effort to enact global warming legislation and policy. A former director of the Environmental Protection Agency during the Clinton administration, Browner was well regarded in the environmentalist community and served officially as director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy.
In his State of the Union address on Tuesday, Obama left out any reference to global warming or the more ambiguously named climate change, seemingly abandoning what had been one of the most prominent policy areas of the past two years.
Browner’s signature legislative goal – cap and trade legislation – failed in Congress last year when it was not brought up for a vote in the Senate after narrowly passing in the House.
Most recently, Browner was rumored to be in the running to replace Rahm Emanuel as White House chief of staff. Instead of Browner, Obama chose former J.P Morgan Chase executive William Daley.
ClimateDepot.com proprietor Marc Morano told CNSNews.com that Browner’s departure was likely a sign of frustration with Obama and the president’s lack of attention to her signature issues.
“She’s probably frustrated with Obama’s lack of commitment on this issue,” Morano said. “I think Carol Browner is frustrated because she realizes Obama is not the man she thought he was when it comes to global warming.”
President Barack Obama. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
“Obama is terrified of the issue – it’s never been more than a check-box issue for him – so she was basically reduced to not doing that much of anything and she realized that nothing was going to happen,” he said.
Morano also said that Browner probably read the writing on the wall following the November election that swept a wave of conservative Republicans into Congress, effectively making any new environmental legislation all but impossible.
“I think she realizes that her hands may be tied,” Morano said. “She [probably] doesn’t feel like she can be as effective as she wants to. She is a hardcore, committed greenie [environmentalist].”
Morano said that Obama’s omission of global warming from his State of the Union indicated that he would be “running” away from the issue in 2012 because it has become politically unpopular.
“Browner doesn’t want to be in a position where she’s going to be open to a lot of shots especially with the new Republican House and not be able to do what she wants to do because Obama’s going to be focused on reelection and running terrified of the man-made global warming issue,” said Morano.
“The new political expediency is skepticism,” he said. “Man-made global warming is the new butt of jokes in Washington.”
Myron Ebell, director of Energy and Global Warming Policy at the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute, said it was “hard to say” why Browner left, citing her rumored loss of the chief of staff position.
Ebell said that her departure and Obama’s omitting global warming from his speech may indicate that the administration was merely putting global warming policy on the back burner, preferring a stealthier approach.
“It may be that the White House decided, well, we’re off global warming and she’s the point person on global warming so she no longer has a role here,” he said.
“Remember that when Obama acknowledged this fall that cap and trade was not going to be enacted he said that – and this is pretty close to an exact quote – that there’s more than one way to skin that cat,” said Ebell. “And I think what they’re doing is they are adopting a lower-profile policy, a set of policies, to achieve the same goals without ever mentioning global warming or cap and trade or anything that will allow us to refer back to candidate Obama’s comment when he was senator [to the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle] that ‘under my cap and trade plan electric rates will necessarily skyrocket.’”
“They still want that, they just want to achieve it in a way that the public will have a much harder time seeing and therefore opposing,” said Ebell.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Obama And EPA Out Of Control
It is good to see someone fighting Obama's EPA Gestapo. They are worse than a runaway BP oil well.
P
Friday, May 28, 2010, 12:06pm CDT
Gov. Perry pushes back against EPA, Obama administration
Dallas Business Journal - by Kerri Panchuk Web Reporter source
Texas Gov. Rick Perry is firing back at the Obama administration over a recent federal initiative to quash a Texas program that deals with air emissions. Perry said switching to a federally mandated program puts the state at risk of killing jobs.
He defended the emissions control program that Texas has in place now, saying it went into effect under Gov. Ann Richards and was approved by then President Bill Clinton.
“Since then, the EPA’s unelected bureaucrats haven’t ruled on it once, yet, with the arrival of a new administration in Washington, they have put a bulls-eye on the backs of hardworking Texans,” Perry said.
Perry said the feds decision to trade the Texas air permitting policy for a new federal plan ignores the fact that Texas has seen a 22 percent reduction in ozone and a 46 percent drop in emissions. He added that the EPA’s program is an overreach and violates the state’s rights under the 10th Amendment.
kerripanchuk@bizjournals.com
P
Friday, May 28, 2010, 12:06pm CDT
Gov. Perry pushes back against EPA, Obama administration
Dallas Business Journal - by Kerri Panchuk Web Reporter source
Texas Gov. Rick Perry is firing back at the Obama administration over a recent federal initiative to quash a Texas program that deals with air emissions. Perry said switching to a federally mandated program puts the state at risk of killing jobs.
He defended the emissions control program that Texas has in place now, saying it went into effect under Gov. Ann Richards and was approved by then President Bill Clinton.
“Since then, the EPA’s unelected bureaucrats haven’t ruled on it once, yet, with the arrival of a new administration in Washington, they have put a bulls-eye on the backs of hardworking Texans,” Perry said.
Perry said the feds decision to trade the Texas air permitting policy for a new federal plan ignores the fact that Texas has seen a 22 percent reduction in ozone and a 46 percent drop in emissions. He added that the EPA’s program is an overreach and violates the state’s rights under the 10th Amendment.
kerripanchuk@bizjournals.com
Saturday, April 17, 2010
The EPA: A Tool Of Tyranny.......
What the Obama Administration can not get Congress to do, they can have the EPA do, without the consent of the people they are supposed to be serving. This is not democracy. It is socialist tyranny. Obama is the puppet spokesman for the leftists determined to control every aspect of our lives. Creating fear about climate change is a cold, calculated, long-term plan to tax and control people's use of energy, and to make us (the people) believe we're doing a good thing, by "going green" and saving Mother Earth. Talk about the ultimate scam, the epitome of a grand hoax! Perhaps most insidious, they're brainwashing our children and young adults into believing nonsense like man-caused global warming. Read this, think about it, and weep as you see your freedoms being taken away at an ever-increasing rate.
Peter
FROM- OC Register
Mark Landsbaum
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined." –
James Madison
We've previously suggested what to say to a global warming zealot (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/%20-234092--.html), and even what to say to California's warmist-in-chief, Arnold Schwarzenegger (http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/%20-236562--.html).
Unfortunately, the ultimate discussion on global warming may require talking to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. If you thought zealots and celebrities-turned-politicians could be difficult to persuade, you ain't seen nothin' yet.
Those who would remake the economy in their own image and conform your lifestyle to their vision of a globallycooler utopia are advancing their quasiholy mission with the heavy hand of the unaccountable, unelected bureaucracy at the EPA.
Call it government by, of and for the bureaucracy. Where's James Madison when we need him?
There's nothing as insulated, nothing as isolated, nothing as arrogant as a federal bureaucracy. Think this thought: "I'd like to have a reasonable discussion with someone who will consider my point of view." Now think: "IRS. FBI.Homeland Security ." Ouch. The EPA epitomizes the aloof, authoritarian worst of all federal bureaucracies. Don't expect a warm reception.
Several key decisions begin this spring, not the least of which is the beginning of EPA enforcement. With this in mind, here are some EPA talking points, in case you're able to get a word in edge-wise:
Presumptions
We start with the understanding that this nation's founders never intended a massive government bureaucracy to dictate how Americans must live, what they can and cannot consume or manufacture, let alone how much of the stuff they exhale may legally be emitted. The EPA begins with the assumption that we've got all of this 100 percent wrong.
Change of venue
Congress, bless its misguided hearts, at least is a representative body held accountable by voters. That's why Congress, once hell-bent on shoving down our throats an economy-killing, freedom-squashing carbon cap-and-trade law, has backed off. Politicians still can be cowed by public outrage. That's also why global warming alarmists shifted the venue from the comparatively responsive Congress to the utterly insulated EPA. Faceless bureaucrats don't stand for election.
Changing rules
Once upon a time this overbearing regulatory agency restricted its intrusions to matters that pretty much everyone agreed needed attention. Air pollution was a serious problem not long ago. It's debatable whether the might of the federal government was the only, let alone the best, solution. But at least real pollution was a real problem. The EPA has changed that game, perhaps forever, by declaring CO2 to be a harmful pollutant that must be regulated.
Quasiscience
The excuse the EPA uses to exert its regulatory version of martial law over everyday activities is that the globe allegedly is dangerously warming, and manmade greenhouse gas emissions are to blame. Nevermind, that temperatures are, at most, flat over the past 15 years. The only place a cause-and-effect relationship exists between rising greenhouse gases and rising global temperatures is in manmade computer models. Looking beyond the problem of garbage in and garbage out, history tells us a quite different story. As for blaming mankind for rising temperatures, there were far fewer people and absolutely no smokestacks or Hummers centuries ago when temperatures were higher and CO2 levels much higher.
Building on sand
The EPA, incapable of distinguishing pollutants from harmless air, based its war on global warming on findings of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a governmental body, not a scientific body. The IPCC drew on scientific studies, except for those it excluded. IPCC hand-picked representatives, some of them scientists, summarized the findings, selectively including and excluding from the already-screened conclusions. The IPCC came up with an unsurprisingly political document drawn from sometimes one-sided, other times flatly flawed, research, while ignoring inconvenient contrary evidence. Since last year, there's been news aplenty about the IPCC report's frauds and mistakes. Good enough for government work, apparently.
Real science
The EPA's declaration of CO2 as a pollutant ignores its amply demonstrated benefits. Even if manmade emissions did cause higher temperatures, the consequences are likely beneficial not dire. The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change is a network of scientists not funded by governments that stand to gain control. It was established to examine the same climate data used by the U.N.'s panel. But the nongovernmental panel reached "the opposite conclusion – namely, that natural causes are very likely" responsible for whatever changes have occurred in global temperatures. Even so, its conclusion was: "[T]he net effect of continued warming and rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere will be beneficial to humans, plants and wildlife."
Arbitrariness on steroids
The 1970 Clean Air Act, which was improperly invoked to regulate CO2, is explicit in determining the level at which atmospheric pollutants trigger mandatory government regulation. As a result of extending Clean Air Act authority to CO2, 41,900 previously unregulated small entities will require preconstruction permits, and 6.1 million previously unregulated small entities will need operating permits. It's impossible for the feds to clamp down on every car, tractor, lawnmower, commercial kitchen or other mom-and-pop establishment. So here's what will happen: Bureaucrats arbitrarily will decide where to draw the line. A line drawn today doesn't mean it won't be redrawn tomorrow. Authority creep is inevitable, except, of course, in the cases of the well-connected, who game the system or grease the skids. Instead of quoting Madison, we should quote George Orwell: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
'It's too late' defense
It can be argued that the EPA is acting rashly based on wrong-headed legal interpretations, and justified this with rigged research with a blind eye to contrary evidence. It might be argued that the EPA should hold off regulating until underlying scientific claims can be verified. Don't hold your breath. "It is impossible to independently test or verify (England's Climate Research Unit's) calculations because raw temperature data sets have been lost or destroyed," noted Greg Abbott, the Texas attorney general, who has sued to block the EPA diktats.
Fix is in
The EPA's power grab officially began at the end of March with press releases declaring the agency's "final decision" that issuing "construction and operating permit requirements for the largest emitting facilities will begin." Today, the "largest." Tomorrow "the not-so-large?" The next day, who knows? At this rate you might want to hold your breath. Exhaling soon may be an emission law violation.
Nearly last ditch
Congress will have a chance this spring to reassert authority over the bureaucracy when it considers reining in the EPA. A pending resolution by Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, would veto the EPA's "endangerment finding" that declared CO2 to be a harmful pollutant. Stay tuned.
Last ditch.
The EPA's unprecedented claim to sovereignty over things that move and many that remain stationary is being challenged in court by no fewer than 15 states' attorneys general, and private plaintiffs, including 500 scientists, who dispute the IPCC's science. The nut of the challenges is that the government exceeded its authority in declaring CO2 a harmful pollutant, and that underlying science is fatally flawed.
Forecast
We're usually optimistic, but the short-term outlook is bleak, and the long-term is bleaker yet – unless someone derails the high-speed, runaway EPA. Otherwise, James Madison's homeland and yours is in for a stormy climate of arbitrary bureaucrats picking and choosing winners and losers, allowing you less and less to say about it as the government expands its control over American life even further.
More...
Peter
EPA choking freedom (source)
FROM- OC Register
Mark Landsbaum
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined." –
James Madison
We've previously suggested what to say to a global warming zealot (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/%20-234092--.html), and even what to say to California's warmist-in-chief, Arnold Schwarzenegger (http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/%20-236562--.html).
Unfortunately, the ultimate discussion on global warming may require talking to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. If you thought zealots and celebrities-turned-politicians could be difficult to persuade, you ain't seen nothin' yet.
Those who would remake the economy in their own image and conform your lifestyle to their vision of a globally
Call it government by, of and for the bureaucracy. Where's James Madison when we need him?
There's nothing as insulated, nothing as isolated, nothing as arrogant as a federal bureaucracy. Think this thought: "I'd like to have a reasonable discussion with someone who will consider my point of view." Now think: "IRS. FBI.
Several key decisions begin this spring, not the least of which is the beginning of EPA enforcement. With this in mind, here are some EPA talking points, in case you're able to get a word in edge-wise:
Presumptions
We start with the understanding that this nation's founders never intended a massive government bureaucracy to dictate how Americans must live, what they can and cannot consume or manufacture, let alone how much of the stuff they exhale may legally be emitted. The EPA begins with the assumption that we've got all of this 100 percent wrong.
Change of venue
Congress, bless its misguided hearts, at least is a representative body held accountable by voters. That's why Congress, once hell-bent on shoving down our throats an economy-killing, freedom-squashing carbon cap-and-trade law, has backed off. Politicians still can be cowed by public outrage. That's also why global warming alarmists shifted the venue from the comparatively responsive Congress to the utterly insulated EPA. Faceless bureaucrats don't stand for election.
Changing rules
Once upon a time this overbearing regulatory agency restricted its intrusions to matters that pretty much everyone agreed needed attention. Air pollution was a serious problem not long ago. It's debatable whether the might of the federal government was the only, let alone the best, solution. But at least real pollution was a real problem. The EPA has changed that game, perhaps forever, by declaring CO2 to be a harmful pollutant that must be regulated.
Quasiscience
The excuse the EPA uses to exert its regulatory version of martial law over everyday activities is that the globe allegedly is dangerously warming, and manmade greenhouse gas emissions are to blame. Nevermind, that temperatures are, at most, flat over the past 15 years. The only place a cause-and-effect relationship exists between rising greenhouse gases and rising global temperatures is in manmade computer models. Looking beyond the problem of garbage in and garbage out, history tells us a quite different story. As for blaming mankind for rising temperatures, there were far fewer people and absolutely no smokestacks or Hummers centuries ago when temperatures were higher and CO2 levels much higher.
Building on sand
The EPA, incapable of distinguishing pollutants from harmless air, based its war on global warming on findings of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a governmental body, not a scientific body. The IPCC drew on scientific studies, except for those it excluded. IPCC hand-picked representatives, some of them scientists, summarized the findings, selectively including and excluding from the already-screened conclusions. The IPCC came up with an unsurprisingly political document drawn from sometimes one-sided, other times flatly flawed, research, while ignoring inconvenient contrary evidence. Since last year, there's been news aplenty about the IPCC report's frauds and mistakes. Good enough for government work, apparently.
Real science
The EPA's declaration of CO2 as a pollutant ignores its amply demonstrated benefits. Even if manmade emissions did cause higher temperatures, the consequences are likely beneficial not dire. The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change is a network of scientists not funded by governments that stand to gain control. It was established to examine the same climate data used by the U.N.'s panel. But the nongovernmental panel reached "the opposite conclusion – namely, that natural causes are very likely" responsible for whatever changes have occurred in global temperatures. Even so, its conclusion was: "[T]he net effect of continued warming and rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere will be beneficial to humans, plants and wildlife."
Arbitrariness on steroids
The 1970 Clean Air Act, which was improperly invoked to regulate CO2, is explicit in determining the level at which atmospheric pollutants trigger mandatory government regulation. As a result of extending Clean Air Act authority to CO2, 41,900 previously unregulated small entities will require preconstruction permits, and 6.1 million previously unregulated small entities will need operating permits. It's impossible for the feds to clamp down on every car, tractor, lawnmower, commercial kitchen or other mom-and-pop establishment. So here's what will happen: Bureaucrats arbitrarily will decide where to draw the line. A line drawn today doesn't mean it won't be redrawn tomorrow. Authority creep is inevitable, except, of course, in the cases of the well-connected, who game the system or grease the skids. Instead of quoting Madison, we should quote George Orwell: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
'It's too late' defense
It can be argued that the EPA is acting rashly based on wrong-headed legal interpretations, and justified this with rigged research with a blind eye to contrary evidence. It might be argued that the EPA should hold off regulating until underlying scientific claims can be verified. Don't hold your breath. "It is impossible to independently test or verify (England's Climate Research Unit's) calculations because raw temperature data sets have been lost or destroyed," noted Greg Abbott, the Texas attorney general, who has sued to block the EPA diktats.
Fix is in
The EPA's power grab officially began at the end of March with press releases declaring the agency's "final decision" that issuing "construction and operating permit requirements for the largest emitting facilities will begin." Today, the "largest." Tomorrow "the not-so-large?" The next day, who knows? At this rate you might want to hold your breath. Exhaling soon may be an emission law violation.
Nearly last ditch
Congress will have a chance this spring to reassert authority over the bureaucracy when it considers reining in the EPA. A pending resolution by Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, would veto the EPA's "endangerment finding" that declared CO2 to be a harmful pollutant. Stay tuned.
Last ditch.
The EPA's unprecedented claim to sovereignty over things that move and many that remain stationary is being challenged in court by no fewer than 15 states' attorneys general, and private plaintiffs, including 500 scientists, who dispute the IPCC's science. The nut of the challenges is that the government exceeded its authority in declaring CO2 a harmful pollutant, and that underlying science is fatally flawed.
Forecast
We're usually optimistic, but the short-term outlook is bleak, and the long-term is bleaker yet – unless someone derails the high-speed, runaway EPA. Otherwise, James Madison's homeland and yours is in for a stormy climate of arbitrary bureaucrats picking and choosing winners and losers, allowing you less and less to say about it as the government expands its control over American life even further.
More...
Friday, April 17, 2009
A Cruel Despotism Has Been Unleashed On America
This really is utterly amazing, the declaration that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a "pollutant" and a danger to the health and well-being of all Americans. It is one thing to hear Al Gore ranting and raving about this, but now the nonsense comes from the Environmental Protection Agency. This is supposedly a governmental agency that employs honest scientists whose tax-payer funded jobs are to protect us. We naively assume they are above "politics", like our police, firemen, and military are supposed to be.
However, this is obviously not the case with the EPA. The Obama Administration and his hand-picked appointees to agencies like the EPA and the Interior Department, the Treasury, and others, seem hell-bent on controlling every aspect of American's lives. We've seen this now with the auto, banking and mortgage industries. Now they want to control the very energy we use. The EPA declaring CO2 a "pollutant" is the tool they're going to use. This is insanity and we who understand the science, and understand what a HOAX the entire man-caused global warming theory is must do all we can to stop this move now!
Search this blog, there is much supporting information here, and links to even more.
Peter
Stop the EPA Before it Destroys America!
Written by Alan Caruba, Warning Signs
Friday, 17 April 2009
Jackson: Science be damned!
If the Environmental Protection Agency were some benign government unit tucked away in the corner of some massive federal government building, we could safely conclude it was doing its job to keep the nation’s air and water clean.
It is the very antithesis of that. It is a Green Gestapo that has wreaked havoc with all aspects of the nation’s industrial and agricultural communities, run roughshod over property rights, declared puddles to be navigable waters, and removed invaluable, beneficial chemicals from use to protect the lives and property of all Americans.
In much the same way as the FBI maintains a “Ten Most Wanted” list of criminals, so does the EPA.
The EPA’s former director, Carol Browner, was recently discovered to be a commissioner in Socialist International, described by Steven Milloy of JunkScience.com as “a decidedly anti-capitalistic political cause.” Socialist International’s principles are the communist principles set forth by Karl Marx.
Browner is presently the chief White House advisor to the President on environmental issues. The announcement that the EPA has declared carbon dioxide a “pollutant” and all so-called greenhouse gases a danger to human health and welfare now clears the way to regulate every single economic activity in the nation, most notably the emissions from automobiles.
The EPA is poised to further ruin the quintessentially American auto industry with regulatory power that will determine what kind of automobile Americans will be permitted to drive, limiting the use of internal combustion, and forcing the purchase of high cost hybrids and those run on massive batteries.
Naturally, the announcement was greeted with joy by the likes of the demented Speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, and a panoply of environment organizations such as the Environmental Defense Fund. The EDF hailed the announcement saying “The U.S. is taking its first steps as a nation to confront climate change.” Vickie Patton, EDF’s deputy general counsel, went on to say “Global warming threatens our health, our economy, and our children’s prosperity.”
Only there is NO global warming and there is NOTHING that the U.S. government or all the governments of all the nations of the world can do about “climate change.” This is a “threat” that does not exist!
What the EPA and other elements of government can and will do is use the international “global warming” hoax to pass new laws and more regulations to destroy the economic viability of all activities that utilize energy.
Here’s why CO2 and the so-called “greenhouse” gases do not perform a “greenhouse” function. As explained by retired analytical chemist, Hans Schreuder:
“With no atmosphere at all, our moon is very hot in sunshine (over 100°C) and very cold in the shade (less than minus 150°C).” “With earth receiving as good as the same amount of solar irradiation, our atmosphere thus acts as a cooling medium during the hours of sunshine and a blanket during the hours of darkness.”
“Global warming, global cooling and all climate change is caused by the daily revolutions of our earth around its own axis, throughout which time the varying amounts of heat gained during the day and similar variations of heat lost during the night make the weather what it is: ranging from plus 50°C to minus 50°C (even more extreme in places), unpredictable beyond a few days and at times violent or totally quiet.”
“That's quite apart from the seasonal differences caused by the annual trip around the sun and the varying distance that our planet revolves around our sun and we're not even considering even greater forces of influence.”
The entire white paper is available at http://tech-know.eu/uploads/ACCInput.pdf <http://tech-know.eu/uploads/ACCInput.pdf >
Throughout its history the EPA has deliberately distorted actual science to advance its own warped “environmental” agenda. This EPA ruling permits the government to control all aspects of CO2 emissions, short of the exhalation of CO2 by human beings. Humans emit CO2. Animals emit CO2. And energy use emits CO2. It is not a “pollutant” or a threat to health; it is a natural gas vital to all life on Earth via the process of photosynthesis by all plant life. Without CO2 all vegetation dies and with it all animal life.
Congress has a long record of restricting access to the nation’s vast reserves of coal, oil and natural gas. Our “dependency”; the importation of these energy sources is entirely the result of national policies. Now add thousands of regulations on all USE of energy.
Some will mark the announcement as the beginning of the decline of the American economy, but the U.S. government has long been engaged in all manner of control over everything required for a successful economy. What begins is the end to the abundant choices Americans have always had regarding the manufacture, distribution, and purchase of anything and everything common to our present lifestyle.
It is a cruel despotism that has been unleashed on all Americans.
Alan Caruba writes a daily blog at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.comand a weekly commentary at http://www.anxietycenter.com , the website of The National Anxiety Center.
However, this is obviously not the case with the EPA. The Obama Administration and his hand-picked appointees to agencies like the EPA and the Interior Department, the Treasury, and others, seem hell-bent on controlling every aspect of American's lives. We've seen this now with the auto, banking and mortgage industries. Now they want to control the very energy we use. The EPA declaring CO2 a "pollutant" is the tool they're going to use. This is insanity and we who understand the science, and understand what a HOAX the entire man-caused global warming theory is must do all we can to stop this move now!
Search this blog, there is much supporting information here, and links to even more.
Peter
Stop the EPA Before it Destroys America!
Written by Alan Caruba, Warning Signs
Friday, 17 April 2009
Jackson: Science be damned!If the Environmental Protection Agency were some benign government unit tucked away in the corner of some massive federal government building, we could safely conclude it was doing its job to keep the nation’s air and water clean.
It is the very antithesis of that. It is a Green Gestapo that has wreaked havoc with all aspects of the nation’s industrial and agricultural communities, run roughshod over property rights, declared puddles to be navigable waters, and removed invaluable, beneficial chemicals from use to protect the lives and property of all Americans.
In much the same way as the FBI maintains a “Ten Most Wanted” list of criminals, so does the EPA.
The EPA’s former director, Carol Browner, was recently discovered to be a commissioner in Socialist International, described by Steven Milloy of JunkScience.com as “a decidedly anti-capitalistic political cause.” Socialist International’s principles are the communist principles set forth by Karl Marx.
Browner is presently the chief White House advisor to the President on environmental issues. The announcement that the EPA has declared carbon dioxide a “pollutant” and all so-called greenhouse gases a danger to human health and welfare now clears the way to regulate every single economic activity in the nation, most notably the emissions from automobiles.
The EPA is poised to further ruin the quintessentially American auto industry with regulatory power that will determine what kind of automobile Americans will be permitted to drive, limiting the use of internal combustion, and forcing the purchase of high cost hybrids and those run on massive batteries.
Naturally, the announcement was greeted with joy by the likes of the demented Speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, and a panoply of environment organizations such as the Environmental Defense Fund. The EDF hailed the announcement saying “The U.S. is taking its first steps as a nation to confront climate change.” Vickie Patton, EDF’s deputy general counsel, went on to say “Global warming threatens our health, our economy, and our children’s prosperity.”
Only there is NO global warming and there is NOTHING that the U.S. government or all the governments of all the nations of the world can do about “climate change.” This is a “threat” that does not exist!
What the EPA and other elements of government can and will do is use the international “global warming” hoax to pass new laws and more regulations to destroy the economic viability of all activities that utilize energy.
Here’s why CO2 and the so-called “greenhouse” gases do not perform a “greenhouse” function. As explained by retired analytical chemist, Hans Schreuder:
“With no atmosphere at all, our moon is very hot in sunshine (over 100°C) and very cold in the shade (less than minus 150°C).” “With earth receiving as good as the same amount of solar irradiation, our atmosphere thus acts as a cooling medium during the hours of sunshine and a blanket during the hours of darkness.”
“Global warming, global cooling and all climate change is caused by the daily revolutions of our earth around its own axis, throughout which time the varying amounts of heat gained during the day and similar variations of heat lost during the night make the weather what it is: ranging from plus 50°C to minus 50°C (even more extreme in places), unpredictable beyond a few days and at times violent or totally quiet.”
“That's quite apart from the seasonal differences caused by the annual trip around the sun and the varying distance that our planet revolves around our sun and we're not even considering even greater forces of influence.”
The entire white paper is available at http://tech-know.eu/uploads/ACCInput.pdf <http://tech-know.eu/uploads/ACCInput.pdf >
Throughout its history the EPA has deliberately distorted actual science to advance its own warped “environmental” agenda. This EPA ruling permits the government to control all aspects of CO2 emissions, short of the exhalation of CO2 by human beings. Humans emit CO2. Animals emit CO2. And energy use emits CO2. It is not a “pollutant” or a threat to health; it is a natural gas vital to all life on Earth via the process of photosynthesis by all plant life. Without CO2 all vegetation dies and with it all animal life.
Congress has a long record of restricting access to the nation’s vast reserves of coal, oil and natural gas. Our “dependency”; the importation of these energy sources is entirely the result of national policies. Now add thousands of regulations on all USE of energy.
Some will mark the announcement as the beginning of the decline of the American economy, but the U.S. government has long been engaged in all manner of control over everything required for a successful economy. What begins is the end to the abundant choices Americans have always had regarding the manufacture, distribution, and purchase of anything and everything common to our present lifestyle.
It is a cruel despotism that has been unleashed on all Americans.
Alan Caruba writes a daily blog at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Mountain-Top Removal Mining In The Spotlight
The following article brings many subjects light. These include mining, coal, energy, jobs, the economy, the environment, and politics. These are complex, and for many, passionate issues. If Americans want to maintain their standard of living, and recover from this current economic "recession", there are hard choices to be made.
Al Gore and James Hansen, the leading global warming alarmists, want to ban all coal mining and the use of coal to generate electricity. The big question is, how are we going to generate all the electricity we depend on? There is talk of plug-in electric cars, where is that additional electricity going to come from? Solar and wind power can not begin to fill the need. It takes ten years to build a nuclear power plant. What are the answers? Our government can not keep printing money forever. At some point people need to begin producing things (again).
Peter
EPA Puts Mountaintop Mining Projects On Hold
by The Associated Press (source)
“It just absolutely puzzles me as to why the same federal government that's trying to straighten the economy out wants to dismantle the economy of another state, particularly as it relates to the workers at these sites.” West Virginia Coal Association President Bill Raney
“If the EPA didn't step in and do something now, all those permits would go forward. There are permits that will bury 200 miles of streams pending before the [Army] Corps [of Engineers].”Joe Lovett, executive director for the Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment
NPR.org, March 24, 2009 · In a move that took the coal industry by surprise, the Environmental Protection Agency put hundreds of mountaintop coal-mining permits on hold Tuesday to evaluate the projects' impact on streams and wetlands.
The decision by EPA administrator Lisa Jackson targets a controversial practice that allows coal mining companies to dump waste from mountaintop mining into streams and wetlands.
Between 150 and 200 applications for new or expanded surface coal mines, many mountaintop removal operations, are pending before the federal government. EPA spokeswoman Adora Andy said the agency does not expect problems with the overwhelming majority of permits.
The permits are issued by the Army Corps of Engineers, an agency that has been criticized by environmental groups and has been sued for failing to thoroughly evaluate the environmental impact of mountaintop removal.
Under the Clean Water Act, companies cannot discharge rock, dirt and other debris into streams unless they can show that it will not cause permanent damage to waterways or the fish and other wildlife that live in them.
Last month, a three-judge appeals panel in Richmond, Va., overturned a lower court's ruling that would have required the corps to conduct more extensive reviews. The appeals court decision cleared the way for a backlog of permits that had been delayed until the lawsuit was resolved.
The EPA's action on Tuesday could leave those permit requests in limbo a little longer.
The EPA said in a statement that it would be actively involved in the review of the long list of permits awaiting approval by the corps, a signal that the agency under the Obama administration will exercise its oversight.
The EPA has the authority to review and veto any permit issued by the corps under the Clean Water Act, but under the Bush administration it did that rarely.
"If the EPA didn't step in and do something now, all those permits would go forward," said Joe Lovett, executive director of the Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment. "There are permits that will bury 200 miles of streams pending before the corps."
The EPA action stunned the coal industry, which had been breathing easily since the mid-February ruling by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.
"It's almost like the EPA's trying to skirt the 4th Circuit appeals decision and do whatever they want to do," Kentucky Coal Association President Bill Caylor said. "We would lose half our production in east Kentucky."
Carol Raulston, a spokeswoman for the National Mining Association, said further delays in the permits would cost the region high-paying jobs.
"This is very troubling, not only for jobs in the region, but production of coal generally," said Raulston.
Mountaintop mines in West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee produce nearly 130 million tons of coal annually — about 14 percent of the nation's power-producing coal — which in turn generates electricity for 24.7 million U.S. customers, according to industry estimates.
The low-sulfur, high-energy coal produced from those mines is not easily replaced. The industry has long maintained that eliminating mountaintop mining will lead to increased imports from countries that have far fewer environmental safeguards.
The practice has a huge economic impact in Appalachia.
Mountaintop mines employ some 14,000 people across the four states. Wages average about $62,000 — high pay for rural Appalachia — and states make millions in taxes.
"It just absolutely puzzles me as to why the same federal government that's trying to straighten the economy out wants to dismantle the economy of another state, particularly as it relates to the workers at these sites," said West Virginia Coal Association President Bill Raney. West Virginia is the nation's second-largest coal producing state behind Wyoming.
In a separate action, the EPA recommended denying permits the Army Corps of Engineers was planning to issue that would allow two companies to fill thousands of feet of streams with mining waste in West Virginia and Kentucky. The Corps of Engineers said Tuesday that it was weeks away from issuing both permits.
But in letters sent Monday to the corps' office in Huntington, W.Va., the EPA said that Central Appalachia Mining, a subsidiary of Lexington, Ky.-based Rhino Resources, and Highland Mining Co., a subsidiary of Richmond-based Massey Energy Co., have not done enough to avoid and minimize damage to water quality and stream channels.
In the case of the Highland Mining's plans, which would fill in approximately 13,174 feet of stream in Logan County, W.Va., the agency said it believes the project "will result in substantial and unacceptable impacts to aquatic resources of national importance."
Neither Massey Energy Co. nor Rhino Resources immediately responded to requests for comment.
Al Gore and James Hansen, the leading global warming alarmists, want to ban all coal mining and the use of coal to generate electricity. The big question is, how are we going to generate all the electricity we depend on? There is talk of plug-in electric cars, where is that additional electricity going to come from? Solar and wind power can not begin to fill the need. It takes ten years to build a nuclear power plant. What are the answers? Our government can not keep printing money forever. At some point people need to begin producing things (again).
Peter
EPA Puts Mountaintop Mining Projects On Hold
by The Associated Press (source)
“It just absolutely puzzles me as to why the same federal government that's trying to straighten the economy out wants to dismantle the economy of another state, particularly as it relates to the workers at these sites.” West Virginia Coal Association President Bill Raney
“If the EPA didn't step in and do something now, all those permits would go forward. There are permits that will bury 200 miles of streams pending before the [Army] Corps [of Engineers].”Joe Lovett, executive director for the Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment
NPR.org, March 24, 2009 · In a move that took the coal industry by surprise, the Environmental Protection Agency put hundreds of mountaintop coal-mining permits on hold Tuesday to evaluate the projects' impact on streams and wetlands.
The decision by EPA administrator Lisa Jackson targets a controversial practice that allows coal mining companies to dump waste from mountaintop mining into streams and wetlands.
Between 150 and 200 applications for new or expanded surface coal mines, many mountaintop removal operations, are pending before the federal government. EPA spokeswoman Adora Andy said the agency does not expect problems with the overwhelming majority of permits.
The permits are issued by the Army Corps of Engineers, an agency that has been criticized by environmental groups and has been sued for failing to thoroughly evaluate the environmental impact of mountaintop removal.
Under the Clean Water Act, companies cannot discharge rock, dirt and other debris into streams unless they can show that it will not cause permanent damage to waterways or the fish and other wildlife that live in them.
Last month, a three-judge appeals panel in Richmond, Va., overturned a lower court's ruling that would have required the corps to conduct more extensive reviews. The appeals court decision cleared the way for a backlog of permits that had been delayed until the lawsuit was resolved.
The EPA's action on Tuesday could leave those permit requests in limbo a little longer.
The EPA said in a statement that it would be actively involved in the review of the long list of permits awaiting approval by the corps, a signal that the agency under the Obama administration will exercise its oversight.
The EPA has the authority to review and veto any permit issued by the corps under the Clean Water Act, but under the Bush administration it did that rarely.
"If the EPA didn't step in and do something now, all those permits would go forward," said Joe Lovett, executive director of the Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment. "There are permits that will bury 200 miles of streams pending before the corps."
The EPA action stunned the coal industry, which had been breathing easily since the mid-February ruling by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.
"It's almost like the EPA's trying to skirt the 4th Circuit appeals decision and do whatever they want to do," Kentucky Coal Association President Bill Caylor said. "We would lose half our production in east Kentucky."
Carol Raulston, a spokeswoman for the National Mining Association, said further delays in the permits would cost the region high-paying jobs.
"This is very troubling, not only for jobs in the region, but production of coal generally," said Raulston.
Mountaintop mines in West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee produce nearly 130 million tons of coal annually — about 14 percent of the nation's power-producing coal — which in turn generates electricity for 24.7 million U.S. customers, according to industry estimates.
The low-sulfur, high-energy coal produced from those mines is not easily replaced. The industry has long maintained that eliminating mountaintop mining will lead to increased imports from countries that have far fewer environmental safeguards.
The practice has a huge economic impact in Appalachia.
Mountaintop mines employ some 14,000 people across the four states. Wages average about $62,000 — high pay for rural Appalachia — and states make millions in taxes.
"It just absolutely puzzles me as to why the same federal government that's trying to straighten the economy out wants to dismantle the economy of another state, particularly as it relates to the workers at these sites," said West Virginia Coal Association President Bill Raney. West Virginia is the nation's second-largest coal producing state behind Wyoming.
In a separate action, the EPA recommended denying permits the Army Corps of Engineers was planning to issue that would allow two companies to fill thousands of feet of streams with mining waste in West Virginia and Kentucky. The Corps of Engineers said Tuesday that it was weeks away from issuing both permits.
But in letters sent Monday to the corps' office in Huntington, W.Va., the EPA said that Central Appalachia Mining, a subsidiary of Lexington, Ky.-based Rhino Resources, and Highland Mining Co., a subsidiary of Richmond-based Massey Energy Co., have not done enough to avoid and minimize damage to water quality and stream channels.
In the case of the Highland Mining's plans, which would fill in approximately 13,174 feet of stream in Logan County, W.Va., the agency said it believes the project "will result in substantial and unacceptable impacts to aquatic resources of national importance."
Neither Massey Energy Co. nor Rhino Resources immediately responded to requests for comment.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
EPA Seeks To Have Water Vapor Classified As A Pollutant
EPA Seeks To Have Water Vapor Classified As A Pollutant
This jet condensation trail seen at sunset will gradually evaporate, increasing the water vapor content of the atmosphere. Since a wide variety of human activities produce water vapor, the Earth's main greenhouse gas, the Environmental Protection Agency is seeking to have it designated as a pollutant.
(Washington, DC) The Environmental Protection Agency is seeking to classify water vapor as a pollutant, due to its central role in global warming. Because water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, accounting for at least 90% of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect, its emission during many human activities, such as the burning of fuels, is coming under increasing scrutiny by federal regulators.
Until now, the carbon dioxide produced during the burning of fuels has been the main concern. The extra carbon dioxide causes a manmade enhancement of the greenhouse effect. But water vapor is also produced by combustion of most fuels, as well as by industry and utilities that use water for cooling. The EPA would be able to regulate its manmade sources if it is classified as a pollutant. EPA Director of the Department of Pollutant Decrees, Ray Donaldson, said, "Back before carbon dioxide was dangerous, we simply assumed that water vapor was also benign. But all reputable scientists now agree that the increased water vapor content of the atmosphere from such sources as burning of fuels and power plant cooling towers will also enhance the greenhouse effect, leading to potentially catastrophic warming."
If successful, the push to classify water vapor as a dangerous pollutant would impact virtually everyone. For instance, homeowners could see a wide variety of common activities that cause evaporation being regulated: watering the lawn, or using a hot tub or swimming pool. "Right now, we are not so concerned about the water vapor exhaled by people. That is low on our list of priorities", said Mr. Donaldson. "We'll tackle that manmade source at a later time." One likely result of such regulation would be an additional tax on fuels used by cars, trucks, passenger jets, and a wide variety of industries and utilities.
Predictably, the Bush Administration has voiced opposition to any regulation of water vapor emissions. White House staffer Lew Moninsky told ecoEnquirer, "This is simply ridiculous. The EPA wants to regulate all human activity out of existence. What about the massive amounts of water vapor being evaporated from the world's oceans every second? That's OK?, but human production of small amounts of vapor isn't? If it weren't for water vapor, there would be no rainfall! Give me a break!" "Well, of course the Administration would say that…", said Mr. Donaldson, "..they're in the pocket of 'big oil' anyway."
The EPA is rumored to have a rather extensive list of potential pollutants in addition to water vapor, and some insiders claim that all known chemical compounds are targeted for future regulation. When informed of the rumored list of chemicals, Mr. Moninsky asked, "Well, since everything is made of chemicals, I guess that means that even every molecule of your body will be subject to regulation as well, doesn't it?"
Asked for their position on the matter, Greenpolice spokesperson Rainbow Treetower stated, "Our basic policy is, if it's good for people, it's bad for the planet."
(stolen from:)
Thursday, October 4, 2007
The Real Cost Of Global Warming
These estimates of the long-term cost of trying to curb global warming come from the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). However accurate they may, or may not be, the numbers are staggering, and should make everyone stop and think a whole lot.
We have a great deal of doubt about the reliability of computer climate models, and there is much evidence that the world temperature data is inaccurate, and has been tampered with. Finally, there is a huge body of observed scientific information, strongly suggesting that global warming and climate change are natural processes that have been operating to heat and cool the Earth for billions of years. These are processes like variations in the amount of solar energy received by the Earth and the complex interplay between the atmosphere, the land, oceans, the biosphere, the carbon cycle, and the hydrologic cycle.
In light of this vast amount of information to the contrary, it is mind-boggling to think that any rational person is even thinking of trying to control global warming. Yet not only are people thinking of controlling global warming, they are passing laws that will cost billions upon billions of dollars. How can this be people? What is going on here? Have our politicians in their pathological partisan ambition become totally blind to reality? What does this say about all of their supporters?
Peter
from: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299419,00.html
Junk Science: Global Warming’s Trillion-Dollar Turkey
Thursday, October 04, 2007
By Steven Milloy
A trillion dollars doesn’t buy what it used to — at least when it comes to global warming, according to a new analysis from the Environmental Protection Agency.
Last July, this column reported that the latest global warming bill — the Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007, introduced by Sens. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M. and Arlen Specter, R-Pa. — would cost taxpayers more than $1 trillion in its first 10 years and untold trillions of dollars in subsequent decades.
This week, the EPA sent its analysis of the bill’s impact on climate to Bingaman and Specter. Now we can see what we’d get for our money, and we may as well just build a giant bonfire with the cash and enjoy toasting marshmallows over it.
For reference purposes, the current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is about 380 parts per million. The EPA estimates that if no action is taken to curb CO2 emissions, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 would be 718 ppm by 2095.
If the Bingaman-Specter bill were implemented, however, the EPA estimates that CO2 levels would be 695 ppm — a whopping reduction of 23 ppm.
The EPA also estimated that if all countries — including China, India, Brazil and other developing nations — curb CO2 emissions, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 would be 491 ppm in 2095, including the above-mentioned 23 ppm reduction from the implementation of the Bingaman-Specter bill.
So it appears that no matter how you slice it, Bingaman-Specter is worth a 23 ppm-reduction in atmospheric CO2 by 2095. But what are the climatic implications of this reduction in terms of global temperature? After all, we are talking about global warming.
Although the EPA didn’t pursue its analysis that far, figuring out the implications are readily doable using the assumptions and formulas of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Under the no-action scenario (718-to-695 ppm), the IPCC formulas indicate that the multitrillion-dollar Bingaman-Specter bill might reduce average global temperature by 0.13 degrees Celsius.
Under the maximum regulation scenario (514-to-491 ppm), Bingaman-Specter might reduce average global temperature by 0.18 degrees Celsius. Actual temperature reductions are likely to be less since these estimates rely on the IPCC’s alarmist-friendly assumptions and formulas.
The question, then, becomes this: Is it really worth trillions of taxpayer dollars over 90 years to perhaps reduce global temperatures by 0.13-0.18 degrees Celsius? If you can’t answer that question, consider this.
Under the no-action scenario, average global temperature might be 1.2 degrees Celsius higher in 2095 than it is today, once again using conservative IPCC assumptions and formulas. Under the maximum-regulation scenario, average global temperature might be 1.03 degrees Celsius higher than today. (For reference purposes, the estimated total increase in average global temperature for the 20th century was about 0.50 degrees Celsius.)
So what’s the difference in mean global temperature between the no-action scenario and the maximum-regulation scenario? Could it be a whopping 0.17 degrees Centigrade? Is that what global warming hysteria is all about?
The Bingaman-Specter bill, then, would cost taxpayers trillions of dollars and produce virtually nothing in terms of temperature outcome. But the pain of Bingaman-Specter doesn’t stop with trillions of taxpayer dollars. The heart of the Bingaman-Specter bill is a so-called cap-and-trade system in which CO2 emission limits (caps) would be decreed and certain businesses and other special interest group emitters (such as farmers and states) would be given permits to emit CO2.
Emitters that have extra permits could sell them in the open market to emitters that weren’t lucky enough to get free permits and that need permits. Extra permits, as such, are essentially free money.
Proponents of the cap-and-trade scheme — generally speaking, conniving environmentalists who want to appear to be business-friendly and special interest emitters who want to feed at the taxpayer trough — portray it as a "market-based" approach to addressing global warming concerns.
Not only is cap-and-trade not "market-based," highly respected economists, including former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Arthur Laffer and Harvard University’s Greg Mankiw, say cap-and-trade will cause significant economic harm.
In a recent paper sponsored by the Free Enterprise Education Institute, a think tank with which I am affiliated, Laffer said that a cap-and-trade scheme would act as a constraint on the energy supply — much like the 1970s-era Arab oil embargoes and other energy crises. He estimates that cap-and-trade would shrink the U.S. economy by 5.2 percent and reduce family income by $10,800 by 2020.
So the Bingaman-Specter bill not only would waste taxpayer money, but it would harm economic growth and reduce family income — all without affecting global temperature in any sort of meaningful or even detectable way.
Although the EPA acknowledged, "Since the variation in cumulative global greenhouse gas emissions are small under [Bingaman-Specter], the variation in the resulting CO2 concentrations are small," this only hints at the bill’s futility.
There can be little doubt as to why the EPA failed to carry through the ultimate implications of the 23 ppm impact of Bingaman-Specter. The agency would have "officially" exposed the bill and global warming alarmism as utterly absurd.
Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and DemandDebate.com. He is a junk science expert, and advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Respond to the Writer.
We have a great deal of doubt about the reliability of computer climate models, and there is much evidence that the world temperature data is inaccurate, and has been tampered with. Finally, there is a huge body of observed scientific information, strongly suggesting that global warming and climate change are natural processes that have been operating to heat and cool the Earth for billions of years. These are processes like variations in the amount of solar energy received by the Earth and the complex interplay between the atmosphere, the land, oceans, the biosphere, the carbon cycle, and the hydrologic cycle.
In light of this vast amount of information to the contrary, it is mind-boggling to think that any rational person is even thinking of trying to control global warming. Yet not only are people thinking of controlling global warming, they are passing laws that will cost billions upon billions of dollars. How can this be people? What is going on here? Have our politicians in their pathological partisan ambition become totally blind to reality? What does this say about all of their supporters?
Peter
from: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299419,00.html
Junk Science: Global Warming’s Trillion-Dollar Turkey
Thursday, October 04, 2007
By Steven Milloy
A trillion dollars doesn’t buy what it used to — at least when it comes to global warming, according to a new analysis from the Environmental Protection Agency.
Last July, this column reported that the latest global warming bill — the Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007, introduced by Sens. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M. and Arlen Specter, R-Pa. — would cost taxpayers more than $1 trillion in its first 10 years and untold trillions of dollars in subsequent decades.
This week, the EPA sent its analysis of the bill’s impact on climate to Bingaman and Specter. Now we can see what we’d get for our money, and we may as well just build a giant bonfire with the cash and enjoy toasting marshmallows over it.
For reference purposes, the current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is about 380 parts per million. The EPA estimates that if no action is taken to curb CO2 emissions, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 would be 718 ppm by 2095.
If the Bingaman-Specter bill were implemented, however, the EPA estimates that CO2 levels would be 695 ppm — a whopping reduction of 23 ppm.
The EPA also estimated that if all countries — including China, India, Brazil and other developing nations — curb CO2 emissions, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 would be 491 ppm in 2095, including the above-mentioned 23 ppm reduction from the implementation of the Bingaman-Specter bill.
So it appears that no matter how you slice it, Bingaman-Specter is worth a 23 ppm-reduction in atmospheric CO2 by 2095. But what are the climatic implications of this reduction in terms of global temperature? After all, we are talking about global warming.
Although the EPA didn’t pursue its analysis that far, figuring out the implications are readily doable using the assumptions and formulas of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Under the no-action scenario (718-to-695 ppm), the IPCC formulas indicate that the multitrillion-dollar Bingaman-Specter bill might reduce average global temperature by 0.13 degrees Celsius.
Under the maximum regulation scenario (514-to-491 ppm), Bingaman-Specter might reduce average global temperature by 0.18 degrees Celsius. Actual temperature reductions are likely to be less since these estimates rely on the IPCC’s alarmist-friendly assumptions and formulas.
The question, then, becomes this: Is it really worth trillions of taxpayer dollars over 90 years to perhaps reduce global temperatures by 0.13-0.18 degrees Celsius? If you can’t answer that question, consider this.
Under the no-action scenario, average global temperature might be 1.2 degrees Celsius higher in 2095 than it is today, once again using conservative IPCC assumptions and formulas. Under the maximum-regulation scenario, average global temperature might be 1.03 degrees Celsius higher than today. (For reference purposes, the estimated total increase in average global temperature for the 20th century was about 0.50 degrees Celsius.)
So what’s the difference in mean global temperature between the no-action scenario and the maximum-regulation scenario? Could it be a whopping 0.17 degrees Centigrade? Is that what global warming hysteria is all about?
The Bingaman-Specter bill, then, would cost taxpayers trillions of dollars and produce virtually nothing in terms of temperature outcome. But the pain of Bingaman-Specter doesn’t stop with trillions of taxpayer dollars. The heart of the Bingaman-Specter bill is a so-called cap-and-trade system in which CO2 emission limits (caps) would be decreed and certain businesses and other special interest group emitters (such as farmers and states) would be given permits to emit CO2.
Emitters that have extra permits could sell them in the open market to emitters that weren’t lucky enough to get free permits and that need permits. Extra permits, as such, are essentially free money.
Proponents of the cap-and-trade scheme — generally speaking, conniving environmentalists who want to appear to be business-friendly and special interest emitters who want to feed at the taxpayer trough — portray it as a "market-based" approach to addressing global warming concerns.
Not only is cap-and-trade not "market-based," highly respected economists, including former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Arthur Laffer and Harvard University’s Greg Mankiw, say cap-and-trade will cause significant economic harm.
In a recent paper sponsored by the Free Enterprise Education Institute, a think tank with which I am affiliated, Laffer said that a cap-and-trade scheme would act as a constraint on the energy supply — much like the 1970s-era Arab oil embargoes and other energy crises. He estimates that cap-and-trade would shrink the U.S. economy by 5.2 percent and reduce family income by $10,800 by 2020.
So the Bingaman-Specter bill not only would waste taxpayer money, but it would harm economic growth and reduce family income — all without affecting global temperature in any sort of meaningful or even detectable way.
Although the EPA acknowledged, "Since the variation in cumulative global greenhouse gas emissions are small under [Bingaman-Specter], the variation in the resulting CO2 concentrations are small," this only hints at the bill’s futility.
There can be little doubt as to why the EPA failed to carry through the ultimate implications of the 23 ppm impact of Bingaman-Specter. The agency would have "officially" exposed the bill and global warming alarmism as utterly absurd.
Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and DemandDebate.com. He is a junk science expert, and advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Respond to the Writer.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
No End To The Insanity
Ok, we're all rushing out to replace our incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent bulbs to reduce global warming, because Al Gore told us to. Whoops, it seems he didn't do his homework very well. It seems there are some problems, call them "unintended consequences".
It seems the new energy-saving, carbon emission-saving, global warming-preventing, fluorescent light bulbs contain mercury, and if you drop and break one, or when you put one in the trash, and then your neighborhood landfill, you're going to be putting yourself in danger and at best, polluting our environment. This news comes from the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, one of our government watchdogs.
This global warming/climate change hysteria is going so far there is legislation mandating that we use these potentially dangerous fluorescent bulbs. It seems no one is thinking these things through. I'll say it again, it is not rational science, it is politics at its worst. Here are some excerpts from the article and a link to the original.
Peter
"Earlier, (Ms. Brandy) Bridges dropped a fluorescent bulb in her daughter's room and it shattered, leaving potentially unsafe levels of mercury inside the rug. At the suggestions of the state's Department of Environmental Protection, she now has to pay $2,000 for a professional environmental clean up. Her seven-year-old daughter sleeps in the family room, as her room is sealed off by plastic. "I bought the bulbs because I wanted to do my part for the environment and save money," Bridges told Cybercast News Service Wednesday. "You can save 20 cents per month on your electric bill - but spend $2,000 for the cleanup."
Broken fluorescent bulbs can release mercury vapors that can affect a person's brain, spinal cord, kidneys and liver, causing symptoms such as trembling hands, memory loss and difficulty moving, according to a fact sheet on fluorescent bulbs published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
If a bulb breaks, according to the EPA, a person should immediately open a window to disperse of any mercury vapors, not touch the area where the bulb was broken, carefully sweep up the fragments and wipe the area with a disposable paper towel to remove all glass fragments. The EPA warns people not to use a vacuum. If a bulb burns out, the EPA suggests sealing it in a safe container before disposal.
In most cases a person can clean up the mess themselves if they're cautious. But in her case, Bridges said, the state environmental officials warned her to have a professional do the job, something she's still saving up the money to pay for.
An entire bag full of her daughter's toys were found to have had severely dangerous levels of mercury and were discarded, she added."My daughter is very upset. She can't play with any of her toys," Bridges said. "But my baby would sit in that room. I'm not going to take any chances."
To read the entire article, go here: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200705/CUL20070510b.html
It seems the new energy-saving, carbon emission-saving, global warming-preventing, fluorescent light bulbs contain mercury, and if you drop and break one, or when you put one in the trash, and then your neighborhood landfill, you're going to be putting yourself in danger and at best, polluting our environment. This news comes from the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, one of our government watchdogs.
This global warming/climate change hysteria is going so far there is legislation mandating that we use these potentially dangerous fluorescent bulbs. It seems no one is thinking these things through. I'll say it again, it is not rational science, it is politics at its worst. Here are some excerpts from the article and a link to the original.
Peter
"Earlier, (Ms. Brandy) Bridges dropped a fluorescent bulb in her daughter's room and it shattered, leaving potentially unsafe levels of mercury inside the rug. At the suggestions of the state's Department of Environmental Protection, she now has to pay $2,000 for a professional environmental clean up. Her seven-year-old daughter sleeps in the family room, as her room is sealed off by plastic. "I bought the bulbs because I wanted to do my part for the environment and save money," Bridges told Cybercast News Service Wednesday. "You can save 20 cents per month on your electric bill - but spend $2,000 for the cleanup."
Broken fluorescent bulbs can release mercury vapors that can affect a person's brain, spinal cord, kidneys and liver, causing symptoms such as trembling hands, memory loss and difficulty moving, according to a fact sheet on fluorescent bulbs published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
If a bulb breaks, according to the EPA, a person should immediately open a window to disperse of any mercury vapors, not touch the area where the bulb was broken, carefully sweep up the fragments and wipe the area with a disposable paper towel to remove all glass fragments. The EPA warns people not to use a vacuum. If a bulb burns out, the EPA suggests sealing it in a safe container before disposal.
In most cases a person can clean up the mess themselves if they're cautious. But in her case, Bridges said, the state environmental officials warned her to have a professional do the job, something she's still saving up the money to pay for.
An entire bag full of her daughter's toys were found to have had severely dangerous levels of mercury and were discarded, she added."My daughter is very upset. She can't play with any of her toys," Bridges said. "But my baby would sit in that room. I'm not going to take any chances."
To read the entire article, go here: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200705/CUL20070510b.html
Saturday, April 28, 2007
A Glacial Pace On Warming- The Pressure is Building
This is an editorial from the NY Times. Various factions are stepping up the pressure on the Bush Administration and the EPA to take action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I say test the concept in California first. If people don't mind paying ever more for fuel and electricity, then go for it. My guess is people will not be happy. They will be paying more and not seeing any positive effects.
This is going to be an interesting battle of wills and it will not end any time soon. Let your voices be heard.
Peter
Editorial
A Glacial Pace on Warming
('The walls continue to close in on the Bush administration, with the scientists’ warnings, the Supreme Court decision, the escalating pressure from the states and the general public.');
Published: April 28, 2007
Weeks after the Supreme Court’s momentous ruling that the federal government could and probably should regulate greenhouse gases, pressure for decisive action continues to build.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California has warned that he will sue the Environmental Protection Agency unless it gives him the power to regulate automobile emissions.
A New York Times/CBS News Poll shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans now want immediate steps to deal with global warming. And a leaked draft of the next report from the world’s leading scientists says that the window for action is shrinking — that what governments do over the next 20 to 30 years will determine whether the world can avoid the worst consequences of climate change.
Even so, Washington continues to move as slowly as a melting glacier. This week, Stephen Johnson, the E.P.A. administrator, told a Senate committee that he was still mulling the ramifications of the court’s decision, and he would not say when or even whether he would regulate carbon dioxide. He promised to solicit public comments on Mr. Schwarzenegger’s request but, again, would not say when or whether he would grant that request. Under the law, California can set its own emissions standards — which other states can then adopt — but it needs a federal waiver before putting them into effect.
“I don’t hear in your voice a sense of urgency,” Senator Barbara Boxer, the committee chairwoman, told Mr. Johnson. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat, was less charitable. “You astonish me,” he said, a criticism clearly intended for the entire administration.
Nobody is asking Mr. Johnson to design a comprehensive national program for regulating greenhouse gases, an enormous undertaking that is plainly Congress’s responsibility. Ms. Boxer and others are simply asking the administrator to exercise the authority the court gave him.
That would mean promptly approving California’s proposal to reduce greenhouse gases from vehicles by 30 percent by the 2016 model year. That proposal is the centerpiece of a broader state effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from all sources by 25 percent by 2020.
California requested a waiver in 2005, but the E.P.A. — hiding behind the now-demolished claim that it lacked the authority to regulate greenhouse gases — has been sitting on it. Eleven other states have adopted the standards and will put them into effect as soon as California gets the green light.
Mr. Johnson’s stalling is a symptom of a larger problem, the administration’s reluctance to take seriously the science of global warming, which in turn explains its reluctance to take meaningful action. Yet the walls continue to close in, with the scientists’ warnings, the Supreme Court decision, the escalating pressure from the states and the general public. If President Bush will not lead, Congress must.
This is going to be an interesting battle of wills and it will not end any time soon. Let your voices be heard.
Peter
Editorial
A Glacial Pace on Warming
('The walls continue to close in on the Bush administration, with the scientists’ warnings, the Supreme Court decision, the escalating pressure from the states and the general public.');
Published: April 28, 2007
Weeks after the Supreme Court’s momentous ruling that the federal government could and probably should regulate greenhouse gases, pressure for decisive action continues to build.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California has warned that he will sue the Environmental Protection Agency unless it gives him the power to regulate automobile emissions.
A New York Times/CBS News Poll shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans now want immediate steps to deal with global warming. And a leaked draft of the next report from the world’s leading scientists says that the window for action is shrinking — that what governments do over the next 20 to 30 years will determine whether the world can avoid the worst consequences of climate change.
Even so, Washington continues to move as slowly as a melting glacier. This week, Stephen Johnson, the E.P.A. administrator, told a Senate committee that he was still mulling the ramifications of the court’s decision, and he would not say when or even whether he would regulate carbon dioxide. He promised to solicit public comments on Mr. Schwarzenegger’s request but, again, would not say when or whether he would grant that request. Under the law, California can set its own emissions standards — which other states can then adopt — but it needs a federal waiver before putting them into effect.
“I don’t hear in your voice a sense of urgency,” Senator Barbara Boxer, the committee chairwoman, told Mr. Johnson. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat, was less charitable. “You astonish me,” he said, a criticism clearly intended for the entire administration.
Nobody is asking Mr. Johnson to design a comprehensive national program for regulating greenhouse gases, an enormous undertaking that is plainly Congress’s responsibility. Ms. Boxer and others are simply asking the administrator to exercise the authority the court gave him.
That would mean promptly approving California’s proposal to reduce greenhouse gases from vehicles by 30 percent by the 2016 model year. That proposal is the centerpiece of a broader state effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from all sources by 25 percent by 2020.
California requested a waiver in 2005, but the E.P.A. — hiding behind the now-demolished claim that it lacked the authority to regulate greenhouse gases — has been sitting on it. Eleven other states have adopted the standards and will put them into effect as soon as California gets the green light.
Mr. Johnson’s stalling is a symptom of a larger problem, the administration’s reluctance to take seriously the science of global warming, which in turn explains its reluctance to take meaningful action. Yet the walls continue to close in, with the scientists’ warnings, the Supreme Court decision, the escalating pressure from the states and the general public. If President Bush will not lead, Congress must.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)