Posts Tagged ‘EPA’

When orders from HQ change… Enviro whacko’s and Texas fights back!

October 16, 2010

Texas is firing back after the Environmental Protection Agency announced that it would apply the 1970s clean air laws to carbon regulation and effectively seize permitting authority from states that don’t comply quickly enough. The Wall Street Journal reports, “Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA’s national office chooses priorities, but state regulators run the relevant programs and issue the necessary permits. When orders from HQ change, as with carbon over the last year, states get three years to revise their ‘implementation plans.’ But in August, [EPA Administrator Lisa] Jackson decided that the law posed too long a climate wait and decreed that if these plans aren’t updated by an arbitrary January 2011 deadline, her office will override the states and run the carbon permitting process itself.”

Given the EPA’s current lack of permitting resources, the Journal notes that this decision “is tantamount to a ban on major construction or building expansion — not merely Texan refineries but any kind of carbon-heavy utility, industrial production, manufacturing plant or even large office buildings.” Indeed, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality projects that the new regulations will end 167 current projects in 2011 alone. In response to Jackson’s fiat, the Lone Star State has filed a lawsuit with the DC appeals circuit, arguing the EPA went “beyond [its] powers” and is asking for an emergency stay of the new regulations.

The EPA itself admits that its actions “may have adverse consequences for the economy.” Of course, we’ve seen how little “adverse consequences” mean to an administration convinced that when it comes to federal bureaucracy, bigger is always better.

SOURCE

More on Climategate

December 15, 2009

“The hacked emails from the global warming center of the universe — the Climate Research Unit at Britain’s East Anglia University — could be the climatology equivalent of discovering the bones of Jesus. If the veracity of the emails is confirmed and if they contain evidence of data ‘trickery,’ as some global warming skeptics have suggested, their content could perhaps point to a vast cover-up of scientific evidence that some believe will disprove the ‘doctrine’ of man-made climate change. So who are the real flat-earthers? Are they the ones who won’t listen to any evidence except that which supports their cult-like faith, or are they the growing number who say the science is anything but settled and needs more study? Leonard Weinstein has scientific credentials no reasonable person can deny. Dr. Weinstein is a former senior research scientist who worked more than 30 years at the NASA Langley Research Center. He is now senior research fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace. Last April, he wrote an essay ‘Disproving the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Problem’…. Dr. Weinstein wrote: ‘In order to support a theory, specific predictions need to be made that are based on the claims of the theory, and the predictions then need to happen.’ He lists six theories on which the AGW model is based and then proceeds to dismantle each of them. … Dr. Weinstein concludes: ‘The final question that arises is what prediction has the AGW made that has been demonstrated, and that strongly supports the theory. It appears that there is NO real supporting evidence and much disagreeing evidence for the AGW theory as proposed. That is not to say there is no effect from Human activity. Clearly human pollution (not greenhouse gases) is a problem. There is also almost surely some contribution to the present temperature from the increase in CO2 and CH4, but it seems to be small and not a driver of future climate. Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!'” –columnist Cal Thomas

And related to the above:

“On the day Copenhagen opened, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency claimed jurisdiction over the regulation of carbon emissions by declaring them an ‘endangerment’ to human health. Since we operate an overwhelmingly carbon-based economy, the EPA will be regulating practically everything. No institution that emits more than 250 tons of CO2 a year will fall outside EPA control. This means over a million building complexes, hospitals, plants, schools, businesses and similar enterprises. … Not since the creation of the Internal Revenue Service has a federal agency been given more intrusive power over every aspect of economic life. … Forget for a moment the economic effects of severe carbon chastity. There’s the matter of constitutional decency. If you want to revolutionize society — as will drastic carbon regulation and taxation in an energy economy that is 85 percent carbon-based — you do it through Congress reflecting popular will. Not by administrative fiat of EPA bureaucrats. Congress should not just resist this executive overreaching, but trump it: Amend existing clean air laws and restore their original intent by excluding CO2 from EPA control and reserving that power for Congress and future legislation. Do it now. Do it soon. Because Big Brother isn’t lurking in CIA cloak. He’s knocking on your door, smiling under an EPA cap.” –columnist Charles Krauthammer

SOURCE

Do you want bureaucrats to rewrite laws?‏

November 24, 2009

The whack job moon bats are at it again, or maybe they never stopped. The global warming scandal reported on recently should be a real heads up for anyone that still believes in man made global warming. Nevertheless, people that should know better are still at it.

Here’s my take on this: SAVE THE POLAR BEARS! At least long enough for me to make Boone and Crockett with one!

The Environmental Protection Agency is rewriting the Clean Air Act, without Congressional involvement! Our Write the Laws Act would prevent this kind of unconstitutional rule-making by Executive Branch bureaucrats. Please send Congress a letter telling them to pass the Write the Laws Act.

You can copy or borrow from my letter to Congress . . .

Here’s a perfect example of why I want you to introduce the Write the Laws Act.

The Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that . . .

The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) must regulate greenhouse gases under the CAA (Clean Air Act).

But the CAA says nothing about greenhouse gases!

The CAA must be changed by Congress, NOT by the Judicial Branch, or by Executive Branch bureaucrats.

Only Congress has the Constitutional power to make rules that control my life. The Write the Laws Act would help you to obey this Constitutional requirement. But — as it stands now — the EPA is rewriting the law to . . .

* Classify greenhouse gases as pollutants
* Raise the trigger-point for regulatory control of this new class of “pollutants”
* Create a legal double-standard between big and small emitters of greenhouse gases

All of this contradicts the CAA as written by Congress. This unconstitutional legislating by unelected bureaucrats is going to create a legal and economic mess. The result will be . . .

* Years of litigation by large emitters challenging the special treatment given to small emitters
* Stunted economic growth as businesses cope with legal uncertainty during the litigation process

The Write the Laws Act would prevent this kind of mess by . . .

* Prohibiting the Judicial and Executive branches from making-up rules on their own
* Preserving the checks and balances required for Constitutional rule-making
* Protecting the right of the people to elect or un-elect the people who make their rules

If the people’s representatives in Congress were in charge of regulatory policy . . .

* There would be fewer legal challenges against bureaucratic overreach
* Businesses could rely on settled laws passed by Congress, instead of constantly adjusting to ever-changing bureaucratic dictates

The Supreme Court has no Constitutional authority to tell the Executive Branch to rewrite laws passed by Congress. Bureaucratic rule-making is both unconstitutional and impractical. Only Congress should have legislative authority. Show me you take your oath to support and defend the Constitution seriously. Introduce DownsizeDC.org’s Write the Laws Act.

END LETTER

You can send your letter using DownsizeDC.org’s Educate the Powerful System.

Remember that the more people who read this message, the more likely we will be victorious.

* For social bookmarkers and networkers, here’s a tinyurl for this message: http://tinyurl.com/ykqy9v4
* A monthly pledge or generous one-time contribution furthers DownsizeDC.org’s reach, and Congress feels it. You can make a difference on our secure contribution page.

Let’s Downsize DC!

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

http://www.DownsizeDC.org is sponsored by DownsizeDC.org, Inc. — a non-profit educational organization promoting the ideas of individual liberty, personal responsibility, free markets, and small government.  Operations office: 1931 15th St. Cuyahoga Falls, OH 44223, 202.521.1200

The blood of civilization

April 4, 2008

Oil is the very lifeblood of modern civilization that is a fact. All warfare involves economics at some level as well. So, social survival could rest with the supply of energy that is available. The impact on the environment needs to be taken into account during this process. Why bring abundant energy into existence if the place is no longer habitable after all?

Todays issue of The Patriot Post addresses these things, and I once again commend Mark Alexander for his excellent work. My only complaint? People always forget about all that sweet crude just off the coast of California…

ANWR’s Spotted Owl

By Mark Alexander

In February 2008, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton decreed that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) could designate 8.6 million acres in Arizona, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico as critical habitat for the “endangered” Spotted Owl, Strix occidentalis (no relation to Occidental Petroleum Co.), thus “protecting” this land from cattle grazing, logging and any other human enterprise that might give the little owl indigestion.

This is the same critter that shut down logging operations in the Pacific Northwest and is one of many wild species now being favored over the much-maligned domestic species, Homo sapiens.

The efficacy of using the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as a blunt instrument to pursue radical environmental ends began in 1973, the same year the act became law. No coincidence there.

The test case was a tiny fish called the Snail Darter, which was residing in the Little Tennessee River, which was in the process of being dammed up by the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Tellico project. Environmentalists, who objected to TVA’s project, decided to use the Darter to block the dam.

It almost worked, but the legal tactic was new and Tellico was already funded and under way. However, the Darter offensive did halt a larger TVA project a few years later, before it was determined that the Darter was getting along just fine in streams all over Tennessee.

It is no small irony that the first use of ESA was to block hydroelectric projects, a renewable-energy source and one of the energy objectives that both conservatives and liberals support.

There is a much more ominous ESA challenge on the table right now, but this political ruse will do a lot more to endanger our national security than protect any species.

The U.S. uses about 21 million barrels of oil daily—about three gallons per person—for transportation, manufacturing and energy production. We have to import 13 million barrels per day, 45 percent of that from Western nations (30 percent from Canada and Mexico), and the remaining 55 percent from Africa and the Middle East.

Political instability in Africa and the Middle East render them less than dependable providers of imported oil, which is to say that 28 percent of U.S. oil demand is less than dependable.

Oil is currently over $100 per barrel and given the giant sucking sound coming out of China and India, this time next year, $100 may seem like a bargain unless the surge in oil prices is matched with a surge in oil exploration and delivery.

Total annual consumption of oil in the U.S. is about 7.6 billion barrels. However, it is estimated that there is more than a trillion barrels of retrievable oil under the U.S., most of it in oil shale (Green River basin), and billions more in deep formations (Bakken Play) and under the Arctic’s Northern Slope.

When oil was at $35 per barrel, there was no incentive to retrieve these reserves. At $100 per barrel plus, however, there is plenty of incentive.

Enter ignoble laureate Albert Arnold Gore and his gullible warming Gorons. They are intent on stopping further domestic-oil exploration, claiming that human industrial activity is a major factor accelerating global warming.

The Gorons have already lobbied hard to prevent additional offshore exploration on our East and West Coasts and are adamantly opposed to renewable energy sources such as nuclear generators. Teddy Kennedy certainly doesn’t want his Cape Cod views obscured by unsightly wind generators.

Where do we go from here?

The most readily available proven U.S. oil reserves waiting to be tapped are under a vast wasteland on the northern slope of Alaska called the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR). I am one of few humans to have actually visited ANWR, and can tell you that the most prolific wildlife species in the region are mosquitoes the size of Turkey Vultures, but with more voracious appetites.

However, there’s an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil up there, and that is enough Black Gold to keep Teddy Kennedy and his constituents warm and cozy for a century.

Nonetheless the Gorons are going to block exploration and extraction of oil in ANWR. They are constructing that gauntlet right now using the ESA as its foundation. They claim there is another species up there that would become endangered if the climate continues to warm: that lovable lug, the polar bear.

The Center for Biological Diversity, Natural Resources Defense Council and Greenpeace are suing the USFWS (of Spotted Owl fame) for delaying action to declare polar bears “threatened” and provide them protection. A 2007 U.S. Geological Survey report speculates that 60 percent of polar bears might perish by 2050 if global warming continues to melt Arctic sea ice.

If declared threatened, the polar bear would become the first species designated a potential victim of global warming.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (S-CA) claims the Bush administration is delaying the USFWS decision in an effort to complete exploration permits for Alaska’s Chukchi Sea: “The administration went ahead and accepted bids, even though oil and gas activities may disturb polar bears making a den… Time is running out for the polar bear, and time has run out for this decision.”

Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) rejoined that this would set a precedent, and that the USFWS would henceforth have to establish that every human enterprise would not potentially disturb a threatened species: “Virtually every human activity that involved the release of carbon into the atmosphere would have to be regulated by the federal government.”

If that sounds familiar, it is because I have argued for years that the Gorons’ environmental agenda was really a short cut to centralized government control of the economy—what in common parlance is known as, “Socialism.”

Unfortunately, the ever-unapprised Sen. John Warner (R-VA), primary sponsor of climate-change legislation up for consideration in June, piped in, “I think we have an obligation toward this extraordinary animal. It’s America’s panda bear, and all Americans are in love with it.”

Well, I for one have never tasted polar bear, so it is presumptuous of Warner to claim that I have any special affinity for the beast.

Here one might ask, “If global warming is inevitable, and no amount of Kyotoization can mitigate the warming (because China and India won’t comply), then what is the logical conclusion? Aren’t polar bears in trouble regardless of Arctic oil exploration?”

Meanwhile, Red China, with help from the Castro boys, is exploring for oil just 45 miles off Florida’s coast. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the North Cuban Basin contains at least 4.6 billion barrels of oil. Oh well… maybe the ChiComs will give us a good price.

Some recent facts that have been discovered; There are more Polar Bears than at any time in recorded history; The polar Caps are not only not receding, but are expanding; Last year was so cool worldwide that it destroyed the one hundred year average temperature, negating any total warming that had occurred.