Tag Archives for Q2 2014
The Orbital Carbon Observatory (OCO-2) Satellite and the CLARREO Satellite
By W. James O’Brien, W. James O’Brien Associates
Two satellites which will answer the question of what impact carbon dioxide (CO2) content in the atmosphere has with real data, not models, are on track with NASA: the Orbital Carbon Observatory (OCO-2) and The Climate Absolute Radiance and Refractivity Observatory (CLARREO). OCO-2 launches this summer; CLARREO is in the development stage for launch or locating on the International Space Station during the next decade.
Shifting Gears: MSHA Proposes Changes to Penalty Criteria
Editor’s note: This article was originally published to the ACC’s online magazine website (www.acclive.com) in July, 2014. It has been moved to the Coalblog as part of our redesign of our online publications.
By Matthew Korn
Editor’s Note: This article is reprinted with permission and was originally published on the Workplace Safety and Health Law Blog.
EPA’s Next Wave Of Job-Killing CO2 Regulations
Editor’s note: This article was originally published to the ACC’s online magazine website (www.acclive.com) in June, 2014. It has been moved to the Coalblog as part of our redesign of our online publications.
By David Rothbard and Craig Rucker, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT).
This article was originally published at CFACT.org.
Supported by nothing but assumptions, faulty computer models and outright falsifications of what is actually happening on our planet, President Obama, his Environmental Protection Agency and their allies have issued more economy-crushing rules that they say will prevent dangerous manmade climate change.
ACC’s Response to EPA’s Proposed Section 111(d) Rule
Editor’s note: This article was originally published to the ACC’s online magazine website (www.acclive.com) in June, 2014. It has been moved to the Coalblog as part of our redesign of our online publications.
Restricting the use of coal in the U.S. will be costly and harmful
The administration’s latest move to force carbon dioxide (CO2) restrictions on existing electric generating plants is another unfortunate chapter in the push to restrict the use of coal in America. At the rollout of the proposed rule, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy dismissed critics concerned about the rule’s high costs and threats to electric grid reliability with a simple, “They’re wrong.”[i] However, numerous economic and energy experts have demonstrated the detrimental impacts of policies aimed at reducing coal use. For example, a recent IHS study for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce predicts that EPA CO2 rules will cause the loss of 224,000 jobs annually, increase electricity costs by $289 billion, and lower household incomes by over $500 billion. [ii]
Democratic Senators Plead with President to Reassess EPA GHG Regulations
Editor’s note: This article was originally published to the ACC’s online magazine website (www.acclive.com) in May, 2014. It has been moved to the Coalblog as part of our redesign of our online publications.
Letter details imminent impact on research and technology development
Jason Hayes, American Coal Council
To steal a partially-edited line from Vice President Biden, “This is a big freaking* deal.” (*This is a family-friendly blog.)
Of course you’re going to ask what’s a “big deal?”