Tag Archives for EPA
A question popped into my head as I was reading/watching this article and video … “who’s the ‘climate denier’ now?”
There was an interesting article published in The Hill yesterday, which quotes EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on the issue of election-based changes in the Senate. Her comments indicate an overweening sense of confidence that public and presidential support will be more than sufficient to stop any attempts to limit EPA actions by the newly elected Republican majority in the Senate and the returning majority in the House.
In what appears to be a direct contradiction to the intent of the EPA’s Scientific Integrity Policy and this administration’s claims to be the “most transparent administration in history,” a memo presented at a “closed-door” July 24th Science Advisory Board (SAB) meeting informed members of the advisory board they are not allowed to speak to media or Congress without EPA permission.
That “don’t talk” memo was presented at a closed-door July 24, 2014, portion of EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) meeting, and it was not publicly disclosed at the time. Standard SAB procedure follows federal law in requiring publication of materials distributed to SAB members in advance of a meeting.
Here’s one more article pointing out the high and unintended costs of the EPA’s pending GHG regulations.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce blog describes (from a variety of reports) how prices across the nation could increase by 6%-7%, or even as much as 12%. They also note that overall consumer costs will increase, electricity rates will increase, and electric reliability will decrease, leaving residents and businesses in the dark and potentially stopping a budding American manufacturing renaissance.
Former Sierra Club activist, Dr. Alan Carlin’s story of his whistleblowing experience at the EPA is an interesting read. In this article, Dr. Carlin describes why he was forced to blow the whistle on EPA during the run up to the CO2 endangerment finding, how he was “muzzled” for bringing forth negative comments, and how he sees the EPA now operating outside of their legal mandate.
No surprise here. The EPA was once again the most prolific, the most expensive, and most restrictive of all the federal agencies in 2014.
Data from the Mercatus Center’s RegData 2.0 database shows that EPA’s air regulators were the top federal regulators in both 2002 and in 2012. However, while the top ten federal agencies publishing the most restrictions* remained the same in those years, the number of restrictions from nearly all of them increased.
Be sure to also check out the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s 9 charts that help show the growing impacts of federal regulation.
Coalblog readers – just saw this note on the EPA’s Clean Power Plan webpage.
The comment period has been extended to December 1, 2014
More and more people are waking up to the reality that the war on coal is just one part of a much larger war. As Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich described in a 2013 American Coal magazine article,
The phrase “war on coal,” however, is highly misleading.
A “war on coal” is in fact “a war on Americans.”
It means Americans in small towns in West Virginia, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, southern Illinois, Missouri, Kentucky and Wyoming will lose their jobs and see their communities destroyed as casualties in the Obama “war on coal.”
Editor’s note: This is a great article that provides Coalblog readers with a quick, easy to understand explanation of how to submit comments to the EPA for the inappropriately titled, “Carbon Pollution Standard,” (also known as the 111(d) rule, or the Clean Power Plan proposed rule), which targets existing coal-fueled power plants.
By David Wojick, PhD
Everyone who values the coal industry should submit critical comments to EPA on their outrageous proposal to regulate CO2 emissions from electric power generation. For that matter anyone who simply values reliable, affordable electricity should comment. It is easy to do and there are few formalities. The proposed rule is called the “Carbon Pollution Standard.” This name is ridiculous in itself because we are talking about carbon dioxide, which is the global food supply, not carbon, but never mind that now.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce blog describes the flawed logic underlying the latest round of EPA regulations, which are aimed at CO2 emissions and the U.S. coal industry.
Based on projections from the U.S. Department of Energy, the amount of carbon dioxide emissions that will be reduced from EPA’s power plant rule is equivalent to just 13.5 days of Chinese emissions in 2030!
Perhaps that’s why EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy admitted in a hearing last year that regulations are designed instead to “prompt and leverage international discussions and action.”