Tag Archives: EPA

Environmentalists are getting beaten over the head by reality.

Deli Sands Flower-Loving Fly

For decades now the environmentalists have ruled with a recycled iron fist. They have had laws passed, no matter how asinine, under the guise of protecting the environment. Development stopped by snakes, frogs, Spotted Owls, Yellow-Billed Penis Poppers and you name it. Trying to get environmental approval is just a synonym for litigation. Try and build it and some whackadoodle environmental group will most likely threaten a lawsuit and try and drag the approval of most anything for years, delaying construction, costing jobs (except for attorneys) and adding millions to the cost.

Just how ridiculous did it get? In 1996:

The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) has joined in a lawsuit that calls into question the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s protection of a California fly that, by the government’s own admission, is doomed to extinction. 

The lawsuit is in response to the government’s protection measures for the Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly, which have included forcing San Bernardino County to move a proposed hospital 250 feet and fence in eight acres of fly preserve thus adding more than $3.5 million to the price of the hospital; preventing the County from making improvements to an emergency road leading to the hospital; and attempting to either close a major commuter highway during fly mating season, or drop the speed limit for that highway to 15 mph. 

Yes, we’re talking about a fly folks, not a Condor or an Eagle. The highway they wanted to slow or shut down? Interstate 10, a major highway that goes from Santa Monica, California to Jacksonville, Florida.  Imagine the traffic jams, pollution and the immense waste of gas and diesel that would result from diverting traffic or slowing down the speed to 15 miles per hour along this stretch in California? I’d predict miles and miles of cars, trucks and buses going no where fast.

It seems now that the shoe is on the proverbial other foot. The government is out of money, the taxpayers are out of money, jobs and patience. Last week President Obama put the kibosh on an EPA ozone rule that had a projected cost of between $19 and $90 billion dollars, not to mention putting lots of people out of work.

Today it gets even better. So good I had to slap myself to make certain I wasn’t dreaming.  So what happened?

California lawmakers on Friday approved a bill that would soften parts of a landmark, 4-decade-old environmental law and could pave the way for the quick approval of large developments across the state.

In the final hours of the year’s legislative session, Democrats pushed through a measure that would give the governor the power to speed up the environmental review process on some large construction projects, including sports stadiums and green manufacturing plants.

Yes folks, it’s getting so bad out there that Democrats like President Obama and the California Legislature are finally waking up to the fact that this environmental silliness needs to go. People need jobs, things need to be built and we don’t need to all live in caves and subsist on pine nuts and granola. Let’s not forget that the USA and the State of California desperately need revenue, something that empty fields to save flies that most people swat, don’t provide.

Goes with the same lack of logic that praises wind-turbines that kill birds like Golden Eagles. The same lack of logic that closes down coal power plants and bans construction of nuclear power plants while wanting to expand the sales of electric vehicles that need power to charge that inefficient wind and solar won’t provide alone. The same lack of logic that even causes them to try to prevent natural gas power plants from being built even though they’re very clean.

Perhaps we should call this lack of logic CO2 Insanity. It’s about time they got told where to stuff their lack of logic.

Source: SF GATE

1 Comment

Filed under California, Co2 Insanity, Editor, Energy, EPA

SCOTUS Tells Warmists to MYOB

The Supreme Court of the United States told the warmers today that they cannot sue power plants using Federal nuisance laws……..

States can’t invoke federal law to force utilities to cut greenhouse-gas emissions

The unanimous ruling is a victory for five companies — American Electric Power Co., Duke Energy Corp., Southern Co. and the government-owned Tennessee Valley Authority, based in Knoxville — that had been sued by six U.S. states, including California, and the city of New York.

Being a “unanimous ruling” tells me that even SCOTUS thinks this was a feeble attempt by the warmers to try to cap the emissions from power plants in the above states.

The Obama administration was against it, too. But, for the reason that it might usurp the so-called authority of the EPA to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

Now it’s time to go after the EPA’s attack on CO2 before the price of electricity skyrockets, which is something we don’t need to exacerbate the economic problems the United States is facing.

Source: SF GATE


Comments Off on SCOTUS Tells Warmists to MYOB

Filed under California, Cap & Trade, Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, CO2, Co2 Insanity

Inhofe reigning in EPA

A sincere thanks to Senator Inhofe (R-Okla) for getting after the EPA who have been overstepping their bounds and usurping the authority of Congress. Per the New York Times, who don’t appear too happy……..

The Senate’s most vocal climate change skeptic has taken a key role in crafting two bills to be introduced next week that would both permanently stop U.S. EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who famously called climate change the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” will unveil a bill with House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) that would strip EPA of its authority to limit carbon emissions from power plants, refineries and other stationary sources.

At the same time, he will be a “first co-sponsor” of a much broader bill that would bar the federal government from regulating greenhouse gas emissions under any existing environmental law. That measure will be introduced Monday by Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), who serves on the Environment and Public Works Committee, on which Inhofe is the ranking Republican.

I hope all the Republicans join in and vote for these two much-needed bills. This will be a good step in stopping onerous regulations that scare business away from the United States and costs jobs.

Thank you Senators!

Source: The New York Times

Comments Off on Inhofe reigning in EPA

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, CO2, Co2 Insanity, EPA, Global Warming, Government, Legal, Politics

Is EPA on the run?


EPA's Lisa Heinzerling - Wants you to live in a cave


Wow! Four days after the mid-term election it appears warmists may already be jumping ship at the EPA to avoid the well-deserved holocaust that I hope our Republican House of Representatives give them. Per Politico “EPA policy chief steps down.”

One of the Obama administration’s most aggressive officials on global warming regulations is stepping down from her post at the Environmental Protection Agency.

Lisa Heinzerling, the head of EPA’s policy office, will return to her position as a Georgetown University law professor at the end of the year, said EPA spokesman Brendan Gilfillan.

Within EPA, Heinzerling is one of the more dogmatic proponents of regulating greenhouse gases to the maximum extent possible under the Clean Air Act.

Now if we can do the same with Carol Browner, Obama’s socialist Global Warming Czar and Lisa Jackson, Administrator of the EPA, we may have something good going. Absent that I hope that the House does a very thorough investigation of the global warming fraud that includes subpoenas, a lot of heat and prosecution of any of those who have committed fraud against the people of the United States.

The EPA has been overstepping their bounds. There’s an almost daily article about something else they want to control, which is the real name of the game. They have even gone so far as to declare CO2 dangerous. They have allowed California to set their own auto emissions limits and global warming regulations (AB32), which flies in the face of common sense and puts California in a costly and dangerous position of being non- competitive with other states and countries, like China.

Congress needs to reign them in and lay the law down. Absent that they should refuse to fund the EPA and let it die on the vine.

You can read the whole story at the source below. I hope Congress sweeps away some CO2 Insanity.

Source: Politico

Comments Off on Is EPA on the run?

Filed under AB32 California, Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Obama, Politics, Prop 23

Texas Ranchers deride EPA’s E15 decision

Well we just had an item on E15 and the potential and real problems associated with the EPA’s insane decision to increase the percentage of ethanol in gas and lo and behold we get this the next day about how this is going to raise food costs. Of course warmers and vegans will no doubt be happy that it may have the effect of pricing many people out of having “Beef, it’s what’s for dinner” but they don’t care! The warmers complain about runoff and cow farts while the vegans don’t want you eating hamburgers. As long at it’s a greentard idea it’s perfectly OK with them regardless of the cost and no matter who gets screwed. Remember, they want to control your every move and tell you what to do, whether you like it or not.

TSCRA: EPA’s Ethanol Waiver Harmful To Texas Ranchers

The Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association (TSCRA) expressed strong disappointment today after the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced their intent to grant partial waivers to increase the allowable amount of ethanol in gasoline from 10 percent to 15 percent, also known as E15. This increase represents a 50 percent increase from the current level of 10 percent ethanol, a jump that will have a negative impact on ranchers and would dramatically increase the cost of livestock production.

“The high level of corn-based ethanol is one of the key factors driving price increases in corn products, including feed for cattle,” said Dave Scott, rancher and TSCRA president. “Over the past few years it has become very clear that putting our food and fuel in competition with one another is bad for cattle producers and consumers.”According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service (ERS), in 2008, feed costs for livestock, poultry and dairy reached a record high of $45.2 billion-an increase of more than $7 billion over 2007 costs. In 2008, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a report that stated that the dramatic increase in livestock production costs were attributed to feed.

“Texas cattle producers support renewable energy and a lessened dependence on foreign oil; however such an investment should not sacrifice our nation’s food supply,” Scott continued.

The Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association is a 133-year-old trade organization. As the largest and oldest livestock association in Texas, TSCRA represents more than 15,000 beef cattle producers, ranching families and businesses who manage approximately 4 million head of cattle on 51.5 million acres of range and pasture land, primarily in Texas and Oklahoma. TSCRA provides law enforcement and livestock inspection services, legislative and regulatory advocacy, industry news and information, insurance services and educational opportunities for its members and the industry.

The “Beef, it’s what’s for dinner” ad campaign may turn into “Where’s the beef?”
EDIT: I am adding this interesting website the Ethanol Free Premium Coalition. I haven’t had time to read the whole site but it has some interesting information about ethanol and the laws. Thanks to stopethanol.


Filed under Climate Change, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Government

EPA to allow 15% ethanol in cars

In what has to be one of the larger fits of CO2 Insanity we have the EPA approving 15% ethanol. Why? Well lots of reasons but the shortlist is that it’s a political payoff to their ethanol buddies and farmers who supply them with the crops to make ethanol. Read some more and you probably will get the distinct impression that money has been donated to the Democrats. We also have the EPA staffed with over-ripe greens who will stop at nothing to enforce their vision of how the rest of us should live, no matter how ridiculous it is, and this appears to be plenty ridiculous.

While they’re not going to make older cars that can’t handle this mix use it (yet), they will have the newer ones using it, which increases the money their ethanol refinery and farmer buddies will be making, thus the payoff. This also caused me to pause and wonder how they can be talking out of both sides of the EPA  mouth. If the EPA gets away with this one, I’ll be they may soon be mandating all cars use this, regardless of age and regardless whether they can handle ethanol or not.

If you think not, remember the 1970’s when lead was removed from gas? If you don’t, it wasn’t a problem for newer cars that were designed for it but had issues for older cars designed to run on leaded gas. To educate those not old enough to remember, the older cars didn’t have hardened valve seats that were necessary if you ran unleaded gas. The reason was that the lead deposits actually formed a cushion that prevented valve seat and valve wear. Remove that lead cushion and you have soft metal to metal mechanical problems, such as valves that won’t seal, bent valves, broken valves and holed pistons. Adjustments were made over time, but to you think the EPA gave a hoot if your ’65 GTO blew up because there was no lead in the gas? Nope! So, don’t be surprised if your 1996 car that can’t handle 15% ethanol has problems down the road if they mandate 15% for everything. Think the EPA is going to care?

You should also remember the EPA’s last fiasco designed to reduce auto pollution called MTBE. MTBE was supposed to be the big problem solver, but it turned out to be a big problem, period. MTBE, polluted ground water and corroded underground tanks and pipelines. It was eventually deemed to be so nasty they banned it. What’s MTBE? You can go here and read all about it. What’s the cost of removing this government mandated chemical? Oh,” MTBE removal from groundwater and soil contamination in the U.S. is estimated to cost from $1 billion[18] to $30 billion[19], including removing the compound from aquifers and municipal water supplies and replacing leaky underground oil tanks. There is some controversy centered around the question of who will pay the costs of this remediation.” Nice of the government to mandate something in an alarmist fit that is now costing a fortune. So who’s getting stuck with the tab?

Well, the government mandated it, the oil companies complied and put it into their gasoline, and now the government wants to stick them with the cost of removing it. If that doesn’t happen then guess what? The government will pay for it. Either way guess who gets screwed? Either you the gasoline consumer (guess who’s going to raise the price to pay for it), or you the taxpayer (guess whose taxes are going up to pay for it?).

Now we seem to be heading towards a new billion dollar plus faux pas by an overeager EPA, who  are giving the big payoff and are also bound and determined to get rid of pollution and save us from CO2, regardless of the cost or potential problems. Want to guess who’s going to get screwed in this new deal? It won’t be the government, the EPA, the ethanol producers or the oil companies, it will, as usual, be you the taxpayer or you the consumer. You may as well bend over now in preparation as you will either get stuck by the ethanol industry, the government or both, all in the name of being green. Or, should I say making green?

Another reason I’d surmise the rush is that the EPA, farmers and ethanol refiners probably figure the Democrats may not be in power after November, which will greatly reduce their chances of pushing this deal through. Better to get the new screwjob going now and better to make that payoff now in hopes they’ll get some badly needed Democrat votes from the midwest.

I have a long list of other issues over this boondoggle. We have the greens and EPA saying we need to do this and the ethanol refiners demanding it. Increasing ethanol production is actually contrary to what the warmers have been saying needs doing to reduce CO2. This is where we get to the talking out of both sides of their big fat EPA mouths.

First of all, much ethanol is mostly made from food crops. Corn, Milo, Soy Beans, Sugarcane, beets, etc. It can be made from wood products, but will that get us cutting down more trees at a time when everyone wants us to plant more to offset CO2? It can also be made from Kudzu and perhaps other non-food crops, but that’s not happening much right now. One can wonder if we start planting more Kudzu will it not replace food crops being grown and have the same net effect of reducing food availability. There’s only so much land and they aren’t making anymore, so something will have to give.

Remember the constant cries from the warmer crowd about looming major food shortages caused by global warming? Then tell me what sense it is to make more ethanol and use  of more food crops that could have been used to alleviate food shortages? Please note that the food shortages are not only caused by lack of food, they’re also caused by price increases.  If the demand for corn to make ethanol rises, then what do you think the market’s response will be? It will raise the price of corn and other food crops. When the price of corn is raised, guess what? Poor countries can’t afford to buy grain and we have instant food shortage. It’s already happened in Africa, so don’t think it’s impossible. You can read this at Chemically Green about corn prices going up due to ethanol production. It’s already happening and will only get worse if production is increased. Pure supply and demand. Basic economics 101, something that the Obama administration doesn’t seem to get.

Second, we have more crop silliness.  If you read much you should have noted that the EPA is now planing on also raising hell about dust created from farms. I don’t know how you’re supposed to plow without making dust, but that’s the latest idiocy. I have to ask, then why make more ethanol, which requires more corn, milo, beets, sugar cane, etc., to be grown, requiring more farming that ultimately will cause more dust? You could use water to keep the dust down, but water is a current and foreseen future problem, too. This is very idiotic indeed.

Third, we get into the CO2 emitted from the soil. We have the EPA  again complaining about plowing because it releases CO2 into the atmosphere. Yet, they’re totally convinced that CO2 is causing global warming, which is going to cause crop shortages.Why farm more to make more ethanol when all that plowing will create more CO2 that they claim is bad and should be reduced? Also, if global warming is going to cause crop shortages and famines, then do we really want to be diverting good growing land to make ethanol instead of food?

Fourth, we are also hearing the constant din about water shortages. Guess what folks? Growing more crops for ethanol will also require more water to be used, so we’ll supposedly reduce car pollution, but we’ll all die of thirst because they’ll use all that precious water up growing crops.  As an aside, making ethanol requires huge quantities of water, which exacerbates the situation even more. The more you make the more you use. Einstein couldn’t even get around that one.

Fifth, we hear the cries about pollution from fertilizer runoff causing things like dead zones in the oceans, more algae, dead fish and undrinkable water. More farming will increase the use of fertilizer. More fertilizer will runoff into creeks, then streams, then into lakes and bays and create more pollution. Fertilizer that may also get into ground water that is used for drinking. The EPA is against the runoff,  but they seem to have made a u-turn and now find it’s perfectly OK if we use more fertilizer to make ethanol. Want to bet what the next $30+ billion dollar cleanup will be and who’s going to get stuck paying for it? It won’t be the government, the ethanol refiners or the farmers it will be the good old taxpayers again via increased prices or increased taxes. Again, like the police say, assume the position.

Sixth, ethanol is inefficient to make. You use more energy to make it than it puts out. Kind of like perpetual motion in reverse. According to this article from Organic Consumers it takes 70% more energy to make ethanol than is in it when it’s finished. Again, you have more farming going on to make more crops to make more ethanol. Then you have more trucks transporting the crops to the plant, you have the plant (I’ve been to one I bet they use a lot of power), then you have to ship the ethanol to the refineries, have to truck it to the gas stations. As of now you can’t pipeline it, so is must go via rail or truck. It’s so caustic they don’t keep it in with the gas at the refineries, they add it as the tanker truck leaves. I wonder what it does to those underground tanks and pipes at the gas stations? There are supposedly improvements being made that will reduce the inefficiencies but they won’t happen overnight.

Gas mileage? That will drop some because ethanol is about 30% less efficient than gasoline is. I see figures all over the place so you can decide for yourself what the true effect of going from E10 to E15 will be. What I find seems to vary from about <1- to 2+ MPG less with the E15 than with the E10, which already reduced your supposedly about the same vs. straight gasoline with no ethanol. The figures seem to depend on whether the petroleum industry or the ethanol industry is putting them out. Frankly I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re both an exaggeration. Regardless, more gas used = more out the tailpipe and more refining needed to make more because you’re using more. There’s an estimated 144 million cars on the road in the United States, so even if they only lose 1 mile per gallon that’s a lot more gas they’re burning. You will hear that financially, the additional use will be offset by the ethanol reducing the price of gas, but that doesn’t change how much more is being consumed, does it?

Engine wear? OK remember this very caustic, cant’ be pipelined or stored with the gas at the refinery. It also absorbs impurities easier than gas and can cause engine problems, not to mention it will also absorb water. Cars with water in the gas don’t generally  get very far plus the cost of repairs. Think it’s any better for your engine? Just because it might be cleaner coming out the exhaust pipe doesn’t mean it’s better for your car. If you have a new car that is designed for it, it’s may not be much of a problem.  The claim is that 2007 up cars will be OK. As far as the 2001-2006 models, they don’t know because they haven’t completed testing. Have an older car than that? Who knows what it will destroy.

If  this eventually gets mandated for older cars as I suspicion it will, older car owners may have major problems with things like anything rubber like seals, o-rings, hoses, and perhaps even some aluminum parts like your carburetor (on older cars) the intake manifold and even fuel pump may eventually corrode costing you big bucks. Think the EPA cares? I’d doubt it. I’d assume ways will be developed to get around the problem, but at what cost?

I feel this is about the nuttiest thing since Almond Joy Bars were invented. It’s CO2 Insanity rearing its ugly head again, no doubt at the taxpayers expense to solve a non-existent problem and create a lot more problems instead. I guess in the government you call that job security as you always will be around because you create new problems to solve. This sounds to me like it’s probably the closest mankind has ever come to creating perpetual motion.

So why all the nuttiness? Well there’s that ultra-classic reason when dealing with industry and government that’s called follow the money. When they say it’s about being green it really means it’s about making green and plenty of it. Why the claim? Well, how about a well-connected retired General in the middle of all of this? Per the Wall Street Journal (WSJ)……..

The cause of boosting ethanol use in cars has been strongly championed by Growth Energy, an ethanol trade group led by Wesley Clark, the retired Army general and 2004 Democratic presidential candidate.

Gen. Clark’s group petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency last year to allow ethanol levels in gasoline blends to be as high as 15%, up from the current 10%.

So that’s what happened to General Clark after his giant belly flop running for President. Hmmm…..he’s even a Democrat. Coincidence? Nah, there’s money to be made and the Democrats aren’t above making it the old-fashioned way by screwing the taxpayers. Like almost all big industry money it doesn’t just talk, it screams and the government minions hear it loud and clear. Did I hear the word government subsidies echoing in the background? What? Large campaign donations? Huh? Cushy jobs after retirement from government service as delayed payoffs? Yes it sure screams loud! Sounds like General Clark has made his war plans and he’s following through with the initial attack.

From Z Facts here we get this tidbit of information……

Corn ethanol subsidies totaled $7.0 billion in 2006 for 4.9 billion gallons of ethanol. That’s $1.45 per gallon of ethanol (and $2.21 per gal of gas replaced).
Even with high gas prices in 2006, producing a gallon of ethanol cost 38¢ more than making gasoline with the same energy, so ethanol did need part of that subsidy. But what about the other $1.12. Not needed! So all of that became, $5.4 billion windfall of profits paid to real farmers, corporate farmers, and ethanol makers like multinational ADM. Why is it the farm states put up with this?!

Where did those subsidies come from:
1.  51¢ per gallon federal blenders credit for $2.5 billion = your tax dollars.
2.  $0.9 billion in corn subsidies for ethanol corn = your tax dollars.
3.  $3.6 billion extra paid at the pump.

That’s quite a bit when you figure it only made us 1.1% more energy independent and only reduced US greenhouse gases by 1/19 of 1%.

No wonder they want to increase the percentage of ethanol in the gas! Money! Money! Money! Subsidies! Profits! More Subsidies! More profits! A few new Lear Jets , Bently’s and a private vacation island may be looming in the background. Meanwhile, you, the lowly taxpayer, get your hard-earned tax dollars used (again) to make more people rich. What the hell, we already subsidize the solar and wind power, unions, giant pork barrel projects, Presidential vacations every other week and all sorts of other crap like Nancy Pelosi’s $100k bar tab for her big plane she has because the small one was too small for a person of her importance. So what’s a few more billions down the government toilet? Remember the taxpayers always have a lot of money for the government to enrich themselves and their good buddies in private industry. Pass some laws, mete out some subsidies and if it sounds green that’s even better. Why I wouldn’t be surprised if EPA Administrator (administraitor?) Lisa Jackson ends up with a cushy job on the board of directors at Growth Energy after her term is up (which can’t happen too fast!).

Want another reason? OK. Remember, we have big-time alarmist in charge at the EPA who appear to know no bounds and are evidently trying to ram through everything on the greentard list at the EPA before the Republicans control Congress or Obama is out of office, whatever comes first. They’re in a frantic mess trying to get as much done as possible, in what may end up being a short period of time, as the November election may be a bloodbath for the Democrats.

Remember their last alarmist flop known as “Cash for Clunkers?” That was the Obama administration’s effort to get perfectly good old cars taken off to the car crusher in the name of a) reducing pollution, b) getting people into more fuel-efficient cars (that conveniently can run on E15) and c) trying to jump-start a US auto industry that was in the toilet and about to be flushed. This was a double-screw as it took a lot of perfectly good used cars off the market, which as market’s work, had the effect of raising used car prices and screwing the lower and middle classes who can’t afford new cars and in the current screwed up financial climate, can’t get a loan from the bank because they won’t loan money or want interest rates and terms that the Mafia would be embarrassed over.

I don’t know about you , but what a better way to get these older cars they absolutely loathe off the road than dumping E15 they can’t handle into them and basically poisoning them? Put that E15 in your ’68 Camaro SS 396, or your old Ford Mustang and see what happens to it. It may start leaking from numerous hoses and seals, or it may just start to run like crap and then self-destruct. Perhaps slowly or perhaps in one large kaboom as you’re entering the freeway praying that Peterbuilt going 80 in the slow lane doesn’t run you over. At best, with 15% ethanol it’s not going to make as much power or get the mileage it used to, not to mention everyone else’s cars old or new.

They may just be salivating at the thought of eventually mandating E15 for ALL cars so that millions of older cars will self-destruct. I’m sure they’re all touchy-feely over the thought of you running out and replacing it with a new Toyota Prius Hybrid or a new Nissan Leaf full electric or some other green vehicle or junked your car and started taking public transit.

Depending upon what happens, this may or may not turn out to be big-time CO2 Insanity. I would bet that lawsuits may be flying over this, or that Congress will wake up and stop it before it gets out of hand. We’ll have to wait and see. I’m not taking any bets that they won’t succeed. You can get the rest of the story at the Wall Street Journal link below.

Source: Wall Street Journal

1 Comment

Filed under Biofuel, Co2 Insanity, Financial

EPA Protects US From Perrier!

Today’s comedy relief (as if there isn’t enough surrounding climate change already) is that per this article from John O’Sullivan, we get to see how deep the EPA feels their duty to protect us goes.

While analyzing the federal government’s latest long-winded publication, ‘Climate Action Report, the Fifth National Communication of the United States of America Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’ I stumbled across something buried deep inside that will dismay (or perhaps amuse) many taxpayers.

Long-winded publication from the Feds? Praytell! Read on!

In the section entitled, ‘Proposed Regulation Facilitating Geologic Sequestration of CO2’ the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has pulled out all the stops to make an even bigger ass of itself. It is introducing a new requirement under the Safe Drinking Water Act to protect U.S. citizens from being ‘poisoned’ from carbon dioxide in drinking water.

Disavowing itself of saner opinion on the matter, the EPA has determined that the ingredient that makes the water’s fizz-that nasty carbon dioxide-is nothing short of an environmental ‘poison.’ But have you ever heard of anyone being poisoned by Perrier?

See the government can do the impossible.  The EPA actually made a “bigger ass out of itself.”

The latest cock-eyed federal policy concerns “a new class of injection well—Class VI” (page 44) that at great expense will inject carbon dioxide (CO2) underground by a process that will inhibit drinking water from becoming as carbonated as fizzy Perrier water. The greenies call this process ‘carbon sequestration,’ in case you didn’t know.

For the billions this will probably cost you’d think we could at least get some Dom Perignon out of it.

Another case of CO2 Insanity……..literally.

Source: Climate Realists

Short bio: John O’Sullivan is a legal analyst and writer who for several years has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both the US and Britain. Visit his Website: http://www.suite101.com/profile.cfm/johnosullivan

1 Comment

Filed under Co2 Insanity, Comedy Relief, John O'Sullivan

EPA Refrigeration Retardation

The EPA is considering new regulations of the gas that makes your refrigerators, freezers, and air conditioners work.  Having just  “declared” CO2 (plant food) to be a dangerous gas, I wondered what the motivation was due to the fact that the ozone hole has closed up considerably. I also wondered if anybody at the EPA had really studied the possible effects of the change? Or, if they were being “stylish” and/or relying on more “junk science?”

After nosing around here and there I found this post from NRDC (National Resources Defense Council) on their Switchboard titled “HFCs: Is this the year to curb these super greenhouse gases?” Not having heard the term “super greenhouse gases” before obviously piqued my curiosity as I was wondering what new “crisis” the AGW crowd would try and foist upon us next. Since the CO2 problem seems to be gradually dying from massive doses of “super-reality” getting rid of those nasty CFCs would be one logical step for the “alarmists” to take.  Here’s a snippet from NRDC’s site.

Phasing out CFCs and HCFCs has also delivered big climate protection benefits, because these ozone-destroying chemicals are also powerful heat-trapping greenhouse gases.  The worldwide elimination of CFCs has delivered a climate protection bonus equivalent to 11 billion tons of CO2 reductions in this year alone.  That’s also equivalent to delaying the expected growth in global CO2 emissions by 7-12 years.

I’ll skip all the whining about it as the above should give you an rather good idea of the postulating involved with this one.  (You can click on the link if you want to read all of it).  To cut to the chase, the EPAs has a plan afoot to approve petitions to re-regulate the gas your car air conditioner currently uses, HFC-134, which is what we changed to back when the ozone hole was the big problem. Their new preferred gas to save the Earth is called HFO1234yf.

EPA has also proposed to approve a new HFC, known as HFO-1234yf, for use in car air conditioners.  This compound has global warming potential (GWP) of only 4, more than 300 times less than the current mobile air conditioning refrigerant, HFC-134a, which has a GWP of 1430.  Last Friday, NRDC petitioned EPA to end the use of HFC-134a in mobile air conditioning.

You can see NRDC is at least partially driving this change, I don’t know who else at the moment. On the face of it I suppose I don’t have a problem with the new gas. There have been issues raised about HFO1234yf being flammable, but my nosing around indicates that while that may be a problem, it perhaps is no worse than sitting in a car with a full tank of gasoline. If enough people get carbonized, then I guess the government will step in with their usual too little too late approach and do something about it.

I also nosed around about the cost factor, as usual it will probably initially be more expensive, but the supply/demand situation will probably cool that off (pun intended) sooner or later.  Again, it’s probably nothing to get over excited about, other than the billions it will probably cost consumers.

What I do have problems with goes back to what is all the science behind this decision, and what will the real net effect be when it’s all said and done? I base these questions upon the EPA’s record, which in many instances hasn’t, in my opinion, been very good. Reducing pollution and keeping the ozone hole from growing certainly sounds stylish. But what are the facts?

It’s also a nice toe-hold for the EPA to get more restrictions passed on refrigeration systems that use HFC’s, like your refrigerator, freezer, home air conditioner, commercial refrigeration systems in stores-meat storage facilities, trailers-steamship containers-rail cars used to transport perishables, airplanes, cruise ships and so on and so on. (Keep reading and you will see this assertion is correct).

Regardless, it’s going to make a lot of money for some people and companies and my guess is it will end up costing consumers (who always get the short end of the EPA stick), billions. Why?  It’s a whole lot of new refrigerant to sell, which I’m sure will improve the bottom line at companies like DuPont and others who sell it. It’s also a lot of equipment to be sold or refitted, so it will be compatible with this new gas.  Back to follow the money.

So, back to is this something that is really necessary?  Will it really to what they claim? Will it cause other problems?  Do we even know that much about it?  Read on.

I came across this article titled “Greenhouse Gas Regulations Might Aggravate Climate Change” from the University of Arizona UA News that cites this study “Carbon Dioxie Emission Implications if Hydroflourocarbons are regulated: A Refrigeration Study”, by Paul Blowers and James M. Lownsbury, in the Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering at the University of Arizona.  The article cites the potential problems associated with this type of changeover.

UA engineers find swapping one chemical for another may actually result in greater energy use, compounding the problems the new chemical was supposed to fix.

This plays into my concerns about what the EPA is doing and if they’re about to cause more problems than they’re going to solve, whether this is politically motivated, or if they’ve really taken the time and done a complete study on this?

The U.S. government wants to regulate the use of hydrofluorocarbons, which could lead to an increased use of hydrofluoroethers as a replacement. Both are greenhouse gases, and research at the University of Arizona indicates that HFEs might be worse for the environment than HFCs.

It appears they are raising issues that the EPA perhaps hasn’t thought to look into, or are perhaps ignoring.

Their research suggests that these new chemicals, originally thought to have low greenhouse gas potential when used as refrigerants, might actually lead to increased emissions. Their conclusions were published recently in a paper in Environmental Science and Technology, the leading journal for the environmental science and engineering field.

Blowers and Lownsbury agree that HFEs have low emissions potential in terms of their chemical properties when studied in isolation. They contend, however, that the true potential of an HFE can only be determined by a complete analysis of its entire life cycle, from manufacture through use to disposal.

It appears my concerns about the EPA doing the old “look before you leap” are indeed valid.  Here’s some other issues regarding this changeover that could actually worsen the effect.

  • The AC/refrigeration unit may have poor energy efficiency (aka: when you switch to this new gas it may have to run more often and burn more energy than if it was left alone).
  • The source of where the power is coming from could have an effect. (aka: If the units are less efficient, and they require more energy, and that energy is coming from a coal-fired power plant if might be putting out more greenhouse gases than it was before).

They did testing on the efficiency and here’s what they found.

Blowers added that geographic location affects greenhouse gas emissions, and said that current refrigerants such as hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, are better for the environment than the HFE he and Lownsbury tested wherever electricity is produced mostly from coal.

However, if renewable or nuclear power is used, the HFE causes lower greenhouse gas emissions than HFCs. Blowers said the “one-size-fits-all approach” to regulating chemicals and achieving sustainability will not work.

In other words, the switch to HFEs might be good in areas where there is nuclear power generation, but it may actually be pumping out more CO2 in places where the power comes from coal. While I’m not too concerned about CO2, this served to show the CO2 Insanity we’re getting over this conversion.

In addition to this, no one really knows what the effect of HFEs will do to the environment.  They might actually be worse, and to reiterate no one knows what the effect will be, so I have to ask then why the rush to change?  This leads me down the “political” and “money” paths.

He also said that the paucity of data available for these new chemicals means it is impossible to measure their environmental impact.

This lack of data forced Blowers and Lownsbury to use computational chemistry to obtain some of the physical data, such as heat capacity, needed to perform the analyses because no experiments had been done to provide it.

Their current research is evaluating dry cleaning systems, window air conditioners and automobile cooling systems to see if results are similar for those cases. This involves designing the process, understanding how the technologies work, and determining the physical properties of the chemicals in order to do the evaluation.

So they don’t even know how all this may end up.  It might be more or less efficient and it might create or not create more problems. So it’s another shot in the dark as far as the EPA is concerned. Another case of the government doing a live experiment using you as the Guinea Pig and using your hard-earned tax dollars.  If it turns out to be a big boondoggle, then you know as well as I do that no heads will roll, no corporations will be fined or asked to refund the money, people who have wasted billions of dollars on this new gas will not get a penny back.  Moreover, if this turns out bad, it will probably benefit the scientists because they will be out getting more grant money to solve this new problem and the big corporations will come out with the new improved product and sales will go up along with their stock.

There is also an issue regarding how much energy is being used to make this new gas vs. the energy used to make the old gas.

Blowers also noted that the amount of energy required to manufacture a chemical needs to be considered when trying to establish its effect on climate. “What if making the HFE used up 100 times more energy than making up the HFC? Or what if it’s the opposite?”

So basically what we have here is the EPA going off on an exploration.  They must think they’re on Star Trek or something, “boldly going where no man has gone before.”  Except Captain Kirk won’t be around to make it better if they screw up. It gets better per this.

In the 1970s scientists linked chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, to a hole in the ozone layer. Thanks to the CFCs contained in coolants, aerosols, solvents and pesticides, we were being exposed to harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun.

These findings led to the adoption of the Montreal Protocol in 1989 to phase out the use of ozone-damaging chemicals such as CFCs. Among the chemicals that replaced CFCs were hydrochlorofluorocarbons, or HCFCs.

Then scientists became concerned about the part that HCFCs, which are greenhouse gases, were playing in climate change. So the parties to the Montreal Protocol agreed to phase out HCFCs.

In many cases, HCFCs have been replaced by hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, which also are greenhouse gases. In 2009, the EPA ruled that HFCs are health hazards and contribute to climate change.

Currently, HFCs are not regulated, and a big increase in HFC emissions is expected. If HFCs do become regulated, the main contenders for their replacement are hydrofluoroethers, or HFEs.

The environmental effects of HFEs are unknown.

You can see how the process works.  It is almost like the EPA was the basis for the movie “Groundhog Day” in which things keep repeating over, and over and over, or that they have OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder). We start out with CFCs bad, we need HCFCs, then we spend who knows how many 100’s of millions or billions converting over, then someone discovers that HCFCs are bad, so then we have to spend untold amounts of money changing over to HFCs and now we find out they’re bad and we should now change over to HFEs, which they have no clue about and perhaps they’ll find out they’re bad and in a few years we’ll be switching to something else and blow some more billions.

I can’t comprehend why the EPA doesn’t slow down some and actually let the scientists do their work BEFORE they start changing things and again find out that the latest fad creates more problems than were thought it would solve.

Here’s their bulletin about it. My comments in blue in parentheses( ).

WASHINGTON – Canada and Mexico have joined the United States in proposing to expand the scope of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer to fight climate change. The proposal would phase down hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which are a significant and rapidly growing contributor to climate change. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) led the analysis in the proposal, which demonstrates environmental benefits equal to removing greenhouse gas emissions from 59 million passenger cars each year through 2020, and 420 million cars each year through 2050. Reducing HFCs would help slow climate change and curb potential public health impacts.

During the phaseout of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) under the Montreal Protocol and the Clean Air Act, manufacturers of equipment such as car air conditioners and kitchen refrigerators substituted HFCs. (See, last time they freaked out we had everyone dumping CFCs for HFCs – cost?) The trilateral proposal would phase down HFCs, which are up to 14,000 times more damaging to the Earth’s climate system than carbon dioxide. (14,000 times? Drama queens.  Most places I’ve found seem to average about 300-350 times, the highest I’ve found so far is 3,000 times, so where do we get 14,000 times? Scare tactics? Drama?) Even though efforts over the past decade have reduced emissions, global atmospheric concentrations of HFCs continue to increase. (Think about it, it’s “reduced emissions,” but it’s increasing emissions.  Where do they get that one from? Reminds me of the global warming (hot) caused the massive freeze in the UK (cold) this year) Without this proposal, HFC use in developing countries is anticipated to grow substantially, driven both by increased demand for refrigeration and air-conditioning and because HFCs were developed as alternatives to ozone depleting substances. (Think about this one, too.  We’re doing this in the US, Canada and Mexico, so how’s this going to cause HFCs to cease being used in developing countries?  Think about all the black market things that get sold by people like North Korea, Iran, Russia and others like weapons, weapons grade uranium, the equipment to make weapons grade uranium, etc.  So do you really believe 3rd world developing countries won’t be able to buy products that use HFC-134 and the like?

Signed in 1987, the Montreal Protocol is a treaty with 196 countries to help restore the ozone layer by ending the production of ozone-depleting substances and now potentially phasing down HFCs. (“Potentially?” Evidently no one else is going along with it so far).

EPA evaluates substitute chemicals and technologies for ozone-depleting substances (I’d like to know what they actually evaluate). Additionally, as part of the actions outlined today, EPA will propose four refrigerants as possible substitutes in U.S. household and commercial refrigerators and freezers.(See? Here’s your household and commercial refrigeration equipment, it’s not just the cars!) These hydrocarbon-based coolants would replace existing refrigerants that harm the stratospheric ozone layer and the climate system. The proposal lists isobutane, propane, (So let’s blow ourselves up while we’re at it! I wonder how many fires will be caused and how many buildings will burn, how many people will die in fires, not to mention the pollution from all the smoke?) HCR-188C, and HCR-188C1 as potentially acceptable substitutes for the ozone-depleting chemicals CFC-12 and HCFC-22.

The public is encouraged to provide comments to docket number EPA-HQ-2009-0286 at:http://www.regulations.gov/

More information on the trilateral proposal:http://www.epa.gov/ozone/intpol/mpagreement.html

I guess if you look at the people in command  (liberals), the people pushing them (greens) and the money to be  made from the change (big business), then that should about explain this half-assed process taking place inside the EPA building. Just think of the billions to be made.  Makes me wonder if any ex-EPA personnel will end up on the board of directors at some large corporation after their term is up?

In the meantime, real science suffers as do the taxpayer’s wallets due to the continuing boondoggles at the EPA. I guess the taxpayers have a lot of money for them to play “scientist” with.

1 Comment

Filed under Co2 Insanity, Editor, Politics, Science

CO2 Causes Attack of the Triffids!

Here’s an amazing video I picked up from this piece at I Hate the Media that was released by the EPA to show how plants grow with different levels of CO2 Insanity.

I am waiting for the IPCC to issue a new report that CO2 and Global Warming will soon cause all life on Earth to end because we’ll be attacked by The Triffids.  You can see Triffids in the video below.

I don’t know about you, but I’m stocking up on Roundup Weed Killer and garden sprayers immediately.

Kills Triffids Dead

Source: I Hate the Media

Comments Off on CO2 Causes Attack of the Triffids!

Filed under Co2 Insanity, Comedy Relief, Science, Stranger than Truth

Lucy! You got some 'splainin' to do!!!

ricky_ricardoAccording to this article from the Waterbury Replublican American the EPA has some explaining to do…

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, has introduced a bipartisan bill, and is guaranteed a vote, that would stop the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from moving forward on new rules aimed at regulating greenhouse-gas emissions by overturning its finding that global warming poses a clear and present danger to public health and welfare.

Last week, the governors of 18 states and two territories joined 98 industry groups in sending letters in support of the senator’s resolution.

While Skilling’s fraud has been proved in court, the EPA’s fraud is only now being exposed, and based on opinion polls, the EPA is being found guilty in the court of public opinion. The fraud behind the EPA’s regulations is threefold: the science, the economics and the results.

We already know about the science.  The article goes further into it but you have climategate, glaciergate, hurricane gate, Amazongate, Africagate, Chinagate, Pachaurigate, et al.

Regarding costs not increasing…according to the article, so much for that theory…

The EPA claims that its regulations won’t increase costs or otherwise harm the economy. This is laughable. The regulations can’t work if the costs of fossil fuels don’t increase and force the public to shift to less reliable, more expensive alternative fuels.

An independent analysis from Harvard University found that to reach President Obama’s CO2 target, gasoline prices would have to more than double to $7 a gallon.

When the Treasury Department looked at Congress’ preferred alternative to EPA regulations, “cap-and-trade,” it found the average household would spend an extra $1,761 per year. And that is the less-expensive alternative to the EPA’s top-down regulations.

Some of the results wil be…

Worst of all, the economic downturn brought on by the EPA’s regulations would do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions because fast-growing economic competitors such as China and India, not hampered by U.S. energy restrictions, will continue to generate huge growth in their emissions.

Indeed, China alone emits more CO2 than the United States and Canada combined. And research by physicist Richard A. Muller at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory shows every 10 percent reduction in emissions in the United States is negated by one year’s growth in China’s emissions.

I sincerely hope all the lawsuits work and get the EPA to sit down and shut up,  They’re basing  decisions on bad science, which is being used for a political agenda, which is to carbon tax the snot out of everyone.

Source: Waterbury Republican American

Comments Off on Lucy! You got some 'splainin' to do!!!

Filed under Editor, Politics