EPA WILL COST YOU AND YOUR JOBS AND MONEY

[Mangus Colorado]

EPA WILL COST YOU AND YOUR JOBS AND MONEY

•  

The EPA’s potentially lethal assault on your quality of life, while the EU vastly increases coal importation

 

New Rules and Old Plants May Strain Summer Energy Supplies
By MATTHEW L. WALD

WASHINGTON — As 58 million people across 13 states sweated through the third day of a heat wave last month, power demand in North America’s largest regional grid jurisdiction hit a record high. And yet there was no shortage, no rolling blackout and no brownout in an area that stretches from Maryland to Chicago.

But that may not be the case in the future as stricter air quality rules are put in place. Eastern utilities satisfied demand that day — July 21 — with hefty output from dozens of 1950s and 1960s coal-burning power plants that dump prodigious amounts of acid gases, soot, mercury and arsenic into the air. Because of new Environmental Protection Agency rules, and some yet to be written, many of those plants are expected to close in coming years.

 No one is sure yet how many or which ones will be shuttered or what the total lost output would be. And there is little agreement over how peak demand will be met in future summers.

The E.P.A. estimates that a rule on air toxins and mercury that it expects to complete in November will result in a loss of 10,000 megawatts — or almost 1 percent of the generating capacity in the United States. Electricity experts, however, say that rule, combined with forthcoming ones on coal ash and cooling water, will have a much greater effect — from 48,000 megawatts to 80,000 megawatts, or 3.5 to 7 percent. (NYT)

Obama’s War on Coal
Killing jobs, causing blackouts
By William Yeatman
Originally published in The New York Post

President Obama claims to see the need to create jobs at this time of endless 9-plus percent unemployment — yet his administration continues to relentlessly destroy jobs for ideological reasons. The best example may be the Obama Environmental Protection Agency’s “war on coal.”

The EPA’s regulatory crusade directly threatens hundreds of thousands of jobs — and “rolling blackouts” that threaten even more.

Start with a proposed regulation under the Clean Air Act that’s set to be finalized in November. The Utility MACT (“Maximum Achievable Control Technology”) rule seeks to cut US power plants’ emissions of mercury from 29 tons a year to just five. Yet EPA itself estimates that cutting even as much as 41 tons out of total emissions of 105 tons “is unlikely to substantially affect total risk.”

For zero benefit, the Utility MACT is one of the most expensive federal regulations ever. In comments submitted to the EPA, Unions for Jobs and the Environment, an alliance of unions representing more than 3.2 million workers, estimated that this needless regulation would jeopardize 251,000 jobs.

Then there’s EPA’s out-of-the-blue ruling last month, ordering Texas to cut emissions of sulfur dioxide by 47 percent. This, when the draft version of the Cross State Air Pollution Rule had exempted the state entirely. The excuse for the change? A supposed need to slightly reduce emissions as monitored 500 miles away in Madison County, Ill. — a locale that meets the EPA air-quality standards in question. (CEI)

U.S. Coal Exports To Europe Treble
Saturday, 13 August 2011 15:45 Ying Diao and Mathew Carr, Bloomberg

U.S. coal exports to the Netherlands jumped to 1.1 million tons from 334,628 tons. Shipments to Germany went to 899,009 tons from 166,314 tons. Trade to the U.K. rose to 852,159 tons from 159,280 tons.

The U.S. may increase coal exports, further boosting supply of the commodity in Europe, Macquarie Group Ltd. (MQG) said.

“A big push” to encourage natural-gas burning in the U.S. may drive up coal exports to Europe, China and India, said Hayden Atkins, an analyst in London at Macquarie’s commodities unit. The closing of Germany’s nuclear plants will increase demand in that nation, Atkins said.

U.S. steam-coal exports to Europe in the first quarter more than tripled from a year earlier to 4.9 million metric tons from 1.5 million tons, according to a report on the website of the U.S. Energy Information Administration. U.S. coal exports are at their highest level since 1992, it said.

Exports to the Netherlands jumped to 1.1 million tons from 334,628 tons. Shipments to Germany went to 899,009 tons from 166,314 tons. Trade to the U.K. rose to 852,159 tons from 159,280 tons. (GWPF)

Tags: COST, ENERGY, EPA, UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[charles royer]

July 27, 2016
Little Green Lies: Why Electric Cars Won’t Save the Environment
By Larry Alton

Things don’t look good for electric cars these days -- but did they ever? Tesla experienced a series of recalls, even before the recent crash in Florida that put the company’s autopilot system in the spotlight. Apparently, watching a Harry Potter movie and letting your car drive isn’t exactly a safe practice.

But the real problem with electric cars is actually the problem they’re marketed to solve: pollution. While the left insists that electric cars are the only way to protect the environment, they’re actually damaging the oil industry while shifting money to liberal interests.

Meanwhile, electric cars have proven to be a greater source of pollution than traditional vehicles.

Charges against Car Charging

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/07/little_green_lies_w...
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

[The Bull]

Meteorologist slams DNC ‘inaccurate’ climate video: ‘Same old lie…Recycled footage from two years ago’

Meteorologist: The DNC climate video introduced by Sigourney Weaver and from James Cameron was 'recycled footage from two years ago'

'The only problem with that segment is the drought in west Texas broke long ago. Currently, no part of Texas is experiencing drought conditions.'

'Apparently, the climate has been so benign that they couldn't find new more disasters to film since tornadoes are way down,  there have been zero major hurricanes in the U.S. and the drought in West Texas ended. The same old footage of Hurricane Sandy has gotten tiresome.'

'The DNC movie repeated the same old lie that the rise in sea level the last 100 years is "largely due to climate change" when the rate of sea level rise hasn't changed since the end of the Little Ice Age.'

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/07/30/meteorologist-slams-dnc-inac...

[The Bull]

All Natural… Four New Scientific Publications Show No Detectable Sea Level Rise Signal!By P Gosselin on 1. August 2016 4 New Papers: Anthropogenic Signal Not Detectable in Sea Level Rise -

See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2016/08/01/all-natural-four-new-scientific-...

[The Bull]

The head administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said Friday it was her job to create overarching regulations as an alternative to the carbon tax legislation the Obama administration was unable to pass last year.

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told activists and diplomats at a gathering in Washington that the agency was tasked with forming a seemingly never-ending amount of environmental regulations because President Barack Obama failed to pass the kind of “elegant” legislation needed to comply with last year’s climate change deal in Paris.

She noted that while the agency does not have the ability to enact a carbon tax, it can create an approximate facsimile through its regulatory efforts.

“There are many ways you can place a price on carbon, I think regulation is one of them,” McCarthy said, after being asked about the possibility of creating a nationwide tax on carbon emissions.

 

The EPA cannot regulate every nook and cranny of the economy, she said, but that doesn’t mean Congress can’t doing something in the future that does.

She explained the agency has been toying with ways to wrap the economy in environmental regulations in order to create an alternative to the carbon taxes Obama failed to enact.

“The president spent a lot of time in his first term looking at whether or not you could do something broader through the legislature. That didn’t happen,” she said.

McCarthy’s comments come less than a month after the EPA indicated it intends to implement core provisions in the so-called Clean Power Plan, despite the plan being stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court in February.

The change illustrates the degrees to which the EPA and McCarthy are willing to go to continue implementing the regulations.

The agency submitted a proposal to Obama for renewable energy subsidies for states that meet the plan’s carbon emission reduction goals. It claims the decision was meant to give benefits to states that voluntarily ratchets down carbon emissions.

“Many states and tribes have indicated that they plan to move forward voluntarily to work to cut carbon pollution from power plants and have asked the agency to continue providing support and developing tools that may support those efforts, including the CEIP,” reads a statement acquired by Politico.

The regulations, while not as exciting as the legislation Obama intended to pass, are still “strong” enough to send signals to the market, McCarthy told the audience members at the meeting.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/07/epa-chief-says-climate-regs-were-meant-to-be-a-type-of-carbon-tax/#ixzz4GUDjiCUq

[Mangus Colorado]

http://dailycaller.com/…/ny-times-complains-that-inventin…/…

NY Times Complains That Inventing Fire Caused Sexism, Global Warming

The New York Times has published a science article lamenting that the invention of fire, a critical development for early humanity, isn't all it's cracked up to be because it's…

DAILYCALLER.COM

[Mangus Colorado]

http://notrickszone.com/…/astrophysicist-murray-salby-com…/…

Astrophysicist Murray Salby Compares CO2 “Pseudo-Science” To The Me...

Last month at the University of London, atmospheric scientist Prof. Murry Salby, formerly of Macquarie University in Australia, gave a damning presentation on…

NOTRICKSZONE.COM

[The Bull]

[Mangus Colorado]

Yep it is tree and plant food?

[kevin kiernan]

Carbon is one of the most important elements of our existence. 

[charles royer]

Liberal billionaire George Soros gave former Vice President Al Gore’s environmental group millions of dollars over three years to create a “political space for aggressive U.S. action” on global warming, according to leaked documents.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/17/soros-paid-al-gore-millions-to-pu...

[charles royer]

A new type of solar-powered technology has the potential to play a big role in the fight against climate change if its inventors can take it from the laboratory to industrial-scale use.

http://www.takepart.com/article/2016/07/28/experimental-artificial-...

[The Bull]

October 7, 2016

Why Environmentalism Became Both a Religion and a Con Game

By Chet Richards

I am a Conservationist.  I am not an Environmentalist.  What?  Aren’t the two the same thing?  No, they are not.  In fact the two movements are diametrically opposed.

John Muir was a Conservationist, not an Environmentalist.  He saw the wilderness as a “primary source for understanding God: The Book of Nature.”  Muir did not worship Nature, as modern environmentalists do.  Muir worshiped God, the Judeo-Christian God.  So, here is the difference:  Conservation derives from the Hebrew Bible.  Mankind is to be Stewards of the Land.  We are charged to husband God’s creation.

Environmentalists, for the most part, believe that the Earth’s biosphere is God.  And, that human beings are destructive parasites, eating away at the life of their deity. In effect, most environmentalists are atheists searching for something larger than themselves to worship.  But environmentalists see themselves as not being the riff-raff parasites that the rest of mankind are.  Environmentalists believe they are the elect, the knowing, the superior beings, the priests, the Gnostics.

This notion that people are parasites really got started in the 1960’s.  A couple of highly promoted bad actors started this environmental heresy.  The first was Rachel Carson with her hysterical polemic about DDT and its purported harm to birds and other wild life.  Her ideas proved to be, at best, problematic, but millions of people have died as a consequence of the resulting international banning of DDT.  The second, and even more dangerous, problem child was Paul Ehrlich.  This curmudgeon has even greater responsibility by amplifying environmental hysteria.  Ehrlich should have known better.  After all, he is a biology professional.  But his mistakes suggest that he may not be all that professionally gifted. 

Ehrlich predicted the death of the oceans due to insecticides and other chemicals washing into the sea.  He did not account, as he ought to have, for the rapid evolution of plankton to adapt to these foreign substances.  (The smaller the organism the faster its evolution – witness antibiotic resistance.)  It was a bonehead mistake that no competent evolutionary biologist should make.  More famously, Ehrlich predicted mass famine and hundreds of millions of deaths within a few years because of the so-called “population bomb.”  He completely ignored the 1960’s technological “Green Revolution” which today has China and India exporting food.  And, he completely missed the natural reduction in birth rates, and the consequent leveling of population, as the standard of living of Third World countries increased.  Again, that process was something that population experts already knew and understood.

And then came James Lovelock with his “Gaia Hypothesis.”  This is the notion that the biosphere is an environment-regulating ensemble of living organisms.  In the large, the biosphere, together with its non-organic matrix, could be considered an organism, itself.  The idea is interesting.  Indeed, it has proven to be scientifically fruitful. 

But other people latched onto the biosphere and made Gaia a god.  And, with it, made environmentalism a religion.  A religion, which Lovelock himself rejects as misinformed – if not dangerous.  Lovelock went through his hysteric period in the early years of the ecology mania, but he has since moderated his outlook now that his predictions of imminent environmental doom have proved unfounded.

Why do people do it?  Why do they fall into these overblown quasi-religious enthusiasms?  I speculate that there are three complementary reasons:  Ignorance, Insecurity and Hubris.

Ignorance:  Back in the ‘60’s I was a graduate student in physics at one of the University of California campuses.  One day I had the opportunity to sit and chat, at length, with one of our leading ecologists.  Naturally, I was curious about some aspects of the so-called ecology movement that Rachel Carson had engendered.  Much to my surprise, in response I received a long rant about this movement.  This eminent scientist was scathing in his comments -- particularly about the sheer ignorance of the movement’s devoted followers.  “Not one of them,” he said, “has even heard of a logistic equation, much less predator-prey relationships.”  He concluded that harangue by dismissing the movement as nothing but political manipulation of less than astute people.  Nothing much has changed since then.  The true believers still believe without understanding.  Environmentalism is a religion after all.

Insecurity:  Most everyone is insecure about something – about many things, perhaps.  Long established religions have traditionally provided a framework for ordering one’s life and for reducing this natural sense of insecurity.  As we have discovered, there is something about the post World War Two world that has, at least in the West, broken these traditional religious frameworks.  Something happened during the war to cause people to no longer trust religious authority.  Perhaps it was the sheer evil that was manifest and undeniable during those years of horror.  The Cold War amplified that developing sense of insecurity.  People started looking for something new to believe in – something that, once again, would provide spiritual tranquility. 

The environmental movement seemed to provide the needed solace.  Emotional peace may be given through participation in something larger than oneself.  But, I note that few of the true believers, being mostly city dwellers, have any real experience of the wilderness.

For those who have experienced it, the gift of wild nature can induce spiritual grace.  John Muir felt it.  I have felt it.  I have felt it in many lonely places around the world.  I have been changed by it.  I have felt this spiritual tranquility on remote white water rivers, on mountain glaciers, while hiking across Muir’s Sierras, when diving to narcosis depths of the sea, while surfing imposing waves.  But Nature didn’t care what I was experiencing, what I was feeling.  Nature is utterly indifferent.  Nature is dangerous.  A momentary lapse in the wilderness and Nature will likely kill you.  There is no empathy in Nature.  No intelligence.  No awareness.  Nature is not a caring god.  Nature is not even a god.  Nature just is.  Gaia just is.  My companions on these many excursions were savvy, alert, and extremely cautious.  Despite some very close calls, we survived.  That said, we always sacrificed to the River God before putting in!

Hubris:  In the early years of Christianity there were Gnostics.  These were Christians who claimed special knowledge about Jesus and what he really taught.  Gnosticism eventually was suppressed.  Its followers were rejected from the Christian community, in part because of their smug, arrogant, airs of intellectual superiority.  While Christian Gnosticism may have died out, the type of people who adopt Gnostic superciliousness remain all too common.  In the first half of the twentieth century Marxism was their fashion, and still remains so with a Globalist twist.  In the second half, the Gnostics adopted Environmentalism.  Doing so made them into superior beings, don’t you know.

Unfortunately, Gnostics are easy marks for the con.  A skilled confidence man knows that the best way to hook a victim is through the victim’s vanity.  The environmental movement is a con.  Its leadership preys on the ignorance, insecurity, and hubris of its followers.

The environmental con takes many forms.  In recent decades man-caused global warming is the con game.  That scare was deliberately manufactured in the 1980’s.  Its purpose was, and is, to cripple the US economy, foremost, and the economy of Western Europe secondarily.  This program has had considerable success.  Many have bought into the con and the economy is hurting.  In particular, some who have knowingly promoted the con are politicians who seek to accumulate power and wealth.  Using the scare tactic of climate runaway, stupendous resources have been wasted on misguided attempts to reduce carbon dioxide:  solar power, wind power, alcohol fuels, suppression of coal, gas, oil and nuclear energy production.  Millions of jobs have been lost through unneeded environmental regulations.  Fortunately, Nature did not cooperate with the conmen and politicians.  The world did not heat up, as predicted.  Belief in global warming is rapidly diminishing, as it should.

But there is always another con, and each new con means further loss of freedom.  For half a century the environmental movement has been the primary tool of those leaders who wish to suppress individual freedom and individual initiative.  The erosion has been slow, but it has been steady.  Most adults, today, have never experienced the freedom that I, and others of my cohort, once enjoyed.  Not having that experience they simply don’t know what they are missing.  Consequently, they are easily preyed upon by those who would impose further restrictions – for the benefit of mankind, of course.  It’s a con:  Trade your freedom for a better environment. Trade your freedom for a sense of security.  Trade your freedom for a belief that you are doing good by protecting the environment.  Trade your freedom for a sense of moral superiority.  Trade your freedom and then live in poverty.  That’s all right, say the Gnostics, people are parasites, they get what they deserve.

Poverty:  There is the source of real irony.  True care for the environment, true care for nature, is a rich man’s game.  Only the prosperous have the resources to protect the natural world.  Only those living in comfort believe that it matters.  Only those with wealth – the middle class and more - can be stewards of the land.  Impoverish America and the land will be despoiled.

Poor people care little for Nature.  Poor people struggle just to live. They don’t have time for environmental diversions.  The environmentalist con takes away freedom and replaces it with diminished prosperity.  Carried far enough, political environmentalism ultimately will drive people into impoverished serfdom and, with the greatest irony of all, it will wreck the environment.

I am a Conservationist.  I am not an Environmentalist.  What?  Aren’t the two the same thing?  No, they are not.  In fact the two movements are diametrically opposed.

John Muir was a Conservationist, not an Environmentalist.  He saw the wilderness as a “primary source for understanding God: The Book of Nature.”  Muir did not worship Nature, as modern environmentalists do.  Muir worshiped God, the Judeo-Christian God.  So, here is the difference:  Conservation derives from the Hebrew Bible.  Mankind is to be Stewards of the Land.  We are charged to husband God’s creation.

Environmentalists, for the most part, believe that the Earth’s biosphere is God.  And, that human beings are destructive parasites, eating away at the life of their deity. In effect, most environmentalists are atheists searching for something larger than themselves to worship.  But environmentalists see themselves as not being the riff-raff parasites that the rest of mankind are.  Environmentalists believe they are the elect, the knowing, the superior beings, the priests, the Gnostics