Category Archives: Environment

Drain The EPA Swamp-Part 6—Make EPA Perform Required Economic Assessments.


I am reblogging the PowerLIne posting “Federal Judge Denounces EPA As A Rogue Agency”. This is an important report  relating the failure of the EPA to conduct required economic evaluations of the potential loss or shifts of  which may result from the administration or enforcement  of provisions of the Clean Air Act.  EPA has not done this. US District Judge John Bailey says the law requires this and the EPA Administrator says it will take two years to come up with a system to do what the law requires.  The Judge tells the Administrator  “This response is wholly insufficient, unacceptable and unnecessary”. 

More evidence of the EPA acting on it own and not complying with the law.

cbdakota

From the PowerLIne website–“Federal Judge Denounces EPA as Rogue Agency”.  Click here to read the posting.

killing-coal

 

Administrator cbdakota Issues EPA Mission Statement


°If cbdakota were appointed the EPA Administrator, he might begin his work issuing this statement:

I thank President Trump for my nomination and the vote approving the nomination.

Our mission will be that the EPA continues to protect the environment and at the same time does not stifle our Nation’s productivity.

secret-epa-scienceOur initial review of the EPA has found some activities, regulations and guidance documents that need to be critically assessed, cancelled or expanded.  The following are several of the items that illustrate the issues we uncovered and our plan to deal with these issues:

Endangerment Finding:

The Endangerment Finding (EF) needs to be re-evaluated, revised and updated using current science.  The EF is largely based upon the IPCC pre-2007 climate science, making it more than 10 years old.  Furthermore, the projections of temperature, sea level and other variables do not match the actual measured temperature and sea level data. These EF projections greatly overstate the size of the changes thus putting into question the amount of endangerment.

Continue reading

Drain The EPA Swamp-Part 5—Get Rid Of Federal Funding Bias In Climate Research.


 

The Trump administration has formed a team charged with making recommendations for changes to the EPA. This action is needed because gone are the days when the EPA followed the legislation written by Congress.  Good things were accomplished by the EPA.  But now the EPA has over stepped it authority. The EPA task is to administer the law, not make it. For example, it has developed criteria to justify their own efforts, often invites “friendly lawsuits to expand their activities, and uses “secret science” to justify their regulations:

The following are some of the areas that the team need to address, in my opinion:

  • Social Cost of Carbon
  • Secret Science
  • Peer Reviewed Studies
  • Friendly Law Suits
  • The Endangerment Finding
  • Research Grants
  • Last Minute Regulations

 

Federal Funding Bias

Postings discussing  the bias in allocation of grants for scientific studies are numerous.  The following comes from Dr Roy Spencer’s “Science under President Trump: End the Biases in Government-Funded  Research”  opens up with the following:

Government funds science to support pre-determined policy outcomes

So, you thought government-funded science is objective?

Oh, that’s adorable.

Continue reading

Drain The EPA Swamp-Part 4—Friendly Law Suits (AKA Sue And Settle)


 

The Trump administration has formed a team charged with making recommendations for changes to the EPA. This action is needed because gone are the days when the EPA followed the legislation written by Congress.  Good things were accomplished by the EPA.  But now the EPA has over stepped it authority. The EPA task is to administer the law, not make it. For example, it has developed criteria to justify their own efforts, often invites “friendly lawsuits to expand their activities, and uses “secret science” to justify their regulations:

The following are some of the areas that the team need to address, in my opinion:

  • Social Cost of Carbon
  • Secret Science
  • Peer Reviewed Studies
  • Friendly Law Suits
  • The Endangerment Finding
  • Research Grants
  • Last Minute Regulations

I posted about the EPA’s bad habit of using friendly law suits (also known as Sue and Settle) to get favorable court rulings which they wanted.   That posting follows:

Have you heard of the Sue and Settle scam often used by the EPA? Generally the idea is for the EPA to ask some non-government , big green organization to sue Cartoon - EPA & Energythem regarding some piece of  legislation. The suit is settled by a consent decree where the EPA and the big environmental group achieved their shared goals. The court sets a deadline for comments from other interested parties that is so brief that no one can make meaningful comments in time to prevent legislation from becoming law.

In 2013, the US Chamber of Commerce (C of C) looked into the Sue and Settle issue posting “Sue and Settle—Regulating Behind Closed Doors”. One of the cases the posting examined is discussed in the following:

Regional Haze Implementation Rules

“EPA’s regional haze program, established decades ago by the Clean Air Act, seeks to remedy visibility impairment at federal national parks and wilderness areas. Because regional haze is an aesthetic requirement, and not a health standard, Congress emphasized that states—and not EPA—should decide which measures are most appropriate to address haze within their borders. Instead, EPA has relied on settlements in cases brought by environmental advocacy groups to usurp state authority and federally impose a strict new set of emissions controls costing 10 to 20 times more that the technology chosen by the states. Beginning in 2009, advocacy groups filed lawsuits against EPA alleging that the agency had failed to perform its nondiscretionary duty to act on state regional haze plans. In five separate consent decrees negotiated with the groups and, importantly, without notice to the states that would be affected, EPA agreed to commit itself to specific deadlines to act on the states’ plans. Next, on the eve of the deadlines it had agreed to, EPA determined that each of the state haze plans was in some way procedurally deficient. Because the deadlines did not give the states time to resubmit revised plans, EPA argued that it had no choice but to impose its preferred controls federally. EPA used sue and settle to reach into the state haze decision-making process and supplant the states as decision makers—despite the protections of state primacy built into the regional haze program by Congress.

As of 2012, the federal takeover of the states’ regional haze programs is projected to cost eight states an estimated $2.16 billion over and above what they had been prepared to spend on visibility improvements.”

Continue reading

Drain The EPA Swamp-Part 1- Social Cost of Carbon


3swamp-1The Trump administration has formed a team charged with making recommendations for changes to the EPA. This action is needed because gone are the days when the EPA followed the legislation written by Congress.  Good things were accomplished by the EPA.  But now the EPA has over stepped it authority. The EPA task is to administer the law, not make it. For example, it has developed criteria to justify their own efforts, often invites “friendly lawsuits to expand their activities, and uses “secret science” to justify their regulations:

The following are some of the areas that the team need to address, in my opinion:

  • Social Cost of Carbon
  • Secret Science
  • Peer Reviewed Studies
  • Friendly Law Suits
  • The Endangerment Finding
  • Research Grants
  • Last Minute Regulations

 

Social Cost of Carbon

The Federal Departments are charged with providing the benefit that results from their regulations. The EPA’s decided that their benefit would be a calculation that they call the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC). Their SCC calculates the economic damage per ton of CO2 emissions. They form the SCC by considering all the bad things they say are going to happen if atmospheric CO2 continues to increase.  Sea level rise, terrible weather, crop failures, mass migrations.  These outcomes are predictions made by their computer models.   One thing we know about the computer model’s predictions is that they have consistently overstated the temperature rise and the sea level rise.  These two drive the cost side of the equation.  Thus, all their regulatory schemes are supposed to prevent these costs.   But the EPA fails to include the benefits of additional atmospheric CO2. One thing we know for sure is the increased atmospheric CO2 has resulted in a profound greening of the globe.  Food crop production has increased dramatically as CO2 is the primary food for plants.  The gentle global warming that has taken place has been beneficial as well.

Another problem with the SCC is the discount rate used by the EPA is unrealistic in the view of many economists.  The Federal Government’s Office of Management and Budget(OMB) believes a in different discount rate. When using OMB discount rate, the EPA cost estimates are reduced by 80% and is some cases cause the cost to be negative. And where the calculation goes negative, the increased atmospheric CO2 results in a benefit, not a cost.

 

Using these flawed computer predictions makes this calculation unsuitable for policy making.  Further, the benefits that are actually known (not computer predicted) are not included thus making the calculation even more useless. And lastly the discount rate chosen by the EPA would not likely be used by most economist.

Social Cost of Carbon calculation currently used by the EPA should be drained from the swamp.

Unfortunately, many new regulatory rules have been enacted based upon the social cost of carbon.  One survey found that between May 2008 and August 2014, some 68 major rules were sanctioned by the SCC.   This is an issue the new team should address.

cbdakota

Trump Ignores Gore And DiCaprio Advice


Several days ago, on one of the mainstream media TV programs,  two taking heads could not understand how President Elect Donald Trump could appoint a man, who is a skeptic,  to be the EPA head. How, they said, could Trump do this when both Al Gore and Leonardo Di Caprio had just talked to him.  How monumentally ignorant do you have to be to think that those two really know much about climate?

Gore said in his “Inconvenient Truth (Nobel Peace Prize winner, which also tells you how ignorant the Judges are too.) presentation while showing ice core CO2 and temperature data relationship,   that the most important part of the relationship is that “where there is more CO2, the temperature gets warmer.”

Gore did not know he was incorrectly reading the ice core chart which actually show that temperature rises and CO2 levels follow.  And when temperature falls, so does the atmospheric CO2 levels.  See  these posting for more on the ice cores data     here   here  and here.

The following excerpt from the “Great Global Warming Swindle” video,  shows Gore misinterpreting the data.

The entire Great Global Warming Swindle video follows this on YouTube if you wish to watch it.  Its worth your time.

So Gore’s most important inconvenient truth was not factual.

cbdakota

 

NYTimes Tries To Spin President Elect Donald Trump’s View On Global Warming.


This afternoon, I received an email from the  Heartland  Institute saying about what I said in my  yesterday’s posting.    It also  clears up the misinformation put out by the New York Times.   The Heartland email:

Can the media greenwash Trump?

Charles,

President-elect Trump met with the New York Times and the media quickly unleashed an interesting spin.

The “breaking” (fake) news story was that Trump had somehow changed his views on global warming.

This would seem a major flip flop after Trump repeatedly said during the campaign he would withdraw the U.S. from the UN’s Paris climate agreement and vowed to set the U.S. back on a pro-energy course.

CFACT’s friend Joe Bast, head of the Heartland Institute, publicized a more detailed transcript of Trump’s meeting with the Times and, lo and behold, what Trump actually said is right in keeping with his campaign pledges.  

Marc Morano posted a detailed analysis at Climate Depot, picked up today by the Drudge Report, to help clear the record about this exchange. As Marc explains:

Continue reading