Category Archives: Government Regulations

Did EPA Employees Weep Over The Job Losses In The Coal Business?


EPA employees do not want to cooperate with the Trump Administration.

“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted,” Obama said during a 2008 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial board. Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton also pledged that “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”

“This Labor Day, America has 83,000 fewer coal jobs and 400 coal mines than it did when Barack Obama was elected in 2008, showing that the president has followed through on his pledge to “bankrupt” the coal industry.”

 

The paragraphs above are from the dailycaller 5 September 2016 posting “Obama kept his promise-83,000 coal jobs lost and 400 mines shuttered.

Who are the cheerleaders wanting the coal business to fail? The EPA !!  Who authored the Clean Power ACT?  The EPA  !!

Continue reading

NASA Global Warming Research Funding Will Be Cut


 

The Senate approved a bill to cut NASA’s global warming research that is done by the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS). The Bill now goes to the House of Representatives where it is expected to be approved.  President Trump is expected to sign the bill into law.  NASA was created to explore space but it now spends more on global warming.  Former President Obama incredibly told the head of NASA that he wanted the focus to be on Muslim outreach.

NASA will still have a role in global warming research as a good bit of research data is obtained from satellites that they build and operate.   But GISS, directed by Gavin Schmidt, will be eliminated as their global warming research duplicates work being done in other government Departments.

Continue reading

What Do Scientist Say About Man-Made Global Warming?


 

Richard Lindzen, (Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, MIT) discusses the beliefs of three groups.  Group 1 are the IPCC scientist that believe that CO2 emissions are causing global warming.  Group 2 are scientist that are typical called skeptic and Group 3 are the politicians, media and environment groups plus some hangers-on’s.

Lindzen asks “where do we really stand on the issue of Global Warming”, and discusses this in the following video:

 

 

 cbdakota

For The Left, The NGOs and The Technical Societies, The Battle Over EPA Regulations Is All About Money


The EPA has been overstepping its authority. This has led to regulations that are unnecessary, burdensome and often not in concert with bills passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. At times, the EPA has been acting as a law making body, which is beyond their authority.  The current Administration intends to correct this situation.

gore-making-money

As the Administration undertakes this task, the Left will mount a campaign intended to defeat the Administrations objestives.  The Left will tell you that the Administration is going to poison your children, make all rivers a sewer, make the air you breathe toxic and Earth will be destroyed by catastrophic climate change. None of which is true.  The media of course will join in and support anything the Left says.  They will report about someone who is supposed to be suffering because of the actions of the Administration. They will ignore the many who are able now make a success of their business as the useless regulations are canceled. The left knows they will miss their opportunity to tax and regulate if the Administration is successful.

Continue reading

EU Does Not Count CO2 Emissions From Wood Burning Power Plants


I am l taking a section out of an excellent posting by James Delingpole title “Delingpole: Why Renewables are doomed and fossil fuels are the future” from the Breitbart website.  It is a very long posting and before I decide to try to summarize it, I want to have you take a look at an ignorant or disingenuous statements by a Brit CEO.

“There is currently in much of the West a vast gulf between where government policy sits on the renewables issue and where reality lies. A good example of this is Britain’s largest power station Drax which has been encouraged by UK government policy introduced in the Labour era – but not opposed by David Cameron’s pretend-Conservatives – to stop using coal and instead burn wood chips, supposedly because they’re carbon neutral, “renewable” and therefore more eco-friendly.

Except in fact this policy has been appalling for the environment – how is it eco-friendly to chop down acres of North Carolina forest and ship them 3,800 miles to be burned for fuel? – and has done nothing to reduce CO2 levels.

It is symptomatic of the bizarre, looking glass world we inhabit that when Christopher Booker pointed this out in this Sunday Telegraph column, the CEO of Drax Dorothy Thompson felt able to reply with this letter:

 woodburningeu

 

But as Paul Homewood demonstrates here in some detail, many of these claims just aren’t true. The only reason that Dorothy Thompson can get away with them with even a hint of good conscience is simply that she is backed up by an apparatus of official lies.

As he notes, for example, in his reply to her letter:

Dorothy Thompson (Letters, 5th Feb) claims that Drax’s biomass plant makes carbon savings of 80%, compared with coal. However, this is based on EU accounting rules, which classify burning wood as “zero carbon”.

Drax’s own figures show that CO2 emissions from biomass are actually 12% greater than coal for each unit of electricity generated.

 

Burning wood produces ZERO CARBON EMISSIONS!!!  Based on that EU logic, North Korea might be the most environment friendly nation in the world.  North Korea has cut down nearly every tree in the country. See “Did CO2 Cause North Korea To Collapse?”

cbdakota

 

 

The Sad State Of The German Energy Program–By Fritz Vahrenholt


The following is from a posting by PowerEngineeringInternational titled “Vahrenholt rails against the ‘climate priests”.

PowerEngineeringInternation is pretty much into catastrophic man-made global warming (CAGW); but to their credit, they did capture most of the thought of Professor Fritz Vahrenholt on the sad state of the German energy program and the transition to renewables.  At the end of their posting, they list quotes by warmer scientists that provide their thoughts about what Prof. Vahrenholt said presumably to maintain PowerEngineeringIntenational in the good stead with the powers that be in CAGW.  It is instructive that they avoid actually challenging Vahrenholt’s points.  They revert to the “everybody knows the globe is warming” standby.

At a mid-January meeting in parliament buildings in London, Professor Fritz Vahrenholt provided a very detailed monologue on the motivations behind Germany’s energy transition, and why he feels it’s misguided and potentially disastrous.

Had the lecture been delivered by somebody from the coal power sector, they might have been written off as a ‘climate denier’, but given Vahrenholt’s background and pedigree as a backer of renewable energy, he is not so easily dismissed and his position must cause some unease for those so adamant that climate change is manmade.

It should give pause for thought too to the public at large. Governments and media around the world, not just in Germany, are convinced that man is responsible for the recently observed temperature rises and Polar ice cap reduction.

But Vahrenholt believes that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the main body from which the rest of the world takes its cue on such matters, is not approaching the problem with the correct scientific rigour.

The merits of the science aside, he takes most issue with the behaviour of his own country’s government for ‘trying to save the world.’

Germany has the second highest electricity prices in Europe, and in phasing out nuclear while stimulating over-production of renewables, it has reduced power prices to a pitiful extent, and ironically came to rely on coal. The last two factors mean the prospect of a lack of investment in the country’s future energy infrastructure, while targets for reducing CO2 look likely to be missed.

Much of Germany’s current problems arise from what he believes was an emotional reaction to the Fukushima disaster by Chancellor Angela Merkel – an order to accelerate the phasing out of a power source that had provided 30 per cent of the country’s electricity.

Vahrenholt says there is an endgame for the Energiewende, ‘though this reckless policy has worked until now’, referring to the German proverb ‘the donkey goes on to the ice until it breaks.’

“There will come a point when the rural population, or wildlife protection agencies, or a weakening economy or failures in the grid itself will force a return to conventional generation.”

He said one of the reasons the German population still backed the policy is because they are still relatively economically prosperous, with a weak euro and the work done by Merkel’s predecessor, Gerhard Schroeder, continuing to sustain the economy.

“The second reason it works is that energy intensive industries are exempted from the levy. They are profiting because of the overcapacity from renewables leading to sinking prices.”

Vahrenholt mocked the government’s current strategy of trebling wind farm capacity as the wind cannot be predicted and their output fluctuates enormously.

“Nil multiplied by x is still nil,” he said, while the price keeps mounting, and the carbon price remains too low to encourage carbon capture and storage at lignite plants which remain essential to fill the intermittency gaps, as gas-fired power plants are mothballed or closed completely.

He reserved his gravest criticism for the damage being wrought on the German countryside where the use of biofuels is having a bad impact. Pesticide use and monoculture has led to major declines in bird of prey numbers.

He calculated that to maintain the policy there would have to be a wind turbine ‘every 2.7km whether the landscape is lakes, wood or towns.’

A particularly acute sign of the failure of the policy is the current rate of progress and expense in bringing renewables from wind plants in the north to the south, where nuclear shutdowns are most keenly felt.

“6100 km cables are planned to be built but four years later only 80 km have been laid. Government has underestimated the resistance to the imposition of overhead power lines on this scale– so all plans have been torn up and they areof course also be added on to household bills.”

We are talking about DC cables which have never been built at this scale underground. In the best case scenario these cables will be laid five years after the nuclear shutdown.” now going underground at huge extra cost, which will

Re-dispatching of power is another feature of the new reality for the German electricity system. The grid operator would previously be called upon to interfere between power plants and customers once a day on average. This procedure now occurs 20 times a day, amounting to 6000 interventions a year in order to have guarantee system stability.

Because the merit order that facilitated market prices for power no longer works, thanks to the success of renewable energy, no new conventional power plants are being built. 69 power plants with a total capacity of 8000 MW are in the red as a result, as power plants are no longer profitable in the current scenario.

Due to a lack of supply in southern Germany the government was forced to intervene, creating a law whereby plants were only permitted to close by the grid agency with a minimum lead time of one year. These requests are being denied anyway, according to Vahrenholt, who very much paints a picture of a government making it all up on an ad-hoc basis.

“A term used in banking was system relevancy = the same term is now in use for power plants who are not allowed to close in Germany even on negative figures.”

“The owner of the plant receives only the operational cost,” Vahrenholt said, with obvious implications for investment in new plants.

Noting the latest figures showing a 2.5 per cent rise in CO2 in Germany last year, he also expressed doubt about the claims for storage (prohibitively expensive) and electro mobility (limited solution) as potential answers, making for a very dark narrative indeed.

To add more to an already gloomy picture, the professor said the Energiewende was creating an ‘ecological disaster’ through its assertiveness in building wind farms and biogas plants.

“Turning grassland into monoculture maize means deserts of maize replacing other food sources and ruining ecologies, a disaster for biodiversity. Birds of prey are also victims of the green religion. Take the lesser spotted eagle – there are only 100 braces left in Germany. The red kite lose 1000 each year due to wind turbines. The common buzzard is losing 11000 per year. The environment minister says the red kite could be gone by 2025.”

“The same problem exists for bats. Wind turbines are going into forests and other sensitive areas – because we want to save the world and destroy our nature.”

“In the transportation of equipment to the forest, paths are created and bats take that freeway and fly directly into turbines. They go through but their lungs are bursting and evolution has not prepared them so 240 000 bats are killed each year in Germany even though by law it is forbidden to kill a bat.”

He said the chance of a ‘policy correction’ would only happen under certain circumstances:
The average global temperature doesn’t rise as much as predicted
Loss of German competitiveness becomes acutely felt
or
the spoiling of the German landscape becomes a major political issue.

The glimmer of hope in Vahrenholt’s thinking is that future generations would have technology such as thorium reactors or nuclear fission that could save the day, but ‘it will take a long time to redress this misguided energy policy.

cbdakota

 

Undoing Obama Administration Regulations


There are many regulations  issued by ex-President Obama that the current Administration would like to rescind.  But if you have been following this issue, you would have probably heard that only new regulations passed within the last 60 days can be rescinded by President Trump.  In fact it appears the law may not be so limiting.  One of the authors of the Congressional Review Act of 1996 (CRA), Todd Gaziano says the law gives the Republicans much more power to overrule the regulations.  Scott Johnson posted on the PowerLine website “Review This.” A review of Kim Strassel’s WSJ posting “A GOP regulatory game changer”—(Behind a paywall.).

“The accepted wisdom in Washington is that the CRA can be only used against new regulations, those finalized in the past 60 legislative days.  That would allow the Republicans to reach back to June 2016 , teeing up 180 rules or so for override.  Included are biggies like the Interior Department’s “streams” rule, the Labor Department’s overtime-pay rule, and the Environmental Protection Agency’s methane rule.

“But what Mr Gaziano told Republicans on Wednesday was that the CRA grants them far greater powers, including the extraordinary ability to overrule regulations even back to the start of the Obama administration. The CRA also would allow the GOP to dismantle these regulations quickly, and to ensure those rules can’t come back, even under a future Democratic president. No kidding.”

Strassel goes on to explain”

“ It turns out that the first line of the CRA requires any federal agency promulgating  a rule to submit a “report” on it to the House and Senate. The 60 day clock starts either when the rule is published or when Congress receives the report—which ever comes first.

“There was always intended to be consequences if agencies didn’t deliver these reports,” Mr. Gaziano tells me. “And while some Obama agencies may have been better at sending reports, others, through incompetence or spite, likely didn’t.” Bottom line: There are rules for which there are no reports. And if the Trump administration were now to submit those reports—for rules implemented long ago—Congress would be free to vote the regulations down.”

Also from the posting is the following:

cra-regulatory-loop-hole

 

Some of the regulations that deserve to be overruled may have followed the rule by submitting a report to Congress which apparently makes them exempt.  Let’s hope that no report was submitted for the most of them.

 

cbdakota