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 !!
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.
From the PowerLIne website–“Federal Judge Denounces EPA as Rogue Agency”. Click here to read the posting.
°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.
Our 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:
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.
Posted in AGW, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, CO2, CO2 positive feedback, crop yields, Drought, Environment, EPA, Global Temperatures, Government Regulations, IPCC, Sea Level, Storms/hurricanes, The Pause, Tornados, US Manufacturing Companies, warmer prediction fails
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 will keep this intro in all the Drain The EPA Swamp postings.
The Clean Power regulations by the EPA essentially shuts down coal based generated electrical power. The regulations have been stayed by the courts. The question the courts are asking is regarding the damage to the coal industry and the people dependent on that industry. The “science” used by the EPA to justify these regulations are primarily predicated on the effect of mercury and 2.5 micro particles emitted by these plants. The courts however have no intentions of tackling the science. This is unfortunate because both the mercury and 2.5 micron particles are bad science.
How much do you depend on petroleum-based products? A few of the non-fuel uses are previewed in the following video:
Man</a> from <a href=”https://vimeo.com/user8463025″>Robert
E. Bailey</a> on <a href=”https://vimeo.com”>Vimeo</a>
Posted in AGW, carbon tax, chemistry, Climate Alarmism, CO2, fossil fuels, Government Regulations, Off Shore Resources, Oil and Gas Exploration, US Auto Manufacturers, US Manufacturing Companies
I want to respond to Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson’s video titled “Neil deGrasse Tyson explains the real problem with climate change deniers” so here goes. The problem according to Tyson is that “deniers” do not understand science. “They can not sort out what is true and what is not true,” says Tyson.
If you watch late night TV or mainstream TV news you probably know Tyson. He and Bill Nye “the science guy” are their favorites when the media want someone to talk about “deniers” and global warming. Tyson is reasonably informed about the theory of man-made global warming while Nye is an embarrassment. See Nye’s debate with Marc Morano of Climate Depot.
Back to Tyson. Climate Depot has assembled a list of 700 or so prominent scientists that are skeptics. Most of them have as much or more understanding of climate science than does Tyson. Is Tyson overwhelmingly arrogant or living in a cocoon? I suspect the answer to that is probably both. With regard to the cocoon, he probably never looks at any of these Skeptics work or their reasons for being skeptical.
The bluster emanating from the Paris climate talks challenges the Potemkin Villages as the biggest attempted cover-up of the real facts on the ground in history. The agreement produced only voluntary caps on CO2 emissions; only voluntary transfers (reparations really) of money from the 1st world to the 3rd world); and reporting of emissions and international oversight do not exist. Further more, neither China or India will cut back their expected increase in CO2 emissions as they plan to serve their citizens first.
The Paris climate leadership acknowledged that even if the emission cuts would take place as promised, their arbitrary goal of holding the global temperature rise under 2C would not be achieved. President Obama flew a 500+ army to Paris. All they accomplished was to spend our money and a lot of CO2 emisssions.
The President, however, will claim he must have the money to pay reparations to the 3rd world countries and laws enacted to shut-down our industry to reduce CO2 emission. The science is not settled. Why wreck our economy and put our people out of work when there has been no significant rise in global temperatures for almost 19 years and polar ice is increasing.
Posted in AGW, Al Gore, China, Climate Alarmism, CO2, Environment, EPA, fossil fuels, Global Temperatures, Government Regulations, IPCC, Sea Ice, United Nations, US Manufacturing Companies