Shutting down power plants: Imaginary benefits, extensive harm

It seems like a futile move to me when most of our atmospheric mercury is coming from China which is completely out of reach of the US EPA. I don’t expect these changes to have any significant impact on US air quality, certainly not global air quality, and that emissions growth from China and India will continue to play the dominant role in global pollution.

Forest fires are not a “natural source” of mercury emissions. “it comes from industrial …sources, often settling into soil and plant matter. Intense fires then release the mercury back into the atmosphere” (See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071017131817.htm )
However, mercury emissions from coal-fired power stations have been identified as the single largest industrial source of atmospheric emissions in the US. (See http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Energy/Energy-from-coal/MercuryInExportCoals.aspx )

The endangerment finding, with its numerical health effects, used by the EPA to control carbon dioxide has no science basis. CO2 does not cause heart or lung or kidney, liver, brain, or whatever disease. CO2 does not cause asthma, cancer, childhood hyperactivity, poor school performance, premature births, etc. CO2 in concentrations of 5000 ppm in submarines is plausible to have an impact; its just not known as the science is…extremely limited. What Lisa Jackson demonstrates, is that she is a politician, no surprise, but not a scientist, nor science educated as one might hope to have reside in such an important air, water and ground pollution control position. There are many pollutants spewed into the air by coal burning power plants. Many of these pollutants do have health impacts although these pollutants by enlarge exacerbate existing human health conditions. These pollutants from coal fired power plants just don’t cause these human health conditions; the science on health consequences has to be extrapolated from other sources. Speculation about the health consequences of outdoor air pollution from coal fired power plants is entertaining. Along with some Seasonal rum and brandy laced egg nog while sitting by a glowing fire gives a warm and fuzzy feeling, the EPA’s health justification, saving 4000 new asthmatics from appearing on the health registry, is just a warm and fuzzy feeling.

Forest fires are not a “natural source” of mercury emissions. “it comes from industrial …sources, often settling into soil and plant matter.

I happen to live in an area with a high natural mercury content in the soil. Mercury was mined here during the California gold rush for use in separating gold from its carrier (mostly alluvium). The local streams and lakes have too high a mercury content to eat any fish one might catch in them. Places such as Stevens Creek Reservoir have large signs warning not to eat the fish due to high natural mercury content of the water.
Mercury is quite a common element in many places in the soil. Many of these places have natural fires during periods of drought.

Askgerbil Now (@Askgerbil) says:
December 26, 2011 at 12:30 pm
Forest fires are not a “natural source” of mercury emissions. “it comes from industrial …sources, often settling into soil and plant matter. Intense fires then release the mercury back into the atmosphere” (See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071017131817.htm )
However, mercury emissions from coal-fired power stations have been identified as the single largest industrial source of atmospheric emissions in the US. (See http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Energy/Energy-from-coal/MercuryInExportCoals.aspxss )
It is not identifying the largest anthropogenic source of mercury it is the identification of the safe level _and_ the effect of any new regulations. If the effect of the new regulation – even if it was a complete ban on any coal fired power stations – is totally insignificant and the safe level is not currently breached then it makes no sense to proceed. It is also indefensible that the same EPA that is frothing at the mouth in its eagerness to close efficient power generation due to mercury, is also making it a legal requirement that every home installs heated ampules of mercury vapor in every room of every house. The greatest source of mercury vapor will soon be defunct ‘curly’ light bulbs.
The EPA is making rules to justify its own existence and is only allowed because closing the US power generation is seen as a political imperative by the current administration. They are making an end-run around congress to do so.

Askgerbil Now (@Askgerbil) says:
“Forest fires are not a “natural source” of mercury emissions. “it comes from industrial …sources, often settling into soil and plant matter. Intense fires then release the mercury back into the atmosphere”
You should really read the paper and understand the error bars. The US emissions of mercury are a tiny fraction of the global natural mercury cycling. Ever wonder how mercury got into coal in the first place?

EPA needs to be neutered. The EPA should not be able to enforce any rules or laws that have not been specifically directed by congress. Any rule that EPA proposes and wishes to enforce should be forced to be put before congress for a vote. Since when is it okay for the police to write and enforce their own laws? Our country has effectively been turned into a dictatorship! EPA has way to much authority, it must be reigned in by the next congress in 2012. That will only happen if we get rid of democrats control of the senate and WH.

Table 3.13 and 1.1 here
http://www.chem.unep.ch/mercury/Atmospheric_Emissions/Technical_background_report.pdf
… seems to disagree with some of the suggestions in the article.
Total Hg emissions: 4.4 to 7 k ton pa
Total anthropogenic 2.6
Fossil fuel burning 0.8
Cremations 0.025

My father was a PhD in biochemistry and taught graduate and medical school for forty years. He oftened complained that his medical students did not know near enough biochemistry. I learned enough from him to know that sometimes the wrong chemicals in parts per billion can be disastrous to health.
So when I see an engineer or other scientist who is not even an MD making claims about the health effects of certain things, I am always skeptical about what they have to say. Things that make economic sense don’t always make health sense.

Jon says:
“At last you wake up to the possibility that WWF and Greenpeace has full radical control over your EPA?”
The NGOs are merely extensions of EPA- look at them as the marketing and political action arms of the Agency. They also serve to expand regulator power through the courts. Better yet given the revolving door between EPA and the NGOs -think of this in terms of interlocking directorates.

Oh don’t worry..we can elect Romney..he’ll fix it all for you???

May I ask you tell us what is the reason of numerous lung cancer reported in cities in comparison to rural areas?
I drink daily, plenty of CO2 with my COCA COLA, I’m not worried about it.
Man-made CO2 comes with lots of harmful elements. There is a limit over CO2 ppm of course, otherwise man would die because of the lack of oxygen.
That’s why man-made CO2 in almost greater cities should be controlled not because of the CO2 itself.
In undergrounds railways/metros, the direct Fossil Based Fuel Locomotives are strongly prohibited. The required power is gained from power plants located at outside the cities. In greater cities, heavy traffic condition is going to be the same as underground railways. Daily traffic regulations that are apparently considered for providing lighter traffic, have not been successful so far. In many cities around the world, local climate and geographical situation are making more difficulties for the residents. officially, the governments reduce working days of the weeks. Schools are closed until the air pollution is controlled. The solution here would be EV system automobiles or electric vehicles. As said above, this is not because of CO2 only, it is due to the other issues coming with CO2.

This is obviously a complex issue in both scientific and social/economic political terms. Some coal does have mercury and other less then desirable stuff. Most do not. Much of this stuff is the precautionary principal taken to some absurd extreme. If I was a religious person I would be praying for god to save us from well intentioned idologs.

Fundamental molecular biology, animal experiments, and observational studies all agree that mercury/metal and DDT/chemical toxicity are legitimate public health concerns.
Skepticism that does not acknowledge this growing body of evidence cannot call itself “rational.”

davidgmills says:
“Things that make economic sense don’t always make health sense.”
You could not be more wrong–“economic sense” and “health sense” are always the same thing. Consider if the Tribune is correct and electricity rises by 40-60% in Illinois. Money will be diverted from patient care to pay electric bills at hospitals. Many companies will move from the State or go under given the catastrophic rise in energy. The State will collect less tax revenues and therefore have less to spend on health care. The citizens will also become more impoverished which has a greater association with ill health than does mercury. We can also expect less energy to be used which should increase cold related deaths. And under the worst case scenarios of rolling blackouts we can expect any number of additional mortalities. And as people try to save money and lower energy costs we will see a tremendous increase in the use of wood stoves. The power loss on the east coast during the October snow storm showed that as people used their stoves in response to the lack of power that particulate air quality violations became numerous.
And the easiest way to see this is a fraud– I’m sure your father would not have ascribed to EPAs claim that falling particulates and rising asthma rates over the last 4 decades justify further decreasing particulates to prevent asthma. C’mon doesn’t that make you just say WTF?
The disconnect between economic and human health only seem unrelated when you don’t consider the perverse consequences.

Legatus says:
December 26, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Facts, in the USA, it used to be that we produced about 96% of all that we needed or wanted. As of 10-12 years ago, we only produced 36%, as of a year ago or less, we only produced 24%. This means that in only one decade, we lost a full quarter of our industrial production. This EPA rule will rapidly accelerate that.
====================================================
It sure will. This new rule will have horrible effects to the health of our economy and people. Poverty creates many more health issues than what little mercury we’ll pull out of the air. But, the people at the EPA know this. This isn’t about health, this is about the socialists pursuing their agenda of systematically destroying out industrial base. The EPA knows that we’ve already reduced coal fired air pollution 80% from 1970 with their other rule enforcements. In the mean time, since about 2000, we’ve seen a nearly 50% increase to our cost of electricity. There is nothing more restricting to an economy than restricting our energy.
For those that wish to see some graphics with links to official government data for the pollution numbers, and costs go here…..
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/epa-seeks-more-authority-to-destroy-local-economies/
Our own countrymen and women exercising tyranny over U.S. citizens. These people have no shame, no conscience, and no morality.

I could MAYBE understand it if the EPA had gone after particulates emitted by older coal fired power stations. But mercury? Give me a break. Out of necessity I’ve actually researched human disease as it relates to environmental mercury. Outside a few professions like the old methods for gold extraction, gold inlay and hat making, it’s almost entirely BS. MOST of atmospheric mercury consists of methyl mercury and MOST of this is naturally outgassed from the oceans. True dat! Search through the wealth of information available at the SPPI website. Inform yourselves!
Year after year am I am presented with strident calls about the dangers of mercury in vaccinations. So I figured it out one time. One would have to take 117 flu shots to equal the amount of organic mercury found in a single can of chunk tuna. Further the mercury in the tuna is methyl mercury and the mercury in the vaccinations is ethyl mercury which is eliminated much faster. Believe me, I could go on all day on this subject. We needn’t fear the dreaded curly lightbulb (mine end up in the trash…yeah…so sue me) and for the most part we needn’t be puckered up about environmental mercury.

Mercury belongs in the light bulbs in your kid’s bedroom, not in the air. Everyone knows that.

Bruce says:
“Mercury belongs in the light bulbs in your kid’s bedroom, not in the air. Everyone knows that.”
And given that the worst air quality is found inside our homes and businesses where we spend most of time- EPA funds efforts to reduce air exchange in building in the name of “energy efficiency.”

From the third paragraph: “Emissions of mercury and other air toxics from power plants have been declining steadily for decades, as older generating units have been replaced with more efficient, less polluting systems or retrofitted with better pollution control technologies. While a few older plants still violate EPA’s draconian proposed rules – …”
Can someone tell me how draconian and outrage-inducing proposed rules can affect only a few older [and almost certainly inefficient] plants?

A physist@2:12
Thank you for the link.
I know that current EPA standards have greatly reduced Hg emissions. I live in a state that uses a lot of lignite coal to furnish power for neighboring states. The levels of emissions presented from the earlier link are very low.
The ability of mercury to travel in the atmosphere, with its known health effects, begs this one to be an international controlled element.
I would completely support an International IPCC type treaty to lower world emission of Hg. From what I have researched, it appears that the USA is by far the leader in controlling its emissions. So, in essence, when science is NOT in doubt, we remain a world leader and a very good neighbor.
The current EPA regulations are nothing more than an indirect attack on coal burning power plants. The economic repercussions of this may be very negative long term. As we divert more resources to try and shut down all coal, we are loosing the battle because of other items that are more important such as raw sewage, drain sewage etc. Direct polution points in our rivers and streams.
This is not good thinking, and extremely poor planning.

Up until recently, the EPA has served a purpose, being instrumental in cleaning up a lot of environmental transgressions.
However, like every other well-meaning agency, the EPA’s sole purpose of expansion and budget enlargement has come to the forefront.
The EPA’s mandate is out of control and it must be cut down to size.

The EPA’s claims should be easy enough to verify, check “Cause of death, Mercury poisoning” on all death certificates for the last 50 years.

I had an ORGANIC CHEMISTRY Professor, who 30 years ago, explained that the “Mercury” in fish, is so TIGHTLY BOUND to the protein molecules it associates with, that it tends to “go right through” the human GI track.
I thought that was an exaggeration, but then over the years I found more and more evidence it was true. THEN I found that some of the dried fish stores that Perry had on his trip to the Pole had been found. Someone had the presence of mind to analyse. Hg concentration? Same as current fish. NATURAL PHENOMENON!
I also remember the long article in the Reader’s Digest, a woman MD who had all these weird maladies, and in each case she discovered they had 4 to six meals of “oily fish” every week. She had them stop the fish, and BINGO, in a week or two..their symptoms all went away.
I was INCENSED at this, that such POOR diagnosis and attribution was so casually thrown out by the RD (about the time they became bought out by Time or the like, and went LOONEY LEFT)…when a simple internet search at the time showed that the “symptoms” she had in her patients were TYPICAL of vitamin A poisoning.
This Mercury thing is yet another symptom of “Utopianism”. Which will, if not kept in check, destroy all of us, in the concept of bringing “utopia” on Earth.
Please note, this is the central element behind “communism” and “progressivism”. Deadly…and dangerous.

Camburn: Your desire to have the UN regulate our electrical out put and other manufacturing that uses Hg is admirable. /sarc

Max, here in Hawaii, women have been eating deep water fish for in excess of 1,500 years without any mercury poisoning symptoms. In fact the pre contact Hawaiian are often exemplified as having perfect health. They still do today. At a rate 5 times the next highest State. Fresh, canned, smoked, dried, and especially raw. In fact many babies start eating seafood as a first food. And I imagine the same is true for Eskimos and some Indian tribes today also.

Martin M says:
December 26, 2011 at 1:21 pm
I’ve commented on my local paper’s run on this item (a liberal paper). Part of the EPA’s justification was the assertion that lowering these levels would save up to 11,000 lives a year.
Martin, it is not likely that one life would be saved.

@ James Sexton
I would bet that the increase in life expectancy has a lot more to do with things like clean water, uncontaminated food, antibiotics, and other medical advances, than it has with heat and A/C.

@Legatus Bravo, sir!

davidgmills says:
December 26, 2011 at 4:03 pm
At James Sexton and Pat Moffit:
The key word was always. If it always made sense, drug companies would make those vaccines they have quit making.
========================================================
Sorry about that, I looked at the statement in the context of the discussion. I’ll try to be more careful. 🙂

Dr. Dave’s post is entirely correct. GeoLurking’s figures were 1000X too large. Modern CFL lamps do substantially reduce mercury emissions, and that’s a fact.

davidgmills says:
” Get your facts straight.”
And that justifies putting these little chemical bombs in your house?
Riiight.
BTW, I’ve seen it listed as both grams and milligrams.

Florescent Bulb Recycling Tips
Jun 15, 2011 | By Emily Beach
Florescent Bulb Recycling Tips Photo Credit hand holding a cfl and incadescent lightbulb image by Silverpics from Fotolia.com
Fluorescent bulbs reduce energy consumption and lower operating expenses for homes and businesses. Unfortunately, these bulbs also contain between 3.5 and 15 grams of mercury each, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA says if you throw a fluorescent bulb in the trash, this mercury eventually ends up in groundwater supplies and even in the air you breathe, where it can harm health and the environment. Recycling captures this mercury for reuse and helps to protect the Earth and your family.
Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/209918-florescent-bulb-recycling-tips/#ixzz1hgxare2Q

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_hatter_disease
It would appear that the risk from Hg isn’t so much death as becoming an environmentalist.

Clams?…
Moderator: Typo in the first sentence of this post???
“The Environmental Protection Agency clams its “final proposed” Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rules will eliminate toxic pollution from electrical generating units,
Claims – not clams?
[Fixed, thanks. ~dbs, mod.]

@ Ric Werme says:
December 26, 2011 at 5:01 pm
Once upon a time, my daughter came home with a school assignment to bring in five samples of different metals – I immediately thought copper water pipe, and them my father’s old piece of silver waveguide (another sort of pipe), and then my eyes lit up.
========================================================
And let us not forget all that lead that many of us keep on hand in little boxes. Perhaps someday to be donated to deserving party or parties. 😉

Thanks for pointing out the faithful’s absurdity, Walter. I was hoping I wasn’t the only one that noticed.. Some people simply need repeat visits from a clue bar.
Mark

Its important to fight the EPA on every level. They have no interest in actually making the environment safer. If they did, they would ban cigarettes. No, its all about political power and control. Today mercury from power station, tomorrow, who knows?

Rather naive there, johanna. He is not capable of “getting the drift,” uless it supports his foregone conclusions. Facts are irrelevant when ideology is at play. Such people suffer immensely if (when) the bubble finally bursts. The psychological impact certainly qualifies as punishment, albeit harsh.
Mark

My family and I have looked at this sad planet and booked a one way passage to Alpha Centauri B 1V! At the moment there are no humans on the planet, but shortly we expect about 7 billion or so and so. We just hope that the so and so stay on Earth with the mess that they have created! (We are told that for six months of the year the sky is lit with light from Alpha Centauri A that is equal to thousands of full moons. We should be able to read at midnight out on the front porch).

davidgmills says:
December 26, 2011 at 4:30 pm
“If we quit driving cars, about 35,000 people would not die in car accidents every year.”
What do you suggest; horse buggies?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_horse_accidents

Is this the same ‘mercury’ that is used worldwide in Amalgam Fillings?
Just curious….do the EPA powers and regulations cover the inside of our mouths?
We know that we breath out the dreaded CO2…now we’re exhaling ‘toxic’ mercury fumes…
seems like human beings are just plain evil.

davidgmills says:
December 26, 2011 at 4:30 pm
@ David
How the hell do you know that 11,000 lives per year would not be saved if Hg levels were lowered to the new standard?
Well Mr Mills, show me your power, in your own words tell me how the EPA came to the conclusion of 11,000 lives saved.

Mercury molecules? Seems to me, mercury, a metallic element liquid at room temperature, does not form molecules. It forms compounds with other elements. But it doesn’t exist like O2, for instance.

Shutting down existing power plants just to fight CAGW is a bad idea. Not building a new one in a developing country because it would emit GHG’s is being callous to the plight and needs of the poor.
I think this video shows just how nice having electric power for light and heat and cooking really is to those who don’t have it. Making electric power far more expensive and less reliable than it has to be condemns so many to much misery. It doesn’t have to be.
This video shows how slum houses in Manila that have no windows, are dark even in the day. To those so poor that they cannot afford electricity, even a little indoor lighting during the day is a blessing! Just a plastic water bottle, some water, and a cap full of chlorine bleach gives off the same light as a 55 watt bulb, for free.
http://wimp.com/lightenup/

I can remember when we where at school back in the 50s and 60s we played with mercury in the science classes we took it home too to play with we should be all dead

daveburton says:
December 26, 2011 at 8:35 pm
GeoLurking wrote on December 26, 2011 at 4:54 pm
Except the EPA is frankly lying to you.
For 500 milligrams you would need a pretty mighty thermometer, perhaps weather men might have used such things, but not domestic or medical ones.
Even a hundred years ago.
And notice the reference to older thermometers. Yes indeed. But again exaggeration.
You see here in the UK the NPL would for a small fee certify your thermometer for you. The fee was 2/6 when I was young. And for that you got a certificate of precision over the temperature range, the construction, mercury in glass, and the weights of the glass and the mercury. The latter to better than one percent.
500 mg indeed, try closer to a tenth of that. THEN.
Now I have a new medical thermometer which I bought some thirty years ago and calls itself the Rand Rocket.. All I can say if thinks it is a rocket it is an extremely slow one: about two minutes to get equilibrium. And it is difficult to read as well.
But all that is fine it works in the end.
And according to it’s leaflet it contains just one half a miligram of mercury.
Kindest Regards

There’s a word for this….. It’s called, Ecofascism.

A physicist says:
December 26, 2011 at 2:12 pm
I second what James Sexton said to you in reply to your insipid contention that the “trade-offs” are difficult here. What decade are you living in? The 1940s or 1950s, when atmospheric pollution was worse than it is now (but far less than what it was in the 1910s and 1920s, as technology started to catch up with emissions)?
The fact is, the air in this country is far cleaner, FAR cleaner, than it has been at any time in the history of this country. The primary remaining problem with air pollution these days is ozone, manufactured mostly in the summer because of automobile emissions (even EPA admits that background levels of ozone are considerable, 55 ppb or more; this is due in large part to volatile organic compounds emitted from plants), and I don’t see that problem being solved any time soon, unless you are going to bike to work or elsewhere.
I will give some credit to EPA for the current state of the atmosphere, but I highly recommend to you the book “Clearing the Air: The Real Story of the War on Air Pollution” by Indur M. Goklany, who regularly posts at this site. As you will see, the solution to industrial air pollution was as much the responsibility of the development of technology by the private sector, if not more.
As many posters here have recognized, there is NO SUCH THING as pure, pristine air. Every attempt to raise the bar in regard to pollutants carries with it a law of diminishing returns. The more expectations you have with regard to attempts at making the current already cleaner air even more “clean,” the more it is going to cost – and the less the benefit. Lowering the existing level of mercury from 0.5% is going to be a nightmare, and yes, with no appreciable benefit. There is only one motive that EPA has for continuing to ratchet up the already high, impossible bar in connection with industrial activity: to close coal-fired power plants altogether and destroy our economy on some crackpot theory that we have to get rid of coal and that it is somehow better for all of us to freeze or to have our power out. It is quite obvious that these new rules are going to seriously reduce generation capacity in this country, and is also going to make electricity much more expensive for those who can barely afford to pay their electric bill now.

Many years ago I had a little radio production company in london .One morning I arrived at work to find the street sealed off as a specialist team in funny breathing apparatus and large tongs went through my office garbage.
I walked up to the spilt paper and picked up a letterhead.
The company was called RadioActivity.
The guy with the tongs asked did I have any radioactive materials in my garbage.
Undereath the radioactivity logo which was eighties postmodern…..were the words
Radio Production Services.
Three vehicles and a cop car.

1. I noticed the following facts:
– Coal-fired power plants were estimated in 1999 to emit about 48 tons per year, or over 40 percent of the U.S. inventory from anthropogenic sources. (Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, 2003, p. 2-1).
– In the United States, EPA promulgated a regulation in 2005 to reduce criteria air pollutant emissions from power plants, the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). The U.S. EPA calculated the estimated costs and some of the benefits of that regulation. The CAIR rule is primarily aimed at reducing emissions of SOx and NOx from large coal-fired power plants, but as a co-benefit will result in reductions of mercury emissions. The CAIR rule will achieve the majority of its mercury reductions as a co-benefit from controls for SO2. Applying SO2 controls (or other multi-pollutant approaches) are more cost-effective at reducing mercury than direct mercury control. The co-benefits of CAIR were estimated to reduce mercury emissions to 34.5 metric tonnes in 2010;
– EPA also promulgated the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) which was targeted to specifically further reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. The specific requirements of CAMR were estimated to further reduce mercury emissions to 13.6 tonnes by 2020. This could cost the U.S. electric power industry about US$ 11.3 billion. (UNEP, Report presenting the costs and benefits for each of the strategic objectives, 2008, p. 21)
2. Mercury is also found in nature but reducing the anthropogenic emission remains a commendable initiative. But is it advisable to make this investments if other countries make hardly any effort to reduce the emission of mercury? The estimated global anthropogenic emissions of mercury to air in 2005 was (UNEP, Technical Background Report to the Global Atmospheric Mercury, 2008, p. 40):
– 1,280 tons in Asia (i.e. mainly in China) (66.5%)
– 153 tons in North America (7.94%)
– 150 tons in Europe (7.78%)
So, without international agreements, the mercury content in the air will not change a lot.
3. EPA works with outdated figures to justify the use of CFLs. They use in their calculations the national average of mercury emissions due to the electricity production of 0.012 mg/kWh. Nowadays, when coal fired power plants emit still less mercury, it must be about 0.009 mg. In the long run, when virtually no mercury will be emitted by power plants, the mercury containing CFLs will still emit mercury. If they thought logically, they should ban without delay all CFLs, because mercury free alternatives are in plenty. It is incomprehensible that the government pays a high price (11 billion dollar) to reduce the mercury emission to air with several tons while the promotion of CFLs will bring yearly about 2 tons of mercury among the households and in landfills.

Reducing mercury vapour usage PER LAMP does not equal less mecury vapour with a chance of entering the air because of the present, and future, much increased use and TOTAL NUMBER of such lamps.

So how could you stop the EPA?

Democracy has gone too far, driven by the maddening idea of “not discriminating minorities” as to allow those totally unfitted to reach positions of decision and power. Thus the most complete menagerie of fools, idiots and sick people are dictating the laws and measures for the rest of the society. This is absolutely insane.
An old spanish proverb reads: “Lo que Natura non da, Salamanca non presta”: “What Nature does not give, Salamanca (the academia) does not lend”
Then, those sadly ungifted, who bravely struggle to attain a position in society ( we must recognize that), in this case getting and keeping a job in government, academia, official agencies,etc. affirm themselves by believing in what the foolest among themselves have concocted, and to avoid any doubts on their proficiency and expertise, establish them as “consensual truths” reinforced by mutual caressing and indulging.
It is funny to observe that their epistemology does not include intuition (their stomachs are too busy digesting trash food or going after the next girl who crosses their field of sight, that it is impossible for them to perceive anything of a higher energetic order) thus their whole intellectual activity is limited to counting and naming, being their favorite method that of statistics, commonly performed by politically convenient “programmed artificial brains”-“super computers”- (their biology did not included such an apparatuses working in the upper part of their bodies).
So the time has arrived to put things on place before it is too late.

@ William says:
December 27, 2011 at 2:48 am
Enough is enough. We live in democracy. Let’s solve this EPA problem.
====================================================
I agree. We should ‘set them free’ of the terrible burden of caring for our welfare.

Ed_B says:
December 26, 2011 at 7:20 pm
“We are such sissies today..
Didn’t every boomer have a small container of mercury that they would rub on pennies to try to pass them off as dimes?”
First, yes I rubbed mercury on pennies. Wonderful shine.
Second, yes we are a nation of sissies. I’ve often said that if this generation landed at Plymouth Rock, we never would have made it past the seashore. Can you imagine trying to move west in covered wagons? All of the children would have had to wear helmets, knee and elbow pads and gloves to protect them from when they fell out of the wagon – of course they shouldn’t fall out because they would have had to have strapped in to their children’s protective seats. And the filth and germs produced by our mode of transportation, not to mention the methane. The green weanies would have had us all back on boats to the Mother Country, all to live in exquisitely equal squalor and misery, except of course, for our betters like AlGore and government bureaucrats.

“Mark T says:
December 27, 2011 at 5:40 am
There is only one motive that EPA has for continuing to ratchet up the already high, impossible bar in connection with industrial activity: to close coal-fired power plants altogether and destroy our economy on some crackpot theory that we have to get rid of coal and that it is somehow better for all of us to freeze or to have our power out.
As I recall, the bolded part (mine) is/was a stated goal of the Obama administration, maybe not in as many words.”
Mark T, your memory is correct, but it was in the context of cap-and-trade/CO2 reduction –
“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.” January 2008 Obama quote from interview with SF Chronicle.
Let’s see, shut ’em down because of cap-and-trade/carbon emissions, or shut em down because of mercury emissions. You say toma[y]to, I say toma[h]to. Just as long as we shut ’em down.

Found an interesting graph on wikipedia : mercury deposition in a Wyoming glacier ice core.
Notice the spikes caused by larger volcanic eruptions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mercury_fremont_ice_core.png
Found in this context:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(element)#Releases_in_the_environment

Been waiting for a thread to post t his to.
http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff500/fv00459.htm

RiH008,
“CO2 in concentrations of 5000 ppm in submarines is plausible to have an impact;”
Should I be worried? How long does it take for effects to show up? As a former submariner, I want to know.
Actually it doesn’t matter. One has to be a bit off to volunteer for subs in the first place.

I’ve read somewhere, that due to all of the pollution control devices, for cars driving in the LA basin, their exhaust is cleaner than the air entering at the filtered end.
I wonder how long it will be until the EPA requires power plants to reach this stage of cleanliness?

MarkW says:
December 27, 2011 at 9:58 am
“I’ve read somewhere, that due to all of the pollution control devices, for cars driving in the LA basin, their exhaust is cleaner than the air entering at the filtered end. I wonder how long it will be until the EPA requires power plants to reach this stage of cleanliness?”
I have already been down this road with EPA on 2 wastewater treatment plants. You see the regulations said anti-degradation which was interpreted as no change in condition- in the one case the water produced by the plant was of higher quality than the river above the discharge and as such that the biological indicators below the plant showed a better condition. The improvement in the river became a violation. The other was an ocean outfall that as can be expected given all the structure associated with it attracted a lot of sea life. A few hundred yards away there was nothing but near lifeless sand habitat. Therefore the ocean outfall had changed the condition and was seen as a violation. I can’t even begin to tell you how much time and aggravation it took to undo this mess.

Dear: The Piractical Captain Dallas says: December 26, 2011 at 3:13 pm
Where you state:
“Hang on a second. 12.5% of all US power plants already meet the regulation limits. about 63 or 10.5% of the older power plants don’t stand a chance. Most of those are already planned to be replaced. With the allowable time and the permissible extension, these plants will shut down on schedule. Most of the remaining power plants have access to available technology to upgrade to meet the new limits. Some just need co-generation which could be low temperature hot water for a variety of processes, like pulp which is overly impacted by the regulation”
I’m afraid I don’t agree. Point by point.
1) Where you state: ” 12.5% of all US power plants already meet the regulation limits. ” I don’t agree. the 12.5% figure comes from an assumption that the standards are created based on the performance of the best 12.5% of existing power plants. The facts are the EPA used 12.5% of plants for individual pollutants… not all pollutants at the same time. Even the EPA could find only a single U.S. plant in the U.S. that was able to meet all of its emission requirements … and it’s not at all clear that this plant is representative given that it utilized a dry FGD using medium sulfur coal. Because coal varies the performance of a single plant is, frankly, meaningless.
2) Where you state: “About 63 or 10.5% of the older power plants don’t stand a chance. Most of those are already planned to be replaced.” Dead wrong again. I am part of a team that made the decision to close 2,700 MW of capacity. Not a single unit would have be closed if the EPA’s “toxic rules” had not been issued. Moreover it appears likely we will be announcing more closures. (We just didn’t have all the facts until the new rules were issued).
3) Where you state: “Most of the remaining power plants have access to available technology to upgrade to meet the new limits.” Partially wrong . See item one above. It not at all clear we actually be able to meet all of the emission requirements, although changing the proposed 2.5 PM standard helps. With regard to applying the new plant standards, we can’t find a single construction company willing to guarantee they can meet all of the EPA’s newly proposed emission requirements. In other words… the technology does not exist. (And just wait until you see the proposed NSPS for green house gases).
4) Where you State: “Some just need co-generation which could be low temperature hot water for a variety of processes, like pulp which is overly impacted by the regulation”. I am truly sorry to have to say this, but, I’m afraid you don’t understand the scale of power operations. Co-generation is not going to address the problem. Moreover, I don’t think you understand the EPA regulatory process. Generally, if you produce electricity for sale your plant becomes subject to the EPA rules for electric generating units (EGUs). Generally, the standards for EGUs are tighter than the rules for other industries. Short version, no relief there. (Just the opposite, I’m in the process of closing co-generating units supplying steam to a major industry.)
Mr. Rucker has it dead right. Nothing the EPA says is close to the truth or truly involves acting for the public good.
Regards, Kforestcat

Ah well, as we all tell our children, be very sceptical of that which you read on blogs. It amazes me how all the climate sceptics (of whom I am one: I am sceptical about everything) that bear their scepticism with such pride swallow everything they read here on WUWT like it’s mother’s milk. It only needs to be published here for every reader to believe every word. Now, let me be clear, I am not saying a single word of it is untrue. No I’m not. I am simply asking you all why you all believe it to be 100%, 1000% true, just because it is published here? And why do you so many of you get so angry about blog posts, when you should know that, whisper this, *they are not necessarily 100% true*.
Now, to hopefully calm things a little, we’ll switch on the cold water credulity hose to see how that sobers things up. Let’s see: The article says that “The agency recruited, guided and financed activist groups that promoted its rulemaking”. Oh, but whoopie-do, the same article forgets to point out that according to Exxon’s own accounts 1998 – 2007, the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), of which Craig Rucker, author of this piece, is the co-founder, received $582,000 in direct funding from ExxonMobil Corporate Giving and the ExxonMobil Foundation.
Willie Soon, “independent natural scientist”, may not perhaps be as independent as all that, as he has been bankrolled to the tune of over $1,000,000 by big energy and big oil, including Tea Party Charles Hoch last year – although it should be said that the like of Exxon and Southern have been crossing the street to avoid him when they’ve seen Willie coming in recent years.
Naturally, dear old Craig and fine fellow Willie would like us to suspend our scepticism, turn a blind eye, when it comes to them rolling over and playing tickle-tummy for Big Oil, as long as we are the cheerleaders for their attacks on those that threaten the very same Big Oil etc.
Lastly, I personally used to work in a town with a mercury mine. Idrija, in Slovenia. It has its own special hospital for the ex-miners. The debilitations they suffer from, physical and mental, are those you would not wish on your worst enemy. I think Rucker, Soon et al, those seem to think that mercury is not a health hazard, should be forced to work there for an extended period. They would go to sleep at night weeping into their pillows.

John Billings says:
“I think Rucker, Soon et al, those seem to think that mercury is not a health hazard, should be forced to work there for an extended period.”
No-one has said that mercury has zero health risk – what has been stated is EPA’s health claims at these extremely low Hg levels strain credulity. Further the costs associated with compliance, it is argued, create perverse consequences of far greater risk.
Using workers at the world’s largest mercury mine- Idrija- as a risk comparison to EPAs new Hg standards is a bit dishonest- don’t you think?

Posting:
GeoLurking says:
December 26, 2011 at 3:42 pm
Zeke says: December 26, 2011 at 2:00 pm
“OSHA Permissible Exposure Level for Mercury is about 0.5 mg/m³. A CFL contains somewhere between 2 to 4 grams of Mercury. Break one and you have enough to contaminate (per OSHA guidelines) 4000 to 8000 cubic meters of your house.”
Sorry, Zeke or GeoLurking, but the statement “A CFL contains somewhere between 2 to 4 grams of Mercury” is out by a factor of 1000. According to Wikipedia (which tallies with what I have read elsewhere): “Most CFLs contain 3–5 mg per bulb, with the bulbs labeled “eco-friendly” containing as little as 1 mg.”
Milligrams, not grams…..
IanM
[Apologioes if this has already been commenting on. It takes time to read through every comment, so I have jumped ahead several hours.]

Johanna is entirely correct, Mr. Billings. It’s one thing for private companies to use their money to fund advocates, it’s quite another when the government takes my money by force, and then uses it to buy the ALA [and other NGOs] to advocate for the EPA. Now excuse me while I wipe the blood from my gullible jowls. So glad you don’t stoop to pointed, personal jibes.

Walter Cronanty says:
December 27, 2011 at 3:11 pm
“when the government takes my money by force”,… so, there you are with your gun in your bunker in Montana, refusing to pay for any societal good such as the police, army, street lighting, highways, elementary education so that the poorest of the poor can at least speak English before your market forces are unleashed upon them in a tidal wave…
To wipe the blood from your gullible jowls may take some time, since you choose to mention it.

My apologies for engaging what is obviously an ignorant, bomb-throwing troll.

John Billings says:
“What’s dishonest is to say that “independent natural scientist Dr. Willie Soon and CFACT policy advisor Paul Driessen pointed out in their WallStreetJournal and Investor’sBusinessDaily articles, and in Dr. Soon’s 85-page critique of EPA’s draft rules, US power plants account for only 0.5% of the mercury in US air” – without reference to their claim, how it was formulated so that anyone else can check it, and certainly without reference to what the EPA says about the matter.”
I found 171 references and notes in Soon’s report- so I have no idea what you are talking about
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/scientific_reply.pdf
And the dose makes the poison.

To Smokey and Walter Cronanty:
You call me a “troll” for asking genuine questions. What are you doing here? What purpose do you hope your posts serve?
Pat Moffitt says:
December 27, 2011 at 4:05 pm
“I found 171 references and notes in Soon’s report- so I have no idea what you are talking about”
Pat, none of the 171 references were visible in the article. The article was/is a leap of faith. Believe “it” if you believe WUWT. You dug out Soon’s paper because you wanted to believe. I’m saying that we should all apply the same standards of scepticism to everything. I said in my original post that I did not doubt anything it said – except that I doubted everything, as that is the true nature of scepticism. It is not to doubt this or that – it is to doubt everything. So when you present a case, an argument, a something, we, the audience, the appraisers, should not, cannot say “It’s good” or “it’s bad” without something to back it up. That’s all. So I neither agree nor disagree with you. Your comment “so I have no idea what you are talking about” – you will have to look at that, as I cannot. I am not presenting any point for or against anything – except that we should all be very harsh, and not sympathetic, to anyone who puts anything up for our inspection. I do hope you understand.

John Billings says:
December 27, 2011 at 3:53 pm
I’m in Colorado right now. But you mention “California & Maryland 6 figure environmentalist salaries”. Does that mean I am safe?
_______________________
I honestly don’t get what you’re trying to say. You may not make a 6 figure salary… so what? Are you suggesting that the higher-ups in environmental/AGW campaigning oufits don’t make 6 figure salaries, while Federal tax dollars for “blah, blah, blah awareness” flow into their organizations?These groups’ lawyers also generate a lot of big legal fees paid by the tax payers for “sueing” the EPA.

John Billings says
Pat, none of the 171 references were visible in the article. The article was/is a leap of faith. Believe “it” if you believe WUWT. You dug out Soon’s paper because you wanted to believe.
No – I actually read the report first and I “believe” because I actually work in the field.

[snip – too stupid to post, try rephrasing]

Myrrh says:
December 27, 2011 at 4:15 am
I’ve read that it’s the lack of selenium in the body that’s the problem. When selenium missing mercury makes the connections that selenium would be making which is what screws the body, enough selenium and the mercury has nowhere to connect and is thus expelled. One only needs enough selenium to let it do its thing, greater amounts of mercury will anyway be unable to make the connections which some mercury is making through lack of selenium, so gets expelled. I’ll see if I can find any more on this. Brazil nuts.
Please do read more. You are nearly correct with your first statement above. It is actually lack of AVAILABLE selenium that is the problem in the body. If the selenium is bound up by mercury, the selenium is not allowed to participate in reactions to form the critical proteins. I have not seen any published evidence that mercury actually takes selenium’s place in the critical proteins. Rather, because selenium and mercury have such a strong affinity (chemical bond), my understanding is that the mercury will react with selenium to form a molecule (mercury selenide) that does not allow the selenium to be used to construct the critical selenium-containing protein (selenoprotein).
Also, the postulated mechanism for “mercury poisoning” is that when mercury is present in excess of selenium, the mercury “robs” the selenium from existing selenoproteins, destroying them and their proper functions to support the nervous system. The video link I provided explains that mothers with the highest body levels of mercury had the smartest kids, because these mothers ate a large amount of seafood that contains mercury, but also contain much more selenium than mercury. Thus if your body loading is 10 units of mercury and 50 units of selenium, the mercury will take 10 units of selenium out of the picture (1:1 molar ratio). However, the other 40 units of selenium will be left to do its job forming the critical proteins.
And yes, Brazil nuts as well as most ocean fish are great sources of selenium.
Please note I am not a chemist (actually a meteorologist), although I did have a chemistry minor in college.

aired says:
December 27, 2011 at 9:11 pm
Please do read more.
I did – I haven’t been able to find any reference to what I remembered, perhaps I’d misunderstood it, but your scenario is one that makes sense and I found this page which gives more information and puts the mercury in fish into proper perspective, re the opening post, that the great amounts of selenium in fish is the inbuilt prophylactic against any detrimental effects of mercury in the fish: http://www.bwfa-usa.org/health/mercury-in-seafood
What I can’t understand, is why is mercury still used in dental fillings? And, why put mercury into vaccines? This is one of the most toxic substances we have around, it’s one thing to play with it, that’s great fun, but to deliberately introduce it into our bodies is extraordinary, given that we now understand how toxic it is. I know we didn’t, mercury was used in medicines and the insanity of Ivan the Terrible has recently been attributed to the mercury his doctors were giving him – this telegraph article puts the high levels of mercury found in his mother’s and wife’s remains as possibly deliberate murder, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/1326387/Mercury-poisoned-Ivan-the-Terribles-mother-and-wife.html
but, haven’t taken into account the medical practices of the day which is what killed him in the end too. The irony is that Ivan got horribly paranoid because he thought his family deliberately poisoned and himself the next victim, but the intentions were good..
Then there’s Marie Curie who died of radiation poisoning, and all the factory girls affected by the paint used in glow in the dark dials on watches.., this amazing new substance that was immediately thought of as a cure for all ills. But, we actually do know better now. Why are we putting fluoride into water supplies and toothpaste?
None of these agencies supposedly protecting us are doing any such thing, they’re working to vested interests agendas, the pharmaceutical companies one of the worst offenders.

TRM says:
December 28, 2011 at 9:13 am

I just thought of this. Does this apply to garbage incineration? The last report I’ve seen (2004?) had coal at 40 tons a year and garbage at 35. Here again technical solutions exist like plasma arc incineration. Here again the only output is CO2.

Aside from the fact that your figures are off by a quite a few orders of magnitude, plasma-arc incineration will not convert mercury compounds to CO2.

Walter H. Schneider says:
December 28, 2011 at 10:43 am
“A Physicist” and others who object with religious fervor to the lead-in article, I noticed that all of you conveniently forgot to address the key-item of information in the article: “US power plants account for only 0.5% of the mercury in US air.” That makes everything you wrote more than a bit pointless. A reduction of almost nothing, even if it were 100% effective, still is almost nothing, regardless of the sources of the other 99.5% of the mercury in the air in the U.S.
======================
This is the crux of the matter. This organisation is completely irrational and a parasite on the backs of industry and taxpayers, as a private company its duties are to maximise profits for its shareholders, whoever they are, they are not objective. If the companies affected by this don’t take on the EPA it won’t stop.

Myrrh says: “A Physicist” and others [did not] address the key-item of information in the article: “US power plants account for only 0.5% of the mercury in US air.”

Myrrh, see Global source attribution for mercury deposition in the United States for contrary information.
After all, that “0.5%” claim might be simply incorrect, eh?
More broadly, the free PUBMED service provides free, rapid, convenient access to peer-reviewed, health-related scientific information; this service is commended to all rational skeptics.

TRM says:
December 28, 2011 at 7:57 pm

Several of the plasma gas companies claim to be able to handle (and destroy) mercury and low grade radioactive waste from hospitals. How much of their claims are true is a valid point.

Okay, do we agree then that when mercury compounds are being burned in a plasma burner, the elemental mercury will remain and be emitted? In other words, plasma burners do not destroy mercury, but they do break down mercury compounds into their elemental constituents, one of which will be elemental mercury.

As to the figures being off “by a quite a few orders of magnitude” the EPA figures of approximately 50 tons a year for coal and I went with the lower value I have also found of 40. The garbage incineration is a very mixed bag. Everything from 13 to 40 and I went with the 35 as it seemed a better researched value.

What do those figures (e.g.: “approximately 50 tons a year for coal”) relate to? Where do those figures come from and what are they? Those figures relate to tons of what? The lead-in article does not mention tons of anything.
In a preceding comment (TRM says: December 26, 2011 at 7:12 pm) you had stated “If you burn coal in a pure oxygen environment you get just water vapor and CO2 outputs.” “Just water vapor and CO2” is very specific. I am therefore led to believe that the tons you mentioned next relate to tons of those substances emitted per year in the U.S.

A physicist says:
December 29, 2011 at 7:29 am
Myrrh says: “A Physicist” and others [did not] address the key-item of information in the article: “US power plants account for only 0.5% of the mercury in US air.”
Myrrh, see Global source attribution for mercury deposition in the United States for contrary information.
After all, that “0.5%” claim might be simply incorrect, eh?
More broadly, the free PUBMED service provides free, rapid, convenient access to peer-reviewed, health-related scientific information; this service is commended to all rational skeptics.
===========
As Walter H. Schneider answered you here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/26/shutting-down-power-plants-imaginary-benefits-extensive-harm/#comment-846755
………….
Who owns the EPA and who are the shareholders? I’ve tried to find that information but all I get is the EPA demanding other companies provide details of their businesses, while, apparently, perhaps I just don’t know where to look.., avoiding answering these same questions:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/cleanup/superfund/104e/fin-general.html
Superfund: CERCLA Section 104(e) Information Request Questions – General Financial Questions
Where can I find the answers to these questions from the EPA?
All I’ve been able to find is the following:
Confirmation that it is a private company.
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/common/symbollookup/symbollookup.asp?region=ALL&letterIn=Environmental+Protection+Agency&lookuptype=private&x=14&y=8
And linking to information about it here: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=5376654

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Company Overview
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) develops and enforces regulations for human health and environment protection. The company researches and sets standards for environmental programs and delegates. It was founded in 1970 and is headquartered in Washington, District of Columbia with additional offices in Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, and Florida.
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
United States
Founded in 1970
Key Executives
The Hon. Stephen L. Johnson
Administrator
Dr. J. Paul Gilman
Assistant Administrator for Office of Research and Development and Science Advisor
Kelly Zito
Director of The office of Public Affairs – Pacific Southwest

Which is out of date, Johnson left in 2010 and Jackson now in that position – according to wiki
“Post EPA On June 29, 2010, clean technology company FlexEnergy announced that Johnson had joined its Board of Directors.[13] According to Johnson, the company’s technology can minimize air pollutants in congested cities and industrial sites, as well as provide energy in remote areas around the world.[14]
On November 11, 2010, The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company announced that Johnson had been named to its Board of Directors.[15] ”
Johnson also sits on the Board of Trustees at his alma mater, Taylor University.[16]
…
This is FlexEnergy:http://www.flexenergy.com/former-head-of-the-epa-the-honorable-stephen-l-johnson-joins-board-of-flexenergy/
…………….
Anyway, Private Companies have owners. Private companies in the market place are there to serve their own interests, are in competition with other private companies. The EPA is destroying competition.., isn’t it? Actually, also milking the competition…? So who owns it?
Why should any company in the US take any notice of any ‘legislation’ imposed on it by another private company?
What’s going on here?
The recentish court case American Trucking, I think, needed to push the unconstitutional bit further, but also, it must be relevant that a private company has been given such massive powers to affect other industries and competition. This is simply crazy that it isn’t taken into account. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitman_v._American_Trucking_Associations,_Inc.
The EPA has also branched out into partnership deals – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Boiler
When the EPA was challenged by the first batch of emails from CRU –

United States Environmental Protection Agency reportThe United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had issued an “endangerment finding” in 2009 in preparation for climate regulations on excessive greenhouse gases. Petitions to reconsider this were raised by the states of Virginia and Texas, conservative activists and business groups including the United States Chamber of Commerce, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the coal company Peabody Energy, making claims that the CRU emails undermined the science.[109]
The EPA examined every email and concluded that there was no merit to the claims in the petitions, which “routinely misunderstood the scientific issues”, reached “faulty scientific conclusions”, “resorted to hyperbole”, and “often cherry-pick language that creates the suggestion or appearance of impropriety, without looking deeper into the issues.”[110] In a statement issued on 29 July 2010, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said the petitions were based “on selectively edited, out-of-context data and a manufactured controversy” and provided “no evidence to undermine our determination. Excess greenhouse gases are a threat to our health and welfare.”[111]
The EPA issued a detailed report on issues raised by petitioners and responses, together with a fact sheet,[112] and a “myths versus facts” page stating that “Petitioners say that emails disclosed from CRU provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate data. The media coverage after the emails were released was based on email statements quoted out of context and on unsubstantiated theories of conspiracy. The CRU emails do not show either that the science is flawed or that the scientific process has been compromised. EPA carefully reviewed the CRU emails and found no indication of improper data manipulation or misrepresentation of results.”[113]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

The same whitewash as in England by vested interests sitting in judgement.
The very many companies affected by these EPA decisions really have to get a grip here. Talk about unfair competition… 🙂

drat those curly bulbs…
interactive deposition map:
http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/maps/Default.aspx

EE Smith,
When Lisa Jackson talks about promoting a green economy-be aware it has very little to do with green energy. Here’s Jackson from her 1/25/10 speech
“When businesses won’t invest, economic possibilities are limited………
Many environmental justice issues arise from these externalities. They often form at the intersection of our economic and environmental challenges. Fortunately there is a solution that addresses all of that: a growing green economy. Of all the potential paths forward for our economy, the green economy is the only one that presents numerous and significant opportunities for positive externalities.”
It is important to note that the environmental justice (EJ) movement was born at Chicago’s United Church of Christ–one of the first EJ court cases was Altgeld Gardens and guess who the community organizer was? And we all remember the pastor. The first EJ legislation was entered into Congress by Al Gore at about the same time as he was ramping up Global Warming and it was Carol Browner (the former energy czar) that made it one of EPAs organizing principles.
Green economics marries sustainability and environmental justice and is basically the replacement for what they see as the failed capitalist economy. Wikipedia has a great definition of green economics “Marxist economics with nature represented as a form of lumpen proletariat, an exploited base of non-human workers providing surplus value to the human economy”. Well isn’t that dandy?
John Holdren our Science czar had perhaps the most honest definition of sustainability:
“You cannot talk about sustainability without talking about people, about politics, about power and control.” Kind of makes you feel warm all over doesn’t it?
I’ve been in this field for a long time and it has always amazed me that no-one really listens to what these people have been saying. I’ve actually shown people their writings and been told well they don’t really mean it. Well- yes they do. This ideology has been around for decades only the power has grown to the point where its becoming obvious even to the self blinded. Here’s James Speth a leader of the Green cause and founder of NRDC, CEQ under Jimmy Carter, Dean of Yale’s school of the environment, founder of the World Resources Institute and Carol Browner’s mentor- remember her?-:
“The system of modern capitalism as it operates today will continue to grow in size and complexity and will generate ever-larger environmental consequences, outstripping efforts to cope with them…….The environmental agenda should expand to embrace a profound challenge to consumerism and commercialism and the lifestyles they offer, a healthy skepticism of growth mania and a redefinition of what society should be striving to grow, a challenge to corporate dominance and a redefinition of the corporation and its goals, a commitment to deep change in both the functioning and the reach of the market….”
EPA is not trying to fix the environment- they are trying to fix us in keeping with the philosophy of Commoner and Marcuse that gave rise to their being on the first Earth Day. A philosophy that says do not fix the environment because the rapacious economic system promoted by cheap energy will simply undo any efforts. We must instead Protect the environment from further harm while correcting the economic forces that cause pollution and injustice.
The Protect part of this strategy was clear from the beginning-its in EPAs name. The other part about stopping cheap energy and transforming the American economic system is only now becoming clear to some- but it was there from the very beginning- it just needed time to grow.