I’m posting this list of meetings at major cities around the USA in case anyone wishes to go and make your case. Based on my previous experiences, in my opinion, the EPA only does this for show, and they aren’t really interested in listening to the public’s ideas and concerns, but they have to keep up appearances.
OTOH, climate issues have turned sour in the last couple of years, so it is possible they might detect the change, especially if enough people voice negative opinions. It might make some difference to this draconian organization, though when they can’t even get the terminology right, and use “carbon pollution” instead of carbon dioxide, I have my doubts. It might be more satisfying and effective to show up with some rotten fruit and vegetables and pelt them from the audience like in the old days when people didn’t like the show.
There is a place to email comments if you can’t or don’t wish to show up in person.
EPA to Hold Public Listening Sessions on Reducing Carbon Pollution from Existing Power Plants
Release Date: 10/18/2013
Contact Information: press@epa.gov
WASHINGTON – Following through on President Obama’s Climate Action Plan, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will hold 11 public listening sessions across the country to solicit ideas and input from the public and stakeholders about the best Clean Air Act approaches to reducing carbon pollution from existing power plants. Power plants are the nation’s largest stationary source of carbon pollution, responsible for about one third of all greenhouse gas pollution in the United States.
The President’s Climate Action Plan takes steady and responsible steps to cut the harmful carbon pollution that fuels a changing climate while continuing to provide affordable, reliable energy. The feedback from these 11 public listening sessions will play an important role in helping EPA develop smart, cost-effective guidelines that reflect the latest and best information available. The agency will seek additional public input during the notice and comment period once it issues a proposal, by June 2014.
The Clean Air Act gives both EPA and states a role in reducing air pollution from power plants that are already in operation. The law directs EPA to establish guidelines, which states use to design their own programs to reduce emissions. Before proposing guidelines, EPA must consider how power plants with a variety of different configurations would be able to reduce carbon pollution in a cost-effective way.
For more information on these sessions and to register online, go to: http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/public-listening-sessions. For those who cannot attend these sessions, input can be e-mailed to carbonpollutioninput@epa.gov by November 8, 2013.
More information about EPA’s carbon pollution standards for the power sector: http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards
Public Sessions on Reducing Carbon Pollution from Existing Power Plants (all times are local):
DATE: Wednesday, October 23, 2013
TIME: 9:00 am – 12 Noon; and 2:00 pm – 5:00 pm EDT
EPA REGION & LOCATION:
US EPA Region 2
290 Broadway, Room 27A
New York
DATE: October 23, 2013
TIMES: 2:00 – 5:00 pm; and 6:00 – 9:00 pm EDT
EPA REGION & LOCATION:
US EPA Region 4
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
Bridge Conference Rooms
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta
DATE: Wednesday, October 30, 2013\
TIME: 9:00 am – 5:00 pm MDT (last 2 hours for call ins)
EPA REGION & LOCATION:
US EPA Region 8
1595 Wynkoop Street
Denver
DATE: Monday, November 4, 2013
TIME: 4:00 – 8:00 pm CDT
EPA REGION & LOCATION:
US EPA Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd.
Lenexa
DATE: Monday, November 4, 2013
TIME: 10:00 am – 3:00 pm EDT
EPA REGION & LOCATION:
US EPA New England
Memorial Hall
5 Post Office Square
Boston
DATE: Tuesday, November 5, 2013
TIME: 9:00 am – 4:00 pm PDT
EPA REGION & LOCATION:
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne St.
San Francisco
DATE: Thursday, November 7, 2013
TIME: 9:00 am – 8:00 pm EDT
LOCATION:
US EPA Headquarters
William Jefferson Clinton East
1201 Constitution Ave.
Washington, DC
DATE: Thursday, November 7, 2013
TIME: 10:00 am – 3:00 pm CDT
EPA REGION & LOCATION:
US EPA Region 6
Auditorium- 1st floor
J. Erik Jonsson Central Library
1515 Young St.
Dallas
DATE: Thursday, November 7, 2013
TIME: 3:00 – 6:00 pm PDT
EPA REGION & LOCATION:
US EPA Region 10
Jackson Federal Bldg.
915 Second Ave.
Seattle
DATE: Friday, November 8, 2013
TIME: 10:00 am – 4:00 pm EDT
EPA REGION & LOCATION:
US EPA Region 3
William J. Green, Jr. Federal Building
600 Arch Street
Philadelphia
DATE: November 8, 2013
TIME: 9:00 am – 4:00 pm CDT
EPA REGION & LOCATION:
US EPA Region 5
Metcalfe Federal Building
Lake Michigan Room
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It seems all of the places they are going are either far left or left of center. That really stacks the deck.
With statements like:” Power plants are the nation’s largest stationary source of carbon pollution, responsible for about one third of all greenhouse gas pollution in the United States.” Where can one wedge in science? They are so far out in left field, they describe an alternate universe.
From the EPA announcement:
The number of words:lies ratio in those two sentences must make even Goebbels feel inadequate. It certainly made me sick that a government agency could issue such clap-trap in the name of its citizens.
notice how they equate ‘carbon pollution’ and CO2 release as being the same thing in all of their press releases. its like they are trying to paint the image in the populations mind that CO2 and carbon (particulates/soot) are the same thing
““…about the best Clean Air Act approaches to reducing carbon pollution… “
Carbon pollution or CO2 pollution?
I agree – a pertinent question would be whether there is any “CO2 pollution” and whether any regulations are needed regarding it.
CO2 emissions are not “polluting” our atmosphere. Adding “plant food” to the atmosphere is not a bad thing.
“… there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
Hmm…sounds familiar.
All those needless environmental regulations curbing the raw power of capitalism. But does it warrant your incitement to civil disobedience?
Anthony, I hate to be defeatist but haven’t we just lost this one? AR5 comes out and, as described in your column by Idso et al Oct 2013, it rows back on most of its earlier alarmist statements. It steps back 34 years to give the same (lower) range of possible climate sensitivities as in 1979, this time with no agreed best guess as they cannot agree. Matt Ridley makes the point in The Times that, even if this is all true, we will still be nett better off from CO2 until at least 2080, perhaps for ever. But it makes no difference. In the UK, we have just signed up to a new nuclear plant with a commitment to pay twice the wholesale price for the resultant output for 35 years and all the mionister can say is we have to do this thing because of climate change and, by the way, it is much cheaper than offshore wind. The juggernaut is just rolling along and the fact that fewer and fewer people actually believe it any more or that the science is looking more and more flakey cannot seem to stop it. Is it just a lost argument and we ought to go and do something else?
Those who have a grip on reality must email the EPA.
Carbon pollution? That such idiocy should be propagated beggars belief.
Money & continued progressivism speaks much louder than mere emails. Cutting off funding for the EPA is the only way to make them listen.
Further to my earlier comment, and in deference to ‘Mann’s a crock’ item from Bishop Hill and here, I have decided that I shall have to invent a new award for statements like the one from EPA. It shall be called the ‘Crock-o’-Doodle-Poo’, rating in the manner of Trip Advisor.
As such, with two sentences and at least three lies, that alone rates FIVE Crocks.
This is just like in the UK. The Government undertakes public consultations and then ignores all comments that disagree with their intended policies.
We have met the enemy and he is… our own government.
(with apologies to Pogo)
They take their marching orders directly from the Democratic National Committee, who apparently successfully do fund-raising from this technique. Follow the money, as always. Why do Democrats do what they do? Who knows?
“Lenexa”? What state is that in? (With small towns, it’s standard to give the state as well.)
rogerknights says:
October 22, 2013 at 7:48 am
“Lenexa”? What state is that in?
Since it is high on the EPA’s list of places where the EPA will listen,
probably the State of Confusion.
🙂
It’s OK throwing verbal rotting fruit and veg at a Micky Mann effigy in the stocks here in the Village where normal Physical Laws and common civility don’t apply. It’s done routinely. But throwing real stuff at real people in the real world….?
Dear EPA,
Carbon is no more CO2 than are Chlorine and Sodium necessarily salt.
Carbon Pollution…Wonderful
rogerknights says:
October 22, 2013 at 7:48 am
Kansas. It is the location of the EPA Regional headquarters.
Are you sure it is the EPA? It could be a Boggart.
A Boggart takes on the appearance of the thing it believes will frighten you most. The only thing that defeats a Boggart is laughter. Make it appear ridiculous and it goes away.
(Apologies to J K Rowling)
These meetings look like examples of the Delphi Technique which is a method to give the appearance of public consensus on a predetermined outcome. The outcome of the meeting has been pre-determined, the goals pre-chosen, and the public’s choices carefully chosen and worded to give the impression of input, but are actually consenting to the pre-determined outcome. Many in the audience are not aware that their input is being directed to the pre-determined outcome.
If I was near one of those cities, I would attend just to observe their tactics and maybe voice my opinion to see what happens. But public speaking, even in small groups is one of my biggest fears so I probably won’t do it. But, I would encourage attendance and encourage recording the proceedings.
Take heart from of all places Australia where the public voted en mass to reject a so-called Carbon (Dioxide) tax. The world has woken up to this malarkey.
Every city the EPA is going to is heavily into the template or reorganizing economic development around Green Energy using largely federal funds (our debt). No mayor is going to give up that power.
Yesterday I wrote about how all this tracks to the OECD and UN agencies and is the excuse for the Great Transition vision of a new kind of economics. Again bureaucrats and connected individuals are simply not going to give up all this power whatever the temps.
MIT Press put out a book in 2012 called Ethical Adaptation to Climate Change that goes a long way towards admitting the transformational plans really involved and the need for covering myths to frame popular perceptions. Here’s that explanation http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/adjusting-our-conception-of-who-we-are-to-fit-the-new-global-context-of-being-systems-to-be-managed/
If a Douglas Fir attended one of those meetings, and asked politely why they are calling a darn good meal, “carbon pollution,” might make an interesting point.
Larry Bell has an interview with PSU academics discussing the costs of fear based non-science supported decision making similar to what the EPA is diong today:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/10/22/the-un-ipccs-climate-modeling-procedures-need-serious-remodeling/3/