Today the EPA rejected petitions from citizens, groups, and states to reverse its 2009 decision to regulate CO2 as a pollutant.
The states of Virginia and Texas, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, coal giant Peabody Energy Corp. and others sought to reverse the finding.
But the EPA, in rejecting the petitions, specifically cast aside claims that the Climategate e-mails that surfaced late last year have undercut evidence of a warming planet.
Administrator Lisa Jackson said the e-mails and other evidence the petitioners submitted wasn’t convincing. Jackson also made her own attacks on climate skeptics.
“These petitions — based as they are on selectively edited, out-of-context data and a manufactured controversy — provide no evidence to undermine our determination. Excess greenhouse gases are a threat to our health and welfare,” she said in a prepared statement. Jackson claimed that the scientists had been cleared of wrongdoing by multiple whitewashes investigations.
“Defenders of the status quo will try to slow our efforts to get America running on clean energy. A better solution would be to join the vast majority of the American people who want to see more green jobs, more clean energy innovation and an end to the oil addiction that pollutes our planet and jeopardizes our national security,” she added.
Petitioners also included, in addition to the CRUtape Letters, evidence of errors in the IPCC report that the EPA based its original ruling to regulate on. The EPA apparently demonstrating its illiteracy, ignored the dozens of errors and hundreds of non-peer-reviewed references to partisan environmental group propaganda as if they were scientific evidence.
“Of the alleged errors, EPA confirmed only two in a 3,000 page report. The first pertains to the rate of Himalayan glacier melt and second to the percentage of the Netherlands below sea level. IPCC issued correction statements for both of these errors. The errors have no bearing on Administrator Jackson’s decision. None of the errors undermines the basic facts that the climate is changing in ways that threaten our health and welfare,” EPA said in summarizing its rejection of the petitions.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the Senate’s leading climate skeptic, criticized the EPA’s decision. He said the agency failed to allow an “open, transparent” process to look at the implications of the hacked e-mails and “hear scientists of all persuasions.”
“Open and fulsome debate only strengthens the foundations of scientific knowledge. But EPA chose instead to dismiss legitimate concerns about data quality, transparency, and billions of dollars of taxpayer-funded science as products of ‘conspiracies,’” Inhofe said in a statement Thursday.
Jennifer Morgan of the World Resources Institute, one of the special interest advocacy groups cited in the IPCC report, said, “The endangerment finding is a science-based determination, based on a thorough review of current peer-reviewed scientific literature. Ensuring the EPA can act to reduce these harmful emissions is not only responsible, it is necessary. Delaying action on climate change threatens our country’s health and prosperity.”
“”Defenders of the status quo will try to slow our efforts to get America running on clean energy. A better solution would be to join the vast majority of the American people””
At least she didn’t call them racists.
No room for argument, anyone that thinks any of it doesn’t make sense, is just defending the status quo.
The vast majority of Americans are not for it…………
“Today the EPA rejected petitions from citizens, groups, and states to reverse its 2009 decision to regulate CO2 as a pollutant.”
Are we to be shocked? A government agency to willingly giving up the chance to regulate something?
It never happens and this case is no different.
And this is a surprise because … ?
Now you’ll shut down your power plants?
There is NOTHING “open and transparent” about the Obama administration. NOTHING. Lisa is no exception. Push the Progressive (communist ) agenda. Control everyone and everything. Shut down all dissent. Example: SEC is no longer required to honor FOIA requests. Example: Obama’s “advisors” ( Weather Underground, convicted felons, bombers, self declared radical communists, etc. ) . Example: Arizona . Example: Sanctuary Cities. Example: Interfering in timely distribution of absentee ballots for deployed Military . And on and on.
The EPA is only one of many tools being used to implement total tyranny in the USA.
A sad day for science and the American people. Administrator Lisa Jackson demonstrated profound ignorance are a talent for double-speak (0r both) when she said:
“Defenders of the status quo will try to slow our efforts to get America running on clean energy. A better solution would be to join the vast majority of the American people who want to see more green jobs, more clean energy innovation and an end to the oil addiction that pollutes our planet and jeopardizes our national security,” she added.
Those of us who know that CO2 is a wonderful plant food that has little impact on global climate are not defending the status quo. We are defending ourselves from draconian, nanny-state, policies that will further hamstring or economy and weaken us in nearly every sense of the word.
So called ‘clean energy’ is not clean, but it is much more expensive. The military, like everyone else, will operate less efficiently if it is required to utilize more expensive and less efficient forms of energy. While one has to struggle to explain how CO2 is a threat to national security, conjuring unsupportable scenarios of future calamity, it is not difficult at all to show that the EPA’s ruling is the real threat to national security. Our military and our country run on oil because that is the best and most efficient way to do it. Preventing the most efficient use of resources is the fastest and easiest way to weaken a country.
Finally, I will put an end to my ‘oil addiction’ when the folks at the EPA put an end to their ‘food addiction’. Does that language really work? I certainly hope not!
EPA’s Jackson is confusing climate change with the desire to create “green” jobs. “If you’re not convinced man-made CO2 is affecting the climate, it means you are against green jobs, which are good at any cost”
Also, I see not a single hint that the ruling’s biggest effect will be to increase costs of making electricity by burning US coal. “We’re going to tax coal to reduce dependence on foreign oil.”
More unscientific effluvium from hopelessly corrupt government officials who seem deadset on destroying what’s left of our economy in their idiotic and misguided quest to “save mankind” from the horrors of a lifegiving plant nutrient.
“Excess greenhouse gases are a threat to our health and welfare,” she said
So what is EPA’s plan to reduce excess water vapor,which is by far the greatest greenhouse gas?
An illuminating perspective on Lisa Jackson and her ilk by Prof.em. A.M. Codevilla in The American Spectator:
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the/print
Quote: “The bureaucrats do not enforce the rules themselves so much as whatever ‘agency policy’ they choose to draw from them in any given case. If you protest any ‘agency policy’ you will be informed that it was formulated with input from ‘the public’. But not from the likes of you.”
Isn’t that just swell?
As the EPA approved millions of gallons of dispersants with little though to consequences, likewise the voters by the millions will seek out new faces to get this politically correct monster off our backs.
We don’t need no stinking evidence, we can fund our own grants to prove our own crap science. So the fact that it’s all a lie doesn’t bother them?
After all, Obowma promised the world he would be giving out American’s money to every pit on the planet, and you know he has to keep at least one promise. It’s all about wealth transfer, needs no truth or reason. Just give them your money.
Politically this looks like socialist turkeys voting for Christmas.
Oh dear! I really can’t see this ending well for the EPA after November.
I am from the UK but, unlike the MSM over here, I don’t think Americans are even slightly stupid.
Currently I am stocking up on popcorn 🙂
The Dutch Environmental Assessment Agency found 8 more errors in the 8 (out of 44 total) chapters they examined:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2010/07/bias_and_ipcc_report
Listed in the blue frame quarter way down the page.
So, along with sinking a good chunk of the Netherlands there’s at least 10 errors in AR4.
Re:
FergalR says:
July 29, 2010 at 4:39 pm
———————————-
I’ve just noticed that 3 of the mistakes are from the Summary for Policymakers, so the numbers of chapters I list is wrong.
For the common people like me, some facts about CO2:
CO2 follows temperature, not the other way. Open a coke and you´ll see it: The more you have it in your warm hand the more gas will go out when you open it.
CO2 is the transparent gas we all exhale (SOOT is black=Carbon dust) and plants breath with delight, to give us back what they exhale instead= Oxygen we breath in.
CO2 is a TRACE GAS in the atmosphere, it is the 0.038% of it.
There is no such a thing as “greenhouse effect”, “greenhouse gases are gases IN a greenhouse”, where heated gases are trapped and relatively isolated not to lose its heat so rapidly. If greenhouse effect were to be true, as Svante Arrhenius figured it out: CO2 “like the window panes in a greenhouse”, but…the trouble is that those panes would be only 3.8 panes out of 10000, there would be 9996.2 HOLES.
See:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28018819/Greenhouse-Niels-Bohr
CO2 is a gas essential to life. All carbohydrates are made of it. The sugar you eat, the bread you have eaten in your breakfast this morning, even the jeans you wear (these are made from 100% cotton, a polymer of glucose, made of CO2…you didn´t know it, did you?)
You and I, we are made of CARBON and WATER.
CO2 is heavier than Air, so it can not go up, up and away to cover the earth.
The atmosphere, the air can not hold heat, its volumetric heat capacity, per cubic cemtimeter is 0.00192 joules, while water is 4.186, i.e., 3227 times.
This is the reason why people used hot water bottles to warm their feet and not hot air bottles.
Global Warmers models (a la Hansen) expected a kind of heated CO2 piggy bank to form in the tropical atmosphere, it never happened simply because it can not.
If global warmers were to succeed in achieving their SUPPOSED goal of lowering CO2 level to nothing, life would disappear from the face of the earth.
So, if no CO2 NO YOU!
From the article, the EPA says, “The endangerment finding is a science-based determination, based on a thorough review of current peer-reviewed scientific literature.”
It may be of interest at some point to produce a peer review tree within climate science. It seems that much of what passes as “peer review” is siphoned through a few select individuals and entities. It would seem that the climate tree is lacking in diversity. Prove the lack of diversity, and you prove the lack of “robustness” in the science.
Lisa is quoted as follows:
‘“These petitions — based as they are on selectively edited, out-of-context data and a manufactured controversy — provide no evidence to undermine our determination. Excess greenhouse gases are a threat to our health and welfare,” she said in a prepared statement. Jackson claimed that the scientists had been cleared of wrongdoing by multiple whitewashes investigations.’
Same old, same old. Claim the science is settled, damn the evidence to the contrary, and then change the subject from science to her preferred policy positions. This is called practicing science without understanding. We really need to create a new law which makes it illegal to practice science without an hypothesis. The law should have the same character as the law that makes it illegal to practice medicine without a license. She is keeping the Chicago Carbon Exchange alive, but barely.
Elections have consequences!
Lisa Jackson should stop breathing to limit her carbon footprint.
Just remember this in November at the ballot box.
Here in Lies the Body of the
United States of America
a World Leader
Brought Down by His Own Hand
Sadly Missed by Many
RIP
7-29-2010
I doubt Lisa Jackson has even read the Summary for Policy Makers of the last IPCC report. If she, or anyone else, actually read the entire report it would be evident that the alarmist community has proven nothing. There exists absolutely no empirical evidence to support the hypothesis that man-made CO2 is changing the climate of the planet. Also, since when is American policy directed by U.N. propaganda?
Computer models are not evidence. I think most of us can agree that the greenhouse effect is real and that theoretically a doubling in atmospheric CO2 concentrations might result in a net global warming of about 1 degree C in about 90 years (when most of us are dead). There is no evidence that anthropogenic CO2 has caused or is causing any measurable warming to date. Nothing but delusional belief suggests anything even close to catastrophic climate change.
This ruling was not based on science, it was based on political ideology. The EPA is not a scientific agency. It should be defunded and eliminated. I would love to see the EPA’s “top scientists” on AGW debate Dick Lindzen, Pat Michaels, Roy Spencer, John Christy and Craig Idso. In the end Lisa Jackson is just a foot soldier in the Obama regime. Obama’s political pals have way too much at stake with cap & trade and their investments in CCX to back down. All we can do is put up a good fight and vote the bums out at our earliest opportunity.
I did not think Obama could kill the USA so fast. I was wrong. The country will essentially be dead by 2011 after the lame duck session finishes passing the rest of the laws designed to strangle the country in red tape. I am sure David Rockefeller, Maurice Strong, Al Gore, the Clintons and Obama are planning a big bash to celebrate the death of this once great country.
Theo Goodwin says:
July 29, 2010 at 4:51 pm
[…] “She is keeping the Chicago Carbon Exchange alive, but barely.”
BINGO!
What a BIG surprise this is!
I wonder if Ms. Jackson has house plants and if she talks to them to encourage growth? Naaah, probably not but if so, I wonder if she realizes that with each expiration she gives the plants a little extra shot of fertilizer [CO2]?
Sad to say but I think nothing will save us from the EPA except its abolishment.
Mike Ford says:
July 29, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Elections have consequences!
Indeed they do. Remind your campagning choices that the EPA needs some serious reigning-in.
Chris in OZ,
It happened before that: click
“My plan would mean that electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket”. Welcome to the FTA (Fundamentally Transformed America).
Has EPA become a fascio-communistic organization?
Evidence is piling up.
Time to pull the plug.
What the hell do green jobs and oil consumption have to do with regulating CO2!?
I am absolutely on board with creating the high tech jobs of the future and reducing our dependency on foreign oil. I also know that anthropogenic CO2 doesn’t measurably warm the planet.
What is with these people? It’s all or nothing for them.
I wonder if she has a little red book under her pillow?
In Government Comments on the Final Draft of the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM), for Working Group 1 of Assessment Report #4 of the IPCC, the Government of Germany (Reviewer’s comment ID# 2011-35) stated the following (I believe) in reference to a statement in the SPM about proxy reconstructions of past climate (aka the Hockey Stick and its siblings):
In other words, the EPA is basing its finding of endangerment on a report with a 10% chance of being wrong (which is implicit when using a 90% significance level). The significance level is cleverly worded to be 5% to 95%, which, unless you read it carefully, can be mistaken for a significance level of 95% or 2 sigmas (standard deviations). The 5% below 5% and the 5% above 95% add up to the 10% type 1 error or chance that the science is wrong even if statistical tests are significant.
Furthermore, the other thing that the EPA has done recently is to use its regulatory authority to eliminate for all practical purposes the single largest opportunity for both significant CO2 reductions and reducing our dependence on foreign oil by converting to clean diesel.
At the heart of modern diesel emission reductions is the injection of urea in the exhaust stream, otherwise known as “Adblue” or “Diesel Exhaust Fluid” (DEF). The diesel engines that use urea to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions are often called “Bluetec” diesels. The EPA has made such clean diesels in smaller vehicles very difficult to implement technically by requiring that the tank for DEF be sized so that there is enough DEF to last 10,000 miles. The implication is that consumers either are unable or would be unwilling to keep a smaller tank filled. Such a large tank means that only the largest vehicles would have room for it. Even SUVs do not have enough room and typically have to sacrifice the spare tire location for the DEF tank. The result is that the consumer is given a disincentive to buy a clean diesel vehicle because it will not have a spare tire. Smaller vehicles, such as the Smart, will probably never be allowed into the US with a diesel engine because it would be very difficult to find room for such a large tank of DEF. A diesel Smart can have a fuel mileage of around 70 miles per gallon and are available in Canada and Europe.
Converting half of our passenger fleet to diesel could save about 17.8 billion gallons of oil per year. I have not heard of any other proposal that can save that much imported fuel, save that much in CO2 emissions and where all of the technology is proven, available and affordable. By contrast, the Chevy Volt is going to cost around $40,000 and Cap and Trade and similar schemes are designed to drastically increase energy costs, whereas conversion to clean diesel has the potential of actually decreasing energy costs by very significantly reducing the demand of the world’s largest energy consumer: the US.
*shrug* What can you say? The declaration of Independence warned the government would turn this way eventually. It also says its our duty to remove said government. So lets hope we do our job in NOV.
“The endangerment finding is a science-based determination, based on a thorough review of current peer-reviewed scientific literature.”
Excuse me?
Background
On April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the Supreme Court found that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. The Court held that the Administrator must determine whether or not emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision. In making these decisions, the Administrator is required to follow the language of section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court decision resulted from a petition for rulemaking under section 202(a) filed by more than a dozen environmental, renewable energy, and other organizations.
July is Custer’s last stand. La Nina will knock them off their horse.
Exhaling is breathcrime.
Huuummmmmm… and what will happen next I wonder? We seem to be living in a Clockwork Orange World… tick…tick…tick…
none of this matters the climate will decide so don’t worry LOL
pretty easy to sound like a kook, but for the love of god, the USA has some damned stupid mainstream thought running through it.
andrew revkin linked to this from his dotearth blog – another attempt to woo Conservatives:
27 July: Belfer Center for Science & International Affairs: Robert Stavins: Beware of Scorched-Earth Strategies in Climate Debates
In an op-ed which appeared on July 27th in The Boston Globe (click here for link to the original op-ed), Richard Schmalensee and I commented on this unfortunate outcome of U.S. political debates and described the irony that the attack on cap-and-trade – and carbon-pricing, more broadly – has been led by conservatives, who should take pride as the creators of these cost-effective policy innovations in three Republican administrations…
The Power of Cap-and-Trade
by Richard Schmalensee and Robert Stavins
The Boston Globe, July 27, 2010
In fact, market-based policies should be embraced, not condemned by Republicans (as well as Democrats). After all, these policies were innovations developed by conservatives in the Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush administrations (and once strongly condemned by liberals)…
If some conservatives oppose energy or climate policies because of disagreement about the threat of climate change or the costs of those policies, so be it. But in the process of debating risks and costs, there should be no tarnishing of market-based policy instruments. Such a scorched-earth approach will come back to haunt when future environmental policies will not be able to use the power of the marketplace to reduce business costs…
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/analysis/stavins/?p=762
keep your sense of humour, though:
26 July: Aspen Times: Scott Condon: Aspen Institute faces carbon conundrum
The Institute is trying to offset travel-related carbon emissions associated with the Aspen Environment Forum, a conference that started Sunday to examine issues such as climate change. It will purchase carbon offsets on the free market to try to counterbalance the travel effects of the 300-plus attendees and scores of presenters.
David Monsma, executive director of the institute’s energy and environment program, said the staff supplies attendance numbers and an estimate of where attendees are traveling from to a firm called Native Energy. The company calculates the carbon resulting from the travel, charges The Aspen Institute a fee per ton, and invests those funds in renewable energy projects…
The Aspen Institute isn’t working with Native Energy to offset carbon emissions of its other public forums this summer, the Aspen Security Forum and the Aspen Ideas Festival, institute officials said. However, guests who stay at the Aspen Meadows, the accommodations associated with the Institute, are offered the chance to buy carbon offsets to cancel the emissions generated by their travel and stay…
Aspen’s curse, in terms of its contribution to climate change, is that it hosts more private air travel than many other destinations. The institute’s events are a significant contributor to private aviation. The tarmac was lined with immense private jets over the Fourth of July weekend, some no doubt belonging to people attending or presenting information at the Ideas Fest…
Numerous government officials from Washington, D.C., have presented information at the institute’s forums, from Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Director Lisa Jackson. It’s a safe bet they aren’t flying commercial…
Environmentalist Bill McKibben, founder of an organization dedicated to battling climate change, was a speaker at the Ideas Fest. He noted he has a huge carbon footprint because of the traveling he does to promote the cause.
“I offset my plane trips, of course, but I don’t labor under the delusion that that negates the carbon I pour into the atmosphere,” McKibben wrote in an e-mail exchange with The Aspen Times.
“I hope the general task is worth the damage I cause, and I try to choose venues that seem worth it,” he added. “I came to Aspen because I could combine a trip to the Ideas Fest with talks for CORE [the Community Office for Resource Efficiency] and ACES [Aspen Center for Environmental Studies] in the local community.”…
Bottled water policy changes
The use of Fiji bottled water fell from about 500 cases to 50 cases over two Ideas Festivals, Hawk said. The water bottles used to be available to all attendees. This year, it was only made available to speakers…
The issue is delicate because Fiji Water is owned by Stewart and Lynda Resnick, major contributors to The Aspen Institute. Small plastic bottles of their POM Wonderful pomegranate juice and other beverages remained available to the Ideas crowd this year.
http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20100726/NEWS/100729874/1077&ParentProfile=1058
“Administrator Lisa Jackson said the e-mails and other evidence the petitioners submitted wasn’t convincing.”
That’s an argument without an argument.
Where is the evidence that the scientists involved with climategate indeed were unsuccessful manipulating the peer review process?
Obama’s Lisa Jackson has but one agenda kill prosperity in America. There is no science to back up anything she says, except for her power to exert control. I have noticed that NOAA is part of the game, announcing Hottest world ever. Old people like myself will be shown to the showers soon.
Alan Simpson: re: “I am from the UK but, unlike the MSM over here, I don’t think Americans are even slightly stupid.” You are giving my countrymen far too much credit. Believe me, they are beyond stupid. When they are huddling in caves, starving to death, they will still believe our masters in D.C. will be sending food and fuel “real soon now”.
Pollutant C02 is an oxymoron.
Can’t blame Lisa Jackson – she is being paid a hella’va lot of money to support the Obama administration agenda. Imagine waking up each morning and pondering about how many half truths and outright lies you will tell during the course of the working day. Maybe she runs a sweepstake with herself. Hmmm….. $20 bucks says I’ll tell 3 whoppers today and just 1 half truth.
They had made their decision before they accepted complaints. It is court time. Lawsuits.
Lisa Jackson in her rant has not demonstrated the slightest “thread of endangerment”.
@ Christopher says:
July 29, 2010 at 5:30 pm
*shrug* What can you say? The declaration of Independence warned the government would turn this way eventually. It also says its our duty to remove said government. So lets hope we do our job in NOV.
It also does not limit our methods to the Ballot Box. In any case it’s not “the government” that is the problem. It’s certain personalities currently occupying various offices in that government that are the problem. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bastards.
pat says:
July 29, 2010 at 5:55 pm
“keep your sense of humour, though:
[…]
“I offset my plane trips, of course, but I don’t labor under the delusion that that negates the carbon I pour into the atmosphere,” McKibben wrote in an e-mail exchange with The Aspen Times.”[…]”
He obviously hasn’t understood the carbon offseting business completely yet. Negating the carbon is the whole point of it, man!
BTW, how many credits do i need if i move real slowly the entire year?
Obama is just finishing off what Clinton started when he dealt the death blow to the Glass Steagall Act in 1999 thus letting the Casino Bankers ruin the US economy – you know – culminating in the sub prime crisis. The US economy is finding it hard enough to recover from that – Barak Obama will lay the economy to rest by closing it down while China and India take over the consumption of energy to be the producers of the world’s goods. The have no trouble in using coal and oil while the good ol’ US of A chases windmills.
Good luck to yo’ all, I’m off the China where they exercise a little pragmatic common sense.
Doug
Poor Obama the First, only dictatorship will pass his green bill… the green shirts are coming!
Oh BTW, what’s this guy going to do now?
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/showbiz/article-23390848-with-five-private-jets-travolta-still-lectures-on-global-warming.do
I am often asked why I immigrated to Canada. This EPA foolishness just reinforces the wisdom of that decision.
Well, Duh.
This is no surprise. When do we get to court?!?!?!? Their position on the “science” is indefensible.
@Enneagram, re:
“CO2 is heavier than Air, so it can not go up, up and away to cover the earth.”
Yes, CO2 is a bit heavier than air (44 vs 29 molecular weight), but it is well-mixed in the atmosphere. It does certainly cover the Earth. The fact that plants grow at high altitudes in mountain ranges demonstrates this.
@Phil, re:
“Converting half of our passenger fleet to diesel could save about 17.8 billion gallons of oil per year. “
Actually, it would not. Diesel engines provide approximately 33 percent better mileage per gallon compared to gasoline engines. It is almost certain that the diesel vehicles will not achieve 70 miles per gallon, as that is achieved only with very small and light vehicles at highway speeds, not for big SUVs. Under the gasoline CAFE standards, light vehicles will achieve 35 miles per gallon with gasoline engines. The break-even point for total crude oil refined is approximately 52 miles per gallon for diesel fuel compared to 35 miles per gallon for gasoline. Yet, 52 divided by 35 is 1.486, or approximately 48 percent better fuel economy. A much more realistic number is 47 miles per gallon for diesel vehicles, which is 33 percent better than for gasoline engines. With that result (47 mpg for diesels), using diesel for half the passenger fleet would INCREASE crude oil refined in the USA by approximately 16 million gallons per year.
With the present US refinery configurations, one gallon of diesel fuel requires approximately 3 gallons of crude oil be refined, whereas one gallon of gasoline requires only 2 gallons of crude. Different refineries have slightly different yields, but those figures are a good average. It is possible to change the yields to provide more diesel and less gasoline per barrel of crude refined, but to do so requires extremely expensive capital investment in the refineries. Since refineries typically run on very small profit margins or at a net loss, that is not likely to happen.
Hail to Lisa Jackson for making a giant step towards opacity in government and authoritarian rule!
Yeah, we all know the “science” is garbage, but assuming Ms. Jackson has her way, I think the only remedy is for the people and the states to put the cabosh on this nonsense. Please read “Nullification – How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century” by Thomas Woods.
The EPA has “spoken” again.
Excuse me while I go throw up.
Chris
pat (July 29, 2010 at 5:55 pm)
Go to http://www.freecarbonoffsets.com for your carbon offsets.
From their web site, “FreeCarbonOffsets.com was created with you in mind. We take the conservation steps so you don’t have to. After obtaining your certificate of Carbon Offsets from us, you can proudly display it for all to see, to show others that you care about our environment. You can continue on in your daily life worry and guilt free. “
“It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.”
John Philpot Curran , 1790, The Right of Election
or
“Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom”
frequently ascribed to T. Jefferson
OT: There’s a warmist puff piece circulating now from Jeremy Grantham claiming to be “everything you need to know about global warming in five minutes”. I have written a line-by-line rebuttal here: http://peacelegacy.org/articles/jeremy-grantham-see-why-global-warming-scare-threadbare-5-minutes.
You voted for these people America. Now you’re stuck with them. These people in power are just an indication of what America is as a whole, uneducated, taking huge blessings for granted, and unknowingly self destructive.
pat writes:
“In fact, market-based policies should be embraced, not condemned by Republicans (as well as Democrats). After all, these policies were innovations developed by conservatives in the Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush administrations (and once strongly condemned by liberals)…”
I make no excuses for the Bush administration. However, don’t you remember the California power grid disaster that caused the recall of the governor? The laws that permitted those shenanigans came under Clinton, not Bush who had just taken office. Enron grew from the Clinton regulatory environment. During the Bush administration, Sarbanes-Oxley was passed for the purpose of preventing future Enrons. Unfortunately, it did not cover Fannie and Freddie, which is a totally Democrat enterprise. Also, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations, an act of Congress, was seriously tightened under Bush, but did not cover Fannie, Freddie, or Barnie. Cap’n Tax is the mother of a million Enrons. God forbid that it should pass. How many Al Gores do we need preening their sanctimonious selves in public? The boys at CRU probably own Guyana by now.
(NOTE: As a former energy analyst, there is a LOT I can write about the tectonically structured “deregulation” of the California power market, which completely contradicts the popular mythology of that period as constructed by the major media… – Mike)
I am already performing the greatest act of civil disobedience of my recent lifetime, and this will continue til my final breath. I am breathing, and I am doing so with an attitude!
To symbolize this act I intend to blow up yellow balloons on every anniversary of this day and tie them to trees which will use that breath as nature designed. I suggest you all to the same.
Hear me, EPA! I WILL BREATHE!
And send a yellow balloon to the offices of the EPA. Every time you see a yellow balloon, remember this day.
Do the alarmists believe the EPA can show, beyond a reasonable doubt, in front of the SCOTUS, that man is causing global warming and that it’s catastropic?
All Administrative Agencies are required to publish rules in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act: US Code 5, Sections 551-559. This law makes it a crime to publish a regulationi which has not specifically been authorized by Congress.
No Administrative Agency has ever won a suit when brought under the APA, including cases fought before the Supremes. The last case was ruled on by the Rehnquist court. I have legal citations going back years, if anyone is interested:
It is time to go on the offensive with this offensive agency.
iluveyw@aol.com
It seems that Lisa’s news for us has made us a bit glum. Do keep in mind that Senator Rockefeller will reintroduce his legislation that requires a two-year moratorium on Lisa’s ruling. After the new Congress arrives, EPA will most likely lose the authority to regulate GHGs. The more that Lisa is in the news, the more likely that coal producing states will elect Republican senators in November. Illinois, Missouri and West Virginia are three states where EPA powers are a key issue. There are more.
Mike writes:
“(NOTE: As a former energy analyst, there is a LOT I can write about the tectonically structured “deregulation” of the California power market, which completely contradicts the popular mythology of that period as constructed by the major media… – Mike)”
Go for it!
Steve in SC, you missed the word ‘voluntary’ to make it not a threat. — John M Reynolds
Instead of decreasing manmade co2 we should be increasing it to further green the biosphere. If co2 is a toxin then so is water.
If we really want to help reduce the ‘melting’ ice caps and reduce temperatures we need to reduce our soot output.
[snip OTT, see policy page]
Witnesses for the Defense of CO2: (in no special order, and spelling approximate)
Lindzin, Pilke, Watts, McIntyre, Christie, Monckton, Spenser, Singer, et al
Hostile Witnesses: Gore, Patchy, et al
Lie Detector Tests: NOAA/NCDC: Karl, Menne, et al
NASA/GISS: Hansen et al
“Every time you see a yellow balloon, remember this day.”
Add a Monckton smilie face.
Lisa Jackson was head of the DEP in NJ and virtually ruined the economy of the state along with our two progressive governors. We were happy when she left NJ as she instituted all kinds as radical environmental rules and requirements including a requirement that business purchase carbon credits to do business. Needless to say, industry and wealth vacated the state big time leaving us with a bigger financial problem. Our new governor is working to revive the economy but it is difficult given the policies of the Obama administration.
When the progressives took over 8 years ago New Jersey was one of the richest states either 1 0r 2. With the help of Lisa Jackson we were turned into one of the states with the largest per capita debt.
She does not care how much damage she creates, as she ruins the entire federal economy.
NOVEMBER. DEFENESTRATE.
It’s times like this that ole Jim makes me proud to be in Oklahoma…
They stonewall because they don’t know what else to do, the collapse, when it comes, will be sudden and total, not unlike the Berlin Wall.
CAP AND TAX IS THE MOTHER OF 1 MILLION ENRONS.-Theo Goodwin, that comment should be posted on every Internet site on the Web, and plastered across every building and power pole on the planet. It should be the rallying cry, against carbon trading schemes, were ever and attempt is made to implement them anywhere in the world.
Unfortunately the majority of the voting population across the democratic world probably don’t know, or can’t remember what Enron was.
It’s always Marcia, Marcia says:
July 29, 2010 at 7:32 pm
“You voted for these people America. Now you’re stuck with them.”
Sorry IAMM – I didn’t vote for these clowns. But you’re right – we’re stuck with them for another 2+ years…
I doubt very much that many here expected otherwise. The next step will be the interesting one, where the evidence gets to heard in a court before a judge – with strict rules of evidence and equally strict rules on producing that evidence on demand. No “dog ate my data” excuses can be used.
EPA’s response is policy (read politically) based not science based.
Look forward to this—
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/07/good-gaia-day
It’s probably already been noted, but she said,
“A better solution would be to join the vast majority of the American people who want to see more green jobs, more clean energy innovation and an end to the oil addiction that pollutes our planet and jeopardizes our national security,”
Yeh? All the polls I read say the exact opposite. She was an idiot when she was in congress, she’s an idiot now.
“an end to the oil addiction that pollutes our planet”….yep, as soon as I see a viable alternative without killing off most of the population.
Sadly, she went from an elected person in power to an appointed person in power. She’s been given the right to preside, arbitrarily, over you and me.
Thank God we still have our liberties, here. I don’t believe voting suffices, anymore. I hope I’m shown wrong in November.
Considering the EPA scuttled Alan Carlins report which effectively cut all of this off at the knees, this isn’t surprising.
Never mind the science, or lack of it, this is what I Believe.
There’s no way we can get a veto proof congress this year, so congress will have to work around that.
The House holds the purse strings, so one way would be to break the budget into multiple bills such as —
one bill to fund the military,
one bill to fund the border patrol,
NO bill to fund the Dept of Education,
NO bill to fund the EPA,
etc.
D.Pielke Sr. has published a comment in his blog today detailing how wrong EPA’s stance is
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/comment-on-the-denial-of-petitions-for-reconsideration-of-the-endangerment-and-cause-or-contribute-findings-for-greenhouse-gases-under-section-202a-of-the-clean-air-act/
Fixed.
@ Roger Sowell
“Since refineries typically run on very small profit margins or at a net loss, that is not likely to happen.”
True, but then one has to ask why. Why is the U.S. sentenced to operate refineries at small profit margins or at a loss?
Two reasons, one because the regulatory demands make it impossible to open a new one. And two, we haven’t built one since the seventies.
I believe it is possible to build one today that has more efficiencies built in than when we did in the seventies. But that’s just me. Why haven’t we? See reason one.
The logic escapes me. We say we’re running out of fuel. Yet, at the same time we don’t allow necessary upgrades and nuances to occur. Well, no sh*t. Land taxes are being raised on a small refinery near my home. So much so that we’ll eventually force them overseas. They can’t upgrade, they get the crap taxed out of them, they are one of the biggest employers of good paying jobs around here, yet, they are the evil ones. All they do is provide realistic energy to this nation to allow economic movement. Bastards!!! BTW, Coffeyville, KS is the location of the refinery that is being drummed out of the country. Feel free to contact anyone there about the property tax being imposed on one the the employers of this nation and providers of energy of this nation. I’d be grateful if you did.———-Disclaimer!!! I don’t work for anything affiliated with Coffeyville, KS, nor, to the best of my knowledge does any of my loved ones and/or family.
““Defenders of the status quo will try to slow our efforts to get America running on clean energy. A better solution would be to join the vast majority of the American people who want to see more green jobs, more clean energy innovation and an end to the oil addiction that pollutes our planet and jeopardizes our national security,” she added.”
Renewable jobs, green energy, wow sounds like chocolate land or something, sign me up!!!!
Americans would have to be a dumbed down populace, if they fall for such catch phrases ‘renewable, clean, green energy/jobs vs greesy hairy oil empire”.
Obama told Congress he would sic the EPA on us if they didn’t pass his Energy Bill (Cap recovery and Tax everything).
And he has lived up to that promise.
I wonder when the EPA will realize that water vapor, clouds, and droplets form 80-85% of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and want to regulate emissions of water into the atmosphere?
Which raises the question as to why they believe that CO2 is worse than H2O as a greenhouse effect?
“an end to the oil addiction that pollutes our planet and jeopardizes our national security,” she added.”
Any public servant uttering such stunningly ignorant tosh should be challenged through the courts, it is a partisan statement and thoroughly dangerous.
Our whole industrial society is built on the basis of cheap and reliable energy supplied by fossil fuels, in effect EVERYTHING our civilisation enjoys comes from fossil fuels and in fact fossil fuels are the very bedrock of our western democratic civilisation.
The food we eat, the transport that gets it to us, the scientists and capitalists who work to make better and safer food for us to eat, the packaging that keeps it fresh and the chillers that keep it cold, the hospitals that heal us, the jobs we do to earn money to buy a better life, the charity money we give because of it, the defence of our way of life, the water we drink and the crops we grow to feed ourselves.
Every comfort that has made our lives better and more acceptable has sprung from fossil fuels, it has been the life blood and nectar of our entire civilisation, EVERYTHING we enjoy from the least to the greatest is down to fossil fuels and those heroes who wrest it from the land and sea.
Lisa Jackson is a dangerous fool and a complete hypocrite, she would happily condemn the poorest to a lifestyle she herself would escape via a wealth created on the back of fossil fuels. Every hypocritical idiot who attacks fossil fuels while living a lifestyle founded on and served by fossil fuels should be forced to face their stunning hypocrisy.
I dont mind if Jackson and her comrades turns their backs on modern civilisation and lives in a Amish style peasants commune HOWEVER forcing all of us to endure that misery while they enjoy the fruits of their parasitical wealth accretion is beyond parody.
I have never heard of a poor person wishing they were poorer, I have never heard of a cold person attacking the use of fossil fuels to keep warm, I have never heard of a person in the dark refusing to turn a light on because its powered by fossil fuels. Lets start to confront this stunning hypocrisy wherever its found.
Dear Ms Jackson
Kindly provide scientific evidence that supports your position. I am not picky, just prove that any likely human caused increase in Carbon Dioxide is bad for life in general or for human life in particular.
I would be interested to see such data and where and how it was obtained because there is certainly no such data available on this planet. Until you can produce such data I will of course use your organization and yourself specifically as bad examples when teaching my students about scientific method. In your case it will be useful to point out the damage that dishonesty, an anti science agenda, and a failure to understand how science works can lead to amazingly stupid decisions by your organization.
Well it’s pretty loud and clear the message that the EPA is sending out :
They’ve dug their heels in and they are going all the way to the finish line with this AGW alarmist movement thing whether or not climate “science” comes into question, whether or not it’s set on solid ground methodologies, and whether or not all climate mechanisms are fully understood.
They don’t give a damn what dissent might be tossed their way… they’re following the lemmings over the cliff. End of story.
“A better solution would be to join the vast majority of the American people who want to see more green jobs, more clean energy innovation and an end to the oil addiction that pollutes our planet and jeopardizes our national security,” she added.”
Hang on – what have 3 of the 4 reasons given got to do with endangerment. I though endangerment was on the basis of CO2 causing catastrophic warming. She should be asked to specify exactly the reasons for the endangerment and stick to them and stop bringing in feel-good reasons unrelated to the endangerment.
Wild Freezes couldn’t change Jackson’s stance.
Looks like you need a new government to get rid of Lisa Jackson and EPA…. ( or maybe at least a different make-up of the senate )!
Cassandra King says:
July 29, 2010 at 10:09 pm
“an end to the oil addiction that pollutes our planet and jeopardizes our national security,” she added.”
An end that will surely devastate the country, not to mention render it defenseless. No other country would be that stupid.
@roger Sowell says:
July 29, 2010 at 6:58 pm
I mentioned the Smart when I said 70 mpg, so I don’t believe we have a disagreement. My point is that there are no vehicles of any sort available in the US today that can achieve such a fuel mileage and that, because of the new regs regarding DEF, there probably won’t be any at all for the foreseeable future, even though they are available and affordable in other markets and would most likely meet all other emissions regulations except for the DEF tank requirement.
I assumed for the purpose of my calculations a 30 percent better mileage, so I don’t think we disagree on this point.
I have been unable to replicate your calculations and I don’t know what source you are using. My source is Table 2.5 from Edition 28 of the Transportation Energy Data Book published by the Department of Energy and Oak Ridge National Laboratory. On page A-19 of Appendix A, it states that “one gallon of gasoline, diesel fuel, or lpg is estimated to be the equivalent of one gallon of crude oil,” so I stand by my calculations based on that source and its assumptions.
With the present US refinery configurations, one gallon of diesel fuel requires approximately 3 gallons of crude oil be refined, whereas one gallon of gasoline requires only 2 gallons of crude. Different refineries have slightly different yields, but those figures are a good average. It is possible to change the yields to provide more diesel and less gasoline per barrel of crude refined, but to do so requires extremely expensive capital investment in the refineries. Since refineries typically run on very small profit margins or at a net loss, that is not likely to happen.
I have not been able to verify your numbers or your statements. To the contrary, from http://www.answers.com/topic/petroleum-refining%5B7/30/2010 12:11:16 AM] I would submit the following quotes (I have changed the order for clarity in this reply):
There is a consolidation in the refinery industry due mainly to high capital costs associated with regulations. Gasoline is a particular problem as there are many different formulations of each of three different grades across the United States that are required by regulation. As far as I know, there is only one formulation and one grade of ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) thus affording the refineries some economies of scale in production, storage and distribution with ULSD that the myriad formulations of each grade of gasoline do not.
RE: @roger Sowell says:
July 29, 2010 at 6:58 pm
In my previous reply, the following paragraph was intended to be shown as a quote by Mr. Sowell.
This administration will rely on end run bureaucratic solutions over the people and around the Congress from here on out.
The decades of Congress choosing to allow unelected bureaucrats make legislative decisions is going to catch up with us.
Destroying our economy by way of CO2 regulation is not the only target of destruction of the Obama administration.
They have a bureaucratic, anti-democratic solution to immigration
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/233793/amnesty-memo-robert-verbruggen
and who knows what else?
Facts, the will of the people, law, science, and the future of America are all roadbumps to Obama.
A classic example of how government bureucrats and ‘scientists’ are a threat to your health and wealth.
We all moan about how difficult it is to get rid of unscrupulous/incompetent/corrupt politicians, but at least it can be done through the democratic proces.
The process of removal is simply not possible for government bureaucrats and scientists of the same ilk – this is what we should be afraid of. The built in system of mutual support and investigative whitewashes ensures the perpetuation of their jobs and bad science.
The position of AGW-skeptics is becoming so weak as to become laughable. They shouldn’t have denied reality. They should have solely pointed out the facts that AGW cannot be stopped in any short term in any way AND that some warming might actually be beneficial for globe, agriculture, society.
Having lost their base in reality, the path is now free for all kinds of CO2 tax terror. Thanx, Watts et al.
Unfortunately, you have dug in too deep to extricate yourselves from it.
“These petitions — based as they are on selectively edited, out-of-context data and a manufactured controversy — provide no evidence to undermine our determination.”
Amazing. I can’t understand why you folks in USA put up with this. Get rid of this monster before it gets rid of you!
It’s the lowest of the low to describe many of the carefully considered petitions a “manufactured controversy”. This is the worst kind of rhetoric. It’s also tantamount to begging the question: we deny there is any controversy (only ‘manufactured’ controversy, which doesn’t count) because we’ve made our minds up.
But leaving that aside, we have Jackson’s confession that “These petitions…provide no evidence to undermine our determination.” Of course not. Her determination is not based on anything that could be addressed by rational argument and evidence. I can well imagine that Hitler, Stalin and Mao, presented with petitions about the damage their genocidal policies were causing, would also have retorted “These petitions provide no evidence to undermine our determination”. Such persons’ determinations cannot be undermined by coming face to face with the truth, it simply makes them hit out against the truth and attempt to destroy the messengers, just as Lisa Jackson and the Obama administration are doing.
I can only repeat my suggestion that those who genuinely believe CO2 is a pollutant should set the rest of us a good example and stop emitting it themselves.
Unfortunately for them there will be a fairly immediate and permanent consequence but at least it would mean there was one piece of bureaucratic idiocy we wouldn’t have to waste time arguing about in the future.
The only experience, being a Brit, that i have with the EPA is the Siumpson’s movie. Seems they may have been close to the mark portraying them if this lady is anything to go by.
Do the EPA carry guns?
Theo Goodwin says:
July 29, 2010 at 7:35 pm
pat writes:
Mike, would you be so kind as to supply some good reading material on the California power market fiasco?
The EPA is becoming a huge liability to the Obama administration. The American people simply do not trust a government body that denies the wishes of the large majority of American citizens.
Obama will be forced to make a choice: knee cap the EPA or be lose any pretense of having the mandate of the people.
In Europe there is a country called Spain, bet you 50,000 to one Lisa has never heard of it, Green jobs ? Ask the Spanish unemployed.
Renewable energy ? ask the Spanish who pays the household energy bills.
November, vote with your mind not your hand.
Brings to mind this speech by a great Statesman. What is old is New again, fascism didn’t die it just changed form.
Listen to this excerpt.
Your either with us or against us, like its a terrorist act. Where have we heard that?
Do you miss our constitution that’s been kicked to the gutter? The common sense trade agreements that protected our jobs and businesses for over 200 years?
Its time to take our country back from these, these… basically corporation/international banker dictatorships that we’ve been handed!
Serious note, I just wish they weren’t steering the military industrial complex of guided missiles, depleted uranium and cluster bombs.
“Oh say does that star spangled banner yet wave,
o’er the land of corporate greed,
and the home of its slaves.”
We can fight back at the ballot box, but where are the quality people to replace these pinheads? Inactive, buried like the presidential decree, Executive Order 11110 and the president who issued it. google it
I don’t know the answer, all I’ve been able to do is vote for third party
[snip – dial it back please – see the cool 50 million post ~mod]
If enough people get active we might slowly start to make a peaceful difference at the ballot box. We only have pea shooters compared to what they have.
“Defenders of the status quo will try to slow our efforts to get America running on clean energy. A better solution would be to join the vast majority of the American people who want to see more green jobs, more clean energy innovation and an end to the oil addiction that pollutes our planet and jeopardizes our national security,” – Lisa Jackson.
Lisa darling, would you please be so kind as to put some verbs in your sentences. Please tell us exactly how you plan to accomplish this noble quest. Unless there are a host of blueprints in your desk drawer, just waiting for a bit of start-up capital to bear fruit, I don’t believe we have either the technology or the know-how at this time, let alone the stupendous amount of capital required. See http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html . Certainly, we should strive to create a far more energy efficient, less polluted and “secure” society, but I also don’t see a future in being reduced to a hunter-gatherer tribe that cant hunt or gather because both are regulated by the EPA.
Are the EPA investigators and prosecutors going to fine themselves? After all they are polluting the planet with every breath they breathe out!
If they really believe what they say, they should lead by example and stop breathing out. Permanently.
pwl: July 29, 2010 at 10:06 pm
I wonder when the EPA will realize that water vapor, clouds, and droplets form 80-85% of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and want to regulate emissions of water into the atmosphere?
The EPA already knows that, but it doesn’t fit the agenda. The EPA is a *regulatory* agency — it runs on paperwork, not science.
When Lisa Jackson ran New Jersey’s DEP, she single-handedly turned it from a department that worked *with* industry to find solutions into a personal means to attack the industrial base and drive it out-of-state.
One more thread where I have to point out that my two senators, Warner and Webb, voted to let the EPA get away with this crap. They are both ignorant and cowardly.
It’s sickening to see someone like Lisa Jackson in a position of authority. Her attack on skeptics was as irrational as it was unwarranted. She conflates C02 with all greenhouse gasses, with real pollutants, with “green jobs”, energy innovation, and even national security. In short, C02 has become nothing but a convenient scapegoat for those in power who seek to keep or increase that power. Changes are coming, though. Hopefully they’ll be in time.
Ref – Peter Miller says:
July 30, 2010 at 1:35 am
…”The process of removal is simply not possible for government bureaucrats and scientists of the same ilk – this is what we should be afraid of. The built in system of mutual support and investigative whitewashes ensures the perpetuation of their jobs and bad science.”
________________________
Beg to differ. Government employees at all levels are very flexible people. They have to be. After every election there’s a change of the “political hacks” in charge of the system, a change in the “tone and content” of the official message on every subject under the Sun, and a change in Happy Hour location(s) for the senior managers who have to go have fun with the Hacks after work on Friday afternoon.
Government Scientists are more flexible than government employees. In addition to all the items above, government scientists are required to compete for the Weekly “Happy Hour HUYA Award” and kiss the feet, hands, and another body part of the elected gentry where the Sun don’t shine. Government employees aren’t required to do these things, but some do anyway (this strictly ‘voluntary’ behavior is not, in any way, limited to government employees).
Government employees and scientists will say anything you want them to say, and most government scientists will do so much more if they have to.
Lisa Jackson runs the EPA on intuition and not science. The bully is the sierra Club. They have a comprehensive pattern of litigation. As the humans ramp up, we will see voting changes and lawsuits against the EPA. At some point under oath, Jackson will have to defend her superstition and prvoe CO2 is the cause of endangerment. The chickens will come home to roost.
Jackson is just following orders from the chief executive.
Both of these asshats and a lot more will be given their walking papers soon enough.
They won’t be dismissing the petitions we sign at the ballot box.
@ Shevva says:
July 30, 2010 at 3:43 am
Do the EPA carry guns?
I expect so, or at least have the authority and budget item to do so. Most US agencies have their own internal security forces, including the Dept. of Education, among others. They generally don’t advertise the fact tho.
In fact, the IPCC did not really correct the 2035 Hialayan glacier melt error — its online statement merely acknowledges that the paragraph containing this prediction contains an assertion that was not properly backed by a reference to a primary source. This leaves open the possibility that the assertion was correct or approximately correct, but that they had merely made the procedural error of taking it from a second hand source instead of digging down to the primary source as they were supposed to.
The 2035 prediction still stands in the online version of AR4 WG1, with no crossout or other indication at the page in question that it has been retracted.
Shevva says:
July 30, 2010 at 3:43 am
“The only experience, being a Brit, that i have with the EPA is the Siumpson’s movie. Seems they may have been close to the mark portraying them if this lady is anything to go by.
Do the EPA carry guns?”
Worse than guns. A bullet would be quick and merciful.
The EPA slowly strangles you with red tape and/or can fine you to death (“you” meaning corporations and individuals).
Oh, I see you’re already on this. Just heard about it. 😀
Myself, I doubt the part of her statement where she says EPA seriously considered the submissions. I am sure that the submissions sat in a dusty pile, and then Lisa Jackson consulted a certain iPhone app…
My vote? No confidence.
Shevva says:
July 30, 2010 at 3:43 am
“The only experience, being a Brit, that i have with the EPA is the Siumpson’s movie. Seems they may have been close to the mark portraying them if this lady is anything to go by”
How prescient Mat Groening is turning out to be.
Peter Miller says:
July 30, 2010 at 1:35 am
“We all moan about how difficult it is to get rid of unscrupulous/incompetent/corrupt politicians, but at least it can be done through the democratic proces.”
It is an interesting dilemma. Can we really get rid of it, when it is in place? To me it seems impossible to get rid of. It reaches a critical mass, and from then on it just grows, and grows. More and more people work for the government, and therefore vote for more government. Now, if there ever was a death spiral, there you have it.
When the Vikings, about a 1000 years ago met every now and then, and voted on serious matters, we had some kind of democracy . But when the day came that someone said ; “We need someone to take care of this decision-business as a full day job for us….. we dont have time for this ourselves…..” . That was a sad day for us all, but probably inevitable.
I wonder how long time after the Vikings this happened, by the way?
As a non American I seem to have more faith in your legal system than than most. I would thik that it matters little what Jackson thinks at this juncture. It still has to go before the court. The above invective , in my mind, would be better directed in a rational rebuttal.
This is more proof that our government is completely out of control. Under our constitution only congress can write laws. And the constitution does not give congress the authority to delegate it’s legislative power to the EPA.
Throwing out the big government Democrats this November is a good idea but it won’t solve anything if we just replace them with big government Republicans. We need to elect people who are committed to the constitution. That may be a ways off because most voters wouldn’t know the constituion if it bit them on the butt. But judging by the mood of the voters at least maybe we’re headed in the right direction.
When is the EPA going to list water as a dangerous environmental pollutant? Look what happened to New Orleans when the levees broke. Water is far more dangerous and destructive than CO2. Water in, excess quantities, kills thousands of people a year. There should be policies in place to limit the amount of water on our planet.
They still have never made an economic proof that reducing CO2 is the best investment for whatever it is going to give us.
Frank K. says:
July 29, 2010 at 8:42 pm
It’s always Marcia, Marcia says:
July 29, 2010 at 7:32 pm
““You voted for these people America. Now you’re stuck with them.”
Sorry IAMM – I didn’t vote for these clowns. But you’re right – we’re stuck with them for another 2+ years…”
I didn’t vote for them either. Its true that we are stuck with some of them for 2+ years. But we can throw a huge monkey wrench into their plans by voting out the Dems in the House of representatives this november. That will stop them from passing more bad legislation. And if we keep then from getting a 2/3 majority in the Senate we can stop any treaties too. At least that will hold them in check for the next two years.
US industrial titan General Electric has agreed to pay over 23 million dollars to settle allegations that it bribed Iraqi officials.
The EPA rulings are feeding and enabling the corruptocrats.
The ScienceDoubters are still beating that “Climategate” dead horse I see.
http://tinyurl.com/496svm
VOTE IN NOVEMBER. Bring three of your friends.
Jack Simmons says:
“Mike, would you be so kind as to supply some good reading material on the California power market fiasco?”
I’m not Mike, but here’s a reference to an excellent summary of the California electricity fiasco that unseated a Governor mid-term and we got Arnold as a replacement.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf65.html
btw, there *is* a practical near-term solution to the power production problem without increasing CO2 output. There are 57 nuke power plants being built around the globe today (none in the US). A higher fraction of neutron derived electricity powering electric cars is technically and economically reasonable. The grid is at maximum capacity during the day, but only about 50% utilized at night when cars would be recharged.
If CO2 is a pollutant and endangers health, does the EPA require that it is removed from the atmosphere? I presume that there is a “safe” level, but I have some difficulty in understanding how one would arrive at this level. If this is truly “pre-industrial”, as the EPA appears to suggest, they must be be truly insane. We are blessed in the UK with an Energy minister who has just stated that there will be large increases in the price of electricity but we will not have power outages as he proposes to build 2 wind turbines a day until 2020. He also stated that these are economically efficient. While free speech is still allowed in the UK, to a point, this appears to be completely insanity. His views support the mantra of the EU commission, which is unaccountable to the electorate and is perhaps a prime example of inefficient bureaucratic government by a self styled elite. Since virtually every major policy proposed by the EU has been disasterous (Agriculture, Fishing, the Euro and climate change), we can expect things to get very much worse before there is an outbreak of reality. Power cuts in increasingly severe winters may focus our minds on climate change.
History has many examples of government by the insane, regretably these have tended to end badly. At least in the US you still have the opportunity to vote for another government and the US congress remains a far more democratic institution than, sadly, we now have in Europe.
David L. says:
July 30, 2010 at 8:41 am
When is the EPA going to list water as a dangerous environmental pollutant? Look what happened to New Orleans when the levees broke. Water is far more dangerous and destructive than CO2. Water in, excess quantities, kills thousands of people a year. There should be policies in place to limit the amount of water on our planet.
______________________________________________________
Careful what you say, “they” are working on that:
California’s San Joaquin Valley is the salad bowl of the world, but is in danger of becoming a dust bowl unless immediate action is taken to change policies that put the needs of fish above the livelihood of people.
California’s Man-Made Drought: The green war against San Joaquin Valley farmers
http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052970204731804574384731898375624.html
trbixler says:
July 29, 2010 at 6:12 pm
Obama’s Lisa Jackson has but one agenda kill prosperity in America. There is no science to back up anything she says, except for her power to exert control. I have noticed that NOAA is part of the game, announcing Hottest world ever. Old people like myself will be shown to the showers soon.
_________________________________________________
That is why they passed Obamacare. We can expect implanted RFID chips too to be a requirement for healthcare soon:
Insurers Study Implanting RFID Chips in Patient
“…Earlier this year, four hospitals in Puerto Rico announced plans to implant chips in patients with Alzheimers Disease and other memory problems.
VeriChip has given several New Jersey hospitals—Beth Israel, Clara Maass, Columbus, Hackensack, Kimball, Newark, Ocean and PBI Regional—equipment to read the chips and access the companys database.
Across the country, about 100 hospitals have the appropriate scanning equipment, according to VeriChip.
The chip, about the size of a grain of rice, was approved by the FDA as a medical device in 2004….”
In response to RC Saumarez’s comment: — OSHA regulations set the permissible exposure to CO2 limit in the workplace at 10,000 ppm (time weighted average). OSHA also acknowledges the detection limits as 200 ppm qualitative and 500 ppm quantitative. In that the atmosphere is presently around 390 ppm, barely reaching the quantitative limit of detection, what’s the problem?
rbateman says:
July 30, 2010 at 1:08 am
Cassandra King says:
July 29, 2010 at 10:09 pm
“an end to the oil addiction that pollutes our planet and jeopardizes our national security,” she added.”
An end that will surely devastate the country, not to mention render it defenseless. No other country would be that stupid.
_______________________________________________
I think you forgot Greece, Spain, the UK, Germany, Australia, New Zealand ….Communist China, current home of Maurice Strong of course is exempt.
@ Gail Combs says:
July 30, 2010 at 11:33 am
_________________________________________________
That is why they passed Obamacare. We can expect implanted RFID chips too to be a requirement for healthcare soon:
I expect that those who are still young enough, or yet to be born, will no doubt be Borg Drones soon, which will make the One-Worlder types ecstatic.
Whatever to do with the EPA …
The latest from Cartoons by Josh, Surreal Climate #3, has an excellent remedy:
http://www.cartoonsbyjosh.com/
KPO says:
July 30, 2010 at 4:20 am
….. Certainly, we should strive to create a far more energy efficient, less polluted and “secure” society, but I also don’t see a future in being reduced to a hunter-gatherer tribe that cant hunt or gather because both are regulated by the EPA.
_________________________________________________________________________
Actually the hunter-gatherer tribe is slated to be regulated by Markey’s (of Cap & trade fame) “food safety” bill. That bill, already passed by the House, does to food what the EPA does to energy – strangles it in red tape. Thanks to the commerce clause it includes ALL food including home gardens.
The Obama government is very very dangerous to the continued existence of the USA and the Chinese are waiting in the wings with all those big fat IOUs
To be short and sweet mrs Lisa Jackson will start taxing US citizens for their production of greenhouses gases . Where is the beginning and where is the end ?
Is not taxing a decision by the government which according to the US constitution needs to be granted , ratified and installed by their democratic choosen representatives as prescribed by the Constitution ? Has Lisa Jackson more power than the Constitution ? If Barack Obama is letting this happen after have sworn to respect the Constitution then he is not worth the Presidency over all the governmental institutions and his laisser faire , laisser passer of the EPA actions to start taxing us citizens on a totally at random basis without any democratic control
is in fact the instalment of a totally authoritarian regime and an insult towards the much praised and envied US constisution so carefully designed by its founding fathers . Does Mr Barak Obama respect any father ?
N early
A lways
D ebates
E nvironment
R esponsibly
Better?
Cassandra King says: July 29, 2010 at 10:09 pm
“an end to the oil addiction that pollutes our planet and jeopardizes our national security,” she added.”
Any public servant uttering such stunningly ignorant tosh should be challenged through the courts, it is a partisan statement and thoroughly dangerous.
Our whole industrial society is built on the basis of cheap and reliable energy supplied by fossil fuels, in effect EVERYTHING our civilizsation enjoys comes from fossil fuels and in fact fossil fuels are the very bedrock of our western democratic civilisation.
Cassandra King is right. Obama and this incredibly stupid woman are leading the USA down a path to ruin. Meanwhile, China and India are ‘hell bent’ on cornering the world’s resources to build super economies while the USA is setting about destroying its own. Therein lays madness. And Obama is the leader? These people are not interested in rebuilding the US economy. God only knows what motivates them. Perhaps they see themselves as the ‘saviours of the world’. Perhaps then they should be ‘crucified’ – maybe at the polls?
Doug
Anu says:
July 30, 2010 at 10:41 am
You’re such a joker Anu, that ship was overloaded with global warming.
I don’t see alternate energy and soot removal as having anything to do with CO2 removal.
The first two make sense and are cheap the last one doesn’t and is incredibly expansive .
Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act
Action
EPA determined in December 2009 that climate change caused by emissions of greenhouse gases threatens the public’s health and the environment. Since then, EPA received ten petitions challenging this determination. On July 29, 2010, EPA denied these petitions.
The petitions to reconsider EPA’s “Endangerment Finding” claimed that climate science can’t be trusted, and asserted a conspiracy that calls into question the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) , the U.S. National Academy of Sciences , and the U.S. Global Change Research Program. After months of serious consideration of the petitions and of the state of climate change science, EPA found no evidence to support these claims.
The scientific evidence supporting EPA’s finding is robust, voluminous, and compelling. Climate change is happening now, and humans are contributing to it. Multiple lines of evidence show a global warming trend over the past 100 years. Beyond this, melting ice in the Arctic, melting glaciers around the world, increasing ocean temperatures, rising sea levels, altered precipitation patterns, and shifting patterns of ecosystems and wildlife habitats all confirm that our climate is changing.
The nitty-gritty: http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/petitions.html
Don’t forget this investigation
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/04/29/epa-probe-politics-shortages-affect-environmental-agencys-wor/
Jackson says skeptics should join the vast majority of Americans…Lisa, honey, the majority of Americans don’t believe in AGW. Why don’t you join the vast majority of Americans?
Why do people distrust government? Oh, I don’t know….maybe because of blatant manipulation, mistruths and treating us as complete idiots who’ll swallow the BS and go away satisfied. When we don’t, well clearly we’re under the manipulative control of another large entity – in the case of AGW, big oil is apparently the puppet-master pulling our strings.
Time and again government proves itself completely worthy of the contempt and ridicule the citizenry heap upon it. Brava, Ms. Jackson, you are among the frontrunners for a starring role in the future historical investigation of the war against CO2.
I’m waiting for someone to sue the EPA for trying to lower nature’s free plant food therefore putting more stress on listed endangered plants which could cause some endangered plants to become EXTINCT.
Would that throw a monkey wranch into the EPA?
Does anyone know the standard that EPA uses to declare something a pollutant? I’m not trying to be funny here, I’m genuinly currious. It seems like this is something that should be measureable. ‘If in X concentration then it is a pollutant’ type thing.
AC says:
July 30, 2010 at 8:15 pm
Does anyone know the standard that EPA uses to declare something a pollutant? I’m not trying to be funny here, I’m genuinly currious. It seems like this is something that should be measureable. ‘If in X concentration then it is a pollutant’ type thing.
……………………………………………………………………………………..
I would care to fathom that if they can control you by controlling it….. Its a pollutant….
@ James Sexton: re
@ Roger Sowell
“Since refineries typically run on very small profit margins or at a net loss, that is not likely to happen.”
“True, but then one has to ask why. Why is the U.S. sentenced to operate refineries at small profit margins or at a loss?
Two reasons, one because the regulatory demands make it impossible to open a new one. And two, we haven’t built one since the seventies.
I believe it is possible to build one today that has more efficiencies built in than when we did in the seventies. But that’s just me. Why haven’t we? See reason one.”
Refining profitability has a long history in the USA, going back at least 40 years to the time of the Majors and the Independents. Majors are defined as integrated oil companies, from exploration, production, transportation via pipelining or tanker ships, refining, marketing, distribution, and retail. Independents are much less integrated, with many having only the refining, marketing, distribution and retail businesses. A Major oil company would attempt to squeeze the independents out of business by setting the transfer price of crude oil as high as possible, thus shifting the profits to the upstream side rather than the downstream side, where upstream is everything before the oil reaches the refinery. This strategy worked quite well for decades, until a law was passed not too long ago that forces retail gasoline stations to mark up their gasoline by a few cents, thus ensuring at least a small margin of profit. Modernly, large refining companies in the USA, independents by the above definition, include Valero, Tesoro, and a few others. They typically have very small profits.
I disagree with your statement of impossibility to open a new refinery. The facts show otherwise. Recently, the equivalent of a new refinery was built and started up in Garyville, Louisiana by Marathon. The expansion project was brought in on-time and just barely over budget, as I wrote on at my blog. see
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/new-refinery-on-schedule-and-budget.html
Yet another major refinery expansion, again the functional equivalent of a full new refinery, is under construction in Beaumont, TX, by Motiva. This refinery is in a delayed construction mode simply because of low demand for gasoline and other products in the USA. Regulatory issues are not a problem.
The main reason that no refining company builds a grass-roots refinery is that it is far less expensive and just as effective to simply expand an existing refinery. It makes little sense to build all the infrastructure such as docks, rail lines, and pipelines when an existing refinery can be used to good effect. This is why, most observers agree, that there will be no new refinery built in the Dakotas to refine the huge oil reserves in the Bakken field. It is far cheaper to send the oil to existing refineries via pipeline.
As to not building a new refinery since the 1970s, this is literally true but misses the point. Refining capacity in the USA has increased by 50 percent, from 12 million to just under 18 million barrels per day in the past 25 years or so. This was accomplished even though more than 100 refineries were shut down. Adding capacity to existing refineries accounts for the increased capacity.
“The logic escapes me. We say we’re running out of fuel. Yet, at the same time we don’t allow necessary upgrades and nuances to occur. Well, no sh*t. Land taxes are being raised on a small refinery near my home. So much so that we’ll eventually force them overseas. They can’t upgrade, they get the crap taxed out of them, they are one of the biggest employers of good paying jobs around here, yet, they are the evil ones. All they do is provide realistic energy to this nation to allow economic movement. Bastards!!! BTW, Coffeyville, KS is the location of the refinery that is being drummed out of the country. Feel free to contact anyone there about the property tax being imposed on one the the employers of this nation and providers of energy of this nation. I’d be grateful if you did.———-Disclaimer!!! I don’t work for anything affiliated with Coffeyville, KS, nor, to the best of my knowledge does any of my loved ones and/or family.”
So much to say about that paragraph. First, we are not running out of fuel. Never have, never will. The reality is that oil is being discovered in many areas where the “experts” (such as those who frequent The Oil Drum) say there is no oil. If and when oil supplies begin to dwindle, the oil price will increase a bit. At that point, converting coal to liquids, and converting natural gas to liquids, will become economic. As true oil experts say repeatedly, “there is no shortage of oil. There is, however, a limited access to known oil deposits in the world.” Given the hard fact that only countries with access to large oil supplies win wars (at least until Saddam Hussein took on the USA a few years back), it may be prudent for countries with oil in the ground to refuse access to others. All this is documented very well in the Pulitzer-winning book The Prize by Daniel Yergin.
As to the tax problems in Kansas, desperate governments are doing some really dumb things as they attempt to keep revenues ahead of expenditures. This is a foreseeable consequence of ever-increasing government spending when a prolonged recession occurs. My adopted state, California, is having the same problems only on a much grander scale. We run a state deficit of approximately $24 billion per year. At the same time, California refuses to allow drilling offshore, refuses to issue construction permits for refinery expansions, and instead tries to balance increasing fuel demand by imposing strict laws on vehicle fuel economy. California, with its several excellent natural harbors, could easily copy Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and New Jersey and become an oil importer and refined products exporter. However, that will never happen as long as the current thinking (if one can dignify it with that term) prevails in this state. The enhanced jobs, economic activity, and tax revenues would do much to ease the problems in this state.
@ Phil, re gasoline, diesels, etc.
Let me gently guide you to a more authoritative source for refinery yields: the EIA and documented yields from US refineries. see
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_pct_dc_nus_pct_m.htm
Yields of gasoline are just under 50 percent, and yields of Distillate Fuel (which is either diesel fuel or home heating oil) are in the high 20 percents. The yield of distillate oil has reached 30 percent or so on occasion. (click on the appropriate spot under View History for graphs of the yields over time).
Regarding my comment that the crude oil would be increased by 16 million gallons per years, that is a mistake on my part. It should be 16 billion gallons per year.
“I have been unable to replicate your calculations and I don’t know what source you are using. My source is Table 2.5 from Edition 28 of the Transportation Energy Data Book published by the Department of Energy and Oak Ridge National Laboratory. On page A-19 of Appendix A, it states that “one gallon of gasoline, diesel fuel, or lpg is estimated to be the equivalent of one gallon of crude oil,” so I stand by my calculations based on that source and its assumptions.”
Again, let me gently comment on using sources from the internet. What Oak Ridge was referring to is almost correct; they refer to the heating value of those products, not the yields from refining. Heating value is the quantity of heat produced when the product is burned, and is rated on two different bases: net heating value and gross heating value. The difference lies in the latent heat of water vapor in the products, with net heating value the water is in the vapor form, and in the gross heating value the water is in the liquid form.
“I have not been able to verify your numbers or your statements. To the contrary, from http://www dot answers dot com/topic/petroleum-refining7/30/2010 12:11:16 AM] I would submit the following quotes (I have changed the order for clarity in this reply): [my changes to “dot” rather than “.” to avoid excess links — RES]
… Product yields per barrel have shifted with demand. …
… Gas and gasoline, or “white” products, which comprise the lighter end of the barrel, usually about 20 percent of the total yield, are used for automobile gas, aviation fuel, and feedstocks for petrochemicals. Middle distillates, the middle quarter of the barrel, yield kerosene and light gas-oil, heating oil, diesel oils and waxes. Fuel oil and residuals, comprising the heaviest, bottom 55 percent, make up heavy fuel oils—for use in power stations and ship furnaces—asphalt and bitumen. … (So middle distillates like diesel would make up about 25% of the yield or a larger yield than the “white” products like gasoline.) …
… The components of distillated crude vary according to the make-up of the raw crude …”
This is a very inaccurate source, unfortunately. It apparently was written very long ago, or written about a particular type of refinery known as a topping refinery. Such refineries still exist in some less-advanced parts of the world, but are extremely rare in the USA. Instead, the US has what are referred to as complex refineries, where much of what would otherwise be residual oil is converted into gasoline and diesel via various cracking processes. Typically, a US refinery has one or more Fluid Catalytic Crackers (BP at Texas City in Texas has three of these), or Hydrocrackers, or Delayed Cokers, or Fluid Cokers, or some combination of all the above.
“There is a consolidation in the refinery industry due mainly to high capital costs associated with regulations. Gasoline is a particular problem as there are many different formulations of each of three different grades across the United States that are required by regulation. As far as I know, there is only one formulation and one grade of ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) thus affording the refineries some economies of scale in production, storage and distribution with ULSD that the myriad formulations of each grade of gasoline do not.”
The consolidation in the refining industry is partly due to regulations, but as I wrote in an earlier reply on this thread, not entirely.
Gasoline does require different formulations to account for differences in local weather and altitude. However, diesel fuel is not homogenous either. Here is a link to a primer on diesel fuel in the USA:
http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/fuel.php
There are many different products, typically referred to as D-1, D-2, D-4, etc. There are also different purposes thus different grades, for on-road, off-road, and marine diesels. Finally, there are ambient temperature considerations such that the diesel sold in Montana in very cold weather is different than the diesel sold in Miami (Florida) during the same month, because it is so much warmer in Miami. On a smaller geographical scale, the diesel fuel sold in Lake Tahoe in California in the winter is not the same as that sold at the same time in San Diego due to the ambient temperature differences.
Last of all, there are bio-diesel differentiations, as the additives required for plant-based biodiesel are quite different from those for animal fat-based biodiesel.
Phil, I applaud your concerns and efforts regarding the oil refining industry. I hope my replies are received in the spirit I intend while writing them: to correct some misperceptions. Your comments go to the finer points of oil refining, which is a very complex subject, and one in which I spent more than half my career before becoming an attorney.
I am not surprised. This is another example of a well planned tactic to gain power to control people with the administrative branch of government. The power ultimately leads making political decisions without regard to the US Constitution. On the EPA issue clean air Congress has given up its constitutional rights to limit the EPA’s edicts and that leaves only the administratively appointed judges and the current administration. No amount of scientific testimony or petitions of redress can alter this desire by the administration for control. Ultimately, the administration will have the balance of power.
Dan in California says:
July 30, 2010 at 10:59 am
Thank you very much.
Bringing back all the memories now.
California really needs some adult supervision.
Roger Sowell says:
July 30, 2010 at 9:38 pm
@ Phil, re gasoline, diesels, etc.
Roger, you are one of the reasons I spend time on this blog.
I had no idea the yields were so low for refineries.
There are some people here who really know what they are talking about. You are one of them.
Thanks.
Oops! Left out the closing after SFT’s “gets rid of you!”
Moderator: Can you fix (and then delete this)? Sorry. /Mr L
[instructions unclear, comment unclear -resubmit ~mod]
The election of Barack Hussein Obama represents a major victory by the extreme left in this country, and they have quickly moved to take control of apparatus of government, which of course received them with open arms, as it was already a bloated bureaucracy populated with statists who regarded the founding ideals of the United States with disdain. The monster is now in control.
Actually it was already dominating American life, even under ostensibly conservative administrations. Just look at how the George W. Bush administration was frustrated and co-opted by the bureaucracies at State, EPA, and elsewhere. We can perhaps diminish the momentum of this monster in November, by electing Constitutionalists to Congress, but it will take a lot more to reverse course. Whole departments and agencies have to be eliminated, and the federal government radically shrunk in size and influence. That will take quite a revolution in popular attitudes, and it will be resisted at every turn by the establishments in government, the academies, and the media.
Still, November may be a beginning. With a Republican majority in both houses of Congress, it may be possible to put the handcuffs on Lisa Jackson and her minions.
Just remember: For Miz Jackson, it is not about the science. It’s about the power.
/Mr Lynn
Of course CO2 is NOT a pollutant, and anyone who says so, is committing FRAUD. They should be charged with FRAUD by the local Prosecutor, put on trial, and when convicted, they should go to prison, or even an institution for the Criminally Insane.
@ Jack Simmons,
Thank you, I very much appreciate that.
I also enjoy reading your comments.
@AC, re US EPA’s standards for setting pollution emission limits.
In general, the EPA views all substances as toxic to humans, if the dosage is sufficiently high. This is almost always true in practice. The question becomes, then, what are acceptable dosages (or safe exposure limits)? Much of what EPA did in the early days was to evaluate hundreds of chemicals and compounds along with toxicology studies to determine maximum safe exposure levels. This is a difficult question, because some people suffer harm or death even at very low exposures to certain pollutants. One of the great public policy issues of our time is “How much is a human life worth?” A related question is “How much is a reduction in quality of life worth?” The answers to those questions guide EPA in establishing safe exposure levels and the costs of pollution reduction systems.
There also may be complex issues such as short-term exposure limits, long-term exposure limits, and cumulative effects over time.
There may be trade-offs, as for example for hydrocarbon emissions from vehicle tailpipes from gasoline-powered vehicles. EPA determined that smog resulting from tailpipe hydrocarbons caused illness and premature deaths. The question then was, should oil refineries be required to produce clean-burning gasoline in the existing engines, or should auto manufacturers be required to install catalytic converters in the vehicles? Either approach would accomplish the air quality goals. After research, and presentations by industry officials, it was found to be more cost-effective to use catalytic converters. Thus, the auto industry lost and the oil industry won, probably for the first and only time in history.
Below is a link to EPA guidelines for establishing limits on pesticides. There are similar documents on their website for other pollutants.
http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/trac/science/determ.pdf
Textbook “dynamic conservatism”, rejecting dissident opinion and change agents — with teeth! The determination to enforce energy constraints and choke off “industrial civilization” is palpable.
The petitions, of course, were doomed, since they essentially ask the EPA to admit it doesn’t know its arm from a hole in the ozone. Much as I hate to say it, the solution to this is going to have to be political.