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.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
@ur momisugly 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.