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.
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….
@ur momisugly James Sexton: re
@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.”
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.
@ur momisugly 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
@ur momisugly 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.
@ur momisugly 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.