Guest post By Alan Caruba
The Environmental Protection Agency is using its power to advance the objective of the environmental movement to deny Americans access to the energy that sustains the nation’s economy and is using the greatest hoax ever perpetrated, global warming—now called “climate change”—to achieve that goal.
“This standard isn’t the once-and-for-all solution to our environmental challenge,” said Lisa Jackson, the EPA administrator, “but it is an important commonsense step toward tackling the ongoing and very real threat of climate change and protecting the future for generations to come. It will enhance the lives of our children and our children’s children.”
This is a boldfaced lie. Its newest rule is based on the debasement of science that is characterized and embodied in the global warming hoax. It will deprive America of the energy it requires to function.
Since the 1980s the Greens have been telling everyone that carbon dioxide was causing global warming—now called climate change—and warning that CO2 emissions were going to kill everyone in the world if they weren’t dramatically reduced. The ball was put in motion with the United Nations 1997 Kyoto Protocols when many nations agreed to this absurd idea and carried forward by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ever since.
The Environmental Protection Agency was created to clean the nation’s air and water where it was deemed that a hazard existed. Like most noble ideas and most Congressional mandates, the initial language was vague enough to be interpreted to mean anything those in charge wanted it to mean. Add in the global warming hoax and you have the means to destroy the nation.
Now it means that the source of fifty percent of all the electricity generated in the United States is being systematically put out of business and please do not act surprised; that’s exactly what Barack Obama said he intended to do if elected President.
This is evil writ large.
Shutting down utilities that use coal, an energy source the U.S. has in such abundance that it could provide electricity for the next hundreds of years, and ensuring that no new ones are built fits in perfectly with all the Green pipedreams about “renewable” energy. Solar and wind presently provide about two percent of the nation’s electricity and, without government subsidies and mandates requiring their use, they would not exist at all.
How stupid is it to not build more nuclear power plants when this form of power doesn’t emit anything but energy?
How stupid is it not to use coal when the U.S. is the Saudi Arabia of coal?
How stupid is it to begin to find reasons to regulate and thwart fracking, the technology to access trillions of cubic feet of natural gas that has been in use for decades?
How stupid is it to cover miles of land, far from any urban center, with hundreds of solar panels or huge, ugly wind turbines that kill thousands of birds every year?
The sun does not shine all the time, nor does the wind blow all the time. In the event of overcast skies or a day without wind, traditional plants—those using coal, gas, nuclear or generating hydroelectric power—have to be maintained as a backup. Take away the coal-fired plants and there were be huge gap in the national grid.
Darkness will descend and Americans will begin to live with blackouts and brownouts that will undermine every aspect of our lives. It’s bad enough when a town or even a city briefly loses power because of a storm, but imagine that occurring on a regular basis because there just aren’t enough utilities generating power!
What kind of people stand by idly while its own government conspires to take away the primary source of energy that everything else depends upon? The answer? You. The answer is the many elected politicians that have done little to rein in a rogue government agency intent on undermining the nation by denying it the ability to generate power with the least expensive source of electricity, coal.
The EPA, an unelected bureaucracy, has just ensured that all Americans, industries, small businesses, and individuals will begin pay far more for electrical power.
Richard J. Trzupek, the author of “Regulators Run Wild” and an environment policy advisor for The Heartland Institute, said of the new rule, “With around 50,000 megawatts of coal-fired power set to be forcibly retired in the next few years—thanks to the draconian policies of Obama’s EPA—this rule ensures that no new modern, efficient coal fired power plants will be built to fill the gap.”
In a triumph of crony capitalism, Trzupek notes that “The big winner will be Obama’s good friend, GE Chairman Jeff Immelt. Since solar and wind cannot fill a 50,000 megawatt baseload gap, the only way to ensure continued reliability of the grid is to build a lot of natural gas-fired plants quickly. And who is the biggest supplier of natural gas-fired combustion engines? GE of course.”
If you think that environmental organizations like the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth, among many others, are seeking to “protect” the Earth, you are seriously mistaken. They have been among the leading opponents of coal and they have had allies in Congress such as the Majority Leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, (D-NV) who has said “Coal makes us sick. Oil makes us sick.”
NO! Coal provides the engine of our nation’s electrical power and oil provides the energy that fuels our transportation and is the basis for countless products that enhance and improve our lives every day.
We are witnessing the destruction of the nation by the environmental movement and the EPA has just provided you with the most dramatic example of that plan.
Ken McMurtrie:
re your post at March 30, 2012 at 6:15 pm, I agree that our ‘conversation’ should end.
Your disingenuous nonsense has hindered rational discussion, and I ask everybody to read our exchanges, then to judge for themselves my proofs of your lies, self-contradictions and misquotations of me.
Please provide some evidence and/or logic in any future exchanges.
Richard
Ken McMurtrie says:
March 31, 2012 at 1:45 am
@ur momisugly Bill Tuttle,
Our processes of logical thought and understanding of the word ‘safe’ differ in the extreme.
How is it possible to classify nuclear plant meltdowns, explosions and massive nuclear radiation emissions and contamination as in any way, ‘safe’. Neither my logic nor imagination are able stretch even in that direction, let alone that far.
We weren’t discussing nuclear plant meltdowns, explosions and massive nuclear radiation emissions and contamination — the sole point of discussion was what happened at Fukushima. As Gail pointed out above, the building survived what it was designed to survive.
I agree that safety is relative, and nothing can be 100% safe. But to describe something catastrophically lethal that has actually occurred, in Richard’s words, as “a demonstration of safety”, sorry Bill, I have to disagree strongly with this aspect of your support of Richard…But if it does fail, as happened in this case, no matter what the reason, it cannot be logically argued that it was safe. Failure does not equate to safe!
Then why are you still living in a house? I imagine you consider it safe, but if it were hit with a good-sized meteorite, it would suffer a catastrophic loss of structural integrity (iow, it would disintegrate — violently). However, being hit with a meteorite is a remote circumstance, so your house is, for all practical purposes, safe. Fukushima got hit with a freak tsunami — which was a remote circumstance — but it did *not* fail due to the earthquake.
Nor can any future possibility of failure, that exists in the case of existing and future nuclear plants, be regarded as safe, only relatively safe.
As is your house only relatively safe. Are you going to flee it within the next few minutes because of that?
Maybe worth the risk, maybe not. The relativity (is it worth the risk?), of the safety level is in the eye of the beholder. If the beholder happens to die or be maimed by radiation poisoning, they would understandably have a different viewpoint.
And you would have a different opinion of houses, if one you were living in were hit by a bolide. Your only point seems to be that you insist on a nuke plant structured to be 100% certain-sure safe before you’ll accept it — which is illogical, since you already admitted that everything else in life is a calculated risk.
@ur momisugly Richard and Bill,
I cannot believe what I am reading here. This is absurd.
Richard’s “Your disingenuous nonsense has hindered rational discussion, and I ask everybody to read our exchanges, then to judge for themselves my proofs of your lies, self-contradictions and misquotations of me.”
Readers, if this is of any interest to you, please comment on this. I would appreciate a second opinion.
Bill, you don’t seem to have a clue what I am talking about.
Like Richard, I would appeal to other readers to perhaps comment if interested.
There is no reason why Anthony would wish to be hosting this personal debate, especially as it is so ridiculous. Maybe it amuses him. Anyway, thanks Anthony for providing the vehicle. Maybe it emtertains your readers.
Bill Tuttle:
It really is not worth the effort.
There are none so blind as those who do not want to see.
Richard
Ken McMurtrie says:
March 31, 2012 at 5:07 am
Bill, you don’t seem to have a clue what I am talking about.
Ah, but I do — you’re scared to death of nuke plants. Period.
richardscourtney says:
March 31, 2012 at 5:58 am
Bill Tuttle:
It really is not worth the effort.
True, but it’s more fun than watching the flight simulator run its self-diagnostics — which is otherwise what I’d be doing…
@ur momisugly Gail,
Sorry, Gail, you disappoint me.
On the one hand you do seem to have some concept of what the meaning of the word ‘safety’. Your previous comment on the safer types of NPP’s shows that.
Even in your most recent comment you say “However anyone with half a brain would rather move to Thorium.”, indicates an acceptance of safety issues that exist and need to be taken into account.
However, your response to my comment
” How is it possible to classify nuclear plant meltdowns, explosions and massive nuclear radiation emissions and contamination as in any way, ‘safe’. Neither my logic nor imagination are able stretch even in that direction, let alone that far…..
Was –
“But Ken, that is not what happen. The Fukushima incident DOES demonstrates the safety of nuclear power stations. The station was old and it STILL withstood a natural catastrophe it was not designed to withstand. If it had the correct backup power system there would have been no real problem.”
Sorry Gail, but that IS what did happen. Catastrophic failure with major radiation emissions into the atmosphere, ocean and ground. Regardless of why they failed, 4 nuclear reactor installations FAILED! Categorically and catastrophically! Actual reactor and stored fuel rod meltdowns. Haven’t you seen the photos and the radiation reports? There was no ‘withstanding’. Ifs and/or buts are irrelevant, unequivocal failure happened!
Please don’t insult my intelligence by insisting that this represents a demonstration of a “safe” power plant. Only a nuclear bomb explosion could be worse than what has happened at the Fukushima Diachi NPP’s.
Ken McMurtrie says:
March 31, 2012 at 6:42 am
@ur momisugly Gail,
Sorry, Gail, you disappoint me….
_________________________________
Ken, I do not get my news from sources like the Huffington Post who sell papers by over playing incidents. Panic Sells! Heck my husband’s family owns a newspaper and THEY told me never believe what they print unless it is a sports score.
I got my “news” from the World Nuclear Organization and from a guy here on WUWT who lives near the reactor. Since I live within 10 miles of a nuclear plant and I grew up in the 1950 and 60’s with the threat of nuclear war hanging over my head, I am frankly relieved at the news from Fukushima. NO ONE WAS KILLED and only three people got a slight over dose but not enough for radiation sickness. On top of that the people can return to their homes soon. Measures were in place to handle the problems despite the massive damage to Japan.
I am a chemist and worked in not one but THREE companies where we had vessels blow and take out people and walls. That does not include two other companies where an extruder blew and a processing line caught on fire. Therefore I may have a bit of a different outlook then you. Heck, I used to take a horse over 6 foot fences, rock climb, pit cave and I still train horses even though I am in my sixties.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/fukushima_accident_inf129.html
(updated 29 March 2012)
KEY POINTS:
Gail Combs:
I agree all you say in your post at March 31, 2012 at 8:53 am.
However, with respect, that post will have no effect because it details demonstrable facts. And facts do not assuage irrational fears; e.g. a person who knows a mouse cannot harm a human may scream at the sight of a mouse.
A set of irrational fears becomes a belief. And belief trumps facts. Indeed, this is why we have such difficulty discussing energy issues with ‘greens’: we state facts and they trumpet their beliefs based on irrational fears.
Richard
Ed Mertin:
Your posts at March 30, 2012 at 9:26 am at March 30, 2012 at 8:34 pm are very good.
Unfortunately, the thread has been hijacked so people may have missed them.
I commend everybody to read them, especially the latter one.
Richard
Gail, I think Ken read “We Almost Lost Detroit” at too impressionable an age…
@ur momisugly Gail et al,
So you would believe a press release from the nuclear industry as an impartial, accurate and complete source for coverage of a nuclear accident.
Wouldn’t that be somewhat akin to believing the IPCC reports?
At least I can now understand my failure to gain credibility here.
I must in future not assume that wuwt commentors are aware of the world around them, just because they recognize the AGW scam.
Some internet sites that might just be a bit more informative:
http://ex-skf.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/australia-is-ideal-for-contaminated.html
http://fukushima-diary.com/
http://rt.com/trends/fukushima-nuclear-disaster/?gclid=CLO3n7Gwy6wCFaiJ4godaiHsqg
http://tgrule.com/2012/03/29/8050/
Thank you for your patience.
(And thanks Anthony, for accepting and putting up with my “disingenuous bunkum”)
At least I can now understand my failure to gain credibility here.
You mean your failure to gain converts. Citing websites that proclaim things like “the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. Thousands lost their lives but the question is: if it all happened again, would things turn out any differently?” doesn’t help your argument.
@ur momisugly Bill Tuttle:
I fail to see where “converts” enters into the conversation.
My aim is to arrive at truths. Who does or doesn’t believe them is of little importance, as far as blogging is involved.
It is, of course, useful if the decision-makers understand and act on facts rather than fiction, unknowns or speculation. In real life, that unfortunately does not happen often enough.
Maurice Garoutte says:March 29, 2012 at 2:02 am
Maurice makes a VERY important point here.
I have spent a lot of my life working in developing countries. In the early years I could not believe the stupidity, impracticality and incompetence of various authorities I had to deal with. Then eventually it dawned on me that they were far smarter than me, and every obstacle, every stumble, every misinterpretation was designed to make someone richer or more powerful. These people have been doing this forever and they are brilliant at it.
And this opened my eyes to the weird decisions and bureaucratic incompetence I see in my own country: and I’m now sure there is a lot more corruption going on in the so called developed world (in dollar terms) than there is in the developing world. Most of us just don’t recognise it when we see it, because we don’t expect it.
Well put Markx.
“And this opened my eyes to the weird decisions and bureaucratic incompetence I see in my own country: and I’m now sure there is a lot more corruption going on in the so called developed world (in dollar terms) than there is in the developing world. Most of us just don’t recognise it when we see it, because we don’t expect it.”
Especially the last line.