Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
A few months ago I wrote a post about the previous head of the EPA, Carol Browner, and her risible claim that she was creating jobs. Her successor, Lisa Jackson, is worse.
Lisa has just ordered that in the future, American coal will be burned in the most polluting way possible. She ruled that coal can’t be burned in new US power plants, so it’s going to be exported to shabbily built highly-polluting furnaces in third world countries. That’s environmental protection at its finest.
Having done that, now she has jetted off to Paris with her usual granola entourage, which consists mostly of nuts and flakes. I guess when the party is in Paris, video-conferencing is soooo last week …
CONTACT:
Alisha Johnson
Johnson.alisha@epa.gov
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 28, 2012
EPA Administrator Leads U.S. Delegation to Paris for Meetings on Economic and Environmental Cooperation
WASHINGTON – Today U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa P. Jackson arrived in Paris, France to meet with environmental leaders from more than 40 nations to discuss the Agency’s international efforts on urban sustainability. During the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Environment Policy Committee’s ministerial meeting, Administrator Jackson will represent the United States in discussions about the upcoming Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development, and talk about ways in which the environment committee can support the global conference’s efforts.
EPA has a long history of international collaboration on a wide range of global environmental issues. In recent years, EPA’s bilateral and multilateral partnerships have increased efforts to address environmental and governance challenges. In collaboration with other nations through the OECD, EPA is furthering its mission to protect the environment by ensuring national security, facilitating commerce, addressing climate change, and promoting sustainable development.
“Furthering its mission”??
Y’know, it’s funny but I don’t recall any of those things being in the EPA’s mission. Foolish me, I thought the Environmental Protection Agency was about, well, protecting the environment …
The EPA sees “ensuring national security” as part of their mission?
The EPA thinks their job is “facilitating commerce”?
The EPA believe in the fairy tale of “sustainable”, and sees their task as “promoting sustainable development“?
Please, someone, anyone, put these folks out of their misery. Why are they babbling about national security? Why is some unelected bureaucrat jetting to Paris to discuss “urban sustainability”?
What does that even mean, urban sustainability? The cities of the planet have sustained themselves for centuries without clueless, gormless bureaucrats meeting in Paris to discuss how to sustain them.
My advice?
Hey, I’m never one for putting people’s emails up on the web, but Alisha Johnson drew the short straw and they list her email at the start of their press release above as the person to contact about this colossal waste of money in time of scarcity. So I’d let her know how you feel about Lisa’s little shopping trip.
Then email your Senator and Congressman, and tell them the same. The EPA, and indeed the US, should not be involved in international efforts on urban sustainability. That’s not its mission any more than “national security” is the mission of the EPA. Name me one thing that these international conferences have actually achieved … it’s just another excuse to hang out at very large government expense in a glamorous foreign city.
I’d write more, but this subject angrifies my blood mightily, and I fear I might wax wroth and utter wildly entertaining but eventually counter-productive speculations as to the species and familial inter-relationships of Ms. Jackson’s various antecedents, and cast aspersions on her personal habits, genetic challenges, and cranial horsepower … wouldn’t want to do that, so I’ll stop here.
My regards to all,
w.
Rosanne Barr. That’s who she looks like. Same grimace. (resents pretty girls)
“The EPA believe in the fairy tale of “sustainable”, and sees their task as “promoting sustainable development“?”
Well… let me think for a moment about it. What does “sustainable” mean? Something that can sustain, obviously. Sustainable development is such kind of development which would allow us develop for a very long time. Now you guys, when you read “sustainable”, you see windmills and solar plants – but the important fact is, these have in fact nothing to do with sustainable development. Promoting windmills and solar plants in fact leads to reversion of development as that would force us to shut down large portion of our industry. And most importantly sustainable development definitely doesn’t mean moving to certain technology and staying at it – that would be no development at all.
And EPA has a lot to do about it, as different people have different ideas of what “sustainable development” is. Mine, for example, is to transfer from fossil fuels to nuclear in the first step. Someone would prefer extending fossil fuel usage. And EPA is one of those who need to have say at things, to prevent us destroying our environment while sustaining our development.
So… well… I see nothing wrong on sustainable development and EPA role in it. So far it seems to have sustained quite well although it may have somewhat slowed down recently. The only problem is what people see under it, that’s what needs to be changed. Windmills and solar plants are not sustainable development, that’s all.
Lisa is a good Leftie administrator. Her imagination and her drive to control are limited only by her budget. She tests her budget constantly.
harrywr2 says:
March 30, 2012 at 10:37 am
Harry, while I wish I could believe in unicorns, fairy tales, and the claims you advance, even your own citation (above) disagrees. It says:
China is importing steam coal today, as we speak, and burning it in plants without even sulfur controls, as we speak. Your claim that no one would burn imported coal in such a facility is not true. One source says:
In other words, Australian and Indonesian coal is burned in China because it is cheaper than domestic Chinese coal. So your claim that imported coal wouldn’t be used in inefficient plants is a non-starter. Imported coal is used wherever it is cheaper than Chinese coal, which due to internal transportation problems is particularly on the coast.
As a result, every Chinese power plant located where imports are cheaper than Chinese coal uses imported coal, regardless of their efficiency. As you say, “no one with a brain” would use Chinese coal when imported coal is cheaper. In fact, the less efficient the plants are, the more important the cheap imported coal becomes, because their fuel costs are a larger proportion of the total. You have the stick by the wrong end.
So what? You say that as though “sub-critical” were a measure of how much pollution control the plant has. It is not. It is just a measure of the temperature of the steam, and nothing else. It means nothing about pollution. You can have a supercritical or an ultracritical plant that emits loads of pollutants. And in the US, both sub-, super-, and ultra-critical plants are subjected to the identical pollution control laws and requirements, so your distinction is meaningless in terms of how much pollution they put out.
In short … sadly, there is little that is correct in any of your claims.
w.
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
Thanks, Willis, I laughed mightily! Much appreciated.
Sustainability means drying when it’s wet. Warming if it’s cold and cooling if it’s warm… and whatever IT is, is recyclable. Any questions?
Let it be clear that this Administration is completely destroying the USA. Not by accident but on purpose and by design.
Voting Obama out of office won’t bring any relief because on the other side of the equation we have a Presidential candidate who is a warmist and a believer as well.
This means the US is totally screwed.
Well, there are vast ideas and half vast ideas! Ms. Jackson, et al sustain the latter…
Michael Kelley says:
March 30, 2012 at 10:10 am
Thanks, Michael. Your point is generally correct, but that citation is from 2009. The EPA budget peaked in 2010 at $10.3 billion. In 2011 it was $1.6 billion less than 2010, at $8.7 billion. The 2012 EPA budget request is for $8.97 billion, which they describe as “13% less than 2010”, and which they pointedly don’t describe as “3% more than 2011”.
I’d give you more details, but the EPA servers at nepis.epa.gov are down, so the information is unavailable … which is a fitting comment on their ability to get the job done …
w.
This woman, Lisa Jackson, has never, as far as I can tell, had a real job!
She’s what James Higham has called a parachutee, dropped into a post to fill PC commitments.
I doubt very much she could actually hold down a real job! How about you give her the opportunity to prove me wrong?
DaveE.
Who’s her boss? Sack him!
For what it’s worth, the official mission statement of the EPA is:
“The mission of EPA is to protect human health and the environment.”
Their “purpose” is a bit longer – more info here:
http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/whatwedo.html
R. de Haan says:
March 30, 2012 at 11:29 am
Let it be clear that this Administration is completely destroying the USA.
Not by accident but on purpose and by design.
================================================
The destruction of the USA is caused by…
S. I. M. P. L. E. T. O. N. S. T. U. P. I. D. I. T. Y.
They are clueless on the big picture.
Perfect photo!
An over fed bureaucrat, peering suspiciously out at the world over her ‘perched on the end of her nose’ glasses! An ‘environmental protection’ bureaucrat, personally using grossly excessive amounts of carbon based food, clothing, housing, energy,and transportation resources in her claimed pursuit of a ‘sustainable, carbon neutral’ world environment!
… protect the environment by ensuring national security… THAT should have been the (or another) Friday Funny!
And they had to take two planes. One for all the people and a second for all the money they are going to give away to other countries.
Not really a granola crowd, much more like a Kentucky Fried Chicken Socialist Bucket.
All Left Wings & As*holes.
Kasuha says:
March 30, 2012 at 11:10 am
Since the EPA clearly thinks that windmills and solar plants are sustainable and CO2 is teh eevil, how can you possibly see nothing wrong with the EPA’s role in “sustainability”? You seem very reasonable with your call for nuclear, while the EPA opposes, well, just about everything. You might enjoy my post “Nothing is Sustainable“.
w.
Willis: Y’know, it’s funny but I don’t recall any of those things being in the EPA’s mission. Foolish me, I thought the Environmental Protection Agency was about, well, protecting the environment …”
***********************************************************************************************************
A vacuum is an environment also. Albeit, not very a hospitable one; but that’s not Lisa’s concern.
puh, “governance challenges” – we’ve been subject to nothing but governance-challenged “solutions” ffs!
Perhaps she’s just leaving town for Paris to relax after a very, very bad week for the EPA in court.
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/53542#more-53542
@Pamela Gray says:
March 30, 2012 at 10:08 am
” Dear Miss Pinenuts, […] Damn it. Why, why did I vote you all in in the first place?”
I was not aware that these bureaucrats were voted in, least of all by you. Besides, the EPA carries out its mischief under protection of the law. Are you planning to vote out the jokers in the Supreme Court as well? Oh that’s right, you can’t.
Unless the Republican led US House quickly reins in the EPA, our industrial society is in deep doodoo.
“I was not aware that these bureaucrats were voted in, ”
They were appointed. By the guy that got voted in .
New Guy= New (hopefully more sane) batch of appointees, czars and department heads.
Robert E. Phelan says:
March 30, 2012 at 10:16 am
“In recent years, EPA’s bilateral and multilateral partnerships have increased efforts to address environmental and governance challenges.
There’s that word again. Just what do they have in mind for Rio?”
Bring down the West, as always, why do you ask?
It gets worse. Here in WA there are huge protests to building a coal terminal to ship to asian markets. I just shake my head. Our poor kids.