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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
EJ says:
March 30, 2012 at 2:27 pm
“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.”
Useful idiots in the truest form; there is someone who has something to sell, and it is not coal. A part of the mosaic.
mizimi says:
March 30, 2012 at 10:49 am
The EPA has a long history of international collaboration on a wide range of global environmental issues. should read :-The EPA has a long history of international interference on a wide range of global environmental issues that are none of it’s concern.
_________________________________
BINGO!
I wish the USA would get its G… D…. nose out of other peoples business. That is what Ron Paul wants and that is why he is the only republican candidate that shows he would win against Obama.
Despite what the mass media would have us believe most people are not radical right wing or radical left wing. We are all sick and tire of the graft and corruption and the waste of our tax dollars. We are sick of the greed of the bankers, politicians, crony “Capitalism” and idiotic laws and regulations.
The mass media plays up the difference between Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party but the schism is really just “Divide and Conquer” propaganda.
Ocupy Wall Street:
Note Free Market prosperity is not the World Trade Organization type Free Market but the Mises type free market “…let’s define the term “free market.” Dictionary.com defines a “market” as “an opportunity to buy or sell” and a “free market” as “an economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated or are regulated with only minor restrictions.” ~ Art Carden In other words it is allowing a black woman to set-up in business braiding hair without major hassles from the regulating class.
Yes the view points are somewhat different but with out the Regulating Class playing both ends against the middle, I think a decent government is possible. Most “Right Wingers” are Christians so taking care of your neighbor is part of their belief system despite the media hype that says otherwise. That point is the tip off that the schism is media propaganda created and not real. The other point is that BOTH sides are royal ticked off.
So what the heck is actually going on?
The truth is we have three different categories of people and not just two as portrayed by the Media. The left wing, the right wing and the rent seeking regulating class that preys upon the other two classes. Unfortunately the regulating class controls both the Democrats , the Republicans AND the media so they remain largely hidden. So far the Republican voters in the form of the Tea Party have woken up first. Hopefully the other side will take off the blinders and see the Bushs and Obama and Clinton were all cut from the same cloth, the blood sucking regulating class.
To be fair on the EPA a big chunk of their budget ( $3.9 Bill) is spent on improving the quality of waterways and clean drinking water. As well as $0.5 Bill for improving water in the Great Lakes.
This is the reason for the jump in the last 3 years. These amounts are spent entirely on local projects
The items shown on the press release are not listed on their web site as part of their ‘mission’
Kasuha says:
March 30, 2012 at 11:10 am
“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?
____________________________________________
“promoting sustainable development“ Is promoting the United Nations Agenda 21. Therefore the EPA is acting as an agency of the United Nations IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY and not as part of the US Government.
TREASON anyone?
Lisa Jackson is looking to change the world:
The quotes below are from the new SPPI paper, “Lisa Jackson, EPA Administrator – Fulfilling the UN Mission”
The Lisa Jackson quote is from the EPA website.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/lisa_p_jackson_epa_administrator_fulfilling_the_un_mission.html
Lisa Jackson 20th January 2012, “Keynote Remarks at the National Council for Science and the Environment’s “National Conference on Environment and Security”
“As Rio+20, the 20th anniversary of the 1992 Earth Summit, approaches in June, we have a chance to learn lessons, build partnerships and put in place innovative strategies that can reshape the economic and environmental future of our entire planet.”
“It is the rarest of opportunities to truly change the world, and make a difference that will benefit billions of people. It means working together to strengthen the effectiveness of environmental governance”
Ban Ki Moon, UN Secretary-General, 14th February 2012, Remarks to KPMG Summit:“Business Perspective for Sustainable Growth”
“Join us at the Corporate Sustainability Forum in Rio. Organized by the UN Global Compact, it will showcase innovative public-private partnerships and business contributions. Only with your strong support and leadership we can change and shape the world we want and we can make this world better for all. That is why I am asking you to help the U.N. to help us protect planet earth and help lift millions of people from poverty and disease.”
Gro Harlem Brundtland, Socialist International, 15 -17 September 1992
“At the Rio Conference on Environment and Development (1992) it was made clear that we are heading towards a crisis of uncontrollable dimensions unless we change course. Securing peace, sustainable development and democracy requires that nations, in their common interest, establish an effective system of global governance and security.”
Willis,
It’s time for you to learn about Agenda 21.
Willis Eschenbach says:
China is importing steam coal today, as we speak, and burning it in plants without even sulfur controls, as we speak.
Australian and Western US Coal is low sulfur.
Different Sulfur Content in US coal
http://www.eia.gov/coal/news_markets/
Powder River Basin 8,800 Btu, 0.8 SO2
llinois Basin11,800 Btu,5.0 SO2
Northern Appalachia 13,000 Btu,<3.0 SO2
How about Australian coal –
http://www.ccsd.biz/PSE_Handbook/6/6/3/
As Australian coal has low sulfur content, control of SO2 Sulfur Dioxide emissions from utility boilers in Australia is by dispersion through a high stack. Further reduction through the use of flue gas desulfurization (FGD) has not been required.
Australia doesn’t require scrubbers on power plants. They use ‘low sulfur’ coal.
A statement such as
“X Percent” of China power plants don’t have scrubbers is meaningless unless the quality of the coal being used is known.
Obviously coal with high SO2 content needs scrubbers…but with low SO2 content it becomes questionable.
How about this article about the state of scrubbers on US coal power plants from 2004.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5673484
Coal-fired power plants supply half of the nation’s electricity. In 2004, two-thirds of this power came from plants without scrubbers, devices that can remove up to 98 percent of sulfur dioxide from power-plant emissions, according to a recent EPA analysis.
China’s ‘average coal fleet efficiency’ surpassed the US in 2005. US Coal Fired Fleet efficiency hasn’t changed since the 1960’s. (Chart on page 12)
http://www.esi.nus.edu.sg/docs/event/baruya—iea-ccc-november-2011-v5-slimmer.pdf
The Chinese Power sector of 10 years ago(when China was exporting coal at $22/ton) is not the Chinese power sector of today(they are importing at $100+/ton).
Economics change…so do practices.
Pamela Gray says:
March 30, 2012 at 10:08 am
Dear Miss Pinenuts,
Mercury levels are still too high in many rivers. Pay attention to that in our own backyard Miss Pinenuts, instead of jetting off to some other country. Let these other countries decide to treat their land, air, and water in whatever way they wish. It is none of your blankety blank business,…
===========
LMAO — I couldn’t have said it better.
Other than venting, what is the point of firing off e-mails to the human equivalent of an answering machine — particularly a filtering one?
This, admittedly is a take on an old joke. Anyway, Lisa Jackson’s hiring an individual for a position at the EPA and she’s got it narrowed down to 3 applicants: a civil engineer, a statistician, and an ecologist from an NGO. She asks the engineer, “What does urban sustainability mean?” He says, “Well, it’s about structures being engineered to withstand expected weather patterns.” She tells him thanks and shows him the door. She asks the statistician. He tells her that it’s about a statistical analysis determining whether the volume of goods and services leaving a specific urban environment is sustained by the volume entering it. She tells him thanks and shows him the door. Then she asks the ecologist what urban sustainability means. He tells, “Well it’s whatever you want it to mean.” She hires him on the spot
Nope. Janet N., current Führer of the DHS.
Eric Dailey says:
March 30, 2012 at 4:39 pm
Been there … blogged that …
Rio+20 meets Agenda 21
w.
DAV says:
March 30, 2012 at 5:09 pm
Hey, light whatever candle you want, it’s better than cursing the darkness.
w.
Oh, let’s buy some French pastries!!!
Meow.
Well, I’m a U.S. citizen and taxpayer. The least she could do while she’s over there is pick up a nice silk tie for me. I wouldn’t want to see my tax dollars totally wasted.
/snarky sarc
Excellent rant Mr. E.! I can’t find anything in your post with which I disagree. Your analysis is spot on. I leave it to the Grammar Police (or Hugh Pepper… hahahahahaha) to find anything wrong with what you have written.
Willis– the definition of “urban sustainability” is simple,”From each, according to his abilities; to each, according to his needs.”.
Wow! That sounds like Utopia, does it not? LOL!
The reality of that “urban Utopia/sustainability” model was tried out in USSR, and from talking with my Russian friends, it really wasn’t sustainable nor very Utopian…. I think “hell on Earth” is the most common description used to describe “urban sustainability” in actual practice…
Kasuha says: March 30, 2012 at 11:10 am
“…….. 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.”
I have a small doubt about nuclear. In short or medium time range nuclear appears to be good. In the long run, however, nuclear requires fossil fuel energy inputs in many ways. To begin with, we have to mine uranium ore, then purify it, manufacture rods, and transport them to the site. In parallel we have to prepare the site and construct reactors and related buildings: all there require fossil energy, though up to this stage its amount is not so large.
After 30 to 50 years’ operation, the reactor and the plant facility must be demolished. The energy required is much more than that for ordinary houses/buildings. For instance our government estimates it’ll take 30 to 50 years to safely demolish the Fukushima plants; a huge amount ot fossil energy should be used in that operation.
In addition, storage of used fuel will be a very big work, again consuming much fossil energy.
Hence for me it is quite dubtful whether nuclear is really better than fossil fuels per se in a Life-Cycle-Assessment viewpoint. ….Just a thought.
Willis Eschenbach says:
March 30, 2012 at 12:31 pm
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“.
__________________________________________________
The question is what is consider wrong, the program as a whole, or meaning of individual words. EPA’s program is also to reduce pollutants and we’re not calling for them to stop reducing pollutants, only to stop seeing CO2 as a pollutant. It goes the same way with sustainability, IMO.
Of course both are supposed to have effect on what policies they are putting into the place.
The difference is, convincing the public that windmills and solar plants are not in fact sustainable is going to have much broader effect than just on what EPA is doing. And I believe the public opinion is already moving the right way. Once this is done, there will be no problem with EPA program anymore.
“she has jetted off to Paris with her usual granola entourage, which consists mostly of nuts and flakes”
Might be a few fruit loops in there as well.
Kasuha says:
March 30, 2012 at 11:29 pm
Thanks for your thoughts, Kasuha. I fear you misunderstand bureaucracies and what is called “mission creep”. You see, the EPA no longer thinks their mission is to “reduce pollutants” as you reasonably state. I’d have little problem if they did that in a scientific manner.
The difficulty is, as their press release shows, they believe their mission is “ensuring national security” and “facilitating commerce” and “promoting sustainable development”.
So merely establishing that windmills and solar are not sustainable is far too little and way too late. We also have to crush their fantasy that they are in charge of national security and tasked with facilitating commerce … and that will be much, much harder.
w.
“What does that even mean, urban sustainability?”
It means “I am going to pretend to care about the environment while spending all your money.”
Just look at that:
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/57/50036151.pdf
“Additional ways are needed to measure economic growth, taking into account environmental and social considerations, to pave the way towards a paradigm shift in how we measure progress.”
“Economic tools (such as taxes, charges, tradable permits, valuation of natural resources and ecosystem services, removal of environmentally harmful subsidies) are important, but countries also need effective regulatory approaches to foster behavioural changes.”
“Many Ministers supported the OECD Secretary-General’s view that green growth is not just a way forward, it is the way forward.”
“Our constituency is the next generation.”
While it may sound confusing for EPA to say that it does work on national security, the reality is that Congress assigned EPA certain homeland security responsibilities in the Bioterrorism Act of 2002. There were also a number of “Homeland Security Presidential Directives” issued in the early 2000-s that specifically assigned EPA some responsibilities. These mostly pertained to studying the security of our nation’s drinking water supplies, preparing for how to respond to bioterrorism attacks (e.g., in terms of decontamination), conducting vulnerability assessments, and so on. In short, EPA’s role in homeland securtity (which is very limited, in my opinion) was originally set in to motion by Congress and the Executive Office, not by the agency itself. Just mentioning this for context.
That being said, I also don’t know what is meant by urban sustainability!!!
harrywr2 says:
March 30, 2012 at 4:39 pm
So your claim is that the Chinese power plants have pollution controls equivalent to the ones that the US plants have?
You’re right that “Economics change…so do practices”. But there’s one practice that doesn’t change. The Chinese government shows no sign of changing their practice of lying about how advanced they are and how well their people are doing.
Let’s take mercury emissions from the burning of coal as an example. The US generates about 4,000 terawatt-hours of electricity per year, and the Chinese, about 3,700TWn/year. About 40% of US electricity comes from coal, that’s about 1,600 TWh/yr. For China it’s higher, about 70%, or about 2,600 TWh/year.
The problem is, China emits about 268 tonnes/year of mercury from its electricity generation, while the US emits only about 64 tonnes/year.
This means that for each kilowatt-hour of electricity generated, Chinese power plants are emitting some two and a half times as much mercury as US plants …
Harrywr, there’s a moral to this story, one that I learned from Chairman Mao. The Chinese government will lie through its teeth about how well it is doing. To hear them tell it, Chinese power plants emit only pure air and the smell of spring flowers … meanwhile, people in Beijing are dying from the pollution. You need to get more skeptical and dig under the numbers as I have just done in order to get nearer to the truth.
My best to you,
w.
J Williams says:
March 31, 2012 at 10:25 am
Thanks for that, J. The EPA lists three “Homeland Security Presidential Directives” here.
Unfortunately, only one of these three directives is anything more than a general “look out for terrorists” directive. The third is HSPD-7, about which the EPA says:
When you read HSPD-7, it says that EPA is the “sector-specific agency” for drinking water, and as such is required to do the following::
Note that that says nothing about “decontamination” or responding to bioterrorism …
So you are correct, the EPA was tasked to do a minor part of the US response to terror. So was my local town fire department and every cop shop in the county, everyone was put on alert … but that doesn’t make the mission of the local cops “national security”.
w.