I’m posting this list of meetings at major cities around the USA in case anyone wishes to go and make your case. Based on my previous experiences, in my opinion, the EPA only does this for show, and they aren’t really interested in listening to the public’s ideas and concerns, but they have to keep up appearances.
OTOH, climate issues have turned sour in the last couple of years, so it is possible they might detect the change, especially if enough people voice negative opinions. It might make some difference to this draconian organization, though when they can’t even get the terminology right, and use “carbon pollution” instead of carbon dioxide, I have my doubts. It might be more satisfying and effective to show up with some rotten fruit and vegetables and pelt them from the audience like in the old days when people didn’t like the show.
There is a place to email comments if you can’t or don’t wish to show up in person.
EPA to Hold Public Listening Sessions on Reducing Carbon Pollution from Existing Power Plants
Release Date: 10/18/2013
Contact Information: press@epa.gov
WASHINGTON – Following through on President Obama’s Climate Action Plan, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will hold 11 public listening sessions across the country to solicit ideas and input from the public and stakeholders about the best Clean Air Act approaches to reducing carbon pollution from existing power plants. Power plants are the nation’s largest stationary source of carbon pollution, responsible for about one third of all greenhouse gas pollution in the United States.
The President’s Climate Action Plan takes steady and responsible steps to cut the harmful carbon pollution that fuels a changing climate while continuing to provide affordable, reliable energy. The feedback from these 11 public listening sessions will play an important role in helping EPA develop smart, cost-effective guidelines that reflect the latest and best information available. The agency will seek additional public input during the notice and comment period once it issues a proposal, by June 2014.
The Clean Air Act gives both EPA and states a role in reducing air pollution from power plants that are already in operation. The law directs EPA to establish guidelines, which states use to design their own programs to reduce emissions. Before proposing guidelines, EPA must consider how power plants with a variety of different configurations would be able to reduce carbon pollution in a cost-effective way.
For more information on these sessions and to register online, go to: http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/public-listening-sessions. For those who cannot attend these sessions, input can be e-mailed to carbonpollutioninput@epa.gov by November 8, 2013.
More information about EPA’s carbon pollution standards for the power sector: http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards
Public Sessions on Reducing Carbon Pollution from Existing Power Plants (all times are local):
DATE: Wednesday, October 23, 2013
TIME: 9:00 am – 12 Noon; and 2:00 pm – 5:00 pm EDT
EPA REGION & LOCATION:
US EPA Region 2
290 Broadway, Room 27A
New York
DATE: October 23, 2013
TIMES: 2:00 – 5:00 pm; and 6:00 – 9:00 pm EDT
EPA REGION & LOCATION:
US EPA Region 4
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
Bridge Conference Rooms
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta
DATE: Wednesday, October 30, 2013\
TIME: 9:00 am – 5:00 pm MDT (last 2 hours for call ins)
EPA REGION & LOCATION:
US EPA Region 8
1595 Wynkoop Street
Denver
DATE: Monday, November 4, 2013
TIME: 4:00 – 8:00 pm CDT
EPA REGION & LOCATION:
US EPA Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd.
Lenexa
DATE: Monday, November 4, 2013
TIME: 10:00 am – 3:00 pm EDT
EPA REGION & LOCATION:
US EPA New England
Memorial Hall
5 Post Office Square
Boston
DATE: Tuesday, November 5, 2013
TIME: 9:00 am – 4:00 pm PDT
EPA REGION & LOCATION:
US EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne St.
San Francisco
DATE: Thursday, November 7, 2013
TIME: 9:00 am – 8:00 pm EDT
LOCATION:
US EPA Headquarters
William Jefferson Clinton East
1201 Constitution Ave.
Washington, DC
DATE: Thursday, November 7, 2013
TIME: 10:00 am – 3:00 pm CDT
EPA REGION & LOCATION:
US EPA Region 6
Auditorium- 1st floor
J. Erik Jonsson Central Library
1515 Young St.
Dallas
DATE: Thursday, November 7, 2013
TIME: 3:00 – 6:00 pm PDT
EPA REGION & LOCATION:
US EPA Region 10
Jackson Federal Bldg.
915 Second Ave.
Seattle
DATE: Friday, November 8, 2013
TIME: 10:00 am – 4:00 pm EDT
EPA REGION & LOCATION:
US EPA Region 3
William J. Green, Jr. Federal Building
600 Arch Street
Philadelphia
DATE: November 8, 2013
TIME: 9:00 am – 4:00 pm CDT
EPA REGION & LOCATION:
US EPA Region 5
Metcalfe Federal Building
Lake Michigan Room
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
They must be afraid to hold meetings in coal mining regions of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky. They’d probably be run out of town (if they got out of town at all).
co2 is NOT pollution, the epa starting point is a LIE……..you cant deal with dishonest people and the epa is 100% FRAUD!
to the moderator if you fear the truth then dont allow me to post here and go back and remove all my other posts please.
[Reply: Relax, your comment automatically went into moderation hold because it had the word “fraud”. I’ve approved it now. Next time, give us more than four minutes before you go ballistic. ~mod.]
Political nut cases. They revel in the intensity of their belief, sure of their intelligence and never doubting that they are superior to all about them.
“responsible for about one third of all greenhouse gas pollution in the United States.”
Greenhouse gas pollution? Really?
I guess they got tired of people pointing out to them that those pictures of “pollution” from power plants were actually pictures of steam. Call it greenhouse gas pollution and water vapor fits, too.
Tamara says:
October 22, 2013 at 9:41 am
“responsible for about one third of all greenhouse gas pollution in the United States.”
Greenhouse gas pollution? Really?
*****
Yes, really.
You miss the point of their abuse of the american language in their lust for power.
As long as the EPA can call CO2 a pollutant, they will try to exert control over it along with control of the economy.
Time to push back on the ideas of carbon and carbon dioxide being pollutants.
Case is hopeless until
1. EPA is forced to change language, that is, quit talking about “carbon pollution” when it actually means “carbon dioxide pollution”. Reducing black carbon (soot) emissions is a valid objective, as it is harmful to human health indeed. However, it is very different from CO₂, which is an invisible, odorless life supporting gas, found in trace amounts in the atmosphere, at which level it has no toxic effect whatsoever. If it is included in the broad term “carbon” I can see no reason why water vapor emission is not called “hydrogen pollution”.
2. The Clean Air Act is amended to exclude substances from the category “pollutant” which are not directly harmful to human health in environmental concentration. That way EPA’s authority over carbon dioxide regulation would be taken away, the most it could do is to propose further legislation concerning carbon dioxide. However, in this case it would be forced to present all documentation in a congressional hearing purported to prove reducing incremental increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are less expensive to the taxpayer than dealing with indirect effects. Congress would also have to make sure any decrease in home emissions is not negated by by other countries, which means no regulation makes sense until supported by a multilateral international agreement, signed and ratified by all major emitters.
Lurker-
Here is the attitude towards science and the determination to treat the social sciences as hard and the natural sciences as soft. “Ecologists use science to challenge science on behalf of life. The advocated principle is not the negation of knowledge, but superior knowledge–the wisdom of the holistic vision.” 2006 Tellus Institute as part of this Great Transition documentation.
That holistic vision is ideology and as I explained in my book when I took on constructivism in math and science in Chapter 3- this is a theory of knowledge that makes “who has the power the principle issue.” And that’s a philosophy we had hoped was left back in the Middle Ages or discredited with Lysenko.
Unfortunately there is only one entity on all the Earth that can stop the EPA’s abuse – and that entity is Mother Nature herself.
The good news is that she is doing so. Global cooling will continue.
But then, AGW will most likely morph into AGC (Anthropogenic Global Cooling).
Be warned!!
Are coal fired plants currently releasing dangerous levels of carbon soot pollution (black carbon)?
If not, they should at least have to change their carbonpollutioninput at epa.gov to carbondioxidepollutioninput at epa.gov and all their other carbon-pollution propaganda.
“So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.” Obama
How about this; create a green thermostat by tying the “huge sum” that is charged for power to what the global surface temperature is. Don’t put the extra charge on the power compay though; put it on the rate charged consumers. Most utilities already have rates that are dictated by some kind of utility commission. It would be cybernetic, democratic, equitable, and green.
In truth it’s just as well to mothball coal plants (for awhile). There’s a natural gas bonanza right now. They are flaring oil wells in North Dakota:
GRAND FORKS HERALD, Published October 16, 2013, 03:34 PM
N.D. group files lawsuits against oil companies for flaring natural gas
North Dakota mineral owners filed lawsuits today against 10 oil and gas companies seeking damages for natural gas that was flared. The plaintiffs are seeking class-action status. A dollar figure being sought has not been identified, but Braaten said it will be significant.
By: Amy Dalrymple, Forum News Service
Pat Smith says:
October 22, 2013 at 7:40 am
‘…. Is it just a lost argument and we ought to go and do something else?’
Pat, isn’t that just what they would love us all to do? We must instead do the opposite, which is to ratchet up criticism, never give up.
‘they can’t even get the terminology right, and use “carbon pollution” instead of carbon dioxide, I have my doubts. It might be more satisfying and effective to show up with some rotten fruit and vegetables and pelt them from the audience like in the old days when people didn’t like the show’
Perhaps if people threw lumps of coal they might learn the difference between carbon and carbon dioxide.
Meanwhile, this good news from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) is largely ignored:
“U.S. Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions declined 3.8 percent in 2012… The 2012 downturn means that emissions are at their lowest level since 1994 and over 12 percent below the recent 2007 peak.”
http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/
Thanks for the heads-up! Just e-mailed the EPA opposing the whole idea.
Apparently the percent of CO2 dissolved in rainwater is much higher than the percent CO2 in dry atmosphere. We should recommend that the EPA immediately develop technology to scrub all rain clouds free of this horrible pollutant!
“notice how they equate ‘carbon pollution’ and CO2 release as being the same thing in all of their press releases.” — Marcos
“Every city the EPA is going to is heavily into the template or reorganizing economic development around Green Energy using largely federal funds ” — Robin
“The outcome of the meeting has been pre-determined, the goals pre-chosen, and the public’s choices carefully chosen and worded to give the impression of input, but are actually consenting to the pre-determined outcome.” — J Phillip Peterson
Yep, complete Dog n’ Pony show.
“But does it warrant your incitement to civil disobedience?” — Village Idiot
CD is a one-man revolution. And it only works when the broader journalism in the society is sympathetic to the purpose. Which is not the case here. But it would be amusing as all get out to bring a CO2 monitoring device to the rooms hosting these shindigs. Given the thesis that a given ppm is ‘pollution,’ then it’s simple enough to wait for the ppm to rise above that in a closed room full of exhalers. And then demand compensation in a tort against the EPA for it’s criminal negligence in exposing the public to a pollutant.
Pat Smith;
Is it just a lost argument and we ought to go and do something else?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually, we’re winning. But history happens in slow motion. It is like making a u turn with a very large ocean liner. It takes a long time and sometimes you’re not sure if the turn is happening at all. But the one way to ensure it doesn’t is to quit trying.
Imagine what would happen if there were a natural increase in the uptake of atmospheric CO2 (by whatever process you can imagine) resulting in a steady drop of it in the air. These fools, and much of the AGW crowd, would be happy to see it drop to zero, without a clue as to what would happen by removing this “dangerous pollutant”.
Considering that nature seems to have a sense of humor with the Al Gore effect, I would not be surprised if such a downturn in levels actually takes place. How far would the level have to drop before Mann, et al, changed their tune, or would they claim the CO2 was only hiding and one day spring up to destroy us?
Plant more trees in China – carbon “pollution” problem solved!
All,
Might I suggest that we crowd source some questions here for people who actually go to the meeting to ask? Sending them by email is futile in my opinion, they will never see the light of day. But asking the right question in public that makes the audience go WTF? and gets the attention of any press in the room, that’s worth doing. Here’s a couple of my suggestions:
1. Given that the United Nations has just released a report saying that the effects of warming will be beneficial until at least 2080 and perhaps longer, why are we doing this now?
2. Given that for every ton of Carbon we mitigate here, countries like China, India and others are planning on burning 100, aren’t we just spitting into the wind?
Those are off the top of my head, I’m sure others can come up with more. The strategy in things like this is to have a single concise question that puts the moderators in a tight spot. A question they can’t simply ignore without looking like they have something to hide, and yet makes them look foolish if they try and answer it. There’s a part 2 to this strategy though, which is that if you do spark a discussion, that you know your facts. Being able to quote exactly the report down to the page number that your claim comes from for example. Have a printed copy handy. And be prepared to be approached by press and others after the meeting with follow up questions.
Here is the recommended safe level of CO2 concentration as defined by NASA:
“We discuss strategies for highly-efficient, regenerable removal of CO2 that could meet the 1000-day SMAC (Spacecraft Maximum Allowable Concentrations) of 0.5%, which would apply to long-duration voyages to Mars.” That’s 5000 ppm.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:NM7m8UlzMsgJ:ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090029352_2009029386.pdf+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=mx&client=firefox-a
So. I guess these discussions will open with ways to keep CO2 levels in the immediate area around power plants below toxic level. Or determining a threshold where CO2 becomes significantly toxic.
CO2 as “carbon pollution”. Orwellian Newspeak if I ever saw it. Change/rewrite the term for a beneficial gas when you want to alter people’s perception if it and launch a propaganda war against it.
“Beautiful thing, the destruction of words.”
– Syme from Nineteen Eighty Four
George Orwell’s Oceania from his Nineteen Eighty Four novel is alive and well at the EPA and the eco-left. O’Brien would be proud.
Before I view the comments here note that the locations are Grand Central for the squirrels in the US population. Not sure about the one in Kansas. This is a show and the EPA must go.