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.
Sent to epa:
Is this a discussion on carbon particulate emissions? The title says carbon pollution, but the text mentions CO2.
Is the EPA planning to develop methodology to determine what levels of CO2 in the areas around power plants become significantly toxic enough to need reduction measures? I would suggest they use the methodology used for other toxins. But is this even worth the time. It doesn’t seem plausible that toxic levels could be reached even in the immediate area of a power plant, not even at the stacks. CO2 is a diffuse gas and carbon particulate emissions are already well regulated.
davidmhoffer says:
October 22, 2013 at 10:58 am
“…But asking the right question in public that makes the audience go WTF? and gets the attention of any press in the room…”
Q: Mr EPA, by referring to carbon-pollution, are you really referring to carbon dioxide?
Follow-up Q: So are you saying that CO2 is a pollutant? Is that a scientific fact?
Follow-up question: Mr EPA, at what concentration in % or ppm does CO2 become a “Pollutant”?
Village Idiot said:
October 22, 2013 at 7:38 am
All those needless environmental regulations curbing the raw power of capitalism.
—————————
That is their real aim. You’re no idiot!
Can I get a CO2 reality synopsis that I can present them at one of the meetings? I am an engineer, not a scientist, so I need clear statements, simple sentences.
Thanks
From their own website, they don’t say carbon pollution is Carbon Soot or Black Carbon – it’s Carbon Dioxide:
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-09/ghg-large.gif
and
http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards
Building on the questions to submit, I offer this one: Mr EPA, If the US were to reduce it’s CO2 emissions to ZERO tomorrow what impact would that have on global temperatures?
My ballpark calculations are that in about 300 years temps would be about 1 deg C lower than if we continue to emit at our 2010 rate. It would be good if others here computed the same to arrive at a range of values.
The EPA is a rogue agency, in fact it is a flat-out criminal enterprise stealing property from citizens and violating wholesale the constitutional rights of property owners under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. And it’s obvious that the Supreme Court will do nothing to stop the EPA from its vandalism.
One would hope that red states like Texas and the coal states will fight the EPA to the bitter end. They could pass laws making it a crime to use false information as the basis for shutting down a power plant. They could declare the EPA to be a criminal enterprise and punish its operatives, under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. I hope they do something like this.
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help. ‘Ronald Reagan’
Why does the Obama EPA bother?
Surely they can just ask the NSA what each and everyone of us think on this CAGW nonsense.
Sarc? Damned if I know anymore.
Allan Robertson at 7.44.
How true, this CAGW scam was orchestrated by our bureaucracies, promoted by the same and is currently being protected from investigation by both politicians and the bureaus.
Cheifio terms them Fuddites in honour of their methods.
Of course the 7 laws of bureaucracy would cause this same shambles.
Where does the EPA get off calling CO2 “Carbon pollution”…. Pass the duck tape, my head is about to explode.
Welcome to the Orwellian world of 1984 meets Alice in Wonderland…
Why not call Co2 “plant food” instead as that would be far more honest and descriptive.
EPA has the gall to even mention Climate Change? What Climate Change? Are they referring to: Flat/falling temperatures? Fewer hurricanes? Slightly more precipitation, Fewer tornadoes? fewer droughts?
Yeah, I guess those would mean the climate is changing for the better, but shouldn’t the EPA actually be advocating MORE plant food emissions to improve the environment with: increased crop yields, increased forest growth, increased plankton growth, less need for irrigation, less need for chemical fertilizers, increased arable land, increased greening, increased root formation that reduces soil erosion, etc?
And so it goes….until freedom and sanity are restored.
Meanwhile…
The arctic sea ice is refreezing very nicely and antarctica sea ice is setting records. Tornado activity is way down this year. And just where are the Atlantic hurricanes??? Oh yeah, we have Lorenzo (top winds 50 mph) roaring eastward [LOL]…
Let’s refer to CO2 as Vitamin C…(O2).
i.e. with a short delay at the ellipsis.
If I lived anywhere near one of these snake oil shows, I would be very tempted to set up a table outside and ask folks to sign the Petition to Ban Di-Hydrogen Monoxide. Odds are good I would get lots and lots of signatures…
I see the meeting in Atlanta is tomorrow, which I absolutely cannot make. I also have email addresses for my Senators and Congressman, so I can express my opinions more conveniently. Doubtless they will still be ignored.
It seems a bit like tilting at windmills. What’s needed is a battering ram.
Although none of the meetings are in a city near coal producing areas such as Pittsburgh PA or Charleston WV, I can only hope those in attendance at these listening sessions will make the case for the coal producing public.
I watched their video presentation on the EPA website. They did keep talking about “carbon pollution” which I think most people think is carbon soot or carbon (coal) dust (or black carbon) from coal etc. (that’s what I keep thinking until I viewed their website) They don’t really mention until at the end of their 33 minute presentation that carbon pollution, which they mention a plethora of times, really means carbon dioxide pollution.
Overview presentation of Clean Air Act Section 111:
I think at these meetings people should voice outrage that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. I would loudly state that referring to CO2 as “carbon pollution” is Orwellian Newspeak if I ever saw it. (as CD (@CD153) pointed out: October 22, 2013 at 11:13 am )
I suppose there’s no way one can call in at these EPA pep rallies and make one’s voice heard? If anybody here knows how to do this, please post it here!
Map of EPA regions: http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/visiting-regional-office
List of hearing locations:
New York, Reg. 2, 10/23
Atlanta, Reg. 4, 10/23
Denver, Reg. 8, 10/30
Lenexa (SW Kansas City), Reg. 7, 11/4
Boston, Reg (1), “New England”, 11/4
San Francisco, Reg. 9, 11/5
Washington, D.C., EPA HQ, (part of Reg. 3), 11/7
Dallas, Reg 6, 11/7
Seattle, Reg. 10 11/7
Philadelphia, Reg. 3, 11/8
Chicago, Reg. 5, 11/8
So 11 hearings, held on 6 individual days in a span of 13 work days.
8 hearings crammed into 4 work days in 5 calendar days.
There is no time for thought and reflection. These are Potemkin hearings.
I love the lack of logic in putting Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands in Region 2, with NY and NJ, but Hawaii is in Region 9 with California.
Alaska is in with Reg. 10 with WA, OR, ID.
What is the environmental logic of using the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers to divide EPA Regions?
davidmhoffer says:
October 22, 2013 at 10:58 am
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? … [etc.]
*
Excellent advice! I love the first question! If I was an unknowing person in the audience, that would have me sit up and want the answer.
Pat, Pat, dear, discouraged, Pat. Take heart! As Ron Albertson and David Hoffer so eloquently put it: the battle is NOT lost; you mistake the mere existence of enemy forces for their imminent victory. After “the end of the beginning,” it was years before the enemy were finally defeated in WWII. Even then, the communists made perpetual vigilance necessary. And, so too, we will need to be forever ready to defend truth wherever it is attacked. The war for truth in science is WON. It is just a matter of time until real money (yes, it is really they, those who stand to make money off of “carbon pollution,” who are the controlling drivers of AGW; the EPA, disgusting as it is, is merely a tool — what they think in their own minds about their importance is irrelevant) goes elsewhere. In Germany it already is.
Defeatism is powerful. Take a lesson from one who, at the time, had every reason to expect the defeat of his country, yet chose to say:
“We shall never surrender!”
Pat, they won!
EPA is also pushing forward on their “Water is Pollution” regulations under the Clean Water Act. Which would give them control over every drop of water on the continent – yes Mexico and Canada are in on this – including my catfish pond. And since I have a septic tank, presumably the number of flushes I’ll be permitted per day. All this because of a bogus “study” they commissioned that “proves” all water is connected. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/21/gop-lawmakers-grill-epa-on-water-reg-power-grab/
Absolutely not? As has been pointed out before they don’t care whether CAGW is a crock. They want the regulatory bodies and regulations in place as soon as possible. The Pachauri’s and other greedy capitalists want to cash in on the ensuing regulations and new industries. This is what it’s all about. See how many landowners in the UK are cashing in on wind farms on their huge lands. Gore bailed out on green when the profits shrunk though. See Lord Stern and his carbon investments and remunerations after accusing vested interests of trying to stop action on climate change. There are many, many more climate con artists at work here.
It’s driven by money, power and control. That’s it.
Typo:
Absolutely not? should be Absolutely not.