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.
Good post Janice – “We shall never surrender!”
In the EPA link posted above all I see is “carbon pollution”. Would that be soot or co2? Are they trying to pull a fast one? Geologically, since life began, I vaguely recall that this is the second time the Earth has experienced such low levels of Co2. It has been lower, but it’s still low by geological standards. Secondly, if co2 is currently a pollutant then why is the Earth’s biosphere as a whole and arid and arable areas responding so enthusiastically to the trace rise of this trace pollutant?
Climate Action Plan ? I think they left out the R.
davidmhoffer: “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?”
3. Given that Carbon is a pollutant, and that India and China are using Carbon as a weapon of mass destruction, does the EPA support military confrontation with these rogue states?
@J. Philip Peterson — thanks!
Re: your fine comments above, while you may not want to do the speaking, you are obviously EXCELLENT at the research and writing necessary to create the foundational documents without which there would be no hearing. Find someone to be your Aaron and you would be a powerful team!
Carbon pollution? Humans have a significant amount of carbon in their bodies. They also exhale it.
Connect the dots.
Are the EPA folk cycling to the meetings or going on horseback?
If you attend one of these hearings, do not waste your time arguing: a.) that CO2 is not a pollutant, or b.) that the EPA has no authority to regulate CO2 emissions. Rational people find both of these to be ludicrous propositions, but don’t waste your breath. The Clean Air Act and the bizarre 5-4 decision in 2007 (thanks to Justice Kennedy) by the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency gives them legal authority to regulate CO2.
What you SHOULD ask:
1. How the EPA determined in their December 7, 2009 “endangerment finding” that CO2 and 5 other “greenhouse gases” were a danger to public health but ignored the most potent one of all, water vapor. Present facts and figures about the potency of water vapor and the comparatively small (and logarithmic) effect of CO2.
2. What exactly are the dangers to public health from CO2? How did they determine the net effect of human CO2 emissions is a danger to public health rather than a boon to public health? (For example, it is well known that a warmer climate presents far fewer health dangers than a colder one.) Present facts and figures about public health and warm vs. cold climates.
3. What does the EPA determine is a “safe” amount of CO2 emissions? How is that determined; what is the methodology?
4. What cost/benefit analysis was done to determine a safe level of CO2 emissions?
5. How much will EPA’s restriction of CO2 emissions reduce warming and lower sea levels, which are presumably the main “public health dangers”? At what cost?
6. How much will EPA’s restriction of CO2 emissions increase the cost of power and what will the net effect of the higher cost of power be on poor people and their ability to stay warm in winter?
FYI, the EPA has a process for determining which substances are considered pollutants (“may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare” § 7408 (A)). Carbon dioxide, for reason obvious to any sentient being still capable of rational thinking, was not considered a pollutant and not regulated by the EPA. That changed after the Supreme Court decided 5-4 on April 7, 2009 in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency that the EPA is “required” to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The petitioners were a who’s who of liberal states’ governments and extreme liberal organizations (Greenpeace, Sierra Club, etc.). Once the EPA establishes it is a “pollutant”, they are then required to regulate it. They produced an “endangerment finding” on December 7, 2009 (the date that will live in infamy) that declared that CO2 and 5 other “greenhouse gases” are a danger to public health and welfare, thus defining it as a pollutant. Appeals had to be filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia by February 16, 2010. After that, you basically can’t argue against their finding that these greenhouse gases are a danger.
J. Philip Peterson says:
October 22, 2013 at 1:49 pm
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.
Someone should inform the EPA that their insidious deception could be improved if they never mentioned CO2 but only spoke to “carbon pollution” – not.
Aren’t these meetings just going to be a circus of every green fringe group in the area protesting outside and every green fringe leader monopolizing the microphones inside.
Any rational speaker will just get shouted down.
Or do you think the EPA will organize the meetings to have calm rational input?
“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.”
Let’s help the EPA understand the latest and best information available. Cite sources in scientific literature. For example:
Greenhouse gas emissions are down 12% in the U.S. since 2008 and are now at 1996 levels and continue to trend downward even as the economy improves. The majority of that decline is due to lower emissions from power plants, largely because natural gas is supplanting coal as the predominant fuel.
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/05/whats-behind-the-good-news-declines-in-u-s-co2-emissions/
Given that: a.) emissions are already decreasing and have been for the last 5 years, b.) the trend is toward fewer coal plants and more natural gas plants, c.) the U.S. is already meeting Kyoto protocol targets for greenhouse gas emissions and appears to be on track to reduce emissions further to the ultimate Kyoto target of 7% below 1990 levels–even without signing the Kyoto Treaty; why is it necessary to regulate carbon dioxide emissions of power plants and require them to use expensive carbon capture technology? In other words, since we’re already getting remarkable results without regulation, why do we need regulation?
Don’t mess with success, EPA.
Given that the US is already emitting less because of increased NG use, and yet global emissions are inevitably rising fast because of India, China, and the third world, the entire EPA effort is revealed as pointless from the get-go, even assuming the CO2=pollution nonsense.
The day my mother socked it to , the obama valley epa………..
The problem is that the amount of CO2 emitted by humans, (3-4%) of the total natural emissions, doesn’t matter because it isn’t causing global warming, er climate change, er climate disruption, er etc.
The EPA, President, Congress, Senate, & Judiciary have to be informed of this – over and over and over & over again, until it sinks in, for god sake!…
Lauren R: “In other words, since we’re already getting remarkable results without regulation, why do we need regulation?”
Because a pay off without a stated reason is called a bribe.
Since there is zero chance of the EPA considering any meaningful and unbiased input, what would be the point for any reputable scientist or other qualified person in submitting any testimony?
The agency is, almost without exception, peopled by those who already “know” the answers they want.
The choice of wording in the press release shows that the outcome is already decided.
Not meaning to insult the skunks of the animal world, but he EPA seems to have more than its share of Mephitis mephitis in its employ; the kind of people whose decisions reek to high heaven.
…no, sorry, that’s an insult to all the decent skunks of the world.
F. Ross says:
October 22, 2013 at 8:33 pm
“The choice of wording in the press release shows that the outcome is already decided.”
Yes you are right it’s the Delphi Technique for public meetings:
Just one of many YouTube examples:
It’s only about 14 minutes long. Rosa Korie has some better examples if you rally want to get into it.
really not rally, But maybe we should rally!
Really? Rally the troops, then!
Here’s a sample of what the EPA meeting might be like if enough people show up to voice their opinions.:
I think we should record these EPA meetings. (if they allow it).
Actually,
I would suggest than rather than tackle the EPA you tackle the power companies. What should be done is suggest to all the Power generators that they switch off their dirty CO2 producing generators – diesel, coal, or gas types – all at the same time for 48 hours starting at earth hour each year with a press release reminding your population that this is what decarbonising means for America and how purifying it will be. Giving credit to the EPA, greens and Climate NGOs for the resultant crippling policies on their businesses….
I think such acts of civil disobediance by power generation companies even on a small scale would be really effective. An email campaign showing there is genuine public support for a revolt against the EPA might help precipitate something.
This has been suggested for Australia too, but most of our generators are run by state governments.
Bob
[+emphasis]
Agree completely with your post. I have suggested similar actions in the past but I never thought of doing it during fiasco that is earth hour . How fitting that would be, especially if the prime area affected were Wash. D.C.
The laws mandating these listening sessions were passed before e-mail became so common. They aren’t necessary in an age of e-mail, which provides a way for more people to have input, and for the best presentations to achieve a higher average level.
Hmm…sounds familiar.
Village Idiot says:
October 22, 2013 at 7:38 am
‘All those needless environmental regulations curbing the raw power of capitalism. But does it warrant your incitement to civil disobedience?’
Whilst capitalism has to be curbed, do remember it is capitalism which has given you your lifestyle and the means by which you have been able to buy your home and which has provided the highest standard of living in the history of the world. Russia, China and india have all seen the light of capitalism over recent years.
No we don’t want civil disobedience, unlike Greenpeace, Hanson and other misguided bodies who feel they are allowed to break the law at will, and start complaining when they are prosecuted and imprisoned for so doing.
Note, the EPA is asking for registrations to attend, suggesiting there may not be enough room to accomodate everyone who may want to attend the meeting. One hoary old political tactic is to stack the deck against any opposition by loading the room full of supporters who are selected to attend, while not selecting or limiting members of the opposition.
Is anyone considering attending the Seattle session on November 7th, 2013?