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 listen but will they hear?
See:
Extortion: How Politicians Extract Your Money, Buy Votes, and Line Their Own Pockets
by Peter Schweizer
The EPA is used as part of an extortion racket to solicit funding and political support.
Many people argument that adding plant food (Co2) to the atmosphere is a good thing. What about adding plant food (sewage) to the water, that should be a good thing too, or what?
Your argument, Jan, comparing life-giving CO2 to sewage is that of a retarded person.
Jan Kjetil Andersen says:
October 23, 2013 at 2:42 am
Many people argument that adding plant food (Co2) to the atmosphere is a good thing. What about adding plant food (sewage) to the water, that should be a good thing too, or what?
CO2 is a very specific element.
“Sewage” encompasses a wide range of “stuff”. What particular portion of sewage are you referencing?
No one says “adding factory stack gasses to the atmosphere” is a good thing. Many actual pollutants there, just as there are in sewage.
I’m being kinder than Bruce Cobb above, but his implication that your question lacks thought seems reasonable.
Jan must work for the EPA…maybe even the science adviory office of the White House.
Sewage is a conglomeration of a very large number of molecular compounds and atomic elements, many of which are living organisms that are harmful pathogens, whereas Carbon dioxide is a single and simple molecular compound that is harmful to humans and the biosphere only in excessive quantities not presently experienced in the Earth’s atmosphere. In other words, your example is a absurdly false comparison deliberately designed to deceive with a false analogy.
To follow the logic or illogic in your false analogy, you could just as easily conclude water H2O is an environmental pollutant, because it too is harmful to humans and the environment, albeit in excessive amounts. This of course could then be used by the EPA to control the amount of water vapor emissions by humans to the atmosphere and the waste water. After all, water is also plant food, the same as Carbon dioxide and sewage.
That would play right into the alarmist specious argument, that it’s not the here and now that matters, but future generations. They obviously think future generations want a cold, lifeless world.
There are many video recording apps for Android phones which won’t make it obvious you’re recording. Just start it before you go in and leave the phone on your belt. Simple. Or just start your phone’s audio recorder before entering. Unless they confiscate everyone’s phones, should be easy.
Good point, sewage cannot be directly compared to CO2 since sewage can contain directly harmful contents like heavy metals and bacteria. But those elements are usually not the primary concern with sewage. The most visible and usually primary concern by sewage to water is excessive fertilizing by adding too much phosphorus and nitrogen, which are causing overgrowth of algae. This is the reason I draw the analogy by plant food from sewage (Nitrogen and Phosphorus) and CO2.
The thing is that much of the stuff we call pollutants are perfectly harmful things, but they are located in the wrong places or in excessive amounts. Nitrogen and phosphorus are harmless nutrition’s in most cases, but cause problems when we get too much of it. Sulfur is another example of a harmless element in most cases, but when burnt it can form SO2, which can combine with water to form to sulfuric acid, causing acid rain, which used to be a large environmental problem.
My point is that CO2 can be said to be plant food, but that does not make it harmless. CO2 can rightfully be called a pollutant simply because it is an unwanted by-product we get rid off by emitting it to the atmosphere.
Jan Kjetil Andersen says:
October 23, 2013 at 2:57 pm
Yes, and this is just as it should be.
I see.
Now comes the point we’ve all been waiting for, when you Mr. Anderson, specify the harm being done by CO2.
The EPA’s endangerment finding regarding CO2 emissions was illegal under the Daubert standard. The Daubert standard disambiguates the polysemic term “scientific” for the courts of the United States. Under this standard, testimony taken to be dispositive by the EPA was not scientific under the Daubert standard though being claimed to be scientific by the EPA..
need links for backup on this claim.
Steve P says:
October 23, 2013 at 4:33 pm
Well, I don’t know if all is waiting for that, but thank you for the attention anyway.
The thing is that I think it’s worrying that human activity has elevated the CO2 content in the atmosphere by approximately 40%. I think it’s worrying to know that the change is a global. Every breath you take whether in Africa’s jungle or the pacific islands have elevated CO2 content caused by human activity.
You may say that we have been there before, CO2 levels were higher in the past, but that is millions of years ago. Many of today’s species did not exist then.
We may not know all consequences but there have been words about climate change and more acidic water.
The EPA says your statement, “directly harmful contents like heavy metals and bacteria. But those elements are usually not the primary concern with sewage. The most visible and usually primary concern by sewage to water is excessive fertilizing by adding too much phosphorus and nitrogen, which are causing overgrowth of algae.” is false.
“United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Environmental Regulations and Technology. Control of Pathogens and Vector Attraction in Sewage Sludge (Including Domestic Septage) Under 40 CFR Part 503; EPA/625/R-92/013 Revised July 2003…Chapter 2 Sewage Sludge Pathogens. 2.1 What are Pathogens?…Pathogens that propagate in the enteric or urinary systems of humans and are discharged in feces or urine pose the greatest risk to public health with regard to the use and disposal of sewage sludge.”
Clearly, the overgrowth of algae, which removes Carbon dioxide from the atmosphered is not the greatest risk to public health by any means. On the contrary, it is algae which is used to clean water in sewage reclamation plants and in the natural environment. Although algae can pose problems in the environment like any other natural organism with and without anthropogenic influences, there is no evidence that the anthropogenic influences are any more than an insignificant contributor in comparison to the variability of the natural influences. It should be remembered that human changes to the global environment may be less influential than the natural influences the human activties may have displaced in many or most cases. Consequently, your analogy is utterly false and contrary to the evidence.
Water (H2O) by far is responsible for the death of more humans and fauna than are Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and compounds of Sulfur. By your twisted rationale humans are too irresponsible with the handling of water to be trusted with its handling without proper HAZMAT and OSHA licensing, training, and regulations in the home and in industry.
Carbon dioxide is not Sulfur or a Sulfur compound, and Carbon dioxide has not been demonstrated to cause harm or a capability of causing harm to the environment or the global climate in the quantities humans are capable of emitting now or in the future. Quite the contrary, human emissions of Carbon dioxide are so insignificant they are difficult to even measure. By contrast, the natural environment is the source of nearly all emissions of Carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. When humans were not in existence, the natural environment was responsible for all Carbon dioxide emissions and Sulfur dioxide emissions, including the emissions from mammoth forest and prairie fires that humans have since drastically reduced.
Bottomline, Carbon dioxide is definitely beneficial to the environment in the current and projected atmospheric concentrations, and no valid evidence has been presented to demonstrate any remotely significantly adverse effect upon the Earth’s climate or environment. If anything, the Earth’s atmospheric concentrations may actually be abnormally low and could be gravely harmful nearly all life on the Earth when the interglacial comes to an end.
That statement is an absurd impossibility. Atmospheric concentrations of Carbon dioxide by the combination of natural and human activity is nowhere near the 40% you claim for human activities alone, and human activity is somewhere on the order of one-hundredth of even that greatly lower percentage. Even the slightest changes in insect populations can result in far greater emissions of Carbon dioxide into the Earth’s atmosphere than human emissions of the beneficial gas.
Probably all of the genera and nearly all of today’s species were in existence the last time atmospheric concentrations of Carbon dioxide were greater than today, far less than a million years ago or even some millenia ago.
It is also rather insane to imply humans have the capability or the duty to geoengineer the entire Earth to preserve “today’s species” against extinction due to natural changes and/or anthropogenic changes in atmospheric concentrations of Carbon dioxide. It is also rather insane to see propagandists for Global Warming and Climate Change hysteria argue on the one hand that humans are responsible preserving the atmosphere and biosphere in the current state, and then they embark on the most dangerous schemes to seed the oceans with iron to geoengineer the same atmosphere and biosphere with practically no regard whatsoever for the potential adverse consequences of their actions.
The mythical scaremongering about acidic oceans have been debunked and shown to be yet another bizarre and irrational misrepresentation of the actual conditions of the seas.
Typo:
D. Patterson says:
October 24, 2013 at 12:24 am
I am not sure what you mean here D. Patterson. It is a fact that the CO2 level has increased from approximately 280 ppm before industrialization to 400 ppm today. That is an increase of approximately 40%. Don’t you accept any of that?
It is also widely accepted by almost all well informed people, “warmists” and “skeptics” alike, that this increase is caused by human CO2 emissions, is that the point you have problems with?
Thank you rogerknights, for finding and correcting my typo
Jan Kjetil Andersen says:
I think it’s worrying that human activity has elevated the CO2 content in the atmosphere by approximately 40%. I think it’s worrying to know that the change is a global. Every breath you take whether in Africa’s jungle or the pacific islands have elevated CO2 content caused by human activity.
But, so what?
Steve P says:
Now comes the point we’ve all been waiting for, when you Mr. Anderson, specify the harm being done by CO2.
Yes, Mr. Anderson needs to identify and quantify any perceived ‘harm’ caused by the rise in CO2.
So far, no one has been able to identify any harm caused by CO2. You can bet that if there were any harm from CO2, plenty of people would be hitting skeptics over the head with examples.
But there are no examples. None at all. CO2 is harmless, at both current and projected concentrations, and it is measurably beneficial. Tens of thousands of scientists and engineers have co-signed a statement saying exactly that, and many of the proponents of the carbon scare publicly admit that it has nothing to do with science. Rather, it is their means to a political end. In other words, it is unscientific propaganda.
Mr. Anderson is worrying himself crazy over the rise in a harmless, beneficial trace gas, which has been up to twenty times higher in the past — when the biosphere teemed with life and diversity. Further, there is no correlation between rising CO2 and global warming. In fact, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature.
The “carbon” scare has shaken up some otherwise rational folks. But it is irrational to become so worried over a tiny and harmless trace gas, which is causing no problems. It shows what the incessant AGW propaganda has done: after being pounded with it 24/7/365 for twenty years or more, without the slightest bit of scientific evidence, some people begin nodding their heads in agreement, but without understanding why they are agreeing.
D. Patterson says:
October 23, 2013 at 11:29 pm
I did not say that it is the greatest risk to public health, but it is in many cases it is the one issue which causes most problems.
The problems with algae is that they reduce the clearness of the water and they use up oxygen.
When water looks dirty it is usually because high algae concentrations. Right it can also be because of dirt and sand whirled up in the water but when you see still dirty water it is usually because of the algae. You have to have really extremely sewage contaminated water before the sewage in itself make the water look dirty.
But look is not the problem. The problem is that the sunlight stops after a short distance in the unclear water, and below it is pitch dark. The algae produce oxygen in the surface water, but when they die, they sink and rot and that is a process which uses up a lot of oxygen.
If you have enough fertilizer in a still water, the dead algae will use up all the oxygen in the bottom and you gets a dead zone in the bottom water with ill smelling H2S gas and no life. That has happened in a lot of lakes and fjords around the world, but the situation has improved in most of the western world for the last two – three decades.
I did not want to start a technical discussion of other kinds of pollutions in detail. That is beside my subject. My point was only to show that the stuff we call pollutants is in many cases harmless elements, but in wrong places or in excessive amounts.
Obamacare is crashing, the temperatures are crashing, jobs are still crashing, and the climate model projections are skyrocketing along with the debt ceiling. And on top of that the EPA will be increasing the cost of heat just when everyone in climate research has said we are in for a cold spell (to be followed by a heat spell but not for about another 30 years).
Will this play well to these audiences? Not unless they fill the air circulation system with pot. And then they won’t care as long as they have potato chips to munch on during the kum ba yah listening session.
Mr. Andersen,
Thanks for your reply, and please accept my apology for misspelling your last name, above.
I’ve asked you to specify the harm being caused by CO2.
You’ve instead pointed out that CO2 levels have increased in the recent past without offering any evidence that this increase is harmful.
Again, please specify what harm is being done by CO2 at current levels, and further, please specify what the ideal atmospheric concentration of CO2 would be, and why.
Thank you
Steve P says:
October 24, 2013 at 12:30 pm
Oh, apology granted Steve P.
First, I look at myself as a lukewarmer, meaning that I do think that human caused climate change is real, and that it will do more bad than good, but I do not believe in the catastrophic part. I think the negative effects are wildly exaggerated in most media.
My position to the harm being done by CO2 is that no one knows for sure, but we have some indications:
1. CO2 causes temperatures to increase by trapping infrared radiation. This can have some negative effects like:
a. Dry areas may become dryer because hot air causes more evaporation than colder air.
b. Areas exposed to flooding can get more flooding because warmer air can contain more water and causing heavier rain.
c. The sea level may rise caused by thermal expansion and melting glaciers, causing coastal flooding.
d. We know that tropic hurricane only grows when the sea temperature is above 27 Celsius, and it grows faster the higher the sea temperature is. This may cause more and bigger tropical cyclones
2. CO2 combines in water to carbonic acid. This makes the sea less alkaline, and it make acid lakes more acid. The effect is still minuscule but given the fact that the CO2 concentration is constantly growing, it can become a problem in a not too distant future.
The ideal CO2 level? Again, no one knows but I think it would be safest to stay around the level it has been for the last millennia and where we are now, i.e., between 250 and 400 ppm. The problem is that it grows steadily with 2ppm annually, and that takes us to an atmospheric mix the earth has not experienced for millions of year.
Jan Kjetil Andersen says:
October 24, 2013 at 1:22 pm
Indications are not evidence.
Well, no. There are places on Earth where CO2 levels are commonly far above 400 ppm, even today. One such place is a greenhouse, and another is a submarine. A third is probably any crowded room where people are yakking away.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/17/claim-co2-makes-you-stupid-as-a-submariner-that-question/
Finally, do you realize the oceans outgas CO2 as they warm, just like your beer or carbonated beverage? Do you think your beer is getting warmer because it lost carbonation, or do you think it is losing carbonation because it’s getting warmer? I realize some Europeans drink their beer warm, but the point will not be lost on fellow Yanks and others who like their beer ice-cold.
There seems to be about a several-hundred year lag between the time the oceans begin to warm, and the time CO2 levels begin to rise. In other words, rising atmospheric CO2 is an effect of rising temperatures on Earth, and not the cause.
CO2 lags temperature.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/23/new-research-in-antarctica-shows-co2-follows-temperature-by-a-few-hundred-years-at-most/
There is no hard empirical evidence of any harm being caused by CO2, either now or in the past.
Hoping and praying that someone will be able to go and provide the Endangering People Administration with a basic education on climate (not climate change) and what really drives it. The day time exposure to the sun causing increasing temps, and the night time darkness allowing for cooling creating our winds; the opposing seasons, etc. It is so preposterous for them to ignore the basics to focus on poor little CO2 as a climate driver.