By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
The EPA is going through the motions of public consultation on its proposed power-grab rule for reducing CO2 emissions from electricity generating plants.
It has set a closing date of October 16 for submissions.
To get the proposed rule, with instructions on how to comment, go to Regulations.gov
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602-0001
Don’t be late with your comments. The usual suspects will send in truck-loads of nonsensical, near-identical submissions. As many sensible ones as possible from the skeptical side of the case would be helpful.
Give them science. Give them data. Above all, give them a clear indication that this proposed rule will threaten the EPA’s own continued existence if it is persisted in. The GOP, which already has little patience with the EPA, will move for its outright abolition – and good riddance.
Waste of time. Comments will have no impact. ePA has its marching orders, and this process is a mere formalism no different than the comments process to the prerequisite endangerment finding was. Better to join the number of states suing EPA since last week over the existing plant proposed standards, on grounds EPA does not have any statutory authority and states havenstandingmdespite the rule being non-final since they are tasked withnpreparing for implementation, somare harmed now.
For the proposed new plant standards, there may not be standing until after rules are final. The legal attack is also different, hinging on past court interpretations of ‘adequately demonstrated’ technology. The better move is at the ballot box, where a sufficient reversal of the Senate can lead to simple amendment of the CAA to stop the EPA over reach.
This is a genuine public service performed by Christopher Monckton. The link to the EPA comments is direct and simple. The tally given is about 31 thousand comments so far.
IMHO, one should not neglect to make it clear that you would support any movement to abolish the EPA if it persists in its ill advised and misinformed war against the public welfare.
WOW did the EPA pull a lot of numbers out of the air? Check the dollars assigned to climate change etc . . no basis in facts.
Read this from EPA – does anyone believe these numbers? I think not they are just pulled out of the air.
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602-0001
The incestuous relationship of the Obama Administration and the EPA in a war on fossil fuels. And they dont give a dam that it will cripple the US, Double power costs to the general public and triple those costs to industry (who pass that cost on to the consumer). And all for a trace gas they have no proof of its ability to do what it is they claim by their FAILED MODELS.
Reality shows CO2 relationship as 1 to 0.4 deg C per doubling and even that estimate is high by empirical evidence.
Long past time to neuter the EPA and either severely reduce its roll and power or outright dismantle it.
The EPA can be closed down in this Article V Amendment to correct.
20 words that will change the way we live
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/the-28th-amendment.html
The WV Attorney General’s office has, in the past, been accused of being ‘sue happy’…but in this case, I’m glad to see it’s leading the charge against this insane rule and blatant overreach of executive branch authority.
profitup10 says:
August 9, 2014 at 10:31 am
WOW did the EPA pull a lot of numbers out of the air? Check the dollars assigned to climate change etc . . no basis in facts.
Read this from EPA – does anyone believe these numbers? I think not they are just pulled out of the air.
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602-0001
====================================
Those numbers look like a hodge-podge of alarmist crap which have been debunked many times. Many are outright lies and others are major factual distortions. Exactly what i have come to expect from the agenda driven alarmists and propaganda people of the EPA.
How many of the faithful will eat this pile of crap whole and not think twice? This shows how totally unhinged and desperate these people are to keep their control and power grab alive.
One of the things that bothers me about the EPA and other regulatory agencies is that they both create the rules and enforce them. That’s more power than is allowed to the Federal Government under the Constitution. It violates the basic concept of the Separation of Powers that our legal system was founded on. On top of that, regulations are laws in all but name, and all laws are constitutionally required to be created, and passed by Congress, then signed in by the Executive.
Regulatory agencies are an end run around the legal process and if you are targeted by them, you have no real recourse. You simply must obey and pay whatever fee they decide to blackmail you with.
Thanks for the tip. I posted this comment:
Comment:
The key assumption in this rule is that man-made Carbon Dioxide is harmful to the environment by altering our climate. I do not think this is proven. The key elements of the debate on man-made catastrophic climate change are actually pretty simple. Obviously, climate changes and it is warmer than it was 150 years ago, so these facts are not in dispute. It is the “man-made” and the supposed impending catastrophe that are controversial.
Now, if we were to double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from the current 400 PPM (0.04%) to 800 PPM physics and chemistry would predict that the atmospheric temperature would increase a trivial 0.75 degrees C. The climate alarmists have used global circulation models (GCM’s) with a climate sensitivity factor that increases this to three or four degrees C by assuming positive feedbacks. These models generally assume that as CO2 goes up, water vapor will increase and since water vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 they speculate that temperature will spiral out of control with catastrophic effects. That is pretty much their case.
The problems with this are twofold. First there are no measurements to support the idea that water vapor will increase with CO2. In fact, the models suggest the highest rate of warming should be in the tropics because most water vapor is there and most heat enters the atmosphere there. But no significant warming has occurred in the tropics (or in Antarctica for that matter), warming has been almost entirely in the northern Northern Hemisphere and especially in the Arctic. Further, if more water is held in the atmosphere wouldn’t we get more clouds? Will the clouds make us warmer or cooler? No one knows, clouds are not in the GCM’s. Second, the GCM’s have not been successful in predicting anything yet. Observations have shown no increase in global temperature since 1998, but the models predicted an increase. The proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased, why no increase in temperature?
We need to remember that man’s burning of fossil fuels contributes only 8% of the CO2 that goes into the atmosphere; respiration, microbial activity, volcanism, ocean outgassing, etc. provide the rest. We also need to remember that the average CO2 in the atmosphere after the dinosaurs and until the ice age (which we are still in) is 800 ppm. Atmospheric CO2 only decreased to 300 PPM (and perhaps less) due to the ice age. The article noted below provides actual evidence (not a computer model) that the additional climate sensitivity due to doubling CO2 to 800 ppm will increase the average temperature 1.093 degrees C. A trivial amount and a fraction of what the IPCC circulation models predict. This makes much more sense and is in line with what has been seen in the Earth’s history. If this article stands the test of time, it kills the entire alarmist argument. Some have said that computing or measuring climate sensitivity to CO2 is a fool’s errand and perhaps this is so. But, either way the alarmist argument is destroyed. It is far from certain that climate change is a problem or even unusual.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/23/new-paper-finds-transient-climate-sensitivity-to-doubled-co2-levels-is-only-about-1c/#more-113314
Other references (Princeton Professor William Happer and MIT Professor Richard Lindzen):
http://live.wsj.com/video/opinion-climate-change-crack-up/B951E1BE-01A3-4F92-B871-A4AB9B171419.html#!B951E1BE-01A3-4F92-B871-A4AB9B171419
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400
Dr. Roy Spencer
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/
McKitrick and Vogelsang, 2014
http://climateaudit.org/2014/07/24/new-paper-by-mckitrick-and-vogelsang-comparing-models-and-observations-in-the-tropical-troposphere/
Last October I addressed an EPA hearing on proposed regulation of emissions from coal burning power plants. During my 3 minutes, I testified that there was no scientific or logical basis for regulation. In support, I provided the URL of a peer-reviewed article. Sad to say, of the 30 or so others giving testimony all supported regulation.
Rud Istvan said:
August 9, 2014 at 10:21 am
Waste of time. Comments will have no impact.
————
Agree! The EPA’s suggestion box is a paper shredder.
The first principle of government is government cannot be too big to do the work of the people, so any solution requires a built-in opportunity for expansion. This requires the solution solve nothing so that the entity needn’t fear obsolescence, have a clear path to growth through increased responsibility (think EPA) and to appeal to people who self-identify as victims of the problem that won’t be solved. Nothing will turn out the victims like the promise of government largesse and the scale of that group is seen by the government as themselves being successful at doing the work of the people worthy of mention in a presidential press conference. Remember those? Yes it is a circular process.
Mark that is not quite correct – they count the remarks and that is why this was delayed until October. So, please all send a email protest – America cannot afford raising utility cost by 4 or more times over ten years. Old and poor will die without A/C in heat and freeze without heat in winter. It could cause up to a million deaths over 10 years.
And everything they propose is founded on their discredited “Endangerment Finding”…
So everything they want to make us do is founded on pseudoscience..
It is time to flat outlaw all regulatory powers being held in the same persons. The ability to act as Judge, Jury, and executioner needs to be removed and the judicial due process placed. The EPA, IRS and any other agency should not have the right to arbitrarily take what they want and this would help eliminate the abuses we see today.
Here is the history of the Progressive movement from the late 1800s – early 1900s to our current situation. Read the 1912 Progressive Party Platform – how much have they installed in our Federal government? Can we protect the Constitution from them? What say you all?
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/history-of-political-parties.html
profitup10 says:
August 9, 2014 at 11:14 am
Mark that is not quite correct – they count the remarks and that is why this was delayed until October. So, please all send a email protest – America cannot afford raising utility cost by 4 or more times over ten years. Old and poor will die without A/C in heat and freeze without heat in winter. It could cause up to a million deaths over 10 years.
===============================================
Barrack Obama, James Holdren, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, and many other elitist socialists view population reduction as a must. This is just a bonus by product of their control plan. Eugenics has always been the plan of many in the UN Agenda 21 realm. Every one of those people I named are avid UN Agenda 21 believers. Sadly they view this as a necessity to population control.
Here is a copy of my submission….
The EPA would have us believe that CO2 is pollution and the increase from 280ppm to 400ppm has been/will be a disaster for us. Consider these facts:
1) At 200ppm CO2, plant growth is severely stunted, including crop plants. At 150ppm CO2 most plants start dying off. I would think that is a good thing we have increased the CO2 to be safely above the catastrophically low 200ppm levels.
2) Green-house growers have shown that 1500ppm is optimum for growing vegetables and fruits. They grow much faster, bigger and require less water per pound of produce.
3) The earth is a mere 1.5C warmer now than it was during the LIA, a time of much misery, starvation due to cold weather related crop failures, and death. The earth has not warmed at all in the past 15+ yrs.
4) Since CO2 has gone from 300ppm to 400ppm, the earth has become 11% greener (as shown by published CSIRO Australia research) and crop yields have increased enormously.
http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Media/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2.aspx
Obviously, CO2 at these levels are NOT pollution and in fact have clearly been beneficial. Thus the rules the EPA are proposing to control CO2 emissions from power plants will do nothing but HARM to Americans and the economy, driving up the cost of energy and everything else that takes energy to make or transport. These proposed rules clearly should NOT be implemented.
Rud Istvan says it is a waste of time. While I do agree that it is a total waste of time in regards to what the EPA will do right now, it may not be a waste of time when it comes to being able to repeal these regulations at some point in the near future if we can get back the senate. Having a large number of responses that the Good Guys can use to show that EPA willfully neglected in order to force through their ill-conceived regulations will be handy.
From post:
Right-click, “Open Link in New Private Window”:
http://www.regulations.gov/?_escaped_fragment_=documentDetail;D%3DEPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602-0001#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602-0001
Get nothing.
Right-click, “Open Link in New Window”:
http://www.regulations.gov/?_escaped_fragment_=documentDetail;D%3DEPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602-0001#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602-0001
Still get nothing.
Apparently they need Javascript on (I have NoScript) and granting them the ability to do whatever-they-want (like installing unique identifies and tracking code other than mere cookies) before we peons are even allowed to glance at the proposed rule, let alone comment.
Well, that was a waste. You know, I was just now going to say they could kiss my hairy butt before I’ll jump through hoops for a public document that should be free and open access with zero restrictions, but given those DC unelected bureaucrats are used to frequently kissing butt (and other body parts), I’m afraid of what I could catch!
The proposed rule for emission guidelines for states is totally unwarranted.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but vital plant food. The EPA has no valid scientific finding to support this rule, the effects of which will be highly detrimental to the economy and environment of the USA.
Sincerely, Andy Tillman, Bend, Oregon
By the way, it took me less than 5 minutes to make my submission in case you are wondering how long it takes. Also, feel free to use part or all of my submission as you see fit without and attribution to me what-so-ever.
I won’t give advice to a foreign government but I would advise US citizens to consider using the words of the IPCC to counter the proposal of the EPA. The EPA consider the IPCC to be authoritative.
The IPCC state clearly that poverty is the worse problem (A href= “https://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/IPCC_WG2AR5_SPM_Approved.pdf”>see page 7)
I quote;
And the cheapest energy is part of the answer, in my opinion.
The EPA would need to explain why it isn’t or why the IPCC are untrustworthy.
Mods: I posted a comment that has disappeared. Perhaps it was because I am not a US citizen and so am not allowed to comment on your domestic politics? That would be fair enough.
But my comment was unusually well-researched, for me, and I would greatly appreciate if you could fish it out of the aether.
In my own opinion, I think it helps the discussion.
The Republican response should be. “The EPA rule will cost the economy $XX billion. We are taking that amount out of the EPA budget.”
Hey Tories, didn’t America fight a war over 200 years ago to free ourselves from the political intrusion of British Lords? I
“Four public hearings will be convened. ……The hearings will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views or arguments concerning the proposed action.”
A good showing at these hearings would probably be more impactful. Too bad we’re not really well funded and well organized.
Trying again
I won’t give advice to a foreign government but I would advise US citizens to consider using the words of the IPCC to counter the proposal of the EPA. The EPA consider the IPCC to be authoritative.
The IPCC state clearly that poverty is the worse problem (A href= “https://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/IPCC_WG2AR5_SPM_Approved.pdf”>see page 7)
I quote;
And the cheapest energy is part of the answer, in my opinion.
The EPA would need to explain why it isn’t or why the IPCC are untrustworthy.