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.
If you check their record, the EPA has had dozens of “Comment” gatherings, when the 10:1 pro or con was ignored and they did what they usually do: what they damn well please.
davidgmills says:
“I don’t share your belief that people on the left reject science. I think just the opposite. I think their problem is that they have constantly been beat up with the argument that the science is settled. Truly compelling evidence by a consensus of prestigious scientists that the science is not settled would open their minds. ”
You just demonstrated that YOU don’t even know what science is. And you post is typical for them left, which is up to it’s eyeballs in the anti-science/anti-reason/anti-logic of postmodernism.
Attack the “Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Carbon Pollution Guidelines for Existing Power Plants and Emission Standards for Modified and Reconstructed Power Plants” http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-06/documents/20140602ria-clean-power-plan.pdf
I’m confident the WUWT clan can tear this document to shreds.
My comment is going to focus on 1) the glaring omission in section 5 of the potential increase in wood burning for heat directly and 2) the statement in the same section of the assessment that admits the potential for CO2 emissions to increase globally due to transfer of manufacturing to regions with higher CO2 emission intensity energy sources due to higher domestic electricity prices due to the regulation in question. (What part of “Global” do they not understand?)
An incomplete and inadequate assessment hardly seems a sound basis for regulatory action.