EPA’s next regulatory tsunami

epa-logo[1]Trillions of dollars in ozone compliance and economic stagnation costs, for fabricated benefits

Guest essay by Paul Driessen

Looming Environmental Protection Agency ozone regulations personify the Obama administration’s secrecy, collusion, fraud, and disdain for concerns about the effects that its tsunami of regulations is having on the livelihoods, living standards, health and welfare of millions of American families.

Virtually every EPA announcement of new regulations asserts that they will improve human health. Draconian carbon dioxide standards, for example, won’t just prevent climate change, even if rapidly developing countries continue emitting vast volumes of this plant-fertilizing gas. The rules will somehow reduce the spread of ticks and Lyme disease, and protect “our most vulnerable citizens.” It’s hogwash.

But Americans naturally worry about pollution harming children and the poor. That makes it easy for EPA to promulgate regulations based on false assumptions and linkages, black-box computer models, secretive collusion with activist groups, outright deception, and supposedly “scientific” reports whose shady data and methodologies the agency refuses to share with industries, citizens or even Congress.

It was only in May 2012 that EPA decided which US counties met new 2008 ozone standards that cut allowable ground-level ozone levels from 80 parts per billion to 75 ppb. Now EPA wants to slash allowable levels even further: to 70 or even 60 ppb, equivalent to 70 or 60 seconds in 32 years.

The lower limits are essential, it claims, to reduce smog, human respiratory problems and damage to vegetation. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy says a 600-page agency staff report strongly recommends this reduction, and her Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee agrees. They all say the lower limits are vital for protecting public health, especially “at-risk populations and life stages.” Her decision will ultimately involve “a scientific judgment” and will “keep people safe,” Ms. McCarthy assures us.

Under terms of a convenient federal court settlement, EPA must issue its proposed new standards by December 1 of this year, and make a final decision by October 2015. The process will be “open and transparent,” with “multiple opportunities” for public hearings and comment throughout, she promised.

EPA has offered little transparency, honesty or opportunity for fair hearings and input by impacted parties thus far, and we should expect none here. But other problems with this proposal are much more serious.

If the 60 ppb standard is adopted, 85% of all US counties would likely become “non-attainment” areas, making it difficult to establish new industrial facilities or expand existing plants. Even in Big Sky, clean-air Wyoming, Teton County could be out of compliance – mostly due to emissions from pine trees!

A Manufacturers’ Alliance/MAPI study calculated that a 60 ppb ozone standard would cost the US economy a whopping $1 trillion per year and kill 7.3 million jobs by 2020. A Louisiana Association of Business and Industry and National Association of Manufacturers study concluded that a 60 ppb rule would penalize the state $189 billion for compliance and $53 billion in lost gross domestic product between 2017 and 2040. That’s $10 billion per year in just one state.

But the standard would save lives, EPA predictably claimed, citing 2009 research directed by University of California-Berkeley School of Public Health Professor Michael Jerrett. The study purportedly tracked 448,000 people and claimed to find a connection between long-term ozone exposure and death.

Other researchers sharply criticized Jerrett’s work. His study made questionable assumptions about ozone concentrations, did not rely on clinical tests, ignored the findings of other studies that found no significant link between ground-level ozone and health effects, and failed to gather critically important information on the subjects’ smoking patterns, they pointed out. When they asked to examine his data, Jerrett refused.

Michael Honeycutt, chief toxicologist for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, says Jerrett and EPA exaggerate health risks from ozone. The Texas Public Policy Foundation told EPA the agency needs to consider “the totality of studies on this issue, rather than giving exclusive weight to a single study,” the foundation emphasized. Unfortunately, EPA almost always focuses on one or two analyses that support its regulatory agenda – and ignores any that might slow or derail its onrushing freight train.

Even worse, those lost jobs and GDP result in major impacts on the lives, livelihoods, liberties, living standards, health, welfare and life spans of millions of Americans. And yet, EPA steadfastly refuses to consider these regulatory impacts: for ozone, carbon dioxide, soot, mercury and other rules.

Then there is the matter of outright deception, collusion and fraud at EPA, via these and other tactics.

One such tactic is sue-and-settle lawsuits. Agitator groups meet with EPA officials behind closed doors and agree on new rules or standards. The agency then conveniently misses a deadline, “forcing” the activists to sue. That leads to a court hearing (from which impacted parties are excluded), and a judgment “forcing” the agency to issue new regulations – and even pay the agitators’ attorney fees! American Lung Association, NRDC, Sierra Club and EPA sue-and-settle collusion resulted in the new ozone proposal.

This clever sue-and-settle tactic was devised by none other than John Beale – the con artist who’s now in prison for bilking taxpayers out of $1 million in salary and travel expenses for his mythical second job as a CIA agent. It defies belief to assume his fraudulent propensities did not extend to his official EPA duties as senior policy advisor with his boss and buddy Robert Brenner, helping Ms. McCarthy and her Office of Air and Radiation develop and implement oppressive regulations. Indeed, his own attorney says he had a “dysfunctional need to engage in excessively reckless, risky behavior” and “manipulate those around him through the fabrication of grandiose narratives.” A US Senate report details the sleazy practice.

As to the “experts” who claim lower ozone limits are vital for protecting public health, there’s this.

The American Lung Association supports the EPA health claims – but neglects to mention that EPA has given the ALA $24.7 million over the past 15 years. Overall, during this period, the ALA received $43 million via 591 federal grants, and Big Green foundations bankrolled it with an additional $76 million. But no one is supposed to question the ALA’s credibility, integrity or support for EPA “science.”

EPA also channels vast sums to its “independent” Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, which likewise rubberstamps the agency’s pollution claims and regulations. Fifteen CASAC members received over $181 million since 2000. CASAC excludes from its ranks industry and other experts who might question EPA findings. Both EPA and CASAC stonewall and slow-walk FOIA requests and deny requests for correction and reconsideration. Even congressional committees get nowhere.

As Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), Chairman of the House on Science, Space and Technology Committee, noted in a letter, 16 of the 20 CASAC members who “peer-reviewed” the ozone studies also helped to write the studies. That makes it even less likely that their reviews were “independent.”

That Senate report, The Chains of Environmental Command, also notes that the Obama EPA has been deliberately packed with far-left environmental activists who work with their former Big Green colleagues to shape policy. They give radical groups critical insider access and also funnel millions of taxpayer dollars through grants to their former organizations, often in violation of agency ethics rules.

These arrogant, unelected, unaccountable, deceitful, dictatorial elites think they have a right to impose ozone, carbon dioxide, ObamaCare and other diktats on us, “for our own good.” They are a primary reason American businesses and families are already paying $1.9 trillion per year to comply with mountains of federal regulations – $353 billion of these costs from EPA alone. The damage to jobs, livelihoods, liberties, living standards, health and welfare is incalculable.

The next Congress should review all EPA data, documents and decisions, root out the fraud and collusion, and defund and ultimately reverse all regulations that do not pass muster. The principle is simple: No data, honesty, transparency or integrity – no regulation, and no taxpayer money to impose it.


Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death, and coauthor of Cracking Big Green: To save the world from the Save-the-Earth money machine.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Old England
November 18, 2014 12:19 am

Ozone can be produced by an electrical discharge. Electric motors produce it.
I wonder how the EPA plans on squaring that circle as it forces a shift to electric cars and the replacement of hydrocarbon by electricity as a power source and the consequent increase in ozone production ? Presumably that will be quite significant amounts in all urban areas ……
Has it been overlooked or simply conveniently ignored?

Old England
Reply to  Old England
November 18, 2014 12:29 am

Forgot to add – perhaps it would be useful for appropriate organisations and individuals to issue press releases along the lines of “EPA sets out to Ban Electric Cars”. That should get the attention of the MSM …….. and I am sure that some computer models could be produced to substantiate that …….
If so it might just prove to have been a step too far in the EPA’s green activism.

Reply to  Old England
November 18, 2014 2:04 am

Well I think that’s the beauty of it…they get to stifle almost everything in one go, just like they have been trying to do with carbon dioxide regulations, since that is their objective…..destroy capitalism and introduce the socialist utopia. But then that’s not there mission….just what THEY decided to do….

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Old England
November 18, 2014 4:32 am

Polyphase electric motors such as are used in electric bikes and cars don’t have a commutator and thus make no sparks and produce no ozone.
Electric cars will be judged by the amount of total pollution (or not) produced by making them and their batteries. I am hopeful they will eventually be very successful, but powered by nukes one way or another.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
November 18, 2014 4:53 am

Now, this would be a vast improvement over the “battery” driven option.

Old England
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
November 18, 2014 6:02 am

thanks for that. My knowledge of electric motors is clearly a bit behind the times!

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
November 18, 2014 8:01 am

Newsel… The hydrogen will be made will be made in gas generators that combine water and natural gas. The gas generators produce hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The hydrogen is stored and sold. The CO2 is released. So, even though there are no CO2 emissions at the hydrogen car’s tailpipe, it it still responsible for CO2 “pollution”.

Reply to  Cam_S
November 18, 2014 10:28 am

Comment still stands: the various materials required for batteries requires mining and processing…then there is the recycling at the end of their useful life. If hydrogen can be made to work, far less cost and far less impact.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
November 18, 2014 6:37 pm

Re Hydrogen powered cars, virtually all Hydrogen is produced from methane (natural gas) or naphtha with massive emission of CO2 since the carbon is thrown away. It is an utter waste of energy to make Hydrogen from a fossil fuel to make a transportation fuel.Of course it can be made from electricity which will be in short supply as coal fired plants are shut down.
Besides one needs to keep in mind how difficult it is to contain the small H2 molecule and leakage would be a concern during the various handling stages. Who pays for the infrastructure to provide dangerous fueling stations?
Finally I would not sleep well with a 5000 +/- psi bomb in my garage. That’s a lot of energy should there be a release.
A H2 powered car will never make sense.

Reply to  Old England
November 18, 2014 5:43 am

“Ozone can be produced by an electrical discharge. Electric motors produce it…Has it been overlooked or simply conveniently ignored?”
It doesn’t exist. Electrical discharge is from DC motors that uses brushes for commutation. Any EV, hybrid, or fuel cell vehicle will use AC or brushless DC motors. Both use semiconductor switching instead of mechanical switching for commutation.

Gerry, England
Reply to  Old England
November 18, 2014 5:56 am

Welding using any arc process creates ozone – perhaps everyone would be happier if all ships went back to being riveted? Or more likely that they would just be made in Korea or elsewhere while the US industry closes down. And the same for the pressure vessels industry, pipes etc. But then if you totally mess up the economy and send it back to the Dark Ages, you just won’t need any of that stuff anyway. Given time you can hollow out a tree trunk to make a pipe….

Jim G
Reply to  Old England
November 18, 2014 10:27 pm

I have yet to speak with an engineer that thinks putting hydrogen refueling stations on every street corner would be a good idea.

Ted Dooley
November 18, 2014 12:24 am

Gonna be hard to do…with no budget…(Thanks Midterms!)

Ian W
Reply to  Ted Dooley
November 18, 2014 8:25 am

That should be the first priority of the new Congress. Difficult to claim you have to shut down the entire government because the EPA has been defunded – all the way to building rents, water, IT and telephones

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Ted Dooley
November 18, 2014 9:07 am

I’d be interested to know how much ozone is produced by welding. The whole point of a shielding gas or a burning flux coating is to prevent oxidation so we can assume it is a lot less oxidation taking place than is produced by an open arc.
Flying ‘sparks’ from welding might make some O3 in the open air. Possible?

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
November 18, 2014 9:16 am

Yes, definitely true.
But it won’t last long.

Reply to  Ted Dooley
November 18, 2014 2:27 pm

I give them six months to defund EPA. If not it will be up to the citizens and civil disobedience . Non violent of course.

November 18, 2014 12:36 am

Air in Teton County, Wyoming, was the freshest, most enjoyable air I ever inhaled — on par with the air of Icelandic pastures.
To think that some bureaucrats in stuffy offices decide that it contains too much ozone… Mother Nature, forgive them, for they don’t know what they’re doing.

more soylent green!
Reply to  Alexander Feht
November 18, 2014 10:09 am

You assume they are benign and ignorant. Did you consider they know fully well what they are doing and perhaps something other than health and reducing pollution are their motivation? Perhaps, like the president they serve, they believe Americans produce too much, consume too much and own too much?

Reply to  more soylent green!
November 18, 2014 2:41 pm

I do consider that. My complaint was of rhetorical nature.
Gods, if everyone will take everything literally in this world, what would we all become?
The race of Svalgaards? What a nightmarish perspective.

November 18, 2014 1:00 am

There’s nothing like a good war to cut away the dross. Perhaps sometime over the next 16 years?

November 18, 2014 1:08 am

As an interested Brit looking in from afar, I can only say – be careful who you vote for. The American people (well, 58.2%) of them) voted for your President – twice; and that’s how democracy works. Unfortunately, democracy in the US has shown itself to be an ass (donkey relative not gluteus maximus), much like it’s legal system. Your two party system is and will continue to be your downfall.
However, just to ensure I am not throwing stones in my own glasshouse – we too shoulder much of the blame for our current crop of political narrow-shouldered lickspittles – but come May 2015, there is likely to be a seismic shift.

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  AleaJactaEst
November 18, 2014 2:09 am

Alea, that is 58.2% of those Americans who are Registered to vote. I think you will find that to be only about half the US public, which means closer to 25% of the US public actually voted him into office.

Reply to  AleaJactaEst
November 18, 2014 2:49 am

Obama got 53% against McCain and only 50% against Romney.
The only thing in the USA that will get 58% of ANY vote is MMJ…..and at that high % it sometimes still doesn’t win.

M Courtney
November 18, 2014 1:30 am

When they asked to examine his data, Jerrett refused.

Not wishing to pick sides in your foreign politics but these are not the actions of a scientist.
How can his findings be taken as evidence if they can’t be checked?

Reply to  M Courtney
November 18, 2014 1:48 am

They can’t.

Reply to  M Courtney
November 18, 2014 2:45 am

He just took a page from the rest of the climate scientist’s book.

November 18, 2014 2:52 am

Obama got 53% against McCain and only 50% against Romney.
The only thing in the USA that will get 58% of ANY vote is MMJ…..and at that high % it sometimes still doesn’t win.

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
November 18, 2014 3:08 am

Reposted (I know, I didn’t ask, but I have in the past and we seem to be good on that score…), Tweeted and Facebooked

November 18, 2014 3:09 am

Total fraud. The Republicans must put a stop to these idiots ASAP.

November 18, 2014 3:12 am

Team Obama is punishing Americans for not being worthy of their enlightened benign rule. I noted over four years ago that permitting Mr. Obama to rewrite laws and get away with it would not end well for America. We are seeing this on every front now.

November 18, 2014 3:22 am

The key mechanism the extremists are using is the corruption of the courts. The end run around the regulatory process by secret negotiations that lead to pre-arranged phony court cases is an affront to Congress, the law and the idea of accountable government. The EPA is the most flagrant in abusing the legal system. I bet the EPA is not the only agency that has learned to do this. It is corrupt because it permits huge regulation changes to be done in secret. It is corrupt because it is using the Courts to ratify deals done in secret. it is corrupt because apparently the plaintiffs are able to negotiate huge fees without any oversight pr accountability. When Congress gave Bureaucracies the power to impose regulations with the power of law, a transparent open system was envisioned. Environmental extremists have hijacked this and turned it into a way to impose their agenda secretly and lucratively on us. While avoiding accountability for the same.

Reply to  hunter
November 18, 2014 11:29 am

Exactly. The Sierra Club uses constant lawsuits to control the decisions of some of the US’s largest public utilities. I’ve seen it for decades on my shareholder reports. And yes, the Board of Directors are complicit in this.

Reply to  beng
November 18, 2014 11:44 am

As you point out, the SC go to court filing against the EPA. The next thing we know is that they have settled and the EPA complies and pays up. As this article points out, it is a fraud and just one more way to siphon off tax payer monies to these organisations while giving the appearance of legality. It is another example of the “stupid American public” being taken to the cleaners and yes, being ignorant of the facts, or even inspite of them, we vote these people in. We shall see just how stupid come 2016.

Reply to  beng
November 18, 2014 3:57 pm

It is a modern version of patronage disguised as political activism. it will take a clever tough minded President who is a real leader to tackle this deeply rooted subtle corruption. We deserve and should demand a full accounting of just how much money has been paid by the EPA as part of these pre-arranged legal settlements.

Paul Pierett
November 18, 2014 3:36 am

Unbelievable, Dr. Watts.

November 18, 2014 3:46 am

Old England – That’s a good one! Maybe I’ll post it on my Facebook:
“EPA sets out to Ban Electric Cars”

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
November 18, 2014 1:21 pm

Also: EPA Sets Out to Ban Pine Trees

November 18, 2014 4:21 am

There appears to be cadre of political activists resident within the EPA who wish the USA public harm from both an economic and safety perspective.
It is time to identify and hold to task those individuals (so called public servants). A bit like Gruber, Mann, Gore et al. They lie and exaggerate for their own political and fiscal ends and their actions have zero to do with public safety. Have these individuals ever considered that by destroying the economy they are in fact condemning a vast number of poorer US citizens to an early grave during winter months when these citizens (especially the elderly) find they cannot pay the exorbitant energy prices the EPA’s policies are mandating?

Ian W
Reply to  newsel
November 18, 2014 1:01 pm

Have these individuals ever considered that by destroying the economy they are in fact condemning a vast number of poorer US citizens to an early grave during winter months when these citizens (especially the elderly) find they cannot pay the exorbitant energy prices the EPA’s policies are mandating?

Yes they have and it is probably why they are doing it. The new Malthusians, “humanity is a cancer on the body of the world” etc. search the internet for QALYS Holdren – for more information on the disposability of the elderly.
The same is happening in UK courtesy of the ‘Department of Energy and Climate Change’ where under Ed Davey’s leadership they are enacting policies leading to the deaths from cold in energy poverty of 5000 people every cold winter month. No questions in the Commons, no interest whatsoever from any MPs of any party. The current political class, worldwide have no concern with anyone else apart from themselves. They would literally let their grandparents die for a vote.

The Iconoclast
November 18, 2014 4:30 am

Environmental ideologues are turning off the economy. It’s that simple. It’s been their goal all along. They are pursuing multiple lines of attack, and they are succeeding.

Samuel C Cogar
November 18, 2014 4:40 am

Now I cannot but think, that the greatness of a kingdom, and its changes into prosperity, often becomes the occasion of mischief and of transgression to men, for so it usually happens, that the manners of subjects are corrupted at the same time with those of their governors, which subjects then lay aside their own sober way of living, as a reproof of their governor’s intemperate courses, and follow their wickedness, as if it were virtue, for it is not possible to show that men approve of the actions of their kings, unless they do the same actions with them.
(Flavius Josephus – 37- 100 AD)

Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
November 18, 2014 4:48 am

Appropriate: Reliving the “Fall of Rome”.

November 18, 2014 4:49 am

Am I correct in assuming that ozone (O3) is an unstable molecule and that a reduction in the air of 1/100,000,000 at a cost to US taxpayers of $x billion does not sound like good value to me. If it is any consolation to those on the West of the Atlantic it is a similar story here too!

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  andrewmharding
November 19, 2014 7:28 am

HA, …. first the EPA banned the use of Freon claiming it was reducing the amount of Ozone in the atmosphere (Ozone Hole) ….. thus permitting all that dastardly “cancer causing” UV radiation to strike the earth’s surface.
Now the EPA is intent on forcing a reduction of the Ozone in the air ….. which will exacerbate the incident rate of those dastardly skin cancers.
Is the EPA trying to “boost” the need and/or justification for ObamaCare?

November 18, 2014 4:50 am

“The next Congress should review all EPA data, documents and decisions, root out the fraud and collusion, and defund and ultimately reverse all regulations that do not pass muster. The principle is simple: No data, honesty, transparency or integrity – no regulation, and no taxpayer money to impose it.”
Right on. Ban these practices and put a choke leash on these jerks.

jon sutton
November 18, 2014 5:37 am

“But the standard would save lives, “…………….
No it won’t………… prolong some, possibly.
The only way to save lives is contraception

November 18, 2014 5:46 am

The primary “scientific” source quoted here is the Texas Public Policy Foundation, who in turn cite several studies but fail to provide references.
Also, it’s clear that many politicians don’t understand the peer review process. These peer scientists are actually in competition with each other, to some extent, for grant funds, prestige, etc. Who else to better “peer review” scientific work than those scientists who are active in performing (peer-reviewed) funded research, publishing, and serving on review panels? If their work were somehow misrepresented, they would be the first to call it out. We need more scientists in congress.

Reply to  Barry
November 18, 2014 8:02 am

I have had repeated experiences in which a federal regulatory agency ignored a finding of the peer-review system when this finding conflicted with a policy of the agency. One of these agencies was the EPA.

November 18, 2014 5:54 am

Like all govt agencies, the EPA has become captured by ideologues who’s only goal is to enforce their vision of a perfect world on everyone, by force if necessary.
It’s time to scrap the EPA and most environmental rules entirely.
They need to be replaced by a new organization with the requirement that they make no laws or regulations themselves, only enforce clear and precise laws written by congress.
(Yea, I know, I live in a fantasy world.)

November 18, 2014 6:39 am

Living in the Great White North, I wonder why if all the EPA list of crazy ideas isn’t sent to your congressmen and senators, especially if they have a sympathetic ear. Of course it needs to be FACTUAL, indicate the problem and the harm and acton required; if any; or a request to leave well enough alone. Complaining here does no good. But if you have some people who will listen you may be surprised at the action that can be taken if there is good political capital in it. Just a thought. Grousing is useful as we get it off our chests but it doesn’t initiate any action.

November 18, 2014 7:03 am

I haven’t read the specific ruling in this case by the EPA, but I recently had cause to submit a comment on a proposed ruling by the FDA. (In that one, it was also somewhat of an “air quality” issue, as it was related to the regulation of cigars.) If the EPA operates similarly to the manner in which the FDA operates, then they have extremely wide latitude to enact regulations as they see fit. Usually its through some abhorrently foolish wording like, “Agency-X shall enact such rules as necessary to [fill in the blank].” Sure, there’s a process in which public comments are requested and reviewed, but as far as I can tell, they carry no real weight and have no “authority” to force said agency away from its preferred position.
I find this to be a complete abdication of responsibility by our legislature. That is, congress has delegated away its constitutional authority to federal agencies, which are comprised of unelected bureaucrats. The very purpose of having a House of Representatives and Senate is to ensure that the individuals that draft and create laws are directly accountable to the citizens (and, before the 17th amendment, the States) of the United States of America. Giving that authority away has created a situation in which citizens who petition their elected representatives are no longer petitioning the actual lawmakers. In fact, those individuals with the Constitutional authority to define the law of the land are left to plead with the bureaucrats about proposed laws. And please, threatening funding, while potentially effective, is NOT the manner in which the Framers envisioned congress carrying-out its legislative authority.
There’s so much more to be said on this topic, but I would suggest, at lest, that a change in mandate from Congress to the federal agencies is required. Rules intended to “clarify” but in fact add additional regulations should be approved by Congress. No rules should be authoritative without direct congressional approval. Otherwise you’d end up with some absurd 90,000+ pages of laws…oh wait, we already have that…
There’s a great quote by Madison related to this:
“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.”
Currently, we don’t even have the “laws made by men of their own choice,” much less cogent-ness and coherency. But, if you vote for me, I vow to end the corruption and incompetence…lol!

Ian W
Reply to  ripshin
November 18, 2014 2:00 pm

I completely agree. All regulations (and for that matter Executive Orders) should have a 12 month sunset clause. If Congress does not create a bill and pass the regulation as law – individually by vote not as a job lot on the nod – then that regulation ceases to have effect 12 months from imposition and the agency is barred from bringing any similar regulation forward again. If it is necessary to have rapid regulation then these agency authored regulations and executive orders can be used as a stop gap before full Congressional approval. But that is all they are stop gaps. Regulators and Agencies that impose regulations that are not supported by Congress would be open to claims for damages and consequential losses from those deleteriously affected by the regulation.

November 18, 2014 10:09 am

What does ObamaCare have to do with how the EPA makes regulations and how sensible EPA and its regulations are?

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
November 18, 2014 10:16 am

Every single person I have been in contact with back home, who has had to deal with health problems in the past year, is finding that oh!bummer!care! is ruining their lives. One of those people used to work directly in the health care service, and is currently being thrown under the bus by oh!bummer!care! laws.
Consider that the same bunch of people who gave us oh!bummer!care!, back the EPA and where it is going.
That’s the connection.

David A
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
November 18, 2014 10:03 pm

See two comments above yours…”Madison related to this:
“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.”
Obamacare regulates 17 percent of total economy with thousand of pages of legislation no one read, (tens of thousands of pages of regulations) with billions of dollars of costs, with hundreds of new laws and multiple regulatory agencies created that are not elected. Obama has changed the law, or refused to enact parts of it until after certain elections are over about 30 times, with questionable authority to do this, sometimes clearly he does not have this authority, such as delaying implementation of ACA laws for some , not others. (read union insurance plans exempt from some costly demands of the ACA, while other citizens face tremendous cost increases.)

November 18, 2014 12:26 pm

With a lame-duck President, who has two years left in office to campaign for his party, expect he will use Executive powers to sure up the extreme base for his party. This will be just the tip of the iceburg. He has done nothing for six years on Climate Change, because it’s a losing issue int he States, yet immediately following his party’s defeat, it became an actionable issue. He can act on it with China and others because he knows his opposition party’s Congress won’t end up ratifying it, thus setting up campaign opposition where he can say he and his party truly care about it but are being blocked by the Republican Congress. Let the political games begin.

November 18, 2014 12:55 pm

High voltage power lines generate ozone.

November 18, 2014 1:35 pm

Lightning is perhaps the greatest natural generator of ozone. The “clean, fresh” smell of an approaching rainstorm is the smell of ozone created by rainfall. Breaking waves create ozone. The standards set by the EPA are already in the range of natural emissions in many areas. I used to enjoy the fresh smell of an ozone generating air cleaner (about 100-200 ppm) until government regs outlawed them.

David A
Reply to  skorrent1
November 18, 2014 10:04 pm

Just read an alarmist paper saying CAGW will reduce lightening.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  skorrent1
November 19, 2014 7:36 am

UV radiation from the Sun is by far the greatest natural generator of ozone.

November 18, 2014 6:11 pm

Natural emissions of isoprenes and terpenes by trees (pine trees for instance) are a big contributor to fair weather ozone. I can see this very clearly here in Luxembourg, where a measuring station at Vianden, located in a very clean air and very low traffic region with a high tree cover has always the highest ozone peaks during sunny days, much higher than those of Luxembourg-City for instance. Should we cut all trees to limit these peaks?

Bill H
November 18, 2014 6:46 pm

Any item which uses cycling energy (RF) causes ozone. Power lines, TV/Radio transmitters, All radios- which use 1hz to 5Ghz- this means your cell phone and WiFi too, THe motors on your refrigerator, the motors on your electric car, fans, AC units, power generation plants (this includes hydro generation). The list goes on and on.. Everything we use to create Jobs and Comfort are being attacked.
Did these morons take any of this into account or was this on purpose as AGW is failing and collapsing all around them and they needed a new way to take freedoms and exert control over people..
I dont get what it is they want to accomplish? IMPOVERISHMENT of the US?

Victor Frank
November 18, 2014 8:32 pm

RF does not create ozone. High voltage power lines should not create ozone, but may if arcing occurs.Arcing can occur between metal objects not quite touching that are close to high voltage lines (usually hardware on a wooden power pole, but can be corona in a moist marine environment.) I do not believe this is a serious source of ground level ozone.

November 19, 2014 5:26 am

Ground level ozone is rises as temps rise. Increased respiratory problems are caused by the increased heat not ozone. How do you explain the increased rate of respiratory illness in honolula versus dallas or houston when temps rise with summer ozone concentrations of 40-60ppb vs 100-120ppb – note the parts per billion
The mexican/hispanic populations addressed this issue by taking afternoon siestas long befor ground level ozone was a problem.

Grey Lensman
November 19, 2014 10:01 pm

Ozone is good for you. It is natures natural pollution cleaner. Idiots. Why is air so good to breathe down on the beach, by the waterfall or after a storm, Ozone.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights