A place for discussion
5
1
vote
Article Rating
Open Thread
A place for discussion
4 Comments
October 11, 2026 2:08 am
I have posted a second comment to EPA’s 9-17-2026 supplemental NPRM. This time it responds to a new line of reasoning about the futility of the regulation of power plant GHG emissions.
“The EPA requests comment on its proposal that the futility of regulating GHG emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants supports its interpretation that CAA section 111(b)(1)(A) does not authorize such regulation based on global climate change concerns.”
OK then! Here is my comment in support of the “futility” argument.
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124-3072
The EPA used the “FaIR” simplified climate model emulator to demonstrate the trivial temperature impacts of the power plant regulations for the U.S. See Table 1 through Table 7 in the NPRM here.
https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124-2920
I submitted this plot (linked below) as an attachment to my comment to make the point that in any case, the maximum influence of rising concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere is readily shown to be vanishingly weak in the proper context of dynamic energy conversion within the general circulation. It was always futile, indeed, to expect any perceptible “climate” effect from those regulations!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1knv0YdUyIgyR9Mwk3jGJwccIGHv38J33/view?usp=sharing
Thank you for your patient attention to this matter.
P.S. Comments remain open on this NPRM through November 2nd. Kudos to Administrator Lee Zeldin for his relentless efforts to rescind and repeal the misguided regulatory actions of previous administrations.
October 11, 2026 2:49 am
Question: Should the United States live-stream the execution by firing squad of a murderous terrorist, as has been proposed?
My answer: Absolutely not!
That’s a little bit too much Pete Hegspeth.
Do you want your children to watch something like this? How about the millions of other kids worldwide? It’s barbaric.
Vice President Vance has voiced reservations about this stupidity, so maybe it won’t happen. Let the kids read about it, not observe it.
October 11, 2026 3:48 am
CoP this…
[ie Take a look at this – in English slang]
The UK is flat broke with 30 year gilts at over 6% and Burnham needs more borrowing.
Our entire armed services could fit in Wembley stadium. We have one sort of serviceable ship, all others are in dock for repair and refit – funds allowing. We gave virtually (signalled) all our munitions to Ukraine. We haven’t a hope of even getting to 3% GDP for defence when Burnham has already told us that: “national security cannot come at the cost of social security“. Millions of jaws dropped at that one.
Is this the definition of a wealthy country? The UNhinged thinks it is.
Wealthy countries should spend far more on dealing with the climate crisis than the 5% of GDP promised by Nato members for defence because “the climate issue is the security issue”, the host of the next UN summit has said. – The Guardian
Quo Vadis, Britannia? Infernus.
