The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: rangerrebew on November 28, 2013, 09:56:25 am
-
EPA preparing to unleash a deluge of new regulations
Posted By Michael Bastasch On 2:13 PM 11/27/2013 In | No Comments
Happy holidays from the Obama administration. Federal agencies are currently working on rolling out hundreds of environmental regulations, including major regulations that would limit emissions from power plants and expand the agency’s authority to bodies of water on private property.
On Tuesday, the White House released its regulatory agenda for the fall of 2013. It lists hundreds of pending energy and environmental regulations being crafting by executive branch agencies, including 134 regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency alone.
The EPA is currently crafting 134 major and minor regulations, according to the White House’s regulatory agenda. Seventy-six of the EPA’s pending regulations originate from the agency’s air and radiation office, including carbon-dioxide-emission limits on power plants.
Carbon-dioxide limits are a key part of President Barack Obama’s climate agenda. The EPA is set to set emissions limits that would effectively ban the construction of new coal-fired power plants unless they use carbon capture and sequestration technology. Next year, the agency will move to limit emissions from existing power plants — which could put more older coal plants out of commission.
“The proposed standards, if finalized, will establish achievable limits of carbon pollution per megawatt hour for all future units, moving the nation towards a cleaner and more efficient energy future,” the agency said in its agenda. “In 2014, EPA intends to propose standards of performance for greenhouse gas emissions from existing and modified power plant sources.”
Hundreds of coal plants that have been closed or slated for early retirement due to Environmental Protection Agency regulations, according to coal industry estimates.
“Already, EPA regulations have contributed to the closure of more than 300 coal units in 33 states,” said Laura Sheehan, spokeswoman for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.
However, the agency isn’t just working on limiting emissions from coal plants. The EPA is also working on a rule that would expand the definition of “waters of the U.S.” under the Clean Water Act to include water on private property.
Republicans have hammered the EPA’s draft water rule as the largest expansion of agency power in history.
“The EPA’s draft water rule is a massive power grab of private property across the U.S. This could be the largest expansion of EPA regulatory authority ever,” Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith. “If the draft rule is approved, it would allow the EPA to regulate virtually every body of water in the United States, including private and public lakes, ponds and streams.”
The EPA’s rule is heavily supported by environmentalists who argue that it’s necessary to protecting water quality. Smaller water sources, they argue, eventually affect larger water sources that people use for recreation or their livelihood.
“It’s taking the way the Clean Water Act works back, so that it works the way water works in the real world,” Bob Wendelgass, president and CEO of Clean Water Action, told Fox News.
The EPA says the rule is needed to clear up uncertainty left in the wake of U.S. Supreme Court decisions on the agency’s regulatory authority over bodies of water.
“The [Clean Water Act] does not distinguish among programs as to what constitutes ‘waters of the United States,’” the agency said. “As a result, these decisions affect the geographic scope of all [Clean Water Act] programs.”
Follow Michael on Twitter and Facebook
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from The Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com
URL to article: http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/27/epa-preparing-to-unleash-a-deluge-of-new-regulations/
-
Why have I resurrected a three-year-old thread? Because Obammy has done it again.
Interior Dept. Finalizes Coal Rule That McConnell Says He’ll Try to Block
Jack Fitzpatrick | December 19, 2016
The Department of the Interior on Monday issued final coal-mining regulations aimed at protecting streams from pollution.
The finalized rule requires coal-mining companies to monitor the water quality of streams near mining operations before, during and after mines are operational. It also updates requirements for firms to avoid polluting nearby streams, based on technological advances that have occurred since the federal requirements were last updated, in 2008.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a statement Monday that he will introduce a resolution of disapproval in January under the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to block executive agency rules within 60 days of their publication in the Federal Register. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) also said in a statement Monday that the rule would have “crushing” consequences for the coal industry, and he promised to provide “relief” for coal once President-elect Donald Trump takes office.
Environmentalists called the requirements a commonsense safeguard, while the National Mining Association said the rule is unnecessary and duplicative.
The Interior Department’s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement estimated the rule will cost the industry $81 million a year on average between 2020 and 2040 and projects that coal prices will rise 1.3 percent from Central Appalachia and the Illinois Basin, and 0.2 percent from the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming. The agency also projects that the rule will lead to an average annual employment decrease of 124 full-time coal-production jobs between 2020 and 2040, while the implementation of the rule will require an annual employment increase of 280 full-time jobs, leading to a net gain of 156 full-time jobs.
The stream-protection rule is scheduled to be published on Dec. 20. President Barack Obama has vetoed recent attempts to block his regulations, including a CRA resolution to overturn the Clean Power Plan in December. ...
Rest of story at Morning Consult (https://morningconsult.com/2016/12/19/obama-administration-adds-late-coal-mining-stream-protection-rule/).
Sen. Shelley M. Capito, representing the coal-producing state of W.Va., responds via Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/senshelley/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED&fref=nf):The Obama Administration has decided to pursue this last-ditch effort to further harm West Virginia coal jobs with the release of its final Stream Protection Rule this morning. This is yet another devastating regulation that would cause significant harm to both surface and underground coal mines. Fortunately, the decision by voters last month makes today’s announcement by the Office of Surface Mining an exercise in futility. Working with President-elect Trump and our Republican congressional majority, I am confident that we will be able to use the Congressional Review Act to stop this rule from taking effect.
:nometalk:
-
I'm not completely sure where they ended up on the surface water (private ponds) But I can see some EPA ecowhacko banning cattle drinking from stock ponds because they might get the water muddy...
I wish these people would save their own back yards and leave ours alone.
-
President Obama takes one final shot at coal
December 20, 2016 at 12:27AM
Hoppy Kercheval
W.Va. Metro News (http://wvmetronews.com/2016/12/20/president-obama-takes-one-final-shot-at-coal/) - excerptedThe Obama administration on its way out the door is delivering one last blow to the coal industry–the Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation Enforcement’s (OSM) final version of the Stream Protection Rule.
The rule piles on controversial new regulations to the mining industry, which is already laboring under the heavy hand of the EPA and market forces.
It will take awhile to pore over the 1,648 pages, but if the final rule resembles earlier versions then the coal industry should brace for the worst.
The National Mining Association released a study last year on the proposed rule predicting the amount of recoverable reserves in Appalachia would decrease between 51 percent and 88 percent in underground mines and 38 percent to 67 percent at surface mines by the time all the new regulations are met.
The study also predicted a direct loss of mining jobs nationwide of between 40,038 and 77,520. That would just about finish off the coal industry, achieving the intended goal of this administration, the EPA and the environmental groups that have held the upper hand for the last eight years. ...
The new rule is scheduled to be entered into the federal register today, making it effective in 30 days, January 19th, exactly one day before Obama leaves office. But the change of administrations will give opponents an avenue to stop the rule.
Donald Trump has promised to roll back many of Obama’s regulations and put miners back to work. If congress passes a resolution of disapproval of the regulation and Trump signs the resolution, then the new Stream Protection Rule will be voided.
That’s what should happen, but in the meantime the outgoing president is hurling one more Hail Mary government overreach for one last score against the coal industry.
-
I missed the bit where science justified the classification of CO2 as a pollutant. It is a critical component of our atmosphere. Real "pollutants" can be removed entirely (assuming it's possible) to the benefit of all. Removing CO2 would in fact end life as we know it.
-
I wish these people would save their own back yards and leave ours alone.
They consider everybody's back yard as their back yard.
And they're just waiting patiently for the day they can tell you to get the hell off their lawn.
-
I missed the bit where science justified the classification of CO2 as a pollutant. It is a critical component of our atmosphere. Real "pollutants" can be removed entirely (assuming it's possible) to the benefit of all. Removing CO2 would in fact end life as we know it.
You're right to focus on the amount and specifics.
For example, oxygen is needed for life, but if we had an atmosphere a few percent richer, we'd have uncontrolled fires and health issues. How about ozone, O3? Highly corrosive, yet protects us from UV when in the right place.
So CO2 has benefits, yet can still be a pollutant. And that's how the science was presented when the regulations were put through.
-
They consider everybody's back yard as their back yard.
And they're just waiting patiently for the day they can tell you to get the hell off their lawn.
My back yard is where my rifle range is. Target practice has just been raised to a new level of FUN!
-
You're right to focus on the amount and specifics.
For example, oxygen is needed for life, but if we had an atmosphere a few percent richer, we'd have uncontrolled fires and health issues. How about ozone, O3? Highly corrosive, yet protects us from UV when in the right place.
So CO2 has benefits, yet can still be a pollutant. And that's how the science was presented when the regulations were put through.
The science I have read does little to recognize the fact that the earth is seeking equilibrium in many different ways. It has the abilities to take care of the majority of the changes it sees in chemicals and react accordingly.
I have seen few studies that take this into account.
God created a wondrous planet for us to dwell upon.
-
God created a wondrous planet for us to dwell upon.
Amen. And somehow I doubt that a few SUVs are going to change anything.
-
You're right to focus on the amount and specifics.
For example, oxygen is needed for life, but if we had an atmosphere a few percent richer, we'd have uncontrolled fires and health issues. How about ozone, O3? Highly corrosive, yet protects us from UV when in the right place.
So CO2 has benefits, yet can still be a pollutant. And that's how the science was presented when the regulations were put through.
@Suppressed
The EPAs leftist agenda is obvious and far reaching. Its far more about pushing their agenda of social control then any specific part of our environment. If it were about the environment they'd have their superfunds cleaned up and wouldn't be creating new ones by releasing millions of gallons of water polluted with heavy metals.
-
Suppressed wrote:
"So CO2 has benefits, yet can still be a pollutant."
Carbon dioxide is not now, nor has it ever been a "pollutant".
It's as natural to the atmosphere and environment as is nitrogen or oxygen.
It's literally a building block of life itself.
Anything else is a leftist lie, plain and simple.
-
@Suppressed
The EPAs leftist agenda is obvious and far reaching. Its far more about pushing their agenda of social control then any specific part of our environment. If it were about the environment they'd have their superfunds cleaned up and wouldn't be creating new ones by releasing millions of gallons of water polluted with heavy metals.
@driftdiver
The cost of cleanup of the Superfund sites industry has dumped onto the taxpayer far exceeds what funds are available each year. So, no...they wouldn't.
But could we not say the same for industry?
After all, the release of which you speak was caused because a private company refused to clean up the mess they were causing. If they'd been responsible and dealt with the problem before the water pressure built up, there would have been no trouble. But they dumped it onto you and me.
Could EPA's priorities be set better? ABSOLUTELY! But I deal with EPA personnel on a daily basis, and though I have my problems with them, they are conscientious, hard-working, bright people.
-
@driftdiver
The cost of cleanup of the Superfund sites industry has dumped onto the taxpayer far exceeds what funds are available each year. So, no...they wouldn't.
But could we not say the same for industry?
After all, the release of which you speak was caused because a private company refused to clean up the mess they were causing. If they'd been responsible and dealt with the problem before the water pressure built up, there would have been no trouble. But they dumped it onto you and me.
Could EPA's priorities be set better? ABSOLUTELY! But I deal with EPA personnel on a daily basis, and though I have my problems with them, they are conscientious, hard-working, bright people.
@Suppressed
If they really cared about the environment they would focus on the massively polluted sites. They don't. They let them linger for decades in some cases.
The release of water at the mine site was directly caused by the EPA and its contractor who was following EPA directions. They were warned by their consultant that it would happen if they did what they did. They did it anyway.
The EPA is full of radical activists who seek to use the power of the government and a gun to further their private agenda of social control. They seek to control the people of this country and manipulate regulations & legal proceedings to further that cause. They ignore the law and Congressional oversight. I sincerely hope and pray 95% of them are tossed out on the street and their budget for their activism is throttled.
-
If everyone would simply realize and accept the fact that the Federal Beast has made itself wholly illegitimate, things like this crap from the EPA simply need to be ignored en masse.
All the Beast has is guns they will put to our heads to force compliance with tyranny.
And that ought to tell you what time it is.
-
The science I have read does little to recognize the fact that the earth is seeking equilibrium in many different ways. It has the abilities to take care of the majority of the changes it sees in chemicals and react accordingly.
I have seen few studies that take this into account.
God created a wondrous planet for us to dwell upon.
Yes, there are both positive and negative feedbacks. While the negative feedbacks tend to maintain homeostasis (keeping it from changing), positive feedbacks exacerbate the problem (for example, as permafrost melts, it releases more methane, which causes further melting).
But in general, as there's an input to one side of the equation, the "fulcrum" shifts. So when carbon was taken out of the atmosphere during the Carboniferous Period, the climate cooled. As we put it back into the atmosphere by burning the coal, for example, we would expect it to shift back to that equilibrium.
-
@Suppressed
If they really cared about the environment they would focus on the massively polluted sites. They don't. They let them linger for decades in some cases.
@driftdiver
Again, nearly or over 90% of the money spent in Superfund isn't available for cleanup. It goes to legal costs. Yes, 85-90%!
There's not NEARLY enough to clean up all the sites fast. Taxpayers would rightly be screaming their heads off if the EPA paid expedited costs to do rapid cleanups at places where it was even scientifically feasible! Most places, it's not scientifically feasible.
And sites are listed on a National Priorities List (NPL). And many are cleaned up.
Also, at many locations, the idea is to get the responsible parties to pay, rather than the taxpayer picking up the huge costs. There's only so fast you can push before the company decides to go bankrupt and dump costs onto the taxpayer. Again, is that what we want?
The release of water at the mine site was directly caused by the EPA and its contractor who was following EPA directions. They were warned by their consultant that it would happen if they did what they did. They did it anyway.
Because the private sector had left the mess and hadn't cleaned it up! EPA wouldn't have been there if there wasn't already environmental damage left by the private sector!
Funny, but the usual course of action for EPA would be to study the problem more before taking action, but pressure has been put on EPA to "speed things up" (look in the mirror), so they took action without the full study. (Plus, the situation was building up to a natural blowout, so an Interim Measure had to be taken.)
What they did was wrong. They should have listened to their contractor. EPA is quite often arrogant, and this time it cost them (and us).
The EPA is full of radical activists who seek to use the power of the government and a gun to further their private agenda of social control.
Yes, there are many like that in the EPA, along with the sane.
I sincerely hope and pray 95% of them are tossed out on the street and their budget for their activism is throttled.
I want the bad ones gone. I want the good ones staying. I think that the number isn't 95%, except in upper echelon. In fact, even some of the "activist" types do good science and are responsible. You might not realize this, but EPA has already made big cuts to many of their personnel. Trouble is, they cut from core areas, and boosted others.
The budget should be better focused. Core-mission funding should be restored, and the activist stuff should be curtailed.
-
Yes, there are both positive and negative feedbacks. While the negative feedbacks tend to maintain homeostasis (keeping it from changing), positive feedbacks exacerbate the problem (for example, as permafrost melts, it releases more methane, which causes further melting).
But in general, as there's an input to one side of the equation, the "fulcrum" shifts. So when carbon was taken out of the atmosphere during the Carboniferous Period, the climate cooled. As we put it back into the atmosphere by burning the coal, for example, we would expect it to shift back to that equilibrium.
Part of every Mechanical Engineers' education is feedback loop system analysis (2 semesters of Advanced Dynamic Systems). It's been some time since I solved the differential equations, but I remember how to do the analysis. The thing is, I keep hearing about the earth's climate as having positive feedbacks. Positive feed backs are naturally unstable. Any perturbation will cause the system to oscillate out of control. Given that the earth and it's resident life have been here for several billion years with countless external forcing influences, I doubt that there are any positive feedbacks with any degree of influence on the system. Otherwise , the climate would have long ago oscillated out of control and wiped us all out.
-
@driftdiver
But I deal with EPA personnel on a daily basis, and though I have my problems with them, they are conscientious, hard-working, bright people.
This must be one of those best and brightest - the head of the EPA which resigns to protest against building the Keystone Pipeline.
Oh, and BTW, she has served on the corrupt Clinton Foundation since
(https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/02-1n008-lisajackson-c-300x300.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=300&h=300&crop=1)
http://nypost.com/2013/01/02/exit-of-epa-boss-a-protest/
-
@driftdiver
Again, nearly or over 90% of the money spent in Superfund isn't available for cleanup. It goes to legal costs. Yes, 85-90%!
There's not NEARLY enough to clean up all the sites fast. Taxpayers would rightly be screaming their heads off if the EPA paid expedited costs to do rapid cleanups at places where it was even scientifically feasible! Most places, it's not scientifically feasible.
And sites are listed on a National Priorities List (NPL). And many are cleaned up.
Also, at many locations, the idea is to get the responsible parties to pay, rather than the taxpayer picking up the huge costs. There's only so fast you can push before the company decides to go bankrupt and dump costs onto the taxpayer. Again, is that what we want?
Because the private sector had left the mess and hadn't cleaned it up! EPA wouldn't have been there if there wasn't already environmental damage left by the private sector!
Funny, but the usual course of action for EPA would be to study the problem more before taking action, but pressure has been put on EPA to "speed things up" (look in the mirror), so they took action without the full study. (Plus, the situation was building up to a natural blowout, so an Interim Measure had to be taken.)
What they did was wrong. They should have listened to their contractor. EPA is quite often arrogant, and this time it cost them (and us).
Yes, there are many like that in the EPA, along with the sane.
I want the bad ones gone. I want the good ones staying. I think that the number isn't 95%, except in upper echelon. In fact, even some of the "activist" types do good science and are responsible. You might not realize this, but EPA has already made big cuts to many of their personnel. Trouble is, they cut from core areas, and boosted others.
The budget should be better focused. Core-mission funding should be restored, and the activist stuff should be curtailed.
@Suppressed
Its called abuse and in many cases unconstitutional. This is why the power of the govt must be limited. If a person or company had done what the IRS did with that mine they would be jailed/sued into oblivion. The EPA just says, oops my bad, and then proceed to lie about what happened.
If they cared about the superfund sites they would find a solution and stop spending time and money trying to regulate puddles in our back yards.
-
This must be one of those best and brightest - the head of the EPA which resigns to protest against building the Keystone Pipeline.
Oh, and BTW, she has served on the corrupt Clinton Foundation since
(https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/02-1n008-lisajackson-c-300x300.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=300&h=300&crop=1)
http://nypost.com/2013/01/02/exit-of-epa-boss-a-protest/
@IsailedawayfromFR
I've seen it first hand many times. The relationships between the govt and well connected organizations are incredibly incestuous.
-
@driftdiver
Again, nearly or over 90% of the money spent in Superfund isn't available for cleanup. It goes to legal costs. Yes, 85-90%!
You just brought up another issue that is pertinent - taxpayers paying for lawyers, not environmental cleanup.
Because the private sector had left the mess and hadn't cleaned it up! EPA wouldn't have been there if there wasn't already environmental damage left by the private sector!
If the EPA would stop spending time and money on frivolous adventures such as going after CO2 polluters or issuing all these new regulations, perhaps these cleanups could be addressed much better. Of course a lot of them of necessity must be done by using public monies if pollution was done prior to the enactment of any laws to the contrary.
The federal government, particularly the DOD, is the absolute worst polluter in the history of this country. And how much of the EPA monies are dedicated to that?
Oh, and how about the EPA's role in cleaning up this mess which they helped fund.
http://toryaardvark.com/the-united-states-is-littered-with-more-than-14000-abandoned-wind-turbines/
-
Some government agencies are too broken to fix.
-
The EPA is a cancer and beyond fixing.
It needs to be removed or the patient will die.
-
@Suppressed
If they cared about the superfund sites they would find a solution and stop spending time and money trying to regulate puddles in our back yards.
I wish I would have taken a pic of a puddle like you described near a well we were drilling in California.
The state environmental authority had it roped off with signs although any idiot could tell it was simply a 20' diameter wet area.
The CA govt charged the company drilling the well an 'environmental fee' so a college grad student could be hired around the clock to monitor the environmental effects of the activity. Guess that paid to educate the next generation of envirowackos.
Unbelievable, stupid actions, endemic of an out-of-control government.
-
@driftdiver
Again, nearly or over 90% of the money spent in Superfund isn't available for cleanup. It goes to legal costs. Yes, 85-90%!
There's not NEARLY enough to clean up all the sites fast. Taxpayers would rightly be screaming their heads off if the EPA paid expedited costs to do rapid cleanups at places where it was even scientifically feasible! Most places, it's not scientifically feasible.
And sites are listed on a National Priorities List (NPL). And many are cleaned up.
Also, at many locations, the idea is to get the responsible parties to pay, rather than the taxpayer picking up the huge costs. There's only so fast you can push before the company decides to go bankrupt and dump costs onto the taxpayer. Again, is that what we want?
Because the private sector had left the mess and hadn't cleaned it up! EPA wouldn't have been there if there wasn't already environmental damage left by the private sector!
Funny, but the usual course of action for EPA would be to study the problem more before taking action, but pressure has been put on EPA to "speed things up" (look in the mirror), so they took action without the full study. (Plus, the situation was building up to a natural blowout, so an Interim Measure had to be taken.)
A sane interim measure would have been to lower the hydrostatic pressure by pumping off the fluid before removing the plug. If it is as metalliferous as stated, it could have been treated to reduce volume significantly and concentrate the metals, which might even have had some commercial value.
What they did was wrong. They should have listened to their contractor. EPA is quite often arrogant, and this time it cost them (and us).
What did it cost them? Any of them? No, they are rolling on our dime. They don't live there, it doesn't come out of their pockets, no jobs were lost, no skin off their backside.
Yes, there are many like that in the EPA, along with the sane.
I want the bad ones gone. I want the good ones staying.
The budget should be better focused. Core-mission funding should be restored, and the activist stuff should be curtailed.
(edited for brevity)
If there are important functions, move them to Interior and get rid of the agency (EPA) entirely. Keep the good people who can find and remediate the problem areas, get rid of all the activists. There is no way in Hell any activist should be running around the halls of Government on our dime advocating the destruction of American Industry, and that is exactly what the environmentalist movement is doing. That movement has become a pseudo-religion.
At some point, the last half part per billion really doesn't matter. Holding effluents to purity standards stricter than the natural environment is nuts.
As for burning coal, if one looks around western North Dakota and sees the orange layers of natural brick locally referred to as 'scoria', and used as road surfacing material on unpaved roads, realize those hundreds of thousands of acres of coal beds which burned, firing the underclays and cap rock clays to those coal seams into natural brick must have put out huge amounts of CO2, not to mention all the other goodies a burning coal seam puts out.
Nature has a way of making man's contribution to the atmosphere seem as insignificant as it is. In the past, in valleys, capped with thermal inversions and fed by stack emissions far, far, less clean than the steam the comes out of most power plants, the huddled masses suffered from the soot and combustion byproducts.
Since then, however, the incredible difference in the cleanliness of those emissions has always been deemed insufficient, as soon as the last complaint was addressed a new one was made--maybe half as much as the previous standard, maybe something new, but always sapping revenue, directly (with fines) or indirectly with expenses, modifications, and shutdowns. No wonder industry left America.
As for the Carboniferous (AKA the Mississippian and Pennsylvanian periods in the US) You're looking at roughly 250 million years ago. We don't know how much CO2 was "normal", but the trees and foliage sure grew well. The planet has its own dampening mechanisms. CO2 goes up, plant life thrives, gets buried, carbon sequestration. When the temp goes down, water becomes bound up in large continental Ice sheets (precipitation that just doesn't make it back to the oceans, until the ice melts), sea level drops, Methane hydrates boil off with the drop in marine hydrostatic pressure (my little theory), and warming occurs.
4.6 billion years by some counts, and it's still here. Humans probably won't last that long, just from some of the volcanic events (Toba, for instance), and cosmic impacts (Chicxulub was just one), if we don't just kill each other off.
But as for mining and the like, most of the low-hanging fruit has been picked. Fill those stopes and shafts with tailings and you guarantee those workings will never be used again (It would cost too much to remove the tailings to look for more ore). The 'cheap to mine' coal is out of the ground, the 'easy' oil. So we had better use those resources we have wishing for more wishes. If humanity isn't colonizing Mars, the asteroids, and the moon in the next 100 years, it won't happen.
Right now, we're too busy cutting ourselves off at the knees over a half part per billion to reach for the stars.
-
I wish I would have taken a pic of a puddle like you described near a well we were drilling in California.
The state environmental authority had it roped off with signs although any idiot could tell it was simply a 20' diameter wet area.
The CA govt charged the company drilling the well an 'environmental fee' so a college grad student could be hired around the clock to monitor the environmental effects of the activity. Guess that paid to educate the next generation of envirowackos.
Unbelievable, stupid actions, endemic of an out-of-control government.
Yeah, some people think that state agencies are magically so much better than the federal. It just ain't true.
-
A sane interim measure would have been to lower the hydrostatic pressure by pumping off the fluid before removing the plug. If it is as metalliferous as stated, it could have been treated to reduce volume significantly and concentrate the metals, which might even have had some commercial value.
Of course, but IIRC, they weren't aware of how much water was built up behind it. And of course, the mine itself was underestimating it, so we can't say they are good guys in this, either. They let it get that way.
They should have drilled a test hole "upstream" but that would have been very costly, and they were trying to save (taxpayer) money. They would get criticism no matter what they did.
What did it cost them? Any of them? No, they are rolling on our dime. They don't live there, it doesn't come out of their pockets, no jobs were lost, no skin off their backside.
(edited for brevity)
You think there haven't been costs to them, to their careers, to the agency??
If there are important functions, move them to Interior and get rid of the agency (EPA) entirely.
Changing the alphabet name will fix it? Why not the changes you recommend but keep the agency separate, without having to redo all the legislation.
At some point, the last half part per billion really doesn't matter. Holding effluents to purity standards stricter than the natural environment is nuts.
Agreed on the first sentence. Where are they doing the second?
As for burning coal, if one looks around western North Dakota and sees the orange layers of natural brick locally referred to as 'scoria', and used as road surfacing material on unpaved roads, realize those hundreds of thousands of acres of coal beds which burned, firing the underclays and cap rock clays to those coal seams into natural brick must have put out huge amounts of CO2, not to mention all the other goodies a burning coal seam puts out.
Yes, and there are thousands of underground coal fires burning right now, nearly all man-caused. They account for about 3% of the CO2 emissions every year.
Nature has a way of making man's contribution to the atmosphere seem as insignificant as it is. In the past, in valleys, capped with thermal inversions and fed by stack emissions far, far, less clean than the steam the comes out of most power plants, the huddled masses suffered from the soot and combustion byproducts.
And the particulates reduced effective insolation, providing a cooling effect.
Since then, however, the incredible difference in the cleanliness of those emissions has always been deemed insufficient, as soon as the last complaint was addressed a new one was made--maybe half as much as the previous standard, maybe something new, but always sapping revenue, directly (with fines) or indirectly with expenses, modifications, and shutdowns. No wonder industry left America.
Agreed. And there have been games played with the rules. I recall standing at an "alternative" coal-fired power plant that got all kinds of subsidies. The alternative coal? They sprayed water onto it before burning it.
Plus, the US isn't where those emissions are growing...it's places like China and India and elsewhere.
As for the Carboniferous (AKA the Mississippian and Pennsylvanian periods in the US)
Sadly, the Mississippian and Pennsylvanian have been relegated to subperiod/subsystem status in the US. Check out USGS or GSA. And don't get an eye exam when you try to find the Tertiary period.
You're looking at roughly 250 million years ago. We don't know how much CO2 was "normal", but the trees and foliage sure grew well. The planet has its own dampening mechanisms. CO2 goes up, plant life thrives, gets buried, carbon sequestration. When the temp goes down, water becomes bound up in large continental Ice sheets (precipitation that just doesn't make it back to the oceans, until the ice melts), sea level drops, Methane hydrates boil off with the drop in marine hydrostatic pressure (my little theory), and warming occurs.
And all of your discussion posits the forcing being on the temperature side. Now, look at what would happen when we force CO2 levels. By your own model, the equilibrium should shift to higher temperatures.
But as for mining and the like, most of the low-hanging fruit has been picked. Fill those stopes and shafts with tailings and you guarantee those workings will never be used again (It would cost too much to remove the tailings to look for more ore). The 'cheap to mine' coal is out of the ground, the 'easy' oil. So we had better use those resources we have wishing for more wishes. If humanity isn't colonizing Mars, the asteroids, and the moon in the next 100 years, it won't happen.
Nah...I'll just go to TOS, where they claim resources are limitless and forever cheap. :laugh:
But you make a great point that too few people realize.
That's why I say that regardless of whether climate change is real or not, it doesn't mean we should cripple industry as a result. We need a more intelligent response, cleaning up dirty sources and looking for other avenues. Personally, I believe there is anthropogenic climate change occurring, but not nearly at the rates some have claimed.
Right now, we're too busy cutting ourselves off at the knees over a half part per billion to reach for the stars.
I'd say we're in a lot of agreement that there are misplaced priorities.
If we get rid of the activist wing of the EPA, and just look at the rest, we see that EPA has gone a long way toward rationality.. such as going to more risk-based approaches, where higher levels of contaminants are allowed to remain, if a risk assessment shows no risk for the future use of the land. For example, contaminated industrial land doesn't need to be cleaned up to pristine unless it's going to be residential. They just put a deed restriction on the property so it never can be used for a daycare or homes without more cleanup.
-
You just brought up another issue that is pertinent - taxpayers paying for lawyers, not environmental cleanup.
You'd rather they just let the polluters get away with it, dumping costs onto the taxpayer?!?
I like the fact that the EPA often recovers costs.
If the EPA would stop spending time and money on frivolous adventures such as going after CO2 polluters or issuing all these new regulations, perhaps these cleanups could be addressed much better.
Definitely!
The federal government, particularly the DOD, is the absolute worst polluter in the history of this country. And how much of the EPA monies are dedicated to that?
EPA has some costs involved, regulating. But mostly it's DOD (or in some cases DOE) who pay for cleanups at DOD facilities.
Oh, and how about the EPA's role in cleaning up this mess which they helped fund.
http://toryaardvark.com/the-united-states-is-littered-with-more-than-14000-abandoned-wind-turbines/
A fake factoid.
http://www.aweablog.org/fact-check-about-those-abandoned-turbines/
http://www.wind-works.org/cms/index.php?id=340&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=1679&cHash=a6ffbf36a98ab3ba82069d2486ebd7ae
-
Yeah, some people think that state agencies are magically so much better than the federal. It just ain't true.
What?
You believe a federal bureaucrat should be regulating puddles?
The feds should have zilch authority when it comes to envirnomental matters. We can save $30+ billion a year on federal budget?
-
You'd rather they just let the polluters get away with it, dumping costs onto the
Who said that? Do not pay lawyers, pay to cleanup.
You are spitting out nonsense, apparently calibrated from enviro-wacko talking points.
-
Yeah, some people think that state agencies are magically so much better than the federal. It just ain't true.
In some states they are.
-
A fake factoid.
http://www.aweablog.org/fact-check-about-those-abandoned-turbines/
http://www.wind-works.org/cms/index.php?id=340&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=1679&cHash=a6ffbf36a98ab3ba82069d2486ebd7ae
So to refute you use an article made up by someone who has zero qualifications and scolded by his employer IBM to stop doing it?
Good reference. Tells all.
Mike Barnard’s wind wings clipped by employer IBM
Told to stop writing on wind power, resign fellowship from Energy and Policy Institute, and delete his blog: Barnard on Wind
Mike Barnard last month was taken to task by researcher Jackie Rovensky of AU and NA-PAW (North American Platform Against Wind Power) for a long-standing series of malicious attacks on trusted and respected professionals worldwide, who have variously documented and researched the now widely recognized devastating effects of industrial wind on human health.
This action by IBM is easily understood.
Barnard is best known for his self-proclaimed stance as a pro wind “expert”, who critiques others for their “lack of expertise.” He has zero qualifications for his writings on wind, yet “calls himself the lead researcher” in a study that calls wind victims “liars.” Barnard has also falsely asserted that his “power reading” and
“constant and deep access and conversations related to public health management, epidemiology and the nature of medical evidence ... That experience and on-the-job education has been invaluable as I’ve read through health studies and reviews related to wind power from around the world” ... which led to “recognition of my expertise ... I’m pleased to say that my material is helping to shape legal defences of wind energy, advocacy programs and investments in several countries.”
This bravado has found its “religious” base with wind power developers and promoters, but Barnard now can only boast of a protracted vacation from writing on wind.
Others use his cyber bullying and “manufactured facts” to recreate their own smears.
IBM Corporate Officer (Brand Manager, Communications) Carrie Bendzsa, after numerous discussions with Lange of NA-PAW, wrote to NA-PAW, thanking the organization for bringing this matter to their attention, asserting that none of “these postings or comments (libel by Barnard) were IBM endorsed actions.”
The communique continues:
“We don't have an advocacy position on energy and we have a number of social computing guidelines and policies in place that our employees are instructed and expected to follow. Furthermore, the individuals who are upset by the postings should be assured that IBM does not have any negative views about them personally or professionally.
“IBM has spent considerable time reviewing this matter internally and has taken several actions that our employee has agreed to comply with to resolve this matter. These include having the employee delete the Barnardonwind blog, terminate the Energy and Policy Institute Senior Fellow role and agree to no longer publish on wind energy.
“We truly appreciate you stepping forward to bring this matter to our attention.”
Lange notes that the kind of serial cyber bullying that has occurred with Barnard on Wind, some of which has been subsumed into other pro wind sites, is of a serious nature: “It is regarded as irrational, unprovoked criticism,” based on the apparent, some would say obvious, intent to harm careers and cast doubt on the professional integrity of individuals. It has no basis in fact, and can be compared in a way to “hate” speech.
Notes Lange: “Cyber Bullying and defamation falls under the Criminal Code, and is punishable by up to 10 years in prison in Canada.” “Defamatory libel is likewise a crime under the Criminal Code, if the libelous statement is directed against a person in authority and could seriously harm his or her reputation.” (The persons affected by the Barnard libel are indeed persons in authority.) “This is punishable by up to five years in prison.” (While the US defamation laws are less plaintiff friendly, there are legal markers since 1964 for those knowingly harming by the power of innuendo and falsehoods.)
NA-PAW expresses thanks to IBM for its ethical leadership, and reserves the right to observe and facilitate the removal of all related and corollary defamation from satellite websites, if need be with the assistance of web expert libel/defamation lawyers.
http://www.na-paw.org/pr-141212.php
-
Of course, but IIRC, they weren't aware of how much water was built up behind it. And of course, the mine itself was underestimating it, so we can't say they are good guys in this, either. They let it get that way.
You think there haven't been costs to them, to their careers, to the agency??
No. Link away if I'm wrong. Changing the alphabet name will fix it? Why not the changes you recommend but keep the agency separate, without having to redo all the legislation.
Frankly, all I'm seeing there is a well lawyered outlet for funds to environmental extremists and their lawyers. Yes, Virginia, there are some real messes, that DO need to be cleaned up, and the vast majority of those are the legacy of industries which antedated any legislation. Better yet, establish permissable standards (once, thankyouverymuch) and turn the states loose to regulate their own industry as they will. The regulators will be far closer to the communities they regulate. Have Federal oversight (to prevent corruption) if you want to, but not Federal Control.
Yes, and there are thousands of underground coal fires burning right now, nearly all man-caused. They account for about 3% of the CO2 emissions every year.
And the particulates reduced effective insolation, providing a cooling effect.
Ohkay, I see you don't know what I am talking about. Look at the image: (https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/NDNotes/images/nn13f1.jpg)
[/quote]
The red beds in the foreground are natural brick, formed when coal beds which were associated with the (now refracted) clay burned. There is a lot of this in western ND and in eastern Montana, which antedates human activity here, in fact antedates the last ice age.
https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/ndnotes/ndn13_h.htm (https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/ndnotes/ndn13_h.htm)
Plus, the US isn't where those emissions are growing...it's places like China and India and elsewhere.
> snip <
That's why I say that regardless of whether climate change is real or not, it doesn't mean we should cripple industry as a result.
Agreed, although I believe a non-agenda driven analysis of the situation finds similar fluctuations in both temperature and atmospheric CO2 have occurred in the past, beyond the apparent reach or ability of much smaller numbers of humans to exert an influence. Considering those fluctuations occurred without any significant human input, I believe we have grossly underestimated the ability of planetary systems (biological, atmospheric, and geochemical) to adjust for emissions and equilibrate. I also believe the natural component input has been underestimated, but that other factors may well apply. It is my firm belief that while humans can certainly render areas unsuitable for human habitation, that without actually trying to mess with global climate, we won't affect global climate significantly. Natural factors will exert far more control. We need a more intelligent response, cleaning up dirty sources and looking for other avenues.
I think we need to define acceptable risk in terms of what we produce and the effects it may have, first on us and the other species on which we rely for food or are in the food chain of those organisms. It is an ecological, not environmental approach. Maintain balance in the natural systems by not disrupting them to the point where they break down, as opposed to trying to preserve dynamic systems as a static snapshot of themselves. Where possible, when that balance has broken down, identify the critical element(s) and repair the system. At times, that approach will conflict with human interests, because those are the interests that caused the breakdown of the system in the first place, as an unintended consequence.
For industrial pollution, this would involve removing toxic levels of organic and inorganic compounds and elements from groundwater, for example. Personally, I believe there is anthropogenic climate change occurring, but not nearly at the rates some have claimed.
On this we differ in order of magnitude, but I agree humans are not having the effects predicted by the models. (Others would go back to the proverbial drawing board, but the dogmatic insistence of the proponents makes me question their veracity and motives.)
I'd say we're in a lot of agreement that there are misplaced priorities.
To put it mildly.
If we get rid of the activist wing of the EPA, and just look at the rest, we see that EPA has gone a long way toward rationality.. such as going to more risk-based approaches, where higher levels of contaminants are allowed to remain, if a risk assessment shows no risk for the future use of the land. For example, contaminated industrial land doesn't need to be cleaned up to pristine unless it's going to be residential.
I'm going to add adjacent watersheds--and define that to mean navigable waters. heavy metal or toxic organic leachates can affect the food chain. Chances are industrial land which was utilized prior to restrictions is adjacent to such waterways. If research should be aimed at something, that is the remediation of soils in as economically friendly a fashion as possible, with the intent to remove toxins and excess metals and place those when feasible back into the supply chain (the market). Something similar has been done at the Anaconda pit, removing copper, et. al. from the groundwater there. They just put a deed restriction on the property so it never can be used for a daycare or homes without more cleanup.
That may ignore the potential for leachates contaminating groundwater in adjacent areas, although that 'tainted soil' can continue as an industrial site. There may well be a standard to which such soils or sites could be remediated which is sufficient for limited exposure in an industrial environment, which would not be considered 'safe' for habitation or daycare centers. Considering the uptake in childhood would be likely more severe, fetal development would also have to be taken into account. I would like to see an alternative to the 'dig it up and move it elsewhere' approach so commonly used, which just kicks the can onto someone else's road.
These standards could be defined by solid research at the Federal Level, and more likely so if the research ended with suggestions which State regulators could implement, as applicable, or, if the geography or geology of a particular region or area require more intense standards, those could be implemented for that area, rather than imposed as a blanket regulation on areas which will not have the problems those areas have.
An example would be auto emissions standards, which should be different for Muddy Gap, Wyoming versus Los Angeles, California.
.
-
The Left plays this game of personalization and polarization:
- I say the EPA should not operate in secret and the Left screams at me that I must want a polluted planet.
- I say the EPA should follow U.S. law like everybody else and the Left labels me an eco-terrorist.
If the Left insists on working right out of Alinksy's playbook Rules for Radicals then so be it - two can play that game. As Obama says, "don't bring a knife to a gunfight". Understanding that it is useless to try to sit down like adults and work through issues step by step in a logical fashion is the first step in winning the battle.
Let's begin by calling these rogue government agencies who create their own private fiefdoms and operate at whim by their own rules exactly what they are - Communists.
-
Yes, and there are thousands of underground coal fires burning right now, nearly all man-caused. They account for about 3% of the CO2 emissions every year.
How about some real science presented in a way that is simple to understand?
Nature controls the amount of CO2 far more than the combination of all the humans that live or have ever lived.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/BC1l4geSTP8