Steinberg writes for the Daily Bulletin

David Cassuto

Intriguing blog post by Mark Bittman, of all people, wondering whether industrial meat could be illegal under TSCA (the Toxic Substances Control Act).  The argument would be that TSCA gives the EPA authority to regulate substances that pose “an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment,” which greenhouse gases do, and industrial agriculture is a prime source of greenhouse gases (related post here).  So… there’s a potential case to be made for the strict regulation of industrial agriculture under TSCA.

It’s a creative argument and I, of course, salute the intent.  But I’m skeptical.  As an initial matter, TSCA “does not include chemical substances subject to other US statutes such as foods and food additives, pesticides, drugs, cosmetics, tobacco, nuclear material, or munitions.” Greenhouse gases are indeed subject to other U.S. statutes (i.e. the Clean Air Act); this was the gravamen of the Massachusetts v. EPA case and the reason for the EPA’s recent “endangerment finding” that Bittman references in the post.  

Also, even if it is possible to regulate industrial agriculture under TSCA, the statute merely provides EPA with the authority to do so; it does not require the agency to act.  Given the vacuum that is federal agricultural regulation, I would not expect to see any agency cavalry riding into this particular breach anytime soon.

But hey; I’d love to be wrong.

Recently on the Tonight Show Al Gore told Conan and his audience that the temperature two kilometers (approximately 1.2 miles) below the surface of the earth is several million degrees. Of course we all know that Algore is trying to sell some snake oil potion (carbon credits) and the idea that man is causing the planet to heat up at such a rapid rate that we’ll all be dead in 10 years.

All this should be laughable at the very best since these clowns have been saying stuff like this with a straight face for decades now, and every 10 years after one of their doom-and-gloom predictions the Earth keeps spinning on its axis and it keeps revolving around the sun. The seasons change with regularity and the animals that were once predicted to be on the brink of extinction continue to exist without the help of mankind.

Let’s see here… a quick search on the Internet (Algore claims to have invented this as well) reveals that we can’t truly know what the temperature at the center of the Earth is, although we do have miners a couple kilometers down and they seem to be doing just fine in the cool conditions underground. But, if scientists were to venture a guess, the Web site Physlink.com reports that the center of the earth is approximately 4,000 degrees Celsius, or about 7,200 degrees Fahrenheit, give or take a couple degrees. For reference, we’ve estimated that the surface of the sun is approximately 11,000 degrees Fahrenheit, with an inner core temperature of our sun at about 15 million degrees Celsius, again, give or take a few hundred degrees.

This little bit of inconvenient truth apparently escaped Algore’s recent movie and his speeches that no sane person would pay to see, much less volunteer to attend even if paid.

So, if Algore is lying, and he’s using the so-called scientific data to support his claims, then shouldn’t it follow suit that the so-called scientific data that he claims is also invalid? Never mind the terabytes of e-mails and information recently released earlier this month that suggests the entire global-warming-is-man-caused community has pretty much ginned up everything in order to sell their scientific theories.

Which brings up another question: what do these so-called scientists and the political movement they support have to gain from these lies? I’d love an honest answer to that one.

Meanwhile, tonight’s temperatures in western Nevada and other parts of the Great Basin will fall to between 20 below and 40 below zero while blizzards continue to plague parts of the United States.

As if to remove any lingering doubts about the accuracy of today’s Examiner editorial – “Czar Obama takes aim at Congress” – an unnamed White House aide tells Fox News that EPA is set to take “command-and-control” of the U.S. economy if the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade anti-global warming energy bill isn’t approved on Capitol Hill.

According to Fox News’ Major Garrett, the official said: “If you don’t pass this legislation, then … the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area. And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it’s going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty.”

Click here for the rest of the story…

source:www.climateprotect.org Washington, DC – Maggie L. Fox, President and CEO of The Alliance for Climate Protection issued the following statement on today’s announcement from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act:

“Americans can breathe a bit easier in the wake of today’s historic announcement from the EPA declaring greenhouse gas pollution a danger to the public’s health and welfare. The U.S. Congress first passed the Clean Air Act in 1970 to protect the public’s health, and the EPA’s use of the Act’s authority to regulate the gases causing the climate crisis means that not only is the time for science denial over, but the federal government will also be complying with the law of the land. As the world convenes for the next two weeks in Copenhagen to negotiate an international climate agreement, President Obama and all of America will have our greatest opportunity yet to show the world that we are fully committed to building a global clean energy economy and solving the climate crisis.”

About the Alliance for Climate Protection:
The Alliance for Climate Protection was founded in 2006 by Nobel laureate and former Vice President Al Gore. With more than two million members worldwide, the Alliance is a unique non-profit, non-partisan organization that is committed to educating the global community about the urgency of implementing comprehensive solutions to the climate crisis.

————————————————————————————————–

This is such a catastrophe. If the EPA gets in control of the “climate change” facade, all Americans will suffer.

The EPA has used it’s muscle for years to seize property and extort massive fines from ordinary people because these ordinary people were “caught” breaking some hidden EPA regulation.

The EPA has been ruthless in their quest to level huge fines for such things as filling in a low lying piece of ground with dirt because said piece of ground has standing water on it. But, because the low lying area has water standing on it for “X” months per year, it is deemed by the EPA as a wetland.

Although I do not have the source of this accusation in front of me, it is but one of many stories I have read over the years concerning the EPA’s strongarm tactics.

If Obama gives the EPA control of our energy usage and our “carbon footprint”, we will all get the shaft. And, Mr. Obama has stated that is one option he may persue, by decree no less.

I was raised under the impression that our ancestors left England to get away from the king’s rule. Yet, that is where Mr. Obama has placed himself, as supreme ruler of the United States.

And by decree, he will throw this country under the bus. And, the vast majority of Americans have become so complacent and, for lack of a better word, stupid, that he has been able to carry the insanity this far.

I have already seen one article out of the the Telegraph, which in a nutshell says that Americans lack the anatomy to stand up and resist the Obama/Global agenda.

We have to continue to speak out. So many do speak out, but get discouraged that their words seem to fall on deaf ears. This is not true. When you speak to anyone, regardless of who they are, you are palnting a seed. And, one day they will see, and they will remember that someone warned them of this or that.

Pick up a phone and call congressmen and senators and let them know how you feel and impress on them that they work for the people, not the other way around.

Make it a point to ride their backsides often. And when it comes time to vote, either vote for them if they have done their best to preserve freedom, or vote them out.

Southern Patriot

The EPA decrees:

“If you don’t pass this legislation, then … the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area,” the official announced. “And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it’s going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty.” The EPA official warned that the EPA’s intervention will be a huge “deterrent to investment” and will inflict injury on an already damaged economy.

The official in question should be hauled before a jury and tried for treason.

Threatening a take over of the government by an official is a serious matter when the threat posed is real.

Treason:

The US Constitution defines it as:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The threat of overthrowing the elected US Federal Government in order to enact unconstitutional totalitarian regulation on all aspects of human life is to engage in an act of rebellion tantamount to threatening war.

You can contact the Justice Department and demand an investigation here.

You can contact your representatives to demand the EPA officials in question be hauled in for treason here.

In case you haven’t heard or read, the Environmental Protection Agency has decided that every time you exhale. You are committing a crime against nature and the planet. They have declared that CO2 is a pollutant and must be removed from the face of the earth, I guess these Invirofascists don’t realize that plants live on CO2. Between the Environmental Protection Agency and  the California Air Resources Board, or CARB, they are determined to destroy the state of California. And this country. Now our dear leader, Pres. zero is in Copenhagen, and you can bet that he will sign whatever piece of shit agreement they come up with. He certainly doesn’t care that it might damage this country. After all that is what he wants to do he wants to destroy this country and the economy. I don’t know about anyone else, but I don’t really want to live in a seventh century country. In case you don’t know it bats live in caves, and I have an aversion to bats. And now on to my second subject which would be Chris Matthews.

The leftist in this country are constantly going after Sarah Palin and I know why. She scares them to death. She is conservative, she is a woman, a proud mother, happily married and also is much smarter than the vast majority of them.

I truly believe that Chris Matthews has jumped the shark and lost his mind. His continued vicious attacks on Sarah Palin absolutely make no sense she never did anything to him she’s never even said something nasty about him like he does her maybe just maybe Chrissy boy has a thing for Sarah Palin,  no. That’s probably not possible since he got a tingle up his leg watching Obama. He really needs to either come out of the closet or stop inserting himself into every conversation about Sarah Palin, come on Chrissy open that door, come on out of the closet. I personally don’t watch MSNBC because I think it’s a garbage network anyway and every time I hear about something that they have broadcast on that cable channel reinforces my decision to not ever watch the sons of bitches. On a recent episode of his stupid program hardball on MSNBC, he went into one rant after another chiding his guests Politico’s Jonathan Martin and USA Today’s Susan Page for not going after her tooth and nail every opportunity they get. Here a partial transcript of his rants. It is obvious that Jnathan and Susan don’t hate her like he does, because they actually listen to her and read her book. The words in her book “Going Rogue” are hers. You can hear her voice when you read the pages.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Sarah Palin was everywhere this weekend. Here in D.C and Washington, she spoke at the Gridiron Club Saturday night. On Sunday she was in the key 2012 state of Iowa signing books for people who lined up overnight to meet her and apparently gonna work, she’s already working the Iowa caucus it seems. And also her former running mate john McCain praised her this weekend in glowing terms. Is she well positioned for 2012? USA Today’s Susan Page was at the Gridiron Club on Saturday night, part of the team. And Politico’s Jonathan Martin was at the Sioux City, Iowa bookstore. Well I gotta go to Sioux City because I have a theory that they have more votes in the Iowa Caucus than the, than Capitol Hill. Well let me ask you about, when people you interviewed as a straight print reporter, the best there is.

JONATHAN MARTIN, POLITICO: Yes sir.

MATTHEWS: When you went out to interview them, did they take her seriously as a presidential type? I’m not saying gonna vote for, do they see her in that league?

MARTIN: Absolutely. I talked to a lot of voters in that line because there was a long line and there was plenty of time waiting. And almost to a person they said that they would like to see her run for president. And that they would not just vote for her, but would caucus for her, too. That’s an important distinction. Because a lot of her supporters are not party regular types. They have not, Chris, caucused in the past. So this would be-

MATTHEWS: Were they all white people?

MARTIN: Almost entirely.

MATTHEWS: What do you mean almost?

MARTIN: I saw one African-American.

MATTHEWS: Okay, But it is a certain sort of, what do you call it, socio-metric group that she appeals to.

MARTIN: Absolutely. It’s a working class, middle class group. Very populist, very conservative. Not always, but again not always totally Republican. Some of these folks come from outside the party. Which is why she’s so formidable. She could enlarge the caucuses by bring in folks that don’t typically participate.

MATTHEWS: Okay who are they?

MARTIN: They are evangelical Christians. They are folks that have kids, with, with, you know, Down Syndrome, like she does.

MATTHEWS: Sure.

MARTIN: They are sportsmen. They are folks that are really ticked off at Washington. Very, very angry that sort of tea party crowd. That is her element. That’s her demographic. And they feel very strongly about her. And they’re willing to camp out overnight to see her in 10-degree weather, and then they’re going to wait the next morning for five hours until she gets there. This is a dedicated crowd.

MATTHEWS: Okay here she is, and just this weekend, just to show she can switch hit, she was before your crowd, the more mature journalists in Washington. No it takes a while to get in that club. I’m respectable. It’s a respectable group. But didn’t she do a lot of self-deprecation, the other night, to show that she could be one of the boys?

SUSAN PAGE, USA TODAY: You know she did it and this was not her demographic. This was not a group that she thinks is…

MATTHEWS: It was a self-important Washington journalist crowd.

PAGE: Yeah it’s a kind of, people who have given her a pretty rough ride I think in print. She was self-deprecating. She gave a few barbs too…

MATTHEWS: And who wrote this stuff for her?

PAGE: Well I hear second hand that Eric Schnur who’s a-

MATTHEWS: Does it bother the press that somebody comes in there, whose book was written for them – and this is people who work. You write every day. You sweat it out getting the right words, thinking how to organize a piece, intellectualizing it and then putting it on paper. And I’m sorry, and reporting it to start with. It’s a lot of work, being a reporter. I’ve seen you guys on deadline. It’s hard work. Don’t you essentially disrespect somebody who walks in and puts a book on the table and said they wrote it, when you know somebody else did? Who comes in and gives a speech that you know somebody else wrote all the jokes for and gave it to her and she paid for it probably? Doesn’t that bother you guys? I’m arguing there.

PAGE: You know I think if it’s, I think if it’s not, if it’s not-

MATTHEWS: Does it bother you?

PAGE: No.

MATTHEWS: Why doesn’t it bother you?

PAGE: Because if it’s in her voice, like the book, I read her book, it’s in her voice. It sounds just like her. Maybe she doesn’t write it, it does reflect her in a way. And the idea, you who, you who’ve written-

MATTHEWS: But she didn’t sweat it out.

PAGE: You have written many speeches for politicians.

MATTHEWS: And I’ve written them and I’ve written books. And, and I take-

PAGE: Does it offend you?

MATTHEWS: But I have tremendous respect for you guys, on the bus, when I see you guys. I’ll sit on a bus somewhere, covering a campaign, and all of a sudden one of you people from the big papers, and all of a sudden I’ll see a 1,500 word piece taken and you’ve somehow gotten it done, in the same time I’ve been with you? I say, "When did you write this thing?" I mean there’s a lot of talent she doesn’t have, and yet she takes credit for it.

PAGE: It’s not, it’s not the talent that we ask the political figures to have. We ask them to have other talents like points of view.

MATTHEWS: Well why do you let them take credit for books and speeches they didn’t write?

PAGE: Well the book, she, I think she acknowledged a co-author on her book. And the idea that somebody wrote her speech for her, this is so not a surprise.

MATTHEWS: You know when some jock writes a book and says, "As told to," on the first page we say okay, because he’s not supposed to be a writer or a thinker, he’s supposed to be a hell of a performer. Right?

PAGE: Yes.

MATTHEWS: You can’t do everything. But when somebody claims to be an intellectual leader that’s gonna lead this country with big ideas and lead us in the right direction and puts their name on the cover of the book, shouldn’t they have written it? Just a guess.

PAGE: Well they should have played a part.

MATTHEWS: You’re so, you are such a sweetie! You are being so sweet!

MARTIN: That’s prominent part, prominent part.

MATTHEWS: Is this the new press treatment of Sarah Palin?

PAGE: Yeah, it is.

MATTHEWS: Why? You want her in this race, right?

PAGE: Right, right.

MATTHEWS: You’re luring her in. Look at this. Sarah, Governor, you watching? She’s luring you into this race. "C’mon we’re gonna be so nice to you. Eat the candy."

PAGE: If you wanted evidence that she is serious about being positioned to run in this race, look at that speech, because she doesn’t need this crowd.

MARTIN: Right.

PAGE: This crowd was not…

MATTHEWS: But she softened you up! I can tell.

PAGE: She, she yeah, like her to run for president.

MATTHEWS: I can tell she softened you guys up. She treated you with respect…biggest smart move.

MARTIN: You know here’s the message by her appearance, though, I think.

MATTHEWS: The Press Club, the group.

MARTIN: "Yeah I take some shots at you guys, but you get it, it’s just part of the game." I think that’s what-

MATTHEWS: She campaigned on her antipathy to the press-

MARTIN: I know.

MATTHEWS: -trashing Katie Couric for asking the easiest, hardball question in the world, "What do you read?"

MARTIN: So if I was a Palin supporter, If I was-

MATTHEWS: She blamed Katie Couric for asking the most obvious question.

MARTIN: Right.

MATTHEWS: She then went after Charlie Gibson, one of the nicest guys in this business and trashed him for being elitist. You know don’t tell me she hasn’t played this game.

MARTIN: Of course she’s played the game. But what I’m saying is, then she shows up here and sort of plays nice with the same crowd. So which is it?

MATTHEWS: And tickles all you guys under your chin and you go, "Oh I just love this!"

The Washington Times reported this:

“The Environmental Protection Agency is already holding 79 surface mining permits in West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee. The EPA says these permits could violate the Clean Water Act and warrant “enhanced” review. And, (the) agency went even further in October, announcing plans to revoke a permit for the Spruce No. 1 Mine in West Virginia.” SOURCE

Obama has not made it any secret that he opposes coal, in part because of his devotion to global warming and the globalist agenda that is supported by it. From the Whitehouse website:

This is heightened by the EPA stepping over the bounds of the Constitution and declaring Carbon Dioxide a pollutant, giving it the ability to regulate it. However, creating regulations is a legislative action, and the Constitution clearly says that this ability rests with the US congress, which has stalled economy crushing cap and trade legislation. Unaccountable bureaucrats have no business creating legislation.

QUOTE:  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Monday declared emissions of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, to be a danger to human health. That clears the way for the EPA to limit emissions, initially from power plants, refineries, cement plants and other big factories. SOURCE WSJ.com

“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” -US constitution.  The constitution clearly says ALL federal legislative powers reside with the 2 houses of Congress.

According to the government, the EPA is an “independent” agency in the Executive branch, therefore even granting the generous  assumption that such an agency is constitutional, as part of the executive branch, it has NO constitutional authority to create regulations (legislation).

]]> http://slavenssays.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/lp-poll-libertarians-divided-on-global-warming/ Wed, 09 Dec 2009 21:59:19 +0000 Chris Slavens http://slavenssays.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/lp-poll-libertarians-divided-on-global-warming/

An unscientific poll sent out by the Libertarian Party last week listed several options, each a common attitude towards global warming. Here are the results:

29% Global warming is mostly natural and there’s not much we can do about it.

28% This whole global warming thing is a hoax.

27% Whether or not global warming is real, it doesn’t justify more taxes or regulations.

10% Global warming is real, it’s a threat, and the government should limit carbon dioxide emissions.

6% I don’t know whether global warming is real, but the government should limit carbon dioxide emissions, just to be safe.

I chose the third option. “Whether or not global warming is real, it doesn’t justify more taxes or regulations.” It tends to bother me when I hear people who are not scientists swearing for one side or the other. Either global warming is a fact, and anyone that dares question it is a nut, or global warming is a lie, and anyone that dares support it is either a nut or a liar. As with national politics, this divisive rhetoric creates two opposing sides, and again, as with national politics, I choose neither. I am not a scientist, and I don’t claim to know whether our planet is growing warmer or not, and even if it is growing warmer, I don’t know if it’s part of a natural process, or induced by man.

I am, however, open to reviewing and discussing proven science, provided that it isn’t accompanied by a political agenda, and no sinister government officials stand to benefit from it. The aim of environmentalism should be to improve Earth and conserve resources, not to establish forms of international government, promote socialist ideology, or divert tax dollars to partisan groups.

The poll proves little, as the phrasing of the questions reflects bias, but it indicates that regardless of Libertarians’ beliefs about the reality (or lack thereof) of global warming, most do not favor government intervention, at a time when the EPA has classified carbon dioxide as a pollutant, and President Obama appears ready to cede aspects of U.S. sovereignty to intergovernmental organizations, in the name of what many call a crisis, and many others call a scam.

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
December 9, 2009

The Environmental Protection Agency’s recent declaration that the life-sustaining gas carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant is part of an effort to establish “command-and-control” role for government. EPA boss Lisa Jackson declared carbon dioxide dangerous prior to her scheduled appearance at the Copenhagen climate summit in Denmark.

Command-and-control is a military term defined as the exercise of authority and direction by a designated commanding officer over assigned and attached forces in the accomplishment of the mission. In the case of the EPA, the mission is to impose the globalist climate change agenda on the United States.

EPA boss Jackson announces carbon dioxide is a pollutant.

More specifically, the EPA threat to impose a military-style command-and-control over the economy is an effort to force congressional action on the climate change agenda.

EPA states that it will not wait for an agreement in Copenhagen and action on climate change legislation in Congress. Proposed legislation that passed the House is currently on hold in the Senate.

The agency, established by Richard Nixon and Congress in 1970 with 18,000 full-time employees, will intervene directly in the economy, according to an official.

“If you don’t pass this legislation, then … the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area,” the official announced. “And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it’s going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty.” The EPA official warned that the EPA’s intervention will be a huge “deterrent to investment” and will inflict injury on an already damaged economy.

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 

Critics of the Obama administration and the EPA say such directives from on-high represent a move toward socialism. In fact, the EPA’s dictatorial edict is more evidence that the government is colluding with the “powers of financial capitalism,” as Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University described the global elite, who are working to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. “This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements, arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences,” explained Quigley.

The leak earlier this week of the “Danish text” demonstrates that secret agreements are being hatched behind the scenes at Copenhagen.

Republicans have urged Jackson and the EPA to withdraw the finding on carbon dioxide in light of leaked emails from the Climate Research Unit that reveals how scientists manipulated climate data and threatened skeptics.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., the ranking Republican on the House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming, said yesterday he is will attend the Copenhagen conference and inform world leaders and climate change commissars that despite any promises made by Obama no new laws will be passed in the United States until the “scientific fascism” ends. “The U.N. should throw a red flag” on scientists who support the climate change fraud and are attempting to stifle dissent.

Climate change guru and carbon trading opportunist Al Gore told CNN yesterday that the leaked emails do not change the world government and carbon taxation scheme. Gore said the emails were taken “out of context.”

Al Gore attempts to dismiss the CRU emails on CNN.

Appearing on the Alex Jones Show yesterday, Lord Monckton said text of the Copenhagen agreement mandates a globalist power grab on an “unimaginable scale” by a “sinister dictatorship.” Monckton described how a new world government outlined in the treaty would impose a 2% taxation on the GDP of the United States and “close down effectively the economies of the west” and “transfer your jobs to third world countries.”

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/epa-threatens-command-and-control-economy-to-push-climate-change-agenda/

   In another stunning move of monumental stupidity, the EPA has now told us that our breath is dangerous to us and the planet. It is now undertaking steps to begin regulating CO2, Carbon Dioxide, a regular part of the atmosphere and everyone’s breath.

   While I don’t deny that we need to do our best to not pollute, this isn’t about pollution. This is stupidity, pure and simple. Since the beginning of the earth there has been varying amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 is naturally trapped. Do none of these ‘scientists’ have a brain of their own to research these things without organizational bias getting in the way?

   Whereas I have little scientific knowledge outside of high school level biology, I do keep up to date on the whole global warming issue and find myself informing myself more and more through research on the subject. It seems to me that this is just another way to tax people and regulate industry to be able to pay for more and more government largesse.

   America has been driving and using coal-fired electric plants for many years. In fact, when we were the number 1 manufacturer in the world, we used a lot of energy, usually dirty energy and we did not see the whole ‘everyone is going to be poisoned etc. arguments that are trying to scare people into supporting the various new controls that government wants to impose. Why then should we impose new regulations on industries when they are already being burdened by more regulations than in other countries. You would think that issue #1 for Obama and his Democrat stooges in Congress would be for ending the recession first and tackling global warm… oops, I mean climate change when that ends. We have had cars for over a hundred years, coal fired plants for as long, maybe longer, and other dirty sources of energy that SPEW CO2 for a LONG time. If there was global warming, we would be steaming by now. We would literally be stewing in our own juices. But that is not happening.

   The whole regulation of carbon is sure to ruin our economy even further and put America’s industries in an even worse position when we are facing an ever growing China and cheaper sources of labor elsewhere. I only hope that we can reverse this nonsense before it destroys our country.

Pons

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced Dec. 1 that it would defer deciding on a request by Growth Energy, an ethanol trade group, to increase the allowable blending percent of ethanol in gasoline from 10 to 15 percent. Public Citizen commented in July on the petition, strongly urging that EPA deny the request for a waiver. EPA’s is expected to make a final determination in June 2010.

Distressingly, EPA’s letter expresses that blends of 15 percent ethanol are likely to be approved for vehicles made in model year 2001 or later. Public Citizen strongly opposes this. There are still a large number of vehicles on the road that were built before model year 2001. And preliminary results of the DOE testing suggest that problems with greater ethanol blending aren’t isolated to older vehicles. In a preliminary report, DOE found that 7 of 16 tested vehicles, including two model year 2007 vehicles did not adjust properly to 15 percent ethanol. Running in these conditions could cause costly damage to emissions control systems.

Vehicles that cannot adjust to higher ethanol content and run the higher blend anyway are at risk of vapor lock, a condition created when water, which dissolves in ethanol, builds up in the gas line and prevents combustion, as well as corrosion damage to engine and fuel system parts. Many manufacturers specifically advise vehicle owners from fueling with blends of ethanol greater than 10 percent. Drivers who experience this damage may find themselves failing emissions inspections, and having to pay the cost of replacing the emissions control system out of pocket, since manuals state that running higher ethanol percentage may void the warranty.

What’s worse, EPA has considered this application from the ethanol industry perspective of the “blend wall,” an artificial problem generated when the mandated volume of ethanol can’t be integrated into the fuel stream, because no vehicles exist to consume it and no infrastructure exists to dispense it. The volume mandates for ethanol first created in the 2005 energy law, and expanded to 36 billion gallons in the 2007 energy law might spark investment in producing ethanol, but can’t do anything to increase its consumption.

Forcing a fuel on the market to meet an arbitrary volume goal without considering whether it is a worthwhile alternative could place vehicle owners at risk of doing costly damage to their vehicles. Ethanol has dubious environmental benefits, and is supported by expensive subsidies. Increasing ethanol blending to 15 percent could also have a negative impact on air quality. EPA must consider raising the ethanol content of gasoline in a global context that considers whether ethanol is the right policy for achieving national goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and cutting oil dependence.

Ethanol’s dubious ability to combat climate change is based on a web of interconnected factors almost as complicated as climate change itself. The 2007 energy law required that ethanol’s lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions be calculated, due to a definition of “advanced biofuels” that took into account reduction of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions. This was a major improvement over the 2005 law, spurred on by research, published in early 2007, that suggested the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of ethanol from food crops were much more significant than previously estimated. But lifecycle analyses reveal that conventional corn-based ethanol might not provide much climate benefit, if any.

Advanced biofuels – ethanol produced from cellulose, a non-edible plant matter that can include crop and forest residues, or ethanol or hydrocarbon fuels derived from or produced by genetically-engineered algae – have not yet made significant inroads to the ethanol market. And cellulosic ethanol’s long-term viability is based on a significant underestimate of the value of cellulose feedstocks. For example, crop residues are traditionally used as a means of replenishing nutrients in farm fields for the next year’s crop. If crop residues are used for fuel, then farmers will have to use either more land or more chemical fertilizers, resulting in increased greenhouse gas emissions. More advanced approaches, such as algal biofuels aren’t technologically mature enough to be relied upon.

But dumping a lot of money and energy into ethanol, even advanced ethanol, might not ever be a good idea. And these blends of ethanol and gasoline between 10 and 25 percent (called “mid-level” blends) are actually more harmful than gasoline from an air quality standpoint, resulting in increased emissions of smog-forming ozone and particulate matter. Some have argued that if we are designing microbes and algae to produce fuels, that there are better fuels than gasoline or ethanol that would be more consistent with our existing fueling infrastructure and would be more compatible with cars on the road today.

Lena Pons is a transportation policy analyst for Public Citizen.

“I’m tired of people trying to destroy progress in the name of progressivism.” — Unknown

The Associated Press: EPA chief: US will regulate CO2 with common sense

EPA declared Monday that carbon emission could endanger human health and would be subject to federal regulation.

This is just a blatant attempt to blackmail the Congress and the U.S. public with threats of higher energy prices, greater unemployment, and further taxing American business, citizens, and industry into oblivion via cap-and-trade, which has already proven ineffective and expensive in Europe. These unelected corrupt bureaucrats in the EPA are just another group of out of control thugs working at the behest of the neo-socialists to take away Americans freedoms, business, and quality of life using what is now questionable science with regards to climate change and global warming. Anyone thinking the EPA can act responsibly or with common sense has missed tha last century of American government where government agencies have repeatedly shown a distinct inability to act responsibility or with anything resembling common sense: record deficits, trade imbalance, refusal to reform and enforce immigration laws, bankrupting Medicare, bankrupting Medicaid, bankrupting Social Security, failure to regulate banks, tax payer bailouts of the rich, tax payer bailouts of the car comapnies, tax payer bailouts of banks, tax cheaters in congress and administration posts, pork barrel spending, stopping development of solar farms because a pair of rare lizards was found with in a dozen square miles of land, closing of public park lands to preserve endagered animals even when said animals don’t even live there, etc., etc.

Besides these people do remember carbon dioxide is what is needed by plants for photosynthesis? So why not order more plants be added to our cities? The city of Phoenix has made an effort to denude itself of all useful shade and oxygen producing trees in the past three decades which is certainly counter productive to good air quality. Yes, I’m being partially sarcastic given carbon dioxide from manufacturing differs in sheer quanity from respired carbon dioxide but it it a valid point. How can you claim to want a better environment but do things in such an opposing manner?

So what’s after CO2, water? After all it’s a greenhouse gas as well. In fact water, in the form of water vapor, comprises the largest portion of greenhouse gases. Interesting, no? So I guess that means we have to somehow ban the oceans, lakes, river, streams, and rainfall if greenhouse gases are bad. /sarcasm

Start Regime Change: 11/2010
Vote People, Not Parties!

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson insisted Wednesday that her agency did not time the release of its global-warming endangerment finding to jump-start climate talks here.

How obtuse would you have to be to think that there was no connection between the two??

Via Hot Air

Citing a report by Northwestern University’s Medill School, the ethanol industry is concerned that there won’t be enough capacity and demand in the U.S. to meet the legislative requirements for annual increases in ethanol production, especially because the number of ethanol plants under construction is on the decline. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acknowledges the problem and plans to implement a “notice-and-comment rulemaking process” to determine the necessary production volume for renewable fuels in the following year.

I wonder if this is another sign that the federal health care bill’s so-called public opinion is dead? Local CVS stores are getting MinuteClinics, the Washington Business Journal reports. The first has already opened in CVS’s Bladensburg Road store and is “staffed by nurse practitioners, who can diagnose, treat and write prescriptions for common illnesses like strep throat, infections and minor wounds.”

Krispy Kreme will pay Fairfax County $1.65 million for corroding sewer pipes with donut grease from its Lorton store. Given this news, you’ve gotta wonder what the sweets do to human pipes? Well, at least we now have the MinuteClinic for treatment!

Borderstan posts on how neighborhood residents rallied and saved trees along 17th Street NW that had slated for removal by city officials.

DC Metrocentric has proposed specs for redeveloping the Spring Road-Georgia Avenue NW area.

It’s official, the H Street shuttle has been saved, The Washington Post reports.

Richard Layman checks in from New York City on how to make cities more cyclist-friendly.

Fresh AIRE is unveiling its sustainability toolkit for condos and apartments tonight at Arlington’s Central Library, The Green Miles has the details.

We Love DC is very happy to share that the National Gallery of Art’s Sculpture Garden ice skating rink opens tomorrow.

Seattle proves cutting emissions can be done! “The city of Seattle announced this afternoon that its greenhouse gas emissions in 2008 were 7 percent below what they were in 1990  a target the city had hoped to meet by 2012. But it’s not at all clear how or if the city will still meet the goal three years from now,” the Seattle Times reports.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says toxic chemical pollution from the nation’s industrial plants, mines and factories fell by 6 percent in 2008, declining for the second year in a row.

Coal mining company, Consol Energy Inc., lashes out at environmentalists who have sought to hold the company to compliance with federal clean water and other laws. After a judge pulled the company’s permits, the company decided to idle two mines employing about 500 workers and publicly blamed the shutdown on environmental activists, Reuters reports.

This might be entirely too much information for all but true climate politics junkies, but I happened across the official site for the UN climate talks. Here, you can download webcasts of every single official event and even some of the side shows.

Or you could just follow breaking news from climate talks on SEJ’s CopenBlog.

By Steven Mufson and David A. Fahrenthold

Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 8, 2009

The Obama administration moved closer Monday to issuing regulations on greenhouse gases, a step that would enable it to limit emissions across the economy even if Congress does not pass climate legislation.

The move, which coincided with the first day of the international climate summit in Copenhagen, seemed timed to reassure delegates there that the United States is committed to reducing its emissions even if domestic legislation remains bogged down. But it provoked condemnation from key Republicans and from U.S. business groups, which vowed to tie up any regulations in litigation.

In Monday’s much-anticipated announcement, the Environmental Protection Agency said that six gases, including carbon dioxide and methane, pose a danger to the environment and the health of Americans and that the agency would start drawing up regulations to reduce those emissions.

“These are reasonable, common-sense steps,” EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said, adding that they would protect the environment “without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the better part of our economy.” At the same time, however, EPA regulation is no one’s preferred outcome — not even the EPA’s. Jackson said her agency and other administration officials would still prefer if Congress acted before they did.

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), a leading proponent of a Senate climate bill, issued a statement The EPA’s “endangerment finding” — a key bureaucratic step in the regulatory process — was seen as a message to Congress and Copenhagen, but it was also a belated response to an order from the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in April 2007 that carbon dioxide should be considered a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. As a result, the court said, the EPA had not only the power but the obligation to regulate the gas. (In that case, Massachusetts v. EPA, the Bush administration was fighting against regulating carbon dioxide from vehicle tailpipes.)

Michael Morris, chief executive of American Electric Power, a utility that is the nation’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, said Monday that “we have been a proponent . . . to a congressional approach to this undertaking. This is the most awkward way we could go about it.” The EPA had to comply with direction from the courts, Morris said, but “there are better approaches, more cost-effective approaches and more productive approaches.”

It remains unclear whether the EPA’s regulatory cudgel will spur Congress to take faster action on the climate legislation that is now mired in the Senate or whether it will provoke a backlash.

“The stick approach isn’t going to work. In fact, Congress may retaliate,” said Mark Helmke, a senior adviser to Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.). “They could stop the funding, and they could change the law.”

Anticipating EPA action, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) tried unsuccessfully in September to prevent the agency from spending money to regulate stationary sources of greenhouse gases, such as power plants or factories, for one year. Murkowski, the ranking Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said in a statement Monday that the endangerment finding is “a blunt instrument that will severely hamper our attempts to bolster the economy and get Americans back to work.”

Some senators who environmental groups hope might vote for a climate bill also said they were unhappy. Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) called the move “regrettable.” And Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said in a statement that she is concerned that the move “will create burdens on American industry without providing any significant environmental benefits.”

“I strongly urge EPA to wait for Congress to find a solution,” Lincoln said.

Earlier this year, the Obama administration took the first step toward complying with the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling by requiring automakers to increase the fuel economy — and therefore decrease the carbon emissions — of new cars and trucks by 2016. The ailing automakers supported the accord.

Monday’s finding is another step toward compliance. “There are no more excuses for delay,” Jackson said. “This administration will not ignore science and the law any longer.”

Supporters of regulation note that the Clean Air Act has led to some of the great U.S. environmental success stories, producing significant drops in smog and soot. But greenhouse gases could prove far more difficult to fight. They don’t just come from smokestacks, but from millions of auto tailpipes, airplanes, ships, home furnaces and even the digestive tracts of cattle. And there is no simple piece of hardware that emitters can buy to keep the gases out of the air.

“There’s no catalytic converter. There’s no scrubber. There’s nothing,” said Jeffrey R. Holmstead, who headed the EPA’s air-pollution programs during the Bush administration and now works with the law firm Bracewell & Giuliani. Instead, solutions probably would include switching the fuels burned in power plants and, in the future, using machinery to capture emissions and store them underground.

The Clean Air Act set a low threshold for regulation that opponents argue would require rules for everything from laundries to office buildings, from cow farms to coal plants. But the EPA said it would impose new rules only on large factories, refineries, power plants and other facilities emitting more than 25,000 tons a year of carbon dioxide.

When these plants upgrade their facilities, or when new ones like them are built, they would be required to install the “best available control technology” for limiting greenhouse-gas emissions, while “taking into account costs.” In October, the EPA said there were 13,661 facilities that size; it estimated that every year 128 new facilities and 273 existing facilities seeking modifications would require new permits.

“What EPA can require is controls that are technically feasible and cost-effective,” said David Donziger, policy director of the climate center at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “With CO2 there is the chance to save money, which is rarer for other pollutants.”

Together, these large sources account for about half of all U.S. emissions, the EPA said. But it’s still unclear what, exactly, the “best available” technology should be. Jackson said the EPA is still working on that.

Although many business leaders have urged Congress to adopt climate legislation, some remain staunchly opposed. Those groups also condemned the EPA for moving forward with regulations.

“This action poses a threat to every American family and business if it leads to regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Such regulation would be intrusive, inefficient and excessively costly,” said Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, whose members have big oil refineries and petrochemical plants. “It is a decision that is clearly politically motivated to coincide with the start of the Copenhagen climate summit.”

On Monday,Barack Obama met with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.  Their main point of discussion was Iran’s nuclear program. Obama, while still pushing for a diplomatic solution to the problem, expressed a growing impatience with Iran’s recalcitrance.  Erdogan, however, maintained his view that the world could only coerce Iran through diplomatic efforts, and called criticism that his country’s close relationship with Iran isolating it away from the West “ridiculous.”

The New Jersey Senate Judiciary Committee passed a same-sex marriage bill Tuesday night. Heading to the floor tomorrow, the bill is not likely to pass. Regardless, this is the first time the NJ legislature passed an equal-marriage bill out of committee.

A Chicago man has been charged with “conspiracy to murder and maim in a foreign country” because of his involvement in last year’s terrorist attack on Mumbai. David Coleman Headley, from Chicago, went to India to do recon for Laskkar-e-Taiba He, along with former military man Abdur Rehman, are also connected to a plot to bomb the Danish newspaper that ran controversial cartoons negatively depicting Islam. Headley has, fortunately, begun to cooperate with the FBI in their investigation. Chicago business man Tahawwur Rana has also been charged.

It is getting harder and harder to separate truth from hype on the border of Yemen and Saudi Arabia. Iranian news source Alalam claims that Houthi rebels have pushed Saudi away from the Sa’ada, the Yemeni province where Saudi and Yemeni forced are carrying out“Operation Scorched Earth.” The BBC, however, reports that Yemeni commanders have announced that they will have the city of Sa’ada under their control by the end of today. Meanwhile, the U.S. Senate has passed a non-binding resolution on the conflict, calling for the global community “to use all appropriate measures to assist the people of Yemen to prevent Yemen from becoming a failed state.”

In an address to an audience of families of those killed during the 1980’s war against Iraq, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahjmadinejad claimed to have documented proof that the U.S. is trying to stop the coming of the Mahdi, the Imam that Muslims believe will save man-kind. “They have devised all these plans to prevent the coming of the Hidden Imam because they know that the Iranian nation is the one that will prepare the grounds for his coming and will be the supporters of his rule.”  He also said that the West was caught in a quagmire in Afghanistan and asked – “Is there not one sane person in your country to tell you these things?”

Russia and India have agreed to work more closely on nuclear power in a round of discussions to strengthen ties between the two countries.

“Of the total number of crimes with filed complaints, 15% to 20% are committed by police officers, particularly those involving most violence such as homicide and kidnapping” said the Interior minister during the program “Aló, Presidente” anchored by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

In a renewed effort to revive nuclear disarmament talks, President Barack Obama has sent veteran diplomat Stephen Bosworth to North Korea to meet with high level North Korean officials.  “The main question is whether Bosworth will meet with Chairman Kim Jong Il,” said Kim Yong-hyun, a professor of North Korean studies at Seoul’s Dongguk University. “Such a meeting would demonstrate that both the U.S. and North Korea intend to resolve the nuclear issue.”

Through French President Nikolas Sarkozy, Syria has informed Israel that it is ready to return to peace talks without the precondition that Israel pull completely out of the Golan Heights. Talks may resume with a mediator, the question is who. Israel would like to continue discussion through Sarkozy, but Syrians prefer Turkey. To that, Netanyahu responded that an “honest broker” is needed, and he is “not certain” the Turks fit the bill given their behavior since Israel’s war in Gaza nearly a year ago.

Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama said Monday “the time has come” for the government to make a decision on the fate of the Futenma military facility in Okinawa Prefecture and convey it to the United States, but he wouldn’t say what it will be or precisely when it will be.

Google on Tuesday unveiled a new approach to presenting news online by topic, developed with The New York Times and The Washington Post, and said that if the experiment was successful, it would be made available to all publishers.

Also on Tuesday, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson declared greenhouse gas a threat to human health. This “endangerment finding” could lead to the modification of power plants, factories, refineries, and automobiles with new technologies, and caused an almost immediate jump in solar energy holdings & drop in crude oil.

Carbon dioxide output from the U.S. energy sector has already fallen half as much as needed to meet the 2020 emissions reduction target the Obama administration took to the Copenhagen climate-change summit.  Falling U.S. emissions are the result of the “weak economy,” which grew at an annual rate of 2.8 percent in the third quarter after shrinking for a year, and a cleaner fuel mix in the electricity sector, according to a new report.