Tag: Environmental Protection Agency

Apr 04 2011

S02E09: Overturning EPA

cross-posted from Main Street Insider

A couple weeks ago, we looked at new regulations on greenhouse gases (GHG’s) being imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This week’s episode focuses on a bill proposed as a response to these new regulations by House Republicans who oppose the EPA’s efforts. Contrary to what the title of the bill would suggest, this proposal has absolutely nothing to do with taxes. In fact, aside from the title, the word “tax” does not appear once in the text of the bill. The actual language of the bill shows that the real intent is to strip the EPA of power in the area of GHG’s and leave any decision making to Congress.

It should be noted that the EPA has been regulating air pollutants for over 40 years (just missed the 40th anniversary last December). Though regulating GHG’s is new, thanks to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that declared GHG’s to be air pollutants, this type of EPA authority has been the status quo for a long time.

Mar 22 2011

S02E07: EPA Greenhouse Gas Regulations

cross-posted from Main Street Insider

This week, we explore how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to regulate the emissions of greenhouse gasses (GHG’s) after a 2007 Supreme Court ruling declared that GHG’s meet the standard of an air pollutant. These new regulations take effect over three phases, the first of which is currently taking place.

More below the fold…

Jan 02 2011

GOP to fight New EPA Regs, despite the EPA Science Evidence

GOP Vows to Fight White House Global Warming Policy

Jon E. Dougherty — Dec 29, 2010

Republicans have vowed to oppose Obama administration plans to pursue the White House’s global warming agenda through new rules and regulations issued by existing federal agencies.

On Jan. 2 new stricter carbon emissions standards will be introduced as the Environmental Protection Agency prepares new rules that would require companies to get permits to release so-called greenhouse gasses under the Clean Air Act.

The EPA, in an announcement last week, said it would move forward to adopt new standards for fossil fuel power plants and petroleum refineries, two of the largest industrial sources that the agency claims represent nearly 40% of the greenhouse gas pollution in the United States.

…

Critics of the new rules also say they will drive up the operating costs for those same industries, choking off any new job creation and doing more harm an economy that is still in recovery mode.

“They are job killers,” environmental scientist Ken Green of the American Enterprise Institute said, in comments reported by Fox News.

Jan 02 2011

GOP to fight New EPA Regs, despite the EPA Science Evidence

GOP Vows to Fight White House Global Warming Policy

Jon E. Dougherty — Dec 29, 2010

Republicans have vowed to oppose Obama administration plans to pursue the White House’s global warming agenda through new rules and regulations issued by existing federal agencies.

On Jan. 2 new stricter carbon emissions standards will be introduced as the Environmental Protection Agency prepares new rules that would require companies to get permits to release so-called greenhouse gasses under the Clean Air Act.

The EPA, in an announcement last week, said it would move forward to adopt new standards for fossil fuel power plants and petroleum refineries, two of the largest industrial sources that the agency claims represent nearly 40% of the greenhouse gas pollution in the United States.

…

Critics of the new rules also say they will drive up the operating costs for those same industries, choking off any new job creation and doing more harm an economy that is still in recovery mode.

“They are job killers,” environmental scientist Ken Green of the American Enterprise Institute said, in comments reported by Fox News.

Nov 16 2007

Federal Fuel Standards Tossed for Ignoring Global Warming

Bravo to the Judiciary branch for doing what the other two can’t or won’t do!

Since the U.S. government announced new fuel efficiency standards in March of 2006, environmentalists and 11 states have argued that the standards do not go far enough to combat the harmful emissions that lead to global warming.

Today, the Ninth Court of Appeals gave a victory to environmentalists and a “rebuke” to the Bush administration in ruling that regulators “failed to properly assess the risk of global warming” in part at least for exempting larger SUVs and trucks.

The court decision is a rebuke to the Bush administration and its refusal to make meaningful steps to reduce global warming pollution from our automobiles,” said Pat Gallagher, director of environmental law at Sierra Club. “The decision tells the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that it can’t monkey the numbers when it sets fuel economy standards by ignoring the cost of carbon emissions.”

The court’s action invalidates the March 2006 fuel standards for minivans, light trucks and smaller SUV’s.

Sep 13 2007

Spin

I was a competitive swimmer as a kid.  In fact, I held a state record in one of my events.  Impressed?  Don’t be.  ‘Cuz it twarn’t nuthin’.  It was as insignificant a state record as anyone could ever hold.  Why?  Because I won the first event run in the first 25-meter pool in the state (before that, they were 25 yards).  That day, the competition was not fierce in my event, and it ended in a tie for first place.  My name was entered in the record book.  And a week later, it was gone for good.

So, you see?  It’s perfectly true that I held that state record.  But it’s equally true that upon closer examination, its significance is underwhelming.  All too often, crucial government pronouncements need to be examined closely to see if they have any more substance than my state record.

CRITICAL THINKING
One of the better classes I ever took in college was something called Data Analysis.  I use its lessons regularly.  In it, amongst other things, we learned that one of the seminal, oft-cited scientific papers proving that salmon navigate by magnetic orientation was fatally flawed.  The prof contacted the authors, and got them to send him their raw data.  They used two tanks for the studies, located in the field.  And, as it turns out, the effect was only seen in one of them – the one closest to their campfire.  Those ever-fascinating fish were orienting towards the light!  But the paper’s still cited today.  Looks like their sense of smell – shown in some other studies involving water diverted for a power plant – is much more what it’s about.

If you were giving a presentation, and that prof showed up with his calculator, it was enough to rattle you, no matter how well you knew your stuff.  If only more of our journalists had been required to take a similar class!