Author Archive

Fred Singer, President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project and Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science at the University of Virginia, spoke at CSU (Colorado State University) in Ft. Collins on July 18th.  Unfortunately the room was not set up to allow Fred to present his visual aids, so Fred made his presentation without his many interesting charts. I was fortunate enough to also attend Fred’s presentation at NIST Boulder Laboratories in Boulder the following day, so was able to see the charts he referred to at the CSU presentation.

Fred’s presentation was based mainly on his report published in 2008 titled “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate” (See Reference section below for link)

Fred highlighted the following major questions at the NIST presentation:

1. Is warming due to natural causes or anthropogenic (ie, due to human causes)? He described why this is both a Science issue and a Policy Issue.

2. Why is there a disparity between models? Using the data from 2007 IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) report  there is a clear discrepancy between the Model results and “fingerprints” (observed patterns of warming).

3. What causes Climate Variability?   In addition to greenhouse gasses, other factors like internal oscillations of the atmosphere-ocean system,  influence of clouds and solar activity need to be considered.

Fred also commented on evidence of abuses of the peer review process at IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and the Michael Mann Hockey Stick Chart as examples that clearly calls for an assessment by the scientific community to evaluate their behavior.  We suggest you view the presentations at the recent International Conference on Climate Change hosted by Heartland Institute. The theme of the conference was “Restoring the Scientific Method”. (See Reference section below for link)

At both presentations Fred commented on the global warming trend… yes, we are in a warming trend, however the current cycle is not unusual (for example: it was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period).

Chart from Roy Spencer’s Global Warming Website.

Also, this chart of global satellite-based temperatures shows a warming trend from 1910 thru 1940, then a cooling trend, increase beginning in 1975 with a “spike” in 1997… if CO2 was is a major contributor to warming then one would expect a steady increase in temperature over the last 100 years.  Chart from page 5, “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate” paper by Fred Singer dated 2008

One more interesting chart, Global averaged satellite-based Temperature Chart for 1979 thru current year.
From Roy Spencer’s Global Warming Website

_                                                                                                                     _
_                                                                                                                     _
We agree with Fred’s conclusion stated in his 2008 report,

Our imperfect understanding of the causes and consequences of climate change means the science is far from settled.  This, in turn, means proposed efforts to mitigate climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions are premature and misguided.  Any attempt to influence global temperatures by reducing such emissions would be both futile and expensive.

Reference:

“Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”, report by S. Fred Singer, dated 2008

Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (MIPCC), “Climate Change Reconsidered”, released June 2009.

Roy Spencer’s Global Warming Website ( www.drroyspencer.com)

Sixth International Conference on Climate Change hosted by Heartland Institute in Washington, D.C. on June 30 to July 1, 2011. The scientists who spoke at this conference are committed to restoring the scientific method.  The conference theme was “Restoring the Scientific Method”.

http://climateconference.heartland.org/

Article in Colorodoan about Fred Singer’s presentation at CSU on July 18th, dated July 19, 2011.

How to Lie with Statistics by Darrell Huff – great book to inform you how numbers can be used to fool you rather than inform.

For excellent information about climate change issues, we suggest you view coverage of the Heartland Institute’s 6th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-6) – a worldwide gathering of global warming “realists” – held in Washington, DC June 30 to July 1, 2011.

The scientists who spoke at this conference are committed to restoring the scientific method.  The conference theme was “Restoring the Scientific Method” Click here, to view videos of the presentations.

Much of the urgency to correct “Regional Haze” is driven by Environmental groups who are using the courts to ensure the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acts in support of their goals.

An example is the recent Consent Decree (June 2011) that holds the EPA to specific dates to rule on Regional Haze State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for Colorado, Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming. This legal action was initiated by WildEarth Guardians, National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) and Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). Here is an article (Settlement Agreement paves way to power past Coal in the American West) posted at WildEarth Guardians site about the settlement, click here.

We took a look at the websites for WildEarth, NPCA and EDF. One gets the impression that these people are committed to promote their agenda regardless of the impact to our economy or the validity of their assumptions. What is troubling is that much of this activity by special interests and unelected bureaucrats and unelected judges is well funded and they are imposing their will on America. Here in Colorado we saw our elected representatives approve a plan to address “Regional Haze” that is needlessly costly. As we stated in our June 4th post, there should be a better way. How do we get “the people” to assume their responsibility to participate.

HB11-1082 would remove Larimer and Weld County from the enhanced emissions program area.  The bill passed the House on Jan 20th but died in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Energy on March 24, 2011.

Voting for the motion to “postpone indefinitely”: Giron, Guzman, Jahn, and Schwartz.

Voting against the motion: Brophy, Grantham, Harvey

Vote was on party lines, sadly none of these senators represent Larimer or Weld County!

Testimony HB11-1291 William Yeatman and Amy Oliver

Colorado has a new State Implementation Plan for Regional Haze Plan, it is needlessly costly.
Who failed the consumer? Is the process flawed? When changes need to be made to a highly technical and complicated plan, is it reasonable for a 5 member committee to decide the fate of the changes in a few hours? We suspect most consumers are not even aware of this process, so there appears to be no penalty for bad decisions.

We got involved in the discussions about this plan because there were recommendations that would be costly to consumers. Here is what we learned:

Some backgound:
Under federal law, each state is required to prepare a state implementation plan (SIP) to meet specific requirements of the national Clean Air Act.  In Colorado, the Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) is the Department of Public Health and Environment is responsible for preparing and revising the SIP.  The Colorado SIP underwent a major revision in 2010 and the resulting report was submitted to the General Assembly on Jan 14, 2011. For more information about the State Implementation Plan, click here.

The plan adds requirements to power providers which will result in increases to rates paid by consumers for electricity.  This is a 1900 page report not to mention the many pages of hearing documents describing the plan.

Members of the General Assembly had until February 15 to request that the Legislative Council Committee of the General Assembly hold a public hearing to review the report.  If a hearing is requested, the changes to the SIP cannot be submitted until after the hearing is completed.  If no member requests a hearing, the SIP can be submitted to the EPA. A hearing was requested.
March 25, 2011 Hearing
A hearing by the Legislative Council Committee was held on March 25,  2011.  The only consumer to give testimony at the hearing was Carol Kirkstadt a resident of Loveland, CO.  She requested that the recommendations for both the Craig 1&2 Plants and the Rawhide plant be removed.  She stated that

It is irrational to spend over $28 million dollars a year for 20 years in the hopes of achieving an imperceptible improvement in visibility (measured at the Mt Zirkel wilderness area).

Here is an article by Colorado Consumer Coalition, “Potentially costly clean-air rules: Was public left out of the process?”
Article by William Yeatman at Competitive Enterprise Institute regarding the Regional Haze Plan and the need for the legislature to get involved.
April 19 Hearing HB11-1291
HB11-1291would approve the SIP as written.  At the hearing held April 19 by the Senate Committee on State, Veterans & Military Affairs,  Ms. Kirkstadt again requested that the recommendations for Craig Units 1&2 and Rawhide be removed.  She revised her recommendation to also include the Hayden 1&2 plants. You can watch the testimony here. Also here is a video of testimony by Amy Oliver and William Yeatman.  William makes a plea to take time to evaluate needed changes, no need to rush this legislation thru.

Here is an article byAmy Oliver (Independence Institute) summarizing the hearing.

This article by the Consumer Coalition includes testimony by Paul Ireland, “(Colorado Public Utilities Commission) PUC’s OK on high-cost air-quality plan was predetermined”. Mr. Ireland recommended HB11-1291 be rejected in favor of SB11-236. SB11-236 would save money and be more prudent for Colorado. Here is part of Mr. Ireland’s testimony:

As consultant to the PUC, I had unique access to all confidential and highly confidential information from Xcel and am convinced that Xcel’s preferred plan, called “case 5B,” is the best choice for ratepayers and the utility. This plan keeps Cherokee 4 on coal and adds an SCR for NOx control. It is the better choice than that contained in the PUC’s final ruling. Scenario 5B – which retires some coal plants, and upgrades others – is clearly the least expensive case for Colorado ratepayers. Even Xcel recommended this plan but was overruled by the Commission chairman, who ignored facts, costs and steamrolled his own staff to reach a nonsensical and expensive decision.

April 25 Hearing on two bills recommending changes to the SIP – both died in committee.
On April 25 two bills recommending changes to the SIP plan were heard by the Senate Committee on State, Veterans and Military Affairs both were “postponed indefinitely”
1)  SB 11- 237 – Introduced by Senator Kevin Lundberg.
The bill would disapprove the portions of the Regional Haze Emissions Plan relating to the requirement for emission controls for the Hayden Electric Generating Units. The bill states that the requirements for the Hayden Plants are more stringent than or otherwise not required by the federal “Clean Air Act” and are not justified by the cost of the controls in comparison with the benefits to public health and the environment.

2) SB11 – 236 Introduced by Senator Lois Tochtrop. The bill would revise the SIP to use (Colorado Public Service Company) PSCo’s emission reduction plan scenario 5B, a less costly alternative.

Legislators miss opportunity to protect consumers – HB11-1291 signed into law.
On April 11th, the House voted 58-7 to pass HB11-1291. (We wonder how many member of the House that voted for this bill, knew what they were voting for? How many had time to read the SIP Plan?).  At the hearing on April 19th the Senate Committee on State, Veterans & Military Affairs referred the bill.  The Senate passed the bill 25 – 10 on April 27, 2011.

Here is a summary by Consumer Coalition dated May 12, 2011, “Consumers will pay for fast-tracked air legislation – now law”

Get informed and attend the hearing on March 25th. Here are some questions that come to mind:
What is the justification for switching from coal to natural gas for electricity generation?
How “clean” does our air need to be?  Are there any benefits regarding public health?
Will HB1365 really “cut air pollution and create jobs” as Governor Ritter claimed? And at what cost?

These articles by William Yeatman from Competitive Enterprise Institute offers other issues of concern: Senate Republicans ask for review of CDPHE’s Regional Haze Plan, dated Feb 16, 2011 and In 2011, the New Energy Economy will cost Colorodans …, dated March 11, 2011

Here is a link to the Colorado Visibility and Regional Haze State Implementation Plan prepared by the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division of CDPHE and approved by the Air Quality Control Commission.

Colorado has a State Implementation Plan (SIP) created by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) which is developed to assure attainment and maintenance of the Nation Ambient Air Quality Standards and other aspects of the federal Clean Air Act.

State statute requires the Air Quality Control Commission (The members of the AQQC are appointed by the governor) to submit by January 15 each year changes to the State Implementation Plan. This plan would go direct to the EPA unless members of the Colorado General Assembly request a hearing.  Fortunately some of our senators and representatives have requested a hearing. The hearing is scheduled for March 25 at 1:30 pm in room HCR0112. To check the Colorado General Assembly calendar, click here. Here is one of the reasons stated by our representatives for the hearing: “concern that the SIP includes requirements that are more stringent than what is currently required under the federal Clean Air Act.

The Colorado General Assembly is considering a bill that would remove Larimer and Weld counties from the enhanced emissions program area.

HB11-1082 was introduced in the House on Jan 20th, and passed the House on Feb 22, 2011.  This bill is on the Senate Committee Meeting (Senate Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Energy Committee) Calendar for Thursday, March 17th (see  update below).

For more information (committee members, etc) see Colorado General Assembly web site.

Please contact your Representative in the Senate to support this bill.

Update to this post, March 12, 2011
Hearing for HB11-1082 has been rescheduled, will be held Thursday, March 24 at 1:30 pm in Senate Conference Room 353.  Jerry Long from Greeley 912 Group plans to testify at the hearing and is asking concerned citizens to attend. The emissions testing program in Larimer and Weld County is not required by the EPA. It will cost over $3,000,000 each and every year.  Your support is needed to eliminate this program.  The photo of the Greeley emissions testing station was taken by Jerry.  Is this how you want your tax dollars to be spent? You can contact Jerry at jerrydlong@comcast.net for additional information.

In 2007, Congress passed an energy bill that included new standards for lighting.  The bill required roughly 25% greater efficiency for light bulbs, phased in from  2012 through 2014.  This requirement effectively banned the sale of most incandescent light bulbs.  But, in their enthusiasm for favoring light bulbs that use less energy they failed to consider other consequences.

Here are some of the unintended consequences:

Loss of Manufacturing Jobs in US: General Electric has closed factories in Kentucky and Ohio and recently announced that it is closing its major incandescent factory in Virginia. Take a look at your new CFL bulbs (compact fluorescent), you will see they are “Made in China“. For an article about this by the Heritage Foundation, click here.

Health Issues: claims that fluorescent light can trigger various ailments, including migraines and epilepsy. Here is an article at the DailyMail (UK) dated January 2009 about this.

Toxic Exposure: Mercury in the new compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs require special cleanup and disposal procedures. See details in this article at the EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) web site.

Similar legislation was passed in Europe and Canada. In British Columbia, Canada, stores are banned from restocking incandescent light bulbs in popular 75 and 100-watt sizes beginning in Jan 2011. As a result, according to the Vancouver Sun (article dated January 20, 2011) “Readers are furious at being told that they will not be able to buy the standard bulbs”. An article at TheLocal dated Dec 3, 2010 (German’s News in English), you will find an article stating “Consumer groups call for end to EU light bulb ban”

Representative Joe Barton (TX -6) has introduced a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives, H.R.91 – Better Use Light Bulbs Act which would repeal amendments to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act with respect to lighting energy efficiency. We recommend you contact your Representative in Congress and ask them to co-sponsor H.R. 91.

Will the EPA make a New Year’s resolution to base their decisions on real science and realistic cost/benefit analysis?

Ozone Air Quailty, 1980 to 2009 (Based on Annual 4th Maximum 8-hour average), National trend based on 255 sites.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) announcements
EPA announces …
.. a delay in date to issue 8-hour ozone standard until no later than July 31, 2011 [1,2,3]
.. a delay in date to issue a rule regarding emissions limits for boilers. In June 2010. the EPA issued a proposal that would force industrial, commercial and institutional boilers and heaters to use “maximum achievable control technology (MACT)” to reduce harmful emissions.  The proposal was due Dec 16, the new date will be April 2012.  [3]

Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla), Ranking Member of Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works welcomes the news of the delay.  He calls on the EPA to “rely on the best available science to guide its decision-making” [4].  National Association of Manufacturers welcome the EPA’s decision to delay its final rules on both the Boiler MACT and ozone NAAQS  [5]

Will the EPA make use of this delay to collect  the best quality of information to make an informed decision on the need for a stricter NAAQS(National Ambient Air Quality Standards).

Our research indicates that the EPA intends to restrict their inquiry to a review of the science used by CASAC (Clean Air Science Advisory Committee) to make their recommendation of lowering the national standard for ozone to between 60 and 70 parts per billion (ppb) . It is expected that the EPA will select a standard in the range recommended by the CASAC. This looks like a bureaucratic approach rather than using this time to take an unbiased, fresh look at the issue.
In an interesting article found at FrontPage Magazine, Rich Trzupek [6] questions this limited inquiry.  He points out that the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to review the latest scientific information and standards  [7].  Limiting the task to the CASAC – Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (appointed by EPA Administrator) is not a good idea.

What are the real issues here and who is best qualified to make an assessment? We have lots of questions!

?? Is it time for congress to redefine the mission of EPA and/or objectives for Clean Air? Would lowering the ozone standard protect public health? If so, what are the benefits? What independent scientific studies support this assumption?

?? Is it the role of government to enforce rules and regulations in the hope that fewer people will have Asthma?  From a scientific and/or common sense point of view, is this is an achievable objective?  It is interesting that in the last 20 years the prevalence of asthma in the United States has doubled [8].  In the period from 1980 to 2008, the national average of ozone concentration has decreased by 30% [9]. One might conclude that the answers to reducing asthma in the US population might not come from lowering the ozone standard!

?? How to establish an independent advisory voice to EPA (currently CASAC members are appointed by EPA administrator)?

?? Is it time to overturn the Supreme Court ruling from 2001, “EPA may not consider implementation costs in setting primary and secondary NAAQS”? Congress needs to take an active role, establish reasonable guidelines for how to determine costs and benefits. It is common sense that costs should be part of the evaluation.

Sources:
[1] Details about EPA statement found in article posted December 8, 2010 at Energy & Environment Monitor
[2] Article at ORCAA Air News, dated December 8, 2010 – EPA delays 8-hour Ozone NAAQS
[3] Article posted at The New York Times dated December 9, 2010 – E.P.A. Delays Tougher Rules on Emissions – suggests that the Obama administration is retreating on long-delayed environmental regulations (rules governing smog and toxic emissions from industrial boilers) as it adjusts to the new political climate in Washington following the election in November.
[4] Inhofe Responds to EPA’s Ozone Delay – statement
[5] EPA Delays on Boiler MACT and Ozone Rules a Step in the Right Direction - article posted at National Association of Manufacturers, dated 12/8/2010
[6] FrontPageMag.com article posted Jan 13, 2010   Politicizing Smog
[7] EPA – Ozone Air Quality Standards
[8] Health effects of Ozone in Patients with Asthma – prevalence of asthma in US doubled in last 20 years.
[9]EPA – National Trends in Ozone Levels – 30% decrease in National Average Ozone Concentration

It is our understanding that you can buy a Volt for $41,000 and the Volt is eligible for a $7500 Income Tax Credit. The Volt is now in some dealer showrooms, a retired airline pilot takes delivery of first Volt on Dec 15, 2010.

Here are two articles about the Volt:

1) Chevy Volt Pricing Sparks Debate – Opinion columnist Matt Henry rips the new Volt and the high price tag of eco-conscious cars – posted July 29, 2010 – KCFreePress (Kansas City)

In order to compensate for the high cost and the desire to have a more ‘green’ economy, the Federal government implemented a $7,500 tax credit for electric vehicles, reducing the overall price of the Volt to $33,500. That’s right, much like the abomination that was the “Cash for Clunkers” program, our federal government is spending other people’s tax dollars to subsidize the purchase of cars by people who might otherwise choose to buy something else. By doing so they hope that the price tag will be more acceptable to potential buyers.

2) Washington Post article dated October 30, 2010 “Obama’s Electric-car Cult” – Is the Volt really “green”?

What little gasoline savings the vehicles achieve could be had through cheaper alternative means. And electrics don’t reliably reduce greenhouse gas emissions, since, as often as not, the electricity to charge their batteries will come from coal-fired plants.

“What’s driving Obama’s subsidies of Chevy’s Volt?” – article at Washington Post dated Nov 15, 2010 by George Will

In April, in a television commercial and a Wall Street Journal column headlined “The GM Bailout: Paid Back in Full,” GM’s then-CEO Ed Whitacre said “we have repaid our government loan, in full, with interest, five years ahead of the original schedule.” Rubbish.

GM, which has received almost $50 billion in government subventions, repaid a $6.7 billion loan using other federal funds, a TARP-funded escrow account. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) called this a “TARP money shuffle.” A commentator compared it to “paying off your Visa credit card with your MasterCard.”

Meretricious accounting and deceptive marketing are inevitable when government and its misnamed “private sector” accomplices foist state capitalism on an appalled country.

On November 17, 2010 General Motors IPO sells common stock at $33.  After a run up to about $36, GM Common is trading at about $33 today.

So what is the NEW GM, after restructuring, bailouts, subsidies, regulations, promotion of a “green” vehicle … as we keep looking for information on this unfolding story, here is more troubling news.
In an article at Ward’s AutoWorld dated Dec 1, 2010, it turns out that GM does not have to pay any federal taxes in its next $45 billion in income.

Would you call this Crony Capitalism! Here’s a quote for John Stossel

There are two ways to get rich.  You can actually create wealth with better management or a better idea, or you can use political connections.  Sadly, big Government encourages the latter.