Posts Tagged ‘public health and welfare’

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.

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

Malaria kills more than one million children under five years of age every year.  In some area of Africa over 40% of the population can be infected with malaria at any given time.

Malaria persists through an unbroken chain of infection between human and mosquito hosts. DDT is needed to control malaria, however in 1972 the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) banned the use of DDT in the US.
Similar bans and lack of funding to use DDT have resulted a large increase in malaria cases especially in Africa.

Other efforts to eradicate malaria in recent years have not been not effective. In spite of the activity by environmental groups to restrict the use of DDT there is ample evidence that DDT is safe for humans and the environment and should be used to control malaria.

A recent documentary film, 3 Billion & Counting: The Cost of Banning DDT has recently been released. The film describes the circumstances surrounding the ban on DDT and the cost in human lives that this decision made. Click here for information about the film.

According to the EPA the reason for the DDT ban by the EPA was “unacceptable risks to the environment and potential harm to human health” – looks like the EPA needs to revisit this conclusion!

Here are a few articles for more information:

Free the Fight against Malaria posted November 15, 2010 at NCPA (National Center for Policy Analysis)

Article by Paul Driessen dated September 11, 2010 posted at SPPI

The Deadly War against DDT by Elizabeth Whelan posted on National Review Online

The Really Inconvenient Truths: Seven Environmental Catastrophes Liberals Don’t Want You To Know About – Because They Helped Cause Them, by Iain Murray, published 2008
This book has a whole chapter on “Malaria: The Plague of Environmentalists”

On June 10, 2010 … the US Senate debated Joint Resolution 26 – a resolution to disapprove a rule submitted by the EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) on December 15, 2009 relating to greenhouse gasses. After over 6 hours of debate the US Senate voted against the resolution 53 to 47.  You can view the entire session at CSpan Video Library


According to Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), because this (i.e., EPA action) is our worst option to reduce emissions and Congress needs time to develop a more appropriate solution, I have introduced a resolution of disapproval … I introduced this back in January … to halt the EPA’s regulations.  My resolution does not affect the science behind the endangerment finding, but it will prevent the finding from being enforced through economy-wide regulations.

 About the Opposition

Most of the comments by Senators opposing Resolution 26 were “red herrings” … about their confidence that the scientific findings were compelling, about fuel standards and about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Instead of reasoned debate, we got political theatre! Did they read the bill?… did they read the EPA rule? … or did they use Barbara Boxer’s talking points to prepare their comments? Read the rest of this entry »

April 3, 2010 – EPA issues rules on vehicle greenhouse gas emissions  and states line up to legally challenge the new regulations. 

In the last few month various bills have been introduced (or are being drafted) by Congress … Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) asserts that greenhouse gas regulation would be better done by Congress than by an appointed agency.  House Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-North Dakota) states that the Clean Air Act was not developed for greenhouse gas emissions, and it does not work to try and shoehorn greenhouse gas emissions into this statute.

In 2007, The Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act.  The EPA was directed to determine whether GHG from vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution and that this pollution may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.

In 2007, there was consensus on human-caused global warming and associated climate change predictions.  Now significant questions have been raised. Questions about the quality of the science behind the assumptions.  Also there are many  unanswered questions regarding air quality… how to measure, what level of “pollution” is a threat to “public health and welfare”, cost/benefit issues, etc.

We are in agreement that rulings made in 2007 need to be revisited …   here are some articles to help you get informed.

• FOX News article – More States Sue EPA as Agency Issues First Climate Change Regulations
• Article at SolveClimate.com – Mar 3, 2010 – EPA’s authority to regulate Greenhouse Gases comes under fire from all angles – article supplies many links to help you get informed.
• EPA.gov – Climate Change – Regulatory Initiatives
• Article by Thomas Pyle at the DailyCaller – Energy and Climate, March Madness-style

During November/ December 2009,  over 500 citizens signed this letter in protest of planned action to expand emissions testing to the North Front Range Area of Colorado (including Ft. Collins, Loveland, Berthoud, Johnstown, Windsor and Greeley).
Read the rest of this entry »