Posts Tagged ‘regulate’

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.

In June 2009, Governor Ritter signed SB-003 which called for expanding the emissions testing program to Larimer and Weld Counties (click here for  background information).

Over the last year efforts were made to delay or reevaluate this program, Here are some of the reasons this program is opposed:

• Costs over $3,000,000 each and every year.
• Increases vehicle registration fees – on top of the large mandated increases in 2009.
• It is the most costly and least effective of all the alternatives
• Requires another costly State of Colorado Department to manage the program
• It is a proven failure – years of testing in Denver have not solved their ozone problem
• It is not required by the EPA because it doesn’t meet their standards for improvement
• It is inconvenient and burdensome – Estes Park citizens must drive to Loveland, other rural residents must drive many miles just for testing.
• Only a small percentage of vehicles fail; fixes are assumed to last about two years.
• No data shows adverse health consequences if we don’t implement the emissions testing
• Northern Colorado did not violate ozone standards in 2009 or 2010; has a positive trend since 2006

The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQQC) held a hearing regarding expanding emissions testing to Northern Colorado at Island Grove Regional Park in Greeley, Colorado on March 18, 2010 (click here to view our article about this meeting). The hearing was a excellent example of bureaucracy in action … bottom line … they ignored us.

So here we are on December 1, 2010 and the emissions testing program is in place.

Effective Dec 1, 2010, owners of most gasoline-powered vehicles in most urban areas of Larimer and Weld Counties will be required to pass an emissions inspection prior to license plate renewal. The cost will be $25. Registered vehicles owners in the emissions area (including Ft Collins, Loveland, Windsor, Berthoud, Johnstown, and Greeley)  will start to see the notice “Emissions Test Required” on their registration renewal notices.  Estes Park will be included effective December 31, 2011.

To reduce the number of vehicles requiring a test at the emissions testing station, a RapidScreen Program has been established in northern Colorado. If you pass the test you will see “Passed Roadside Emissions” on your registration renewal postcard.   You will still be required to pay the $25 testing fee.

Additional Info/Links
Photos: Mobile Van setup to test emissions on Trilby Road East of Shields; State of Colorado Vehicle Emissions Testing Station near 71st Street and Highway 287 (north end of Loveland)
AirCare Colorado at this site you will find maps of the areas in Larimer County and Weld County included in this program.
Larimer County Emissions Testing Program Information
Weld County Emissions Testing Program Information
Article at MyWindsorNow posted October 22, 2010, “Weld loses last chance to delay emissions testing program; it will start on Nov. 1”
Article at Colorodoan.com dated November 2, 2010 “Vehicle emissions testing starts in area”
The emissions testing station inspector may reject your vehicle for testing.  For instance if your Tires are smaller than 17 inches or larger than 34 inches cannot be safely tested on the dynamometer. Tires can be measured at the station if there is a question regarding size. For more information see this article in GreeleyGazette.com by Jack Minor about Emissions testing program.
Article at GreeleyGazette.com dated March 26, 2010 about public hearing on March 18, 2010. “Colorado air quality commissioner’s unanimous vote for emissions testing in Weld and Larimer counties flawed by corruption”

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 »

The Senate is scheduled to vote on S.J.Res 26 – A joint resolution disapproving a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the endangerment finding and the cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.  The Resolution is sponsored by Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).  If passed this resolution would block the EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon emissions.  Check C-Span schedule for Thursday, the senate will be debating this for 10 hours according the The New York Times.  Click here for an article posted at Townhall.com on June 6, 2010

Article updated May 25, 2010: Both White House and EPA are in denial regarding the  once-settled but increasingly controversial proposition of an anthroprogenic global warming (AGW) crisis and therefore the need to control greenhouse gas emissions.  In Congress we see new legislation both for and against more government control of GHGs.

Read the rest of this entry »

Americans for Prosperity is hitting the road with their Regulation Reality Tour featuring the Carbon Cops who will issue a citation for anything from filling up your gas tank to using your heat or electricity.

The Tour will be in Colorado Apr 19-21. We will post additional information as it becomes available. Don’t miss this event!

It is increasingly obvious that the “science” to support human-caused global warming has been corrupted by bad assumptions, the “quality” of the data, and our ability to understand and interpret correctly historical data and make projections about future events. 

 Given these problems…. the enthusiasm of the U.S.  government (and also the State of Colorado) to measure, regulate and tax fossil fuel related activity is extraordinary .

 To quote from SEPP.org (April 3, 2010 newsletter) – “politicians and bureaucrats still act as if nothing has happened.”  “The arrogance they exhibit is staggering”

• The Week That Was (April 3, 2010) – SEPP.org
• Article in FrontPage Magazine – The Heretics: A Legacy of Independence dated March 12, 2010
• Article  at CATO.org – Scientific Misconduct: The Manipulation of Evidence for Political Advocacy in Health Care and Climate Policy by George Avery – Dated Feb 8, 2010
• NewYorkTimes article by Al Gore – We Can’t Wish away Climate Change
• Scientific Alliance article – Climate Change: Both Sides Dig In
• The Battle Between Image and Reality – William O’Keefe, The George C. Marshall Institute
• A Superstorm for Global Warming Research – posted at Spiegel OnLine.de – April 1, 2010

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 »