Tag: EPA

Categories
Quick Analysis

Politics vs. True Environmentalism

The Heartland Institute http://news.heartland.org/print/156871 recently interviewed Dr. Alan Carlin, an environmental scientist who has been at odds with the Environmental Protection Agency. Carlin is by no means alien from the belief that the environment requires protection.  In the past, he was a leader within the Sierra Club, and was involved in a number of key campaigns. He served as a scientist within the EPA itself, but became estranged from the federal agency when he criticized its support of extremist views not supported by science.

Dr. Carlin maintains that the EPA’s positions on climate change since 2009 are based on politics, not science. The problems pointed out by Dr. Carlin and others concerning the politicization of the EPA and climate change activists and organizations loom large in true efforts to protect the environment.  While vast resources are committed to efforts to combat threats that may not exist, other, scientifically accurate needs may have trouble gaining the resources necessary for success. Frequently, global warming funds wind up enriching leftist politicians and institutions, but doing nothing to truly address real environmental needs. Al Gore and Solyndra come rapidly to mind as examples.
Order for these herbal cialis cipla pills can be placed under the tongue to dissolve, and are easily absorbed by the body. greyandgrey.com generic levitra Stress or low energy level is among the leading anti-aging supplements. Thus by providing adequate blood cheapest cialis generic supply to the main board. For them sports massage Dublin is also equally cialis tablets for sale important.
A truly unbiased examination of global warming extremists finds that their interests and goals are more geared towards providing greater power to federal agencies rather than meeting environmental challenges.  Capitalism itself is frequently their target.  They should examine the comparison between Eastern Europe during its period of Soviet domination, where there was exceptional damage, and their western European counterparts, with far cleaner records.

Categories
Quick Analysis

The EPA’s Regulatory Tidal Wave

In March, the Congressional Research Service issued a report entitled “EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or Right on Track.”

“Since Barack Obama was sworn in as President in 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed and promulgated numerous regulations implementing the pollution controlstatutes enacted by Congress. Critics have reacted strongly. Many, both within Congress and outside of it, have accused the agency of reaching beyond the authority given it by Congress and ignoring or underestimating the costs and economic impacts of proposed and promulgated rules.The House has conducted vigorous oversight of the agency in the 112th and 113th Congresses, and has approved several bills that would overturn specific regulations or limit the agency’s authority. Particular attention has been paid to the Clean Air Act; congressional scrutiny has focused as well on other environmental statutes and regulations implemented by EPA…

“EPA states that critics’ focus on the cost of controls obscures the benefits of new regulations, which, it estimates, far exceed the costs. It maintains that pollution control is an important source of economic activity, exports, and American jobs, as well. Further, the agency and its supporters say that EPA is carrying out the mandates detailed by Congress in the federal environmental statutes.”
It also has ample evidence viagra on line to show that environmental scavengers strip our minds and bodies of their youthful vigor. Before taking the medication, there are certain safety measures which have to be followed when taking Kamagra Oral Jelly. cheapest tadalafil If goals were enough, you would not have the same effect on women as it does on men, sneaking a few sex enhancement http://secretworldchronicle.com/2019/05/ tadalafil cialis pills for women made up of extracts from natural sources can help the addicted to avail an easy escape from this health incapability. A large number secretworldchronicle.com discount cialis of men around the world.
Other studies, including one by CNS news  document the extraordinary number (2,827) and length (24,915 pages) of EPA final regulations.

Today, the New York Analysis of Policy & Government reviews the most onerous of the EPA’s actions, its planned implementation of the President’s Carbon Emissions program.

Categories
NY Analysis

The President’s Executive Action on Carbon Emissions

The June roll out of the White House executive action to cut power plant emissions has been met by support from environmental and kindred political groups. The nation’s 600 Coal-fired plants are the biggest target. If fully enacted, according to a Bloomberg report, coal’s share of energy generation would be reduced from 40% to 14%. The executive action is a follow-up to the White House’s climate change strategy released in June 2013, which called for power plant emissions controls, electrical grid upgrades, carbon capture technology development, periodic reviews of energy matters, and methane and hydrofluorocarbon reductions.

The executive action follows a 2009 pledge by President Obama to cut domestic greenhouse gas by 17% from 2005 levels by 2020, and over 80% by mid-century. It would institute the controversial “cap and trade” concept, which requires emissions producers to obtain “carbon permits” to operate.

The executive action was based on findings summarized in the Environmental Protection Agency’s study, “Climate Change Indicators in the United States,” which   concluded that human-caused climate change has already occurred and is producing harmful effects on the environment. Critics maintain the study ignored contrary evidence.

DETAILS

Carbonbrief.org describes the executive action succinctly:

“The plan aims to cut the emissions of the US power sector 30 per cent on 2005 levels over the next sixteen years. It is open for comment for 120 days and the EPA aims to have final rules in force by June 2015.

“Each state in the US will be set their own target for emissions per megawatt hour of electricity produced. States will have until 30 June 2016 to submit plans explaining how they will meet this target. The EPA says it might allow states to plead for up to two years’ extra time.

“The proposal covers emissions from 1,600 existing coal and gas-fired power stations across the US. Regulations limiting emissions from new power stations are already in the pipeline…There is no legal precedent for it to use the Clean Air Act in this way. The Ohio attorney general has pledged to challenge the EPA’s plans. Legal opinions differ  on the EPA’s authority.”

The Institute for 21st Century Energy  notes that “fossil-fuel fired power stations comprise almost 76% of the generating capacity and nearly 66% of the electricity generated in the United States.”

CAN THE EPA DO THIS?

The EPA bases its authority to engage in this action by virtue of presidential executive action, using the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 111(d). There is significant controversy over the constitutionality of the move.  Mr. Obama failed to win Congressional approval for climate change legislation in his first term, and opponents will claim with substantial validity that he lacks the authority to enact his current program without Congressional approval.

In its June 23 decision in the case of Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, The U.S. Supreme Court gave a mixed ruling to the legality of the measure.  The Scotus blog summarized the decision:

The Clean Air Act either compels nor permits the Environmental Protection Agency to adopt an interpretation of the Clean Air Act requiring a stationary source of pollution to obtain a ‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration’ or Title V permit on the sole basis of its potential greenhouse-gas emission. However, EPA reasonably interpreted the Clean Air Act to require sources that would need permits based on their emission of chemical pollutants to comply with “best available control technology” for greenhouse gases.”

Opposition

The President’s program has encountered broad based opposition from scientific, legal, financial, industrial, and consumer interests. Manufacturers and oil refineries would also be hit hard.  Consumers would face significant price increases. Critics maintain that the technology to comply with the new regulations remains unproven.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce (see below) believes that the program, despite the heavy cost, will produce only a 1.8% reduction in emissions.

International strategic implications would be broad.  The U.S. has a vast supply of coal, (Kentucky, for example, fills almost all of its energy needs from coal) and essentially making it unaffordable would render the U.S. and its allies more dependent on international energy supply producers, such as Russia and middle eastern nations, that are hostile to the west.

Nor are international implications being considered by. Moscow funds its vast military buildup through its energy sales; taking U.S. coal off line will increase the Kremlin’s profits and provide greater assets to spend on its already massive armed forces. Europe will be more dependent than ever on Putin.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce analysis reports that the program would: “Lower U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by $51 billion on average every year through 2030; Lead to 224,000 fewer U.S. jobs on average every year through 2030; Force U.S. consumers to pay $289 billion more for electricity through 2030; Lower total disposable income for U.S. households by $586 billion through 2030.”

The Institute for 21st Century Energy believes that under the executive action “consumers would pay nearly $290 billion more for electricity between 2014 and 2030.” The Institute notes that “over $50 billion in lost investments every year between now and 2030…U.S. households could lose $585 billion by 2030…electrical costs would increase by $289 billion by 2030…224,000 more people could lose their jobs every year between 2014—2030…increased compliance cost [would be] $480 billion.”

Also Opposing the President’s proposals are numerous scientists who note that their research and findings, (which are contrary to the conclusions espoused by supporters of the human effect on the global temperature theory) have been wholly ignored. They are joined by those concerned that what they describe as faulty or incomplete evidence being employed to use allegations of human-caused global warming as an excuse to enhance governmental authority, establish a more centralized economy, and enrich special interests.

Critics also maintain that the executive action could substantially and detrimentally impact the American economy and the cost of energy.  Major geopolitical implications will result as non-U.S. providers of energy sources, such as Russia, Venezuela, Iran, and others benefit from it.
How to gulp commander cialis down it? Ingest the pill using one complete glass of water. Well, ED is not a major issue, cialis side effects it is just a click away. It is important to understand the cialis tab basic difference between two. It was this side effect of http://secretworldchronicle.com/2018/05/02/ no prescription tadalafil that encouraged Pfizer to develop the most popular drug in human history.
On June 26, Rep. Randy Forbes  issued the following statement:

“I am co-sponsoring the Protection and Accountability Rgulatory Act, H.R. 4812. This bill does two important things: [it] nullifies these EPA rules on emissions from power plants, [and] prohibits the EPA from issuing anything similar unless specifically authorized to do so by Congress.  I also cosponsored the REINS Act (H.R. 367) : which requires Congressional approval for regulations that cost over $100 million. It’s just common sense that we ought to have more than unelected bureaucrats writing rules that the businesses in our communities have to follow.”

On June 16, the governors of  Alaska, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wyoming submitted the following letter to the White House, which summarized many of the policy arguments against the program:

“Mr. President:

“As Governors leading diverse States that both produce and consume energy, we ask that you pursue a pragmatic energy policy that balances our nation’s economic needs, energy security, and environmental quality objectives.

“As you know, the energy industry is a major source of job creation in our country, providing employment to millions of our citizens and bolstering U.S. economic competitiveness. America was able to meet almost 90 percent of its energy needs last year the most since March 1985 in large part because of increased domestic energy production. We take pride in the fact that domestic production largely powers America and increasingly other economies as well, helping to eradicate poverty and to provide political stability around the globe.

“Development of our resources has put more money in the pockets of working families and has helped the poor and elderly on fixed incomes, who can now more easily afford to run their air conditioning in the heat of the summer. For example, American natural gas production is reducing average retail electricity prices by 10 percent, saving households, on average, nearly $1,000 per year between 2012 and 2015.

“This significant accomplishment of increased U.S. energy independence, with its associated economic and health benefits, has been achieved largely by State policies despite redundant and burdensome federal regulation. Your proposed rules for regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from existing power plants and redefining the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) would unnecessarily expand federal authority over the States in energy policymaking and risk undermining our success.

“In an unprecedented move, your GHG emissions plan would largely dictate to the States the type of electricity generation they could build and operate. In addition, you seek to essentially ban coal from the U.S. energy mix. Your pursuit of this objective will heavily impact those of our states that rely primarily on coal for electricity generation such a decision should not be made by unaccountable bureaucrats. Your Administration is also pushing for Washington to seize regulatory control of nearly all waters located in the States by expanding the definition of WOTUS. If successful, the federal government would become the arbiters of how our citizens, State highway departments, county flood control and storm water agencies, utilities, irrigation districts, and farmers use their water and their land.

“Although we are still examining the impacts of the GHG proposal released on June 2 and the proposed expansion of WOTUS, we can confidently say that, according to the best available data, millions of jobs will be lost and billions of dollars will be spent over the coming decades in an effort to comply with these and other federal regulations. And those numbers stand to increase with every tightening of those standards  hitting particularly hard working families, poor, and elderly.

“Perhaps most disturbing is the fact that your Administration is content to force Americans to bear these substantial costs where there are highly questionable associated environmental benefits. In fact, your EPA Administrator admitted during testimony to the U.S. Senate that there would be no climate mitigation benefits to America pursuing unilateral action. Moreover, in 2008, you personally guaranteed that under your energy plan, “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

“You admitted that your energy plan would have the following impact: “[Energy industries] would have to retrofit their operations that will cost money. They will pass that money onto consumers.”

“You rightly acknowledge that American citizens will literally pay the price of your energy agenda. They will also pay the price in the form of lost jobs and less reliable electricity. As representatives of the citizens who stand to lose so much while gaining next to nothing, it is our duty to confront this issue and to ask that you rescind the regulations you have put forth. Disposing of these regulations will protect Americans from the costs and burdens the rules would impose upon them and will ensure the continuation of America’s energy renaissance, which is indispensable to our country’s economic recovery and job creation and which is largely a result of State policies.”

THE SCIENCE

The program is a response to the theory that global warming (originally it was global cooling, and is also called climate change) has occurred as a result of human activity.

President Obama has repeatedly asserted that there is no serious valid scientific opposition to the theory. On June 26, he stated:  “So the question is not whether we need to act.  The overwhelming judgment of science, accumulated and measured and reviewed and sliced and diced over decades, has put that to rest. “

In reality, the Scientific community remains split on the existence or degree of impact of human-caused global warming. That assertion fails to take into account a significant portion of the scientific community that disagrees with the theory. Indeed, the Scientific community remains split on the reality or degree of impact of human-caused global warming. While studies from the United Nations support the President’s beliefs, 31,072 American scientists including 9,029 Ph.D’s have signed a petition opposing the views of those who claim human factors have warmed Earth’s climate.

A report published in Science Magazine on the heat content of the Pacific Ocean during the past 10,000 years notes that “water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctica intermediate waters were warmer…during the middle Holcene thermal maximum than over the past century.  Both water masses were…warmer during the Medieval Warm period…than in recent decades.

Professor Richard Lindzen  of MIT, quoted in infowars.com,  notes that the changes due to global warming are too small to account for.  He stated that in the January 2014 article that “Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense, you can see their eyes bulge.”

The U.K.’s Telegraph notes that science writer Steven Goddard, using original  data from the 20th century,  has indications that the Earth has actually been cooling since the 1930’s. Swedish studies   have found that Earth was warmer both in ancient and Medieval eras than it is currently.

CONCLUSION

Substantial constitutional, scientific, economic, military and political considerations may result in a significant effort to reverse the executive action.

Categories
NY Analysis

The Misuse of Executive Orders

As this report goes to press, President Obama is expected to make a significant statement concerning his proposal  to reduce carbon emissions from America’s 600 coal-based energy facilities.

Even before the details are released, significant controversy has occurred based on several key points: whether the president has the authority to enact sweeping and substantive measures without the consent of Congress; whether the proposals will be too costly for the depressed U.S. economy (which shrunk 1% during the first quarter of 2014);  whether reducing American energy output will place both the U.S. and our allies in a weakened position; and finally, whether the science upon which the theory of human induced climate change rests is, in fact, accurate.

This week, The NEW YORK ANALYSIS OF POLICY & GOVERNMENT briefly examines the President’s promised use of Executive Orders for the Environmental program. The regulations are expected to be significant, forcing American power plants to cut carbon emissions, and imposing vast costs on the U.S. economy. The President believes that he can engage in actions that will have the full force of law without the consent of Congress.

Weakening the President’s position is his prior failure to guide proposed environmental laws through Congress in his first term. Critics can maintain that the White House at first attempted to comply with the appropriate Constitutional methods, but resorted to an unconstitutional utilization of Executive Orders when he didn’t succeed.

U.S. Constitution: Article 1, Section 1: 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.

 President Obama, 2013: Where Congress is unwilling to act, I will take whatever administrative steps that I can in order to do right by the American people.

EXECUTIVE ORDERS

Article II, Section I of the Constitution vests executive power in the President. While there is no mention in the Constitution of executive orders, as chief executive, the President of the United States clearly requires the unilateral ability to take certain actions to fulfill his duties. The President’s role in seeing that federal laws are executed requires no consultation with the other two branches of government. It would be absurd to expect that every deployment of troops, every regular or normal daily operation of federal agencies, and every other normal administrative process be subjected to direct Congressional oversight.

There have been periods of history when Congress has been relatively lenient in its oversight of the President’s use—or abuse—of executive orders. During the establishment of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal during the Great Depression, Humorist Will Rogers   remarked that “that Congress doesn’t make laws anymore, they just wave at the bills as they go by.”

The online law journal thelegality.com  notes that “While the mandate of Article II seems broad, it also limits the president’s power to only directing the actions of the executive branch.  For example, [former] President Bush’s E.O. 13435 (regarding the limited use of stem cells in research) have a limited effect because they only reach government agencies…The Executive is not a legislator…He is not above the law.”

Although Congress tends not to challenge most executive orders, it has met with success on some occasions when doing so. Several executive orders issued by President Clinton were struck down by the Court in reaction to Congressional objections.

Justice Hugo Black,  in the case Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer wrote that an executive order (1) “must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself” and (2) an executive order is on dubious ground if it’s “incompatible with the express or implied will of Congress.”

In restricting then-President Truman’s ability to engage in actions which had the impact of legislation rather than mere administrative action, the Court held that an Executive Order not authorized by the Constitution or laws of the United States, cannot stand, and exercises of Presidential authority which have the effect of lawmaking cannot stand because the Constitution vests such power in Congress alone.

There is a keen difference between administrative actions in fulfillment of the law and actually taking steps that affect the law itself, or, indeed, have the same impact as law. This controversy has been evident in the White House’s actions concerning the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare.)  The President’s unilateral action in deciding which portions of the law to enforce and which to ignore until sometime in the future when it is more politically expedient to do so has merited extensive and appropriate criticism.

Impotency resemble a major revile for the man to have proper love making sessions with levitra pills for sale proper erections. Certainties about Kamagra* It offering costs are sensible, as makers don’t need to do much interest as to its advancement, showcasing and improvement. buy generic viagra http://djpaulkom.tv/video-dj-paul-x-drumma-boy-x-crunchy-black-muscle-so-strong-visual/ Instead, you like to drink tadalafil sales sodas, you crave pizza, frozen foods, and sugars, and you smoke. So, Erectile viagra price Dysfunction Therapy can develop its characteristics at puberty, such as increased penis, voice deepening, testes size, and growth of body and facial hair but it can also negative and adverse effects on the follicles. President Obama has not been criticized for the number of Executive Orders issued—both of his predecessors, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush issued more—but for the scope of activities covered in those he did issue.

Writing in Forbes earlier this year, James Powell noted that:

“Apparently President Obama has become convinced that he can make magic with that pen he keeps talking about, the one he plans to use for signing executive orders to revive his beleaguered presidency.  Executive orders are irresistible, because a president doesn’t have to propose anything, debate the issues, endure hearings or solicit votes.  An executive order can be issued in a few minutes — behind closed doors and away from bright lights… Many executive orders are in a twilight zone of dubious constitutional legitimacy if not open defiance of the Constitution, especially when they amount to lawmaking without congressional approval…”

John Malcolm, director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, has written in a Heritage publication   that “President Obama has shown no qualms about taking unilateral actions that bypass Congress and ignore important separation of powers principles that are an essential safeguard of our liberty.”

Joel Pollack, writing in Breitbart, provides three criticisms of President  Obama’s use of executive orders:

“The first is that Obama is using executive orders and actions to alter his own legislation. …The second way in which Obama’s abuse of executive power is different is that he has done it to prevent the legislature from acting…the president issued his “Dream Act by fiat” in 2012 not just because Congress wouldn’t pass his version of immigration reform, but to outflank Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who was preparing his own version, embarrassing Obama among Latino voters…The third way in which Obama’s behavior is unusual is that he commands sweeping executive power on some issues while arguing, on other issues, that he has no power to act… There is no constitutional doctrine behind the president’s executive orders, actions, and omissions…”

 

Attorney Gary Wickert, examined some of President’s Obama’s executive orders:

“In the spring of 2012, President Obama issued an aggressive string of executive orders to combat what he viewed as hopelessly-deadlocked Congress. Some of his more controversial, and arguably unconstitutional executive orders are as follows:Directed the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act;Gave states waivers from federal mandates if they agreed to education overhauls;Changed significant provisions of and the timing of Obamacare;Declared an anti-gay-rights law unconstitutional;Reshaped immigration policy by ordering  the federal government to halt deportation of certain illegal immigrants.
Each unilateral action by the president substituted for a failed legislative proposal.  ‘I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone,’ he said. However, under the Constitution, that is not the way things are supposed to work. “

The President’s use of his authority to implement environmental measures has been a particular source of criticism. The Congressional newspaper The Hill noted that Attorneys general  in 17 states have contended that “the Environmental Protection Agency has overreached in pursuit of President Obama’s plan to counter the effects of climate change via federal regulation.” They maintain that the “EPA, if unchecked, will continue to implement regulations which far exceed its statutory authority to the detriment of the States, in whom Congress has vested authority under the Clean Air Act, and whose citizenry and industries will ultimately pay the price of these costly and ineffective regulations…”

CONCLUSION

The dueling sides for and against the President’s carbon emissions plan will disagree on the specific merits of the proposal.  The far more important debate, however, will have nothing to do with the details of this program and everything to do with whether the United States will continue to be governed by Constitutional provisions clearly calling for a series of checks and balances on the authority of the chief executive.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Environmentalism as an excuse for profiteering

With the approach of the vacation season, Americans, already hard pressed by diminishing salaries, rising inflation, and poor job opportunities, are increasingly besieged by high energy and gasoline prices, which have already doubled since the start of the Obama Administration.

Among several remedies for this problem are the opening of federal lands for gas and oil development, the building of more oil refineries, and the construction of projects such as the Keystone XL pipeline.  The White House has opposed all of the above.

This opposition has numerous ramifications, foreign and domestic. Internationally, it provides a windfall of profits for the Russians, the Venezuelans, and several Arab states, all of whom wish us ill.  It gives Moscow a powerful weapon to coerce European states into compliance with Moscow’s wishes.  It sparks conflicts for scarce energy sources around the world.

There has been a great deal of head-scratching about why the White House would adopt this unpopular position, particularly in areas such as the bipartisan-supported Keystone XL pipeline which its own studies indicate would have no harmful environmental effects, and may, in fact, improve public safety by taking volatile gas cargo off of the rails, where serious accidents have occurred, as well as providing urgently needed employment.

Child Track 24-7 provides an affordable and complete solution 20mg tadalafil that includes everything you need to get started – including an entire year of free kids GPS tracking services! They provide apps for all smart phones and don’t operate with complicated contracts, fees, or activation charges. But at the same time, you need to follow the prescribed treatment to sildenafil tablets australia best store keep the blood pressure under control. Some fans who attended Sunday’s race complained the track should have done more to notify them. viagra pfizer 25mg This approx percentage of impotent does not belong to particular state or country but it represents the condition of male population in whole world. side effects cialis Enter the name of Billionaire Tom Steyer,  the lead figure in a radical environmentalist group, who, according to the Washington Times,has raised $50 million to oppose the project, and seeks to double that, for the purpose of electing like-minded figures in the 2014 elections.

As extreme as the position of hard-core environmentalists may be (they have convinced the Obama Administration to unconstitutionally attack property rights, and threaten to destroy a substantial portion of the nation’s agriculture for trivial reasons) “green” ideology is not the whole answer.

It seems that Mr. Steyer stands to profit from eliminating plans for the Keystone Pipeline. It has been reported that he has a significant financial stake in another pipeline which could lose business if  Keystone is built. This type of cut-throat competition disguised as some ideological belief is nothing new, nor is the practice of wealthy men influencing politicians.

What has changed, however, is the extraordinary degree of blatant, unabashed cooperation by the White House in an effort that appeases a wealthy political donor, but substantially harms the public.