Category Archives: EPA

The Supreme Court’s Environmental Docket

The Supreme Court’s Environmental Docket

The Supreme Court will hear two low-profile, high-impact environmental cases in this new session. Richard Lazarus, a law professor at Harvard University, tells host Bruce Gellerman that he thinks the signs so far do not bode well for the Environmental Protection Agency. (LOE)

Cuccinelli says EPA report supports his assertions

Cuccinelli says EPA report supports his assertions
David Sherfinski

Virginia Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II on Wednesday blasted the Environmental Protection Agency in the wake of a recent inspector general´s report that found it failed to follow federal rules in its process of using climate change data to conclude greenhouse gases are a threat to human health. (Washington Times)

Cuccinelli rips EPA for failing to follow its own rules
Continue reading

Rogue agent? The entire Department of Misanthropy is rogue and should be expunged

Rogue EPA Agent Pleads Guilty to Obstructing Justice

A former U.S. EPA agent who spearheaded the wrongful indictment of an refining plant manager — possibly to cover up his affair with an FBI agent — has pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice and perjury in a related civil case.

Continue reading

Inhofe calls for reopening carbon finding in light of IG report

Inhofe calls for reopening carbon finding in light of IG report

Jean Chemnick, E&E reporter

Published: Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Link to Article

Inhofe Speech: Inhofe Calls for Hearing on Serious Flaws in EPA Endangerment Finding Process


One of the Senate’s top foes of U.S. EPA climate regulations said yesterday that a report last week by the agency’s inspector general was reason to reopen EPA’s finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health.

The IG report did not cast doubt on the science EPA used to support the endangerment finding, but it did question EPA’s process for reviewing that science. EPA says it followed established procedure to the letter when preparing its finding.

The endangerment finding, finalized in 2009, forms the basis for all of EPA’s climate-related regulations, for both stationary sources and vehicles.

In his remarks yesterday on the Senate floor, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) in particular questioned the agency’s use of data from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to support the endangerment finding.

“EPA’s findings rest in large measure on the IPCC assessments, and EPA appears to have accepted them wholesale,” said Inhofe, who serves as top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. (EPW)

Roger Pielke Sr.: Erroneous Information In The Report “Procedural Review of EPA’s Greenhouse Gases Endangerment Finding Data Quality Processes”

Erroneous Information In The Report “Procedural Review of EPA’s Greenhouse Gases Endangerment Finding Data Quality Processes”

The EPA Office of the Inspector General published the report

“Procedural Review of EPA’s Greenhouse Gases Endangerment Finding Data Quality Processes,” dated September 26, 2011.

There has been discussion of this Report in the media, e.g. see and see, but I want to report here on a specific significant error that continually is told to policymakers. (Roger Pielke Sr.)

Sen. Inhofe: Obama’s EPA Waging War on Fossil Fuels

Sen. Inhofe: Obama’s EPA Waging War on Fossil Fuels
John Rossomando 10/03/2011

Job creation has been all over President Obama’s lips in the past few weeks, but GOP opponents say his Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory war on fossil fuels is costing the economy far more than the estimated $447 billion price tag of his jobs proposal.

“The President of the United States wants to destroy American energy,” said Oklahoma GOP Sen. James Inhofe, the ranking member of the Senate Energy and Public Works Committee. “His intention is to kill fossil fuels, which we rely on for 99% of the energy in America.

“All of this killing of our energy supply is not by accident. It’s on purpose.”

Continue reading

Funny, the Department of Misanthropy doesn’t seem to be enjoying all its recent attention

EPA’s Mission Leap

Regulation: What does the Environmental Protection Agency say it needs to fully implement new greenhouse gas emissions rules? How about an army of 230,000 new bureaucrats and an additional $21 billion a year?

The EPA itself is an example of shameless mission creep. Its 2010 budget was 29 times higher than its first budgets were in the early 1970s when it was established by President Nixon. The agency’s workforce has grown from about 4,000 to roughly 19,000.

In just over four decades, the EPA has federalized local environmental problems and became involved in “anxiety and nutrition,” social and economic issues, and aging. Now it wants to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, a charge it was never granted by Congress. Adding 230,000 new workers and spending an extra $21 billion a year simply sounds like business as usual. (IBD)

Oh yes, that wonderfully “successful” and totally pointless Montreal Protocol

  • Should you care? No
  • Does this indicate anything other than a cold Northern winter? No
  • Is the “ozone layer” stable at any time? No (see “That ‘ozone depletion’ thing
  • Do fluctuating stratospheric ozone levels indicate “loss”? No
  • Is this of any significance to humanity or the environment whatsoever? No
  • Is this just another “People bad, industry bad, chemicals bad” scam from misanthropes and would-be controllers of everything? You betcha!

NASA Leads Study Of Unprecedented Arctic Ozone Loss

WASHINGTON — A NASA-led study has documented an unprecedented depletion of Earth’s protective ozone layer above the Arctic last winter and spring caused by an unusually prolonged period of extremely low temperatures in the stratosphere.

The study, published online Sunday in the journal Nature, finds the amount of ozone destroyed in the Arctic in 2011 was comparable to that seen in some years in the Antarctic, where an ozone “hole” has formed each spring since the mid 1980s. The stratospheric ozone layer, extending from about 10 to 20 miles (15 to 35 kilometers) above the surface, protects life on Earth from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays.

The Antarctic ozone hole forms when extremely cold conditions, common in the winter Antarctic stratosphere, trigger reactions that convert atmospheric chlorine from human-produced chemicals into forms that destroy ozone. The same ozone-loss processes occur each winter in the Arctic. However, the generally warmer stratospheric conditions there limit the area affected and the time frame during which the chemical reactions occur, resulting in far less ozone loss in most years in the Arctic than in the Antarctic. (NASA News)

That endangered endangerment finding

The EPA’s Endangerment Finding Is Very Endangered
Patrick Michaels

This week’s big global warming kerfluffle comes from the EPA’s Inspector General, who says the agency broke the law in preparation of its landmark 2009 “Endangerment Finding” from carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Subsequent to making this finding, according to an infamous 2007 Supreme Court decision, the Agency must regulate emissions, presumably to the point which they no longer cause endangerment. (Forbes)


Continue reading

EPA don’t follow their own guidelines, so why should anyone else?

EPA Rules … and how they don’t follow their own
Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Most folks would not be surprised if I were to make the claim that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did not properly consider the science when it issued its “Endangerment Finding” saying that CO2 was a pollutant and a danger to humanity. It is that scientifically unsupported finding that allows them to regulate CO2. (WUWT)

Flashback: Steve McIntyre on EPA Endangerment Finding
Continue reading

More on the misanthropy that is “environmentalism”

Noon’s Rebuttal: Environmental Law is Upside-down

Thanks to Michael Economides and The Energy Tribune for giving coverage to the practice of professional environmentalism in America.

The debate between the Center for Biological Diversity and me stems from an issue gaining increasing attention. Most recently, on September 28, according to an Associated Press article, the EPA cut corners. Referencing a report from the Environmental Protection Agency’s inspector general, the article states the “EPA should have followed a more extensive review process.” Inspector General Arthur A. Elkins, Jr said: “It is clear that EPA did not follow all the required steps.” Earlier this month, the Washington Examiner revealed a similar scandal: U.S. District Judge Oliver Wanger “ripped” two Fish and Wildlife scientists for their “biological opinion” that was “arbitrary, capricious and unlawful.” Likewise, I drew attention to science behind the proposed endangered species listing for the Sand Dune Lizard. The CBD took offense. Instead of defending the science, they have opted to attack me.

How’d we get here? (Energy Tribune)

Maybe EPA should fine Ma Nature for all that dust

EPA must revise rules for our dusty state

The Valley has had a summer of dirty air, and you just need to check the headlines to understand why: a series of huge dust storms.

They’ve also created a blizzard of paperwork. Local and state air-quality officials have to assemble a mass of data to show that natural conditions were almost entirely responsible for our unhealthy air this summer.

Why should it be so hard to prove the obvious? (The Arizona Republic)

EPA Boosts Water Policing as Farmers Say Worst Fears Realized

EPA Boosts Water Policing as Farmers Say Worst Fears Realized
Mark Drajem

Fifth-generation farmer Kenny Watkins ran afoul of the U.S. clean-water police in 2009. His infraction: Planting hay in a pasture.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ordered Watkins to stop cultivating a 160-acre (65-hectare) tract in central California because he might destroy seasonal ponds and harm the San Joaquin River. Watkins has defied the decision and the federal government’s control over what he can grow on his farm.

Continue reading

Marlo Lewis: How Absurd Is Regulating Greenhouse Gases through the Clean Air Act?

How Absurd Is Regulating Greenhouse Gases through the Clean Air Act?

Pretty darn near the height of absurdity. That’s not just my opinion. It’s a key premise of EPA’s “Tailoring Rule,” which exempts small greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters from regulation under the Clean Air Act’s (CAA) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) pre-construction permitting program and Title V operating permits program.

As EPA explains in a brief filed last week with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, once the agency’s GHG emission standards for new motor vehicles took effect on January 2, 2011, “major stationary sources” of GHG emissions became “automatically subject” to PSD and Title V permitting requirements. A facility with a potential to emit 250 tons per year (tpy) of a regulated air pollutant is a “major source” under PSD. A facility with a potential to emit 100 tpy is a “major source” under Title V. Whereas only large industrial facilities emit 100-250 tpy of smog- and soot-forming air pollutants, literally millions of small entities — big box stores, apartment and office buildings, hospitals, schools, large houses of worship, Dunkin’ Donut shops – use enough natural gas or oil for heating or cooking to emit 100-250 tpy of carbon dioxide (CO2). (Cooler Heads)

Well, it is worse than we thought. Just look what the Department of Misanthropy (a.k.a. “EPA”) is trying to do to you

Inside the EPA
Memos show that even other regulators worry about its rule-making.

The Environmental Protection Agency claims that the critics of its campaign to remake U.S. electricity are partisans, but it turns out that they include other regulators and even some in the Obama Administration. In particular, a trove of documents uncovered by Congressional investigators reveals that these internal critics think the EPA is undermining the security and reliability of the U.S. electric power supply.

With its unprecedented wave of rules, the EPA is abusing traditional air-quality laws to force a large share of the coal-fired fleet to shut down. Amid these sacrifices on the anticarbon altar, Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski and several House committees have been asking, well, what happens after as much as 8% of U.S. generating capacity is taken off the grid? (WSJ)

EPA: Regulations would require 230,000 new employees, $21 billion
Continue reading