The Environmental
Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed Clean Power Plan (CPP) appears to have few
fans. Elected officials from 32 states have made public their objections.
Two states,
Pennsylvania in October 2014 and West Virginia in early March 2015, have
adopted laws requiring their respective states’ environmental protection
agencies to submit for legislative approval any state implementation plan
developed to comply with EPA’s CPP regulations. If legislators don’t approve
the plans, the agencies must start again from scratch.
The American
Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has developed model legislation based on
the Pennsylvania bill. Several states, including Alaska, Florida, Minnesota,
Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington, are considering
the ALEC measure.
In September 2014,
Alabama, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South
Dakota, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming together filed a motion to
expedite a court review of their lawsuit challenging EPA’s rules when they are
finalized. The effort, led by West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey,
argues the regulation of retail electricity sales and local distribution has
been a sovereign state function and the EPA rule would necessarily intrude into
that sovereign authority without any clear congressional authorization for doing
so. The states’ attorneys general note the EPA plan will result in irreparable
harm to the states and to the public.
Senate Majority
Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has joined the fray, encouraging states to step
up and/or continue their fight against the rule. To this I say, quoting Bruce
Willis as the immortal John McClane in Die Hard, “Welcome to the party
pal!”
According to Real
Clear Politics:
In a letter to the
National Governors Association, McConnell writes of his serious legal and policy
concerns with this deeply misguided plan.
McConnell charges
the EPA with attempting to compel states to do more themselves than what the
agency would be authorized to do on its own. McConnell argues that the EPA [is
overreaching, stating] the CPP would now require states to ‘switch electricity
generating sources, build ‘new generation and transmission, and ‘reduce
demand. None of this is authorized by the Clean Air Act.
McConnell cited a
National Economic Research Associates report estimating the CPP will cause a
doubling of electricity rates in 43 states, with a total national cost of nearly
$479 billion over 15 years. Yet
McConnell notes, the EPA admits that the climate benefits of the CPP cannot be
quantified, in terms of temperature or sea level rise prevented.
McConnell said, The
EPA’s deadlines were very likely designed to force states to develop and submit
implementation plans before the courts can decide on the legality of the CPP.
If a large number of states have state implementation plans in place prior to
any legal challenges, this may seem to grant legitimacy to the CPP to the
court. Therefore, McConnell recommends states just say no to EPA’s call for
state action.
-- H. Sterling
Burnett
Four Democrats
broke ranks with their party to join the entire Republican caucus in the U.S.
Senate to pass an amendment to the 2016 budget bill blocking the federal
government from taxing carbon dioxide emissions. The amendment, offered by Sen.
Roy Blunt (R-MO), passed by a vote of 58 to 42, preventing the government from
taxing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, refineries, and chemical
companies.
In a statement
issued shortly after Blunt’s amendment passed, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK),
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, stated, Once again, a
majority of Congress has spoken out against a carbon tax. The only Americans
that stand to benefit from the federal government imposing policies that
unilaterally tax or otherwise restrict domestic carbon emissions are green
energy venture capitalists and major political contributors to Democratic
campaigns.
This move follows
the decision by Australia’s government to scrap its carbon tax. Australia’s
decision came after energy prices and joblessness spiked. A new government was
elected in part on its promise to repeal the carbon tax, which cost
approximately $7 billion in its first 15 months. The country’s carbon emissions
fell by only 0.3 percent at a cost of $300 per person.
In contrast to the
moves in Australia and U.S. Senate, Washington state Gov. Jay Inslee (D) has
proposed a cap-and-trade program combined with a low-carbon fuel standard for
his state. The governor’s office estimates the proposal will cost of about $131
per ton of carbon dioxide emission reduced, increasing gasoline prices by as
much as $1.17 per gallon.
SOURCE: The Daily Caller
WOOD PELLETS NOT
CLIMATE-FRIENDLY
Environmentalists
have touted burning biomass in the form of wood pellets – small pellets made
of highly compressed waste wood and sawdust – as a carbon-neutral energy
source of electricity. U.S. companies have been quick to jump on the
wood-pellet bandwagon, with two new plants recently opening in North Carolina
and as many as 10 others planned from Virginia to Louisiana. A report in Yale’s
Environment 360 notes, Demand for this purportedly green form of energy
is so robust that wood pellet exports from the United States nearly doubled
from 2012 to 2013 and are expected to nearly double again to 5.7 million tons
in 2015. This soaring production is driven by growing demand in the U.K. and
Europe, which are using wood pellets to replace coal for electricity generation
and heating.
But the environmentalists
were wrong. Scientists are increasingly concerned, according to Environment
360, that current industry practices are anything but carbon-neutral and
threaten some of the last remaining diverse ecosystems in the southeastern U.S.
Some environmental
activists and scientists note there does not seem to be enough waste to meet
the growing demand for wood pellets, so the industry, rather than just using
limbs and waste wood, is cutting down whole trees as feedstock for wood pellet
production. Many of the logged trees are slow-growing hardwoods, which may or may
not be replanted, and they’re being shipped from forests miles away adding to
carbon emissions. In addition, the logging done to supply wood pellet
production is disrupting wetlands (affecting water quality) and wildlife
habitat.
SOURCE: Yale Environment
360
DEFORESTATION, NOT
CARBON DIOXIDE, CAUSING TEMPERATURE AND WEATHER CHANGES
Researchers from
the University of Maryland, University of Montana, and Peking University have
found deforestation has a more pronounced effect on temperatures and weather
patterns than does anthropogenic global warming. The research, published in Nature
Communications, also indicates large-scale deforestation could impact
global food production by triggering changes in local climate. The paper
presents the first global analysis of the effects of forest cover change on
local temperature using high-resolution NASA global satellite data. The
research team concluded, As rates of deforestation climb and shifts in local
climate become more pronounced, the need to understand the relationship between
forest cover change and temperature will become more urgent.
Nicholas Magliocca,
a research associate of the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center,
conducted an outside assessment of the research, concluding, This analysis
offers an important empirical benchmark against which global climate models can
be validated to accurately represent the temperature-mediating effects of
forests.
SOURCE: Watts up with
That
SEN. ALEXANDER
PROPOSES ENDING WIND POWER SUBSIDIES
Sen. Lamar
Alexander (R-TN) has proposed ending the more than $6 billion in subsidies to
wind power producers and using the money saved to double the government’s
current $5 billion in funding for energy research projects at the Department of
Energy (DOE). At a late March hearing on the 2016 DOE budget Alexander argued, Washington
has a bad habit of picking winners and losers, and an addiction to wasteful
subsidies of all kinds – we need to end these policies.
Alexander’s
proposal is an attempt to get Democrats to give up tax subsidies for wind
companies in exchange for increased research funding. He said, There is a place
for limited, short-term subsidies to jumpstart new technologies, but it is long
past time for wind to stand on its own in the marketplace.
With the government’s
poor track record of picking winners and losers, I suggest the savings be
returned to the people in the form of tax cuts, rather than turned over to the
DOE to spend on research my two cents.
SOURCE: The Daily Caller
SCIENTIST RESPONDS
TO DEMOCRAT INTIMIDATION
Twenty-five years
ago, on March 29, 1990, University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH) atmospheric
scientist John Christy and his colleague Roy Spencer held a press conference to
announce data from global satellites showed temperature was not rising as much
as predicted by climate models. Since then, Christy has come under increasing
pressure from alarmists attempting to discredit the work and reputation of
every scientist who might reject any part of the theory humans are causing
catastrophic climate change. He is one of seven scientist singled out by Rep.
Raul Grajalava (D-AZ) for enhanced scrutiny of their research and funding
sources.
In a recent interview,
Christy stated, I’ve been involved in this issue for 25 years, and I’m past the
point of being intimidated. This is simply a way for the administration to
publicly draw attention to us as scientists not aligned with their views,
implying there must be a scurrilous reason for daring to think the way we do.
Christy was one of
the lead authors of the IPCC’s 2001 report, the first to include satellite
temperatures as a high-quality data set for studying global climate change. He
has since become one of IPCC’s staunchest critics. Ray Garner, chief of staff to
UAH President Robert Altenkirch, said in a statement Christy has always
approached his work with the utmost of integrity, and the quality of his
research is nothing short of exemplary.
SOURCE: E&E News
Daily
No comments:
Post a Comment