Sunday, July 19, 2015

Green Energy Steals from the Biosphere

Earth has only three significant sources of energy:

First is geothermal energy from Earth’s molten core and decaying radioactive minerals in Earth’s crust. This energy moves continents, powers volcanoes and its heat migrates towards the crust, warming the lithosphere and the deep oceans. It can be harvested successfully in favourable locations, and radioactive minerals can be extracted to provide large amounts of reliable heat for power generation.

Second is energy stored in combustible hydrocarbon minerals such as coal, oil, gas, tar sands and oil shale. These all store solar and geothermal energy collected eons ago and they are the primary energy sources supporting the modern world and its large and growing populations.

Third are radiation and gravitational energies from the Sun and Moon which are captured by the biosphere as heat, winds, tides, rain, rivers and in biomass such as forests, crops and animals. These are the natural “Green” energies that support all processes of life and still support a peasant existence for some peoples.

Green zealots believe that we can and should run modern societies exclusively on “Green” energies, and they have embarked on a war on hydrocarbons. They need to be told that their green energy favourites are just stealing from the biosphere – they are not as green as they claim.

The most obvious example is the ethanol industry which takes food crops like corn, sugar and palm oil and uses heaps of water and a lot of hydrocarbon energy to convert them to ethanol alcohol which will burn in internal combustion engines, but has less energy density than petrol.

This process is replacing natural grasslands and forests with artificial monocultures.

The latest stupid ethanol suggestion is to power Obama’s “wanna-be-green” US Pacific Fleet using Queensland food crops. Feeding ethanol to the engines of the US Navy would consume far more food than was used feeding hay and grain to the thousands of horses used to move our artillery and Light Horse Brigades in the Great War. Sailors in the British Navy got much of their energy from Jamaican Rum, but the American navy will not run on Queensland ethanol whiskey.

Biomass is a fancy name for plant material and vegetable trash which, if maintained in/on the soil, will provide the fertility for the next crop. Burning it reduces the humus that maintains fertile soil. The ultimate biomass stupidity is to harvest American forests, pelletise them, dry them and ship them across the Atlantic (all using hydrocarbon fuels) to burn in a UK power station. Burning biomass produces the same emission gases as coal.

Most plants will not grow without energy from the sun. Solar arrays steal energy directly from the biosphere. Some incoming solar energy is reflected to space by the panels, some is converted to waste heat on the panels, and some is converted to electricity - much of which ends up as waste heat. Solar radiation that could have given energy to growing plants is largely returned to the atmosphere as waste heat and much is then lost to space.

Some solar farms are built over land that is already a desert - the rest create their own deserts in their shadow. Because solar energy is very dilute, very large areas of land must be shaded and sterilised by the panels in order to collect significant energy.

Solar radiation also evaporates water from the oceans and provides the energy for rain, winds and storms. Much of this moisture falls as useful rain when the winds penetrate land masses. Wind turbines create artificial obstacles to the wind, reducing its velocity and thus tending to create more rain near the coast and rain shadows behind the turbine walls. And they chop up many birds and bats. Again, green energy harms the biosphere.

Hydro power is one of the few green energy sources that is “grid ready” and can supply economical reliable energy. So, naturally, many greens are opposed to it. However, in most places there is competition for fresh water for domestic uses, irrigation, industry and environmental flow. Hydro power is just one more competitor for this valuable green resource.

So… Green energy is not so green after all. It reduces the supply of food, water and energy available to all life on earth, and it often consumes large amounts of hydrocarbon energy for its manufacture, construction, maintenance and backup.

Green advocates are enemies of the poor. They want to burn their food, waste their water and deny them access to cheap reliable energy.

Hydrocarbon fuels are the true green energy sources. They disturb less land per unit of energy produced, they do not murder wildlife, and their combustion produces new supplies of water and carbon dioxide for the atmosphere. More carbon dioxide and water in the atmosphere enables plants to grow faster, bigger and more able to cope with heat or drought.

It was coal, and later oil, which created and still largely supports the populations, prosperity and industry of developed nations. With a backdrop of freedom under the law, they can do the same for the whole world.

Those professing concern for the poor need to realise that Green Energy steals from the biosphere and that hydrocarbons are the real friends of the poor.

Finally, those who have swallowed the carbon dioxide scare should be told that nuclear energy is the most reliable and least damaging “low carbon” option.

SOURCE  (See the original for links)

UK Solar power subsidies to be slashed by ministers to cut energy bills as part of a 'big reset' of green taxes

Green taxes which push up energy bills are to be slashed by the government, MailOnline has learned.

A 'big reset' of the support given to the renewable industry is expected to be announced within weeks, including cuts to funding for the solar industry.

Cabinet insiders say the view on tackling subsidies has 'hardened' over fears recent price cuts announced by power firms will be wiped out by rising environmental taxes.

The Tories have already announced that taxpayer subsidies for wind farms are to be axed a year early.

But the government is expected to go much further and review all support given to green energy which is funded by levies on bills worth £4.3billion-a-year.

The solar industry in particular is braced for an announcement on cuts to its support.

The Cabinet discussed this week election promises to focus on only 'backing good-value green energy' with a promise to 'cut emissions as cost-effectively as possible'.

There will be a major expansion of nuclear and gas, but solar farms and plans for a tidal lagoon to generate power off the cost of Swansea could be ditched.

British Gas this week announced its second price cut of the year, which together will reduce the average annual bill by around £72.

But ministers have been told that state funding for green energy and a carbon tax on coal and gas will together add £175 to the average household bill by 2030.

'We need to deal with those extra costs at the top of the electricity bill,' one Cabinet source said.  'A struggling pensioner has to pay it when she doesn't have the benefit of putting solar panels or a wind turbine on her roof.

'There is a hardening view in the Cabinet that we've got to deal with green subsidies.'

Energy Secretary Amber Rudd has warned the renewables industry and campaigners that support for the environment has to be weighed against the impact on families' energy bills.

'All that support costs money,' she said last month. 'We cannot ignore the fact that, obviously, people want subsidies if they are on the receiving end of subsidies, but we have to ensure that we get the good measure of it.

'We are trying to reduce emissions and give a variety of renewable energy, and to ensure that individuals who look at their bills when they get home see that they continue to come down.' She has ruled out backing large-scale solar farms and favours small community energy projects on people's homes and on other buildings.

There are calls in the Tory party to go further and cut or abolish subsidies given to offshore wind farms as well.

A spokesman for the Department for Energy and Climate Change said: 'Reducing energy bills for hard working British families and businesses is this government's priority.

'We've already announced reforms to remove subsidies for onshore wind, and that work to make sure bill payers are getting the best possible deal is going to continue.'

But environnemntal campaigners condemned the move. Alasdair Cameron from Friends of the Earth said: 'The Government is behaving incredibly irresponsibly in attacking renewable energy and the green economy – locking people into higher bills, bad health and dying industries.

'There is no green-cost crisis – the only problem is that renewables have done better than the Government expected. This is a problem of George Osborne's own creation.

'Renewable energy is already cheaper than nuclear and closing in on new gas, yet the UK risks being left in the dust as China, the US, Japan and Germany blaze a trail.

'We know David Cameron has said he is committed to tackling climate change but if he is to have even a shred of credibility on the world stage, and at the Paris talks, he needs to stop his Government undermining renewables and re-commit to the green economy.'

The plan is the latest stage of Conservative plans to cut the costs of going green made possible by the loss of the Lib Dems from the government.

George Osborne has also torn up the Coalition government's commitment to increasing the proportion of revenue from green taxes.

The Chancellor argues that the target of 'does not always reflect the success of government policy in achieving environmental outcomes'.

Officials stress that the government is not abandoning its commitment to the environment ahead of major climate change talks in Paris later this year.

But any support for the environment will be considered against the cost to households and business.

In a further sign of a cooling on green issues, in last week's Budget Mr Osborne announced changes to road tax which scrapped discounts for driving low emission vehicles.

He said the rules which mean three in four new cars pay no Vehicle Excise Duty 'isn't sustainable and it isn't fair'.


UK: Plane Stupid, The return of the snobs

Air travel always brings out greens' anti-masses prejudices

The stupid stunt. The costumes – one polar bear, 12 smug tossers. And the miserable, joyless ‘down with your aeroplanes’ message. It’s as if Plane Stupid hasn’t been away – which, given its objective, it probably hasn’t.

But a good few years after its headline-seeking peak, when barely a week passed without a politician being gunged by a slumming-it Hooray, or a roof being redecorated by a gang of Ruperts, Plane Stupid is back in the media spotlight, sticking two disdainful fingers up at the lifestyles of a vast swathe of humanity. This time, as the gurning selfies on its Twitterfeed told us, Plane Stupid activists had cut themselves into Heathrow, chained themselves together and to some sort of metal tripod, before lying down in the corner of the north runway. They were eventually moved, but not before over 20 flights were cancelled and countless others delayed. A good day for Plane Stupid; stupidly annoying for everyone else.

The ostensible prompt for Plane Stupid’s bumptious re-entry into public life is the prospect of a new, third runway at Heathrow, a development that picked up momentum last week with news that the Airports Commission had given a ‘clear and unanimous’ recommendation that an extra runway should be built. This was clearly too much for Plane Stupid. So, armed with just a fence-cutter, a two-for-one offer at I’m Mad, Me fancy-dress supplies, and a face-full of rosy-cheeked entitlement, Plane Stupid decided to forgo public debate, not to mention the tiresome act of having to win support from actual people, and instead simply imposed its vision of the Not-So-Good Life on people.

This is not to say that Plane Stupid doesn’t make arguments. It’s just the ones it does are so deadeningly familiar and unpersuasive. Another runway will mean more flights, and therefore more carbon emissions. As one Plane Stupid activist put it: ‘Building more runways goes against everything we’re being told by scientists and experts on climate change. This would massively increase carbon emissions exactly when we need to reduce them; that’s why we’re here.’ Or, as the anti-runway protester’s paper of choice described it, more people flying will contribute to ‘the planet’s slow cooking’.

But as always with environmentalists, the cleaving to The Science, and the retelling of the same interminable apocalyptic narrative, is fuelled by something else, too: a loathing of the lifestyles, the ambitions and the wants of the vast majority of Western society. A loathing, in short, of other people. That’s why Plane Stupid was always such a revealing manifestation of green politics. Its vainglorious disdain for people, for their desire to consume in the ‘wrong’ way, to go on holiday, to get lagered up and enjoy themselves, was always so close to the surface. Air travel was never really a practical target (its total carbon emissions amount to just six per cent of the UK’s carbon emissions). It was a symbolic target, a symbol of modernity, a symbol of man’s refusal to accept natural limits, and, as it became ever cheaper, a symbol of something else, too: the vulgarity and crassness of the easyJet-flying hordes. ‘We’re not saying that everybody who wants to fly is a bad person’, protested one anti-runway activist a little too much.

Admittedly, this loathing of the lifestyles ever-cheapening air travel facilitates was more palpable during Plane Stupid’s previous incarnation in the mid- to late-2000s. Then, with a gang of public-school wallies at the helm, the anti-masses prejudice latent in environmentalism bloomed. Targeting budget airlines like Ryanair in particular, Plane Stupid uncorked green snobbery and let it flow: ‘There’s been an enormous growth in binge-flying, with the proliferation of stag and hen nights to Eastern European destinations’, wrote Plane Stupid co-founder Joss Garman, contempt dripping from his quill. ‘[These destinations are] chosen not for their architecture or culture but because people can fly there for 99p and get loaded for a tenner.’ It was all too obvious. The object of Plane Stupid’s attacks was never really cheap flights; it was the cheap, uncultured plebs doing the flying.

The snobbery is less overt this time round. Plane Stupid’s new cadre of activists desperately stick to the environmentalist script, complete with its neutral-seeming carbon-emissions stats and sciencey tone. But behind the evidence-based sheen, the aloofness lurks. Plane Stupid is still setting itself apart from the oiks, still denouncing their lifestyles, still standing in the middle of a runway and saying to the onlooking public, their holidays and business jaunts on hold, ‘We’re better than you, more ethical, more tasteful’.

The mask slips, and the leering self-aggrandisement appears, when Plane Stupid complains about ‘unnecessary’ flying, the fact that, as one of its tweets reads, ‘growing UK aviation demand driven entirely by leisure, not business’. That’s what bugs its activists, that’s what sticks in their craw – the ever-increasing number of people choosing to travel, not because they have to, but because they want to, in order to enjoy themselves. To Plane Stupid, it appears indulgent, excessive, a sign of the West’s decadence. Of course, Plane Stupid is aware of the snobbish implications of its anti-flight strictures – hence it said that a third runway would benefit ‘the rich’.  And no one likes the rich, do they?

But the figures tell a different story. Those going on holiday from Heathrow aren’t gallivanting yahoos; they’re pretty average in financial terms. As of 2013, the average household income per year of those going on holiday from Heathrow was £53,656. Given that the average annual income for an individual is just over £26,000, and the fact that many people do live with other wage-earners, the average household income of Heathrow holidaymakers seems less than super-rich. Indeed, the average income of a family with two kids is just over £50,000. Far from being the preserve of wealthy pleasure seekers, Heathrow, and air travel in general, is increasingly serving the pleasure-seeking ends of everyone.

And that’s a good thing. But it’s also the reason why environmentalists are drawn to air travel, like snooty moths to a terribly tasteless lamp. It embodies mainstream choices and desires; a choosing to travel far and wide, and a desire for an enjoyment and pleasure (whatever shape that takes). And this, for the sort of people who join Plane Stupid, is tasteless. It is why they think they are better than us. It is why they are willing to appoint themselves as our judges. It is why they are willing to lie down on a runway and ruin hundreds of people’s plans.


Five reasons shale gas is fracking fantastic

Economically, socially and environmentally, fracking makes sense.

You wouldn’t know it from most of the mainstream UK media coverage, but, far from being the work of the Antichrist, shale gas is a great thing.

Last week, Lancashire County Council rejected a proposal from Cuadrilla for the UK’s first fracking site at Little Plumpton near Preston. It rejected the proposal, against the advice of its lawyers and planning advisers, not on environmental or safety grounds, but because of ‘unacceptable noise and impact’ and the ‘adverse urbanising effect on the landscape’. Essentially, this is a case of ‘not in my backyard’ on a massive scale that is detrimental not only to the local area, but to Britain as a whole.

Everyone knows the UK, like the rest of Europe, is facing an energy crisis. And under Lancashire and Yorkshire there is a vast, untapped reserve of shale gas. To me, this presents a pretty obvious solution to our energy problems. But in case you remain unconvinced, here are five reasons Britain should ignore the environmentalist hyperbole and get ourselves onboard with the shale-gas revolution.

It’s fracking good value

Across the pond, Americans have experienced a dramatic fall in energy prices, in large part down to the success of fracking. In Britain, energy costs are a big topic of discussion. A winter never goes by without stories of how some less well-off people, particularly pensioners, have to choose between ‘heating and eating’ during the dark, cold nights. So it seems mad not to exploit our natural resources. In comparison to oil extraction or wind power, fracking is staggeringly cheap. In America since 2009, spot prices for natural gas have averaged at $3.87, where for the five years preceding 2009 they averaged $7.46. By any standard that is an astonishing reduction in cost, which has been passed on to American customers and was also partly responsible for the dramatic reduction in petrol prices we experienced in the UK earlier this year. So, as consumers, we are already benefiting from fracking overseas.

It’s not fracking dangerous

Opponents of fracking have two main arguments: that it poisons the water supply and causes earthquakes. This helps them to paint fracking in a similar light to a Biblical plague. Admittedly, two tremors were caused by fracking near Blackpool in 2011, but these registered just 2.3 and 1.7 on the Richter scale – so low it would be unlikely to wake you up. Current legislation prohibits continued fracking if tremors above 0.5 are registered – that is equivalent to a passing bus or a slamming door, according to two engineering professors at Glasgow University. So yes, fracking does cause tremors, but so far only people in possession of a seismograph would have noticed them.

As far as contaminating the water supply goes, that only happens if the wells themselves are poorly constructed. Given that restrictions currently in place in the UK are far more prohibitive than those in the US, and that there have been very few instances of water contamination in the US anyway, the risk to UK water supplies is negligible.

It’s pretty fracking clean

Whatever your view on climate change, the fact is that there is no source of renewable energy that can come close to providing the amount of energy we need. On top of this, all sources of renewable energy currently require large government subsidies to make them remotely economically viable. Shale gas, although not renewable, is a far cleaner fuel than coal. This has been demonstrated by the significant reduction in CO2 emissions the US has seen since fracking began. Last year, the US produced less carbon than it has for 20 years; even the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) credits fracking for this development. I know most greenies want us basically to spend our days weaving our own clothes from hemp and trying to come up with some way to make carbon-neutral hummus – but anyone genuinely serious about reducing the UK’s carbon footprint has to get behind fracking.

It will create a frack-load of jobs

You know where there is a booming economy? Texas. The Lone Star State has benefitted from its natural resources for decades. The Texan mindset of entrepreneurship and preference for small government has made it one of the most successful states in the US. In 2014, Texas had 418,000 people directly employed by the oil and gas industry; there were a further 1.8million jobs in supporting industries. That is over 2.2million jobs created by a sensible approach to exploiting natural resources. The latest figures available for unemployment in the north west of England, by contrast, are above the UK national average, with significantly more men unemployed than women. This region used to have a massive coalmining industry, and many people claim that there are still areas that have not recovered from the winding down of that industry. The introduction of a new industry, like fracking, would go a very long way to solving economic and social problems in this part of the UK. An industry report estimated that fracking could create up to 64,000 jobs across Britain, as well as bringing £33 billion in investment into the UK economy over the next 16 to 18 years. Economically, refusing this gift from Gaia is insanity.

What the fracking hell else are we supposed to do?

Britain’s current largest source of renewable energy is wind, which provides us with about eight per cent of our total energy. Including all the other renewables currently available, we just about get to 15 per cent of our energy. According to the Spectator, if we only extract 10 per cent of the shale gas available in this country it could provide us with 25 years worth of gas supplies. Never mind looking any old gift horse in the mouth: as a country we are currently wasting time inspecting Red Rum’s teeth rather than riding him to victory in the energy Grand National.

Of course, the real low-carbon alternative that might actually work in place of fracking, in terms of producing enough energy so that we don’t all have to move into yurts, is nuclear power. However, given the time and money that it would take to build and run enough nuclear-power stations to create the same amount of energy we have the potential to tap into with fracking, it makes no financial sense. Oil-services company Halliburton puts the average cost of a new fracking well at around $8million (£5.1million), whereas the recently approved nuclear plant at Hinkley Point has an estimated cost of around £24.5 billion ($37.8 billion).

The simple fact is that there’s no energy source in Britain at the moment that makes more sense than shale gas. Fracking’s opponents are standing in the way of increased employment and greater energy resources. Economically, fracking is a brilliant idea; socially, it would increase employment; environmentally, it is cleaner than coal; and aesthetically, I find windfarms no less displeasing than a fracking well (plus wells have the added benefit of actually producing significant energy). Factually, the argument is won; all that’s standing in fracking’s way in Britain is selfish vested interests and wrongheaded ideologies. As Americans say: it’s time to frack, baby, frack.


Gov. Pence: ‘Indiana Will Not Comply’ With EPA’s CO2 Power Plant Regs

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence said that “Indiana will not comply” with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed regulations that would for the first time limit carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from existing power plants.

The draft regulations, known as the Clean Power Plan, “must be strenuously opposed,” Pence said, characterizing them as “a very serious threat” to the economic well-being of residents and businesses in Indiana, who rely on coal-burning power plants for 84 percent of their electricity.

Pence is one of a handful of Republican governors who are refusing to go along with the Clean Power Plan, one of the centerpieces of President Obama’s climate change agenda.

The plan sets state targets to reduce CO2 emissions from existing power plants in order to comply with Obama’s pledge to cut CO2 emissions nationwide 28 percent by 2025. It gives states one year to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) before having one imposed on them by EPA.

“We think the stakes are very high here for Hoosier ratepayers,” Pence said during a conference call with reporters last week hosted by the American Energy Alliance, which opposes the plan.

“Indiana is the number one or number two most dependent states on coal-burning power plants for our electricity. We have one of the most dynamic manufacturing economies in the country, and it is our judgment that this rule as drafted would be very harmful to the vitality of our economy and more importantly, to working families in Indiana and ratepayers across our state.

“So we have every intention of following through on our commitment not to comply,” the governor said.

 “It’s all about protecting ratepayers in Indiana,” Pence explained. “We’re very fortunate right now that Indiana is on the cusp of record employment, and our state economy has tremendous momentum. But one of the advantages in our economy has always been the affordability and reliability of electricity.

“And the fact is that here in the State of Indiana, we get 84 percent of our electricity from coal-burning power plants, and so the effort by the administration in the proposed rule that I wrote to [EPA] Administrator [Gina] McCarthy about as early as December of 2014 represents a genuine threat to the affordability of electricity. And it’s a threat to the vitality of Indiana’s economy and to similarly situated states.”

“Let me be very clear, though. I believe the EPA’s attempt to limit carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants is ill-conceived, it’s poorly constructed, but the core of our concern is that it’s going to harm Hoosier families and Hoosier businesses, small and large. Electricity prices will invariably go up dramatically if this rule in its current form were to be put into effect.

“And I also believe the EPA lacks the authority to impose this rule. And the recent MATS ruling I think supports a sense that the court is recognizing and putting new limits on the EPA’s ability to generate rules that go far afield of the law.”

Pence said he was encouraged by the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent smackdown of the agency in Michigan v. EPA, a case brought by 23 states challenging EPA’s 2012 Mercury and Air Toxic Standards (MATS) regulations governing power plant emissions.

MATS, which EPA estimated would cost Americans $10.9 billion annually, was one of several regulations the Congressional Research Service (CRS) warned would be a “train wreck” for coal-fired power, which accounted for 39 percent of all the electricity generated in the U.S. last year, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA).

On June 29, the Supreme Court ruled that “the Agency must consider cost – including, most importantly, cost of compliance – before deciding whether regulation is appropriate and necessary” under the Clean Air Act.

A study commissioned by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity estimated the cost of compliance with the Clean Power Plan would cost electricity consumers $41 billion annually – or four times the cost of the rejected MATS regulations – while reducing atmospheric CO2 by less than one-half of one percent.

Pence noted that Indiana made a decision not to comply with the CPP before the MATS ruling came out, but added that the court decision “validated” the concerns he expressed in a June 24 letter to President Obama.

Pence told the president that “this plan will force the premature closure of reliable coal-fired power plants, threatening our stable source of affordable energy…Our nation cannot afford your climate plan, and Indiana will not stand for it.”

“In my letter to the president, I essentially said that the rule must be demonstrably and significantly improved. If that doesn’t happen, Indiana will not comply. And we stand by that,” Pence said.

When asked whether Indiana was “prepared for litigation with the federal government” over the issue, Pence replied: “The short answer is yes,” adding that “it’s worth a fight.”

“No state is obligated to adopt the president’s climate change agenda as their own,” he stated. “States have to do what’s in [their] best interest.”

Noting that Indiana is “a proud coal state” with a 300-year supply, Pence added that his state is nonetheless “committed to common sense and an all-of-the-above energy strategy” that includes renewables as well as fossil fuels.

Other governors are also balking at the proposed CO2 regulations. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker sent a letter to Obama on May 21 stating that the plan could cost his state $13.4 billion in higher electricity costs.

“It is difficult to envision how Wisconsin can responsibly construct a state plan” given the “staggering costs it would inflict on Wisconsin’s homes and businesses,” Walker told the president.

In May, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott met with congressional leaders to express his “grave concerns that the EPA’s proposed action will burden Texas far more than any other state, killing jobs and stagnating Texas’ unprecedented economic growth.”

Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin signed an executive order on April 28 prohibiting state environmental officials from submitting a SIP.

“The proposed regulations seek to go beyond [EPA’s] traditional authority and regulate all aspects of state energy systems…” she wrote. “As Governor, I will not submit a Section 111(d) SIP to ensure Oklahoma’s compliance with such a clear overreach of federal authority.”

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a Republican, and West Virginia Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin, a Democrat, have also publicly stated their opposition to the plan.

EPA released its proposed Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Power Plants under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), also known as the Clean Power Plan, on June 2, 2014.

“Nationwide, the Clean Power Plan will help cut carbon pollution from the power sector by 30 percent from 2005 levels,” according to the EPA. “The proposal will also cut pollution that leads to soot and smog by over 25 percent in 2030.”

The agency is expected to finalize the regulations later this summer.

Saying that the proposed rule rests upon “a very dubious legal foundation,” Pence pointed out that “the EPA is attempting to regulate existing power plants under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, but existing power plants are already regulated under Section 112, and the EPA can’t regulate the same source under two different sections.”

“We think that simply withdrawing the rule would be the best and most appropriate legal” remedy, Pence said.

“That being said, what we would want to see short of withdrawal is a willingness by the EPA to address the concerns about cost increases….

“We do believe that this rule represents an effort by the administration to continue to advance a climate change agenda through the regulatory state and does not give due regard to the impact that that will have on electricity rates from coal-burning power plants,” he added.



For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here


No comments: