Thursday, August 13, 2015
NM Gov. Martinez: 'We Have People Preparing a Lawsuit' Against EPA
New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez (R) says her state may sue the Environmental Protection Agency for causing an environmental disaster that will have repercussions for years to come.
"I'm not taking anything off of the table. Right now, we have people preparing for a lawsuit if that is what we need to do, but nothing is off the table right now," Martinez told Fox News Tuesday morning.
"We cannot have different standards for private industry and for the federal government, and we are going to hold them accountable. The long term damage and the short-term damage is unpredictable, but we know that it's devastating."
Both New Mexico and the Navajo Nation declared a state of emergency, after toxic waste from an abandoned gold mine in Colorado flooded into the Animas and San Juan River valleys, heading toward Lake Powell in Utah, which supplies much of the water for the Southwest.
Television footage showed miles and miles of river water turned yellow from the contamination.
"We are not aware of all of the toxins that in the river," Martinez said on Tuesday. "The EPA has not been commuicating and has not been forthcoming with the State of New Mexico as to the different types of toxins."
According to press reports, the water is full of heavy metals, including lead, arsenic, and cadmium.
In a brief statement on its website, the EPA noted that on August 5, while investigating the Gold King Mine in Colorado, an EPA cleanup team triggered a large release of mine wastewater into Cement Creek.
As workers moved the debris that plugged the mine tunnel, millions of gallons of sludge spilled into a nearby creek, and from there to the other rivers.
"EPA is working closely with responders and local and state officials to monitor water contaminated by the release," the agency said.
"The release’s path flows through three of EPA’s regions -- Region 8 (Colorado/Utah & Southern Ute Tribe); Region 6 (New Mexico), and Region 9 (Navajo Nation). EPA has activated its Emergency Operations System to ensure coordination among its regions, laboratories and national program offices in Washington, D.C. EPA is closely coordinating with officials in Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Southern Ute Tribe and Navajo Nation."
But Martinez disputes the EPA's claims of close coordination: "Initially we weren't even told that the toxic spill had ended up in the river."
Martinez said it took the EPA almost 24 hours to even notify New Mexico about the spill. "And it actually didn't even come from the EPA. The Ute -- the Southern Ute Indians are the ones who actually informed us that this toxic spill had taken place into the river."
Martinez noted that the heavy metals will settle in the water, and she said the problem could be exacerbated months from now by melting snow, which could stir things up again.
"They told us that there were 1 million gallons of toxic waste that was flowing into the river initially. And then it turned inton 3 million gallons. And EPA has admitted that they are responsible for this. And I'm hoping they will hold themselves to the same standards that they would hold any other industry or business."
In the meantime, the governor said she has instructed all ranchers to keep their cattle away from the river. People in the area have been told to stay away from the yellow waters and avoid drinking from wells and systems that may have been contaminated.
Environmental activist groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club and EarthJustice, had nothing to say on their websites about the river contamination out West, although those groups are quick to blast the coal and energy industries and other (non-EPA) polluters.
Samuelson: Curbing global warming: mission impossible?
Until it’s discredited by falling temperatures, global warming is a reality. We can still debate how much has occurred and the share attributable to human activity, but the more relevant question is what — if anything — can be done about it. President Obama’s plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions from electric power plants, accounting for roughly one-third of U.S. greenhouse emissions, shows the practical limits in a democratic society.
Let’s assume, for simplicity’s sake, the plan works perfectly. It achieves its goal of reducing CO2 emissions from power plants in 2030 by 32 percent from a base year of 2005. Other problems fade. Court challenges to the regulations are rejected. The expansion of solar and wind generation does not lead to less-reliable electricity supplies. Greater efficiencies and cheap natural gas avoid sizable consumer rate increases.
Even under these favorable assumptions, Obama’s plan won’t immediately depress global temperatures, which — if the logic of climate change holds — will be higher in 2030 than today.
A refresher course in global warming explains why. What counts are the amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It’s these concentrations that are said to trap heat and raise temperatures. The concentrations have gone from roughly 280 parts per million (ppm) of CO2 in preindustrial times, around 1800, to about 315 ppm in 1960 to 400 ppm now. As long as concentrations increase, so does the potential for more warming.
Obama’s plan doesn’t reduce these concentrations. It just cuts — but does not eliminate — the annual emissions into the atmosphere. These emissions raise concentration levels, which are now growing by about 2 ppm per year, says Princeton climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer.
True, Obama’s plan might slow this a tad. However, the larger point is that ongoing power plant emissions, though diminished, would continue to boost concentration levels.
Here’s the dilemma. Eliminating fossil fuel emissions from coal, oil and natural gas would presumably stabilize most human impact on global warming. But if done now, it would also destroy modern economies, because fossil fuels provide four-fifths of the world’s primary energy. There’s no quick way of finding substitutes for all the fossil fuels. A single-minded focus on global warming would plunge the world into depression.
Politicians straddle the dilemma by talking tough on global warming while giving priority to the economy. Obama’s approach seems in this spirit. His rhetoric last week was stark.
“No challenge poses a greater threat to our future and future generations than a changing climate,” he said.
Compared with this threat, his plan is modest. Indeed, it builds on existing trends. Electric utilities have already cut CO2 emissions by about 15 percent since 2005 by switching from coal to cheap natural gas, which has about half of coal’s emissions.
We need more candor on global warming. Obama’s plan is a big deal for electric utilities and, if it goes awry, potentially for millions of households. The plan is complicated. States receive emissions goals and can meet the goals through various policies (energy efficiencies, a cap-and-trade program, a carbon tax, more natural gas generation, preferences for wind and solar). Love it or hate it, the plan still contributes to higher CO2 concentrations. It may be worth doing; we may learn valuable lessons. But it’s no panacea.
Similar considerations apply globally. In 2010, major countries adopted a goal of limiting the worldwide temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) from the preindustrial period. The International Energy Agency (IEA) in Paris recently estimated that meeting this goal would, in effect, require all fossil fuel emissions to be eliminated by 2040.
Needless to say, this isn’t going to happen. As the IEA has noted, countries’ policies “fall short of the action necessary to meet the 2 degrees Celsius climate goal.”
There is a “mission impossible” quality to curbing global warming, though few say so openly. The dependence of economic growth on fossil fuels seems too strong to overcome.
There are two hopes for doing so. One is that the warming predicted by some computer models is overstated; there is much uncertainty.
The second hope is that technological breakthroughs liberate economic growth from fossil fuels. It’s easy to list desirable advances: better batteries and electricity storage (this would favor more wind and solar power); safer and cheaper nuclear power; and cost-effective “carbon capture” (this would store power plants’ emissions underground).
The Internet shows that rapid technological revolutions are possible. On the other hand, these energy technologies have been explored for decades — and still aren’t available.
EPA's global warming rule will kill Wisconsin jobs
The federal Environmental Protection Agency issued its final global warming rule for coal-fired power plants recently. If allowed to go into effect, the rule will kill Wisconsin factory jobs and force families to pay more for their electricity.
There are many reasons why the EPA's rule is bad for Wisconsin and our country, but for the sake of brevity, I have boiled the list down to the top five reasons it will be a self-inflicted wound on our economy and global competitiveness.
1. The rule will be extremely costly. Previous estimates from state utility regulators predicted total costs ranging from $3.4 billion to $13.4 billion for Wisconsin power plants. The final rule actually requires stricter emission targets for Wisconsin, thus driving energy prices higher. These higher costs will be paid by every family and business in Wisconsin that uses electricity.
2. The rule will kill middle-class jobs. Manufacturers cannot compete in domestic or global markets unless they have access to affordable and reliable energy. The EPA rule will raise electricity prices, driving factory jobs overseas to countries such as China. Wisconsin will be hit especially hard because manufacturing is our No. 1 business sector. The unfortunate reality is that thousands of middle-class factory workers will pay the price for these regulations with their jobs.
3. The rule is ineffective. Regardless of what you think about the science of global warming, it's clear the EPA rule will not have a meaningful impact on global temperature. An analysis of the prior version of the rule, using the EPA's own data and assumptions, predicted it would reduce the average global temperature by a minuscule 0.016 degrees Fahrenheit. It also would reduce sea levels by 0.01 inches, or about the thickness of three sheets of paper. Despite its oppressive economic cost, the rule will produce negligible climate benefits — it's all pain and no gain.
4. The rule sets poor energy policy. The United States is blessed with abundant energy, yet the EPA rule sets us on the path to energy scarcity — and the higher costs that accompany it. Our country has the largest coal reserves in the world — more than 250 years of supply — but the EPA rule seeks to cut ourselves off from this abundant, affordable and domestic source of energy. Instead of using coal to our strategic energy advantage against competitors such as China, President Barack Obama and his EPA are making coal economically untenable.
5.The rule is illegal. The EPA goes far beyond the authority granted by Congress to regulate power plants, and instead seeks to regulate activity "outside the fence" of these facilities. For example, the rule seeks to impose economywide energy efficiency and renewable energy mandates that EPA has no authority to impose. The new rule also contemplates state and regional cap-and-trade emission schemes — an idea specifically rejected by Congress on a bipartisan basis. How could the EPA possibly have authority that Congress deliberately opted against giving it?
Of course we all want to breathe clean air, but we don't need to destroy our economy with misguided global warming rules to get there. In reality, power plant emissions that cause smog and soot have been reduced by 75% and 82% respectively since 1980.
Quite simply, the EPA's new global warming rule is an economic disaster waiting to happen. The unelected Washington D.C. bureaucrats are steering our economy on a collision course with unaffordable energy and lost jobs. Our only hope is for federal courts to steer us back on track by invalidating this costly rule.
Claims of Global Warming Health Threat Receive Pushback
Many health care experts disagree with claims made in a report in the Lancet supporting President Barack Obama’s assertion climate change poses a public health threat through increased risk of food insecurity and air pollution, among many other things.
The article argues air pollution can cause allergies and asthma; drought could lead to food shortages; and degraded ecosystems could increase human contact with pests carrying vector-borne diseases.
“Here is a better message for doctors to give their patients: The moderate warming that is now being forecast for the foreseeable future will actually be good for health,” said John Goodman, president of the Goodman Institute for Public Policy Research.
“It will produce larger harvests and more abundant food at lower prices,” Goodman said. “It will also reduce the number of deaths from extreme cold.”
Politics ‘in the Exam Room’
Obama and officials in his administration have attempted a number of times in recent months to link global warming and public health problems. They argue doctors should warn their patients global warming could make their health worse, says Beth Haynes, M.D., executive director of the Benjamin Rush Institute.
“The call to inject global warming propaganda into medical practice and training is indicative of the problems created when government is overly involved in medicine,” said Haynes. “Politics do not belong in the exam room or on the official curriculum for medical training.”
“Obama wants your doctor to dose you with EPA’s brand of alarmist propaganda,” said Competitive Enterprise Institute Senior fellow Marlo Lewis Jr. “For example, EPA’s recent ‘Benefits of Global Action’ report claims that unchecked global warming will kill 57,000 Americans in 2100 [due to] increasing ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) air pollution.
To get that scary number, EPA models the impact of an implausible 9º F warming on today’s ozone-precursor and PM2.5 emissions, even though all significant sources of U.S. air pollution will likely have been eliminated long before 2100.”
Lewis concluded, “Americans want their doctors to practice real medicine, not climate quackery.”
Just When the Science Was Settled...
In a move reminiscent of the tobacco industry invoking science to move its product, Coca-Cola has turned to science to prove that soda is not the cause of obesity — the lack of exercise is.
The New York Times reports, “Health experts say this message is misleading and part of an effort by Coke to deflect criticism about the role sugary drinks have played in the spread of obesity and Type 2 diabetes.”
It’s yet another attempt to use Science as propaganda to advance a cause — just like the government has said “the science is settled” when it comes to the issue of global warming.
But while the government insists human industry is the cause of rising temperatures and government must restructure the economy as a result, keep in mind that government science can’t even decide if skipping breakfast is good or bad.
While the government has said in the past that breakfast is the most important meal of the day, one that would stabilize the body’s metabolism, a recent study found that those who skipped breakfast either lost or maintained their weight.
While the government is questioning its stance on eating bacon first thing in the morning, remember: You can trust them on global warming.
“We Are Now Starting To See A Dramatic Cooling In The Arctic”, Says Former NOAA Meteorologist
Trillions are being spent on the completely wrong scenario, an independent veteran meteorologist implies. Instead of warming, we need to worry about the coming 125-year cool period, which has already begun.
A former National Weather Service (NWS) meteorologist has spoken out in a just released 49-minute video that looks at climate change and what lies ahead.
The recent cold winters and expanding polar ice caps are ominous signs of a global cooling that has already begun, maintains David Dilley, now President and Founder of Global Weather Oscillations, Inc. Claims of warming have not been properly founded.
Photo right: David Dilley, Global Weather Oscillations
Dilley has forty-two years of professional experience in the meteorology and climatology and many publications. He was with NOAA for twenty years. Not only is the government wrong with its claims of a coming warming, Dilley accuses the federal government of fiddling with global temperature data with the aim of producing a false picture of what is going on.
In his must-see video presentation dubbed “Is Climate Change Dangerous?“, he examines the many drivers and factors behind climate change and why we need to focus on the real problem of a coming cooling.
Here are the points he makes in the video:
1. The 18+ years temperature pause is real. (4.09)
2. Natural cycles are behind the current pause.
3. Ice cores show CO2 lags temperature. (5.00)
4. 7000 years ago there was 50% less Arctic ice. (8.20)
5. The 1000-year cycle is real. (9.20)
6. Planet has been cooling over past 10,000 years. (9.34)
7. Natural cycles are driving our climate. (10.04)
8. Shows cooling from 2023 to 2150.
9. Current warming is perfectly natural.
10. Milankovitch cycles driving large-scale cycles. (13.00)
11. Gravitational forces can bulge Earth’s core by 1.4 km (15.35)
12. Gravitational forces impact global temperature (17.20)
13. Warming and cooling both begin at the poles (17.48)
14. Arctic warming/melt was caused by warm ocean pulses (19.50)
15. “Now starting to see a dramatic cooling in the Arctic“. (22.50)
16. “Arctic is cooling rapidly now. Rapidly!” (24.06)
17. Both poles are cooling rapidly now. (25.05(
18. Poles don’t show signs of warming. (26.30)
19. Western drought and Eastern cold due to 26-year cycle. (27.55)
20. Polar vortices due to Arctic/global cooling. (29.25)
21. Lunar cycles correlated with warming/cooling cycles. (31.30)
22. Rapid global cooling by 2019. (32.00)
23. “Temperature fiddling” are “more political than anything”. (32.56)
24. “Could be the biggest scientific scandal ever”. (33.20)
25. IPCC using “estimated temperatures”. (34.00)
26. How the government manipulated, rewrote data. (36.00)
27. “This is temperature fiddling.” Not the truth. (36.45)
28. NASA, NOAA’s “politically driven press releases”. (37.00)
29. Met Office calls NOAA’s 2014 claim untrue. (38.00)
30. Major data fiddling, cheating by NOAA. (39.50)
31. “The 97% consensus is bogus”. (41.00)
32. John Cook cooked the consensus data. (41.30)
33. 85% meteorologists say climate change is natural. (42.20)
34. Global cooling is the real danger. (43.20)
35. Volcanoes and cooling often correlated. (44.00)
36. Crop failures from cooling “very likely”. (45.45)
37. “Extremely cold” from 2025 to 2050. (46.36)
38. Global cooling next 125 years. (47.00)
39. “The cooling is coming”.
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
Posted by JR at 12:33 AM