In the September 26 issue C&E News, there is an excellent article entitled, "EPA Stalls on CO2 Rule s". Quoting from the article, "EPA has backtracked from its scheduled release of rules limiting greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired electric utilities. Instead EPA said in a statement it will issue the proposal "soon"."
This is good news, but the best news would be that EPA would give up this proposal altogether. Trying to control CO2 emissions from power plants would be a disastrous undertaking in view of the tremendous cost and the obvious fact that it would be completely unnecessary. There has been no information that CO2 has had any detrimental effect on our health, economy and particularly climate. All negativity has been speculation.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Saturday, October 1, 2011
The Department Of Energy (DOE) Unjustly Criticizes CO2 Emissions
The September 5 issue of C&E News has an article entitled, "Greenhouse Gas Versus the Economy". The Energy Information Administration (EIA) says that the first time in more than 20 years, CO2 emissions grew more than the GDP did last year. The article says that the EIA is an independent agency in the Department Of Energy (DOE). Since they all work for Obama how can they be independent?
Therefore, I have no conviction that these figures are even relevant.
I haven't had any difficulty breathing with the increased CO2 in the air. I haven't noticed that there is a considerable increase in plant growth from the increased CO2 concentrations, but some biologists claim that there is.
Mostly, the article is intended to reflect on climate change in a very negative way. However, I repeat again that no correlation has been found between CO2 concentration and negative climate change. Greenhouse gases do exist. They include nitrogen and oxygen, which are the majority concentrations in the atmosphere, and the increased concentrations of CO2 are insignificant.
Therefore, I have no conviction that these figures are even relevant.
I haven't had any difficulty breathing with the increased CO2 in the air. I haven't noticed that there is a considerable increase in plant growth from the increased CO2 concentrations, but some biologists claim that there is.
Mostly, the article is intended to reflect on climate change in a very negative way. However, I repeat again that no correlation has been found between CO2 concentration and negative climate change. Greenhouse gases do exist. They include nitrogen and oxygen, which are the majority concentrations in the atmosphere, and the increased concentrations of CO2 are insignificant.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
The Idea of Controlling Climate through CO2 Emissions Is Dying
In the August 8 issue of C&E News, Cheryl Hogue has an article entitled "Commitments are Running Out". The subtitle is "Possibilities For New Global Climate Treaty Are Slim", which is good news.
The Kyoto Accord to reduce CO2 emissions is about to expire. The 37 countries involved have continued discussions. A proposed binding agreement in December 2009 Copenhagen failed. The next meeting is scheduled for Durban, South Africa. Havercamp, a director of an environmental group says that the Durban Meeting will probably not be able to achieve really significant commitments to global emissions. The reason given is that there is lack of US action, because of an uncooperative Congress. Hooray for the U.S. Congress, they're finally doing something right.
I am not denying that there is a phenomenon of climate change. Climate always changes. The question is whether destroying the economic integrity of the United States by CO2 emission control, on a weak supposition that it will have a positive effect, is not justifiable.
The Kyoto Accord to reduce CO2 emissions is about to expire. The 37 countries involved have continued discussions. A proposed binding agreement in December 2009 Copenhagen failed. The next meeting is scheduled for Durban, South Africa. Havercamp, a director of an environmental group says that the Durban Meeting will probably not be able to achieve really significant commitments to global emissions. The reason given is that there is lack of US action, because of an uncooperative Congress. Hooray for the U.S. Congress, they're finally doing something right.
I am not denying that there is a phenomenon of climate change. Climate always changes. The question is whether destroying the economic integrity of the United States by CO2 emission control, on a weak supposition that it will have a positive effect, is not justifiable.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Rep. Neugebauer's Position on CO2/Climate Change
Rep. Neugebauer was previously asked for his position concerning the relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and climate change. I have had a personal response from one of the Randy's staff members. She says they are working on a revision of their CO2/climate change form letter.
Meanwhile, here is an excerpt from one of the presently available form letters:
"I am pleased to inform you that I have already co-sponsored and voted for legislation that constrains the EPA’s ill-advised regulations. For example, I cosponsored and voted in favor of H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, which passed the House by a vote of 255-172 on April 7, 2011. This bill would prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) under the Clean Air Act. It would also block the Agency’s attempt to extend an unprecedented level of control over vast sectors of the U.S. economy through unilateral regulation of GHGs, which amounts to a massive energy tax on all Americans. I also recently voted in support of H.R. 2021, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act, which closes a loophole that previously enabled the EPA to deny permits for exploratory offshore drilling on the Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf. For five years, the EPA had been using the Clean Air Act as justification to deny permits and had created an unnecessary, job-killing moratorium on development in the Arctic, even after President Obama’s Oil Spill Commission determined that the moratorium was unjustified. H.R. 2021 passed the House by a vote of 253 to 166 on June 22, 2011.
Please rest assured that I will do everything I can to keep the EPA in line."
With this above section, I'm convinced Randy is on the right track. However, the problem I see is that even with the House passing these bills, nothing becomes effective until the Senate also agrees and Obama signs them into law, which is highly unlikely. I think Randy and other House members must take a more innovative approach. Obama is already using one of them in that by Legislative Order he can circumvent anything from Congress. While this is a dictatorial technique, which should not be part of our government, it apparently exists and is effective in destroying our economy and establishing a Communistic/Socialistic state. I don't know how this can be stopped. Obama has already done a tremendous amount of damage to our economy and the country as a whole. I shudder to think of what else he can do in the more than one year he has left as term in office.
I wonder if Congress can sue in the Supreme Court that the Administration must conduct or decease certain actions.
Meanwhile, here is an excerpt from one of the presently available form letters:
"I am pleased to inform you that I have already co-sponsored and voted for legislation that constrains the EPA’s ill-advised regulations. For example, I cosponsored and voted in favor of H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, which passed the House by a vote of 255-172 on April 7, 2011. This bill would prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) under the Clean Air Act. It would also block the Agency’s attempt to extend an unprecedented level of control over vast sectors of the U.S. economy through unilateral regulation of GHGs, which amounts to a massive energy tax on all Americans. I also recently voted in support of H.R. 2021, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act, which closes a loophole that previously enabled the EPA to deny permits for exploratory offshore drilling on the Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf. For five years, the EPA had been using the Clean Air Act as justification to deny permits and had created an unnecessary, job-killing moratorium on development in the Arctic, even after President Obama’s Oil Spill Commission determined that the moratorium was unjustified. H.R. 2021 passed the House by a vote of 253 to 166 on June 22, 2011.
Please rest assured that I will do everything I can to keep the EPA in line."
With this above section, I'm convinced Randy is on the right track. However, the problem I see is that even with the House passing these bills, nothing becomes effective until the Senate also agrees and Obama signs them into law, which is highly unlikely. I think Randy and other House members must take a more innovative approach. Obama is already using one of them in that by Legislative Order he can circumvent anything from Congress. While this is a dictatorial technique, which should not be part of our government, it apparently exists and is effective in destroying our economy and establishing a Communistic/Socialistic state. I don't know how this can be stopped. Obama has already done a tremendous amount of damage to our economy and the country as a whole. I shudder to think of what else he can do in the more than one year he has left as term in office.
I wonder if Congress can sue in the Supreme Court that the Administration must conduct or decease certain actions.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Carbon Dioxide and Climate Change
Randy,
I have received from one of my political advisers a message concerning your opinion on the subject of carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere and possible effect on climate change. My associate has already described the question better than I can.
Here is what he had to say, "Have you asked Randy for a yes or no answer to whether he agrees that carbon dioxide has a significant effect on climate change? He can either say yes, no, or equivocate (or not respond). If no, encourage him to educate other members of Congress. If yes, challenge him to provide some scientific evidence ) which, of course, he cannot. If he equivocates, chide him for being ignorant or more interested in politics than the welfare of our Republic. If he does not respond, keep asking him again and again, and, finally,
include local letters to the editor of how remiss he is in his responsibilities as a Representative."
May I have your response, either direct or by form letter?
I have received from one of my political advisers a message concerning your opinion on the subject of carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere and possible effect on climate change. My associate has already described the question better than I can.
Here is what he had to say, "Have you asked Randy for a yes or no answer to whether he agrees that carbon dioxide has a significant effect on climate change? He can either say yes, no, or equivocate (or not respond). If no, encourage him to educate other members of Congress. If yes, challenge him to provide some scientific evidence ) which, of course, he cannot. If he equivocates, chide him for being ignorant or more interested in politics than the welfare of our Republic. If he does not respond, keep asking him again and again, and, finally,
include local letters to the editor of how remiss he is in his responsibilities as a Representative."
May I have your response, either direct or by form letter?
Congress Must Control the EPA on Carbon Dioxide Emissions
Open letter to Rep. Neugebauer.
Randy,
There has been a lot of confusion on who can control carbon dioxide emissions from various industrial operations, such as generation of electricity from coal burning power plants. Some individual States, Federal Trial Courts, and Courts of Appeals have previously claimed this right.
However, the US Supreme Court has put an end to that controversy. It concluded that regulating carbon dioxide is a job which Congress reserved for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act.
This is both good and news. In organized society, we need to know who has responsibility for any legal aspects. Designating a specific organization is the good news. Designating the EPA is the news.
We know from much previous analysis that carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere have no significant effect on climate change, but the EPA does not accept that fact. This happens for political reasons. It is the intention of the Obama Administration to develop alternate energy sources (solar and wind) and reduce dependence on oil, and apparently on coal as prime energy sources. We don't know why the Obama Administration has decided on this objective. It seems inconceivable that Obama would intentionally destroy our economy and our society. It is more conceivable that he would use this to develop world socialism through redistribution of wealth, with a taxation process.
The EPA is an agency that operates under the direction of the Obama Administration. Obama is the boss. He develops the rules to follow, and the EPA and its employees are supposed to be good soldiers and follow those rules. This is as it should be in any organization. Collective support and loyalty to a particular program are paramount to the continued existence of an organization. This is true whether it's on a corporate level or in government. Unfortunately, it has its downside. One example is the support of the German people to the Nazi government during World War II, leading to mass extermination of millions of Jews. This is an extreme example, and it's quite possible that employees who are not morally convinced concerning objectives of an organization have the option of lying to themselves for benefits and salary or leaving the organization to pursue other endeavors. We don't know which it is with the EPA and its employees, probably a little of both.
However, the real control lies in Congress. Congress set up the EPA. Congress can take down the EPA. Congress can also specify certain actions that the EPA is allowed to pursue.
Randy, you are a member of Congress. It's up to you and your associates to have the EPA work under a set of rules which will not destroy our economy and society.
Randy,
There has been a lot of confusion on who can control carbon dioxide emissions from various industrial operations, such as generation of electricity from coal burning power plants. Some individual States, Federal Trial Courts, and Courts of Appeals have previously claimed this right.
However, the US Supreme Court has put an end to that controversy. It concluded that regulating carbon dioxide is a job which Congress reserved for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act.
This is both good and news. In organized society, we need to know who has responsibility for any legal aspects. Designating a specific organization is the good news. Designating the EPA is the news.
We know from much previous analysis that carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere have no significant effect on climate change, but the EPA does not accept that fact. This happens for political reasons. It is the intention of the Obama Administration to develop alternate energy sources (solar and wind) and reduce dependence on oil, and apparently on coal as prime energy sources. We don't know why the Obama Administration has decided on this objective. It seems inconceivable that Obama would intentionally destroy our economy and our society. It is more conceivable that he would use this to develop world socialism through redistribution of wealth, with a taxation process.
The EPA is an agency that operates under the direction of the Obama Administration. Obama is the boss. He develops the rules to follow, and the EPA and its employees are supposed to be good soldiers and follow those rules. This is as it should be in any organization. Collective support and loyalty to a particular program are paramount to the continued existence of an organization. This is true whether it's on a corporate level or in government. Unfortunately, it has its downside. One example is the support of the German people to the Nazi government during World War II, leading to mass extermination of millions of Jews. This is an extreme example, and it's quite possible that employees who are not morally convinced concerning objectives of an organization have the option of lying to themselves for benefits and salary or leaving the organization to pursue other endeavors. We don't know which it is with the EPA and its employees, probably a little of both.
However, the real control lies in Congress. Congress set up the EPA. Congress can take down the EPA. Congress can also specify certain actions that the EPA is allowed to pursue.
Randy, you are a member of Congress. It's up to you and your associates to have the EPA work under a set of rules which will not destroy our economy and society.
Monday, July 4, 2011
New Industrial/Socialist Complex to Fleece Individual US Taxpayers
The global warming hucksters are still after your dollar. They want to redistribute wealth, if there is anything left after they first bleed you.
The topic has been changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change". It was found that Global Warming was a little too specific. It was directly connected with the theory that increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would increase Earth temperatures and cause massive devastation. That fear mongering has been pretty much ridiculed, based on the lack of science logic to support it. However the idea has not been completely discarded and is still supported by new imaginative terms such as "Radiative Forcing", which no one can really give a clear picture of what it actually is. Even the U.S. Congress has started to question global warming as related to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
In addition to changing the name of the topic, the hucksters have now developed a very clever approach. That is to obtain the support of major science industries, who will petition Congress for climate change (global warming) regulation. We will then be back to CO2 emission control, taxing, installing unnecessary emissions capture equipment, and subsequent redistribution of wealth.
This is not really very difficult to do, since the science industry would gain a lot of business through production of chemical control products machinery and construction, whether the objective is justified or not. These are business decisions, and in industry businessmen make the company decisions. Scientists in industry only make recommendations, and they generally tend to support the business leaders, who also control the salaries.
However, the global warming hucksters still use a somewhat devious approach. They ask industry whether industrial philosophy of flexibility, rather than rigidity, will help guarantee that a company will remain in business. You know the obvious answer to that one. It's "yes". The second question is, since climate change is an established fact (one day it's cloudy, the next day it is not), would it not be helpful to know more about climate change and how to control it. The obvious answer is again "yes".
The third question is would you support government research, to establish more information on climate change and allow it to help you in developing new products and protecting the longevity of your business. The obvious answer is again "yes". In this case the affirmative is based on a simple decision that it will cost the companies nothing. All they have to do is holler at Congress, which they been doing anyhow. Congress will listen, because industry is a good source of their campaign funds.
If this thing comes to pass, it will be an unnecessary waste of assets not only in continuing ridiculous grants from government agencies, such as NSF, to academic institutions for "research" to support the fallacy. More importantly, the tremendous waste in building unnecessary CO2 control operations will accelerate the bleeding of the already jeopardized taxpayer.
The only defense against this onslaught is an informed public which actually has the voting right to congressional seats and to convince Congress that this right will be used, in spite of any massive propaganda advertising by an Industrial/Socialist Complex.
Reference: C&E News June 27, 2011, page 13, Climate Change by Marc Reisch
The topic has been changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change". It was found that Global Warming was a little too specific. It was directly connected with the theory that increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would increase Earth temperatures and cause massive devastation. That fear mongering has been pretty much ridiculed, based on the lack of science logic to support it. However the idea has not been completely discarded and is still supported by new imaginative terms such as "Radiative Forcing", which no one can really give a clear picture of what it actually is. Even the U.S. Congress has started to question global warming as related to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
In addition to changing the name of the topic, the hucksters have now developed a very clever approach. That is to obtain the support of major science industries, who will petition Congress for climate change (global warming) regulation. We will then be back to CO2 emission control, taxing, installing unnecessary emissions capture equipment, and subsequent redistribution of wealth.
This is not really very difficult to do, since the science industry would gain a lot of business through production of chemical control products machinery and construction, whether the objective is justified or not. These are business decisions, and in industry businessmen make the company decisions. Scientists in industry only make recommendations, and they generally tend to support the business leaders, who also control the salaries.
However, the global warming hucksters still use a somewhat devious approach. They ask industry whether industrial philosophy of flexibility, rather than rigidity, will help guarantee that a company will remain in business. You know the obvious answer to that one. It's "yes". The second question is, since climate change is an established fact (one day it's cloudy, the next day it is not), would it not be helpful to know more about climate change and how to control it. The obvious answer is again "yes".
The third question is would you support government research, to establish more information on climate change and allow it to help you in developing new products and protecting the longevity of your business. The obvious answer is again "yes". In this case the affirmative is based on a simple decision that it will cost the companies nothing. All they have to do is holler at Congress, which they been doing anyhow. Congress will listen, because industry is a good source of their campaign funds.
If this thing comes to pass, it will be an unnecessary waste of assets not only in continuing ridiculous grants from government agencies, such as NSF, to academic institutions for "research" to support the fallacy. More importantly, the tremendous waste in building unnecessary CO2 control operations will accelerate the bleeding of the already jeopardized taxpayer.
The only defense against this onslaught is an informed public which actually has the voting right to congressional seats and to convince Congress that this right will be used, in spite of any massive propaganda advertising by an Industrial/Socialist Complex.
Reference: C&E News June 27, 2011, page 13, Climate Change by Marc Reisch
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
