The EPA Myth of “Clean Power”

By Alan Caruba

Cartoon EPA Torture Report
Cartoon EPA Torture Report
Alan Caruba
Alan Caruba

New Jersey -(Ammoland.com)- There are many things I do not like about the Environmental Protection Agency, but what angers me most are the lies that stream forth from it to justify programs that have no basis in fact or science and which threaten the economy.

Currently, its “Clean Power” plan is generating its latest and most duplicitous Administrator, Gina McCarthy, to go around saying that it will not be costly, nor cost jobs. “Clean Power” is the name given to the EPA policy to reduce overall U.S. carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 30% from 2005 levels by 2030. It is requiring each state to cut its emissions by varying amounts using a baseline established by the EPA.

Simply said, there is no need whatever to reduce CO2 emissions. Carbon dioxide is not “a pollutant” as the EPA claims. It is, along with oxygen for all living creatures, vital to the growth of all vegetation. The more CO2 the better crops yields will occur, healthier forests, and greener lawns. From a purely scientific point of view, it is absurd to reduce emissions.

Writing in The Wall Street Journal on April 22, Kenneth C. Hill, Director of the Tennessee Regulatory Authority, said, “Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) set off a firestorm when he advised states not to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan. Yet that advice isn’t as radical as his detractors make it sound. As a state public utilities commissioner who deals with the effects of federal regulations on a regular basis, I also recommend that states not comply.”

Noting its final due date in June, that refusal would impose a Federal Implementation Plan on states “that risks even greater harm,” said Hill. “But the problem for the EPA is that the federal government lacks the legal authority under either the Constitution or the Clean Air Act to enforce most of the regulation’s ‘building blocks’ without states’ acquiescence.”

As this is being written there is are two joined cases before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, State of West Virginia v EPA and Murray Energy v EPA. They are a challenge to President Obama’s “War on Coal” and the EPA efforts to regulate its use. Fifteen states, along with select coal companies, have sued for an “extraordinary whit” to prevent the EPA from promulgating the new carbon regulations found it the Clean Power plan.

Writing in The Hill, Richard O. Faulk, an attorney and senior director for Energy Natural Resources and the Environment for the Law and Economics Center at George Mason University, noted that “The EPA’s argument confidently hinges on convincing the courts that the Clean Air Act doesn’t mean what it says. By its plain language, the bill prohibits the EPA from regulating the power plants from which these emissions derive. Moreover, coal plants are already addressed under an entirely different section of the bill than the one EPA insists justifies its powers.”

The latest news as reported by Myron Ebell, the director for energy and environment of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, is that “Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) this week introduced a bill to block the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed rules to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new and existing power plants. S. 1324, the Affordable Reliable Energy Now Act, has 26 original co-sponsors, including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee Chairman James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), and Democrat Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).”

“Both Majority Leader McConnell and Chairman Inhofe have said that they are determined to stop EPA’s greenhouse gas rules, so I expect quick action to move Capito’s bill. In the House, a bill to block the rules, H.R. 2042, the Ratepayer Protection Act, was voted out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee on 29th April and is awaiting floor action.”

It’s worth noting that, when Obama took office, fifty percent of America’s electrical energy was supplied by coal-fired plants and, just six years later, that has been reduced by ten percent. What kind of President would deliberately reduce American’s access to affordable power?

It’s the same kind of President that believes—or says he does—the pronouncements of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC’s “Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report” claims that world will face “severe, pervasive and irreversible damage” if coal-fired and other carbon-based—coal, oil, and natural gas—energy sources aren't replaced with “renewable energy sources”—wind and solar—by 2050. It wants fossil-fueled power generation “phased out almost entirely by 2100.” Now this is just insanity, unless your agenda is to destroy the world’s economic system and kill millions. That would be the only outcome of the IPCC recommendations.

The columnist Larry Bell, a professor at the University of Houston, points out that “As for expecting renewables to fill in the power curve, European Union experiences offer a painful reality check. Approximately 7.8 percent of Germany’s electricity comes from wind, 4.5 percent from solar. Large as a result, German households already fork out for the second highest power costs in Europe—often as much as 30 percent above the levels seen in other European countries. Power interruptions add to buyer’s remorse.”

As reported in The Heartland Institute’s Environment & Climate News, “European governments, once at the vanguard of renewable energy mandates, appear to be having second thoughts about their reliance on giant wind farms…”

There has been a sharp drop in such projects with installations plunging 90% in Denmark, 75% in Italy, and 84% in Spain. What the EPA is attempting to impose on America is a drain on our production of electricity coupled with an increase in its price. It is an obscene attack on our economy.

© Alan Caruba, 2015

About Alan Caruba

Alan Caruba’s commentaries are posted daily at “Warning Signs” his popular blog and thereafter on dozens of other websites and blogs. If you love to read, visit his monthly report on new books at Bookviews.

  • 8 thoughts on “The EPA Myth of “Clean Power”

    1. He actually has a valid point guys. During the Cretacious period CO2 levels in the atmosphere were significantly higher than they are now. The fundamental change in ecology that reduced those levels was overforesration. People do need to control how much toxic waste they produce but humanity is not the extreme cause of global warming, which is a myth from the chemistry point of view. Overpopulation with the easy access to a silly number of fossil fueled highway conveyances does play a part in the emmission of harmful greenhouse gasses. But CO2 isn’t the dangerous one.

      Want to help the environment? Stop popping out kids like humanity is going extinct. Wear a condom or get tied. And for Gods’ sake plant a tree instead of grass. Trees are what cleans our atmosphere most constructively and efficiently. I hate seeing all of those chemically greener lawns. Tell you HOA to stuff it and throw in an Elm. Big leafy things just love what you exhale regardless of what some liberal beaurocrat says to the contrary.

    2. Matt
      Nice try, but we are educated in how carbon dating works and how isotopes are changing, does not change the picture at all. Cancer cells are not “your cells” they are mutants, so your comparisons does not wash either. So back to Ron White’s theory – “You can’t fix stupid”.

    3. “From a purely scientific point of view”
      I do not think you are particularly well disciplined in using the scientific method, given that you make a broad hypothesis that self funds its own conclusion. To paraphrase: “If plants utilize it, it’s not a pollutant.” That argument holds as much validity as saying the following; since they are my cells, cancer isn’t malignant. It seems your logic is flawed in a way that you will only see if you emotionally divest yourself from the problem. Ego nor hubris aids science, only patient measurements do.

      Moving a step further, where are your metrics? You fault their numbers but provide not your own measurements that prove the contrary. What emission verses consumption rates did you measure? Did you check any ice core samples for dissolved gas content? How about carbon dating the carbon in the molecule to see whose carbon dioxide is really up there?

      For me, the jaw dropping moment came when I learned about the combination of the improvements in carbon dating accuracy and our sampling of the air we breathe to find which isotopes of carbon are floating around in co2 molecules. Not only can we basically tell whose molecules are whose, we can very accurately approximate how many are mother nature’s and how many have been released from fossil fuels by humans. All those millions of years under rock let the carbon 14 content change independently from the atmosphere, and we can see a very noticeable change (over a very short time in recent history) in the ratios in the atmosphere that near perfectly correlates with humans learning to burn fossil fuels. While plants can’t tell the difference in isotopes, dumping this fossil fuel reserve of carbon into the air will as surely ruin our experience on earth as dumping the whole jar of sugar into the cake. Yeah, we’d have eaten it all eventually, but that much that fast isn’t going to feel too good.

      Part of the problem may lie with the fact that people have a hard time imagining that the earth was very different long, long ago. Not always has our atmosphere been such a habitable temperature, not has it always been breathable to us. I suppose the first step is imagining a timescale longer than 6000 years….unless you don’t believe in science.

    4. It would be easier if you moved to Germany Jamie. At what point will you concede there is NO scientific evidence to support the claim you are making. I think you should quit the cool aid, kid .

    5. Global Warming is a complete myth and lie by the Global Elites. The top Scientists in the world have blown the whistle on this Fraud and Scam perpetrated on the entire world. If anything Global Warming has been hit
      with an “InConvenient Iceberg” the last few years as winters have become colder & snowfall is at record highs, & blizzards more frequent. God will not be mocked.

    6. There is a huge body of evidence to the contrary. CO2 is causing harm to our planet. over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject ‘global climate change’ and ‘global warming’ published between 1991 and 2011 (Cook et al. 2013) found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it. There is also evidence that sources of clean energy would create even more high tech jobs than the dirty sources of power they are replacing.

      1. Jaime, it is good to read your intelligent response to Mr. Caruba’s drivel. It is apparent that air pollution caused by human use of fossil fuels has a progressive and negative impact on our rapidly overpopulating world.

      2. Well, if sources of clean energy will create more jobs it begs one simple question, why haven’t they? The answer is very simple, the technology is not yet there. The only way that solar, wind etc have been able to survive so far are with huge government subsidies, subsidies which the government has absolutely no business giving for this industry or any other. If this administration wanted to create countless jobs it could by getting the hell out of the way of oil exploration and drilling. We have more oil then virtually any other nation on earth. While we’re using that oil, exploration and advancement IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR will occur into alternative energy sources, unhampered, unfettered and most importantly unaided by government.

    Leave a Comment 8 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *