See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: Trampling on Coal Country families
Source:
Icecap
URL Source: http://www.icecap.us/
Published: Aug 19, 2014
Author: Paul Driessen
Post Date: 2014-08-24 11:09:30 by Southern Style
Keywords: None
Views: 423
Comments: 37
Obama and EPA are determined to destroy US coal, people’s lives and welfare be damned Between 1989 and 2010, Congress rejected nearly 700 cap-tax-and-trade and similar bills that their proponents claimed would control Earth’s perpetually fickle climate and weather. So even as real world crises erupt, President Obama is using executive fiats and regulations to impose his anti-hydrocarbon agenda, slash America’s fossil fuel use, bankrupt coal and utility companies, make electricity prices skyrocket, and “fundamentally transform” our economic, social, legal and constitutional system. Citing climate concerns, he has refused to permit construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, and blocked or delayed Alaskan, western state and offshore oil and gas leasing and drilling. He’s proud that US oil production has climbed 58% and natural gas output has risen 21% since 2008. But he doesn’t mention that this is due to hydraulic fracturing on state and private lands; production has actually fallen in areas controlled by the federal government, and radical environmentalists oppose fracking all over the USA. Above all, the President’s war on hydrocarbons is a war on Coal Country families. For 21 states that still rely on coal to produce 40-96% of their electricity, it is a war on people’s livelihoods and living standards on the very survival of small businesses and entire communities. The price of electricity has already risen 1-2 cents per kilowatt-hour in those states, from as little as 5.6 cents/kWh in 2009. If it soars to the 14.6 to 15.7 cents/kWh paid in “job-mecca states” like California and New York which rely on coal for less than 3% of their electricity, the impacts will churn through coal-dependant states like a tsunami. Yet that is where rates are headed, as the Obama EPA’s carbon dioxide and other restrictions kick in. Hundreds of baseload coal-fired power plants (some 180 gigawatts of electric generation capacity) will be forced into premature retirement between 2010 and 2020. That’s more than 15% of the United States’ total installed capacity, enough electricity to power nearly 90 million average homes or small businesses. EPA assumes it can be replaced by expensive, unreliable, habitat-gobbling wind and solar power. It can’t. EPA rules mean the price of everything people do will skyrocket: heating and air conditioning, lights and refrigeration, televisions, computers, medical equipment, machinery and every other gizmo that runs on electricity. Poor, minority and blue-collar families will have to find hundreds of dollars a year somewhere in their already stretched budgets. Shops and other small businesses will have to discover thousands of dollars, by delaying other purchases or laying people off. Factories, malls, school districts, hospitals and cities will have to send out search parties to locate millions a year at the end of rainbows. Millions will get laid off in coal mines, power plants, factories, shops and other businesses. Entire families and communities will be pounded and impoverished. Real people’s hopes, dreams, pride and work ethic will be replaced by despair and dependency. Bread winners will be forced to work multiple jobs, commute longer distances, and suffer severe sleep deprivation, if they can find work. Families will have to cope with more stress, depression, drug and alcohol abuse, spousal and child abuse. Nutrition and medical care will suffer. More people will turn to crime. More will have strokes and heart attacks. More will die prematurely or commit suicide. For no measurable benefits. EPA cites mercury, soot, asthma, climate change, hurricanes, seas rising seven inches a century, and even ocean acidification to justify the draconian rules. But the scientific basis is bogus. The agency cherry-picks data and studies that support its agenda, ignores libraries of contradictory research, rejects experts whose analyses question EPA conclusions, pays advisors and activists millions of dollars annually to rubberstamp and promote its regulations, and hides its work from those it decrees “are not qualified to analyze it.” The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change operates in much the same fashion. Moreover, unhealthy US emissions plunged nearly 90% since 1970, even as coal use for electricity generation increased 170% and the newest coal fired power plants reduce pollution by almost this amount, using “supercritical” technologies, while also reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 20% or more, according the EPA and US Energy Information Administration reports. Meanwhile, China, India, Germany, Poland and other countries are building some 1,200 new coal-fired power plants, and numerous gas plants, to spur economic growth, preserve jobs and lift people out of poverty. So the sacrifices Mr. Obama is imposing will do nothing to reduce global CO2 levels, which the evidence increasingly shows plays only a minor to trivial role in climate and weather fluctuations. Its true that Detroit temperatures didn’t dip below freezing in January and February in ‘79 followed by a frost in June. But that was 1879! When he was a boy, “snows were frequent and deep in every winter,” Thomas Jefferson recalled in December 1809. “The Greenland seas, hitherto covered [in ice], have in the last two years entirely disappeared,” Britain’s Royal Society reported ...in 1817. “We were astonished by the total absence of ice in Barrow Strait. [Six years ago the area was] still frozen up, and doubts were entertained as to the possibility of escape,” Captain Francis McClintock wrote in his ship’s log in 1860. And don’t forget the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, and the five frigid epochs that buried North America, Europe and Asia under glaciers a mile thick. Or the 4,000-year-old trees that recently emerged as modern glaciers melted back proving that a forest grew in the now icy Alps just four millennia ago. On and on it has gone, throughout Earth and human history: wild weather and climate swings on a recurring basis. But now, climate chaos cultists want us to believe such events began only recently, and we could stop today’s climate and weather aberrations if we would just eliminate fossil fuels, destroy our economies, and condemn Third World families to permanent poverty and disease. The truth is, only once in all of human history was a government able to control Earth’s climate, to make it “perfect all year,” and it is highly unlikely that we will ever return to those wondrous days. So how do the EPA, IPCC, Michael Mann, Al Gore and other Climate Armageddonites deal with all these inconvenient truths, questions and skeptical researchers? They hide their data and computer codes. Complain that they are being picked on. Refuse to debate “dangerous manmade global warming” skeptics. Harass and vilify contrarian experts, and boot them off university committees. Refuse to attend conferences where they might have to defend their manipulated data, junk science and absurd assertions. Al Gore won’t even take questions that he has not preapproved. They have no cojones. They hide behind their sinecures the way Hamas terrorists hide behind children. EPA won’t even hold hearings in Coal Country or states that will be hardest hit by soaring electricity costs. It hosts dog-and-pony shows and “listening sessions” in big cities like Atlanta, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, Washington, DC and Pittsburgh where it knows passionate lefty students and eco-activists will dominate. People who will be grievously impacted by the draconian job-killing regulations must travel long distances and pay for expensive hotels and meals… or remain silent and ignored. That stacks the deck the same way the “public comment” process is tilted in favor of ultra-rich Big Green agitators who have the funding and organization to generate thousands or millions of comments. We taxpayers pay for these studies, payoffs and propaganda. And we will get stuck with the regulations, soaring prices and lost jobs that result. We have a right to review and analyze the data and claims. We have a right to be heard, in a fair and honest process that truly takes our concerns into account.
By Paul Driessen
The House of Representatives should hold hearings, forcing callous bureaucrats, slick scientists and computer modeling charlatans to present their data, codes and findings under oath. States should sue EPA for violating the Information Quality Act. And voters must vote Republican in November to change the Senate majority, and restore at least a modicum of constitutional checks and balances to a system which has vested far too much power in an unaccountable Executive Branch that shows total disdain for honesty, transparency and working families.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Southern Style (#0)
Coal mining the way it is done now (surface stripping) is a horrible thing. Jobs entailing the destruction of the earth's natural surface are not the only issue. Coal burning produces a lot of air pollution as well. We need better sources of energy.
Why not? They already did this to logging communities, are working on our agriculture etc.
You really have no clue what's going on, do you?
One factor in improving air quality has been the pollution-control technologies used by coal-fired power plants. Today‟s coal-fired electricity generating plants produce more power, with less emission of criteria pollutants, than ever before. According to the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), a new pulverized coal plant (operating at lower, “subcritical” temperatures and pressures) reduces the emission of NOx by 86 percent, SO2 by 98 percent, and particulate matter (PM) by 99.8 percent, as compared with a similar plant having no pollution controls. Undoubtedly, air quality will continue to improve in the future because of improved technology. Today, coal-fired electricity generation produces nearly half of the electricity generation in America and provides many jobs. For example, Prairie State Energy Campus, a 1,600- megawatt coal plant under construction in southern Illinois, provides 1,200 people with jobs in around-the-clock construction. Between its power plant, coal mine, and other assets, the campus will inject some $2.8 billion into the Illinois economy, creating 2,300 to 2,500 temporary construction jobs and 500 permanent positions, while emitting 80 percent less in pollutants than most existing power plants.iv When completed, the power plant will deliver electricity to 2.4 million homes in at least nine states. “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Strip mining is hideous. Burning the stuff is marginally better now than it used to be, but still not good.
Perhaps we should agree to disagree?
With our unlimited natural gas supply, electric company wanted to build 2 billion dollar gas fired electric plant. That was two years ago. Turned not a wheel yet due to hand wringers.
It is not about disagreeing. You seem to be on the side of the robber barons playing the supply regulation game and reaping huge profits because of it. Environmentalism is not about the environment. It is about controlling natural resources, artificially creating supply shortages thus increasing profits.
Frakking, which is making gas so cheap in the US right now, is an odd animal. In one way it reduces the amount of surface pollution because the wells can go sideways. In another way it can penetrate underground water sources with the secret compounds they're using to pump pressure into the wells.
Search 'earthquakes oklahoma' to see another effect of fracking.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
There's a red side of green and a corporate side of green. I take neither the red nor the corporate side. I'm aware of those arguments and I still take the natural environment's side when possible. I'm a pagan, which might help you to understand my perspective better. To me, there is spirit in everything. Humans are part of a larger system that owes them nothing. I believe we must be very cautious with it. If we weren't spending so much on foreign aid and advanced weaponry we could develop cleaner technologies faster. In the meantime, I think nuclear is a better way to go than coal.
Fukushima!! The Japs had the world believing that their nuclear plants were the best, look at how they are handling their radioactive drama. Do you really think that the EPA will ever sign off on another nuke generator?? If Congress gave a damn they would have gutted the EPA years ago.
#2. To: Southern Style (#0)
#3. To: Deasy (#1)
Coal mining the way it is done now (surface stripping) is a horrible thing. Jobs entailing the destruction of the earth's natural surface are not the only issue. Coal burning produces a lot of air pollution as well. We need better sources of energy.
#4. To: farmfriend, 4 (#3)
Our coal-fired plants are the cleanest in the world -
#5. To: Lod (#4)
#6. To: farmfriend (#3)
#7. To: Lod (#4)
#8. To: Deasy (#6)
#9. To: Cynicom (#7)
#10. To: Deasy, 4 (#9)
#11. To: farmfriend (#8)
(Edited)
Environmentalism is not about the environment.
#12. To: Deasy (#11)
I think nuclear is a better way to go than coal.
-Alex Kurtagic
#13. To: X-15 (#12)
The failed Jap plants were using old General Electric models that badly needed updating. An EPA is required. It may be mismanaged, since treason abounds at all levels of our government and multinational corporate worlds, but still it's needed. That it can't be trusted to do the right thing is evidence of a failed government. We'd still be choking on lead poisoned air if it weren't for the EPA. The post-war industrial boom left horrendous environmental situations all over the US. The same thing was happening in the Soviet Union and China for many of the same reasons: failed checks and balances.
#14. To: farmfriend (#3)
Coal is abundant and cheap, much less than natural gas or petroleum but its' production and use as an energy source is not without issues. However, in comparison to the known hazards vs. energy production of alternative sources, i.e.,nuclear, fracking, wind and solar; Coal is, by far, the best choice available for the time being. My gut feeling, regarding the cessation of coal production in the US, is that this resource has been pledged as collateral to the Chinese and that its' production will continue but will not be for the benefit the people in this country. We need better sources of energy.
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." - Frederic Bastiat
#15. To: Deasy (#13)
No two nuclear plants can be the same because the EPA will call it a "monopoly". That means each and every plant has to be radically different from all the rest. You know how much THAT costs??????? The EPA is a terrorist organization masquerading as a benevolent 'protector of the environment'. Any good intentions on their behalf flew out the window years ago. Now, people are prosecuted for building in a pasture with a perpetual wet spot because it can be declared a "protected wetlands". Did you not learn this lesson during the "Dollar Bill" Clinton tyranny??? An EPA is required.
-Alex Kurtagic
#16. To: X-15 (#15)
None of the above changes the fact that an EPA like organization is needed to protect the environment and has, in fact, done us a favor in several important instances. If it's mismanaged, it's because of corruption (as you mention). Corruption does not make a function unworthy. We know our politics is rotten to the core. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't rebuild it from scratch and put the necessary functions back into place. Air, water, earth and so forth: nothing but the force of government will stop people from misusing them for profit.
#17. To: Deasy (#16)
Easy to say when you haven't had the EPA tell you to tear down a house on land that you purchased and took out a bank loan to build. Those people have obtained NO relief from the motherfucking Feral Government. Those jackasses operate with NO oversight from Congress and Congress acts like they're scared to death to exert their proper and legal authority over the EPA and all of the other alphabet agencies. No, I say gut the EPA and have public executions of lots of current and former EPA employee's and administrators.
-Alex Kurtagic
#18. To: Southern Style (#14)
Nuclear can be safe with the latest technology and disposing of the waste is quite feasible. We may need help from the French to figure this out since we've lost our momentum there. Meanwhile, yes, let's (more carefully) extract and use coal where we must. We need to stop funding Israel and Global (fractional)-Reserve Banking so we can develop hydrogen power and other sources. The lack of priorities is why we're stuck with such primitive power choices. Coal is, by far, the best choice available for the time being.
#19. To: farmfriend (#2)
Sounds, as if, you've got a pretty good understanding of how things REALLY work these days. They already did this to logging communities, are working on our agriculture etc.
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." - Frederic Bastiat
#20. To: X-15 (#17)
The answer to 1984 is 1776. We'd still need an EPA after revisiting 1776. Easy to say when you haven't had the EPA tell you to tear down a house on land that you purchased and took out a bank loan to build.
#21. To: Deasy, farmfriend (#20)
Without vetting Each And Every Potential EPA Employee in order to weed out anybody who ever voted "Democrat" or was a member/sympathizer of Earth First!/Sierra Club/etc. you'd get the same shit we have now. We'd still need an EPA after revisiting 1776
-Alex Kurtagic
#22. To: Southern Style, farmfriend (#19)
With what little forest we have left, we definitely need some restrictions there. It's only been pressure from environmental activists that has slowed down the over-harvesting. Sure there are better ways to do it, but leaving it up to corporate interests was a disaster. The jobs situation is hardly an argument for something as disastrous as strip mining and over-harvesting of forests. Jobs gained by destroying the environment are not really productive in the true sense of the word. Again, the real problem is priorities. We dig into our natural resources to plunder what we have left because of the usurious nature of our economy. That's the real problem. They already did this to logging communities
#23. To: X-15 (#21)
Welcome to America, home of the free, land of the brave. The same evil mix, including the corporate/banking-driven aspects of the above, is also overwhelming the European American population with open immigration and disincentives to raise families, and I'm not talking about lost logging and strip mining jobs. It's going to take a lot to shake up the current status quo and get people back on track, but the environment must be protected anyway, even if it's tedious and often seen as counter-productive to those facing changes. That we don't have better resources to support people impacted by environmental reforms is clearly a matter of priorities. Israel takes a higher priority than opening up new industries to replace lost jobs. Without vetting Each And Every Potential EPA Employee in order to weed out anybody who ever voted "Democrat" or was a member/sympathizer of Earth First!/Sierra Club/etc. you'd get the same shit we have now.
#24. To: Deasy, 4 (#22)
transatomicpower.com/products.php This technology was available at least fifty years back, and was discarded. read about clean nuclear power, amazing -
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
#25. To: Deasy (#18)
Meanwhile, yes, let's (more carefully) extract and use coal where we must. We need to stop funding Israel and Global (fractional)-Reserve Banking so we can develop hydrogen power and other sources. The lack of priorities is why we're stuck with such primitive power choices. I have to disagree with your assessment of the viability of nuclear, at least, in its' current form. However, you did make the connection between the bankers and "primitive power choices". Rest assured, that one of the last thing the bankers want is affordable, environmentally responsible, energy for the masses. Nuclear can be safe with the latest technology and disposing of the waste is quite feasible. We may need help from the French to figure this out since we've lost our momentum there.
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." - Frederic Bastiat
#26. To: Lod (#24)
We'll find a way. I'm confident in that. I don't believe in scarcity. I believe in using our brains to find and exchange means of providing plenty to all. "Plenty" does not have to mean strip mines, clear cuts, farming in environmentally critical areas, or frakking with bad chemicals. We just can't stop to figure things out because we're too busy supporting the bankers and Israel. NOTHING gets done properly with them involved.
#27. To: Southern Style (#25)
The problem is bureaucracy and the lack of oversight. Who knows what the guys in the clean white smocks are doing? If the process were more open, I think the technology is there to keep it safe and dispose of unusable waste. The French are doing a pretty good job already, and plant designs are much better now at tolerating meltdown conditions. I have to disagree with your assessment of the viability of nuclear, at least, in its' current form.
#28. To: Deasy, 4 (#26)
The people at TransAtomic seem to have the safe, clean, and affordable answer to the world's energy needs. Let's pray so.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
#29. To: Southern Style (#14)
You are probably right. My gut feeling, regarding the cessation of coal production in the US, is that this resource has been pledged as collateral to the Chinese and that its' production will continue but will not be for the benefit the people in this country.
#30. To: Deasy, X-15 (#20)
No we don't really. There is a free market system that is better for the environment than EPA. I have to wonder why you are here on this forum? The answer to 1984 is 1776. We'd still need an EPA after revisiting 1776.
#31. To: Deasy, *Agriculture-Environment* (#22)
Seriously? Do you understand what is going on in our forests? We have more trees now than in the 1800s. The problem with the spotted owl was not logging but habitat encroachment by the eastern barred owl. This was only made possible by more trees. Seriously, why are you here? With what little forest we have left, we definitely need some restrictions there.
#32. To: Deasy (#16)
EPA is a whore for Monsanto and chemical companies. Since the EPA came along we have lost a foot and a half of top soil!! Round up every where!! GMO's taking over!! The EPA has destroyed all it touched!! The EPA has only been around since 1970. What on earth has improved for human health in this nation in the last 40 years? More obesity, far less farmers due to monopolization by big Ag which has been done via the EPA, pesticides and herbicides rampant and creating super weeds, bringing the wolf back to places it should not be at all, now they are pushing the carbon dioxide scare mongering for profit. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Sheesh, the agency has approximately 15,193 full-time employees sucking off the taxpayer teet! This agency has done far more damage than good in the past 40 years. None of the above changes the fact that an EPA like organization is needed to protect the environment and has, in fact, done us a favor in several important instances.
" If you cannot govern yourself, you will be governed by assholes. " Randge, Poet de Forum, 1/11/11
"Life's tough, and even tougher if you're stupid." --John Wayne
#33. To: abraxas, Deasy (#32)
Yeah, what she said!
#34. To: Deasy, X-15, abraxas, *Agriculture-Environment* (#20)
The Natural Resources Defense Council & Energy Market Manipulation in California http://www.wildergarten.com/wp_pages/articles/nrdc_energy_racketeering.html The addition of oxygenates to gasoline had been considered for a very long time. The EPA ban on lead additives had caused significant problems for engines designed for high octane formulations. The addition of alcohols as oxygenates slowed combustion sufficiently to allow reformulated gasoline to be usable in these engines and reduced the production of carbon monoxide (improvements in engine design have since eliminated that problem, rendering reformulated gasoline completely unnecessary). Further, EPA mandated lower production of nitrous oxides and volatile organic compounds that produced brown smog and ozone, respectively. Those problems could be mitigated with the addition of approximately 2.7% oxygen by weight to the gasoline. The Archer Daniels Midland Company, an agricultural chemicals company, proposed adding grain alcohol to gasoline for the purpose, which would have required a formulation of approximately 7.4% by volume of ethanol. Not to be outdone, the oil companies proposed the addition of MTBE as an ethanol equivalent. A top ARCO executive admitted under oath, “The EPA did not initiate reformulated gasoline....” He clarified that “the oil industry... brought this [MTBE] forward as an alternative to what the EPA had initially proposed” (page 8 of the linked file). In the 1980s, methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) had long been a byproduct of gasoline production requiring expensive disposal. The oil refiners had been handling the stuff for years. That means measurement of the byproducts of combustion, the materials with which it is incompatible, safe handling procedures, and containment requirements were fully developed and tested in production. I can tell you personally, as a former project engineer in a chemical facility, that documentation of all these attributes is required for construction of any processing plant or process, for obtaining an air quality permit, or for use in a fuel. Every corporation handling such large quantities of hazardous materials has a high-level officer in charge of environmental affairs, usually a vice president. Every permitting authority has a staff of technical experts to evaluate permit applications for potential containment flaws. Even the San Francisco Bay Area Air Quality Management District has PhD level chemical engineers for this review work; the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the Federal EPA have entire divisions dedicated to analytical review. I am telling you all that because I want you to fully grasp the institutional awareness that MUST have existed before the catastrophic failure that of adding MTBE to gasoline as an oxygenate: It diffuses right through plastic underground fuel tanks at service stations and migrates through soil to contaminate underground water supplies. Did the oil companies know? You bet they did. Apparently the oil companies had experience of MTBE leaking from underground tanks as early as 1981, in Rockaway, NJ. A Shell hydrogeologist testified in the South Lake Tahoe case that he first dealt with an MTBE spill in 1980 in Rockaway, N.J., where seven MTBE plumes were leaking from underground storage tanks (discussion full testimony). Now you know why the oil companies demanded to be indemnified against any damages for the addition of oxygenates when the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were passed in a Democrat Congress. George Herbert Walker Bush signed that legislation, claiming to be “the environmental President.” Environmental racketeering is a two-party system. Subsequent to Amendments of 1990, it was David Doniger of the NRDC who was the ONLY representative of an environmental organization at the EPA meetings that approved MTBE as a gasoline additive. Unfortunately, there were immediate adverse consequences to adding MTBE to gasoline. Partial combustion of the additive produces formic acid, a known lung irritant. In every instance of adding MTBE to gasoline, asthma cases have skyrocketed. Formulations with MTBE are also far more volatile than the original gasoline, which caused sufficient evaporation to completely offset the reduction in volatile organic compounds in exhaust gases. Finally, MTBE was incompatible with the fuel systems in many older vehicles, which caused subsequent fuel leaks, engine fires, and deaths. Again, changes in engine design had already rendered reformulated gasoline completely unnecessary in newer cars and trucks. This entire effort was chasing a non-problem while causing a series of mishaps. Pursuant to the Amendments, EPA required oxygenated gasoline ONLY for the Los Angeles air basin and the Central Valley but authorized voluntary use of reformulated gasoline elsewhere. Accordingly, CARB mandated a formulation of 15% MTBE for the entire State. They were supported by every major environmental group. I am told that it was NRDC lawyer Mary Nichols who presided at the CARB hearings in LA, where CARB mandated reformulated gasoline with 15% MTBE for the entire State. The CARB formulation made ARCO so happy they put Governor Pete Wilson's wife on their board of directors. Maybe it had something to do with the fact that the addition of oxygenates reduced gas mileage by up to 8%, creating an almost instant shortage in refining capacity for California’s “boutique formulation.” The biggest part of this debacle was the parallel demand by environmental groups (including the NRDC) that the State require gasoline retailers to remove ALL steel underground storage tanks because they were supposedly a threat to leak and replace them with new fiberglass tanks. The justification was that of the 12,000 steel tanks at service stations sampled in California, 48 leaked. Assuming that the average cost of replacing an underground fuel tank is approximately $100,000 (it was often three times that) and that there are approximately 200,000 such tanks in California, the estimated capital cost was about $20 billion dollars, not to mention the amount of money made burning contaminated dirt. Ladies and gentlemen, that is enough money to send every child in California to college for four years, for free. Instead, you are expected to save for years and go into debt to fund this kind of disaster. Unfortunately, $20 billion is only the tip of the iceberg. The addition of MTBE to gasoline cost everyone in California an extra 30 cents per gallon for ten years. Believe me, a lot of that was profit due to the closed market in refinery capacity. Now, guess how hard it is to build more refinery SUPPLY capacity and why? Now guess who would stand squarely in the way of adding more? Over 10,000 independent sellers of gasoline went out of business because of the cost of new tanks, thus leaving the major oil companies with a vertically integrated oligopoly. But at least we were safe, right? Nope. The MTBE leaked right through those tanks, contaminating groundwater statewide. Every one will have to be dug out and replaced, again. Meanwhile, the NRDC has the unmitigated gall to blame the oil companies for the MTBE mess while they use the courts to place ever tighter restrictions on riparian water quality (rivers and lakes). The resulting attainment specification for dissolved nitrate, necessary for aquatic life, are so tight, not even rainwater can pass. Just keep saving for those college expenses, or you’re a bad parent. The answer to 1984 is 1776. We'd still need an EPA after revisiting 1776.
This NRDC electrical power scam in California was NOT an isolated incident; they’re a national organization having conducted operations in every State dealing with numerous regulatory issues from gasoline, to water resources, and even farming methods. In this case, our precedent for the California Power Crisis is the disastrous addition of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) to gasoline, supposedly to add oxygen to the burn to complete combustion in which the NRDC had the most pivotal role of any environmental organization.
#35. To: farmfriend, abraxas, Deasy (#33)
Spray the re-introduced wolves with Monsanto pesticide to kill the ticks on their backs while letting them run roughshod over western cattle herds that have no water due to the EPA forcing ranchers to destroy any dikes/ponds built after 1935!! "Today's EPA: Working for a Greener America! TM/No Patents Allowed/All Rights Reserved to FedGov/To Hell With The Citizenry"
-Alex Kurtagic
#36. To: farmfriend, Deasy, abraxas (#34)
Did the oil companies know? You bet they did. No way to remove MTBE once it's in the groundwater: permanent damage. Thanks, EPA... the catastrophic failure that of adding MTBE to gasoline as an oxygenate: It diffuses right through plastic underground fuel tanks at service stations and migrates through soil to contaminate underground water supplies.
-Alex Kurtagic
#37. To: farmfriend, Southern Style, Lod, X-15, abraxas (#30) (Edited)
I assume you're talking about the "free market" material at Wildergarten. I don't agree with it. It's just one set of recommendations for privatizing public land use. Convincing everyone to agree to its terms would be the first impossible hurdle. I see three basic assumptions on this thread: I'm the first one to agree that American government is corrupt. From Monsanto's GMOs and pesticides, it's like the banker bailouts of the 2008-present and the healthcare industry writing legislation for its own benefit, we're in deep trouble. With the environment, there is always going to be vigorous debate to determine issues of the common good and evaluate where public and private interests differ. I will say that the situation we all agree is happening with corporations contributing legal advisers to assist in writing laws impacting these areas of our lives represents a lack of control by the people. I don't happen to subscribe to pure free market ideology where natural resources and environmental protections are concerned. What we need is more independence in government to counteract Monsanto and big oil. It's the same thing with banking. The Federal Reserve isn't federal. That's problem one. It's not a reserve. That's problem two. Why isn't it a reserve? Because it's owned and operated by independent corporations. We used to have a principle in this country of access to the wilderness for the purposes of fair and multiple use. I know that there have been massive restrictions on access to the forests and other natural habitats. Many of these have been unpopular. However, some restrictions are needed. How much is fair shouldn't be up to the individual in all cases. The environment affects us all. So we're back to #3. I don't believe the free market works in this case. We have an extremely corrupt government at many levels. This is not unusual in history, nor is it something we can wish away. I believe we're at a point where the government ought to be replaced as it has become too much of a threat to its own citizens' well-being. We will still need effective checks and balances for protecting our natural habitats. After successfully reforming government. Issues of environmental protection are inseparable from our individual right to life, liberty, and property. We cannot trust corporate, let alone, individual interests to self-monitor their impact on the water we drink or the air we breathe. The air and water sheds are shared resources. Likewise, I think most Americans believe in preserving our national parks and protecting what little wilderness is left. Just because our current government is corrupt, does not mean that these values will go away. One needn't give up the notion of public, shared lands to be a staunch property rights advocate. There will be no headway on issues like these until we master the prime example of them all: our monetary system. It's what drives the overconsumption of our natural resources. Its pattern of "federal but privatized" is what permits businesses and corporations to abuse and misuse their access to government policy. The Christian notion of stewardship of nature is a major element in driving American misuse of the environment. The gods did not "give" us the planet to use any which way. We're a part of a larger system. It's part of the entire notion of American manifest destiny and right to empire. I think a lot of Americans are coming to these same conclusions as they abandon their monotheist faiths and discover animism and other forms of pagan values. The bottom line for me: the same forces that are abusing, restricting fair use, and corrupting our natural habitats are involved with bringing in millions of immigrants without the permission of the people, who are already finding it hard to make do with the resources we have now. The biggest problem for me is the non-European immigration which is destroying our demographic habitat. It's all connected. There is a free market system that is better for the environment than EPA.
These assumptions do not necessarily follow. There are deeper issues afoot. I have to wonder why you are here on this forum?
Exchanging ideas and opinions. The mission of this forum is to provide a cyberspace meeting place where lovers of individual freedom can gather to post articles and opinions about the world's events and how these events affect their unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. — from freedom4um.com/.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest