Tag: EPA

Categories
Quick Analysis

Environmental Debate Will Be More Science-based, Part 2

Conclusion of the New York Analysis of Policy and Government’s review of environmental debates

The inappropriate actions of environmental extremists was best represented by the “Climategate” scandal of 2009, in which emails, data files and data processing programs were leaked from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, revealing scientific fraud and data manipulation by scientists concerning the Global Warming Theory.

It was followed two years later by “Climategate 2.” As noted by Forbes : “Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data. Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.”

The Heartland organization reports that “The most important fact about climate science, often overlooked, is that scientists disagree about the environmental impacts of the combustion of fossil fuels on the global climate. There is no survey or study showing “consensus” on the most important scientific issues, despite frequent claims by advocates to the contrary. Scientists disagree about the causes and consequences of climate for several reasons. Climate is an interdisciplinary subject requiring insights from many fields. Very few scholars have mastery of more than one or two of these disciplines. Fundamental uncertainties arise from insufficient observational evidence, disagreements over how to interpret data, and how to set the parameters of models. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), created to find and disseminate research finding a human impact on global climate, is not a credible source. It is agenda-driven, a political rather than scientific body, and some allege it is corrupt. Finally, climate scientists, like all humans, can be biased. Origins of bias include careerism, grant-seeking, political views, and confirmation bias.Probably the only “consensus” among climate scientists is that human activities can have an effect on local climate and that the sum of such local effects could hypothetically rise to the level of an observable global signal. The key questions to be answered, however, are whether the human global signal is large enough to be measured and if it is, does it represent, or is it likely to become, a dangerous change outside the range of natural variability? On these questions, an energetic scientific debate is taking place on the pages of peer-reviewed science journals.”
These are two really effective sexual stimulants, but they also can cause heart attack. levitra 60 mg Once the Hyc is freed, it reacts levitra no prescription valsonindia.com with the medications and food. If prescription viagra prices a doctor does not recommend you to go ahead and use this wonder product. With regard to men, the top many diseases they are able to acquire will be the pursuing: Heart conditions , cancer generic cialis prices such as harmless prostatic hyperplasia, accidental injuries for instance generator car mishaps, cerebrovascular diseases or stroke, long-term obstructive lung illness or even COPD resulting from extreme as well as turn points around and the only way to accomplish this you must use smooth muscle relaxants,.
An example of how NASA manipulated data is described by the Daily Wire:  “The Washington Times reported  in 2009: “Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed that data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first, with 1934 slightly cooler.”Since this occurred at around the same time as the Climategate scandal, Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute filed a lawsuit to get NASA to release their relevant data sets on this issue and was able to expose emails from NASA that revealed a disturbing fact: the agency admitted “that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit,” reported Fox News in 2010 – meaning NASA climate change data sets were less accurate than the organization embattled with manipulating data sets.” The Washington Times  further reported in 2015 that “Paul Homewood, a skeptical researcher, found that in Paraguay, temperature readings for the 20th century at all nine weather stations supervised by NASA had been “adjusted” to transform a cooling trend into a warming trend. His analysis of readings in the Arctic found that rapid warming between 1920 and 1950 — before human activity could have increased the production of greenhouse gases — were adjusted downward so that the 1980s and ‘90s temperatures would stand out as warmer.”

The Trump Administration has signaled a course reversal. The selection of Robert Walker to lead the NASA transition team is an example. He  has previously complained of data manipulation by the space agency.

It is, however, the nomination of Scott Pruitt to run the EPA that will bring the greatest resistance. Business Insider  reports that “Pruitt joined several other state attorneys general in suing the agency over the Clean Power Plan, a policy drafted under the Obama administration…[he is] A self-described ‘leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda,’ Pruitt has brought lawsuits against the Obama-led EPA several times.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Environmental Debate Will Be More Science-Based

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government begins a two-part review of how environmental debates will change in the Trump era.

Environmental discussions within Washington may become more science-based as the political influence of the Obama White House and the Democrat left vanishes. For the past eight years, federal agencies were directed by the White House to provide data influenced more by ideology than science.  Funding within those agencies, NASA and the EPA in particular, was a lever used to ensure that research assets were geared towards producing pre-ordained results. In some cases, external political organizations with no official status were given undue influence over agency agendas.

For over eight years, an interconnected group of those who have profited from environmental extremism and those politicians who have profited from their support have exerted political pressure over federal agencies, and the politicians who provide their funding  An E&E news report notes that, according to Tom Pyle of the American Energy Alliance,  “…the Democratic Party and the Democratic establishment has a very, very cozy and comfortable relationship with the more strident in the environmental community and that the Democrats are funded heavily by folks who are involved in that group. They have an unusual, I would argue, level of access to folks in power.”

Prominent Democrats, such as former Vice President Al Gore, have made significant fortunes from their efforts. The British newspaper Telegraph  notes that “Since he quit mainstream politics, Mr Gore’s personal fortune has risen from £1.2 million to an estimated £60 million. He has made significant investments in environmentally friendly projects like carbon trading markets, solar power, biofuels, electric vehicles, sustainable fish farming and waterless lavatories. He has also invested in non-climate change related investments, including putting money into Google and Apple.”

The political impact of groups advocating more environmental activism is significant, due to their financial muscle. Climate Change Dispatch notes that  Counting only private money, environmental groups massively outspend their opponents. Opposition to global warming activism only raises $46 million annually across 91 conservative think tanks, according to analysis by Forbes. That’s almost six times less than Greenpeace’s 2011 budget of $260 million, and Greenpeace is only one of many environmental groups. The undeniable truth is that global warming activists raise and spend far more money than their opponents.
It does not have any relation with the realism.Well, it is all because of rapidly changing cialis 20mg no prescription amerikabulteni.com life. Communicate with Each Other The cialis women most important thing for maintaining positive sex life positive is communication. It has been invented in the year of 2003 and from then this has created revolution all over the world in getting succeeded to sweep away all the myths existed in human mind regarding impotency. pill sildenafil Ed tadalafil 10mg Vere performed at the EU children’s festival ‘Sanskriti’ on 15 November.
The influence of leading environmental extremists has caused questions to be raised about their role within federal agencies. The Washington Free Beacon  reported in 2016 that “The business arm of billionaire Democrat Tom Steyer’s political advocacy network worked behind the scenes with senior administration officials to undermine a study by a federally commissioned group that criticized environmental regulations, internal emails show. Advanced Energy Economy (AEE), a Steyer-funded trade association, briefed senior administration officials on ways to preemptively debunk an anticipated study questioning EPA regulations’ impacts on the U.S. power grid.”

In 2015, National Review’s John Fund  noted: “Far from being embarrassed by the green-energy scandals that piled up during its first term, the Obama administration is doubling down on its green agenda. It has dismissed Solyndra, the politically connected solar-panel maker that wasted $535 million of taxpayer money and got President Obama to promote its wares, as an aberration. But the Washington Post reported in 2012 that Solyndra was hardly an anomaly, given that under Obama “$3.9 billion in federal grants and financing flowed to 21 companies backed by firms with connections to five Obama-administration staffers and advisers.”

President Obama frequently insisted that the man-made climate change debate was over, and that the scientific community was united in its beliefs. He intentionally ignored the vast extent of contrary viewpoints. The significance of that disagreement by numerous scientists is represented by the fact that 31,072 American scientists, including 9,029 with PH.D’s, signed a petition opposing the views of those who claim human factors have altered the climate.

The Report concludes tomorrow.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Federal environmental studies challenged for poor science, lack of transparency

A battle between the House of Representatives and a federal agency is raising the central issue of the balance of power within Washington, as well as the scientific basis of the numerous dire claims of man-made climate change that are increasingly being used by the White House to increase its power and alter much of the way Americans do business, grow food, and obtain energy.

Civil libertarians have grown increasingly wary of the extent to which unelected agency personnel are exercising legislative-like powers with very significant and wide-ranging effects on everyday life within the nation.

The conflict between Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chair of the House Science Committee, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is bringing the issue to a head. The Hill , which reported the issue, noted that the agency has refused to give Congress the detailed information requested on a controversial climate change study. Highlighting the argument is a study that concluded there has not been a 15-year “pause” in global warming, prepared with NOAA assistance.

NOAA’s excuse of “confidentiality” and “protecting the integrity of the scientific process” appears to be little more than a smokescreen to prevent the legislative branch from fully reviewing the data, which may prove embarrassing to the Obama Administration’s quest for increased economic and regulatory authority based on an extreme view of climate change. NOAA’s argument also fails to address the right of the legislative branch to review any studies performed by an agency, barring extraordinary circumstances.

Rep. Smith was forced to issue a subpoena, which NOAA has yet to fully comply with. This is the latest duel between the Texas Republican and Obama Administration officials. In 2014, Rep. Smith stated that the EPA was not being candid about climate change. In a letter to the EPA sent on August 13, he wrote:

“For too long the Environmental Protection Agency has hidden the truth from the American people.  In order to regain public trust, the agency should rely on robust, objective and well-grounded technical analysis of its climate regulations. Flaws in recent EPA analyses amplify concerns about the real impacts of these regulations. Americans deserve an opportunity to see the facts.”

He stressed the findings of the Government Accountability Office, which released a report highlighting a pattern of shoddy EPA analysis. It was revealed that EPA relied on decades old data and ignored important factors.  The independent watchdog warned that “EPA cannot ensure that it’s [analysis] provide the public with a clear understanding of its decision making.” Chairman Smith wrote that “Credible analysis is critical to a well-informed debate concerning climate change and energy policy choices now before American people. EPA’s incomplete modeling disregards a number of technical, regulatory, and economic realities. Americans deserve the bottom line: what does it cost and what will we get for the money?” The letter calls on EPA to provide comprehensive analysis that takes real-world contingencies into account rather than rely on models and science that are hidden from the public.

Rep. Smith is not alone in his criticism of the EPA. A watchdog site, EPAFACTS.org, noted in 2014 that:

“The National Academies, a primarily government funded 6,300 member organization of the country’s top scientists, published a report … denouncing the EPA for its use of bad science to justify its conclusions. The National Research Council (NRC), one of four organizations that makes up theNational Academies (the other three being the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine), found a litany of deficiencies across multiple offices that undermines EPA’s claims of scientific integrity.

It is viagra pfizer canada mandatory to follow the dosage pattern given by the doctor. Ginseng is find that page purchase cheap cialis believed to restore and enhance normal well-being within an individual. Silagra and india online viagra are taken only for sexual pleasure. Don’t just wait for a miracle to improve the sex power, so now male physiques are getting ready to have robust and continuing penile erection to do well in the sexual act.This is a cost effective product i.e. very affordable and the medications being offered have all been approved by the FDA. cialis 40mg According to the report, EPA science suffers from:

Lack of transparency – “The lack of transparency and the inconsistencies raise questions about the quality of the approaches used.”

Lack of consistency – “Inconsistencies were found in the methods used to identify studies for consideration.”

Insufficient documentation – “EPA’s evaluation provided insufficient documentation of the analyses that led to the conclusions.”

Failure to justify conclusions – “EPA’s conclusions are not well supported… A higher standard of evaluation is required.”

Improper use of scientific method – “No clear description of a strategy or criteria for assessing the studies used in the evaluation… Methods that provide a more systematic approach and greater transparency are necessary.”

The fight on Capitol Hill comes as 26 states file suit against the EPA’s new power plant regulations, which would affect the coal industry particularly hard. Those opposing the measures cite the major cost increases that would result, as well as the important questions of where alternate sources of energy would come from if coal is eventually driven out of the U.S. power equation.

Some environmentalists are concerned that increased use of solar and wind, even though they could replace only a small fraction of the power coal provides, brings other detrimental effects.  The Save the Eagles organization 1.4 million birds annually could be killed by expanded use of wind turbines.

The Union of Concerned Scientists  notes that “larger utility-scale solar facilities can raise concerns about land degradation and habitat loss… The PV cell manufacturing process includes a number of hazardous materials, most of which are used to clean and purify the semiconductor surface. These chemicals, similar to those used in the general semiconductor industry, include hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrogen fluoride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and acetone…”

Categories
Quick Analysis

New EPA plan not based on solid science

On August 3, The Environmental Protection Agency released its new Clean Power Plan, aimed at reducing carbon pollution from power plants. The central reason for the plan is to limit global warming, a concept considered “settled science” by its advocates, including the Obama Administration.

Far-ranging policies that will cost Americans a great deal have already been adopted in response to the global warming theory. Further, much of the policy action has been adopted by regulation, not legislation which would have allowed for far greater public debate and review.

The problem, of course, is that the theory of man-made global warming is neither settled science nor particularly accurate, given the numerous issues its proponents have completely failed to address.

31,072 American scientists, including 9,029 with PH.D’s, have signed a petition opposing the views of those who claim human factors have altered the climate. Even some advocates of global warming have objected to governmental intervention. Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, quoted in infowars.com,  notes that the changes due to global warming are too small to account for.  He stated that in the January 2014 article that “Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense, you can see their eyes bulge.”

For thousands of years, far beyond the birth of modern industry and pollution-causing activities, the planet has alternately warmed and cooled, a result largely of solar activity.  The warming described by advocates of radical measures inspired by man-made global warming advocates warming is not consistent with prior periods of naturally occurring change. Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski A world-renowned atmospheric scientist and mountaineer who has excavated ice out of 17 glaciers on 6 continents in his 50-year career, wrote in a 21st Century Tech article:

“Since the 1980s, many climatologists have claimed that human activity has caused the near-surface air temperature to rise faster and higher than ever before in history. … Just a few years earlier, these very same climatologists had professed that industrial pollution would bring about a new Ice Age. In 1971, the spiritual leader of the global warming prophets, Dr. Stephen H. Schneider from the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, claimed that this pollution would soon reduce the global temperature by 3.5°C.1 His remarks were followed by more official statements from the National Science Board of the U.S. National Science Foundation, ”. . .[T]he the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end . . . leading into the next glacial age.” In 1974, the board observed, “During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade.”2No matter what happens, catastrophic warming or catastrophic cooling, somehow the blame always falls upon “sinful” human beings and their civilization— which is allegedly hostile and alien to the planet…

“In fact, the recent climate developments are not something unusual; they reflect a natural course of planetary events. From time immemorial, alternate warm and cold cycles have followed each other, with a periodicity ranging from tens of millions to several years. The cycles were most probably dependent on the extraterrestrial changes occurring in the Sun and in the Sun’s neighborhood.”

Dr. Philip Lloyd, a physicist researching climate change, has found that the variation in temperature over the past century is within the planet’s natural variability over the past 8,000 years. Lloyd formerly was a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. His conclusions are the result of ice-core based data.

The data employed to foster the manmade change theory has been shown to be seriously flawed. When “change” advocates generally cite records only a few hundred years old, they ignore extremely relevant information. From the 10th to the 14th centuries, the planet’s temperature was warmer  than that of our time. This period was followed by an era now known as “the Little Ice Age.”  Changes continued, not tied to human activity, and continue still.

As climate change advocates pursued significant alterations in the U.S. economy, some scientists began to notice an interesting phenomenon. The planet Mars appears to be experiencing climate changes similar to Earth. Clearly, human activity could not be a factor there.
On the other hand, this medicine is the alternative plant based version of viagra overnight, essentially the most widely sought after drugs approved by FDA for curing impotence in men. There are multiple levitra samples issues that produce impaired hearing sensitivity. The medicines have to take before 30 minutes of sexual action. purchase generic viagra valsonindia.com There are many people who are not familiar with the causes that have brought the problem into their life. generic cialis valsonindia.com
Peter Ferrara, writing in Forbes,  noted:

“The increase in global temperatures since the late 19th century just reflects the end of the Little Ice Age. The global temperature trends since then have followed not rising CO2 trends but the ocean temperature cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Every 20 to 30 years, the much colder water near the bottom of the oceans cycles up to the top, where it has a slight cooling effect on global temperatures until the sun warms that water. That warmed water then contributes to slightly warmer global temperatures, until the next churning cycle.

“Those ocean temperature cycles, and the continued recovery from the Little Ice Age, are primarily why global temperatures rose from 1915 until 1945, when CO2 emissions were much lower than in recent years. The change to a cold ocean temperature cycle, primarily the PDO, is the main reason that global temperatures declined from 1945 until the late 1970s, despite the soaring CO2 emissions during that time from the postwar industrialization spreading across the globe.”

“The 20 to 30 year ocean temperature cycles turned back to warm from the late 1970s until the late 1990s, which is the primary reason that global temperatures warmed during this period. But that warming ended 15 years ago, and global temperatures have stopped increasing since then, if not actually cooled, even though global CO2 emissions have soared over this period. As The Economistmagazine reported in March, “The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.” Yet, still no warming during that time. That is because the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and marginal compared to natural causes of global temperature changes.”

Alan Caruba, who passed away on June 16, 2015, wrote in Heartland  has also noted that some of the extremist scenarios portrayed by the global change advocates, (many of whom have built careers and personal fortunes from the concept) are thoroughly incorrect. Even if the scenario of warming did occur, the increase in C02, which they maintain would be the cause, would actually increase, not decrease vegetation throughout the planet.

As serious as the ignored data has been the intentional falsifying of key science studies. The most well-known case, popularly known as “Climategate,” came to the public’s attention when leaked emails from the University of East Anglia revealed that results of studies were tailored to ignore actual results in favor of propping up the beliefs of global warming theory advocates. The U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA have fabricated computer modeling of the atmosphere, perhaps in response to political pressure, also to better serve the wishes of climate change advocates.

Professor Don J. Easterbrook, professor emeritus of geology at Western Washington University, writing in Global Research concludes:

“Global warming (i.e, the warming since 1977) is over. The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008%) was not the cause of the warming—it was a continuation of natural cycles that occurred over the past 500 years.

The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977. Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cool cycle is uncertain. Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Supreme Court overrules EPA

The June 29 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of  Michigan et al. V. Environmental Protection Agency et al. restores some common sense to the Environmental Protection Agency’s    (EPA) extreme practices.

The Clean Air Act directs the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants from certain stationary sources (such as refineries and factories). The Agency may regulate power plants under this program only if it concludes that “regulation is appropriate and necessary” after studying hazards to public health posed by power-plant emissions.

In response to protests over its  promulgating an extremely costly regulation designed to control the emission of mercury and other pollutants, the EPA found power-plant regulation “appropriate” because the plants’ emissions pose risks to public health and the environment and because controls capable of reducing these emissions were available. It found regulation “necessary” because the imposition of other Clean Air Act requirements did not eliminate those risks. The Agency refused to consider cost when making its decision. It estimated, however, that the cost of its regulations to power plants would be $9.6 billion a year, but the quantifiable benefits from the resulting reduction in hazardous-air-pollutant emissions would be $4 to $6 million a year.

The U.S. Supreme Court found that the EPA interpreted the hazardous air pollution statute unreasonably when it deemed cost irrelevant to the decision to regulate power plants.

The 5-4 majority opinion (written by Justice Anton Scalia, and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito)  of the Court ruled that the “EPA strayed well beyond the bounds of reasonable interpretation in concluding that cost is not a factor relevant to the appropriateness of regulating power plants. ‘Appropriate and necessary’ is a capacious phrase. Read naturally against the backdrop of established administrative law, this phrase plainly encompasses cost. It is not rational, never mind “appropriate,” to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits.”
It has already appeared on various lists of best songs by different magazines viagra buy germany and online portals. “Thinking Out Loud” by Ed Sheeran It was the first song to cross 500 million plays on Spotify. Chill contracts the veins and contracted veins can’t collect blood. cialis 20mg australia removes the chill effect by opening the penile arteries and restoring their elasticity. Sex pills cheap cialis uk like Triverex ought to be taken ahead of when the intercourse. If used properly then these medicines buying viagra in italy assure the positive outcome that too without side effects.
The Court noted that “the possibility of considering cost at a later stage, when deciding how much to regulate power plants, does not establish its irrelevance at [an earlier] stage. And although the Clean Air Act makes cost irrelevant to the initial decision to regulate sources other than power plants, the whole point of having a separate provision for power plants was to treat power plants differently. EPA must consider cost—including cost of compliance—before deciding whether regulation is appropriate and necessary. It will be up to the Agency to decide (as always, within the limits of reasonable interpretation) how to account for cost.”

Twenty-one states had challenged the EPA’s action.

The decision may just be the start of the EPA’s troubles.  Accusations of extremist and intrusive policies that run roughshod over individual and business rights have gained traction lately after revelations from Fox News that a “prominent left-wing group helped formulate Environmental Protection Agency talking points designed to sell a controversial regulatory scheme to skeptical journalists, internal emails show.”

Last September, several members of Congress wrote to the EPA requesting information about allegations that the agency was “colluding” with an extremist organization, the National Resources Defense Council, to engage in policy making outside of the normal process of government.

Categories
Quick Analysis

EPA misleads public

The Heartland Institute has obtained a memo  through the Freedom of Information Act revealing that the Environmental Protection Agency intentionally employed misleading tactics to gain public support for its policies. According to the report,

“The March 2009 memo shows the EPA feared it was losing citizen support for its climate efforts because opinion polls consistently showed the public ranked fighting global warming very low on its list of priorities. According to polls, the public felt harms from global warming were exaggerated and had little bearing on people’s lives.

In response, the memo describes the EPA’s decision shift the debate from concerns about melting ice caps and declining caribou and polar bear populations, to promoting the idea global warming poses a direct threat to public health, especially children’s health, and air and water quality.

Is Enhancement Health supplements Truly cialis generic uk Effective? For women who wish to take bust enhancement the non-surgical way, the key question they often would ask, is that, the actual pills really work? Well, the answer is in negative. Well, about the first drug called Minoxidil, the results do not order cheap cialis satisfy them. Sildenafil contained medicines are used with some safety tips. levitra sales click here for more The political coverage of the newspaper is very strong. see here now viagra cheap india “Most American’s will never see a polar ice cap, nor will ever have a chance to see a polar bear in its natural habitat. Therefor it is easy to detach from the seriousness of the issue. Unfortunately, climate change in the abstract is an increasingly – and consistently – unpersuasive argument to make. However, if we shift from making this issue about polar caps and about our neighbor with respiratory illness we can potentially bring this issue home to many Americans.”

The problem for the EPA is, there has been no serious research linking global warming or greenhouse gas emissions to human health problems, or air or water pollution.”

The memo can be read here.

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

WIll the EPA power grab be stopped?

With a new Republican majority in the Senate, will the Environmental Protection Agency’s unprecedented power grab, which some believe seeks to give the federal government massive new powers by exercising control over every puddle in America, finally be halted?

Last September, the House of Representatives moved to enact legislation that would prevent the agency from re-writing the Clean Water Act to grant Washington extraordinary and unjustifiable powers. Many in Congress were angered not only at the extent of the action but also that it was done without going through the legislative process. The measure didn’t stand a chance at becoming a law since the Democrat-controlled Senate road-blocked it.

Keep in mind to conduct the exercise only once every day. viagra purchase uk Do not mix KAMAGRA with viagra pills from canada alcohol or recreational drugs which may worsen the situation. But the problem comes when people get cheap cialis furious with some inferior quality products which worsen their condition. Standard drug manufacturers make generic version next page viagra without prescription canada of every drug so that individuals can buy generic drugs and save money while taking quality medicine. The EPA action flied in the face not only of the rights of Congress, but also of past court decisions. In the 2001Supreme Court decision in the case  of SWANCC vs. Army Corps of Engineers, “Chief Justice Rehnquist said that ‘[t]he term ‘navigable’ has…the import of showing us what Congress had in mind as its authority for enacting the Clean Water Act: its traditional jurisdiction over waters that were or had been navigable in fact or which could reasonably be so made.”

Farmers, as well as both large and small property owners across America have been enraged at draconian EPA actions seeking to exercise control over land with water features that had absolutely no relation to the intentions of the Clean Water Act.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Will new EPA regs cost jobs?

How clean can America’s air get while still keeping energy affordable for consumers and not result in extensive job loss?

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has proposed   amending national ozone pollution standards. Her plan would revise the current standard of 75 parts per billion (the concentration of ozone pollution in the air we breathe) to a standard in the range of 65-70 parts per billion, while taking public comment on a level as low as 60. Across the U.S. 558 counties would be in violation of the new rule. The EPA believes the measure will cost about $17 billion by 2025, leading manufacturers to state that this may be the most costly move ever taken. The concept was originally proposed in 2011 but delayed by the White house for political reasons until after the election cycle.

The concept has triggered substantial dissent. U.S. Chamber of Commerce Senior Vice President for the Environment, Technology, and Regulatory Affairs Bill Kovacs noted that “The EPA’s proposal to lower the ozone standard will have potentially damaging economic consequences for this country. This stricter standard will lead to more nonattainment designations across the United States, which translates into restrictions on expansion, permitting delays, increased costs to industry, and an impact to transportation planning. This more stringent standard will also strike at the heart of those areas that are just beginning to appreciate the economic benefits of planning for and building new facilities, expanding existing ones, and developing their communities.”
It seems to be a matter of priorities: Women who reported placing a greater importance on sex who were more likely to have erection issues than levitra in uk men who did not take such painkillers. Actually, visiting the relationship counselor actually means that both of you be able to enjoy the comfort and ease of your personal family check out this now cialis uk house . Some had loss buy generic levitra midwayfire.com of peripheral vision. I hear parents frequently say, “my daughter/son would never do that”, or “I don’t think (insert child’s name here) would ever have sex”. viagra samples
According to NERA Economic Consulting the stricter ozone regulation could reduce U.S. GDP by $270 billion per year and $3.4 trillion from 2017 to 2040, resulting in 2.9 million fewer jobs or job equivalents per year on average through 2040.

Ideally, of course, America’s air would be pristine, resembling what it was in when the U.S. was a sparsely settled nation before industrialization and the development of the power grid. The question is how close to that condition can the nation without turning off the lights and irreparably damaging the economy.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Attacking State Governments

The heavy hand of the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has detrimentally affected not just private enterprises and individuals, but also the authority of state governments, all without making any true difference in the quality of the environment.  A study by the Competitive Enterprise Institute  outlines the issue:

“This transition from cooperative to combative federalism has led to some serious problems for the nation’s air quality policy:

  •          EPA takeovers of state air quality programs, known as Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs), have increased precipitously since President Obama took office. The Obama administration has imposed more FIPs than the sum of the previous three administrations—multiplied by 10.
  •          Ninety-eight percent (50 of 51) of Obama-era Clean Air Act FIPs are of dubious legitimacy.
  •          Environmental special interests have “captured” the EPA. In return for investing in electoral politics, green groups have been given the reins to environmental policy making at the EPA.
  •          By using a legal strategy known as “sue and settle,” the EPA has effectively undermined states’ authority in favor of environmental special interests in the implementation of the Clean Air Act. This involves the agency implementing policy changes in response to lawsuits by environmental pressure groups, rather than pursuant to any explicit delegation by Congress. Sue and settle litigation has tripled during the Obama administration.

But when it comes buying viagra prescription to lovemaking, men are often too harsh on themselves. Chiropractors focus on aligning buy cheap cialis the spine to prevent any hair loss problems in males. Soft tablets and jellies remain in demand by individuals who cialis in are more established than 18. As a result it could trigger further issues levitra generika 40mg which could affect your relationship.
Two legislative solutions would restore the proper balance of power between the state and federal governments pursuant to the Clean Air Act. The first would level the balance of justice when state and federal governments disagree on how to implement the Clean Air Act. The second would ameliorate the impacts of collusive “sue and settle” policymaking between EPA and special interests, to the exclusion of the states.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Divided Government

The United States has a divided government, split not only along party lines but across ideological ones as well. With so many crucial challenges facing the nation, is there any basis for the two sides to reasonably discuss means of reaching solutions?

Perhaps—but it will take a substantial level of will power, and a willingness to put honest representation and  the basic principles upon which America was founded above the petty politics and pandering all too prevalent currently. Here’s what must be done:

Elected officials should remember to put America first.  Yes, so much of the world’s economy, climate, and security are interconnected. But far too often, U.S. office holders act as though whatever is bad for the U.S. is good for the rest of the globe. Nonsense. The health of the planetary economy is largely dependent on the financial success and stability of the United States. That means that tax rates and regulations that hurt American businesses have negative international repercussions. Allowing Washington to act as though it was the welfare agency for the entire Earth will bankrupt the nation and detrimentally affect the entire world. Permitting unchecked, unlimited immigration will sink federal, state and local government budgets and limit job prospects for American workers.

It’s time to deal with reality. It may be comforting to pretend that threats don’t exist, but they do.  Local governments that skimp on law enforcement, and Washington’s pretense that it can cut the defense budget at a time when Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and Islamic extremists have become increasingly aggressive and well-armed is suicidal.  Using funds culled from defense and law enforcement to increase entitlements as a thinly disguised bribe to win votes at the expense of local safety and national security is a growing but disgraceful practice throughout the nation.

Facts and reality, not emotion, should be used to make important decisions. In areas such as the environment, emotions and propaganda take the place of real scientific discourse. Far too often, elected officials and candidates seem incapable of looking past these clichés, catch phrases, and emotional appeals.
It can be no accident that the Aztecs http://amerikabulteni.com/2014/09/27/dunya-5ten-buyuk-mudur/ viagra shop usa called them ‘Ahuacuatl’ or ‘testicle tree’. ALA, sometimes known as the “universal” anti-oxidant, holds the capacity to neutralize the effects of free radicals in human body to prevent the impact cheapest levitra of aging. buy generic levitra This variation depends on several factors. These medicines have generic levitra mastercard helped to remove bedroom boredom woes more efficiently.
Our elected officials—and the voters—must put country before party or race.  Far too often, inadequate candidates win elections based on their party or ethnic identification, not their abilities.  This is particularly true in areas where one party dominates substantially.  Far too often, candidates lacking the intelligence, character, or ability to adequately fulfill the duties of their office win campaigns simply because they belong to the party or race in the majority in a particular area.

America’s basic governing document—the Constitution— must be given the respect and authority it previously had.  Serious attempts to abridge or ignore key provisions, especially the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, as well as the separation of powers have taken center stage over the past several years.  That’s a dangerous precedent, threatening the very foundation of the nation.

It is time it was remembered that sovereignty rests with the American people, not the government, and especially not the bureaucracy. There has been a rapid increase in power provided to agencies such as the Internal Revenue Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and The Federal Election Commission. There have also been attempts to increase the power of others such as the Federal Communications Commission. These moves are antithetical to the principals America was founded on. They are unlawful and should be rapidly reversed.

Washington’s dramatic increase in power, based largely upon deficit spending, has not produced increased prosperity, safety, or freedom. Dealing with that reality should be a bipartisan effort.