The EPA is a Nation-Killer – Tea Party Nation

The EPA is a Nation-Killer – Tea Party Nation.

By Alan Caruba

To the naïve and uninformed, the Environmental Protection Agency exists to ensure clean air and water in the nation. That was its initial mandate when it was created by an executive order by President Nixon in 1970. It has since become a nation killer.

In 2013 a flood of regulations will cost thousands of Americans their jobs and drive more industry overseas to avoid the cost of doing business in America. It will drive up the cost of energy from electricity, along with the cost of gas and diesel fuel. It will effectively kill much of the coal mining industry in a nation that is the Saudi Arabia of coal, an energy source that formerly provided fifty percent of all electricity in America.

The EPA is girding up to kill “fracking”, a technology that has safely been in use for decades and one that holds the promise of further provision of natural gas. The provision of oil is being thwarted as well; mostly famously by Obama’s derailment of the Keystone XL pipeline in a nation laced with energy-providing pipelines. Energy, the lifeblood of the nation, will be under attack as never before.

A new EPA ozone standard will occur, one that the EPA estimates would cost $90 billion a year while other studies put the figure at nearly a trillion dollars and destroy 7.4 million jobs. The EPA’s projections are that 650 additional communities would be deemed “non-compliant” and effectively ensure plant closings and that no new manufacturing and other businesses would set up shop.

The EPA has pushed to regulate—control—every body of water in America, no matter how small. A recent court decision derailed EPA storm-water regulations that would have established a first-time standard for post-construction storm-water runoff could include mandates on cities to change existing buildings, storm-water sewer systems, and streets. It would have been the most expensive rule in EPA history.

The EPA will release regulations on the manufacture of cement—the MACT rule—that would increase the cost of manufacturing this essential element of construction by 22% to 36%. Many such plants would have to close and the U.S. would have to import cement from nations like China.

Expect regulations on cooling towers to protect fish under the Clean Water Act. A proposed coal ash rule could cost between $79 to $110 billion over the next twenty years, ending between 183,900 and 316,000 jobs over 20 years, affecting states that include Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio and Missouri. The EPA has been regulating “farm dust” for decades and new rules would affect the nation’s food supplies as farmers and ranchers adjust by raising fewer livestock and the till fewer fields. Spill prevention rules would further impact farmers and ranchers.

If you were asked what is the most costly federal agency which would you suggest? Would it be the Department of Homeland Security? Department of Defense? Labor? Agriculture? Housing and Urban Development? Transportation?

In terms of the regulations it generates, the Environmental Protection Agency is the most expensive rulemaking agency. It costs $353 billion annually to comply with its regulations.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute recently published a report by Ryan Young, a Fellow in Regulatory Studies, regarding the EPA and it is further testimony to the way this predatory agency has gone from the first year of its operation in 1971, costing $701 million, to outlays in 2011 of $10.722 billion, employing 20,610 full-time workers.

The public is expected to believe that this army of environmental bureaucrats are all diligently saving Americans from particulates in the air, rain run-offs in the water, any pesticide that might actually protect them from pests, and the countless other life-threatening dangers that required, from 1999 to 2011, a total of 4,995 rules in the “Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.”

These regulations have little to do with clean air and water and everything to do with destroying the nation’s economy, putting thousands out of work at a time when economic growth is barely occurring, and new taxes will further reduce the spending and investment power of Americans.

After having put in motion the flood of regulations that will strangle the economy, EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, will step down after Obama’s inauguration. Her decision came after a law suit by the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Chris Horner will make known the thousands of emails Jackson sent under an alias, a practice forbidden to federal employees, presumably shedding light on policies and views she intended to be kept secret.

Reacting to the news of her forthcoming resignation, S.T. Kornick, Director of Research for The Heartland Institute, said, “Jackson played the environmental ‘bad cop’ to President Obama’s ‘good cop’, but the result of their tag-team effort has been a huge expansion of the EPA’s power. Appointing another bad cop to head the EPA could by itself push the nation into recession.”

The most powerful economy in the world is being destroyed from within by an agency that has declared war on America. It must be downsized and restrained if the nation is to survive.

© Alan Caruba, 2013

 

EDITORIAL: EPA regulates water – Washington Times

EDITORIAL: EPA regulates water – Washington Times.

Life-giving substances shouldn’t be treated as pollutants

The environmentalist movement has gone off the deep end. It’s bad enough that the courts have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to declare carbon dioxide, one of the essential components of life on this planet, to be a pollutant. Now the same bureaucratic zealots are going after water itself.

On Friday, Virginia Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II appeared in federal district court in Alexandria to contest the EPA’s use of the Clean Water Act to punish Virginia and Fairfax County for sending too much water into a watershed. “These regulations are expensive, cumbersome and incredibly difficult to implement,” Mr. Cuccinelli said. “And if we can’t stop this from happening in Fairfax County, it’s bound to happen across the state over and over again and at a huge price tag to the taxpayers of the commonwealth.”

The EPA’s latest action is a classic example of how Washington agencies constantly expand their purpose. Congress first adopts legislation bearing a title nobody could reasonably oppose — who’s against clean water? Over time, the courts and bureaucrats systematically extend the meaning of formerly innocuous definitions. Now instead of keeping lead out of drinking water, the agency is keeping water out of creeks.

Specifically, the agency has established a set of limits for the amount of water that can flow into Accotink Creek, which runs through Fairfax County and drains into the Potomac. The Virginia Department of Transportation and the county are on the hook for storm water that falls from the sky onto county and city roads. This water then flows into storm drains that empty into the creek. EPA hypothesizes that heavy water flows stir up “sediment,” which does fall under the Clean Water Act’s definitions. Instead of going after sediment levels directly, however, EPA has declared it can go ahead and directly target water-flow levels, which Mr. Cuccinelli says goes too far in pushing the jurisdictional envelope.

According to documents filed with the court, complying with the EPA’s bizarre rule would cost state and local governments $320 million. Mr. Cuccinelli told the court this could result in the loss of homes, as “efforts to achieve such a reduction in storm-water flow as demanded by EPA would require significant public takings of private property in order to build numerous new storm-water management structures.”

Even if VDOT and Fairfax County jump through the federal hoops, there’s no guarantee that the insects, birds and algae in Accotink Creek will see any improvement in the quality of their life. The real control of the amount of water that flows into the creek is in the hands of Mother Nature, not Uncle Sam. That’s why the court should step in and shut down the EPA’s latest power grab.

The Washington Times

 

MURDOCK: High cost of fantasy fuel – Washington Times

MURDOCK: High cost of fantasy fuel – Washington Times.

Team Obama fines companies for not buying fuel that doesn’t exist

By Deroy Murdock

Why does America’s economy feel like an SUV running on fumes? The Obama administration’s laughably rigid enforcement of a Bush-era ethanol mandate typifies today’s regulatory climate. When Uncle Sam governs with a tire iron in his hand, U.S. companies wisely pull off the road and pray for new management.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has slapped a $6.8 million penalty on oil refiners for not blending cellulosic ethanol into gasoline, jet fuel and other products. Those dastardly petroleum mongers are being so intransigent because cellulosic ethanol does not exist. It remains a fantasy fuel. The EPA might as well mandate that Exxon hire leprechauns. So far this year — just as in 2011 — the supply of cellulosic biofuel in gallons totals zero.

EPA’s decision is arbitrary and capricious. We fail to understand how EPA can maintain a requirement to purchase a type of fuel that simply doesn’t exist,” said Charles Drevna, president of American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), the Washington-based association for the oil-refining industry.

President George W. Bush idiotically signed the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007. Beyond prohibiting Thomas Edison’s groundbreaking incandescent light bulb by 2014, EISA’s Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) mandated cellulosic ethanol. Under the RFS, refiners had to blend 6.6 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol in 2011. Although this substance is not extant, EPA then demanded to see 31 percent more of it. This year’s quota is 8.65 million gallons. Somehow, EPA expects cellulosic ethanol to leap magically from test tubes into storage tanks.

Presidents Bush and Obama have pumped about $1.5 billion in grants and guarantees into converting cellulosic ethanol from dream into reality. As Thomas J. Pyle of the Institute for Energy Research reports, Team Obama handed a $105 million loan guarantee to POET LLC, “the world’s largest ethanol producer,” to create cellulosic fuel. Last September, Abengoa Energy scored a $134 million loan to build a Kansas cellulosic factory. Last August, Mr. Obama gave the Navy $510 million to develop biofuels for the U.S. armed forces.

Way back in 2010, about 70 percent of fantasy fuel was supposed to spring from Cello Energy in Alabama. Unfortunately, in 2009, a jury determined that Cello had falsified its production capacity. Cello went silent in October 2010 when it filed for bankruptcy.

The National Academy of Sciences predicted last year that by 2022, EPA’s mandated cellulosic supplies will not materialize “unless innovative technologies are developed that unexpectedly improve the cellulosic biofuels production process.” In other words, if you don’t build it, they will not come.

The oil refiners absorbed all of this and chose, at first, to play nice. AFPM and the American Petroleum Institute petitioned EPA in February 2011 and again on Jan. 20 — that time joined by the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA). As the administration gave labor unions and entire states waivers from Obamacare, the refiners asked for waivers from the RFS mandate.

Fully 15 months after the first petition and four months beyond the second, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson finally rejected the refiners’ appeals, reaffirming that they must obey this regulation — never mind that they more easily could defy gravity. “We thank you for your interest in these issues,” Ms. Jackson’s May 22 letter cheerily said.

Thus, on June 11, the AFPM and WSPA sued EPA in D.C. Circuit Court. The plaintiffs hope a federal judge will blend some sanity into a scenario that resembles the work of Salvador Dali.

Rather than focus on expanding operations and creating jobs, lawful American companies must spend money to sue the federal government for relief from unobservable rules. This fact demonstrates how boneheaded and bullheaded Washington has become. Even worse, businessmen beyond the oil industry watch this charade and wonder when the regulatory tumbrels will roll by for them.

Washington’s unyielding, heavy-handed and nonsensical behavior nonetheless may obscure a sliver of silver lining. The Bush-Obama administration indeed has invented a hybrid fuel: Cellulosic ethanol is one-half industrial policy and one-half comedy routine.

Deroy Murdock is a columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.

EPA Threatens to Wreck Nation’s Auto Fleet – Tea Party Nation

EPA Threatens to Wreck Nation’s Auto Fleet – Tea Party Nation.

By Alan Caruba

One can hardly get through the week without learning of yet another absurd new program by the Environmental Protection Agency. The latest is a five percent increase in the amount of ethanol that must be added to the nation’s supply of gasoline.

In 2010, even Al Gore told a business conference in Athens that his previous support for blending ethanol with gasoline as a Senator from Tennessee was a mistake and based on a political decision concerning the support of farmers in his home state. At the time he spoke, corn ethanol subsidies to farmers represented $7.7 billion.

Ethanol was touted as yet another way to offset “greenhouse gas” emissions and prevent “global warming.” In 2010, ethanol production consumed an estimated 41 percent of the U.S. corn crop and 15 percent of the global corn crop.

The obvious result has been to drive up the cost of all food products that include corn and its derivatives. And there neither was nor is any “global warming”!

Two years later there is still no “global warming”, but the EPA has never been deterred by real science such as the fact that the Earth has been cooling since 1998. E15 is a diabolical mandate that will do widespread damage to autos using it and to the pumping and storage facilities to distribute it. And it is occurring as the market for ethanol is stalling.

It is by any definition, a criminal act by a rogue federal agency.

The Science Committee of the House of Representatives is trying to prevent the implementation of the EPA E15 mandate. This comes after more than 30 years of blending ethanol at a ten percent rate into gasoline; three decades of a blend that actually produces less mileage at the same time the production of ethanol generates the same level of carbon in the atmosphere as burning gasoline without ethanol.

The E115 mandate should trouble anyone with an automobile, motorcycle, outdoor or any equipment that runs on gasoline. Last summer, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WIS) sent the EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, letters from car companies expressing their opposition.

“Ford does not support the introduction of E15 into the marketplace for the legacy fleet…Fuel not approved in the owner’s manual is considered misfueling and any damage resulting from misfueling is not covered by the warranty.” Both Chrysler and Honda sent comparable letters with the latter noting “There appears to be the potential for engine failure.”

E15 will be restricted to autos of the vehicle model year 2001 and later. The Obama administration set a goal “to help fueling station owners install 10,000 blender pumps over the next five years”, but the real question is why would any government even consider doing something that represents millions in damage to automobiles using it?

Additionally, why should Congress continue to provide ethanol subsidies to its producers when the evidence of the passed thirty years use has not only demonstrated that it reduces the mileage that pure gasoline would provide and, more importantly, serves no purpose whatever regarding the non-existent “global warming” that is the sole justification for the blend?

The answer is that the EPA does not care that as many as five million cars in the current fleet could suffer damage and total engine failure which is not covered by their warranties.

The EPA is the Obama administration’s tip of the sword in its war on the use of all fossil fuels for any reason. It has nothing to do with science. It portends to wreak further havoc on drivers and the economy.

What is desperately needed is the complete reform of the EPA before it further threatens the safely, health, and lives of Americans.

© Alan Caruba, 2012

EDITORIAL: Getting burned by biofuels – Washington Times

OBAMAS  MARXIST ADMINISTRATION ON DISPLAY FOR ...

OBAMAS MARXIST ADMINISTRATION ON DISPLAY FOR ALL TO SEE (Photo credit: SS&SS)

EDITORIAL: Getting burned by biofuels – Washington Times.

Energy firms are caught in green-credit crossfire

When individuals attempt to solve a problem and end up creating unforeseen troubles, it’s called the law of unintended consequences. When government does it, it’s called the law of the land. In its zeal for regulation, the federal leviathan has invented a market for something called renewable-fuel credits and, not surprisingly, it’s filled with fraud. Businesses are getting swindled and Uncle Sam’s unsympathetic response is “heads I win, tails you lose.”

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 mandated that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) implement a Renewable Fuel Standard forcing fuel refiners to dilute their petroleum products with vegetable oil, corn, algae and animal fat so companies that label themselves “green” would reap a financial windfall. Refiners who can’t make those substances on their own are allowed to buy renewable-fuel credits to meet their federal quota. Each credit carries a 38-digit renewable identification number (RIN) as proof of purchase. The credits can be traded.

As this is an entirely artificial market that serves no purpose other than to make politicians and their political donors happy, it’s rife with fraud. Since November, the EPA has claimed 140 million invalid RINs have been sold. The agency alleges 48 million bogus credits came from Absolute Fuels of Texas, netting about $62 million. Another 32 million were purportedly sold by Clean Green Fuel LLC in Maryland for $9 million, and 60 million were marketed by Green Diesel of Texas, worth $84 million.

House Republicans expect the scam to hit at least 300 million fake credits. “Unfortunately, the production of and trade in fraudulent or invalid RINs has developed into a large and growing problem,” wrote House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Fred Upton, Michigan Republican, and three other committee members in a May 24 letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. “And EPA’s efforts to address the problem so far appear ineffective, and in some respects have harmed the renewable-fuels marketplace.”

Rather than taking responsibility for authenticating the RIN market, the EPA is putting refiners on the hook for unwittingly buying fake RINs. In March, the agency announced it would fine firms 10 cents for each invalid credit they use and 20 cents for each credit missing from their quotas. One credit trading company, OceanConnect, filed suit in federal court in April, charging the EPA’s “buyer beware” policy is undermining the biofuels industry.

That’s an industry that should be undermined if it’s unable to offer consumers an affordable product that they want. Instead, Washington insiders who view Big Oil as the root of evil have decided the nation must transition to energy products that aren’t anywhere near viable. It’s the essence of crony capitalism when lawmakers dictate that one product – corn fuel – the winner at the expense of another – affordable petroleum.

Ultimately, it’s the taxpayer and the environment that end up paying the price for this folly as the nation’s productive resources are diverted into the most wasteful endeavor of all: satisfying bureaucrats.

The Washington Times

EPA Takes to Air to Watch Cow Pies – John Ransom – Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary

Cattle

Cattle (Photo credit: CameliaTWU (away for a while))

EPA Takes to Air to Watch Cow Pies – John Ransom – Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary.

The Environmental Protection Agency declined to answer questions this week as the Omaha World-Herald sought to clarify whether the agency had the legal authority to conduct overflights of cattle operations to determine if cattle are pooping in streams in the Midwest.

I don’t know much about bovine latrine habits, but I’ve been around enough pastures to know that cattle really aren’t that particular.

It seems to me that they let go pretty much wherever they are, stream or no.

So I think I can say with some authority, that, yes, cattle all around the Midwest are indeed pooping in streams, legally or otherwise.

That’s the kind of rugged individualists that cow herds appear to be now in face of the bullying- pun intended-cowards in the Obama administration. It’s gotten so bad that not content to rough up people, the Obama administration has to go do some environmental cow-tipping. 

What’s supposed to be sport for drunk people, is now official policy.

Wow.      

And I really don’t need to see the pictures to know that cows are standing up for liberty when they poop all over the EPA in this way.  

But bureaucrats, being what they are, the cow-hating crime fighters from DC have now taken to the skies 16 times in Nebraska and Iowa to help identify cattle that aren’t washing their hands prior to returning to work, so to speak.

Next week I hear they are getting hair nets and plastic name tags for the cows.

I found an unattributed quip on the internet over the last few days that perfectly explains the increasing fascination progressives have with fascism: “You can now marry your same-sex first cousin in New York and get an abortion with taxpayer money, but you can’t have a large Pepsi.”

And cows can only poop in designated areas.  

Good luck.

Thank goodness we killed off the numberless buffalo. Imagine all those millions of bison roaming the West with no bathroom attendant.  

According to the Herald, the EPA thinks the flights have legal precedence.

While the EPA would not answer questions on the record, they did release a statement saying:

Courts, including the Supreme Court, have found similar types of flights to be legal (for example to take aerial photographs of a chemical manufacturing facility) and EPA would use such flights in appropriate instances to protect people and the environment from violations of the Clean Water Act.

Wait: I thought the whole purpose of the flights was to protect us from B.S., not spread even more of it. I mean if we are actually going to fine people for spreading B.S. we could start in the White House

Senator Mike Johanns, a Republican from Nebraska, who used to serve as agriculture secretary, says that the EPA has overstepped its authority, which it derives from congress.

“They are just way on the outer limits of any authority they’ve been granted,” he said according to the Herald.

Johanns told the CattleNetwork that “[m]y concerns are many” adding that the EPA has “little trust out in the country and people will get fired up” about the overflights.

The Nebraska Senator took to the agriculture airwaves on May 31st to express concern about “small planes circling” local feedlots.

“It’s happening, and I’m trying to find out just what’s involved,” Johanns told AgriTalk radio.

According to the CattleNetwork, the Nebraska congressional delegation has sent a letter to EPA administrator Lisa Jackson asking “for an explanation of the statutory authority under which EPA is conducting the surveillance, along with the purpose of the flights, their frequency and their use in enforcement actions.”

Good luck.

This is an administration that won’t answer questions as to why it illegally sold guns to Mexican drug cartels.

Expect more cow stuff.

Armed EPA Agents Visit Asheville Man – Tea Party Nation

Armed EPA Agents Visit Asheville Man – Tea Party Nation.

By Alan Caruba

Sometimes a small incident says volumes about a large government agency. In this case the Environmental Protection Agency.

Around 1.45 PM on May 23, Ashville, North Carolina resident Larry Keller was in the midst of an international call which he had to cut short in order to answer his front door. He found two armed agents of the EPA who were accompanied by an Ashville Police officer.

According to a May 24 news story in the Ashville Tribune, a weekly newspaper to which I am a contributing columnist, the agents had blocked his and his neighbor’s driveways with their cars. They had driven all the way from Raleigh to confront him.

What had he done? The unannounced visit had been occasioned by news that Dr. Al Armendariz, a regional EPA administrator whose 2010 lecture had been videotaped and been released by the office of Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) on April 25th. In the lecture, Dr. Amendariz had said that the agency’s “general philosophy” was to “crucify” oil and gas producers.

He compared the agency’s “philosophy of enforcement” to the way, as a Wall Street Journal editorial reported, “Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean. “They’d go into a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they would crucify them, And then you know that town was really easy to manage for the next few years. The point is to ‘make examples’ of alleged lawbreakers.”

The case in point had been Range Resources, a driller who had been exonerated of charges of water pollution as the result of fracking. As the Wall Street Journal noted, the reference to executions “raise(d) questions not only about” not only Dr. Arnendariz’s comments “but the EPA’s larger impartiality and judgment.”

Keller, who describes himself as “a bit of a political activist” had emailed the EPA Director of External Affairs, Dr. David Gray, saying “Hello Mr. Gray. Do you have Mr. Armendariz’s contact information so we can say hello?”

That was enough to dispatch two armed agents to his front door. He was told by one agent that “…my choice of words in the email could be interpreted in many ways.” They did not identify themselves, but asked if he had ever been arrested. He responded swiftly that he had not. When he asked for a copy of his email, they refused to provide it because “the case was still under investigation.”

His wife arrived home and the agents did not want a witness so “They left in a big hurry.”

The Ashville Tribune by Catherine Hunter quoted Keller who described their attitude as “accusatory” reporting that he compared “their tactics to those of Nazi Germany SS methods.”

Keller contacted the agent’s supervisor, Michael Hill, and was told that the incident with Dr. Armendariz “had prompted so many emails and calls that authorities in Washington, DC ordered an investigation.”

Keller’s email inquiry to contact Dr. Armendariz was treated as a threat when it clearly was not. Since when is trying to contact an EPA administrator a crime?

“I want the world to know,” said Keller, “the government is reaching into the privacy of our homes and computers. I’ve never been so offended by the power of government in my life.”

Do we really want an EPA that uses such tactics against a citizen who has merely indicated an interest in contacting one of their administrators to comment on what he had said during a lecture?

Do we really want an EPA whose working “philosophy” regarding the oil and gas industry is to “crucify” it in order to regulate it and, as we know, is trying to thwart drilling, as well as to end the coal industry that provides an energy resource that produces one half of all the electricity in the nation?

It is, as noted, just one small incident, but it reflects the way the EPA functions in a presumably free society. Over the years I have read of many incidents in which the EPA has asserted powers to impede the most innocent actions of citizens and it is long past the time when this agency is reined in by Congress.

The only option at this point is to rid the nation of the Obama administration, crack down on the EPA, and rid us of the threat it poses in its efforts to deny entire industries from providing the energy the nation requires and attacks our agricultural and ranching communities for practices that reflect its normal operation.

As they used to advertise horror films, “Be afraid. Be very afraid.” An EPA that operates on the basis of intimidating its chosen enemies and that seeks to intimidate citizens inquiring about it, is reason enough to be afraid.

© Alan Caruba, 2012

EPA’s Plans for Implementing UN’s Agenda 21 – thenewamerican.com

EPA’s Plans for Implementing UN’s Agenda 21 – thenewamerican.com.

Written by 

One of the most successful grassroots campaigns during the past year has been the Stop Agenda 21 movement both at the local level and state level. However, we haven’t heard as much about Agenda 21 implementation at the national level.

Of course, there were President Bill Clinton‘s establishment of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development by executive order in 1993 and President Obama’sFederal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance” executive order in 2009. And, many federal agencies have been incorporating sustainability into various aspects of their organizations. Still, virtually all Stop Agenda 21 grassroots activity has been focused on the local and state levels.

The establishment of Clinton’s President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) started a pattern of denial by federal government agencies regarding any connection with the United Nations Agenda 21. Even though the PCSD was clearly established in 1993 in support of the UN’s Agenda 21 and its Sustainable Development proposals from the UN’s ’92 Earth Summit in Rio, the PCSD’s statements and documents never referred to the UN and Agenda 21.

We have evidence that federal officials were taking pains to make the PCSD appear to be completely separate from the UN’s Agenda 21 because J. Gary Lawrence, an advisor to the PCSD, said the following in 1998:

Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society…. This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking LA21 [Local Agenda 21]. So, we call our processes something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.

This helps explain why virtually all federal activities in pursuit of sustainability rarely make any reference to the UN or the UN’s Agenda 21, even though these federal activities are very much in sync with the UN’s Agenda 21.

Nonetheless, there have been very significant developments regarding sustainability at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) beginning with its 40th anniversary in late 2010. On November 30, 2010, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson stated: “Today I am formally requesting President Cicerone and the National Academies convene a committee of experts to provide to the U.S. EPA an operational framework for sustainability that applies across all of the agency’s programs, policies, and actions.”

Jackson added: “Today we have a new opportunity in front of us. We have an opportunity to focus on how environmentally protective and sustainable we can be. You see, it’s the difference between treating disease and pursuing wellness.”

The National Academies of Science (NAS) responded with a detailed study, Sustainability and the U.S. EPA (aka the “Green Book”), which cost the EPA $700,000, and which was published in August 2011. The NAS also produced a five-minute video (see video also below) about this project.

Here are some excerpts from the 286-page “Green Book”:

• “The [UN’s World Commission on Environment and Development] called upon the UN General Assembly to transform its [1987] report into a global action plan for sustainable development. The nations of the world did precisely that at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development, or ‘Earth Summit,’ in Rio de Janeiro. These nations, including the United States, endorsed a global sustainable development action plan, known as Agenda 21, and a set of 27 principles for sustainable-development, called the Rio Declaration. Together, these agreements modify the definition of development by adding a third pillar — environmental protection and restoration — to the economic and social pillars of development.”

• “First, the committee recommends that EPA formally adopt as its sustainability paradigm the ‘Three Pillars’ approach of ‘Social,’ ‘Environment,’ and ‘Economic’ dimensions of sustainability.”

• “Sustainability impact assessment is used to analyze the probable effects of a particular project or proposal on the social, environmental, and economic pillars of sustainability.”

Thus, the “Green Book” acknowledges that the nations of the world, including the United States, “endorsed a global sustainable development action plan, known as Agenda 21” at the ’92 Earth Summit in Rio. Next, the NAS committee recommended that “EPA formally adopt as its sustainability paradigm the ‘Three Pillars’ approach of ‘Social,’ ‘Environment,’ and ‘Economic’ dimensions of sustainability.” Which would make the EPA sustainability paradigm exactly in sync with the three pillars of sustainable development agreed upon at the ’92 Earth Summit. Finally, the NAS proposed a new tool for EPA, the sustainability impact assessment, that would be “used to analyze the probable effects of a particular project or proposal on the social, environmental, and economic pillars of sustainability.”

Therefore, it is apparent that the NAS “Green Book” is positioning the EPA to become the premier federal agency for implementing Agenda 21 in the United States.



EPA spokesman are wary in this highly-charged, election-year political climate about making any definitive statement regarding whether and how soon the EPA would adopt the “Green Book” sustainability methodology. However, it is clear from listening to the audio of the November 30, 2010, meeting where the EPA commissioned the NAS to produce a new “operational framework for sustainability” for the EPA that the EPA sees the “sustainability paradigm” as the future for the agency.

Moreover, just to keep it real for those of us accustomed to the American way of life, here is what Maurice Strong, Secretary-General of the UN Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, said in his opening speech to the attendees: “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class — involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing — are not sustainable.” (Emphasis added.)



Based on Strong’s remarks, it doesn’t take much of an imagination to predict just how much downward pressure on our standard of living would be exerted by a sustainability oriented EPA.



It also doesn’t take too much talent at connecting the dots to understand that an EPA based on sustainability, an EPA that wants to pursue wellness, not treat disease, an EPA that wants to use “sustainability impact assessments” to analyze the probable effects of a particular project or proposal on the social, environmental, and economic dimensions of sustainability — that would be an EPA that would aspire to regulate in detail virtually every aspect of our lives, thus completely destroying our freedom and prosperity.



The point of all of the above is that even though the EPA is already guilty of vastly over-regulating us, an EPA based on an operational framework of sustainability would be much worse.



There’s currently no legislation in Congress to stop the EPA from implementing the UN Agenda 21 concept of sustainability. Realistically, given the makeup of Congress, there’s virtually no chance that a bill could be passed this year to stop EPA implementation of Agenda 21.

However, in light of the rapid growth of the Stop Agenda 21 movement over the past year, and the changes that will occur with the elections in November, Congress could very well be more likely to initiate and pass anti-Agenda 21 legislation in 2013. Click here if you would like to send a message to your Representative and Senators about this issue.

More non-reassurance from the Obama Regime. – Tea Party Nation

THE "GREEN OBAMA" BUSY OBAMIZING YOU...

THE "GREEN OBAMA" BUSY OBAMIZING YOUR CHILDREN (Photo credit: SS&SS)

More non-reassurance from the Obama Regime. – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips

Do you think you are paying a lot for gas now?

 Just wait; to quote Ronald Reagan, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

 If we have cursed with a second Obama term, do you have any idea what you will be paying for a gallon of gas?

 From the Washington Examiner:

 Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said that “no one knows” if gasoline prices in the United States will reach $9 per gallon, and acknowledged that the possibility is outside his control.

 “I don’t think anyone can speculate what will happen with respect to oil prices and gas prices because they are set on the global economy,” Salazar told reporters when asked if gas prices could reach $9 per gallon, as they have been in Greece. “Where it will all end, no one knows.

 He explained that “what we see happening today are the influences first of unrest in places like the Middle East and Iran, which disrupt the markets and allow the futures markets to play on some of what they see [in] the unrest around the world; and secondly the huge demand that you’ve started seeing in places like China, India and Brazil.”

 Really?  Perhaps someone should tell the Obama Regime that many of us were born in the dark, but it wasn’t last night.

 Let me take a stab at this.

 The Obama Regime is doing everything in its power to eliminate sources of domestic oil production.   Thus, we are force to import more and more of our oil.  At the same time the Obama Regime is engaged in policies that destroy the value of the dollar.  Since he has been in office the real value of our dollar has dropped by half.  If he does that again, and we already have four dollar a gallon gas, where does that put us?

 Given that it is the official policy of the Obama Regime to “crucify” oil companies, $9 a gallon gas should not surprise anyone.

 From CNS News:

 Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) took to the Senate floor today to draw attention to a video of a top EPA official saying the EPA’s “philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of oil and gas companies – just as the Romans crucified random citizens in areas they conquered to ensure obedience.

 Inhofe quoted a little-watched video from 2010 of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official, Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz, admitting that EPA’s “general philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of oil and gas companies.

 In the video, Administrator Armendariz says:

 “I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the meeting, but I’ll go ahead and tell you what I said:

 “It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean.  They’d go in to a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them.

 “Then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”

 “It’s a deterrent factor,” Armendariz said, explaining that the EPA is following the Romans’ philosophy for subjugating conquered villages.

 Soon after Armendariz touted the EPA’s “philosophy,” the EPA began smear campaigns against natural gas producers, Inhofe’s office noted in advance of today’s Senate speech:

 “Not long after Administrator Armendariz made these comments in 2010, EPA targeted US natural gas producers in Pennsylvania, Texas and Wyoming.

 The only crucifixion that needs to be needs to go on is what the voters to do the Obama Regime this November. 

 Of course, compared to the Obama Regime, the Oil and Gas Industry qualifies for Sainthood.

MILLOY: Did Obama’s EPA relaunch Tuskegee experiments? – Washington Times

The EPA was directed to set standards for radi...

The EPA was directed to set standards for radioactive materials under Reorganization Plan No. 3 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

MILLOY: Did Obama’s EPA relaunch Tuskegee experiments? – Washington Times.

Human trials vainly tried to prove air pollution is deadly

By Steve Milloy

Which do you find more shocking: that the Environmental Protection Agency conducts experiments on humans that its own risk assessments would deem potentially lethal, or that it hides the results of those experiments from Congress and the public because they debunk those very same risk assessments?

JunkScience.com recently obtained through the Freedom of Information Act the results of tests conducted on 41 people who were exposed by EPA researchers to high levels of airborne fine particulate matter – soot and dust known as PM2.5.

If we are to believe the congressional testimony of EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, these experiments risked the lives of these 41 people, at least one of whom was already suffering from heart problems.

Ms. Jackson testified in September before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, “Particulate matter causes premature death. It doesn’t make you sick. It’s directly causal to dying sooner than you should.” Just to clarify what Ms. Jackson meant by “sooner than you should,” deaths allegedly caused by PM2.5 are supposed to occur within a day or so of exposure.

Got that? Airborne dust and soot don’t make you sick, they just kill you – virtually upon exposure.

Underscoring this notion are the EPA’s two most recent rules affecting coal-fired power plants, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard, which the EPA claims will prevent tens of thousands of premature deaths per year by reducing PM2.5 emissions.

Further underscoring the EPA’s view that PM2.5 kills is more of Ms. Jackson’s congressional testimony. At the September hearing, Rep. Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Democrat, asked Ms. Jackson, “How would you compare [the benefits of reducing airborne PM2.5] to the fight against cancer?” Ms. Jackson said, “Yeah, I was briefed not long ago. If we could reduce particulate matter to healthy levels, it would have the same impact as finding a cure for cancer in our country.” Mr. Markey asked her to repeat what she had said. Ms. Jackson responded, “Yes, sir. If we could reduce particulate matter to levels that are healthy, we would have an identical impact to finding a cure for cancer.”

Given that cancer kills about 570,000 Americans per year, according to the American Cancer Society, the EPA’s claim amounts to PM2.5 being responsible for roughly 25 percent of all deaths in the U.S. annually.

In support of this belief, the EPA has been issuing rules since 1997 to reduce PM2.5 in ambient air, including the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and Mercury and Air Toxics Standard, which will cost coal-fired electric utilities and their consumers more than $10 billion per year to implement.

The EPA takes the position that PM2.5 is so dangerous that it needs to set exceedingly stringent regulatory standards. The EPA’s PM2.5 air-quality standards are violated when PM2.5 levels exceed 35 micrograms per cubic meter in ambient air during a 24-hour period, or when they exceed 15 micrograms per cubic meter on average over the course of a year – and the EPA is looking to further tighten these standards in 2013.

Returning to the agency’s human experimentation, how much PM2.5 did the study subjects inhale in the name of EPA science? One subject was exposed to 750 micrograms of PM2.5 per cubic meter, or more than 21 times the EPA’s 24-hour standard. Seven subjects were exposed to levels 10 times greater than the 24-hour standard. No study subject was exposed to less than 35 micrograms per cubic meter. Remember, Ms. Jackson said PM2.5 doesn’t make you sick. It just kills you – quickly.

Although PM2.5 is allegedly so deadly, the experiments were stopped in only two cases. One was a 58-year old woman, who EPA experimented on despite her personal medical history of Stage 1 hypertension, premature atrial contractions, osteoarthritis, gall bladder removal and a family history of heart disease (her father had a fatal heart attack at age 57). Her experiment was stopped when she experienced atrial fibrillation. In the other case, the woman experienced no clinical effects, but the EPA nevertheless stopped her experiment after researchers detected a momentary increase in heart rate.

EPA particulate matter assertions notwithstanding, PM2.5 killed none of the study subjects, and the two experiments that were stopped can likely be explained by causes other than PM2.5.

You might think that the EPA would have shared these “surprising” results with the public and Congress, particularly as they seem to contradict the agency’s claims about the lethality of PM2.5. But you would be wrong.

The EPA human experiments were conducted from January 2010 to June 2011, ending more than three months before Ms. Jackson’s congressional testimony, which contained no mention of these results – just dramatic claims of PM2.5’s lethality.

EPA researchers who conducted the experiments published the case study of the 58-year woman in the government journal Environmental Health Perspectives in which they casually disregard the woman’s pre-existing health conditions and blame her atrial fibrillation on PM2.5. They also failed to disclose the existence – let alone the results – of the other 40 experiments.

The researchers’ conduct is also unethical given that the results of the other experiments – two-thirds of which involved higher PM2.5 levels – contradict their conclusions about the 58-year old woman.

What about the agency’s conduct? The EPA’s long-established view is that PM2.5 is ultrahazardous, yet it exposed humans to very high and potentially near-instantly lethal levels of a deadly pollutant. In light of the EPA’s own safety standard, how far is the agency’s conduct from the horrific experiments conducted by the Nazi concentration camp doctor Josef Mengele and the Tuskegee syphilis experiments? What should we make of the agency hiding its results from the public and Congress?

It seems that the only way out for the EPA is to acknowledge the reality that, in fact, PM2.5 is not so bad for you after all.

Steve Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and is author of “Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them” (Regnery, 2009).

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,850 other followers