GOP Governors Don’t Want To Cut Carbon Pollution Even Though Their States Do

[boutons_deux]

At a Republican Governors Association news conference (http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Perry-Jindal-take-swipe-at-EPA-carbon-rules-5557162.php#/0) on Monday at the Petroleum Club in Houston, the new EPA carbon rules were blasted as job killers — and litigation against the regulations was portrayed as imminent.
\
“This is such a dangerous overreach in terms of the potential threat to our economy and our ability to restore those manufacturing jobs,” said Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. “I absolutely do think litigation needs to be on the table.”

Gov. Jindal was joined by Texas Gov. Rick Perry, and the governors of North Dakota and Wyoming at the event. Following the news conference a letter (http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/209520-9-gop-governors-press-obama-to-abandon-climate-regs) signed by nine Republican governors, including Perry and Jindal, was sent to Obama. The letter asked the President to withdraw the proposed rules and complained that the proposed standard would “largely dictate to the states the type of electricity they could build.”

But are the signing governors, from significantly coal-dependent states — Alaska, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas, Wyoming and North Carolina — out of step with attitudes on the ground in their states? A survey of recent polls, both national, and state-specific, suggests they are.

A Washington Post-ABC News Poll (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/02/a-huge-majority-of-americans-support-regulating-carbon-from-power-plants-and-theyre-even-willing-to-pay-for-it/) released on the heels of the EPA announcement, found that 70 percent of Americans support federal limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

Even more remarkable, the poll found that even in states where a majority of electricity is produced by burning coal, 69 percent of people still supported government limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Wyoming, Indiana, and North Dakota, among other states, are all at least 50 percent dependent on coal.

Results are similar for more state-specific polling. A poll (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2014/06/hagan-lead-up-to-5-with-unpopular-legislature-in-session.html) released Tuesday by Public Policy Polling found that a majority of North Carolinians, 58 percent, support the President’s plan to cut carbon emissions from existing power plants.

In Pennsylvania, a whopping 72 percent of voters are in favor of the EPA’s proposed rule, according to a poll (http://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-state/2014/06/05/Pennsylvania-voters-favor-EPA-greenhouse-gas-curbs-polls-show/stories/201406050309) released earlier in the month that focused on attitudes in swing states. The poll was commissioned by the League of Conservation Voters and conducted by Hart Research Associates. Six hundred voters in Pennsylvania were surveyed.

Despite these results, both North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory and Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett signed the letter of opposition sent to Obama.

A poll (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/28/3346151/epa-regulation-poll/) released in February found that voters in Louisiana, Alaska, Arkansas, and North Carolina overwhelmingly support EPA regulations to limit carbon pollution — even after hearing arguments for and against the regulations.

The poll, conducted by Harstad Strategic Research, found that 64 percent of voters in these “red states” supported the measure.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/17/3450091/republican-governors-carbon-regs-polling/

but Repug politicians don't GAF about voters, because the corporations get their way by buying politicians, while voters are stuck with, suckkered by the charade of voting.

[Wild Cobra]

Another stupid point.

Sure, many Americans have had propaganda shoved down their throats about greenhouse gasses. This is why it is the media that determines election results.

[boutons_deux]

Despite Industry Attacks, Americans Still Love The New Proposed EPA Carbon Rules (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/18/3450299/wsj-nbc-poll-epa-carbon-rules/)http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/BN-DH361_pollEP_G_20140617171851.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/18/3450299/wsj-nbc-poll-epa-carbon-rules/

[Wild Cobra]

It's nothing but a religion.

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/sh2/web/pachauri-bishiop-2.gif (http://joannenova.com.au/2012/04/the-highest-authority-in-science-is-the-data/)]

[boutons_deux]

EPA Scientists Push For New Regulation Of Pollutant That’s Causing Lung Infections In Children (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/28/3454385/scientists-call-for-ozone-reductions/)

A group of Environmental Protection Agency science advisors are urging the agency to enact stricter limits on ozone, a pollutant that’s the main ingredient (http://www.epa.gov/ozone/) in smog and that can exacerbate asthma and other respiratory problems.

The scientists of the EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee sent a letter (http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/5EFA320CCAD326E885257D030071531C/$File/EPA-CASAC-14-004+unsigned.pdf) to the agency Thursday that made a scientific case for increasing the federal standards on ozone, which right now are set at 75 parts per billion (ppb). The committee said that setting the standard below 70 ppb and preferably as low as 60 ppb would better avoid some of the worst health effects of ozone, including, as the letter states, “decrease in lung function, increase in respiratory symptoms, and increase in airway inflammation.”
The worst of those health impacts are felt by vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly and people with asthma. But the letter states (http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-ozone-science-advisors-epa-20140627-story.html) at the current standard healthy adults who stay outside for more than six and a half hours can experience respiratory issues. A limit of 70 ppb would still inadequately protect public health, the scientists say, so the more stringent lower bound of 60 ppm is important.

In 2010, the EPA estimated (http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-ozone-science-advisors-epa-20140627-story.html) that a 60 ppb standard would avoid 4,000 to 12,000 premature deaths, 21,000 hospital and emergency room visits and cut down on the number of
school and work days missed by 2.5 million.

“The recommended lower bound of 60 ppb would certainly offer more public health protection than levels of 70 ppb or 65 ppb and would provide an adequate margin of safety,” the letter states. “Thus, our policy advice is to set the level of the standard lower than 70 ppb within a range down to 60 ppb, taking into account your judgment regarding the desired margin of safety to protect public health, and taking into account that lower levels will provide incrementally greater margins of safety.”

Though ozone is still in need of revised standards, another air pollutant that has been appropriately regulated by the EPA — nitrogen dioxide — has shown significant reductions in the U.S. in the last 10 years, according to new NASA data (http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/new-nasa-images-highlight-us-air-quality-improvement/#.U67NMfm1ErU):

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/grab-638x365.jpgNitrogen Dioxide levels in 2005 in the Northeast.




http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/grab2-638x355.jpgNitrogen dioxide levels in 2011 in the Northeast.


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/28/3454385/scientists-call-for-ozone-reductions/

[Wild Cobra]

How are they going to reduce ozone? have to lower population density to do that...

[boutons_deux]

How are they going to reduce ozone? have to lower population density to do that...

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/ozonestrategy/

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/ozonestrategy/

Pie in the sky.

Population density is a huge problem for ozone.

[Spurminator]

It's nothing but a religion.

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/sh2/web/pachauri-bishiop-2.gif (http://joannenova.com.au/2012/04/the-highest-authority-in-science-is-the-data/)]


I prefer this religion to the one that involves putting your hands over your ears and going "la la la la job creators" in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.

[boutons_deux]

Pie in the sky.

Population density is a huge problem for ozone.

most of the sources of ozone are burning BigCarbon fuel

http://www.nctcog.org/trans/images/OzoneFormation_000.jpg

The sooner we move to non-BigCarbon fuel, over the extremely well funded BigCarbon blocking, the better.

[boutons_deux]

Religious Conservatives Embrace Pollution Fight


The E.P.A. on Wednesday ended two days of (http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/forms/public-hearings-clean-power-plan-proposed-rule)public hearings (http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/forms/public-hearings-clean-power-plan-proposed-rule) on its proposed regulation to cut carbon pollution from power plants, and mixed in with the coal lobbyists and business executives were conservative religious leaders reasserting their support for President Obama’s environmental policies — at a time when Republican Party orthodoxy continues to question the science of climate change.

More than two dozen faith leaders, including evangelicals and conservative Christians, spoke at the E.P.A. headquarters in Washington by the time the hearings ended.

“The science is clear,” said Lisa Sharon Harper (http://sojo.net/biography/lisa-sharon-harper), the senior director of mobilizing forSojourners (http://sojo.net/), an evangelical organization with a social justice focus. “The calls of city governments — who are trying to create sustainable environments for 25, 50 years — that’s clear.”

Ms. Harper was one of about 20 interfaith activists who quietly sang “Hallelujah” and Jewish spirituals in a prayer circle outside the environmental agency’s 12th Street entrance here on Tuesday. Mr. Yearwood and three other faith leaders spoke at the hearings on Tuesday, and about 20 others did on Wednesday.

Although many of the faith leaders came from traditionally progressive congregations, like black churches, synagogues and mainstream Protestant denominations, others were more conservative Christians who reflect a growing embrace of environmentalism by parts of the religious right. This week’s hearings on the new E.P.A. rule gave them an opportunity to make their argument that climate change hurts the world’s poor through natural disasters, droughts and rising sea levels, and that it is part of their faith to protect the planet.

“I have been called by God to speak out on these issues and believe it is my conviction as an evangelical Christian that we must be stewards of God’s creation,” the Rev. Richard Cizik, a former top lobbyist for the National Association of Evangelicals and now president of the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good, said in prepared remarks on Wednesday.

The agency is also holding hearings this week in Atlanta, Denver and Pittsburgh.

Five years ago, only 34 percent of white evangelical Protestants agreed that solid evidence existed that the earth was warming because of human activity, according to a poll (http://www.pewforum.org/2009/04/16/religious-groups-views-on-global-warming/) by the Pew Research Center. An additional 31 percent said that no evidence existed proving global warming whatsoever. Recent polling shows that many evangelicals are still skeptics.

“For the most part, people in the climate advocacy movement are ignoring a number of various biblical texts that are more specifically relevant to the issue,” said E. Calvin Beisner, spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance (http://www.cornwallalliance.org/), an evangelical organization opposed to the E.P.A. rule. “They’re quoting broad general texts that everyone would agree with.”

But in recent years a number of conservative religious groups have embraced global warming as a serious concern. The National Association of Evangelicals began pushing for an assertive climate change policy during the George W. Bush administration. The Christian Coalition, founded by Pat Robertson, unsuccessfully lobbied in 2009 and 2010 for a climate change bill.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/07/31/us/religious-conservatives-embrace-proposed-epa-rules.html?_r=0

[boutons_deux]

Alabama state officials: We won’t comply with the EPA because God gave us coal

On Tuesday, Alabama state officials said they refused to comply with the EPA’s new carbon pollution measures because God gave them coal.
I mean… what?

Alabama.com reports (http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2014/07/post_14.html):

At their news conference today Cavanaugh and PSC commissioner-elect Chip Beeker invoked the name of God in stating their opposition to the EPA proposal. Beeker, a Republican who is running unopposed for a PSC seat, said coal was created in Alabama by God, and the federal government should not enact policy that runs counter to God’s plan.

“Who has the right to take what God’s given a state?” he said.


http://www.salon.com/2014/07/29/alabama_state_officials_we_wont_comply_with_the_ep a_because_god_gave_us_coal/

The Confederacy! :lol

[boutons_deux]

Twelve ( RED ) States Are Suing The EPA Over Its Attempt To Fight Climate Change (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/08/06/3468124/states-suing-epa-over-carbon-rules/)

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/AP647142358449-638x425.jpg

West Virginia, Alabama, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wyoming.

These are the twelve states asking (http://www.ok.gov/oag/documents/Section%20111d%20Settlement%20Filing.pdf) the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to effectively invalidate the Environmental Protection Agency’s recently-proposed regulations of carbon emissions from existing coal plants — regulations that represent the most significant thing America has ever done to combat climate change. The states are specifically challenging the legality of a 2011 settlement the U.S. government entered into with three environmental organization and another group of states, in which the EPA promised to regulate carbon.

“Without this court’s prompt intervention, petitioners will be forced to undertake burdensome measures in the coming months to meet the demands of the unlawful rule,” the petition reads.

The petition represents the second attempt by some of the states — all of which are either large producers or consumers of coal — to nullify the EPA’s rules through the court system. In July, nine of the thirteen states joined forces (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/02/3455923/nine-states-join-murray-epa-carbon-rule/) with coal company Murray Energy to sue the EPA, arguing it has no legal authority to limit carbon from coal plants. Murray Energy’s CEO says the EPA is “lying” about climate change’s existence (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/19/3450752/murray-energy-sues-epa-coal/) and that the earth is actually cooling.

Both lawsuits essentially argue the same thing — that the EPA is not legally allowed (http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/MurrayAmicus.pdf) to regulate coal facilities under the Clean Air Act. The states say that general air pollution from coal plants is already regulated under the Act, therefore greenhouse gas rules “impose impermissible double regulation.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/08/06/3468124/states-suing-epa-over-carbon-rules/

the for-profit, corrupt coal corps have already destroyed 10Ks of coal jobs in switching from underground mines to open-pit. Did these black-lungers object?

[boutons_deux]

A New Government Report Shows More Coal Plants Are Retiring Than Previously Thought (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/09/16/3568209/gao-report-coal-retirements/)

The government’s watchdog agency has concluded that more coal plants will retire by 2025 than it previously thought.

In 2012, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) looked into (http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/reliability/gao-report-12-635.pdf) the intersection of market forces and upcoming regulations for coal plants and concluded 2 to 12 percent of the country’s coal capacity would retire as a result. On Monday, GAO returned (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-672) to the question, and updated their assessment to a solid 13 percent — 42,192 megawatts — that has either been retired since 2012 or is planned for retirement by 2025.

While the report (http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/665325.pdf) noted these changes “may contribute to reliability challenges in some regions and these actions would likely increase electricity prices in some regions,” industry stakeholders and Regional Transmission Organizations also admitted to GAO that “widespread reliability concerns are not anticipated.” They also acknowledged that they can’t reliably estimate the effects of the retirements because of the complexities of the markets.

GAO looked into four pending Environmental Protection Agency regulations, the newly-proposed federal rule to cut carbon emissions from power plants, as well as several factors outside of government activity: “Stakeholders noted that several industry trends may be contributing to the retirement of coal-fueled generating units,” GAO said in the report. “Including relatively low natural gas prices, increasing prices for coal, and low expected growth in demand for electricity.”

But of those regulations, only the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) has an established deadline for compliance — April 2015, the same year GAO expects the bulk of the coal plant retirements to occur. The remaining regulations do not have a set deadline.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/gao-coal-graph-638x379.jpg

The 2015 spike, however, does not mean EPA regulations are the primary force behind the retirements. For example,

the market trends GAO noted have been underway (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/11/04/2878971/american-coal-industry-economic-mans-land/) for some time as domestic natural gas production has boomed, as the geological limits on coal mining have begun to assert themselves, and as the recession and the rise of energy efficiency (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/01/29/3220341/energy-economic-growth/) have cut electricity demand.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/09/16/3568209/gao-report-coal-retirements/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogress%2FlCrX+%28Cli mate+Progress%29

Coal is dying, and will be dead.

Even new natgas electricity generation has been outstripped by new solar generation.

[boutons_deux]

Pollution triples mercury levels in ocean surface waters


The amount of mercury (http://www.rsc.org/periodic-table/element/80/mercury) near the surface of many of the world’s oceans (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/oceans)has tripled as the result of our polluting activities, a new study has found, with potentially damaging implications for marine life as the result of the accumulation of the toxic metal (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/pollution).

Mercury is accumulating in the surface layers of the seas faster than in the deep ocean, as we pour the element into the atmosphere and seas from a variety of sources, including mines, coal-fired power plants (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/coal) and sewage. Mercury is toxic to humans and marine life, and accumulates in our bodies over time as we are exposed to sources of it.

Since the industrial revolution, we have tripled the mercury content of shallow ocean layers, according to the letter published in the peer-review journal Nature on Thursday (http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature13563). Mercury can be widely dispersed across the globe when it is deposited in water and the air, the authors said, so even parts of the globe remote from industrial sources can quickly suffer elevated levels of the toxic material.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/06/pollution-triples-mercury-levels-oceans

And industry-intimidated, Repug-underfunded EPA still hasn't classified coal ash as toxic, hazardous material.

[boutons_deux]

A global ocean inventory of anthropogenic mercury based on water column measurements

We find that deep North Atlantic waters and most intermediate waters are anomalously enriched in mercury relative to the deep waters of the South Atlantic, Southern and Pacific oceans, probably as a result of the incorporation of anthropogenic mercury.

We estimate the total amount of anthropogenic mercury present in the global ocean to be 290 ± 80 million moles, with almost two-thirds residing in water shallower than a thousand metres. Our findings suggest that anthropogenic perturbations to the global mercury cycle have led to an approximately 150 per cent increase in the amount of mercury in thermocline waters and have tripled the mercury content of surface waters compared to pre-anthropogenic conditions.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v512/n7512/full/nature13563.html

the sooner BigCoal becomes DeadCoal, the better.

Speaking of dead:

Black Lung Among Coal Miners At Highest Level In 40 Years (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/09/16/3568204/black-lung-levels-surge/)

Rates of a deadly form of black lung are the highest they’ve been in 40 years among Appalachian coal miners, according to federal experts.

Scientists from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health published a letter (http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/NIOSHletter.pdf)Monday in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine that stated that levels of progressive massive fibrosis (PMF) have risen to levels not seen since the early 1970s among coal miners in Kentucky, West Virginia and Virginia. The high numbers come just 15 years after the “debilitating and entirely preventable respiratory disease” was “virtually eradicated,” the scientists note.

PMF is caused only by breathing in too much coal mine dust, the letter said, so the increase in rates “can only be the result of overexposures and/or increased toxicity stemming from changes in dust composition.” The letter also notes that 2014 marks the 45th anniversary of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, which aimed to curb incidence of black lung among coal workers by implementing dust standards. Current rates of PMF prove that exposure to coal dust continues to be a major health hazard for coal miners, however.

many lawmakers from coal-heavy states haven’t been supportive of the new EPA rule. Twelve states, all of whom are major producers or consumers of coal and include Kentucky and West Virginia, are suing (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/08/06/3468124/states-suing-epa-over-carbon-rules/) the EPA over the rule, which the states call unlawful. Lawmakers in Kentucky and other coal-producing states have likened (http://www.kentucky.com/2014/06/01/3270608/with-release-of-power-plant-rules.html) the rule to a “war on coal,” saying that, by regulating emissions from power plants, the EPA is unfairly targeting the coal industry.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/09/16/3568204/black-lung-levels-surge/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogress%2FlCrX+%28Cli mate+Progress%29

[boutons_deux]

Here’s Who To Blame For America’s Increased Contribution To Global Warming In 2013 (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/10/01/3574709/united-states-industry-global-carbon-emissions-2013/)

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/chart-1-638x382.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/PowerSector-638x494.jpg

It makes sense that Texas would be the state responsible for the most greenhouse gas emissions from large industrial sources, in 2013 and beyond. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=TX), Texas is the both country’s leading crude oil-producing state and the leading natural gas producing state, exceeding production levels even from the federal offshore areas. Its 27 petroleum refineries make up almost 29 percent of total U.S. refining capacity. It’s also the state with the largest concentration (http://www.texastribune.org/2012/07/15/texas-experiencing-biggest-chemical-boom-1980s/) of petrochemical plants — more than 200 facilities in all.

Because of this, the EPA’s data shows that Texas is the biggest carbon emitter by a long shot. The amount of carbon Texas emitted in 2013 was approximately 2.5 times greater than the amount released by Indiana, the second-largest emitting state.

Texas was not only the larger emitter, though — its carbon pollution also increased in 2013 despite decreasing in 2012. In 2012, the state in total emitted 396 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent, down 12 million tons from 2011. But in 2013, the state’s carbon pollution went right back up again, surpassing its 2011 levels to emit 410 million metric tons of CO2

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/chart-21-638x264.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/10/01/3574709/united-states-industry-global-carbon-emissions-2013/

[boutons_deux]

Massive Methane Hot Spot Detected by Satellite


http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Methane.jpg

In a study published this week, they analyzed satellite-gathered data and found that an area about 2,500 square miles, near the “Four Corners” where Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah connect, produces the largest concentration of these greenhouse gas emissions ever found in the U.S., more than triple the previous estimate based on ground-gathered information. While carbon emissions are more plentiful and have attracted most of the attention as the driver of climate change, (http://ecowatch.com/climate-change-news/) methane has been found to be an even more potent greenhouse gas (http://ecowatch.com/2014/09/08/mckibben-obama-fracking-worse-than-coal/).

New Mexico’s San Juan Basin is the most active coalbed methane production area in the country, a process in which methane-heavy natural gas (composed of about 95-98 percent methane) is extracted from pores and cracks in coal to use for fuel. In the process, it produces significant leaks (and well as coal mine explosions.)

“The results are indicative that emissions from established fossil fuel harvesting techniques are greater than inventoried,” said the study’s leader author Eric Kort of the University of Michigan. “There’s been so much attention on high-volume hydraulic fracturing, but we need to consider the industry as a whole.”
In March, President Obama announced (http://ecowatch.com/2014/03/28/obamas-methane-emissions-plan/) a blueprint for methane emission reduction that included addressing emissions from coal mines.

http://ecowatch.com/2014/10/10/methane-hot-spot-nasa/?utm_source=EcoWatch+List&utm_campaign=975a5062f2-Top_News_10_10_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_49c7d43dc9-975a5062f2-85879165

"blueprint for methane emission reduction that included addressing emissions from coal mines." which is will sued, blocked by Repug governors.

[boutons_deux]

Texas fights EPA’s anti-smog rules because people spend ’90 percent of their time indoors’


The state agency responsible for protecting Texans against harmful chemicals said on Tuesday that it opposed federal efforts to lower smog levels because most people had air conditioners and spent “90 percent of their time indoors.”

For years, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has avoided tightening regulations on Ozone, which is also known as smog. But after a unanimous panel of scientists recently agreed that the current standard of 75 parts per billion was unacceptable, the agency was expected to propose a 60 parts per billion standard by Dec. 1.

But Republicans in Congress have vowed to oppose (http://weber.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/weber-acts-to-protect-american-jobs-from-epa-agenda) the EPA’s tougher standards. And on Monday, Texas joined the fight.

In an article (http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/publications/pd/020/2014/will-epas-proposed-new-ozone-standards-provide-measurable-health-benefits) published on the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality website, top state toxicologist Dr. Michael Honeycutt announced that the agency had concluded that “there will be little to no public health benefit from lowering the current standard.”

Honeycutt argued that the EPA’s own report showed that there could be a slight uptick in the rate of premature deaths for a short period of time because lowering nitrogen oxide could temporarily increase ozone levels. Regulation of nitrogen oxide is necessary to lower Ozone levels — and save many more lives — over the long term, according to the EPA.
Experts told the Texas Tribune (http://www.texastribune.org/2014/10/21/battle-over-science-ozone-pollution/) that Honeycutt had taken the wrong lesson from the EPA’s study.

“That doesn’t mean that you don’t quit smoking,” Environmental Defense Fund senior health scientist Elena Craft explained. The EPA’s information about premature deaths “does not mean pollution is good for you. It means that you need to double down on the efforts to reduce emissions in the air,” she said.

Honeycutt also argued that the trillions of dollars that lowering ozone levels was expected to cost nationwide would not be worth the effort because people spent most of their time indoors.

“Ozone is an outdoor air pollutant, because systems such as air conditioning remove it from indoor air. Since most people spend more than 90 percent of their time indoors, we (and the people in the epidemiology studies used to justify lowering the standard) are rarely exposed to significant levels of ozone,” Honeycutt wrote, adding that people who were “near death” and more susceptible to ozone spent even more time indoors.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/texas-fights-epas-anti-smog-rules-because-people-spend-90-percent-of-their-time-indoors/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

Holy shit. TX Repugs have been very effective in POLLUTING the govt with BigCarbon's whore scientists and other political hacks. :lol

[boutons_deux]

Poll: 67 Percent Of Americans Would Pay Higher Prices To Cut Power Plant Emissions (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/11/20/3594822/poll-carbon-limits/)

http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Chart_1-638x478.jpg
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/11/20/3594822/poll-carbon-limits/

[boutons_deux]

New EPA carbon rules would save thousands of lives,

[A new] study (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2598.html), led by researchers at Syracuse and Harvard Universities, used modeling to predict the effect on human health of changes to national carbon standards for power plants. The researchers calculated three different outcomes using data from the Census Bureau and detailed maps of the more than 2,400 fossil-fuel power plants across the country.

The model with the biggest health benefit was the one that most closely resembled the changes that the Environmental Protection Agency proposed in a rule in June (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/02/us/politics/epa-to-seek-30-percent-cut-in-carbon-emissions.html). Under that plan, reductions in carbon emissions for the plants would be set by states and would include improvements to the energy efficiency of, for example, air-conditioners, refrigerators and power grids.

The health benefits of the rule would be indirect. While carbon emissions trap heat in the atmosphere, which contributes to a warming planet, they are not directly linked to health threats. Emissions from coal-fired power plants, however, also include a number of other pollutants, such as soot and ozone, that are directly linked to illnesses like asthma and lung disease.

Researchers calculated that the changes in the E.P.A. rule could prevent 3,500 premature deaths a year and more than 1,000 heart attacks and hospitalizations from air-pollution-related illness.

http://grist.org/news/new-epa-carbon-rules-would-save-thousands-of-lives-science-says/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed

[boutons_deux]

House prepares to gut EPA, Interior


WASHINGTON - The House begins debate today on HR 2822, The Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies funding bill of 2016.

The bill would

cut funding for the Environmental Protection Agency by $718 million, nine percent below current levels, and

includes more than 20 policy riders designed to block key regulatory measures such as new rules on fracking, the Clean Power Plan and ozone pollution limits.


The Obama administration has announced it would veto the bill in its current form, but votes on the full bill and amendments are expected after the House returns from recess in early July.

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2015/06/25/house-prepares-gut-epa-interior