Fall Chinook salmon run expected to be huge; Oregon and federal biologists not sure why

aAn unprecedented 1.6 million fall Chinook salmon could return from the Pacific Ocean to the tributaries of the Columbia River Basin this year, swimming back to the place they hatched after years at sea.

Source: www.oregonlive.com

James Buchal explains what the political classes seem to find elusive.. 

http://youtu.be/XQuS_0IJQcY

See on Scoop.itEconomicFactors

Advertisements

All Cost No Benefit: EPA Proposes Carbon Dioxide Regulation for Power Plants | American Legislator

All Cost No Benefit: EPA Proposes Carbon Dioxide Regulation for Power Plants

Todd Wynn | March 27, 2012 | 1 Comment
Coal-Fired-Power-Plant

 

Today, the EPA has proposed a carbon dioxide standard for new power plants. The EPA blames carbon dioxide and other human emitted greenhouse gases for an increase in global temperature during the past 100 years. Unfortunately, this action is yet another EPA regulation that is essentially all cost and no benefit.

First, the EPA’s incessant use of the words “pollutant” and “pollution” in reference to carbon dioxide is deceptive. In the press release announcing this regulation, the agency mentioned the words “carbon pollution” eight times. Yet, as you learn in middle school science, carbon dioxide plays a vital role in the environment and has no direct negative human health effects. It is unlike particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, ozone or a volatile organic compound (substances explicitly regulated by the Clean Air Act); it is an essential part of photosynthesis, an important component of our atmosphere and a byproduct of the human respiratory system.  Thus any discussion referring to this regulation as making power plants “cleaner” is downright misleading.

In 2009, the EPA concluded greenhouse gases do endanger human health. This “endangerment finding” was outside of the legal context provided by the Clean Air Act, since the Act requires a reasonable approach that considers a real benefit to regulation of a “pollutant,” not merely negligible decreases in global temperature. Ironically, the EPA has not quantified any health benefits for the regulation of greenhouse gases whatsoever.

Good public policy and sensible environmental regulation weighs the cost and benefits of regulatory action. The costs of greenhouse gas regulation are well documented by both the EPA and independent research studies. They vary, yet all show significant costs. Meanwhile, the benefit of this specific regulation, which aims to reduce carbon dioxide, has not been calculated at all. Why? Because the EPA justifies the regulation with a decrease in global temperature decades in the future that, even according to EPA’s flawed science, will be negligible. Even if one accepts the scientific claims of climate change proponents, EPA’s own analysis shows that the regulations will have no substantive effect on reducing global temperatures. It is hard to calculate human health benefits when the EPA itself isn’t sure they exist.

To make the endangerment finding, EPA wove together three highly uncertain lines of evidence — temperature records, climate models, and understanding of large-scale physical phenomena — to create the false sense that it could be 90 percent certain of human caused global warming. Even more disconcerting is that the EPA ignored its own established process by refusing to submit its work for independent scrutiny by its Science Advisory Board (SAB) as required by the Clean Air Act. The SAB is a panel of top scientists from universities, research institutions and other highly regarded organizations, empowered by federal law to review any new “criteria document, standard, limitation, or regulation” that the EPA proposes to issue under the Clean Air Act. The EPA is legally required to have the SAB review its work on greenhouse gases, and the Agency broke the law by ignoring this obligation.

Despite any calculation of health benefits and any peer review of its endangerment finding, the EPA concludes that it is taking “common-sense steps” to limit carbon dioxide and ensure “a cleaner, safer and more modern power sector.” Obviously the EPA has learned the Washington game all too well; EPA wants you to follow the rules when it comes to big government regulations while they willfully ignore the rules themselves.

Read More in Category

 

One Response to All Cost No Benefit: EPA Proposes Carbon Dioxide Regulation for Power Plants

  1. Chuck Wiese says:

    These people are despicable scientific illiterates that are an arm of the Obama power grab to centralize America to a form of facism/socialism.

    Just do the math and you will see their claims about CO2 are baseless. At 389 ppmv, and assuming CO2 is a “well mixed” gas throughout the atmosphere, the mixing ratio of CO2 to a Kilogram of dry air is .595 grams. Integrating that mass to a zero pressure gives 1.24 x 10^-10 ppmv/tonne of CO2.

    Even if you wiped out ALL of the USA’s annual carbon emissions, or spread the reduction globally ( which is impossible to ever achieve ) listed as 5.8 billion metric tonnes of CO2, that only reduces the annual growth of CO2 by .72 ppmv from an annual growth of 2.5 ppmv, which is 50% of annual emissions because of ocean uptake. No matter what the reduction strategy, the growth of atmospheric CO2 cannot be stopped unless the oceans cool off agian, which means, according to the failed modeling of CO2 to temperature, that the annual temperatures will continue upwards to catastrophic levels no matter what we do.

    So the only real conclusion one can reach based upon real calculations and the EPA’s climate model projections, the human race is doomed not beacuse of human action, but the earth has just decided it’s all time we just go, and is outgassing the appropriate CO2 to kill us off.

    It is obvious cliamte models are failed concepts that have the wrong sensitivity factor to CO2 and temperature, primarily because the physics in the modeling is wrong based upon positive water vapor feedback, and that “climate models” are a true mathematical absurdity with respect to being able to accurately describe earth atmosphere physical processes for large time intervals with the Navier Stokes equations. The EPA is engaging in scientific misconduct and fraud.

    Chuck F. Wiese
    Meteorologist
    Portland, Oregon.

    Leave a Reply Cancel reply

    Comments Policy: We pre-moderate comments on our blog before they are published. This means there will be a delay between the time your comment is submitted and it appears on the post. We reserve the right to reject comments that are rude, profane or non-germane to this post.

Environmental radicals put in place under Obama reign.. are now turning the screws to enforce draconian new regulations designed to reduce domestic energy production and increase costs for everything that requires energy.. everything. A high cost for nothing in return but a reduced standard of living for all.. while insulating the governing class from participation. More of same to follow.

Obama Energy Policy Purposely Forces Higher Prices for Everything

Obama Calls Critics of His Alternative Energy Plans: ‘Founding Members of Flat Earth Society’

Obama

President Barack Obama speaks in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, March 13, 2012. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama likened Republican politicians who are calling for increased oil drilling and disparaging his efforts to subsidize the development of alternative energy soucres such as wind power, solar power and algae to “founding members of the Flat Earth Society.”

“Lately, we’ve heard a lot of professional politicians, a lot of the folks who are running for a certain office who shall go unnamed, they’ve been talking down new sources of energy,” Obama said Thursday at Prince George’s Community College in Maryland.

“They dismiss wind power. They dismiss solar power. They make jokes about biofuels. They were against raising fuel standards. I guess they like gas-guzzlers,” said Obama.

“They think that’s good for our future. We’re trying to move towards the future; they want to be stuck in the past,” he said. “We’ve heard this kind of thinking before. Let me tell you something. If some of these folks were around when Columbus set sail, they must have been founding members of the Flat Earth Society.”

“They would not have believed that the world was round,” said Obama. “We’ve heard these folks in the past. They probably would have agreed with one of the pioneers of the radio who said, ‘Television won’t last. It’s a flash in the pan.’ One of Henry Ford’s advisors was quoted as saying, ‘The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a fad.”

The invention of TV and invention of the automobile were not government subsidized as companies like the bankrupt solar panel firm Solyndra, and the bankrupt green battery maker Ener1, among other green energy companies that filed for bankruptcy after getting millions in subsidies from the federal government.

On Thursday, the national average price of gas was $3.82 per gallon for regular unleaded, according to AAA.

A New York Times/CBS News poll this week found Obama had a 41 percent approval rating.

The American Petroleum Institute has called for the administration to rescind an East Coast offshore drilling moratorium, allow drilling in deep water in the Atlantic, and allow for exploration along the West Coast and give companies access to the coastal plains of Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The government has delayed drilling permits for offshore Alaska, despite leases being made available, according to the API.

“The administration says its policies have supported more development and that oil production is rising, but most of today’s production increases relate to projects begun before it came into office as well as to what is happening on state and private lands,” said Erik Milito, API’s group director for Upstream and Industry Operations, in a written statement. “Moreover, from 2009 to 2011, production from federal lands and federal waters combined declined significantly for both oil and natural gas.”

Obama went on to subtly reference GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s pledge to bring gas prices down to $2.50 per gallon.

“Every time prices start to go up–especially in an election year–politicians dust off their 3-point plans for $2.00 gas. I guess this year they decided, we’re going to make it $2.50,” Obama said. “I don’t know where–why not $2.40? Why not $2.10? But they tell the same story. They head down to the gas station; they make sure a few cameras are following them and then they start acting like we’ve got a magic wand and we will give you cheap gas forever if you just elect us.”

American Oil Reserves- A hush hush story

3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s Bakken Formation—25 Times More Than 1995 Estimate—

Oilimage

Full report published almost four years ago.. but mostly ignored by politicians and media.. This is published on the website for the US Geological Service.  

 

We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth.

 

Here are the official estimates:

8 times as much oil as Saudi Arabia

18 times as much oil as Iraq

21 times as much oil as Kuwait

22 times as much oil as Iran

500 times as much oil as Yemen

and it’s all right here in the Western United States !!!!!!

HOW can this BE?  HOW can we NOT BE extracting this?
Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all
efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil!
Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our
lives and our economy.  WHY?

James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we’ve
got more oil in this very compact area than the entire
Middle East, more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped.
That’s more than all the proven oil reserves of crude
oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post.

 

Energy Scam.. change in the wind?

The Great Renewable Energy Scam: Is There A Change in the Wind?

by Patrick J. Michaels

 

This article appeared in Forbes.com on January 19, 2012.

 

 

People don’t like being forced to purchase things they may not want, which is why over half of us are hoping that the Supreme Court throws out the individual insurance mandate in President Barack Obama’s health care plan.

There’s also a worldwide rebellion brewing against being forced to purchase expensive electricity produced by so-called “renewable” sources, now being exacerbated by the availability of very cheap natural gas from shale formations.

But, here in the U.S. there are some 30 different statewide “renewable portfolio standards” (RPSs) that also mandate pricey power, usually under the guise of fighting dreaded global warming.

RPSs command tha. a certain percentage of electricity has to come from wind, solar, geothermal, or biomass. Given that this power generally costs a lot more than what comes from a modern coal or gas plant, your local utility passes the cost on in the form of higher bills, which the various state utility commissions are only too happy to approve in the name of saving the planet.

When are governments going to learn that they ought to butt out of the energy business?

RPSs generally do not include hydroelectric power, which produces no carbon dioxide. It’s also much more predictable than solar or wind, and costs about the same as the average for gas and coal combined. It’s not in the portfolio standards because dams are soooo 20th century, and it isn’t a darling of the green lobby, like solar, wind and biomass. But hydro can deliver more juice than solar is ever likely to.

Nor do RPSs allow for natural gas. There are massive quantities in shale formations around the country, and new horizontal drilling techniques are releasing so much of it that it is now the cheapest source of electrical power. If our environmentalist friends were at all serious about climate change, they would enthuse over it becaus. it produces significantly less carbon dioxide than an equivalent quantity of coal when used for power generation. Instead, they are horrified that cheap gas will destroy solar and wind.

Their worries are quite well-founded. In November, NextEra Energy, the country’s largest wind-energy producer, said it would develop no new wind projects this year, as utilities sell cheaper gas power.

 

Patrick J. Michaels is a Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies at the Cato Institute.

More by Patrick J. Michaels

When are governments going to learn that they ought to butt out of the energy business? RPSs that specify certain technologies are essentially picking winners and losers based more upon political pull than market logic.

One needs to look no further than ethanol as a motor fuel, mandated by the feds. Sold as “renewable” and reducing pernicious carbon dioxide emissions, it actually produces more in its life cycle than simply burning an equivalent amount of gasoline. It also—unconscionably—consumes 40% of U.S. corn production, and we are the by far the world’s largest producer of this important basic food.

The popular revulsion against ethanol has succeeded in cutting its massive federal subsidy, of $0.54 per gallon, which ran out on Dec. 31. But that doesn’t stop the federal mandate. Last year it was for roughly 14 billion gallons from corn and it will be nearly 15 billion in 2012. By 2022, up to 20 billion gallons will be required — all from corn — unless there is a breakthrough in so-called “cellulosic” ethanol, which, no matter how much money the government throws at it, hasn’t happened. Indeed, the largest cellulosic plant, Range Fuels, in Camilla, Ga., just went bankrupt. The loss to American taxpayers appears to be about $120 million, or about 25% of a Solyndra.

Don’t expect Congress to zero the ethanol mandate anytime soon. Farm country tends to be conservative on pretty much everything except propping up corn prices, which is what ethanol mandates do.

Having seen the ethanol debacle, will the states put solar and wind in their rightful (small) niches by repealing the RPSs? Increasing utility bills with renewable mandates is politically dangerous, and there is less and less political will to subsidize and otherwise prop up energy sources and technologies that cost too much.

Look for a movement in the many state legislatures that approved the outrageous RPSs without asking people how they liked being forced to buy something they don’t want. Or will cheaper natural gas and hydro be allowed in the standards in the place of wind and solar? There is likely to be some legislation introduced this year and a lot more in the future, as the U.S. catches on to the great renewable energy scam.