Washington Free Beacon: The Hillary Letters | Dinesh D’Souza

Washington Free Beacon: The Hillary Letters – Correspondences Hillary Clinton and Saul Alinsky reveal new details about her relationship with the controversial Chicago activist and shed light on her early ideological development.

Source: www.dineshdsouza.com

Hillary shares allegiance to "Rules for Radicals" author, Saul Alinsky.  Helps you understand the worldview these two worship.

See on Scoop.itEconomicFactors

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.

Samantha Power to be the next Secretary of State? – Patriot Action Network

Irish-born adviser now key to Obama foreign policy



Samantha Power

READ MORE- Samantha Power credits President Obama with Libyan uprising

READ MORE – Thank You President Obama for…

A flattering New York Times profile has increased speculation that Samantha Power, the Dublin-born aide to President Obama, could be his next Secretary of State or National Security Adviser.

She has been the main architect, along with Hillary Clinton, of the Libya policy and has an increasing influence in the White House inner circle.

No Irish-born person in recent history has had such influence on a president. Power, now 40, moved to the US from Ireland at age 10.

With Hillary Clinton due to step down after Obama’s first term, she would be a live candidate to succeed her if Obama wins re-election.

The Times reported that on Monday night last, Samantha Power took to the podium at Columbia University in New York two hours before President Obama was due to address the nation on Libya and received a rock star reception.

Power, who is one of Obama’s key advisers on foreign policy, insisted that Libya was not going to be the main topic of conversation.

“I’m not going to talk much about Libya,” she said, as quoted in The Times.

 

Read More on Samantha Power Here

 

___________________________________________________________________

 

 

Just who IS Samantha Power:

Discover the Networks has a bio:

 

  • Has a long record of antipathy toward Israel
  • Said that America’s relationship with Israel “has often led foreign policy decision-makers to defer reflexively to Israeli security assessments, and to replicate Israeli tactics”
  • Was appointed as Director for Multilateral Affairs in the National Security Council by President Barack Obama in January 2009

Power has a long record of antipathy towards Israel. In 2001 she attended the United Nations’ World Conference Against Racism (in Durban, South Africa), even after the U.S. had withdrawn most of its diplomatic participation once it became apparent that the gathering would give prominence to anti-American, anti-Israel, and anti-Semitic perspectives.

Just months later, during a 2002 interview with Harry Kreisler, director of the Institute for International Studies at UC Berkeley, Power said that even if it meant “alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import” (i.e., Jewish Americans), the United States should stop investing “billions of dollars” in “servicing Israel’s military” and invest the money instead “in the new state of Palestine.” Moreover, she accused Israel of perpetrating “major human-rights abuses.”

 

In 2005–06, Power worked as a foreign policy fellow in the office of U.S. Senator Barack Obama. In this role, she helped to spark and inform Obama’s interest in the deadly ethnic and tribal conflict of Darfur, Sudan.

In a 2007 interview, Power said that America’s relationship with Israel “has often led foreign policy decision-makers to defer reflexively to Israeli security assessments, and to replicate Israeli tactics…” The United States, she explained, had brought terrorist attacks upon itself by aping Israel’s violations of human rights.

 

In early 2008 Power served as a senior foreign-policy advisor to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. She was forced to resign from the campaign in March, however, after it was learned that she had referred to Obama’s Democrat rival, Hillary Clinton, as “a monster” whose modus operandi was “deceit.”

On July 4, 2008, Power married law professor Cass Sunstein, whom she had met while working on the Obama campaign.

In January 2009 President Obama appointed Power to serve as Director for Multilateral Affairs in the National Security Council, a post where she would serve as one of Obama’s closest advisors on foreign policy.

In March 2011, Power was instrumental in persuading Obama to authorize military intervention in Libya, to prevent President Moammar Qaddafi’s forces from killing the rebels who were rising up against his regime at that time. Power’s counsel in this matter was consistent with her longstanding advocacy of the doctrine known as the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P), which encourages the international community to intervene in a sovereign country’s internal affairs — with military force if necessary — in order to thwart genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, or ethnic cleansing. The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect (GCRP), which is the world’s leading advocate of this doctrine, is funded by George Soros‘s Open Society Institute.

 

Please see the above link for the rest of this bio~!

Power is another radical, anti Israel, Anti American apparatchik in the Obama inner circle of far left activists determined to “fundamentally change” America. We need her like we need another foreign war… This is the same person who was humiliated with her policy to “build a wall of separation” between the FBI and the CIA.. and wouldn’t allow them the opportunity to share intelligence.. and led to the success of the 911 attacks. Was it on purpose? I don’t know. but clearly the policy was rebuked. How does someone like this continue to haunt us?