Displaying posts categorized under

ENVIRONMENT AND JUNK SCIENCE

Meltdown at the EPA And not the nuclear kind: The agency’s junk-science promoters are flipping out. By Julie Kelly

In his recently released and timely book, Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fix the EPA, author Steve Milloy says this about the Environmental Protection Agency:

The EPA has over the course of the last 20 years marshaled its vast and virtually unchallenged power into an echo chamber of deceptive science, runaway regulations and fatally flawed research derived from unethical human experiments. The EPA’s conduct runs the gamut from subtle statistical shenanigans to withholding key scientific data, from seeking to rubberstamp baseless research data to illegally spraying diesel exhaust up the noses of unsuspecting children and other vulnerable populations.

Milloy, who runs the website JunkScience.com, has chronicled the scientific and bureaucratic abuse at the EPA for two decades, and he is thrilled by President Trump’s plans to finally reform the EPA. “I can think of no agency that has done more pointless harm to the U.S. economy than the EPA — all based on junk science, if not out-and-out science fraud,” Milloy told me. “I am looking forward to President Trump’s dramatically shrinking the EPA by entirely overhauling how the remaining federal EPA uses science.”

It looks like the EPA will be the agency hardest hit by the Trump sledgehammer. For eight years, President Obama used the agency as his de facto enforcer of environmental policies he couldn’t pass in Congress even when it was controlled by his own party. If Obama was the climate-change bully, then the EPA was his toady, issuing one regulation after another aimed at imaginary polluters who were allegedly causing global warming. Jobs were lost, companies were bankrupted, and an untold amount of economic growth was stymied out of fear of reprisals from this rogue agency. The courts halted many of the EPAs most overreaching and unlawful policies initiated by Obama — such as the Clean Water Rule and Clean Power Rule, two regulations aimed at farmers and coal producers. Unsurprisingly, people in these sectors voted heavily for Trump.

Trump officials and Congress are ready to make major changes in the EPA. A leaked memo written by Trump’s EPA transition team details how the new administration wants to tackle shoddy science at the agency. The memo asserts that the EPA should not be funding scientific research, and it must make any data publicly available for independent scientists to review. It also said that the agency must eliminate conflicts of interest and bias from the science advisory process.

The administration also put a freeze on most contracts and grants, pending further review by incoming staff. A good chunk of the EPA’s $8.3 billion budget is spent on grants to universities and units of government; its 2017 budget for state- and tribal-assistant grants was nearly $3.3 billion. The agency also has nearly $6.4 billion in outstanding contractual obligations to dozens of companies across the country, dating back to 2001. These will get much-needed scrutiny over the next several months, and Milloy insists it’s a necessary step:

The EPA uses tax dollars to fund its friends and allies, who tend to be political activists and “political” scientists. There has been no effective oversight of the EPA because Republicans have lacked the numbers and often the will to challenge the all-powerful EPA.

Trump’s Executive Orders Clear the Way for Energy Development

Democrats thrilled when President Obama vowed to govern by means of “a pen and a phone.” Now President Trump has inherited those instruments of communication and is putting them to excellent use clearing the way for the development of U.S. energy infrastructure.

The issue involves two important pipelines: The Keystone XL pipeline, which would run oil from Canadian tar sands to refineries on the Gulf coast, and the Dakota Access pipeline, which would connect the Bakken shale with petroleum facilities in Illinois. Keystone was locked up by bureaucratic opposition for years while the Obama administration pretended to think about approving it (in the end, it put a halt to the project), while the Dakota project was the subject of a briefer though no less intense effort to prevent its construction, with the Army Corps of Engineers calling off the original plan after protests and rioting from environmentalists and Indian tribes.

Trump’s executive orders would fast-track approval of both projects. The president also demands (with no obvious legal authority) that the projects be completed using steel manufactured in the United States.

Some political context is in order: The specific objections to Keystone and Dakota were never particularly persuasive, but they are, in the greater scheme of things, almost entirely beside the point: The environmentalist movement is dedicated to stopping all development of infrastructure for oil, natural gas, coal, and other ordinary sources of energy, categorically. The complaints about culturally sensitive Indian lands deployed against Dakota have also been drummed up as weapons against other projects, including coal-export depots on the West Coast, just as the arguments against Keystone have been used to prevent pipeline development in the rest of the country. When the pipelines are blocked, then the environmentalists fight against other means of transporting fuel, such as trains. If ExxonMobil were reduced to using pack animals to move barrels of oil between well and refinery, there would be an animal-rights case filed to stop it. The Left simply objects to the development of energy infrastructure per se. And that, politically, is what this is all about.

It is easy to make an economic fetish out of “Made in the U.S.A.,” and President Trump surely is guilty of doing so. But for a nation as blessed with energy resources as ours, with an economy as hungry for energy as ours, failing to allow for the development of the domestic energy industry would be beyond foolish — it would mean holding national prosperity hostage to a narrow ideological concern. The only path to abundance is abundance, which means production and investment in productive capital.

No More Keystone Capers Trump liberates two pipelines but could kill them with new demands.

President Trump is making short work of campaign promises, and on Tuesday he signed executive orders reviving the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines. The resurrection is good news for the economy, but one question is whether he’ll sink the projects with his protectionist impulses.

Mr. Trump signed an executive order inviting TransCanada to apply again for a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, which the Obama Administration rejected to indulge the anti-carbon obsessions of Democratic campaign donors. Another Trump directive aims to expedite the Dakota Access pipeline, which is 90% finished but was halted by President Obama amid protests. A federal judge ruled that the government had met its legal obligations, but the Obama Administration suspended work anyway.

Such carve outs for progressive constituencies are one reason voters rejected Democrats in November, and the pipelines promise broader prosperity. Keystone is predicted to spin off 20,000 construction and manufacturing jobs, many of them to be filled by union workers, and add $3 billion to GDP. The pipeline could move 830,000 barrels a day along the route from Alberta to Nebraska; up to 100,000 would come from North Dakota, where a glut of crude has to travel by rail to reach refineries built to process it. The efficiencies will ripple across the oil and gas industry.

The Keystone order directs the State Department to make a recommendation within 60 days for a prompt approval, though environmental groups will file lawsuits in every eligible jurisdiction. The objections are specious: President Obama’s State Department concluded on several occasions that Keystone would have no meaningful effect on climate or emissions. Moving oil by pipeline emits less carbon and is safer than trains.

As for Dakota Access, you may have noticed the months-long media rally around Standing Rock Sioux protests. The tribe claims the pipeline will harm its land and water, but this is fake news: Dakota Access does not run beneath the reservation. The route, which was altered 140 times in North Dakota to protect cultural resources, cuts along private land where other pipelines run. The tribe lost in federal court but has vowed to fight President Trump’s order.

One danger here is President Trump’s campaign promise to “renegotiate some of the terms” that included bromides about how “we’ll build our own pipes, like we used to in the old days.” He floated royalty payments during the campaign, and a separate order on Tuesday directed the Commerce Department to develop a plan to use U.S. steel and iron in all new pipelines. TransCanada has said in past months that it’s “fully committed” to Keystone XL, but the company may not be eager for another politician to direct its investment decisions.

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Mr. Trump is looking to ensure taxpayers the best possible deal. Reminder: Taxpayers pay nothing. The State Department estimated that when Keystone is finished and pumping oil, local governments will collect more than $55 million a year in property taxes. About 70% of the resulting refined products from Keystone would stay in the U.S., which will push down gas prices as another benefit, according to a study from IHS. That already sounds like a good deal.

Trump signs order to move Keystone, Dakota pipelines forward

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump signed two executive orders on Tuesday to move forward with construction of the controversial Keystone XL and Dakota Access oil pipelines, rolling back key Obama administration environmental actions in favor of expanding energy infrastructure.

While oil producers in Canada and North Dakota are expected to benefit from a quicker route for crude oil to U.S. Gulf Coast refiners, a revival of the projects would mark a bitter defeat for Native American tribes and climate activists, who vowed to fight the decisions through legal action.

Trump campaigned on promises to increase domestic energy production and before taking office indicated he supported completion of the Dakota pipeline and re-starting the C$8 billion ($6.1 billion) Keystone XL project, which was rejected in 2015 by then-President Barack Obama.

Protesters had rallied for months against plans to route the $3.8 billion Dakota Access Pipeline beneath a lake near the Standing Rock Sioux reservation, saying it threatened water resources and sacred Native American sites.

It is not yet clear how exactly the orders will move the projects forward.

In a statement, the Standing Rock Sioux said they would fight the decision.

“Americans know this pipeline was unfairly rerouted towards our nation and without our consent. The existing pipeline route risks infringing on our treaty rights, contaminating our water and the water of 17 million Americans downstream,” said Dave Archambault II, chairman of the Standing Rock tribe.

Ned Barnett: Do Trump Appointees Understand Climate Change?

In the Senate’s ongoing confirmation hearings, knee-jerk liberals keep asking President Trump’s appointees – even though the question is totally irrelevant to the secretaries being questioned – about global warming (AGW, for anthropogenic global warming), aka global climate change. Surprisingly, most of those appointees have affirmed their “belief” in climate change. In the light of the president’s deletion of all mentions of AGW and climate change from the White House website at high noon on January 20, those appointees might want to reconsider their stance. In affirming the “reality” of AGW, these cabinet appointees buy into the two points that liberal climate fanatics seem to miss, but which President Trump seems to get.

First, when, for a decade, the globe’s temperatures refused to budge, those doctrinaire doomsayers who publicly “believe” in their patently corrupted “climate science” quietly tried to change the subject. Without making a big deal out of what is, after all, a very big deal, those obsessive climate Gore-clones tried to move away from decrying global warming and toward viewing with alarm their new menace, global climate change.

Their reasoning is simple. When the globe stopped getting hotter in the late 1990s, and since these facts slipped out despite all that “climate scientists” could do, the view-with-alarmists had to move to a more defensible position. After all, the globe’s dynamic climate changes every day. No two days are alike. Never have been, never will be. So they can actually tell the “truth” when they point to “climate change.”

These private-sector doomsayers were supported by Obama’s own climate minions – bought and paid for “experts” working for NASA and NOAA, as well as those over at the Pentagon – and even in the CIA – who had been commanded to buy into the absurd fiction that climate change is America’s greatest threat. With that “official” position about to change, President Trump’s go-along-to-get-along nominees might want to rethink their position.

The bigger issue these climate-waffling appointees need to address is one the doomsayers never admit to. President Trump seems to grasp this bigger issue, if only because he has often referred to both AGW as a hoax. His cabinet nominees should ponder this and pay close attention to the logical fallacy President Trump sees lurking behind the entire issue of climate change.

The only way AGW could possibly be important is if there were just one perfect, ideal global climate that benefits everyone and harms no one. If you follow the climate fanatics’ flawed logic, that one ideal, perfect global climate was that unnamed benchmark year, sometime in the 1980s. Those grant-addicted “climate scientists” can’t agree on a benchmark year, but climate fear-mongers act as if any variation from that perfect Year Zero benchmark climate must be a bad change.

A Veto for Scott Pruitt Reversing the lawless Pebble Mine veto would send a good message.

The Trump Administration has a long to-do list, not least at a lawless Environmental Protection Agency. Sending early signals will be important, and one opportunity for Administrator nominee Scott Pruitt would be to revoke the Pebble Mine veto.

In February 2014 the EPA took the unprecedented step of issuing a pre-emptive veto, blocking a proposal to create America’s largest copper and gold mine in southwest Alaska. The veto was a message to every developer that EPA would stop any project the environmental left opposed—with no hearing and sham science.

Under the Clean Water Act, the Army Corps of Engineers has the primary job of evaluating projects. The law gives EPA a secondary role of reviewing a project, and then potentially vetoing one—though only with cause. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy’s decision to veto before Pebble had even applied for permits or received a Corps review was a first in the Clean Water Act’s history.

A subsequent 346-page investigation (requested by Pebble) by former Senator and Defense Secretary William Cohen provided evidence that EPA had decided on its veto as early as 2010. That was well before native tribes (with EPA encouragement) asked the agency to intervene. EPA then built a façade of science and procedure, inventing a phony watershed assessment based on a hypothetical mine to justify its veto.

Internal agency documents show that EPA staff and officials were also in constant contact with activists who opposed the mine. The Cohen report noted that the evidence raised “serious concerns as to whether EPA orchestrated the process to reach a predetermined outcome; had inappropriately close relationships with anti-mine advocates; and was candid about its decision-making process.”

The Pebble veto is above all a trammeling of state’s rights. Alaska owns the land for the project and protested EPA’s decision to cut the Corps and state out of the process. The Pebble proposal is controversial even in Alaska, with arguments on both sides. But the state’s residents, legislators and regulators were robbed of influence by a federal agency that pre-empted the normal process. The EPA essentially set itself up as the sole regulator of every watershed in the country.

The Winds of Green War Turbines in North Carolina threaten a crucial military radar.

Donald Trump has encouraged his cabinet nominees to take the initiative as soon as they’re on the job, and one area ripe for action is reversing the Obama Administration’s habit of letting its green-energy obsessions interfere with national defense. A good place to start is reviewing a wind farm that could compromise a crucial U.S. defense radar in southern Virginia.

That’s the location of one of America’s two Relocatable Over-the-Horizon Radar (Rothr) sites. Rothr, which is run by the Navy, provides long-range surveillance of aircraft and surface ships through the Caribbean to South America. The two Rothr sites—the other is in Texas—are crucial for tracking foreign military operations, drug runners and other criminals.

The Navy—informed by MIT and government studies—has long held that wind farms within a 28-mile radius of a Rothr site interfere with its ability to function. In 2011 the Spanish wind-turbine manufacturer Iberdrola nonetheless applied to build a giant wind farm in North Carolina near the Virginia border. The farm’s more than 100 turbines, some more than 500 feet tall, would fall within 28 miles of the Rothr site, some as near as 14 miles.

For years the U.S. military opposed the wind project. General John Kelly, then leading U.S. Southern Command, told Congress that the wind farm “could and likely will adversely impact our Rothr systems,” adding that while the Pentagon was working with “developers and stakeholders to develop potential mitigation solutions,” he had “little confidence we will succeed.” Gen. Kelly is now Mr. Trump’s Secretary of Homeland Security.

So it was a surprise to many when the Pentagon reversed itself in October 2014 and approved the project. The preamble in its agreement with Iberdrola says “it is an objective of the DoD to ensure that the robust development of renewable energy resources . . . may move forward in the United States.” And we thought the Pentagon’s mission was to defend against America’s enemies.

The wind-farm agreement refers vaguely to “mitigation” and “de-conflicting” activities but doesn’t list actions that Iberdrola performed to gain approval. The Navy later said a new study showed the farm would not interfere with the Rothr mission, though it has refused to release that study. The agreement also bars the government from stopping the turbines save for “emergency circumstances.”

The site’s first turbines are due to be up and running soon, and state legislative leaders in North Carolina recently sent a letter to Mr. Kelly asking him to intervene. They want the Trump Administration to shut down the wind farm or require the developer to shut down the turbines whenever they degrade the Rothr signal by more than 5%.

The Obama Administration used the military as a spear for its green agenda, but evidence is growing that these demands (biofuels, electric military vehicles) have come at a cost to military readiness. Mr. Kelly and new Secretary of Defense James Mattis can reassure the military and the public by focusing defense back on national security and away from climate-change indulgences.

Environmentalists’ Fact-Free Case against Scott Pruitt Pruitt’s record is one of defending the environment and attempting to get the EPA to operate within the law. By David B. Rivkin Jr. & Andrew Grossman

Environmentalists know that they don’t like Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general whom President-elect Donald Trump has tapped to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. But they don’t seem to know exactly why, based on the fact-free attacks being lobbed in his direction. Could it be that they’re simply mistaken?

Sure, Pruitt’s led the movement of states resisting the Obama-era EPA’s overreaches and challenging them in court. (In full disclosure: He brought us in to represent Oklahoma in its challenge to EPA carbon-emission rules.) But his point in those cases has always been that the EPA has to live within the limits of the law, including the constitutional prohibition on the federal government from directing the states to do its bidding. So when the EPA overstepped the line, Pruitt took it to court. A desire to see the agency follow the law isn’t exactly disqualifying for an EPA administrator.

It also doesn’t say much about how Pruitt regards the environment. He’s on record as arguing that conservatives should recognize the important role of the EPA in addressing pollution that flows across state lines, which is a uniquely federal problem. But that, he’s said, should be the EPA’s focus. Echoing the Clean Air Act itself, Pruitt’s view is that most pollution is the primary responsibility of states and local governments. Only they can understand and act on the trade-offs involved in environmental protection and have the flexibility to take into account local needs, rather than impose one-size-fits-all nationwide rules.

On that score, Pruitt has practiced what he preached. When he entered office in 2011, one of the most serious environmental problems facing Oklahoma was poultry runoff, mostly from Arkansas farms, fouling the waters of the Illinois River and Lake Tenkiller in the eastern part of the state. Oklahoma had brought a federal lawsuit against 14 poultry producers in 2005, and it took nearly five years for the case to be teed up for a decision, in 2010.

After waiting two more years for the court to act, Pruitt decided to take matters into his own hands and negotiated a solution directly with Arkansas. The states commissioned Baylor University researchers to study Oklahoma’s water-quality standards and worked together to reduce runoff through increased waste treatment and disposing of poultry waste outside the river basin.

J. D. Strong, the former head of the Oklahoma Water Resources Board, specifically credits Pruitt with getting all the responsible parties “around the table” to make progress. During Pruitt’s tenure, Strong told Energy & Environment News, the state “made great strides when it comes to actual efforts to clean up scenic rivers in Oklahoma.”

Trump’s DOE Pick Vows To ‘End Global Warming Scam’ by Baxter Emitry

Man-made global warming is a hoax created by the elite to make money and damage the U.S. economy, according to President-elect Donald Trump – and his picks for prominent roles in the administration prove he is serious about “ending the scam.”

Trump met with Dr. Will Happer, an outspoken climate change skeptic, on Friday in New York and sources in Washington report the prominent Princeton University professor is joining the administration.

In 2015 Dr. Happer declared UN “policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?“

Dr. Happer, who specialises in the study of atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy, also blasted mainstream media pundits for distorting facts and misleading the public, declaring himself “outraged by distortions of CO2 & climate intoned by hapless, scientifically-illiterate newscasters.”

Trump is building a team of climate change skeptics, suggesting we are about to experience an abrupt change in policy. In November,Trump selected Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general, to run the Environmental Protection Agency, signaling his determination to dismantle President Obama’s legislation on climate change.

“Obama thinks it’s the number one problem in the world today. I think it’s very low on the list,” Trump said on the Hugh Hewitt show, indicating a major shift in U.S. policy.

Trump continued: “You know in the 1920s people talked about global cooling, they thought the earth was cooling. I believe there is weather and I believe there is change and I believe it goes up and it goes down and it goes up again and it changes depending on years and centuries.”

Pointing out that U.S. manufacturing and the economy as a whole has suffered since climate change rules were introduced by global organizations – making everybody poorer, except the elites who profit from the fearmongering – Trump has promised to make America competitive again.

Trump’s anti-establishment views on climate change have come under sustained attack by the mainstream, but Dr. Happer has the president-elect’s back, criticizing the sheeplike groupthink of the majority and the attempt to limit freedom of speech and scientific endeavor.

The delusional war on warmth By Viv Forbes

For decades, global warming scaremongers have been stealing energy from the environment using windmills, solar collectors, and biofuels, force-fed by carbon taxes and emission trading schemes. Their delusional dream is to cool the globe.

However, there has been no global warming for nearly 20 years. Right now, the great ice sheets are growing thicker, and record snow is blanketing much of the climate change leader, the Northern Hemisphere landmass. Solar panels are blinded by snow, and turbines don’t turn in the cold still air, or else they have to be shut down because of icing or high winds. Like all green things, wind and solar power often hibernate in winter.

Meanwhile, the unloved all-weather energy producers (coal, gas, and nuclear) are straining at their limits, as families huddle around heaters fearing the first flickers of failure from overloaded power grids.

No food is produced from land smothered in snow – farmers fear late frosts and welcome early spring rains and warmth.

For the last million years, Earth has experienced long cycles of ice separated by short warm inter-glacials. Today’s warm era is already a mature twelve thousand years old, and Earth’s climate is fluctuating naturally toward the next glacial cycle in which many animals and plants will perish. Only fools would assist the return of the ice.

Warmists are making a massive mistake by assuming that global cooling is better than global warming. They are ignoring their precious “Precautionary Principle.”

A frigid ice house is far more dangerous and destructive than a warm greenhouse.