Cap-and-Trade: The Only Alternative to EPA's Power Grab? 22 comments
an article to
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
The latest argument being given by supporters of the cap-and-trade climate bill is that senators must act to prevent even worse action by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Daniel Whitten and Simon Lomax at Bloomberg.com report:
The Senate remains under pressure to pass a cap-and-trade bill because failure to act would leave regulation in the hands of the Environmental Protection Agency, which has asserted its right to do so under the Clean Air Act, said Kevin Book, a Washington analyst with Clearview Energy Partners, an energy consulting firm. Senate action to head off the EPA is the most likely outcome, he said.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gave themselves jurisdiction over carbon dioxide emissions through an April 24 endangerment finding. They wrote:
Today the Administrator is proposing to find that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations. Concentrations of greenhouse gases are at unprecedented levels compared to the recent and distant past. These high atmospheric levels are the unambiguous result of human emissions, and are very likely the cause of the observed increase in average temperatures and other climatic changes. The effects of climate change observed to date and projected to occur in the future—including but not limited to the increased likelihood of more frequent and intense heat waves, more wildfires, degraded air quality, more heavy downpours and flooding, increased drought, greater sea level rise, more intense storms, harm to water resources, harm to agriculture, and harm to wildlife and ecosystems—are effects on public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act...
Based upon the Clean Air Act, an act designed to restrict pollutants, the EPA gave itself the power to restrict emissions of one of the purest-of-pure compounds. Carbon dioxide is one of the three chemical compounds (along with oxygen and water) needed to sustain life on earth.
The EPA based its power grab upon the discredited theory that global warming is caused by changes in the miniscule percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In order to draw this conclusion, they had to ignore an internal report from some of their own employees.
Here is a selection from this internal report:
We have become increasingly concerned that EPA and many other agencies and countries have paid too little attention to the science of global warming. EPA and others have tended to accept the findings reached by outside groups, particularly the IPCC...
- Global temperatures have declined -- extending the current downtrend to 11 years...
- The concensus on past, present and future Atlantic hurricane behavior has changed....
- A new 2009 paper finds that the crusial assumption of the GCM models used by the IPCC concerning strongly positive feedback from water vapor is not supported by empirical evidence and that the feedback is actually negative.
- A new 2009 paper by Scafetta and West suggests that the IPCC used faulty solar data in dismissing the direct effect of solar variability on global temperatures....
B. There appears to be a strong association between solar sunspots/irradiance and global temperature fluctuations. It is unclear exactly how this operates, but it may be through indirect solar variability on cloud formation. This topic is not really expored in the Draft TSD but needs to be since otherwise the effects of solar variations may be misattributed to the effects of changes in GHG levels...
Point B above refers indirectly to the new field of cosmoclimatology which holds that climate change is caused by extra-terrestrial forces, especially cosmic rays and solar activity:
- Cosmic rays cause low-lying clouds to form which reflect solar energy back into outer space, resulting in global cooling. They increase and decrease periodically as a result of the movement of the solar system through the spiral arms of the nebulae, resulting in a predictable cycles between greenhouse ages and ice ages on the Earth.
- Solar activity not only results in more heat reaching the earth, but it also blocks cosmic rays from reaching the earth. As a result, when the sun is less active, as it has been since 1998, more cosmic rays get through, causing more clouds to form, causing global cooling, except over Antarctica, where clouds cause slightly less cooling because the ice cover causes even more reflection of sunlight into outer space.
So far, this new theory has been shown to be very highly predictive of global temperatures whether the time scale be eons, years, or days.
In contrast, carbon dioxide concentrations have only been shown to be predictive at the grossest level.
As more data on cosmic rays and solar activity is collected, it should become possible to determine what variance in global temperatures is left, after eliminating the contributions of extra-terrestrial activity, that the carbon dioxide theory could possibly explain.
It is clear that the carbon dioxide theory is old science that is no longer the strongest theory in the field. In fact it may turn out to be completely bogus.
Nevertheless, it lives on as a religion being forced upon our government by the unelected bureaucrats at the EPA. Instead of passing a cap-and-trade bill, the Senate should revise the Clean Air Act in order to end this power grab by the EPA.
Disclosure: No Positions
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
That may be true, but Israeli Astrophysicist Nir J. Shaviv and Canadian Jan Veizer correlations between cosmic rays and ice ages has not been debunked. Check out their paper: "Celestrial driver of Phanerozoic climate." You will learn that galactic cosmic rays explain the huge variations in global temperatures found in the earth's past, and that carbon dioxide concentrations do not.
Shaviv and Veizer focus upon the reconstructed seawater temperature in the tropical regions over the past 545 million years (the Phanerozoic period). They note that the earth cycles through ice ages and greenhouse ages like a sin wave every 135 million years, plus or minus 9 million years, and that there are no known terrestrial phenomena that would produce such cycles. On the other hand, the solar system does cycle through the spiral arms of the galaxy with a period of 143 million years, plus or minus 10 million years. Their paper can be read here:
www.atmos.washington.e...
Actually no. I am not advocating abolishing the clean air act. I am advocating tightening it up so that the EPA can no longer abuse its power by turning non-polutants, polutants.
He asks, "As for the claim that the theory of global warming is junk science and has been debunked, why do 8/10 experts still claim that it is responsible for increasing temperatures and retreating glaciers?"
Because we live in an Age of Scientific Conformity, enforced by the peer review process. See:
tradeandtaxes.blogspot...
Americans are becoming wise to this as the signatures on the Petition to Reject Climate Change Laws at CO2isOK.org/petition.html prove.
I'm just wondering if RGGI will be repealed in New York State in 2010 or 2011?
Careful the ancients knew the world was round. The very premise of your argument that a vast majority of medival people were stupid and held on to the belief that the world is flat is actually a myth. I first came to know this by watching a show on the history channel. The below links except for one are apolgia sites for christian and atheist groups. Setting that aside the history channel (or maybe discovery) show had portraits of Jesus holding the earth in his hands.....IT WAS ROUND that far predated Columbus. Anyway anyone that has ever gone to the beach can see the arch of the world on the horizon. It wasn't hidden knowledge. So while I agree with your overall premise how can you ever know ALL that you don't know.
www.ethicalatheist.com...
nabataea.net/flatearth...
www.bede.org.uk/flatea...
www.lewrockwell.com/wo...
On Aug 16 02:03 PM socrateazz wrote:
> Religion is right! Fools start to believe something and they will
> not give up that belief for any reason. The world was still Flat
> for up to fifty years after it was proved to be a sphere. But those
> in charge believed they were being buffaloed by fools. If you believe
> somebody has an dumb belief, check out the reasons for that belief
> and the reasons for your beliefs. You might have been propagandized
> and do not even know it. I agree Carbon dioxide is an invented fear
> for control purposes. And people like to control!
www.ethicalatheist.com...
Don't forget. The U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on this issue and granted the EPA carte blanche to do what they want. We have a constitution and a bill of rights but the EPA rules over all.
It will never happen as govt azzholes wont let it happen
When a regulatory agency asserts power over the US Senate to adopt their way or the highway, we are witnessing some seriously dysfunctional governance. The inmates continue to rule the asylum.
It reminds of the phrase that needs to be reasserted by the governing body, "I don't get ulcers, I give em".
Consider most of the captured CO2 now is going down hole to act as a solvent to get otherwise hard to obtain crude out of the strata. Most of this same carbon dioxide comes back to the surface again saturated into the oil to be released when the pressure is off or, it comes up ahead of the oil.
In Weyburn Sask where they are using the carbon captured in North Dakota, it is reported the sound of the carbon dioxide escaping is like a jet plane taking off and it persists for hours on end!
There are plans to inject it into the lower toxic water aquifers which to my mind is a good plan and one we should support.
However I do not see taxpayers funding the oil patch for their solvents!
Being seen as doing something will not cut it!
Unilaterally enacting such a scheme has no reasonable chance of making a difference.
We would do much better to enact a voluntary plan to reduce energy usage with incentives to become more energy efficient in every walk of life. Suggested reductions in Auto, Home and Business energy usage with investment incentives would move many or most down the path. The rest would have time to recognize that they will have to change as well.
Enacting a huge additional taxation on poor and middle class citizens and business would injure our economy and our citizens. How can we expect to make a difference by eliminating unilaterally a few coal burning utility plants when China is building and bringing on line several each week.
Stop trying to divert more US earnings to Goldman Sachs and other traders who expect their politcal contributions to be returned 1000 fold by taxpayers.
Our % of world energy usage is 15% and dropping like a rock. With what we are doing to business and jobs it will continue to drop.
I dont know if the $1600 additional cost per person figure is accurate but I do understand clearly that Cap and Trade will be a huge additional tax on taxpayers.
I hate to say this but the world energy is changing fast whether you like it or not.
We need to drastically cut oil, coal use for national and economic security, you know like the present recession we are now in of which high oil prices is a major factor.
Facts are oil costs from trade deficits, oil wars, protecting oil sources in the Persian gulf all should be in the price of oil then we all could get a 20% tax cut!! Plus it fuels our enemies like Iran, Russia, oil dictators and terrorists. Imported oil will destroy our country unless we start replacing it now with more eff transport that uses little or no oil.
Any other course puts us in bankruptcy, oil wars forever.
The damage coal does from mining to burning is huge and costly yet it's mostly in our taxes or food costs like you can't eat much fish anymore as just 2 fish meals will cause your mercury levels to spike above max safe levels. Health costs are high as building, bridge increased costs to maintain as is cleaning water supplies, rivers from mining and burning.
All we need is these costs in the fuels instead of socializing them. Or do you think oil, coal should be subsidized? What we need is a straight oil, coal tax to make those who use these pay their full costs, about doubling their current prices wholesale. You are against socialism, corporate welfare aren't you?
Then a real free market will develop needing no subsidies for RE, eff, conservation as in such a free market, are the low cost energy sources. Just they are best people making their own at home so big business doesn't like them.
You all say you are for free markets, against welfare, when are you going to actually make that happen?
What's the next scheme?
This article does explain how the rest of the planets are going through global warming without our help.
Carbon capture has been going on for 30-40 years. You pump CO2 into a carbonate formation. The CO2 reacts with the carbonates to make bicarbonates. You pump down more CO2, the bicarbonates precipitate out to a solid.