EPA Deception Exposed, Energy Prices Dropping, NY Times Panics

Barney Brenner | Dec 10, 2014

The Sunday Times headline smacked of conspiracy and governmental corruption: “Energy Firms in Secretive Alliance With Attorneys General.” The firms and the AGs have valid concerns that the EPA is grossly overestimating air pollution caused by energy companies order to place even more restrictions on US energy drilling and production.

The Times fretted instead that a complaint letter sent to Washington by the Oklahoma AG was drafted by industry lawyers. No insight from the article whether the letter was truthful or accurate. (The AG had edited the letter and made appropriate changes, but it was so well-researched and written, few were needed.)

And it takes some searching of the article’s internal links to get to the text of the letter. Readers who did would find it damaging not to the targets of the article but to the EPA. Judging from the 1500+ comments, few bothered.

Citizens, taxpayers and energy users (meaning all of us) should be cheering that there’s a new sheriff in town, actually a posse of attorneys general, who have the power to stand up against the overreach of Obama’s EPA.

In 2008, Obama famously declared war on coal. We now have more insight into his frack-attack: concerns in the letter were damning. Under Obama, the EPA changed its methods for measuring emissions to show 35 times as much discharge from conventional gas wells. For frack wells they multiplied prior results by 8850.

But wait, there’s more! Factor in multiple incorrect assumptions about how those emissions are managed and you get results which can fairly be trusted by no one. The obvious questions are, “Which of the wildly divergent estimates are correct, if either, and if the EPA can be so inaccurate in its assessments, how can we believe anything they say?”

In fact, the EPA has a history of playing fast and loose with facts in order to promote its current eco-fascist agenda. (For anyone bristling at that label, harsh socioeconomic and political control over industry and the livelihoods of citizens defines fascism. Throw in some environmental hysteria and the portrayal is complete.)

And they’ve been doing this – on steroids – for the entire six years of this destructive administration.

As part of its war on coal in Oklahoma and Arizona, the EPA wants to reduce haze, which not only has no defined health risks, but the measurements they’re using are similarly bogus. Of no concern to EPA bureaucrats are the devastating effects on struggling citizens, since Obama’s war may entail the closing of power plants which not only provide household electricity, but run pumps delivering water to southern AZ. The EPA also wants to burden almost the entire continental US with new ozone restrictions.

The fact is that the small amounts left of formerly significant pollutants are disproportionately expensive to address and their further reduction often confers no measurable benefits. But the human cost of regulation in diminished way of life is rarely considered.

The NY Times, never bothered by DC government’s growth, writes breathlessly of “the unprecedented, secretive alliance that [OK AG Scott] Pruitt and other Republican attorneys general have formed with some of the nation’s top energy producers [you know, the ones supplying us with electricity, fuel and the necessities of modern living] to push back against the Obama regulatory agenda.”

Apparently the unprecedented level of secrecy surrounding this administration has gone unnoticed by the Times. Big business is evil but not big Washington. The nearsightedness of major media would be laughable if so many folks weren’t its victims.

US citizens are sick of Obama’s overreach and in addition to giving Republicans a significant majority in the Senate in November, they also voted in state legislators, governors and attorneys general whom they hope have the will to stand up for and defend them from a regime which is, to our detriment, “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” The implication that these elected officials will somehow roll over and allow environmental destruction is deceitful.

Should the Oklahoma AG have rewritten the “smoking gun” letter to have appropriate authorship? 

Perhaps. But the misdirection of fear and the hiding of issues of genuine concern has been a significant hallmark of the Times since at least the 1930s. The New York Times, which has had genuine plagiarism issues, has little authority to carp about this document.

And the real question remains. Does this EPA manipulate and falsify data and harm industry and citizen in pursuit of its eco-agenda?

Unfortunately, that’s a rhetorical question. It’s their MO.

Townhall

Greenhouse Gas Lunacy

By James Simpson  

 Once again, President Obama is circumventing Congress and using the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and a compliant and corrupt media to push his radical agenda. This time it is to save the world from climate change, formerly known as global warming at a time when there was actual evidence that the average global temperature was increasing, however slightly. But that was nearly two decades ago. Let’s set the matter straight, shall we?

Carbon Dioxide (CO₂) is a colorless, odorless “greenhouse gas” which currently comprises 400 parts per million (ppm), that is 0.04 percent of all atmospheric gasses—an infinitesimal amount. CO₂ concentration has increased by about 40%, or 120 ppm, (0.012% of atmospheric gasses) over the last 200 or so years. During that time, world mean temperature has increased by about 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit).

Global warming alarmists have used these observations to warn of future calamity. Many predict an increase in the frequency and intensity of storms, or other effects including “flooding, drought, erosion, turbidity, debris in reservoirs, nutrient and pollutant loading, and wildfires.” The National Wildlife Federation claims that “Global warming is making hot days hotter, rainfall and flooding heavier, hurricanes stronger and droughts more severe.” Don’t worry, though. Barack Obama promised to fix it all. Demonstrating early on his almost delusional arrogance, then-candidate Obama accepted his party’s 2008 presidential nomination claiming, “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow, and our planet began to heal…”

In fact, weather has not become more intense. Despite severe tornado damage from recent storms, the number of tornadoes in the past year is the lowest since 1954, and there has been no discernible upward trend in recent years. Similarly, as of June 10^th, the U.S. has not experienced a category three or higher hurricane for 2,787 days—a record. Wildfires are at their lowest since 1985, and again, this is not an anomaly. There is no discernible trend.

But even respected journals like National Geographic are playing fast and loose with the facts. On its “Global Warming Fast Facts” page, NG claims “Polar bears and indigenous cultures are already suffering from the sea-ice loss.” But when you click through to the link, there is no mention of bears at all. Actually, Al Gore’s beloved bruins are doing just fine. A recent analysis found that since 2001, polar bear populations have increased, and that official estimates could have undercounted by as much as 9,000 animals. Canada has refused to put bears on their endangered species list despite pressure from U.S. environmental groups.

Global warming alarmists also keep insisting that there is a “consensus” that 97 percent of scientists believe manmade global warming exists and is an existential threat. Even NASA gets into the act, claiming that “97% of climate scientists agree.” The media have uncritically shouted the 97 percent shibboleth to the four corners of the globe, viciously attacking anyone who has the temerity to question it. A Talking Points Memo post demanded that “climate change deniers” be executed. An Austrian university musicology professor (what are his qualifications?), who ironically claims to oppose the death penalty, echoed the call. He did later apologize for it, however.

Even former NASA climate guru James Hansen has said that oil executives should face criminal trials for spreading doubt about global warming. This is the same James Hansen caught in the “ClimateGate” scandal, where he and climate scientists of the UK’s East Anglia University Climate Research Unit deliberately manipulated world temperature data to support global warming claims. Most notoriously, Al Gore’s famous “hockey stick,” graph was found to be the result of a flawed study by Penn State University’s Michael Mann. No trials for Hansen, Mann or Gore yet, though.

Just like their other claims, the 97 percent figure has been widely debunked. Even the IPCC’s lead author, Dr. Richard Tol mocks the 97 percent figure. He states, “People who want to argue that climate researchers are secretive and incompetent only have to point to the 97% consensus paper.” He refers to a report authored by John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli and others that examined 11,944 “climate abstracts” in the scientific literature. But the authors of that study themselves found otherwise, noting that “66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.” In other words, examining the abstracts alone found only 32.6 percent supported the notion of man-caused global warming. The 97 percent figure was derived by comparing the 32.6 percent with those who rejected (0.7%) or were unsure (0.3%), and essentially ignoring the rest.

In another study, authors claimed to have surveyed over 10,000 “earth scientists,” finding again that 97 percent agreed. Upon closer inspection however, one discovers that less than a third actually responded and that the survey was further stratified to analyze “climatologists who are active publishers on climate change.”

 That subset yielded only 77 respondents, 75 of whom responded positively to the question, “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” The 97 percent figure was thus based on only 77 people.

Meanwhile, a 2009 petition received over 31,000 signatures—more than any other petition on this subject—from physicists and physical chemists who agreed with the statement, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of … carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

Most of the alarmist crowd has a strong vested interest in hyping global warming because they are being showered with research dollars to prove it. But cooler heads have remained resolutely skeptical, and for good reason. It is difficult, for example, to reconcile a 2009 study which found that a reduction in atmospheric CO₂ levels to 760 ppm, 34 million years ago, caused Antarctica to freeze over, with the modern arguments that: 1) current CO₂ levels half that high are causing Arctic ice to melt; and 2) CO₂ levels are at record highs, which some claim to be the “maximum safe limit.” Maybe CO₂ killed the dinosaurs too?



Meanwhile, as shown in the chart above, the average global temperature has not risen in 17 years, even trending downward since 2002, while CO₂ continues to rise—a fact which directly contradicts climate alarmists’ stated claims. A September 2013 report from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) struggled to hide this seeming anomaly, and the organization was pressured by the U.S., Germany and other countries to do so. MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen characterized the IPCC report as “hilarious incoherence.” A 2012 study published in Nature magazine shows that global temperatures have not been historically high over the long term, even suggesting a downward trend.



Just for the sake of argument, however, we are going to completely ignore the foregoing and engage in a thought experiment. We will grant the left every single one of its assumptions. Nothing soothes lunatics more than to tell them they are “right,” so let’s suspend disbelief for a moment and pretend they are.

Let’s generously assume that all of the CO₂ increase since colonial times was caused by man’s activity, and that 80 percent of it occurred after 1900. That would mean that man’s activity since 1900 increased atmospheric CO₂ by 96 ppm; (120 ppm x 0.8). This represents 0.0096 percent of all atmospheric gasses.

Let’s further assume the 1°C temperature increase was also solely caused by CO₂, and that 80 percent (0.8°C) of that 1-degree change occurred in the 20^th Century. (The actual temperature increase since 1900 is estimated to have been between 0.6 and 0.8°C.)

We will also generously assume that all along the U.S. has been responsible for 20 percent of these global emissions. This is somewhat more than our current contribution (16 percent in 2010, according to the Energy Department’s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center.) If the 20 percent figure were accurate, however, it would mean that over the past 114 years, America has been responsible for an increase in atmospheric CO₂ of 19.2 ppm (96 ppm x 0.2). That’s 0.00192 percent of all atmospheric gasses. If the relationship between CO₂ and temperature holds, we would therefore be responsible for 20% of the 0.8°C increase in global temperature since 1900, which equates to 0.16°C (0.29°F).

So if we buy the Left’s argument entirely, the big, bad US of A, the imperialist destroyer of the global environment, promiscuously burning excessive carbon fuels to satisfy its gluttonous, ravenous, insatiable appetite for warmth, air conditioning and automatic dishwashers, has raised global temperatures over the last 100 years a whopping one third of one degree Fahrenheit.

But here is where it gets truly insane. The Obama administration and its allies are telling us that reducing CO₂ emissions from U.S. power plants by 30 percent will bring a cornucopia of benefits, and they are willing to destroy the entire coal industry and force other conventional energy sources onto life support to accomplish this. However, power plants targeted by this rule produce only 38 percent of total U.S. manmade CO₂, and half this target has already been met.

So in actuality, total U.S. CO₂ will be reduced by only 5.7 percent (1/2 x 0.3 x 0.38) under this rule. This translates to a mere 1.026 ppm (0.057 x 18 ppm) representing 0.0001026 percent of atmospheric CO₂, for a temperature reduction of—wait for it—0.00912°C (0.16°C x 0.057). Converting to Fahrenheit yields 0.01642°F. Another way of saying this is that, if we are to take the left’s argument at face value, the average world temperature would decline from its historic average of 54.8°F to 54.784°F. That is less than three one-hundredths of one degree.
Liberalism is a mental illness.

But even this doesn’t tell the whole story. Our example assumes that all the recent climate change is due to man’s production of carbon dioxide. There are many so-called greenhouse gasses, and CO₂ does not have the greatest impact; water vapor does. See the chart below.



Source: RealClimate.Org
Furthermore, temperature has been increasing and decreasing in regular cycles over the past two hundred years. According to Friends of Science, a non-profit group comprised of active and retired earth and atmospheric scientists, engineers, and other professionals, “The mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8 C over the 20th century is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium.”

The U.S. Energy Information Administration lists China as the largest coal producer and consumer in the world, producing almost as much coal as the rest of the world combined, and almost four times more than the U.S. In 2012, China consumed 49 percent of the world coal supply, compared to 11 percent by the U.S. Over the past 10 years, Chinese coal consumption has accounted for 83 percent of increased demand. Thus, it is not surprising that China is the world’s largest producer of anthropogenic CO₂, contributing 24.7 percent of the world’s total in 2010, the latest data available. This is 53 percent more than the U.S. produces, and China has no intention of slowing down. Current use and anticipated increases in carbon fuel use by China promises to swamp any decrease the U.S. is able to obtain.

In a Congressional hearing last September, EPA Director Gina McCarthy could not list a single effect EPA actions were having on any of 26 indicators of climate change, admitting, “It’s unlikely that any specific one step is going to be seen as having a visible impact on any those [indicators]—a visible change in any of those [indicators].” Her rationale was that it “positions the U.S. for leadership on this issue,” that could be used to prompt other nations to take action. But has the U.S. had any success influencing China on any front at all?

How about Russia or India, who together produce 11 percent of worldwide emissions? The EPA acknowledges the rule will have no impact on atmospheric CO₂.

 When the rule was finally announced, however, the EPA claimed it would bring copious benefits. Most media outlets and leftwing organizations sang its praises. The Union of Concerned Scientists called it a “climate game changer.” They compared Director McCarthy to Thomas Jefferson “at the Dawn of America,” and the EPA rule with the Declaration of Independence.

Most media ignored the serious economic impacts this rule will likely create. The Heritage Foundation estimates a loss of over 500,000 jobs, a decline in average family income by $1,000 and a 20 percent increase in energy costs. The EPA acknowledged that electricity rates will rise, but if we can hold out until 2030, they assure us that prices will fall after that. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce claimed compliance costs for the new rule could exceed $50 billion per year. The Natural Resources Defense Council sides with EPA, claiming a maximum cost of $14.6 billion by 2020 with offsetting benefits between $37 and $60 billion. The liberal Brookings Institution, however, dismisses EPA’s claimed benefits as being exaggerated by as much as 15 times.

Other liberals acknowledge the scam but support it anyway. Former Canadian Environment Minister Christine Steward said, “No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” For comparison, the most expensive EPA regulation to date addresses mercury and costs $9.6 billion per year.

The carbon regulation will have a much broader impact on our economy.

Other countries are beginning to recognize the global warming lunacy for what it is: an opportunity for well-connected liberals to fleece their nations’ treasuries in the name of “saving the planet.” In my previous article, Germany’s energy chief, Stephan Kohler, was quoted as calling Germany’s Renewable Energy Act “sheer lunacy.” Newly elected Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott is now is cultivating an alliance with Canada, Britain, New Zealand and India in an effort to oppose Obama’s call for onerous carbon regulation.

The EPA rule is sheer lunacy.

Canada Free Press

EPA Email Scandal Is Worse than Originally Thought

by George Landrith & Peter Roff 27 Jan 2013

  

 President Barack Obama and, for that matter, most of America seem woefully ignorant about a scandal unfolding at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. As hard as it is to believe, outgoing Administrator Lisa Jackson actually appears to have had agency personnel create a fictitious employee by the name of “Richard Windsor” so that Jackson could appropriate the Windsor’s email address for her own purposes.  

We’re not talking about some alias to be used for personal correspondence but a totally false identity in whose name official business was allegedly conducted created specifically to avoid federal record-keeping and disclosure requirements. And none of this would ever have been uncovered were it not for the courage of a still anonymous whistleblower and the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Christopher Horner, an attorney with the legal smarts and experience needed to unravel it all.  

Earlier this week, thanks to Horner’s good work, the EPA was supposed to produce the first installment of some 12,000 secret, previously undisclosed emails. Not because it wanted to but because a federal court order required it to.  

Under the order, the EPA was to provide the first installment of 3,000 e-mails with three additional installments of 3,000 e-mails to follow. Rather than provide the required emails, however, EPA’s cover letter accompanying its production of emails said it “produced more than 2,100 emails received or sent” by Jackson on an official alias e-mail account.  

All fine, well and good – except that not one of those emails was from “Richard Windsor’s” account. Not one. Yet it is certain the account exists because Horner found three Windsor emails using other means. Instead the EPA provided such absurdly silly and unresponsive e-mails as the daily news briefs published by the Washington Post, and EPA national news clippings, a pathetic attempt to avoid a contempt citation that came only after a week’s worth of unsuccessful attempts to push the official response date down the road.  

A pattern exists: the EPA creates a fake e-mail account for its administrator to avoid scrutiny; it doesn’t produce any of the fake e-mails even though they are required by law to do so; when specifically required by court order, the EPA seeks endless delays; and, when the delaying tactics prove fruitless, EPA fails to provide either the number or the type of e-mails required.  

To put it simply, the agency is trying to run out the clock, hoping against hope that people will lose interest and move on to something else.  This, in our judgment, must not be allowed to happen.  

The point of this scheme was to evade public accountability, to conduct official government business under the table, outside of the public eye. When Congress and others asked for Ms. Jackson’s EPA correspondence and email, the “Richard Windsor” e-mails would fall outside that request and, eventually, be destroyed allowing official EPA business to be conducted secretly. That falls well short of conducting business in the open and in a transparent fashion. It also falls well short of the standards required by federal law.  

If this were merely a matter of an official “alias” – e.g. LJackson@EPA.gov instead of her “official” email name, it would be no big deal. But the “Richard Windsor” identity is not an alias: it is a totally fake persona obviously created to evade record-keeping and disclosure requirements.  It may not seem it on its face, but it an issue so serious that anyone who received a “Richard Windsor” email or corresponded with “Richard Windsor” – knowing it was Lisa Jackson and not reporting it, should at the very least be barred from succeeding her as administrator of the EPA.  

"Despite EPA's 'everyone does it' line -- the lesser-known, somewhat inconsistent subtitle to 'most transparent administration, ever' -- Richard Windsor appears to be the first false identity assumed to hide a senior federal official's public records,” Horner says. “One reason for this might be that it's against the law.

The readiness with which we already know other administration officials, including lawyers, accepted the practice suggests Windsor wasn't the only such false identity Obama officials have created to subvert federal record-keeping and disclosure laws."  

Yes, America, this e-mail scandal is worse than originally believed. Far worse. And if “everyone does it” in this Administration as the EPA has claimed, President Obama needs to answer some questions as well.  And the United States Senate, which has slew of presidential nominees to confirm in the next few months, has the obligation to start asking.  

George Landrith is president of Frontiers of Freedom, a Virginia-based public policy organization. Peter Roff is a senior fellow at FOF.

Big Government

EPA Email Scandal Fits Pattern of Its Secrecy

by George Landrith & Peter Roff 12 Jan 2013

 

 As a candidate for president, Barack Obama promised to lead the most open, most transparent administration in history. He has not kept that promise. Time and again, members of his administration have failed to keep faith with the American people. Acting in secret, they have taken sometimes extraordinary steps to shield their actions from the public.

The latest example involved Lisa Jackson, who has led the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency since the beginning of the president’s first term. Jackson is resigning, but only after it was revealed she used a fake name (Richard Windsor) to create a fake e-mail address to conduct official EPA business.

What Jackson did contravenes federal law which, because as a nation we value open and transparent government, prohibits such behavior.

This is not the first time the EPA has been in the spotlight because its administrator acted against the interests of transparency. Carol Browner, who led the agency under Bill Clinton and then served for a time as President Obama’s “environmental czar” – ordered the hard drive on her government computer erased and reformatted and all backup tapes destroyed only hours after a federal judge had ordered the EPA to preserve all agency e-mail records.

This conduct, the use of phony e-mail addresses and the erasure of computers pose an interesting question: What is the EPA and its administrators doing that they are so unwilling to have their official communications become public? It doesn’t paint a pretty picture for the left’s agenda or its methods of implementation.

Jackson’s conduct came to light only after a a whistle-blower divulged she was using her fake e-mail account to conduct controversial business, evade congressional oversight, and get around the requirements of the federal Freedom of Information Act. Typically, government business is conducted in public. Correspondence and e-mail must be available to scrutiny, both by Congress and the American people. When a fake name is used, it allows an agency and its employees to evade accountability.

There is no way around it. This is government corruption at its highest form – and the polar opposite of the kind of transparent and open government political leaders on both sides of the aisle claim to want.

EPA’s record of following the law and being transparent couldn’t be much worse. Obama’s EPA has twice failed to provide as required by law a “Unified Agenda” which is a compendium of regulations planned in the foreseeable future. For the record, no other administration has ever even once failed to meet the requirements of this law. This, combined with the more than 12,000 secret e-mails, suggests a pattern of chicanery, obfuscation, and lawlessness at Obama’s EPA.

The problem does not end with Ms. Jackson or her staff. For the last four years, when asked to respond to lawful requests for information by Congress or by American citizens under FOIA, EPA attorneys did not provide e-mail sent and received by the administrator at her “Richard Windsor” e-mail address. Moreover, they affirmed that all responsive e-mails had been provided, when they clearly had not.

It is important whether these attorneys knew or had reason to know that their representations were false. And it is incumbent on the U.S. Congress and, perhaps, the U.S. Department of Justice to begin an inquiry into whether they did so.

To stop the culture of corruption at the EPA, it is not sufficient for Ms. Jackson to step down. There must be a comprehensive investigation concerning the actions of Ms. Jackson, her staff, and EPA attorneys who were involved. It must be determined who knew about or participated in the corruption. Ms. Jackson clearly did but did anyone else? Any government employee involved should be fired and prosecuted. If they are an attorney, they should also be disbarred.

No one has ever gone to jail for violating the Freedom of Information Act but, the federal mail and wire fraud law is broadly used to target corruption in government that falls well short of bribery or extortion. Ms. Jackson and all those who participated in the fraudulent and fake e-mail scheme should face prosecution.

Once the 12,000 or more secret e-mails become public, Attorneys General and United States Attorneys all over the United States will likely have jurisdiction to investigate and perhaps even prosecute Ms. Jackson or anyone else who were involved in there e-mail fraud scheme. Congress should also have a full investigation and also determine if other of agencies have engaged in similarly corrupt schemes designed to shield their activities from public scrutiny, particularly those that pertain to the official function of their position and the development of public policy.

The Obama administration has been one of the least transparent or open administrations in memory. The activities of Lisa Jackson at the EPA are just one example of that. If the president hopes to remove the taint from his administration, he must take a personal interest in rooting out this sort of corruption. He cannot simply accept Ms. Jackson’s resignation and call the matter closed.

George Landrith is president of Frontiers of Freedom, a Virginia-based public policy organization. Peter Roff is a senior fellow at FOF.

Big Government