I work in the coal industry and this gov’t is trying their best to shut us down. They are even talking about putting a freeze on all federal coal leases.
Here is an analysis that was supplied by Troutman Sanders Advisory:
EPA Issues Climate Change Endangerment Finding
EPA announced today that it has promulgated its long-awaited endangerment finding. Evidently timed to coincide with the beginning of the international climate change negotiations in Copenhagen, the Agency’s finding states that elevated atmospheric concentrations of six greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by Man – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride – are contributing to dangerous climate change. According to EPA, “[t]he accumulation of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can lead to hotter, longer heat waves that threaten the health of the sick, the poor, the elderly - that can increase ground-level ozone pollution linked to asthma and other respiratory illnesses.”
Although the endangerment finding technically is being made in the context of GHG emissions from new motor vehicles, the finding will trigger GHG regulation of a variety of mobile and stationary sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The first GHG regulation that EPA will issue will be its light-duty motor vehicle GHG regulation, likely by March 2010. This regulation is being issued jointly with the Department of Transportation and primarily requires improvements in fuel economy for automobiles and light duty trucks beginning in Model Year 2012. Comments on the motor vehicle rulemaking were due on November 27, 2009.
EPA states that once the motor vehicle GHG regulations become effective sixty days after they are issued next March, GHGs will be considered to be regulated pollutants under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) air quality permit program. As a result, at that time, new “major” stationary sources of GHG emissions, and modifications of existing “major” stationary sources that “significantly” increase their GHG emissions, will be required to obtain a permit setting forth Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for those emissions.
Both EPA and business in general have a high level of concern that a very large number of sources could be required to obtain PSD permits for their GHG emissions when GHGs become regulated pollutants next year. As a result, to avoid grid-locking the PSD permit system, the Agency has proposed a “tailoring” rule designed to limit applicability of the PSD program to only the largest GHG emitters, at least for an initial five-year period. Under the tailoring rule, “major” sources to which PSD requirements for GHG would become applicable would be those that emit more than 25,000 tons per year (tpy) of CO2 equivalent, and a “significant” increase of GHG emissions from a modification would be defined at a level somewhere between 10,000 and 25,000 tpy. The tailoring rule would also set a 25,000 tpy threshold under the Title V operating permit program.
The legality of the tailoring rule has been questioned, however, as the CAA explicitly defines the PSD “major” source threshold as 100 tpy for sources in 28 industrial categories and 250 tpy for sources in all other categories, and the Title V threshold at 100 tpy. Comments on the tailoring rule proposal are due December 28, 2009.
The endangerment finding is likely to result in other forms of regulation as well. Numerous petitions are pending at EPA from various state and environmental groups seeking regulation of a variety of mobile sources (trucks, airplanes, ships, boats, equipment) and stationary sources. With the endangerment finding issued, EPA is likely to begin acting on these petitions next year. Additionally, last week the Center for Biological Diversity filed a petition with EPA seeking promulgation of a GHG National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Granting the petition could lead to highly draconian and unworkable emission control requirements.
Gee, shutting down coal will really make West Virginia “wild and wonderful”-
well, maybe “wild”
ya’ll can just get jobs working for Jay Rockefeller or maintaining the Sheets Byrd highways and monuments
It was Alinski who suggested using the environment to push his radical agenda. According to him, it's something everyone can agree on. "Health" is another.
The democrats know there isn't a climate crises. It's a tool.
The coal industry, if it were to agree to "sharing their wealth" and engaging in "social justice", it would be saved. It's not about pollution. It's about sharing the wealth. It's about money.
Ayan Rand was a futurist. She's considered a great philosopher, but what's happening today is exactly what she "predicted." The engine of the world is about to stop. "Social justice" has become the cog in the machine.
THERE ARE SOME ON YOUR SIDE:
YOU HAVE TO FIGHT THESE FASCIST WITH FACTS:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM600.pdf
As coal, oil, and nat ural gas are used to feed and lift from pov erty
vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be re leased
into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the
health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people.
The United States and other coun tries need to produce more en -
ergy, not less. The most practi cal, econom ical, and environmentally
sound methods available are hydrocarbon and nuclear technologies.
Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed
the Earth, and the ex trapolation of cur rent trends shows that it will
not do so in the foreseeable fu ture. The CO2 pro duced does, how -
ever, ac celerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to
grow in drier re gions. An imal life, which de pends upon plants, also
flourishes, and the di versity of plant and an imal life is increased.
Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO2 in the at -
mosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and nat ural gas
from be low ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for con -
version into living things. We are living in an in creasingly lush en vironment
of plants and animals as a re sult of this CO2 increase. Our
children will therefore en joy an Earth with far more plant and an imal
life than that with which we now are blessed.
THERE ARE SOME ON YOUR SIDE:
YOU HAVE TO FIGHT THESE FASCIST WITH FACTS:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM600.pdf
As coal, oil, and nat ural gas are used to feed and lift from pov erty
vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be re leased
into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the
health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people.
The United States and other coun tries need to produce more en -
ergy, not less. The most practi cal, econom ical, and environmentally
sound methods available are hydrocarbon and nuclear technologies.
Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed
the Earth, and the ex trapolation of cur rent trends shows that it will
not do so in the foreseeable fu ture. The CO2 pro duced does, how -
ever, ac celerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to
grow in drier re gions. An imal life, which de pends upon plants, also
flourishes, and the di versity of plant and an imal life is increased.
Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO2 in the at -
mosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and nat ural gas
from be low ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for con -
version into living things. We are living in an in creasingly lush en vironment
of plants and animals as a re sult of this CO2 increase. Our
children will therefore en joy an Earth with far more plant and an imal
life than that with which we now are blessed.
It sounds as if they have made tyhings so bureaucratic and comp-lex that you’re forced to puzzle your way through all the acronyms and the sub-rules and sub-headings in order to find some kind of wiggle room.
So that you don’t challenge the basic premise itself!