Skip to comments.The EPA Gets Caught in a Big Fat Lie
Posted on 10/02/2011 8:48:54 AM PDT by IbJensen
The notion that the Environmental Protection Agency uses science to justify their regulations is false, just like most of the claims they issue on various aspects of the nations environment. Their favorite scam is to estimate the number of deaths they will prevent with some new draconian regulation.
The EPA is the American equivalent of the Gestapo, a ruthless enforcement agency with a very Green agenda that is opposed to the use of many beneficial chemicals, every form of energy, and the right of people to be left alone. » If you like this article, please subscribe to our daily newsletter
At the top of its list of priorities is the destruction of the nations economy with special attention to all forms of energy production. Manufacturing anything comes next, followed by afflicting the nations vast agricultural sector. The EPA insists that dust is a pollutant. You cant farm without generating DUST.
To understand the threat the EPA poses it is necessary to understand that proposed Clean Air regulations are based on the claim that global warming is real, is happening, and is caused primarily by carbon dioxide (CO2). The claim is utterly without any scientific merit..
There is NO global warming. At least not the kind Al Gore lies about.
The North and South Poles are not melting; they gain and lose ice in a perfectly natural cycle that has been going on for billions of years. The polar bears are not disappearing. Drilling for oil in ANWR will have zero effect on the caribou. Et cetera!
With our vast reserves of coal and natural gas, the U.S. does not lack for the ability to generate electricity or to refine oil for transportation.
If you want to stay warm this winter, you better hope that utilities keep producing the electricity for your home or apartments heating system. Fifty percent of that electricity is produced by cheap, abundant coal and the EPA is hell bent to shut down as many coal mines as possible, leading in turn to the shutdown of utilities that burn coal. Natural gas accounts for just over twenty-four percent of electricity generation and it need hardly be said that the EPA is wary of fracking, the technology to access it.
Blowing the Whistle on the EPA
The big newsthe kind even the mainstream media was unable to ignorewas that the EPAs own inspector general has released a report accusing the agency of cutting corners regarding the science cited to justify its effort to declare CO2 a pollutant.
Simply stated, without CO2 all life on Earth dies.
It is a gas that plants use for their growth. From a blade of grass to a giant redwood, all depend on CO2, as do all the crops grown coast to coast. Enormous quantities of corn and wheat are grown that contribute to the U.S. economy, feeding both livestock and humans in wondrous ways. Take away vegetation and the animals die. Take away the animals that grace our dinner plates and we die.
Absurdly, the EPA says it is a pollutant, a dangerous hazard to our health.
No, the most dangerous hazard to our health is the EPA.
The EPA insists on ignoring all the other natural sources of CO2 as well as the fact that it constitutes less than one percent, 0.038 percent of the atmosphere. The oceans of the world gather it, store it, and release it. The EPA, though, says that when man is involved, it is pure evil.
Mind you, every human exhales about six pounds of CO2 every day. The fact is that the air Americans inhale daily is clean is due to the agencys early efforts to mitigate some abuses. Those were the days before the EPA abandoned a rational, fact-based approach to its stated objectives. One of its legacies is the idiotic required inclusion of ethanol in every gallon of gasoline. Made from corn, it actually produces more CO2 to produce and use.
The EPA effort to regulate CO2 came along with the invention of the global warming hoax that claimed CO2 was trapping the Earths heat. That is why CO2 and others are deceptively called greenhouse gases (GHGs). Manufacturing everything from a donut to megawatts of electricity emits GHGs.
Finally, even the EPAs inspector general blew the whistle on the utterly deceitful way the EPA arrives at its justification for a vast matrix of regulations that has been stifling the economy for years. The IG has charged that the EPA did not meet its own guidelines for peer review to ensure the integrity of the science stated.
Anyone who has been following the rise and fall of the global warming hoax knows that peer review has become a highly corrupted practice. Real peer review is critical to the integrity of any scientific study. When major science journals abandoned the peer review process to publish gibberish about global warming, they put all other new scientific studies at risk.
As Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, noted, the EPAs regulation of CO2 emissions would require 230,000 full-time employees to produce 1.4 billion work hours to address the actual increase in permitting functions that would result if the EPA is allowed to get away with this scandalous hoax. It would cost an estimated $21 billion per year. By contrast, the EPAs budget request for fiscal year 2012 is $8.973 billion.
The EPA claims that the Clean Air Act gives it the power to regulate CO2, but it does not. It was never intended to, but the Supreme Court in one of its more idiotic rulings opened the door for the EPA claim. In his dissent from Massachusetts v EPA, Justice Antonin Scalia quipped that, as defined by the Court, everything airborne, from Frisbees to flatulence, qualifies as an air pollutant
Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) pointed out that The EPAs determination has led to a mountain of Clean Air Act regulations that could cost over a million jobs. It is noteworthy that Sen. Barrasso said, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson has regularly assured Congress and the American public that its finding is based on sound scientific practices. It isnt. Jackson should testify immediately, said Sen. Barrasso, the American people deserve the truth.
The EPA has been short on the truth about all of its claims for four decades and needs to be shut down in order to let a truly science-based agency replace it with strict congressional oversight and limitations.
The time is long overdue to pull the plug on the Environmental Protection Agency.
The EPA, like every other Federal Agency, is exactly the way Congress has allowed or deliberately made it to be over a long, long period of time. Congress funds these agencies and very often these agencies are acting directly because of Congressional mandates.
Yes, EPA is directly responsible for some of the most intrusive mandates imaginable, but Congress is directly responsible for EPA.
IMHO, the EPA is probably the most destructive BIG government agency of them all. Every one of those bass turds employed there should be in prison.
THE DDT BAN TURNS 30 Millions Dead of Malaria Because of Ban, More Deaths Likely
These “domestic agencies” are nothing more than a way around Congress and a means to expand the control of the executive, making Congress, more and more, irrelevant.
After the next election, we have an opportunity to pressure our elected SERVANTS to abolish them. DOE, EPA, Interior, IRS- all of them NEED to be abolished and their regulations overturned. The states, ALONE, could undo the regulations and refuse to follow them, if they have the guts.
The damage that the DOE has done to our kids should guarantee its death, and jail for its bureaucrats. Allowing these bloated departments to keep hurting the country is unforgivable.
And most of those are "people of color". The EPA is RACIST!!
Remember when Carol Browning was head of EPA? Lawyer from Miami ... now it’s Lisa Jackson ....
This crap will come to a screetching halt early in 2013 after the Country gets a new POTUS. The agency won't be abolished, but will be greatly down-sized and kept on a very short leash.
Environmental Protection, my a$$.
A) Promising to overturn and wipe out Obamacare...
B) Dismantle the Department of Education, the EPA, etc...
C) Promises to reduce federal employment by at least 50%...
Oh, right, none.
While we continue to dream and fantasize about the de-Federalism of our nation, can we start holding our candidates up to the fire and at least get Obamacare de-funded?
PALIN SLAMS OBAMA Over Funding Brazilian Offshore Oil Development
Gateway Pundit ^ | 8/19/09 | Gateway Pundit
Scrap the Marxist front group called, “The EPA”. Replace it with one that advocates these AMERICAN principles:
Individuals, Liberty and the Environment
The American Conservation Ethic
© 1996 by the National Wilderness Institute
P.O. Box 25766, Washington, DC 20007
ph: (703)836-7404 fx: (703)836-7405 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
The American Conservation Ethic is grounded in experience, science, wisdom and the enduring values of a free people. It affirms that people are the most important natural resource and that we must be good stewards of the world around us for this and future generations. It is founded upon a deep respect for the wonder, beauty and complexity of creation and is dedicated to the wise use of nature’s bounty. It reflects every American’s aspiration to make our environment cleaner, healthier and safer for our future, and it draws its strength from the most powerful force for improving our environment free people.
The American Conservation Ethic works because, like the American people, it is practical. It applies the tried and true principles of individual rights and responsibilities to the conservation of our natural resources. Property rights create incentives that both reward good stewardship and empower individuals to protect their property from the harmful acts of others. The guarantee that we shall reap the fruits of our labor inspires the investment of time, money and effort necessary to expand upon centuries of accumulated arts and sciences. As we learn more, we are better able to be good stewards of natural resources.
The American Conservation Ethic relies upon science as a tool to guide public policy. Science is an invaluable tool for rationally weighing risks to human health and measuring other environmental impacts. Foremost among our measures of environmental quality are human health and well-being. Science also provides a means of assessing the costs and benefits of actions designed to reduce, control and remediate pollution or other environmental impacts. Central to the American Conservation Ethic is the understanding that scientific development, technological innovation and economic growth are essential for a cleaner, healthier and safer environment. As we increase our knowledge, we improve our productivity, efficiency and potential to innovate and these achievements conserve energy, raw materials and other valuable resources. As we learn more about the natural world we discover how to get more than ever before from the resources we use. Progress provides the know-how, time and financial resources needed to fulfill our aspirations to improve the health, beauty and productivity of America.
The American Conservation Ethic is established on the fact that renewable natural resources are not fragile and static but resilient and dynamic. Such resources are continually regenerated through growth, reproduction or other naturally occurring processes which cleanse, cycle or otherwise create resources anew. Because these resources are continually renewed they can be used in a wise and responsible manner without the fear that they will be lost forever. Through progress we come to better understand renewable natural resources and the relationships among them. The knowledge gained improves our ability to wisely use and conserve these treasures for the benefit of current and future generations.
The American Conservation Ethic promotes workable means to reach our environmental goals, rather than depending on an inefficient centralized environmental bureaucracy. By relying on the first-hand knowledge and practical experience of local people and accounting for widely varying conditions, a site and situation specific approach provides practical solutions to the environmental challenges we face. The greater the degree to which solutions to environmental problems reflect the knowledge, needs and desires of those individuals most affected, the more successful they will be.
America has unsurpassed natural wealth. Our abundant mountains, plains, forests and coasts, our lakes, rivers and streams, our wildlife and fish are unique in all of the world. They have provided for and have been cherished by millions of Americans for generation after generation. Our people living, growing and creating within our rich culture of liberty are our greatest resource. Americans today clearly aspire to improve upon our tradition of wisely using and conserving the world around us for generations to come. The American Conservation Ethic is the way to fulfill these aspirations.
The American Conservation Ethic recognizes that free people work to improve the environment. It relies upon empowering individuals to use, enjoy and conserve our environment. It inspires and challenges individual Americans to improve their surroundings and lives, and thereby the world we share. Cumulatively, these are the most effective and dependable means to ensure a cleaner, healthier and safer environment, conserve America’s unique resources and protect that which we all treasure most people and liberty.
Principles of the American Conservation Ethic
I. People are the most important resource.
All environmental policy should be based on the idea that people are the most important resource. The inherent value of each individual is greater than the inherent value of any other resource. Accordingly, the foremost measure of quality of our environment is human health, safety and well-being. A policy cannot be good for the environment if it is bad for people. The best judge of what is or is not desirable is the affected individual.
Human intellect and accumulated knowledge are the only means by which the environment can be willfully improved or modified. Environmental policies should inspire people to be good stewards. Within the framework of equity and liability individuals carry out deeds that create incremental benefits in the quality or quantity of a resource or improve some aspect of the environment. Cumulatively these deeds result in progress and provide direct and indirect environmental benefits to society.
II. Renewable natural resources are resilient and dynamic and respond positively to wise management.
Renewable natural resources trees, plants, soil, air, water, fish and wildlife and collections thereof wetlands, deserts, forests and prairies are the resources we are dependent upon for food, clothing, medicine, shelter and to meet innumerable other human needs. Human life depends upon their use and conservation. Such resources are continually regenerated through growth, reproduction or other naturally occurring processes which cleanse, cycle or otherwise create them anew. While all living organisms and activities produce byproducts, nature has a profound ability to carry, recycle, recover and cleanse. These characteristics make it possible for us to wisely use renewable resources now while ensuring they are conserved for future generations. As Teddy Roosevelt, a founding father of conservation, recognized: “A Nation treats its resources well if it turns them over to the next generation improved and not impaired in value.”
III. The most promising new opportunities for environmental improvements lie in extending the protection of private property and unleashing the creative powers of the free market.
Ownership inspires stewardship. Private property stewards have the incentive to enhance their resources and the incentive to protect them. Polluting another’s property is to trespass or to cause injury. Polluters, not those most vulnerable in the political process, should pay for damages done to others. Good stewardship is the wise use or conservation of nature’s bounty, based on our needs. With some exception, where property rights are absent, we must seek to extend them. If this proves elusive, we must seek to bring the forces of the market to bear to the greatest extent possible. There is a direct and positive relationship between modern market economies and a clean, healthy and safe environment. There is also a direct and positive relationship between the complexity of a situation and the need for freedom. Markets reward efficiency, which is environmentally good, while minimizing the harm done by unwise actions. In the market, successes are spread by example, and since costs are not subsidized but are borne privately, unwise actions are on a smaller scale and of a shorter duration. As a result, such actions are on a smaller scale and of a shorter duration. We must work to decouple conservation policies from regulation or government ownership. In aggregate, markets not mandates, most accurately reflect what people value and therefore choose for their environment.
IV. Our efforts to reduce, control and remediate pollution should achieve real environmental benefits.
The term pollution is applied to a vast array of substances and conditions that vary greatly in their effect on man. It is used to describe fatal threats to human health, as well as to describe physically harmless conditions that fall short of someone’s aesthetic ideal. Pollutants occur naturally or can be a by-product of technology. Their origin does not determine their degree of threat. Most carcinogens, for example, occur naturally but do not engender popular fear to the same degree that man-made carcinogens do. Microbiological pollutants, bacteria and viruses, though natural, are by far the most injurious form of pollution. Technology and its byproducts must be respected but not feared. Science is an invaluable tool for rationally weighing risks to human health or assessing and measuring other environmental impacts. Health and well-being are our primary environmental measures. Science also provides a means of considering the costs and benefits of actions designed to reduce, control and remediate pollution or other environmental impacts so that we may have a cleaner, healthier and safer environment.
V. The Learning Curve is Green.
As we accumulate additional knowledge we learn how to get more output from less input. The more scientific, technical and artistic knowledge we have, the more efficient we are in meeting our needs. As we gain knowledge, we are able to conserve by substituting information for other resources. We get more miles per gallon, more board-feet per acre of timber, a higher agricultural yield per cultivated acre, more GNP per unit of energy. Technological advancement confers environmental benefits. Progress made it possible for the American farmer of today to feed and clothe a population more than two and a half times the size of the one we had in 1910 and triple exports over the same time frame while lowering the total acreage in production from 325 million to 297 million acres. That is 28 million acres less, an area larger than the state of Louisiana that is now available for other uses such as wildlife habitat. American agriculture has demonstrated that as an unintended consequence of seeking efficiencies, there are environmental benefits. As Warren Brookes used to put it simply , “The learning curve is green.” This phenomenon has a tremendous positive effect on our environment and progress along the learning curve is best advanced by the relentless competition in the market to find the best or wisest use of a resource.
VI. Management of natural resources should be conducted on a site and situation specific basis.
Resource management should allow for variation of conditions from location to location and time to time. A site and situation specific approach takes advantage of the fact that those closest to a resource are best able to manage it. Such practices allow us to set priorities and break problems down into manageable units. Natural resource managers, on site and familiar with the situation, whether tending to the backyard garden or the back forty pasture, are best able to determine what to do, how to do it and when to do it. They are able to adapt management strategies to account for feedback and changes. A site and situation specific management scheme fits the particulars as no government mandate or standard can. Additionally, a site and situation specific approach is more consistent with policies carried out at lesser political levels. The closer the management of natural resources is to the affected parties, the more likely it is to reflect their needs and desires. The more centralized management is, the more likely it is to be arbitrary, ineffectual or even counterproductive. A site and situation specific approach avoids the institutional power and ideological concerns that dominate politicized central planning.
VII. Science should be employed as a tool to guide public policy.
Societal decisions rely upon science but ultimately are the product of ethics, beliefs, consensus and many other processes outside the domain of science. Understanding science for what it is and is not is central to developing intelligent environmental polices. Science is the product of the scientific method, the process of asking questions and finding answers in an objective manner. It is a powerful tool for understanding our environment and measuring the consequences of various courses of action. Through science we can assess risks, as well as weigh costs against benefits. While science cannot be substituted for public policy, public policy on scientific subjects should reflect scientific knowledge. A law is a determination to force compliance with a code of conduct. Laws go beyond that which can be established with scientific certainty. Laws are based upon normative values and beliefs and are a commitment to use force. Commitments to use the force of law should be made with great caution and demand a high degree of scientific certainty. To do otherwise is likely to result in environmental laws based upon scientific opinions rather than scientific facts. Such laws are likely to be wasteful, disruptive or even counterproductive, as scientific opinions change profoundly and often at a faster pace than public policy. The notion behind the Hippocratic oath first do no harm should govern the enactment of public policy.
VIII. Environmental policies which emanate from liberty are the most successful.
Our chosen environment is liberty, and liberty is the central organizing principle of America. To be consistent with our most cherished principle, our environmental policies must be consistent with liberty. Restricting liberty not only denies Americans their chosen environment, but also constrains environmental progress.
Liberty has powerful environmental benefits. Freedom unleashes forces most needed to make our environment cleaner, healthier and safer for the future. It fosters scientific inquiry, technological innovation, entrepreneurship, rapid information exchange, accuracy and flexibility. Free people work to improve the environment, and liberty is the energy behind environmental progress.
I have a weedeater that needed a carb adjustment , and it needs a special carb adjust tool.
The adjustment tool is only avalable to authorized poulan dealers, FYI, possession of the tool by unauthorized personnel is a EPA violation and could result in severe fines if caught. the EPA does watch amazon and ebay for violaters that can result in fines up to $38,000 for the seller and the buyer. It is classified as tampering with an emissions control device, same as a catalytic converter on an car.
If you ever had a doubt that the government has gone too far !!!
The article correctly says that each individual exhales about 6 lbs. of CO2 daily.
That makes each human being a point source of pollution like, for instance, any coal fired plant.
How long before the EPA starts “shutting down” people?
How about a two child limit just like China, enforced by the EPA?
How about the EPA as a life span police to enforce everyone’s three score and ten years of life?
In a perfect EPA environment, human beings would be extinct while nature (excluding homo sapiens) and wildlife would be the new people. There are to be no Americans nor any nations of people and no EPA. There would only be the ‘People of the Planet’. It’s the EPA’s idea of Utopia and heaven on earth. They actually believe that a perfect world is possible.
It’s completely insane of course but try telling that to them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.