Beam me to Planet Gore !
"Kauffman, a 22-year-old student at Luther College, a small, religiously affiliated liberal arts college in Decorah, told reporters later that she intended ask Perry, "Because fracking has been proven to pollute groundwater, how can he justify continuing with this obviously harmful [practice]?"
But she never got beyond "groundwater."
"No ma'am," Perry said, cutting her off. He contended that there had been no proven case of fracking polluting groundwater. "If that was true, it would be on the front page of every newspaper, it would be on ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox News — everybody would be running that story."
He said the American public was being "hoodwinked by stories that don't scientifically hold up."
When another audience member shouted that Perry was wrong, the governor said, "Bring me the evidence, and once we do that, you show it to me, and I'll be the first to say you've got a point."......
WSJ The EPA's Fracking Scare - Breaking down the facts in that Wyoming drinking water study. -
"The shale gas boom has been a rare bright spot in the U.S. economy, so much of the country let out a shudder two weeks ago when the Environmental Protection Agency issued a "draft" report that the drilling process of hydraulic fracturing may have contaminated ground water in Pavillion, Wyoming. The good news is that the study is neither definitive nor applicable to the rest of the country.
"When considered together with other lines of evidence, the data indicates likely impact to ground water that can be explained by hydraulic fracking," said the EPA report, referring to the drilling process that blasts water and chemicals into shale rock to release oil and natural gas. The news caused elation among environmentalists and many in the media who want to shut down fracking.
More than one-third of all natural gas drilling now uses fracking, and that percentage is rising. If the EPA Wyoming study holds up under scrutiny, an industry that employs tens of thousands could be in peril.
But does it stand up? This is the first major study to have detected linkage between fracking and ground-water pollution, and the EPA draft hasn't been peer reviewed by independent scientific analysts. Critics are already picking apart the study, which Wyoming Governor Matt Mead called "scientifically questionable."..........
June 20, 2011: "Texas Gov. Rick Perry today signed a law that will free Texans from the federal government’s impending incandescent light bulb ban:
The measure, sent to Gov. Rick Perry for consideration [he subsequently signed it], lets any incandescent light bulb manufactured in Texas – and sold in that state – avoid the authority of the federal government or the repeal of the 2007 energy independence act that starts phasing out some incandescent light bulbs next year."...............
Meanwhile in Texas, Gov. Perry's law requires the TX environmental agency to make a economic impact statement that can be used to override economic "benefit."
"Another new measure made tightening air quality permits on the oil and gas industry more difficult. That law, which Perry signed in June, requires the Texas environmental agency to analyze the effect of new regulation on the economy - including how it might hurt a company - before implementation. The economic impact could override the environmental benefit of the new regulation. The new law reflects Perry's contention that global warming is a questionable theory and that regulation always creates an adverse business climate."
Perry Slashed Environmental Enforcement in Texas Rick Perry’s Air War (with the EPA) “…..Texas alone opted for the unfriendly approach. It’s the only state that did not issue a plan for compliance—and Perry has made it clear that Texas has no intention of complying. The move was a blatant slap to the Obama administration—and once again gave Perry the national spotlight. Defying the climate rules offered him the perfect opportunity to loudly decry the science of global warming—which in his book Fed Up! he calls a “contrived phony mess that is falling apart under its own weight”—and to slam EPA as a “rogue agency” with an “activist mind-set” that has “targeted Texas.” Such rhetoric is viral catnip to the tea party voters who could help catapult Perry to the 2012 presidential nomination…”
December 27, 2010: EPA, Texas go to war over carbon-emission rules
Sept 12, 2011: Luminant sues EPA, says it will shut two coal units, cut 500 jobs …”At the Big Brown power plant in Freestone County, Units 1 and 2 will switch over to Powder River Basin coal and the nearby lignite mines will close.
The moves will lead to about 500 job cuts, the company said.
“While Luminant is making preparations to meet the rule’s compliance deadline, this morning it also filed a legal challenge in an effort to protect facilities and employees, and to minimize the harm this rule will cause to electric reliability in Texas,” the company said in a statement.
The company is asking an appeals court for a stay implementing the Cross-State rule, saying it is illegal because the EPA didn’t include Texas in the draft rules released in 2010. The final rules released in June 2011 included a heavy emissions reduction burden for Texas.
Texas officials quickly seized on the company’s actions as evidence of the need for regulatory reform in a slumping economy. Just a week before, ERCOT, the state’s main power grid operator, warned that the rules could threaten electric reliability with the forced retirement of older coal-fired units.
“As expected, the only results of this rule will be putting Texans out of work and creating hardships for them and their families, while putting the reliability of Texas’ grid in jeopardy,” Gov. Rick Perry said in a statement.
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, which is charged with overseeing the state’s air quality, said the Luminant announcement is “a sad confirmation of the TCEQ’s previous statements” against the regulations.
“These rules, imposed on Texas without adequate notice and without adequate scientific justification, will kill jobs, put the brakes on economic growth, increase energy costs and impair our energy security—all with little or no positive environmental effects,” the TCEQ said in a statement.
Environmental groups hailed Luminant’s decision, however. …..” [end excerpt]
Sept 12, 2011From Treehugger - A Discovery Company “………..For a flavor of what's to come we have only to look to Texas Governor Rick Perry, who seems to channel the vibe pretty well and gets only the rare local challenge….. Instead of dealing with the realities of climate change--regardless of whether you or they think it is caused by human activities--Texas politicians will keep playing the lynch mob role toward EPA, at least until the next Presidential election is over. It works as a political strategy - for now…..”
On another front - "permitting licenses" REGULATIONS Tree Hugger links to: this to support their position (of holding business hostage): ".........In summer 2010, the EPA’s regional administrator in Dallas, Obama appointee Al Armendariz, rejected Texas’ flexible-permit program, saying the state’s way of regulating big industrial plants since 1994 violated the Clean Air Act.
The EPA said the flexible permits Texas issued were unclear and confusing and obscured the true nature and amount of plants’ emissions. Texas assigned a single big number to a plant, some covering more than a square mile; the EPA demanded a separate number for each emission source in the plant in order to boost clarity and make enforcement easier. The EPA disputed other technical aspects as well.
Payback?
Armendariz ordered the affected plants, eventually numbering about 140, to respond with plans to seek permits in line with federal law. If Texas refused to change its permit system, the EPA would take the permits over and issue them itself.
For Perry, the EPA’s effort epitomized an overreaching, command-and-control approach that put a target on the back of a state where he maintained business-friendly ways had created jobs and cut pollution while the national economy suffered.
His supporters said federal censure of Texas’ air-pollution policies also masked Democratic payback to a solidly Republican state.
That’s when Perry issued his warning that the EPA’s rejection of Texas’ flexible permits would kill tens of thousands of Texas jobs. He cited the number repeatedly, at one point even blasting the EPA in a news release datelined Shanghai while on a trade visit there..........
Sep 20, 2011: Ex-President Clinton: Green movement needs money " NEW YORK (AP) -- Former President Bill Clinton said Tuesday that the success of the alternative energy movement is hampered by a lack of financing. His comments came as world leaders attending his annual philanthropic conference expressed fears about rising seas.
The ex-president's three-day Clinton Global Initiative for VIPs with deep pockets began Tuesday with a frank discussion about addressing global climate challenges, co-hosted by Mexican President Felipe Calderon and South African President Jacob Zuma.
There was a sense of frustration among the world leaders over the failure to create a legally binding world agreement on carbon emissions.........."
They’ve got one controversial case here so far.
If there is a small risk that fracking, which is typically done deep underground, can let oil get into shallow aquifers being used to supply drinking wells, a more practical approach than banning it would be to pipe fresh water into impacted areas. But with just one case out of thousands of fracking sites nationwide, it’s hard to blame the fracking for it.
BTTT!
It will continue to be a game of whack-a-mole until the authority and legality of the EPA itself is questioned.
Each state is regulating hydraulic fracturing by creating their own rules, some based on the success of other states.
This is exactly what the Founders wanted by having the states be incubators of innovation.
We do not need the EPA “one-size-fits-all” approach.
“Today it may “only” be the property of oil and gas companies that are at stake.”
Is not the oil & gas under a person's “property” (land), his PROPERTY (possession). Property (of either type) are tangible assets that he can sell, like a cow, corn, or timber. If the government (illegally) prevents you from selling or decreases the value of your property, is this not a violation of your fifth amendment rights? I think it is.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/the_epas_unconscionable_war_on_fracking.html#ixzz1hAmvaeZW
Ok CW. I definitely agree with your guy on this one. He is right on energy policy.
“Big Oil” is “subsidized” and “green energy” is an “investment”.
You need re-education camp, comrade.
Increased Greenhouse Gas Emissions Latest Target for Fractivists
http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?hpf=1&a_id=113542
one well-pad fracking shale gas would emit more greenhouse gases than a community of 100,000 people in a year. Methane already accounts for a sixth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (GGEs). In addressing earlier concerns about the pollution impact of fracking Dr. Howarth wrote in Boston University’s Comment 14 September article, “Should Fracking Stop?,” “Many fracking additives are toxic, carcinogenic or mutagenic. Many are kept secret.
Let the games begin!
Rab