Jobs and the Economy – GOP Proposes Big Cuts to EPA

Posted by Tina

There’s no denying that the Environmental Protection agency has overstepped it’s authority over the past few years. Hopefully we will soon have some relief from the more egregious madates and regulations soon. The Washington Examiner has the details:

The Environmental Protection Agency could see its budget reduced $164 million from last year and have its staffing level drop to the lowest point since 1989.

The Interior and Environment Appropriations Bill released Tuesday would fund the EPA at $7.98 billion, almost $300 million less than what President Obama asked for in his budget request. That includes the agency’s regulatory budget being dropped $43 million from fiscal 2016 and $187 million below what Obama asked for in his fiscal 2017 request.

The total appropriations bill, which includes funding for the Department of Interior, EPA, U.S. Forest Service, Indian Health Service and other agencies is a total of about $32.1 billion. That’s $64 million less than last year and $1 billion below Obama’s request.

Interior Subcommittee Chairman Ken Calvert issued a statement:

“The EPA’s overreach continues to cause economic harm, and this bill denies funding for more job-killing regulators while providing necessary resources to effective programs that actually improve the environment and protect our natural resources.”

The bill includes provisions to block some EPA regulations: 1. The implementation of the Clean Power Plan, 2. New methane regulations, 3. The regulation of lead in ammunition and fishing tackle and, 4. The implementation of the Waters of the United States rule (currently blocked by a federal court.)

The bill does increase spending for authorities that cope with wildfires, lead contamination in drinking water, and the National Park Service and includes money and grants for improving drinking water infrastructure and drinking water systems. Follow the link for the exact figures.

Under the direction of Barack Obama the EPA has overstepped it’s authority. It’s about time the Congress re-established it’s authority and the balance of power. A little common sense must be applied to sustain human beings as well as the environment.

This entry was posted in Constitution and Law. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Jobs and the Economy – GOP Proposes Big Cuts to EPA

  1. Tina says:

    The proposal already needs an ammendment!

    Investors.com:

    The decision stems from a misbegotten 2007 energy bill signed by President Bush that requires ever-increasing amounts of ethanol to be included in gasoline. Not an increasing percentage, but an actual amount.

    The EPA’s proposal would require refineries to blend in almost 19 billion gallons of ethanol and other “biofuels” by 2017, which is 700,000 gallons more than they do now.

    But there’s a problem. Americans aren’t consuming enough gasoline. In fact, consumption this year is well below the 2007 forecast, both because cars are more efficient and because people are driving less than expected.

    So, if oil refiners are to pump 19 billion gallons of ethanol into their gasoline supplies, they won’t be able to keep ethanol ratio below 10%.

    Why does that matter? Because ethanol is corrosive and can degrade plastic, rubber and metal parts. And the more ethanol in gasoline, the most likely this damage will occur. So going above 10% can wreak havoc with car engines — as well as those in motorcycles, lawnmowers, power boats, you name it — that aren’t built to handle the higher ethanol levels.

    As Popular Mechanics put it: “Gummed-up fuel systems, damaged tanks and phase separation caused by stray moisture infiltrating fuel systems have plagued many consumers since this mixture debuted, and the problems will only get worse if government policy to increase the proportion of ethanol to gasoline is implemented.”

    People are trying to too hard to be innovative and zealots at the EPA are making big problems in the process. We all need to slow down, test this stuff out before forcing companies to comply and consumers to buy.

  2. Libby says:

    ” … and includes money and grants for improving drinking water infrastructure and drinking water systems.”

    Now go find out how many committee members have been feted by Nestle’s. Five bucks says a Nestle lobbiest the wrote language in it.

    This is what comes of putting morons, under-staffed morons, in the Congress.

    • Tina says:

      Ah Libby how quickly you scream “moron.” If you don’t like it that must mean morons are in charge. But…your not an elitist bigot!

      How about the moronic EPA regs that your so-called “brainy” types insisted upon that put thousands of people out of work and caused the closing of coal powered plants? The intended outcome could have actually been achieved without the losses IF a reasonable time frame for implementation had been allowed. But zealots and control freaks don’t care about people losing their jobs as long as your inane desires are met right now. Cruel and thoughtless is what it is.

      You could be right about the lobbyists involved, although I don’t know why Nestle would give a rip about fishing tackle. In any case lobbying isn’t limited to Nestle or coal companies. Out of control draconian levels of “concern” regulations have been written by greenies and organic foods lobbyists unconcerned about the damage they do to jobs and the economy. How many of those have investments in alternative energy companies and the organic food movement. (Organic foods are subject to dioxins too regardless…dioxins are both naturally occurring and organic)

  3. J. Soden says:

    The time to change the budget of the EPA was last Fall in the budget bill, but Paul Ryan gave the Demwits everything they wanted.

  4. Tina says:

    Since the left uses and abuses every good thing it probably would have been better to never create the EPA. Thanks Nixon, I know you meant well.

  5. More Common Sense says:

    The real problem I see with agencies like the EPA is they are being allowed to make law. In my opinion this is clearly a violation of the Constitution. People argue that this is not the case because Congress passes bills that give agencies the power to write their own regulations so their actions are sanctioned by Congress and are, therefore, Constitutional. However, I believe this kind of legislation should not be allowed. How is it reasonable for Congress to approve regulations introduced into law by an agency of the Executive Branch prior to the laws actually being written. It is basically Congress surrendering its power (and therefore its responsibility) to another branch of government. I don’t see anything in the Constitution that allows this.

    Clearly it would be unreasonable to think that the content of all laws should originate in Congress. These agencies do have some level of expertise in the area that they oversee. However allowing agencies to create their own laws has become, as we have seen over and over again, a political tool instead of a means to expedite the work of the agency.

    These agencies are still part of the Executive Branch and as such should only have the power to propose law. All laws proposed by these agencies should be made public, reviewed by Congress, and voted on before they become law. Granted, Congress currently has the capability of changing any law or regulation put in place by an agency but that is the reverse of what was intended and it is more difficult to reverse a law than put one into place. Also, during the time it takes to reverse a law there may significant irreversible damage done; case in point Obamacare.

    • Libby says:

      Congress passes a law that says emissions must be reduced to thus-and-such level. The EPA devises regulations to make that happen. Regulations are not laws. And I do believe the courts have slapped those EPA wrists, and recently, for over-reaching.

      So it is all working more or less the way it’s supposed to. You guys are always in a tizzy, based largely on an inadequate knowledge of the facts. Get knowledgeable, would you please?

      • More Common Sense says:

        Useful idiot!

      • Tina says:

        Libby: “Regulations are not laws.”

        Horsefeathers! Just try not complying with one of them.

        The idiocy behind some of the laws and regulations is part of the problem. The big green lobby has had entirely too much influence based on a lot of hysteria and mostly unproven “science.” Often the so-called fixes they push end up doing more harm than good.

        I know how you hate lobbyists meddling, Libby.

  6. bob says:

    Let’s hope they get rid of the carbon taxes and regulations.

    And Miss Tina, we know all about the trans-gendered but what about the trans-phylum???

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/05/fred-reed/phylum-fluidity/

    And what’s a trans-springbok to do???

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/05/walter-e-williams/say/

    What do the liberals who infest this blog have to say about that?

    • Pie Guevara says:

      I just realized I am a trans-species bigot. Whatever am I to do? I like being at the top of the food chain.

    • Tina says:

      “I’ve known it since I was a little girl. I…sir, I am a squid trapped in a woman’s body. I’m trans-phylum, sir.””

      Bob, do kids like these have parents? Imagine being so hippied out, drugged out, or brain dead that you praise your child for thinking she’s a giant squid.

      The world has gone mad. New York City recognizes 31 gender identities, but if the squid is any indication, that number will rise…forever. Facebook now recognizes 56 categories.

      LUV Walter Williams: “You might ask, “Williams, why in the world would you want to call yourself a springbok?” The reason is simple. There is nothing in the Internal Revenue Code that says springboks have a federal tax obligation. If government officials were to demand taxes, I would ask the U.S. Department of Justice to intercede, plus they would be reported to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.”

      Williams is on to something. I may claim to be a springbok before it’s over.

  7. Peggy says:

    Off topic.

    Did another senator, besides Cruz, just grow a pair, finally?

    Tom Cotton Goes Off on Senate Floor: Normally, I Can Ignore ‘Bitter, Vulgar, Incoherent Ramblings’ of Harry Reid — but Not Today:

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/05/25/tom-cotton-goes-off-on-senate-floor-normally-i-can-ignore-bitter-vulgar-incoherent-ramblings-of-harry-reid-but-not-today/

  8. Libby says:

    You could get me to consider your view if you didn’t right off lie. There have been no thousands losing jobs. At some point there may be hundreds. But I find this argument particularly galling in that if the plant owners wanted to lay off thousands to enhance their profit, you would not object. So you can take that “concern” and put it where the sun don’t shine.

    But you make our positions very clear. I am an environmentalist (and that does cost us peasants some); you are a profiteer (which also costs us peasants, but we don’t even get clean tap water out of the deal).

    • Tina says:

      February 2015, Daily Caller:

      A report by the American Action Forum found that under the Obama administration coal mines shed 3,702 jobs from 2008 to 2013 and power plants shed 39,684 jobs. Coal mine jobs have slid even further since then, from 76,100 in January 2014 to 71,300 last month, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

      AAF argues that over regulation by the EPA and other agencies has burdened the coal industry with billions of dollars in regulatory costs in new clean air and water regulations. Economy-wide AAF argues that for every $1 billion in regulatory costs, industries shed an average of 8,100 jobs.

      “Nowhere is this phenomenon more stark than in fossil-fueled power plants and coal mining. Regulators have added more than $10 billion in burdens on this industry since 2011, with the promise of at least $10 billion more in the immediate future,” said Sam Batkins, director of regulatory policy at the American Action Forum.

      “I find this argument particularly galling in that if the plant owners wanted to lay off thousands to enhance their profit, you would not object.”

      “Enhancing profits” is a fun way for you to describe survival born of necessity. it also shows how incredibly ignorant and thoughtless you are.

      Businesses hire and keep employees as long as they can afford to do so. They prefer to keep them because it means business continues to be good.

      It’s hard enough to sustain a business under normal fluctuations in the market and changes in consumer choices without the government coming along and intentionally killing your business.

      There was no need to do this. The fractional “improvement” in the air is not even discernible. this was ALL POLITICAL. You greenies should be ashamed for being so unaware and unconcerned about the damage that follows in your wake.

      • Libby says:

        Ah, where to begin?

        The American Action Forum? Did you really think I would not look them up? A front for the profiteers.

        And then I go looking for the origin date of the coal emission regs. I know I wasn’t 2008. Something else happened that year that probably, also, put a crimp in the business. I actually did not know that coal burning is the number one polluter of the planet. I mean, I knew it was up there, but number one? Sorry, Tina, the coal miners have to get into another line of work.

  9. Dewster says:

    Coal is a thang of the past.

    Ethanol is a small engine killer and it harms newer cars as well.

    The EPA is on the hit list for the Kochs who are the countries largest polluters. You know better than to pretend otherwise.

    Not a peep about the Shell 90K fresh new spilled gallons? All the polluted rivers in USA? f course not norcals rivers are still decent!

    Everybody is pissed about Flint but never asks why the Flint River is so toxic?
    The CEO of Nestle says Humans do not have the right to water.

    Water is the new oil.

    But hey! lets allow industries to do whatever they want!

    http://www.desmogblog.com/koch-brothers-behind-push-dismantle-epa

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/koch-industries-behind-the-fight-to-gut-the-epa/

    http://www.coloradoindependent.com/77061/koch-brothers-connected-to-house-committee-attacking-epa

    http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/312-16/27542-koch-funded-group-compares-proposed-epa-regulations-to-cia-torture

    http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/08/27/myths-and-facts-about-the-koch-brothers/200570

    https://secure3.convio.net/lcv/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=2069

    You are shrilling for the Koch Brothers.

  10. Tina says:

    It doesn’t matter if the Koch brothers are in favor of ending the EPA. they are citizens with as much right to speak as any other citizen. You think big green is about clean water and air but it’s about big green bucks. Front Page Magazine:

    Big Green is big business. The global renewable energy market is estimated at over $600 billion. Obama’s stimulus boondoggle alone blew around $50 billion on green energy. Annual spending is somewhere around $39 billion a year and that’s just the tip of the Big Green iceberg.

    California carbon auctions are climbing into the billions. And the endgame is a national and a global carbon tax that will allow Big Green to take money out of the pockets of every single human being.

    Environmentalism isn’t a hippie with a cardboard sign. It’s multinational corporations and big banks. It’s environmental consultants padding the bill for every government project. It’s subsidies that get carved up ten different ways into highly profitable investments at taxpayer expense. It’s brand greenwashing and useless recycling programs. It’s a dime, a dollar or a hundred dollars added to every bill.

    Big Green is booming business. But it can’t succeed on its own. Without public policy based on the hoax that the planet is going to be destroyed unless Big Green gets more green cash, the scam collapses.

    Even as the science behind the conspiracy theory that claims humans are warming the planet continues to fall apart, Big Green is escalating its crackdown on climate science. If you are going to falsely claim that 99.99% of scientists agree with you, the best way to ensure that is by criminalizing scientific dissent.

    Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has called for punishing and imprisoning dissenters. Bill Nye endorsed such a call just last week. And while it’s easy to dismiss Kennedy and Nye as famous crackpots, Attorney General Loretta Lynch admitted that there had been discussions about prosecuting climate dissenters. And that materials had been passed along to the FBI.

    California Attorney General Kamala Harris, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and 14 other Democratic attorney generals have begun working the more profitable corporate angle by targeting Exxon Mobil, hoping to cut off researchers and activists from their funding.

    The agenda was blatantly on parade right from the start at a press conference of attorney generals under the banner of “AG’s United for Clean Power”. Imagine a group of attorney generals banding together under the name “AG’s United for Pepsi” to sue Coca Cola. That’s exactly what this was. The attorney generals were announcing that they are targeting one industry on behalf of a rival industry.

    The Big Green group of prosecutors was launched by Al Gore, whose Big Green investments have made him a very rich man. Gore is the chairman of Generation Investment Management, a UK investment management firm that focuses on environmental investments. Its funds are valued at $7.3 billion. Gore’s Inconvenient Truth ecohoax flick was financed by the head of the Capricorn Investment Group. Al Gore invests in Green Energy and then runs campaigns urging government Green investments.

    Now Gore has moved beyond that blatant conflict of interest to trying to criminalize rival industries….

    … The impetus for this particular campaign appears to have come from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund which announced in 2014 that it was “divesting” from fossil fuels and switching to Big Green investments. Then the Rockefellers hosted a major push targeting Exxon and calling for divestment and a carbon tax. A few months earlier, Al Gore had been warning investors at the Paris Climate Conference to abandon traditional energy investments and join Big Green or lose all their money.

    The profiteering and the conflicts of interest are obvious. So is the corruption. But this campaign shows that the wealth of men like Gore or the Rockefellers isn’t only going to be built on crushing coal miners, depriving the elderly of heat in the winter and running up energy costs for working families. It also requires silencing and suppressing those people still willing to speak out against the Big Green fraud.

    There’s nothing natural about our “transition” to Big Green. It’s the greatest financial fraud of our time. It makes no sense either economically or technologically. Instead Big Green profiteers had to invent a crisis, lie about the science, shake down governments and bribe everyone in sight. If the sky isn’t falling and the ice hasn’t vanished, as Al Gore claimed, then Big Green loses all its big wads of green cash. (continues)

    What a slimy piece of excrement former big oil Al Gore is. He and that other big money mouthpiece and investor.

    Breitbart Big Government:

    Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe said in 2009 he “never want[s] another coal plant built,” but in the meantime, he hasn’t been above taking money gained through coal investment for his campaign.

    Tom Steyer, a California-based financier and one of McAuliffe’s wealthiest out-of-state supporters, told his advisers in August to launch climate change television ads via his group, NextGen Climate Action Committee, in Virginia to help turn out the vote for McAuliffe, Politico reported in August.

    Steyer (pictured, left) said, “I would say there’s a very clear choice on this topic between these two candidates, and I think the citizens of Virginia deserve to understand both what the truth is and what the implications of that are.” The billionaire hedge fund executive who founded Farallon Capital Management in 1986 and left the company 2012 thinks of himself as an environmentalist. His track record, however, shows a different story.

    In 2008, Farallon heavily invested in Adaro, Indonesia’s second-largest coal company. Indonesia is the world’s largest exporter of thermal coal and, according to Reuters, China is Adaro’s biggest customer. In 2010, Calwatchdog points out, Steyer also did not support California’s proposition 23. Rejected by California voters in November of 2010, prop 23 asked for the repeal of a law, signed by Governor Shwarzenegger in 2006, which aimed at rolling back California’s greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

    Then there’s always the wealthy Hollywood useful idiots like De Caprio who jetted his way to NYC to accept a greenie award. Oh yeah, they really “care” about air and water.

    There’s your fascism my friend. You better wake up and smell the big green oooze before it overtakes us all in one big worldwide tyrannical scam for money, power and control.

  11. Libby says:

    Tina, why are you so rabid about this? You got stock in Big Oil?

    Sell it. Put the money into green. But then, that would be risky. At this point there is no telling which greens will evolve into Big Green.

    So maybe you’re in a tizzy over the threat to your security? That makes sense. But you realize this bars you from membership in the “America of entreneurs and risk-takers” club that you will crow over. Alas, you and the coal miners were born in the age of peak fossil. We will be in the history books.

    Now, some people, the socialistly minded, are thinking about the coal miners. It’s unduly sentimental, actually, but there must some way, some new economy contrived to preserve traditional life in Appalachia (religion and guns, bum what are ya gonna do). We’re working on it. And if we can just remove the morons from the Congress ….

  12. Tina. says:

    I’m rabid because I hate deceit. I’m rabid because I hate operators who eschew making an honest dollar to jump on board a huge scam. I hate manipulation of science. I hate the propaganda lies taught to kids in school. I hate the slime that underlies this movement…THATS why I’m so rabid.

    As for investment I imagine I’m invested in both alternative and traditional energy stocks…you probably are, or have been, too. Your nasty covert intimation that money drives my commitment to exposing and discrediting the slime is more indicative of your narrow, hateful mind than it is reality about my intentions.

    I’ve already taken a big risk (for me), Libby, to the tune of over $300,000.00. That’s a pretty hefty risk for a budding small business owner and nothing I’d bet you’ve ever done. Through the years I’ve hired dozens of college students and awarded the with bonuses that allowed them to pay tuition and books for the coming year. What have you contributed along similar lines?

    ” Alas, you and the coal miners were born in the age of peak fossil.”

    Old news that turns out to be false. NPR:

    The dustiest portion of my home library includes the 1980s books — about how Japan’s economy would dominate the world.

    And then there are the 1990s books — about how the Y2K computer glitch would end the modern era.

    Go up one more shelf for the late 2000s books — about oil “peaking.” The authors claimed global oil production was reaching a peak and would soon decline, causing economic chaos.

    The titles include Peak Oil and the Second Great Depression, Peak Oil Survival and When Oil Peaked.

    When those books were written, worldwide oil drillers were producing about 85 million barrels a day. Now they are pumping about 93 million barrels. …

    …What did the forecasters get so wrong? In large measure, their mistake was in failing to appreciate the impact of a relatively new technology, hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.

    Because of fracking, oil is being extracted from shale formations in Texas and North Dakota. Production has shot up so quickly in those areas that the United States is now the world’s largest source of oil and natural gas liquids, overtaking Saudi Arabia and Russia.

    This new competition has shocked OPEC. Members say they want to maintain their current market share, so they are keeping up production and even boosting it.

    Bottom line: The peak of production is nowhere on the horizon.

    “…the socialistly minded, are thinking about the coal miners. It’s unduly sentimental, actually, but there must some way, some new economy contrived to preserve traditional life in Appalachia…”

    The truly compassionate “socially minded” would offer miners the opportunity to retrain BEFORE commencing with the intentional collapse of their livlihood! You people are a bunch of phony opportunistic control freaks who don;t think about the negative outcomes or the people effected!

    You are also incredibly ignorant. do you have any idea how many products are made of fossil fuels? Hospitals, the most at risk entity I can think of off the top of my head, rely on plastics. Every single medical procedure relies on equipment and supplies made from petroleum. Petroleum is more than the gasoline or carbon backed electricity in your car. Petroleum is vital to our modern existence. You “socially minded” morons should expand your thinking before you go about destroying what has become the stuff of life for millions of people across the globe and supporting the fraudulent green investment fraud that’s lining the pockets of corrupt green politicians and investors.

    If the people care about their own well being and that of their neighbors they will take a deep breath, allow alternatives to evolve into viable, useful sources naturally, and throw the moronic green money grubbing zealots out of government forever!

    Yes money grubbing. A money grubber doesn’t care HOW he makes (steals) his money or who is hurt in the process, hence coal miners losing their jobs is acceptable. On a larger scale left zealots like George Soros makes a billion bucks for himself by short selling the pound sterling. Then there’s people on the green train who quietly make money from coal in China while putting American miners out of a job.

    There’s a difference between making money legitimately by providing good products at affordable prices (and responding to legitimate problems) and using the power of government to destroy one industry so you can make money on the alternative. Disgusting! Especially since at the same time these radical lefties also try to destroy freedom and capitalism and sell big government control (socialism or democratic socialism).

  13. Libby says:

    God, you really are scared. All I can suggest that you consider, just consider the possibility, that you don’t have any reason to be … certainly not this scared.

    And wean yourself off the Fox. Seriously, you need to do it.

  14. Tina, says:

    “God you really are scared”

    You’re ridiculous, Libby. I suspect it’s because you know I’m accurate in my descriptions.

    • Libby says:

      Yes, Tina. But then we have to get back to the human thing. Do you really think that greenies’ entrepreneurial machinations are any worse than, say, those of Standard Oil back in those good old days. Frankly, the greenies are really gonna have to exert themselves to top that.

      And you cannot deny the earth’s resources are finite. Replacements are going to have to be found for all that stuff you are so scared of losing. To start now is the only sensible thing to do.

      (But the Queen of Denial will not capitulate!)

  15. Tina says:

    ” Do you really think that greenies’ entrepreneurial machinations are any worse than, say, those of Standard Oil back in those good old days.”

    I’m not sure I know what you mean by “those good old days” with respect to the discovery of oil but I can assure you that a giant scam was not perpetrated on the world in order to invent opportunities to make money, i.e., the carbon credit scam. Nor was there an oil lobby making deals with a government agency (EPA) to force prices high and eliminate the competition. (I’m certain there are green alternative people and companies that are honestly attempting to provide alternatives; it’s not the same thing but they will have to find a way to do it without subsidies, or with equally onerous taxation before we’ll know whether they are actually sensible and viable – government intervention in both industries blocks the natural equalizers of supply and demand)

    Oil use grew (And fortunes were made/jobs were created) because of the natural movers of supply and demand and risk and reward. Eventually, oil became a source for incredible advancement in materials, technology, and exploration. We would never have gone to the moon without the discovery of oil. As negative issues arose companies worked to innovate to be cleaner and less polluting. Perfection will never be reality of any energy source, as we have seen even as the alternatives have been advanced.

    We should pursue technologies, avoid the scary hype, and progress at an even pace if we are to accomplish the best possible outcome. We should also abandon the myth that alternatives, other than nuclear, are anywhere near becoming a viable alternative in terms of meeting demand or filling the economic need.

    “And you cannot deny the earth’s resources are finite.

    In most cases a problem for generations so far in the future it is ridiculous for us to concern ourselves. Once again discovery, creativity, and innovation will have to rule the day…and maybe a bit of divine intervention.

    “all that stuff you are so scared of losing”

    How the heck do you come up with these strange assumptions?

    Are you prepared to force future generations to live in mud huts just so you can be right?

    “To start now is the only sensible thing to do.”

    Scientists and innovators are way ahead of you. Tell me, why do YOU worry so?

    “But the Queen of Denial will not capitulate!”

    (Just couldn’t resist ruining a reasonable conversation!)

    Capitulate?

    To what…or whom?

    I’m in favor of clean, adequate, energy sources at reasonable prices and the pursuit of innovative ways to produce said clean energy. I hate government force; it messes with jobs and the economy and produces opportunistic jerks out to use any lie to make big buck’s for themselves deceitfully.

    What’s the prob?

    Of interest: Former top Obama energy official calls EPA’s Clean Power Plan ‘all pain, no gain’

  16. Tina says:

    Of further interest: Why Solar Energy Is Bad for the Environment:

    Investigative reporter Tom Steward records what happened when residents of rural Buffalo, Minnesota got an up-close view of “green” energy:

    The project’s owner, multinational conglomerate Enel Green Power, recently clear cut hundreds of mature hardwood trees to make way for tens of thousands of solar panels later this summer. Angry residents posted dozens of photos of the carnage on the township’s Facebook page, too late to save 11 acres of maple, ash and oak from the chainsaw. (see photos)

    Around Minnesota, townships are moving to block solar panel installations of the sort that has devastated Buffalo. It is not clear, however, whether the state’s laws will allow municipalities to have any say in their own environmental well-being.

    See also here.

    • Libby says:

      Eleven acres? Eleven?

      And since when do you care what a private property owner does on his property. Can’t have both ways … but you keep trying.

      • Tina says:

        Touchy touchy!

        I posted the story without comment.

        You have to admit, however, that all of those greenies, in their hippie dippie days, had fits over clear cutting for logging purposes and spoke often of ruining/defacing the pristine wilderness with “scars.” Hypocrites and phonies, they are!

        The truth is I don’t care that a property owner would choose to do this. So another of your assumptions is flat out wrong!

        Isn’t it the greens who want it both ways…use this type of complaint to create animus against industries they don’t like (and have to compete with) and then go do the same damaging things things themselves.

        And what kind of human being manipulates science and manufactures fear to make money? It’s a sick business for those on that end of it.

        And…since when has it been a problem for a lefty that local neighbors protest? I’d think you’d be out there with a sign!

  17. Libby says:

    “I’m not sure I know what you mean by “those good old days” with respect to the discovery of oil ….”

    Well you need to go find out. Rockefeller and his cronies, they were some good ol’ boys. Wrecked domestic AND international havoc, mongo government subsidies from day one, and that was a hundred years ago, which is a lot of years to be coddled by the poor oblivious taxpayer.

    And … I was hearing something on the radio today about water troubles in Colorado, saying that we might make progress if we could get intransigents to think in terms of future generations, you know, make sacrifices for the progeny?

    Wouldn’t work with you, would it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.