EPA admitts that CO2 isn't a health threat

[GaryC 7]

(oh no...you mean that memo isn't the smoking gun the conspiracy theorists thought it was?)

No challenge on warming

OMB director Peter Orszag is pushing back hard on an AP story today that the White House is criticizing an EPA proposal to regulate greenhouse gases as too costly and a burden on the economy.

Orszag writes on his blog (in the latest installment of instant, online press criticism from a Cabinet secretary):

Media reports today are suggesting that OMB has found fault with EPA's proposed finding that emissions of greenhouse gases from motor vehicles contribute to air pollution that endangers public health and welfare.

Any reports suggesting that OMB was opposed to the finding are unfounded.

The quotations circulating in the press are from a document in which OMB simply collated and collected disparate comments from various agencies during the inter-agency review process of the proposed finding. These collected comments were not necessarily internally consistent, since they came from multiple sources, and they do not necessarily represent the views of either OMB or the Administration. In other words, we simply receive comments from various agencies and pass them along to EPA for consideration, regardless of the substantive merit of those comments. In general, passing along these types of comments to an agency proposing a finding often helps to improve the quality of the notice.

Orszag quotes himself calling the EPA proposal "carefully rooted in both law and science."

Dave Roberts at Grist suggests that the opinions critical of the finding are recycled Bush Administration positions from agencies that didn't yet have political appointees in place.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/050...ng.html?showall

Quoting spin in blogs now? You never disappoint Steven. Of course someone will try and minimize this, it's expected. Squash all dissent, that's you motto.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

(oh no...you mean that memo isn't the smoking gun the conspiracy theorists thought it was?)

No challenge on warming

OMB director Peter Orszag is pushing back hard on an AP story today that the White House is criticizing an EPA proposal to regulate greenhouse gases as too costly and a burden on the economy.

Orszag writes on his blog (in the latest installment of instant, online press criticism from a Cabinet secretary):

Media reports today are suggesting that OMB has found fault with EPA's proposed finding that emissions of greenhouse gases from motor vehicles contribute to air pollution that endangers public health and welfare.

Any reports suggesting that OMB was opposed to the finding are unfounded.

The quotations circulating in the press are from a document in which OMB simply collated and collected disparate comments from various agencies during the inter-agency review process of the proposed finding. These collected comments were not necessarily internally consistent, since they came from multiple sources, and they do not necessarily represent the views of either OMB or the Administration. In other words, we simply receive comments from various agencies and pass them along to EPA for consideration, regardless of the substantive merit of those comments. In general, passing along these types of comments to an agency proposing a finding often helps to improve the quality of the notice.

Orszag quotes himself calling the EPA proposal "carefully rooted in both law and science."

Dave Roberts at Grist suggests that the opinions critical of the finding are recycled Bush Administration positions from agencies that didn't yet have political appointees in place.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/050...ng.html?showall

Quoting spin in blogs now? You never disappoint Steven. Of course someone will try and minimize this, it's expected. Squash all dissent, that's you motto.

Um... Peter Orszag is the OMB Director, but I think I'm seeing the light now, Gary. You are right. Global Warming along with Cap and Trade is a Communist Plot to take over the world. Keep an eye out for flying bunnies.

[NickD 202]

Use to be a requirement for six complete air changes per hour in public buildings, but that went out the door with energy price increases. Some public buildings decreased that to 100 cubic feet per hour per person that does not include visitors. Churches and theaters also have that problem.

Yawwwwwwwwn, too much CO2 in these places is the result. Excess CO2 results in oxygen deprivation and causes the workers to become partially brain dead.

So in these cases, CO2 is a problem as well as Legionnaires and other bacterial and virus diseases. Also a problem on airliners, they can save fuel by not drawing in that cold fresh air.

[alienlovechild 75]

Just once, I'd like to see the Right actually debate Cap and Trade with facts instead of deliberate misinformation and disinformation.

BTW, how many countries met their Kyoto target emissions and which country had the greatest reduction since Kyoto?

That's the best reply someone from the Right can come up with??? Lawdy be.

and that's your best answer to the question?

What would happen if I answered your question with a question?

Well since none the cap n' trade advocates had any clue for an answer for the last major global warming control initiative, why do you need more if don't intend on monitor progess what's the point on making phony target emissions?

None of signatories met Kyoto targets pledged and the U.S. (a non-signatory) had the greatest reduction.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's a Communist Conspiracy!

[almaty 19]

It's a Communist Conspiracy!

you rang...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's a Communist Conspiracy!

you rang...

Au revoir, my comrade frere Pierre (hope you don't mind, but it sounds French and Communist)!

[GaryC 7]

(oh no...you mean that memo isn't the smoking gun the conspiracy theorists thought it was?)

No challenge on warming

OMB director Peter Orszag is pushing back hard on an AP story today that the White House is criticizing an EPA proposal to regulate greenhouse gases as too costly and a burden on the economy.

Orszag writes on his blog (in the latest installment of instant, online press criticism from a Cabinet secretary):

Media reports today are suggesting that OMB has found fault with EPA's proposed finding that emissions of greenhouse gases from motor vehicles contribute to air pollution that endangers public health and welfare.

Any reports suggesting that OMB was opposed to the finding are unfounded.

The quotations circulating in the press are from a document in which OMB simply collated and collected disparate comments from various agencies during the inter-agency review process of the proposed finding. These collected comments were not necessarily internally consistent, since they came from multiple sources, and they do not necessarily represent the views of either OMB or the Administration. In other words, we simply receive comments from various agencies and pass them along to EPA for consideration, regardless of the substantive merit of those comments. In general, passing along these types of comments to an agency proposing a finding often helps to improve the quality of the notice.

Orszag quotes himself calling the EPA proposal "carefully rooted in both law and science."

Dave Roberts at Grist suggests that the opinions critical of the finding are recycled Bush Administration positions from agencies that didn't yet have political appointees in place.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/050...ng.html?showall

Quoting spin in blogs now? You never disappoint Steven. Of course someone will try and minimize this, it's expected. Squash all dissent, that's you motto.

Um... Peter Orszag is the OMB Director, but I think I'm seeing the light now, Gary. You are right. Global Warming along with Cap and Trade is a Communist Plot to take over the world. Keep an eye out for flying bunnies.

Yes, he is the head of the OMB but the memo came from others in his department. He is spinning because the dissenting views are being squashed. Nothing new there, dissent isn't allowed when it comes to GW. That is how the "consensus" was made, gag anyone that disagrees.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

(oh no...you mean that memo isn't the smoking gun the conspiracy theorists thought it was?)

No challenge on warming

OMB director Peter Orszag is pushing back hard on an AP story today that the White House is criticizing an EPA proposal to regulate greenhouse gases as too costly and a burden on the economy.

Orszag writes on his blog (in the latest installment of instant, online press criticism from a Cabinet secretary):

Media reports today are suggesting that OMB has found fault with EPA's proposed finding that emissions of greenhouse gases from motor vehicles contribute to air pollution that endangers public health and welfare.

Any reports suggesting that OMB was opposed to the finding are unfounded.

The quotations circulating in the press are from a document in which OMB simply collated and collected disparate comments from various agencies during the inter-agency review process of the proposed finding. These collected comments were not necessarily internally consistent, since they came from multiple sources, and they do not necessarily represent the views of either OMB or the Administration. In other words, we simply receive comments from various agencies and pass them along to EPA for consideration, regardless of the substantive merit of those comments. In general, passing along these types of comments to an agency proposing a finding often helps to improve the quality of the notice.

Orszag quotes himself calling the EPA proposal "carefully rooted in both law and science."

Dave Roberts at Grist suggests that the opinions critical of the finding are recycled Bush Administration positions from agencies that didn't yet have political appointees in place.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/050...ng.html?showall

Quoting spin in blogs now? You never disappoint Steven. Of course someone will try and minimize this, it's expected. Squash all dissent, that's you motto.

Um... Peter Orszag is the OMB Director, but I think I'm seeing the light now, Gary. You are right. Global Warming along with Cap and Trade is a Communist Plot to take over the world. Keep an eye out for flying bunnies.

Yes, he is the head of the OMB but the memo came from others in his department. He is spinning because the dissenting views are being squashed. Nothing new there, dissent isn't allowed when it comes to GW. That is how the "consensus" was made, gag anyone that disagrees.

That must be it. Damn, you are sharp. Nobody can pull the wool over your eyes.

[GaryC 7]

(oh no...you mean that memo isn't the smoking gun the conspiracy theorists thought it was?)

No challenge on warming

OMB director Peter Orszag is pushing back hard on an AP story today that the White House is criticizing an EPA proposal to regulate greenhouse gases as too costly and a burden on the economy.

Orszag writes on his blog (in the latest installment of instant, online press criticism from a Cabinet secretary):

Media reports today are suggesting that OMB has found fault with EPA's proposed finding that emissions of greenhouse gases from motor vehicles contribute to air pollution that endangers public health and welfare.

Any reports suggesting that OMB was opposed to the finding are unfounded.

The quotations circulating in the press are from a document in which OMB simply collated and collected disparate comments from various agencies during the inter-agency review process of the proposed finding. These collected comments were not necessarily internally consistent, since they came from multiple sources, and they do not necessarily represent the views of either OMB or the Administration. In other words, we simply receive comments from various agencies and pass them along to EPA for consideration, regardless of the substantive merit of those comments. In general, passing along these types of comments to an agency proposing a finding often helps to improve the quality of the notice.

Orszag quotes himself calling the EPA proposal "carefully rooted in both law and science."

Dave Roberts at Grist suggests that the opinions critical of the finding are recycled Bush Administration positions from agencies that didn't yet have political appointees in place.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/050...ng.html?showall

Quoting spin in blogs now? You never disappoint Steven. Of course someone will try and minimize this, it's expected. Squash all dissent, that's you motto.

Um... Peter Orszag is the OMB Director, but I think I'm seeing the light now, Gary. You are right. Global Warming along with Cap and Trade is a Communist Plot to take over the world. Keep an eye out for flying bunnies.

Yes, he is the head of the OMB but the memo came from others in his department. He is spinning because the dissenting views are being squashed. Nothing new there, dissent isn't allowed when it comes to GW. That is how the "consensus" was made, gag anyone that disagrees.

That must be it. Damn, you are sharp. Nobody can pull the wool over your eyes.

Or pull your head out of your own azz it seems.

[GaryC 7]

The cap-and-trade racket

Who says Democrats wish to take from the poor to give to the rich?

In practice, they much prefer to take from everyone to give to their friends!

In the name of environmental protection, Democrats are readying just such a transfer on a scale that would have impressed the Pharaohs. Tens of billions of dollars, possibly hundreds of billions, will be shifted from American consumers of electricity to shareholders of favored utility companies in primarily blue states. Under the leadership of uber-liberal Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Democrats are determined to make their plan so complicated that taxpayers will not notice the flocks of dollars migrating from the middle of the country to the coasts.

Here’s the scheme:

Waxman’s committee will write the law establishing controls on carbon emissions, considered a leading cause of global climate change. The plan, which is also favored by President Obama, is generally known as “cap and trade.”

In theory, the cap-and-trade system operates with remarkable elegance. The government sets a limit on the total amount of carbon that may be emitted in the United States – that’s the “cap.” Companies then bid to buy emission rights. Efficient companies that reduce their carbon emissions to levels beneath allowable limits can resell their unused emission rights to companies that exceed their limits – that’s the “trade.” Over time, the cap is steadily lowered, thereby reducing carbon emissions in the most cost-effective way.

As I said, that’s the theory -- at least until it meets the giant favor-selling machine knows as the U.S. Congress.

The Obama administration has estimated the revenue value of these rights, if purchased from the government by private industry, at between $680 billion and $1.8 trillion over 10 years. Let’s take the midpoint number -- $1.15 trillion. Even in the context of a budget debate that would strain Dr. Evil’s financial imagination --“It’s like saying I want a kajillion bajillion dollars” -- that’s a lot of money.

Under cap and trade, Congress creates money literally out of air. That kind of manufactured money is easily distributed to friends and supporters – who will presumably return the favor at fundraising time.

As the cap-and-trade bill has progressed through committee -- a draft is expected any day now -- more and more pollution rights have been allotted in advance to favored interests, free of charge. The final committee bill will probably give away at least 50 percent of all allotments, maybe even 75 percent. The freebies blow a huge hole in the budget plans of the White House, which has been counting on cap-and-trade payments from industry to help cover the enormous deficits the administration will run in coming years.

Congress can shrug off that problem. But the giveaway creates another issue, much more immediate: Who specifically gets how much?

This may be the first time you have encountered that question. Rest assured, however, that the prospective recipients of the $1.15 trillion have been thinking hard about it for years.

Here’s one proposal -- from the Edison Electrical Institute, the Washington lobby for America’s shareholder-owned electrical utilities. Edison proposes that 40 percent of all allotments should be given away to distributors of electric power (who would then sell or give them away to generators -- or use the allotments themselves if they happened to be integrated into the generation business, as many distributors are). These free allotments would then be subdivided by the following formula: 50 percent of allotments would be distributed according to the amount of carbon emitted, and the other 50 percent according to the amount of power produced.

Gobbledegook? Take a closer look; it’s your money.

Not all utilities produce the same carbon emissions. While many coal-fired plants produce large emissions, others rely on natural gas, which emits less carbon. Still others use hydro or nuclear power, which emit virtually none. Consequently, the Edison formula would confer huge windfalls on the non-coal companies.

Here’s how:

Suppose we have two companies providing equal amounts of electricity. One company relies 100 percent on coal; the other 100 percent on nuclear. Now suppose there is a billion dollars’ worth of allotments available to the two companies. Under the Edison formula, $500 million would be divided according to carbon emissions. Because the nuclear company has no emissions, the coal company would get all of that money. But another $500 million would be apportioned based on the amount of electricity produced. That money would be split 50-50 between the two companies.

The result? The coal company would get $750 million in allotments and the nuclear company $250 million. But remember – the coal company needs those allotments to pay for its emissions and stay in business. The nuclear company, with scant emissions, can sell all $250 million worth – reaping a lovely windfall!

In real life, there is no such thing as a power company that uses only nuclear or hydro power. Still, companies based in New England and on the West Coast use much less coal than power companies based in the middle of the country. Pacific Gas & Electric, headquartered in Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco, relies 23 percent on nuclear and 13 percent on hydro power. Southern California Edison’s power is derived 45 percent from

natural gas and 20 percent from nuclear. Washington State’s Avista depends 52 percent on hydro and 16 percent on natural gas. Green Mountain Power in Vermont may be the “purest play” for a cap-and-trade windfall speculator: It relies 48 percent on hydro, 38 percent on nuclear, and 10 percent on gas.

The differences between states can be striking. Indiana is one of America’s most coal dependent states. It’s power generation, almost 110 million megawatts per year, produces almost 122 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. Hydro-rich Washington, by contrast, produces about 86 million megawatts of power, but only 13 million metric tons of carbon -- about 10 percent of Indiana’s total.

The free allotments may cushion the pain to Indiana power producers. They will probably bestow a big windfall upon power-producers in Washington. Consumers will almost certainly pay more. But instead of paying that money to the federal government, which could use the funds to reduce other taxes, consumers will be paying their money to happy utility shareholders, especially shareholders of utilities that serve lower-carbon states like Vermont, California, and Washington. That’s change my broker can believe in!

I should point out that the Edison Electric Institute is not some fly-by-night operation. It mounts one of the most sophisticated and well-heeled lobbying operations in Washington. The Waxman committee drafted a cap-and-trade bill in 2007 that followed Edison’s recommendations nearly to the letter. It will likely do so again in 2009.

Cap-and-trade legislation will not only be contorted to favor the Democrats’ regional loyalties. In addition, it will be skewed to favor the preferred energy sources of the Obama administration -- wind and solar. These two sources face daunting technological hurdles and unforgiving economics on their own. Consequently, the measures to promote them must be hidden from sight, since no Congress would pass the taxes otherwise necessary to make them viable.

Waxman’s committee looks likely to include a straightforward quota for wind, solar and other renewable power. Utilities will ultimately be required to derive up to 25 percent of their power from these sources -- without regard to cost or the existence of cheaper, non-carbon emitting alternatives. The massive extra cost will be spread across power bills in ways that consumers will never see.

If the Obama administration wants to move off coal, the economically rational thing to do is to focus first on conservation, then on the next-cheapest sources of power, which include hydro imported from undeveloped sites in Canada and nuclear. A clean and simple carbon tax could incentivize such a shift. But that’s not on the agenda. Why not?

Because this isn’t environmentalism. It’s a racket.

http://www.theweek.com/article/index/96470...andtrade_racket

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Gary, you realize that if a Cap and Trade proposal doesn't go through, the EPA can and will start placing restrictions on CO2 emissions from plants. So if the Right Wing extremists want to thumb their nose at what essentially is a market approach to addressing Global Warming, we can go the other route. In any case, we must reduce CO2 emissions and focus on the catastrophic damage that will occur if we continue on our current course.

Edited May 14, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[GaryC 7]

Gary, you realize that if a Cap and Trade proposal doesn't go through, the EPA can and will start placing restrictions on CO2 emissions from plants. So if the Right Wing extremists want to thumb their nose at what essentially is a market approach to addressing Global Warming, we can go the other route. In any case, we must reduce CO2 emissions and focus on the catastrophic damage that will occur if we continue on our current course.

Cap and Trade isn't a market solution, it's a scam. And you know full well that I think CO2 and global warming is nonsense. The longer we go without ANY rise in temps the more people will question the fake "consensus" about man made GW. Just watch, in the next 5 years the hysteria about GW will have turned.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Gary, you realize that if a Cap and Trade proposal doesn't go through, the EPA can and will start placing restrictions on CO2 emissions from plants. So if the Right Wing extremists want to thumb their nose at what essentially is a market approach to addressing Global Warming, we can go the other route. In any case, we must reduce CO2 emissions and focus on the catastrophic damage that will occur if we continue on our current course.

Cap and Trade isn't a market solution, it's a scam. And you know full well that I think CO2 and global warming is nonsense. The longer we go without ANY rise in temps the more people will question the fake "consensus" about man made GW. Just watch, in the next 5 years the hysteria about GW will have turned.

Like I've said earlier, if you don't accept the threat of Global Warming as real, there's no point in arguing over Cap and Trade or any other attempt to reduce CO2 emissions. I used to think that maybe you'd eventually come around to accepting the science behind GW, but you're about a stubborn as they come.

[GaryC 7]

Gary, you realize that if a Cap and Trade proposal doesn't go through, the EPA can and will start placing restrictions on CO2 emissions from plants. So if the Right Wing extremists want to thumb their nose at what essentially is a market approach to addressing Global Warming, we can go the other route. In any case, we must reduce CO2 emissions and focus on the catastrophic damage that will occur if we continue on our current course.

Cap and Trade isn't a market solution, it's a scam. And you know full well that I think CO2 and global warming is nonsense. The longer we go without ANY rise in temps the more people will question the fake "consensus" about man made GW. Just watch, in the next 5 years the hysteria about GW will have turned.

Like I've said earlier, if you don't accept the threat of Global Warming as real, there's no point in arguing over Cap and Trade or any other attempt to reduce CO2 emissions. I used to think that maybe you'd eventually come around to accepting the science behind GW, but you're about a stubborn as they come.

When the most current evidence is pointing AWAY from the GW theory why should I come around? It becomes more likely every day that you are the one that is wrong. It seems that every day some new observation comes out that contradicts the theory and then we see the excuses come out to explain the anomaly away. This will only work for so long before it all falls apart.