From: The Hill's RegWatch
This September, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to propose rules for greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants, and next June will issue draft rules for existing facilities.
Those dates match up with the timeline President Obama has given for the new regulations, which supporters have cheered as a major step in confronting climate change.
That's a good sign that the administration is serious about the rules, according to James Goodwin, a policy analyst with the Center for Progressive Reform.
"I'm encouraged by that, that they're saying in multiple places that this is sort of the schedule that the rules are going to follow," he said.
He added, "I'd put that as an encouraging sign that everything is on track, but again, these rules, the power plant rules, have kind of a long history of delays, so I'm going to have to wait and see what actually happens in reality."
The administration first unveiled a draft rule for new power plants in 2012, but delayed finalizing the proposal after more than 2 million comments were submitted by the public.
The EPA is also looking to regulate the pollution discharges from military ships, including drainage from onboard photography labs, deck runoff from rain and seawater and foam used to fight fires onboard.
The agency expects to propose that rule this month and finalize it next June.
Showing posts with label E.P.A.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label E.P.A.. Show all posts
Monday, July 08, 2013
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
EPA Waiver Bias Against Conservatives
From: Competetive Enterprise Institute
It’s not just the IRS that treats groups on the right differently from the rest. According to documents obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Environmental Protection Agency is in on it too.
Public records produced by EPA in response to a lawsuit filed by CEI under the Freedom of Information Act illustrate a pattern of making it far more difficult for limited-government groups – in particular those who argue for more freedom and less EPA – to access public records.
Such groups are precisely those Congress and courts made clear FOIA was intended to protect from fees being used as a hurdle to obtaining information, without prejudice as to their perspective. Worse, CEI has now obtained proof of the spectacularly disparate nature of the practice, specifically revealing extraordinarily favorable treatment of the same green groups it’s been shown to be collaborating with on its agenda.
FOIA is clear that public interest groups who, by trade, obtain and broadly disseminate “government” information to the public are the intended beneficiaries of its provision for waiving fees. EPA routinely grants such fee waivers to its favored left-wing groups who demand a more intrusive and powerful EPA, but systematically denies waivers for groups on the right, according to research compiled by CEI Senior Fellow Christopher Horner, author of "The Liberal War on Transparency."
In a review of letters granting or denying fee waivers granted at the “initial determination” stage from January 2012 to this Spring, Horner found green groups, such as the National Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and EarthJustice, had their fees waived in 75 out of 82 cases. Meanwhile, EPA effectively or expressly denied Horner’s request for fee waivers in 14 of 15 FOIA requests over this same time.1
Moreover, every denial Horner appealed was overturned. “That these denials are ritually overturned on appeal, not after I presented any new evidence or made any new point, but simply restated what was a detailed and heavily sourced legal document to begin with, reaffirms the illegitimacy of these hurdles EPA places in the way of those who cause it problems.” Horner said. “EPA’s practice is to take care of its friends and impose ridiculous obstacles to deny problematic parties’ requests for information.”
The numbers for a sampling of comparable “national” groups are mind-boggling. Of Sierra Club’s 15 requests, EPA granted 11. And Sierra Club received the harshest of treatments. In fact, EPA granted 19 of NRDC’s 20 requests and 17 of EarthJustice’s 19 requests. Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility went a perfect 17-for-17. The Waterkeeper Alliance had all three of its requests granted, Greenpeace and the Southern Environmental Law Center each were 2-for-2, the Center for Biological Diversity 4-for-4.
That is, these green pressure groups encountered a cooperative EPA 92 percent of the time, but Horner’s requests on behalf of CEI and the American Tradition Institute were rejected more than 93 percent of the time.
EPA documents also showed Judicial Watch and the National Center for Public Policy Research each went 2-for-4, the Franklin Center had both its requests denied, and the Institute for Energy Research was denied in its only foray.
CEI has been recognized as a media outlet by federal and state agencies, so it is worth noting liberal media outlets, such as National Public Radio (7-for-7), ProPublica (3-for-3), the Nation and InsideClimateNews – all had all their requests granted over the same period.
“This is as clear an example of disparate treatment as the IRS’ hurdles selectively imposed upon groups with names ominously reflecting an interest in, say, a less intrusive or biased federal government,” said Horner. “This demonstrates a clear pattern of favoritism for allied groups and a concerted campaign to make life more difficult for those deemed unfriendly. The left hand of big government reaches out to its far-left hand at every turn. Argue against more of the same, however, and prepare to be treated as if you have fewer rights.”
It’s not just the IRS that treats groups on the right differently from the rest. According to documents obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Environmental Protection Agency is in on it too.
Public records produced by EPA in response to a lawsuit filed by CEI under the Freedom of Information Act illustrate a pattern of making it far more difficult for limited-government groups – in particular those who argue for more freedom and less EPA – to access public records.
Such groups are precisely those Congress and courts made clear FOIA was intended to protect from fees being used as a hurdle to obtaining information, without prejudice as to their perspective. Worse, CEI has now obtained proof of the spectacularly disparate nature of the practice, specifically revealing extraordinarily favorable treatment of the same green groups it’s been shown to be collaborating with on its agenda.
FOIA is clear that public interest groups who, by trade, obtain and broadly disseminate “government” information to the public are the intended beneficiaries of its provision for waiving fees. EPA routinely grants such fee waivers to its favored left-wing groups who demand a more intrusive and powerful EPA, but systematically denies waivers for groups on the right, according to research compiled by CEI Senior Fellow Christopher Horner, author of "The Liberal War on Transparency."
In a review of letters granting or denying fee waivers granted at the “initial determination” stage from January 2012 to this Spring, Horner found green groups, such as the National Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and EarthJustice, had their fees waived in 75 out of 82 cases. Meanwhile, EPA effectively or expressly denied Horner’s request for fee waivers in 14 of 15 FOIA requests over this same time.1
Moreover, every denial Horner appealed was overturned. “That these denials are ritually overturned on appeal, not after I presented any new evidence or made any new point, but simply restated what was a detailed and heavily sourced legal document to begin with, reaffirms the illegitimacy of these hurdles EPA places in the way of those who cause it problems.” Horner said. “EPA’s practice is to take care of its friends and impose ridiculous obstacles to deny problematic parties’ requests for information.”
The numbers for a sampling of comparable “national” groups are mind-boggling. Of Sierra Club’s 15 requests, EPA granted 11. And Sierra Club received the harshest of treatments. In fact, EPA granted 19 of NRDC’s 20 requests and 17 of EarthJustice’s 19 requests. Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility went a perfect 17-for-17. The Waterkeeper Alliance had all three of its requests granted, Greenpeace and the Southern Environmental Law Center each were 2-for-2, the Center for Biological Diversity 4-for-4.
That is, these green pressure groups encountered a cooperative EPA 92 percent of the time, but Horner’s requests on behalf of CEI and the American Tradition Institute were rejected more than 93 percent of the time.
EPA documents also showed Judicial Watch and the National Center for Public Policy Research each went 2-for-4, the Franklin Center had both its requests denied, and the Institute for Energy Research was denied in its only foray.
CEI has been recognized as a media outlet by federal and state agencies, so it is worth noting liberal media outlets, such as National Public Radio (7-for-7), ProPublica (3-for-3), the Nation and InsideClimateNews – all had all their requests granted over the same period.
“This is as clear an example of disparate treatment as the IRS’ hurdles selectively imposed upon groups with names ominously reflecting an interest in, say, a less intrusive or biased federal government,” said Horner. “This demonstrates a clear pattern of favoritism for allied groups and a concerted campaign to make life more difficult for those deemed unfriendly. The left hand of big government reaches out to its far-left hand at every turn. Argue against more of the same, however, and prepare to be treated as if you have fewer rights.”
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
EPA Mandates Use of Nonexistent Fuel
FRom: Madison Project
It’s bad enough that government regulations and environmental legal defense groups have prevented us from building oil refineries for over 30 years. It’s even worse when the existing ones are forced to blend fuel mixtures that don’t exist.
We are all painfully aware of the Soviet style mandate that requires 10% of petroleum to be comprised of ethanol. This unconstitutional mandate has killed jobs, driven up the cost of fuel and food, lowered gas mileage, and damaged car engines – all to benefit corporate cronies in Big Ag. This odious fuel source is primarily made from corn. But since 2010, the EPA has mandated the blending of more than 20 million gallons of cellulosic biofuel into the nation’s fuel supply.
We are all painfully aware of the Soviet style mandate that requires 10% of petroleum to be comprised of ethanol. This unconstitutional mandate has killed jobs, driven up the cost of fuel and food, lowered gas mileage, and damaged car engines – all to benefit corporate cronies in Big Ag. This odious fuel source is primarily made from corn. But since 2010, the EPA has mandated the blending of more than 20 million gallons of cellulosic biofuel into the nation’s fuel supply.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Senate kills effort to block EPA regulations on coal-powered plants
From: Human Events
Legislation to defeat an EPA emissions rule that critics say would kill thousands of jobs and raise electricity rates for consumers was killed in the Senate Wednesday.
A handful of Republicans sided with Democrats to block the measure on a procedural vote of 46 yeas to 53 nays, including Sens. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, and Susan Collins and Olympia Snow of Maine.
Democrats who crossed over to vote with Republicans included Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mark Warner and Jim Webb of Virginia.
Republicans say the mercury emission rules for coal-fired plants are the centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s war on coal.
“This effectively kills coal in America,” said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), author of the measure.
Republicans said the regulations are the most expensive rules ever created by the EPA, and will cost consumers $10 billion a year in addition to killing 50,000 jobs.
“This is just one battle in the administration’s war on jobs, but it has devastating consequences for real people and real families in my state and in many others,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
“The administration’s nonchalant attitude about these people is appalling, but this is precisely the danger of having unelected bureaucrats in Washington playing with the livelihoods of Americans as if they’re nothing more than pieces on a chessboard,” McConnell said.
Democrats say job creation doesn’t have to come at the expense of clean air and higher environmental standards.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) criticized the coal industry for fighting the new regulations and said the business needs to face the real threats of aging plants, finite reserves, and the rise of natural gas as an alternative.
“The EPA alone is not going to make or break coal. There are many forces exerting pressure and that agency is just one of them,” Rockefeller said.
Republicans said regulations are an economic disaster shrouded in false claims about public health, but Rockefeller said the health benefits are “enormous.”
“I oppose this resolution because I care so much about West Virginians,” said Rockefeller, whose coal rich state will be affected by the EPA regulations. “Without good health it’s difficult to hold down a job or live the American dream. Chronic illness is debilitating and impacts a family’s income, prosperity and ultimately its happiness. EPA has relied on thousands of studies that established the serious and long term impact of these pollutants on premature deaths, heart attacks, hospitalizations, pregnant women, babies and children.”
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said critics of the coal industry have “cast it in apocalyptic terms that have no bearing on reality.”
“It is a job killing, ideologically driven attempt to cripple the coal industry in the U.S. -- an industry that employees a lot of people and feeds a lot of families, and this administration is unfortunately using the EPA to destroy a reliable … source of electricity,” Cornyn said.
“This is another example of executive overreach. So stringent that no new coal-fired plant will be built in the U.S. no matter how modern or how clean the technology will allow it to operate,” Cornyn said. “This is the cheapest and most abundant source of energy in this country and we are simply killing it.”
Added Sen. Jim Risch (R-Wyo.): “Why would anyone vote for this? This is absolute foolishness.
Legislation to defeat an EPA emissions rule that critics say would kill thousands of jobs and raise electricity rates for consumers was killed in the Senate Wednesday.
A handful of Republicans sided with Democrats to block the measure on a procedural vote of 46 yeas to 53 nays, including Sens. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, and Susan Collins and Olympia Snow of Maine.
Democrats who crossed over to vote with Republicans included Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mark Warner and Jim Webb of Virginia.
Republicans say the mercury emission rules for coal-fired plants are the centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s war on coal.
“This effectively kills coal in America,” said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), author of the measure.
Republicans said the regulations are the most expensive rules ever created by the EPA, and will cost consumers $10 billion a year in addition to killing 50,000 jobs.
“This is just one battle in the administration’s war on jobs, but it has devastating consequences for real people and real families in my state and in many others,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
“The administration’s nonchalant attitude about these people is appalling, but this is precisely the danger of having unelected bureaucrats in Washington playing with the livelihoods of Americans as if they’re nothing more than pieces on a chessboard,” McConnell said.
Democrats say job creation doesn’t have to come at the expense of clean air and higher environmental standards.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) criticized the coal industry for fighting the new regulations and said the business needs to face the real threats of aging plants, finite reserves, and the rise of natural gas as an alternative.
“The EPA alone is not going to make or break coal. There are many forces exerting pressure and that agency is just one of them,” Rockefeller said.
Republicans said regulations are an economic disaster shrouded in false claims about public health, but Rockefeller said the health benefits are “enormous.”
“I oppose this resolution because I care so much about West Virginians,” said Rockefeller, whose coal rich state will be affected by the EPA regulations. “Without good health it’s difficult to hold down a job or live the American dream. Chronic illness is debilitating and impacts a family’s income, prosperity and ultimately its happiness. EPA has relied on thousands of studies that established the serious and long term impact of these pollutants on premature deaths, heart attacks, hospitalizations, pregnant women, babies and children.”
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said critics of the coal industry have “cast it in apocalyptic terms that have no bearing on reality.”
“It is a job killing, ideologically driven attempt to cripple the coal industry in the U.S. -- an industry that employees a lot of people and feeds a lot of families, and this administration is unfortunately using the EPA to destroy a reliable … source of electricity,” Cornyn said.
“This is another example of executive overreach. So stringent that no new coal-fired plant will be built in the U.S. no matter how modern or how clean the technology will allow it to operate,” Cornyn said. “This is the cheapest and most abundant source of energy in this country and we are simply killing it.”
Added Sen. Jim Risch (R-Wyo.): “Why would anyone vote for this? This is absolute foolishness.
Monday, June 04, 2012
Monday, November 21, 2011
Mike and Chantell Sackett vs. the EPA
FROM: Bloomberg Business Week
When Mike and Chantell Sackett paid $23,000 for a lot near the banks of Priest Lake in northern Idaho in 2005, they thought they were buying the site for a picturesque new home. They got a lot more: a long feud with the Environmental Protection Agency and now a Supreme Court case that could bolster the rights of landowners facing costly demands from the federal government.
Four years ago the Sacketts were filling in their lot with dirt and rock, preparing to build a simple three-bedroom home in a neighborhood where other houses have stood for years. Then three federal officials showed up and demanded they stop construction. The agency claimed the .63-acre lot was a wetland, protected under the Clean Water Act.
The Sacketts say they were stunned. The owners of an excavation company, they had secured all the necessary local permits. And Chantell Sackett says that before work began, she drove two hours to Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, to consult with an Army Corps of Engineers official. She says the official told her orally, though not in writing, that she didn’t need a federal permit. “We did all the right things,” she says.
The EPA issued an order requiring the Sacketts to put the land back the way it was, removing the piles of fill material and replanting the vegetation they had cleared away. The property was to be fenced off and the Sacketts would be required to submit annual reports about its condition to the EPA. The agency threatened to fine them up to $32,500 a day until they complied.
The Sacketts instead tried to get a hearing in federal court, seeking a declaration that their property wasn’t a protected wetland. The plot is not connected either to the lake or a nearby creek, though Mike Sackett, 45, says part of the land got “wet” at times in the spring. “We sued because we wanted our day in court to say, ‘This is not a wetland,’ ” he says. Two lower courts turned the couple away, saying they could not make that argument until the EPA asked a federal judge to enforce the order. That left the Sacketts in limbo. Restoring the property as the EPA demanded made no sense to them. It would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, they say, and if they ultimately won the case they’d have to clear the land a second time. But defying the order potentially meant racking up $32,500 in fines each day—and perhaps criminal liability if they continued with construction—while they waited for the EPA to decide whether to pursue the case. “It’s an unenviable choice,” says Damien M. Schiff of the Pacific Legal Foundation, a Sacramento-based property rights group that is representing the couple for free. “It’s really almost no choice at all.”
The Sacketts appealed to the Supreme Court, asking for the right to go straight to a federal judge. The high court agreed to hear the case in its fall term. It is being watched closely by environmentalists and property rights activists because of its potential scope. A ruling in the Sacketts’ favor would blunt one of the agency’s favorite enforcement tools. Each year it issues up to 3,000 “administrative compliance orders” to businesses and individuals, demanding an end to alleged environmental violations and applying enough pressure that those who are accused typically give in before the agency has to justify the action before a judge.
“The compliance order tool is one of a few mechanisms that EPA has to resolve, and resolve quickly, pollution problems,” says Jon P. Devine, a senior attorney with the National Resources Defense Council. The EPA argues the rules are reasonable. While fines may accrue, they won’t actually be assessed until the Sacketts have a chance to make their case to a judge, it says. Agency officials declined to be interviewed.
In taking on the case, the high court told the two sides to discuss in their filings whether the EPA’s procedures are so unfair that they violate the Sacketts’ constitutional right to due process. A ruling in favor of the landowners on those grounds would reverberate beyond the EPA, potentially forcing both state and federal agencies to seek court permission before trying to enforce rules.
Some environmental advocates believe the agency made a mistake in letting a case with such appealing plaintiffs reach the Supreme Court. The Sacketts haven’t dared to touch their land since the dispute began.
Their dream house is on hold; they live in a rental nearby. It’s a problem for the EPA that the Sacketts “feel like the mom and pop who are getting the heavy hand of government brought down on them,” says Catholic University law professor Amanda Cohen Leiter, who sides with the agency. “I can imagine the court being sympathetic to these particular plaintiffs and issuing … an overbroad ruling as a result.”
The bottom line: The Supreme Court could turn a minor land dispute between an Idaho couple and the EPA into a far-reaching case on government power.
When Mike and Chantell Sackett paid $23,000 for a lot near the banks of Priest Lake in northern Idaho in 2005, they thought they were buying the site for a picturesque new home. They got a lot more: a long feud with the Environmental Protection Agency and now a Supreme Court case that could bolster the rights of landowners facing costly demands from the federal government.
Four years ago the Sacketts were filling in their lot with dirt and rock, preparing to build a simple three-bedroom home in a neighborhood where other houses have stood for years. Then three federal officials showed up and demanded they stop construction. The agency claimed the .63-acre lot was a wetland, protected under the Clean Water Act.
The Sacketts say they were stunned. The owners of an excavation company, they had secured all the necessary local permits. And Chantell Sackett says that before work began, she drove two hours to Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, to consult with an Army Corps of Engineers official. She says the official told her orally, though not in writing, that she didn’t need a federal permit. “We did all the right things,” she says.
The EPA issued an order requiring the Sacketts to put the land back the way it was, removing the piles of fill material and replanting the vegetation they had cleared away. The property was to be fenced off and the Sacketts would be required to submit annual reports about its condition to the EPA. The agency threatened to fine them up to $32,500 a day until they complied.
The Sacketts instead tried to get a hearing in federal court, seeking a declaration that their property wasn’t a protected wetland. The plot is not connected either to the lake or a nearby creek, though Mike Sackett, 45, says part of the land got “wet” at times in the spring. “We sued because we wanted our day in court to say, ‘This is not a wetland,’ ” he says. Two lower courts turned the couple away, saying they could not make that argument until the EPA asked a federal judge to enforce the order. That left the Sacketts in limbo. Restoring the property as the EPA demanded made no sense to them. It would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, they say, and if they ultimately won the case they’d have to clear the land a second time. But defying the order potentially meant racking up $32,500 in fines each day—and perhaps criminal liability if they continued with construction—while they waited for the EPA to decide whether to pursue the case. “It’s an unenviable choice,” says Damien M. Schiff of the Pacific Legal Foundation, a Sacramento-based property rights group that is representing the couple for free. “It’s really almost no choice at all.”
The Sacketts appealed to the Supreme Court, asking for the right to go straight to a federal judge. The high court agreed to hear the case in its fall term. It is being watched closely by environmentalists and property rights activists because of its potential scope. A ruling in the Sacketts’ favor would blunt one of the agency’s favorite enforcement tools. Each year it issues up to 3,000 “administrative compliance orders” to businesses and individuals, demanding an end to alleged environmental violations and applying enough pressure that those who are accused typically give in before the agency has to justify the action before a judge.
“The compliance order tool is one of a few mechanisms that EPA has to resolve, and resolve quickly, pollution problems,” says Jon P. Devine, a senior attorney with the National Resources Defense Council. The EPA argues the rules are reasonable. While fines may accrue, they won’t actually be assessed until the Sacketts have a chance to make their case to a judge, it says. Agency officials declined to be interviewed.
In taking on the case, the high court told the two sides to discuss in their filings whether the EPA’s procedures are so unfair that they violate the Sacketts’ constitutional right to due process. A ruling in favor of the landowners on those grounds would reverberate beyond the EPA, potentially forcing both state and federal agencies to seek court permission before trying to enforce rules.
Some environmental advocates believe the agency made a mistake in letting a case with such appealing plaintiffs reach the Supreme Court. The Sacketts haven’t dared to touch their land since the dispute began.
Their dream house is on hold; they live in a rental nearby. It’s a problem for the EPA that the Sacketts “feel like the mom and pop who are getting the heavy hand of government brought down on them,” says Catholic University law professor Amanda Cohen Leiter, who sides with the agency. “I can imagine the court being sympathetic to these particular plaintiffs and issuing … an overbroad ruling as a result.”
The bottom line: The Supreme Court could turn a minor land dispute between an Idaho couple and the EPA into a far-reaching case on government power.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
EPA declares hay a pollutant
From: Natural News.com.
The assault against American industry and individual livelihood continues -- and no, it is not coming from Al-Qaeda or other foreign terrorists. A recent report from R-CALF USA, an advocacy group for American cattle producers, says the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has declared harmless cattle hay a "pollutant," which is part of the agency's agenda to squelch family-scale cattle ranches in favor of corporately-owned, mega-sized feedlot operations.
At the recent 12th Annual R-CALF USA Convention in Rapid City, SD, an audience member asked Mike Callicrate, a Kansas cattle feeder, if the EPA had, indeed, declared hay a pollutant. His affirmative answer was startling to many, but not necessarily surprising in light of the US government's apparent agenda to destroy every single producing sector in the nation and to reduce the country to a poverty-stricken, corporately-dominated wasteland.
"Now that EPA has declared hay a pollutant, every farmer and rancher that stores hay, or that leaves a broken hay bale in the field, is potentially violating EPA rules and subject to an EPA enforcement action," responded Callicrate. "How far are we going to let this agency go before we stand up and do something about it?"
Callicrate currently operates what is considered a mid-sized cattle ranch, and was ostracized by some of the nation's largest beef packers back in 1998 for exposing their illegitimate buying practices. Callicrate ended up having to cease operations for two years, but later reopened as a direct marketer of meat to consumers.
"I believe the EPA's enforcement action is a premeditated effort by EPA to partner with the beef packers to finish the job the beef packers couldn't do alone," added Callicrate, referring to EPA's failure to enforce the same rules for large meat packers like JBS-Brazil and Cargill (the two largest beef packing operations in the country).
The assault against American industry and individual livelihood continues -- and no, it is not coming from Al-Qaeda or other foreign terrorists. A recent report from R-CALF USA, an advocacy group for American cattle producers, says the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has declared harmless cattle hay a "pollutant," which is part of the agency's agenda to squelch family-scale cattle ranches in favor of corporately-owned, mega-sized feedlot operations.
At the recent 12th Annual R-CALF USA Convention in Rapid City, SD, an audience member asked Mike Callicrate, a Kansas cattle feeder, if the EPA had, indeed, declared hay a pollutant. His affirmative answer was startling to many, but not necessarily surprising in light of the US government's apparent agenda to destroy every single producing sector in the nation and to reduce the country to a poverty-stricken, corporately-dominated wasteland.
"Now that EPA has declared hay a pollutant, every farmer and rancher that stores hay, or that leaves a broken hay bale in the field, is potentially violating EPA rules and subject to an EPA enforcement action," responded Callicrate. "How far are we going to let this agency go before we stand up and do something about it?"
Callicrate currently operates what is considered a mid-sized cattle ranch, and was ostracized by some of the nation's largest beef packers back in 1998 for exposing their illegitimate buying practices. Callicrate ended up having to cease operations for two years, but later reopened as a direct marketer of meat to consumers.
"I believe the EPA's enforcement action is a premeditated effort by EPA to partner with the beef packers to finish the job the beef packers couldn't do alone," added Callicrate, referring to EPA's failure to enforce the same rules for large meat packers like JBS-Brazil and Cargill (the two largest beef packing operations in the country).
Friday, August 19, 2011
EPA to Crack Down on Farm Dust - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports |
FROM: News9 Oklahoma City
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is considering a crackdown on farm dust, so senators have signed a letter addressing their concerns on the possible regulations.
The letter dated July 23 to the EPA states, "If approved, would establish the most stringent and unparalleled regulation of dust in our nation's history." It further states, "We respect efforts for a clean and healthy environment, but not at the expense of common sense. These identified levels will be extremely burdensome for farmers and livestock producers to attain. Whether its livestock kicking up dust, soybeans being combined on a dry day in the fall, or driving a car down the gravel road, dust is a naturally occurring event."
Read the letter to EPA signed by 21 senators including Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn
Many in the Oklahoma farming industry are opposed to the EPA's consideration. One farmer said the possible regulations are ridiculous.
"It's plain common sense, we don't want to do anything detrimental," said farmer Curtis Roberts. "If the dust is detrimental to us, it's going to be to everybody. We're not going to do anything to hurt ourselves or our farm."
Roberts, a fourth generation farmer and rancher in Arcadia, said regulating dust in rural areas will hurt farmers' harvest, cultivation and livelihood.
"Anytime you work ground, you're going to have dust. I don't know how they'll regulate it," Roberts said.
"The regulations are going to put us down and keep us from doing things we need to be doing because of the EPA."
Oklahoma Farm Bureau President Mike Spradling said the rules could be detrimental to farmers across the Sooner State.
"We as an organization do not feel dust is a pollutant," Spradling said. "It would almost be impossible to comply with what's being addressed now from the EPA as in agriculture. We're doing everything we possibly can."
"It's just common sense, we don't like dust in the morning but it's something we got to live with," Roberts said.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is considering a crackdown on farm dust, so senators have signed a letter addressing their concerns on the possible regulations.
The letter dated July 23 to the EPA states, "If approved, would establish the most stringent and unparalleled regulation of dust in our nation's history." It further states, "We respect efforts for a clean and healthy environment, but not at the expense of common sense. These identified levels will be extremely burdensome for farmers and livestock producers to attain. Whether its livestock kicking up dust, soybeans being combined on a dry day in the fall, or driving a car down the gravel road, dust is a naturally occurring event."
Read the letter to EPA signed by 21 senators including Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn
Many in the Oklahoma farming industry are opposed to the EPA's consideration. One farmer said the possible regulations are ridiculous.
"It's plain common sense, we don't want to do anything detrimental," said farmer Curtis Roberts. "If the dust is detrimental to us, it's going to be to everybody. We're not going to do anything to hurt ourselves or our farm."
Roberts, a fourth generation farmer and rancher in Arcadia, said regulating dust in rural areas will hurt farmers' harvest, cultivation and livelihood.
"Anytime you work ground, you're going to have dust. I don't know how they'll regulate it," Roberts said.
"The regulations are going to put us down and keep us from doing things we need to be doing because of the EPA."
Oklahoma Farm Bureau President Mike Spradling said the rules could be detrimental to farmers across the Sooner State.
"We as an organization do not feel dust is a pollutant," Spradling said. "It would almost be impossible to comply with what's being addressed now from the EPA as in agriculture. We're doing everything we possibly can."
"It's just common sense, we don't like dust in the morning but it's something we got to live with," Roberts said.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Even unions see Obama killing coal and a quarter-million jobs
FROM: Washington Examiner
President Obama's cap-and-trade bill died in the Democrat-run 111th Congress, but that hasn't stopped the chief executive and Lisa Jackson, his U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator, from finding regulatory paths to achieve the same goals.
Topping those goals is the abolition of coal as an electrical power-generating fuel. More than half of the electrical power used every day by Americans is generated by power plants fueled by coal. And 90 percent of all the coal consumed in the U.S. goes to electrical power generation.
But that doesn't matter to Obama and Big Green, they are determined to kill the coal industry because of its alleged contribution to global warming.
It appears that Jackson's EPA has now found the perfect regulatory tool to accomplish that goal - the proposed Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS), which, according to the agency, would apply to all "Coal and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-Commercial-Institutional, and Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units."
The MATS proposal has sparked massive opposition from among energy industry groups and conservative think tanks, but now a huge coalition of unions that normally are vocal supporters of Obama are warning of the loss of millions of jobs, substantial power-generation capability, and other harmful consequences radiating throughout the entire U.S. economy.
The group is the Unions for Jobs and the Environment (UJAE), a 501(C)(4) foundation whose 15 member-unions represents "more than 3.2 million workers in electric power, transportation, coal mining, construction and other industries."
Naturally, the union coalition's first concern is the impact of MATS on employment. In a July 8 letter to EPA, UJAE notes that, while some"tens of thousands of jobs" would be created by the proposed rule's requirement for installation of new emissions equipment, "on the other hand, a potentially much larger number of permanent jobs may be lost in the mining, electric utility, and transport sectors if large numbers of coal-fired generating plants were closed in response to the rule. We regard this risk as real and substantial."
The UJAE also cautions EPA that its proposed three-year grace period for compliance with MATS is "utterly inadequate for designing,financing, permitting, and constructing the multitude of retrofit pollution controls needed to comply with the rule."
Most worrisome for UJAE's members, however, is the terrible impact MATS would have on the ability of the U.S. to build new electrical power-generating plants in the future. The proposed rule would effectively ban construction of any new plants using coal:
"The proposed MATS rule would preclude the construction of any new coal-based electric generating units due to the severity of its emission limitations for mercury, acid gases and particulate matter ('PM.')," UJAE said in its letter.
President Obama's cap-and-trade bill died in the Democrat-run 111th Congress, but that hasn't stopped the chief executive and Lisa Jackson, his U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator, from finding regulatory paths to achieve the same goals.
Topping those goals is the abolition of coal as an electrical power-generating fuel. More than half of the electrical power used every day by Americans is generated by power plants fueled by coal. And 90 percent of all the coal consumed in the U.S. goes to electrical power generation.
But that doesn't matter to Obama and Big Green, they are determined to kill the coal industry because of its alleged contribution to global warming.
It appears that Jackson's EPA has now found the perfect regulatory tool to accomplish that goal - the proposed Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS), which, according to the agency, would apply to all "Coal and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-Commercial-Institutional, and Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units."
The MATS proposal has sparked massive opposition from among energy industry groups and conservative think tanks, but now a huge coalition of unions that normally are vocal supporters of Obama are warning of the loss of millions of jobs, substantial power-generation capability, and other harmful consequences radiating throughout the entire U.S. economy.
The group is the Unions for Jobs and the Environment (UJAE), a 501(C)(4) foundation whose 15 member-unions represents "more than 3.2 million workers in electric power, transportation, coal mining, construction and other industries."
Naturally, the union coalition's first concern is the impact of MATS on employment. In a July 8 letter to EPA, UJAE notes that, while some"tens of thousands of jobs" would be created by the proposed rule's requirement for installation of new emissions equipment, "on the other hand, a potentially much larger number of permanent jobs may be lost in the mining, electric utility, and transport sectors if large numbers of coal-fired generating plants were closed in response to the rule. We regard this risk as real and substantial."
The UJAE also cautions EPA that its proposed three-year grace period for compliance with MATS is "utterly inadequate for designing,financing, permitting, and constructing the multitude of retrofit pollution controls needed to comply with the rule."
Most worrisome for UJAE's members, however, is the terrible impact MATS would have on the ability of the U.S. to build new electrical power-generating plants in the future. The proposed rule would effectively ban construction of any new plants using coal:
"The proposed MATS rule would preclude the construction of any new coal-based electric generating units due to the severity of its emission limitations for mercury, acid gases and particulate matter ('PM.')," UJAE said in its letter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
