« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

What is the Cost of EPA Interference?

By: Ben Howe (Diary)  |  April 18th, 2012 at 06:40 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I’ve written several posts here about the cost of EPA interference in our lives. Estimates of job losses at the hands of the supposedly well-intentioned Environmental Protection Agency are in the millions. As Lisa Jackson’s EPA continues its unrelenting war against coal, an obvious thing is going to happen: the cost of powering your home and your daily life is going to go up. In fact, it’s going to skyrocket. Don’t take it from me, take it from the man himself.


Oh but no worries right? The Congress rejected Cap and Trade, so nothing to fear! Well, not if Obama has anything to say about it. To him, congress is simply an obstacle to overcome. So with the help of a litany of coal targeted EPA regulations, the squeeze begins.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • wintermute

    Ive forwarded it to several of my wishy washy acquaintances. Really helps put a face to the underlying issues. God I cant believe this president. Such a shame that people can be put into a position to do amazing things for not just the country but the world and just completely fall on his face instead.

    • bbee12

      You nailed it. EPA is helping bring down our country with their false claims and saying only they know what is best.

  • http://xmmlbchat.blogspot.com katesmith

    Steve Milloy has new Freedom of Information Act dox and finds EPA hid exculpatory results of tests on live humans v certain particulates.
    4/18/12, “EPA human experiments debunk notion of ?killer? air pollution: Agency hides exculpatory results,” Steve Milloy, Junk Science.
    Lisa Jackson has testified that based on EPA tests certain particles “kill” people, therefore we must have new rules which cost billions. The FOIA dox show Jackson’s statement was erroneous. Milloy states: “Of the 41 human experiments [on live humans EPA has done since 2010], clinical effects were reported by the EPA in only two study subjects. Both of these are controversial. One is the case study reported in Environmental Health Perspectives, which has been previously debunked. The other study subject flagged by the EPA researchers as experiencing a clinical effect (?a short episode of an elevated heart rate during exposure?), in fact, denied feeling any effects. This reported effect was most probably due to some pre-existing condition or other stressor given the low-level of PM2.5 to which the study subject was exposed.” “The other 39 study subjects were exposed to PM2.5 levels up to 21 times greater (i.e, up to 750 ?g/m3) than the EPA?s own permissible exposure limit for PM2.5 on a 24-hour basis (i.e, 35 ?g/m3).” “3 points, 1. The experimental results provide no evidence that ultra-high exposures to PM2.5 kill. 2. The experimental results invalidate EPA?s cost-benefit analyses for its CSAPR and MATS rulemakings. 3. EPA and its researchers have heretofore failed to disclose to the public these significant results.

    Finally, there is the matter of the ethics and perhaps even the legality of the conduct of the EPA and its researchers. “

    • reiska

      Pulse rate is quite variable even across successive days in the lives of persons just going about their normal daily activities.

      So a brief period of elevated pulse rate during exposure to PM2.5 could just reflect a rise in anxiety level due to the perception of threat of some kind or as stated, some other unidentified stressor.

    • http://joeeder.com joedr

      I can’t believe a government agency would do such things. Why, it makes my pulse race just thinking those thoughts. And I’m not being exposed to those particulates!

      Even with just a BS in Math, I see a zero probability of death from the particulates cited in the EPA studies. So where does “kill” come from?

      But I guess reality has no place in partisan political policies. And the Democrats wonder why people with conservative perspectives are so difficult to deal with.

      I’m fed up with this administration and its bald-faced lies!

  • Flagstaff

    get more and more expensive as the years go by (you have to drive it for about 20 years for it to match a Ford Focus in total driving cost. Assuming you don’t have to buy too many new rechargeable batteries.)

  • sgtkonstantin

    You have a headline, and then you have links to your own website’s old articles.

    Nothing new to see here, just a waste of space.

    How desperate are you to keep the big bad EPA in your headlines? C’mon, RedState, try to be more professional. Quit turning energy conservation into such a divisive issue. You’re embarrassing your own great-grandchildren here.

    • ag8tor

      the articles debunk your beloved EPA and you blame the writers. No matter how you camo it facts are facts! This is soooo typical of the left and their environazi mentality. No matter how much more it will cost the taxpayers and families who just want to live their lives in peace, you tree huggers will not let ANYTHING get in your way of making this country a third world joke. From the so-called POTUS on down to the lowest bureaucrat in the EPA you guys will stop at nothing to press forward your agenda. One would have to be an idiot not to be concerned about the environment. Contrary to the lib opinion Conservatives want clean air and water as well but they know this can be accomplished WITHOUT the inane regulaorty shackles that have brought the cost of EVERYTHING to record levels. Blame Bush, arab spring, sunamis etc. but this world was doing OK before Obama was coronated and will be doing much better when he is GONE! Hopefully Romney will have the guts to put these ecofreaks in thier place and get us back to work again!

      • UpLateAgain

        As an example, farmers and ranchers husband the land infinitely better than does the government. There is true incentive to do so. But if they do it, the control freaks have no way of forcing their wills on other people, and more importantly to them, of advancing the socialist ‘redistributive’ agenda, and making the groups that support it rich.

        So we have perfectly functional and completely eco-friendly pastures declared ‘wetlands’, so that farmers can no longer use them. When they no longer use them, they often become environmental disasters if left untended by the farmers, becoming overgrown with obnoxious weeds and thistles. The EPA then gets on the farmers (who are still paying taxes on the land) to clean up the field since it is their property, which costs significantly, with no possibility by the farmer to recoup the costs through farm production.

        Enter the Sierra Club, and some other groups like them, who ‘rescue’ the farmer from his dilemma by offering to purchase the ‘wetland’ property from him…. of course for pennies on the dollar. The farmer is financially ahead taking the deal, so he usually does.

        Then, magically, shortly after the purchase is complete (in some documented cases – the very next business day after the transaction is filed with the appropriate authorities) the ‘wetlands’ are magically declared no longer wetlands, and the Sierra Club sells the land to another investor (who just happens to be waiting right there – gee, how fortunate for our eco-protecting brothers), sometimes as quickly as the day following having it declared no longer a wetland….. and (I know you’re going to find this hard to believe) for a HUGE profit for the Sierra Club.

        Case studies on this all-too-common practice were documented by then House Representative Richard Pombo in his book This Land Is Our Land.

        Of course, the Sierra Club strongly supports the Democrats, who in turn strongly supports the Sierra Club and the EPA as ‘protectors of our environment.’

        Thank God we have them to keep us safe from ourselves!

    • tngal

      And we had cake and ice cream and everything. You should see us when we get together for a round of pin the tail on the donkey.

      • http://www.twitter.com/AWG9_yoyo yoyo

        I like Cake!

      • funwithknives

        Make mine triple-chocolate.{That’s double-chocolate topped with Hersheys.}

        OBTW, many times Old news is True news,Sarge. Filled with those old,outmoded appeals to logic called ‘Truths’. Re-occurence is not falsity, though your feeble attempt at denigration labels you faster than wearing !**Rainbow**!, on the 22nd.

        C’mon Sarge show us some’ Progressive Smarts’ for a change! Tell us about it!
        {Pause, while the world takes a deep breath….}

    • rightlane1111

      Ever hear the words…a picture is worth a thousand words. But…forget that…it makes too much sense…and sense it something that self-righteous individuals seem to lack.

      Where is your video? Why don’t you show us how so we can learn from the great academia…you know…the ones that have us $5 trillion in debt now. We need to see how to do this correctly.

      BTW…I think both of the videos made the point quite clearly…or is there something about “you’re electricity will necessarily skyrocket” that you and I can’t understand? Translated: You’re Paying More…Too Bad.

  • pineygirl

    We got a taste of this when a hinge on our new refrigerator door broke. By law it had to be designed as an integral part of the door in order to maintain insulation integrity and energy efficiency. In order to repair the hinge a whole new door had to be ordered (using fossil fuel to transport it and more fuel to get the repairman to our home) and replaced (I wonder where the old door is now?). Total cost? More than $600 – and a new landfill item — for a plastic hinge that probably cost about 39 cents.

    • justperhaps45

      Don’t you understand: If the reason is right (good) then reason need not be engaged!

    • bbee12

      Ridiculous and so typical of a law made by the EPA. I say remove their federal funding.

  • ihateliberals

    No Agency should be able to make rulings without the approval of congress and the will of the people. The EPA for example should be providing information and possible policy statements but not be able to force the ruling on te people. The people should have the last say. Now this would add miles of red tape in taking action but that’s just tough luck. The people are the ones that ultimately pay for these snap decisions of the EPA and other agencies. I’m not sure if this is the answer or not but the way it is working now definitely isn’t working for America.

  • justperhaps45

    I would be pleased if a published scientific peer review and comment period was required for EPS rules. With qualified reviewers whose credentials are public.

    An affirmative recorded congresional vote should be required. No default implimentations.

    Much of our public expense and the thus induced poverty trends come from very unscientific consensus rulings. Consensus is NOT a scientific proof type, it is a political decision term.

  • justperhaps45

    I would be pleased if a published scientific peer review and comment period was required for EPS rules. With qualified reviewers whose credentials are public.

    An affirmative recorded congresional vote should be required. No default implimentations.

    Much of our public expense and the thus induced poverty trends come from very unscientific consensus rulings. Consensus is NOT a scientific proof type, it is a political decision term.

  • fishgod3

    Don`t pee upstream of your campsite.

  • UpLateAgain

    Fox news announced this morning that President Obama is planning to support a UN proposal due to be released this summer, which will require industrialized nations to pay ‘carbon taxes’ to the tune of two trillion dollars annually to be used to build up infrastructure in less industrialized nations.

    The US, of course, will be the major payer in that scheme.

    This is not the first time this sort of thing has come out of the UN. It is an obvious ploy at world-wide wealth redistribution by ‘environmentalists’…. the new face of Communism. The members of the UN are just all too happy to reach into our particular pockets to do what would under other circumstances be simply called robbery. And they’ll have wonderful, self-righteous, justifications for it, that Obama will agree-with and support.

    Congress, of course, doesn’t have to support it, but Obama is getting pretty good at neutralizing Congress through regulation, administrative adventurism, and sneaking programs in as obscure parts of bills (often ‘too big to read so we’ll have to pass it to see what’s in it’ kinds of bills) to get his programs in motion.

    I just don’t see any way we can survive 4 more years of Obama. His defeat in November has fallen into the category of being an existential imperative.

  • celador2

    All across America are similar small businesses who feel the cost crunch and seek cheaper energy. As Todd said, the time is now.

    The war on coal is a war on business and our access to natural resources we can develop through R and D to make them safer and cleaner.

  • celador2

    For all the indignation and self righteousness that Obama and his EPA appointees express to natural resources like coal that outrage stops here.

    Todd Westby may go out of business over fuel costs but Obama cares little about self sufficiency for US.

    The US imports at record levels and the trade deficit grows. It grows because US has no qualms with importing goods made in plants with low eco standards. China has filthy air and is number one polluter. China refused to sigh Copenagen accords 2009 that called for external verification of air quality. So what? Obama was not moved to be outraged, not even miffed.

    I regret there is no DNC- green boycott or some official response to the manufacturers of most US consumed products when made overseas under substandard conditions. The CO2 emissions double standard can kill our productive-distribution capacity in the US.

    US by contrast to China and India has some of the highest air quality on earth and was once a mightly manufacturer. Coal built America and with coal lies our future still.

    .

  • Pingback: Resource