Duke University recently released a study that has almost no use whatsoever. The study indicates that if South Korea would stop using its own coal sources and start importing US coal, it could save America's coal industry. They also guess that, even accounting for the long transit, that it could reduce the so-called "greenhouse gases" by 21 percent.
What they mean by "save" is interesting. Although South Korea does rely heavily on imported gas, oi, and coal, the country is slightly smaller than the Commonwealth of Kentucky. It currently ranks 11th in use of energy, but it utilizes a lot of imported gas and oil.
Do the Duke researchers mean that South Korea alone could preserve all US coal jobs?
Most likely, if US coal fired plants all go off line, the coal will go to the Third World and China. Many backers of EPA regulations against coal fired plants in the US also back construction of unregulated plants in poor countries.
Tim Carney, currently with the Washington Examiner reported that this scheme was at the heart of Enron's demise. When George W. Bush refused to sign on, it helped the company collapse.
In other words, EPA regulations kill relatively clean US coal plants. Environmentalists rejoice. World coal prices dip. New coal plants open in developing countries with no regulations whatsoever. World pollution gets worse thanks to the US EPA.
The Duke study, like many academic products, only posits what will happen if they waved a magic wand. It has no real world use.
Showing posts with label Environmental Protection Agency. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Environmental Protection Agency. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Tuesday, June 3, 2014
Why Is the EPA Out Of Control? Because They Succeeded.
Ever since travel writer Anne Royall regaled early 19th century audiences with tales of environmental destruction in the Kanawha Valley salt works, there has been concern about pollution and destruction. Ronald Lewis' Transforming the Appalachian Countryside chronicles the effect of the later 1800s timber industry on the landscape, eroded mountains, streams devoid of fish, and other disasters. In 1969 came the seminal environmental event, when pollution in Ohio's Cuyahoga River caught fire.
Modern conservatives blame Richard Nixon for the later sins of the Environmental Protection Agency that he created. Nixon, however, knew that systematic abuse of the environment had become standard operating procedure in many industries. This was the problem that the EPA was created to address. The Industrial Revolution brought prosperity, education, higher living standards, and longer lives. It also set a river on fire. Nixon created the EPA to reduce pollutants and enforce new environmental standards to encourage conservation and protect the environment.
And what came of it? The EPA succeeded. According to their own statistics, carbon monoxide levels in the air dropped 83 percent from 1980 levels, from 178 million tons to 51 million. Much of the drop in carbon monoxide emissions came between 2001 and 2009, the years of the George W. Bush presidency. Airborne lead dropped 91 percent. Aggregate emissions of six common pollutants dropped 67 percent.
Percentages and raw numbers dropped even though the US has more people, producing more goods and services, and driving more vehicles than ever.
So the EPA actually succeeded in its most important primary task. It brought reasonable standards into being and provided an enforcement mechanism to ensure that the air and water did not harm us. In any group of people, accidents and even disasters will happen. But they do not have a serious long term impact because industries generally abide by EPA standards.
If the story ended here, we'd call it a government success story. Most people understand, however, that it did not, that the EPA now uses flimsy evidence and bad science to justify destroying industries. Worse, they work at the behest, as Heritage's Stephen Moore describes, of green energy moguls who have a vested interest in its work. So-called green energy cannot replace coal, gas, or oil. It also requires enormous amounts of resources to build and ship which limit their benefit to the environment.
A lot of politics and money have energized the EPA to attack the cleanest coal mining and power production that has ever been seen anywhere in history. But why do they also go after farms? Why, for example, as Delegate Kelli Sobonya said last week, has the EPA gotten so obsessed with limiting "bovine emissions" (that's cow farts to the rest of us.)
Another aspect fuels EPA lunacy. They succeeded and now the agency has little real justification for crusading. Going after bogeymen, real or false, gives bureaucrats a sense of purpose. Secular Saint Georges slaying the mean and nasty pollution dragon, saving the world from global warming, err climate change. This all sounds like much more fun than a scaled down agency administering reasonable regulations that maintain a successful status quo.
The EPA achieved its original goal beyond what was likely expected in 1972. It eventually hit a balance between the needs of a dynamic economy and the needs of a protected environment. Now, to justify itself, it goes out looking for new empires to battle and conquer.
It's human nature to want to matter and have a strong sense of purpose. But this agency level self-fulfillment should not come at the cost of real jobs, real standards of living, and real lives.
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
Calling Out the Mob
Last winter, as biting winds whipped snow around the federal capital, chilling news on energy was released. The moratorium on coal fired power plants, combined with a number of forced closures, would force energy prices to rise 70 to 80 percent. The Obama Administration last week tried to cushion the blow of higher prices with an apocalyptic prediction of climate destruction.
Ignoring Congress, the EPA manufactured a regulatory interpretation that allowed them to force plants to use sequestration technology to capture carbon. This technology does not even exist. Enforcing this rule will start shutting down plants whose output was necessary to maintaining power levels in the Northeast during the record cold winter.
This is, of course, done to prevent global warming.
The Heritage Foundation's Stephen Moore and Joel Griffith researched all of the climate claims used as "proof" of climate catastrophe. Every single weather phenomenon was debunked by the article. Temperatures have neither increased, nor dropped on average in ten years. Tornadoes do not happen with any increasing frequency. Hurricanes have actually happened less often.
Moore and Griffith also examined Jimmy Carter's own apocalyptic climate report, predicting oil shortages and starvation in 2000. None of the fearsome claims made by the scientists of the 1970s ever came to pass.
And they wonder why Americans view politicized science with more skepticism now.
Ignoring Congress, the EPA manufactured a regulatory interpretation that allowed them to force plants to use sequestration technology to capture carbon. This technology does not even exist. Enforcing this rule will start shutting down plants whose output was necessary to maintaining power levels in the Northeast during the record cold winter.
This is, of course, done to prevent global warming.
The Heritage Foundation's Stephen Moore and Joel Griffith researched all of the climate claims used as "proof" of climate catastrophe. Every single weather phenomenon was debunked by the article. Temperatures have neither increased, nor dropped on average in ten years. Tornadoes do not happen with any increasing frequency. Hurricanes have actually happened less often.
Moore and Griffith also examined Jimmy Carter's own apocalyptic climate report, predicting oil shortages and starvation in 2000. None of the fearsome claims made by the scientists of the 1970s ever came to pass.
And they wonder why Americans view politicized science with more skepticism now.
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Cold Winter Forces Soon To Be Closed Coal Fired Plants to Operate At Full Capacity
The State Journal reports that the winter cold forced many plants marked for EPA mandated closure to operate at high, sometimes full capacity. Officials say, however, that the law remains unchanged and that they will still close as scheduled.
Melissa McHenry, speaking for American Electric Power to the State Journal noted that 89 percent of the plants scheduled for closure had to run during the cold weather.
She went on to say that AEP is making investments in generation capacity to try and make up for what will be lost. McHenry also said that Washington regulators would need to help all power companies ensure that they could provide consistent power to customers during peak times.
After all, loss of power during very cold or very hot weather could harm their most vulnerable customers.
Added to the loss of jobs will come the higher cost of electricity. The Washington Examiner reports that an Obama Administration official predicts an 80 percent hike in the average electric bill to pay for EPA mandates. Although rates may eventually plateau, they are never expected to drop to current levels.
Bad news for those on fixed incomes and families already struggling in this economy.
American Electric Power plans to retire power generation plants in Mason and Kanawha County.
Melissa McHenry, speaking for American Electric Power to the State Journal noted that 89 percent of the plants scheduled for closure had to run during the cold weather.
She went on to say that AEP is making investments in generation capacity to try and make up for what will be lost. McHenry also said that Washington regulators would need to help all power companies ensure that they could provide consistent power to customers during peak times.
After all, loss of power during very cold or very hot weather could harm their most vulnerable customers.
Added to the loss of jobs will come the higher cost of electricity. The Washington Examiner reports that an Obama Administration official predicts an 80 percent hike in the average electric bill to pay for EPA mandates. Although rates may eventually plateau, they are never expected to drop to current levels.
Bad news for those on fixed incomes and families already struggling in this economy.
American Electric Power plans to retire power generation plants in Mason and Kanawha County.
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
And Now Some Good Numbers For the Mountain State . . .
Last week, a Mercatus study forecast ominous signs for the West Virginia state government's future finances. It articulated concerns about the state's ability to pay its obligations in the near and long term future. West Virginia, however, sits on a much more secure position than many other states, including some of the nation's largest and most prosperous.
A Washington Examiner study shows that the Mountain State's economically conservative policies of gradual tax reduction and paying down liabilities have benefited. The state sits at 39th in unfunded pensions and total debt. For debt per person, the state ranks higher, at 29th.
This is a ranking where being lower is better.
Credit, in part, goes to Governors Manchin and Tomblin for imposing common sense. Manchin to a great extent and Tomblin to a lesser kept the lid on spending and gradually reduced the taxes that harmed the least able to pay.
They also took advantage of a boom in coal production and revenues that started under Bush, but is now grinding to a halt under the onerous policies of Obama's EPA. Gas production continues to rise, but not fast enough to replace falling tax revenues from coal.
Mercatus concerns center around the state's need to address the problem of prosperity. Manchin and Tomblin rightly deserve credit for helping to keep the state's financial position sound, but they did not take the opportunity to enact enough needed reforms. The state needs to change its business regulation and tax regime so that small business has opportunity to start and a fighting chance to survive. Economic observers praise the state's personal liberty, but blast the lack of economic freedom.
A state that ranks near the bottom for business friendliness and freedom cannot prosper. With the federal government assaulting the state's main industry, the Governor and Legislature need to look at ways to unleash West Virginia's entrepreneurial spirit.
A Washington Examiner study shows that the Mountain State's economically conservative policies of gradual tax reduction and paying down liabilities have benefited. The state sits at 39th in unfunded pensions and total debt. For debt per person, the state ranks higher, at 29th.
This is a ranking where being lower is better.
Credit, in part, goes to Governors Manchin and Tomblin for imposing common sense. Manchin to a great extent and Tomblin to a lesser kept the lid on spending and gradually reduced the taxes that harmed the least able to pay.
They also took advantage of a boom in coal production and revenues that started under Bush, but is now grinding to a halt under the onerous policies of Obama's EPA. Gas production continues to rise, but not fast enough to replace falling tax revenues from coal.
Mercatus concerns center around the state's need to address the problem of prosperity. Manchin and Tomblin rightly deserve credit for helping to keep the state's financial position sound, but they did not take the opportunity to enact enough needed reforms. The state needs to change its business regulation and tax regime so that small business has opportunity to start and a fighting chance to survive. Economic observers praise the state's personal liberty, but blast the lack of economic freedom.
A state that ranks near the bottom for business friendliness and freedom cannot prosper. With the federal government assaulting the state's main industry, the Governor and Legislature need to look at ways to unleash West Virginia's entrepreneurial spirit.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
With Coal and Renewable, "All of the Above" Makes More Sense Than Zero Sum Game
Since 1960, according to the World Bank, the United States has almost tripled its per capita rate of electricity consumption. Although Americans produce goods more efficiently than ever, the nation still needs to expand energy production. Higher production means lower energy prices, which gives the United States a greater advantage in retaining and expanding needed manufacturing jobs.
This makes the zero sum argument advanced by some circles very perplexing. Many pro renewable energy (which includes, wind, solar, hydroelectric, etc.) see expansion of coal, oil, or gas as a defeat for their side. Conversely, any obstacle put in the way of coal, they see as a victory for progress. This may stem from the notion that any figure that supports expanding coal production and jobs must be anti-renewable. This is far from the truth.
West Virginia Republicans have for years embraced the "all of the above" ideal of energy. Support whatever works in a given area. Leading the way has been Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito, current US Senate candidate. One of the nation's strongest defenders of coal and toughest critics of Obama's Environmental Protection Agency, Capito has voted to support temporary renewable energy tax credits as well as research into geothermal, landfill gas harvesting, and other innovative power production ideas.
Within the state, Delegate Gary Howell has backed the Intrastate Coal and Use Act. This would strengthen state laws against EPA regulation of coal facilities that only sell their product within state lines. Howell also, however, has studied the potential of wind energy for 30 years. Wind energy production in certain parts of West Virginia drives development. Said Howell of a wind project in his district, "I want to see growth in my community. I want to see jobs brought into my community."
And it is not just Mountain State Republicans. Before 2012's Iowa caucuses, six Republican presidential candidates autographed a wind turbine in that state, signifying support for innovation.
That being said, all renewable energy sources combined are dwarfed by reliance on coal alone. For the foreseeable future, renewable sources must supplement, not replace, traditional sources of energy production. Any profitable production, however, helps to return the US to the energy production dominance enjoyed until just after World War II.
America needs to emphasize energy. The environment is better off if America burns its coal in plants that, even prior to the new standards, operated more cleanly than almost any nation on Earth. Refining oil drilled in the Dakotas instead of the Middle East enhances US security. Using and exporting natural gas drives down the world prices of that commodity, taking away some of Russia's leverage.
Each part of the US should explore how it can most safely and efficiently develop energy to its advantage. Some parts of West Virginia should keep producing coal. Ridgetops, however, are perfect places to put turbines. The desert southwest should keep building solar farms to take in as much of the sun's bounty as possible. Volcanic activity in the Northwest may be perfect for harvesting geothermal. Even the vast landfills of the Northeast might be able to provide energy producing gasses.
West Virginia Republicans have for years publicly endorsed common sense solutions on national energy policy. Liberals and leftists may try to tar them as a one trick pony, but the record indicates otherwise. Also, cutting back on tried and true sources of cheap energy is counterproductive.
This makes the zero sum argument advanced by some circles very perplexing. Many pro renewable energy (which includes, wind, solar, hydroelectric, etc.) see expansion of coal, oil, or gas as a defeat for their side. Conversely, any obstacle put in the way of coal, they see as a victory for progress. This may stem from the notion that any figure that supports expanding coal production and jobs must be anti-renewable. This is far from the truth.
West Virginia Republicans have for years embraced the "all of the above" ideal of energy. Support whatever works in a given area. Leading the way has been Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito, current US Senate candidate. One of the nation's strongest defenders of coal and toughest critics of Obama's Environmental Protection Agency, Capito has voted to support temporary renewable energy tax credits as well as research into geothermal, landfill gas harvesting, and other innovative power production ideas.
Within the state, Delegate Gary Howell has backed the Intrastate Coal and Use Act. This would strengthen state laws against EPA regulation of coal facilities that only sell their product within state lines. Howell also, however, has studied the potential of wind energy for 30 years. Wind energy production in certain parts of West Virginia drives development. Said Howell of a wind project in his district, "I want to see growth in my community. I want to see jobs brought into my community."
And it is not just Mountain State Republicans. Before 2012's Iowa caucuses, six Republican presidential candidates autographed a wind turbine in that state, signifying support for innovation.
That being said, all renewable energy sources combined are dwarfed by reliance on coal alone. For the foreseeable future, renewable sources must supplement, not replace, traditional sources of energy production. Any profitable production, however, helps to return the US to the energy production dominance enjoyed until just after World War II.
America needs to emphasize energy. The environment is better off if America burns its coal in plants that, even prior to the new standards, operated more cleanly than almost any nation on Earth. Refining oil drilled in the Dakotas instead of the Middle East enhances US security. Using and exporting natural gas drives down the world prices of that commodity, taking away some of Russia's leverage.
Each part of the US should explore how it can most safely and efficiently develop energy to its advantage. Some parts of West Virginia should keep producing coal. Ridgetops, however, are perfect places to put turbines. The desert southwest should keep building solar farms to take in as much of the sun's bounty as possible. Volcanic activity in the Northwest may be perfect for harvesting geothermal. Even the vast landfills of the Northeast might be able to provide energy producing gasses.
West Virginia Republicans have for years publicly endorsed common sense solutions on national energy policy. Liberals and leftists may try to tar them as a one trick pony, but the record indicates otherwise. Also, cutting back on tried and true sources of cheap energy is counterproductive.
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
The EPA's War On Common Sense
I rarely post something in the first person, but sometimes it's needed.
A couple of days ago, I was warming up my wife's car. I didn't check the gas when I started the car and it ran out. I figured, no problem, I'll just go get a gas can, get a gallon of gas, then put it in, right?
I go to the store and buy a gas can. They are a lot more expensive than they used to be, but I chalked it up to inflation. Then I get to the gas station and open it up. It looks like some kind of system that belongs on the space shuttle, I mean, that used to belong on the space shuttle when we used such things. I put the gallon in anyway.
When I got home, I tried using the can. The nozzle system was more complicated than I ever dreamed and all I accomplished was spilling about a pint of gasoline onto the ground.
At this point, I figured out that this must be the EPA's fault. The private sector is best known for selling products that are easy to use and get easier over time. The gas can used to be simple, a nozzle and a vent in the back. It operated on the same principle as canned juice. Open both ends for a smooth and easy pour.
Now it works on impossible to discern engineering principles. As sure as I had just ruined my leather gloves by accidentally spilling gasoline all over the place, I smelled an EPA rat here.
Sure enough, I was right. Long story short, the EPA forced mind numbing, California originating, standards on gas cans to do what? Prevent spillage. Apparently, all over the country, people are spilling gas from these stupid things. I spilled more gas with the new can than in 40 years of life combined.
They also have a tendency to inflate in hot weather and rupture, spewing gas everywhere. Why? They are airtight.
And I still couldn't get gas in my car. But my daughter came to the rescue. She and her friends had run out of gas months before. They also couldn't work the gas can, so they came up with a good solution.
Cut the bottom off of a water bottle and get a coat hanger. Use the upside down bottle as a funnel while the coat hanger opens the tank. Take the entire nozzle apparatus off the can and pour the gas out directly. No muss, no fuss. And try to find a safe place to dispose of the bottle and hanger.
Or, figure out where racing teams buy their gas cans. They still use the old style.
Thanks EPA. One more thing that you have done to make everyone's life a little more frustrating. Now I will have to remember you more often than when my low flow toilet backs up.
A couple of days ago, I was warming up my wife's car. I didn't check the gas when I started the car and it ran out. I figured, no problem, I'll just go get a gas can, get a gallon of gas, then put it in, right?
I go to the store and buy a gas can. They are a lot more expensive than they used to be, but I chalked it up to inflation. Then I get to the gas station and open it up. It looks like some kind of system that belongs on the space shuttle, I mean, that used to belong on the space shuttle when we used such things. I put the gallon in anyway.
When I got home, I tried using the can. The nozzle system was more complicated than I ever dreamed and all I accomplished was spilling about a pint of gasoline onto the ground.
At this point, I figured out that this must be the EPA's fault. The private sector is best known for selling products that are easy to use and get easier over time. The gas can used to be simple, a nozzle and a vent in the back. It operated on the same principle as canned juice. Open both ends for a smooth and easy pour.
Now it works on impossible to discern engineering principles. As sure as I had just ruined my leather gloves by accidentally spilling gasoline all over the place, I smelled an EPA rat here.
Sure enough, I was right. Long story short, the EPA forced mind numbing, California originating, standards on gas cans to do what? Prevent spillage. Apparently, all over the country, people are spilling gas from these stupid things. I spilled more gas with the new can than in 40 years of life combined.
They also have a tendency to inflate in hot weather and rupture, spewing gas everywhere. Why? They are airtight.
And I still couldn't get gas in my car. But my daughter came to the rescue. She and her friends had run out of gas months before. They also couldn't work the gas can, so they came up with a good solution.
Cut the bottom off of a water bottle and get a coat hanger. Use the upside down bottle as a funnel while the coat hanger opens the tank. Take the entire nozzle apparatus off the can and pour the gas out directly. No muss, no fuss. And try to find a safe place to dispose of the bottle and hanger.
Or, figure out where racing teams buy their gas cans. They still use the old style.
Thanks EPA. One more thing that you have done to make everyone's life a little more frustrating. Now I will have to remember you more often than when my low flow toilet backs up.
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Is the EPA Afraid of West Virginia?
List of cities where the EPA will hold hearings on carbon dioxide emissions, including from coal power plants.
Notice that none are in West Virginia or any other major coal producing state.
Outrageous.
Cecil Roberts needs to join with the West Virginia Republican Party and demand a hearing in West Virginia.
Notice that none are in West Virginia or any other major coal producing state.
Outrageous.
Cecil Roberts needs to join with the West Virginia Republican Party and demand a hearing in West Virginia.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Has the Federal Government Inadvertently Set a States' Rights Precedent? Delegates Sobonya and Cowles Think So
Since 1819, McCullough v. Maryland has served as the law of the land. At that time, state governments exercised more power and held more credibility than the still infant federal government. Chief Justice John Marshall and the Supreme Court sought to bolster the federal government's position to prevent disruption from jealous states.
Marshall wrote the opinion broadly enough so that it legally prevented any state from officially acting in contradiction to any federal policy or agency. State police cannot even legally pull over a federal vehicle that is speeding.
Obviously this decision came in the context of its times. The federal government was very small and claimed few powers. Some of the states had existed for almost or over 200 years as political units.
Delegates Kelli Sobonya (R) Cabell, and Darryl Cowles (R) Morgan, think they may see a breach in the iron wall of McCullough.
In a recent Legislative committee meeting on medical marijuana covered by the Charleston Daily Mail , Sobonya queried about the inconsistent enforcement of marijuana laws by the federal government.
If Sobonya and Cowles are right, then the Obama Administration may have opened the door to states ignoring laws that they find onerous to their citizens. EPA regulations and Obamacare were cited by the delegates as examples.
Delegate Gary Howell (R) Mineral later noted "civil society depends on rule of law. You can't just have the president and his political aides pick and choose what to enforce. Then we have a government of men, not of laws, which John Adams saw as a prime threat to liberty." He also SAID that the inconsistent enforcement could set a precedent where states can legally defend their own interests.
It should be noted that no court or statute has ever refuted the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions penned by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. If the federal government violates the Constitution, according to Madison in the Virginia Resolution, "necessary and proper measures" must be taken to protect the people's rights. Madison never specified what those ought to be. At the very least, it would seem that Virginia, Kentucky, and West Virginia can refer to these works as grounds of legal argument.
Post Script: Full disclosure. I support legalization of medical marijuana. Frankly those who support it should take more issue with the Obama Administration's non enforcement than with either enforcing or getting rid of the law. By not enforcing the law, Obama is allowing businesses to grow. Those businesses will always be subject to legal extortion by the federal government because the law can always be held over them as a Sword of Damocles.
Marshall wrote the opinion broadly enough so that it legally prevented any state from officially acting in contradiction to any federal policy or agency. State police cannot even legally pull over a federal vehicle that is speeding.
Obviously this decision came in the context of its times. The federal government was very small and claimed few powers. Some of the states had existed for almost or over 200 years as political units.
Delegates Kelli Sobonya (R) Cabell, and Darryl Cowles (R) Morgan, think they may see a breach in the iron wall of McCullough.
In a recent Legislative committee meeting on medical marijuana covered by the Charleston Daily Mail , Sobonya queried about the inconsistent enforcement of marijuana laws by the federal government.
If Sobonya and Cowles are right, then the Obama Administration may have opened the door to states ignoring laws that they find onerous to their citizens. EPA regulations and Obamacare were cited by the delegates as examples.
Delegate Gary Howell (R) Mineral later noted "civil society depends on rule of law. You can't just have the president and his political aides pick and choose what to enforce. Then we have a government of men, not of laws, which John Adams saw as a prime threat to liberty." He also SAID that the inconsistent enforcement could set a precedent where states can legally defend their own interests.
It should be noted that no court or statute has ever refuted the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions penned by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. If the federal government violates the Constitution, according to Madison in the Virginia Resolution, "necessary and proper measures" must be taken to protect the people's rights. Madison never specified what those ought to be. At the very least, it would seem that Virginia, Kentucky, and West Virginia can refer to these works as grounds of legal argument.
Post Script: Full disclosure. I support legalization of medical marijuana. Frankly those who support it should take more issue with the Obama Administration's non enforcement than with either enforcing or getting rid of the law. By not enforcing the law, Obama is allowing businesses to grow. Those businesses will always be subject to legal extortion by the federal government because the law can always be held over them as a Sword of Damocles.
Thursday, September 12, 2013
EPA SWAT Style Raid on Mines Raises Questions About Militarization of Police
Federal agents wearing menacing black uniforms, body armor and carrying automatic weapons went into action recently. Using commando style tactics, they forced their way onto private property to detain individuals and locate evidence of wrongdoing.
Did agents break up a clique of terrorists? Did they find the hideout of a dangerous gang?
No. They were enforcing the Clean Water Act on an Alaska gold mine. And now United States Senators are demanding answers.
A Daily Caller investigation shows that the EPA did more than simply over equip its agents on a routine investigation. It also lied when asked why it adopted such extreme measures.
The EPA claimed that it told Alaska State Police that the targets were involved with drugs and human trafficking (mind you, in Chicken, Alaska.) State Police spokesmen strongly dispute the EPA claims.
John Stossel in Reason points out that SWAT raids have increased from 300 per year to over a hundred per day. He describes how SWAT teams even descended upon organic farms to end the dire social threat of unpasteurized milk.
Politicians accepted the idea that the war on drugs might mean reduced private property rights. It ended up in every police department wanting military style equipment. This resulted in police "terrorizing innocent people, raiding the wrong house and causing violence."
The vast majority of SWAT raids descend upon people suspected of drug possession or trafficking, even if the individual has no history of violence. Other agencies fear the threat from . . . libertarians. Concord, New Hampshire police justified the purchase of an armored vehicle to stave off "daily challenges" posed by libertarians.
In 1878, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act. After the Civil War, the Army had been called upon in certain situations to act as law enforcement. Lawmakers recognized that the mission of the Army, to seek out and destroy foreign enemies, did not make it a viable police force. Congress forbade the military forces of the United States from doing routine law enforcement.
As a result, police forces emerged in most state and local jurisdictions by the end of World War I. Sheriff's departments dated back to medieval England, but most states did not create their own police forces until around a century ago. Cities had done so earlier, around the end of the 19th century. Interestingly, the colors of police uniforms reflect when they were created. As the US military went from dark blue to khaki in the 1890s, city police used surplus uniforms. State trooper dress still resembles that of World War I era soldiers.
They, however, retained the distinction between police technique and military tactics.
In the past generation, police have increasingly adopted military style weapons and tactics. In selected situations, this is reasonable. Violent street gangs' illicit acquisition of automatic weapons meant that police have to keep up to keep from being outgunned. Fair enough.
But police forces need stricter guidelines to govern when they may go into full commando mode. Raiding a lair of the dangerous MS-13 gang, yes. Raiding an organic farm selling raw milk (and perhaps a little weed), no.
The Department of Education even has a SWAT team to attack those accused of ducking student loans!
Police serve and protect. The military defends the nation and destroys its enemies. All too often in recent years, law enforcement at all levels has chosen to terrify the public rather than to serve it. Not every situation can be handled in the Sheriff Andy Taylor manner, without use of weapons and trusting in the goodness of the public, but a boundaries must be drawn.
And federal agencies without law enforcement missions must be stripped of enforcement agents.
The spirit of the Posse Comitatus Act relies on the idea of separation between the military and law enforcement. Police should not be routinely equipped and trained as if they patrol the streets of an Afghan village. Current practice does not violate the letter of this important act, but it certainly contradicts the spirit.
The militarization of police at all levels is one of the most serious threats to liberty.
Did agents break up a clique of terrorists? Did they find the hideout of a dangerous gang?
No. They were enforcing the Clean Water Act on an Alaska gold mine. And now United States Senators are demanding answers.
A Daily Caller investigation shows that the EPA did more than simply over equip its agents on a routine investigation. It also lied when asked why it adopted such extreme measures.
The EPA claimed that it told Alaska State Police that the targets were involved with drugs and human trafficking (mind you, in Chicken, Alaska.) State Police spokesmen strongly dispute the EPA claims.
John Stossel in Reason points out that SWAT raids have increased from 300 per year to over a hundred per day. He describes how SWAT teams even descended upon organic farms to end the dire social threat of unpasteurized milk.
Politicians accepted the idea that the war on drugs might mean reduced private property rights. It ended up in every police department wanting military style equipment. This resulted in police "terrorizing innocent people, raiding the wrong house and causing violence."
The vast majority of SWAT raids descend upon people suspected of drug possession or trafficking, even if the individual has no history of violence. Other agencies fear the threat from . . . libertarians. Concord, New Hampshire police justified the purchase of an armored vehicle to stave off "daily challenges" posed by libertarians.
In 1878, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act. After the Civil War, the Army had been called upon in certain situations to act as law enforcement. Lawmakers recognized that the mission of the Army, to seek out and destroy foreign enemies, did not make it a viable police force. Congress forbade the military forces of the United States from doing routine law enforcement.
As a result, police forces emerged in most state and local jurisdictions by the end of World War I. Sheriff's departments dated back to medieval England, but most states did not create their own police forces until around a century ago. Cities had done so earlier, around the end of the 19th century. Interestingly, the colors of police uniforms reflect when they were created. As the US military went from dark blue to khaki in the 1890s, city police used surplus uniforms. State trooper dress still resembles that of World War I era soldiers.
They, however, retained the distinction between police technique and military tactics.
In the past generation, police have increasingly adopted military style weapons and tactics. In selected situations, this is reasonable. Violent street gangs' illicit acquisition of automatic weapons meant that police have to keep up to keep from being outgunned. Fair enough.
But police forces need stricter guidelines to govern when they may go into full commando mode. Raiding a lair of the dangerous MS-13 gang, yes. Raiding an organic farm selling raw milk (and perhaps a little weed), no.
The Department of Education even has a SWAT team to attack those accused of ducking student loans!
Police serve and protect. The military defends the nation and destroys its enemies. All too often in recent years, law enforcement at all levels has chosen to terrify the public rather than to serve it. Not every situation can be handled in the Sheriff Andy Taylor manner, without use of weapons and trusting in the goodness of the public, but a boundaries must be drawn.
And federal agencies without law enforcement missions must be stripped of enforcement agents.
The spirit of the Posse Comitatus Act relies on the idea of separation between the military and law enforcement. Police should not be routinely equipped and trained as if they patrol the streets of an Afghan village. Current practice does not violate the letter of this important act, but it certainly contradicts the spirit.
The militarization of police at all levels is one of the most serious threats to liberty.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
What Is the EPA Hiding and Why?
Secrecy is essential at some levels of government. The CIA, NSA, Department of Defense, and other agencies must hide at least some of what they do to effectively promote national security. The FBI cannot release information about ongoing criminal investigations.
But why does the Environmental Protection Agency have or need a culture of "secrecy and evasion?"
The Daily Caller examined a blistering report by Senate Republicans that relates several shady practices. It refused to answer some Freedom of Information Act requests. When it did, it redacted the necessary information. EPA officials also used secret email accounts to communicate on policy. These would be more difficult for journalists and other investigators to uncover.
Courts have slapped down EPA overreach before. An Obama appointee ruled that the EPA acted improperly when it revoked a Logan County coal operator's permit. Although an appeals court reversed the ruling, the Supreme Court may likely rule in favor of the operator. The EPA is currently battling a Hardy County farmer because, among other things, it claims that her farm produces too much dust. It also criticized a judge's ruling to allow the Farm Bureau to join the suit. Of course without the resources of the Farm Bureau, the farmer might not be able to continue to pay lawyers to keep the fight going.
Even mine workers' union leader Cecil Roberts used colorful language to describe the EPA's intent to kill the coal industry.
The EPA uses intimidation by lawsuit, secretive tactics, and other methods to attack property rights, family farms, and profitable businesses. This brings negligible benefit to the environment, but expands the control of Washington bureaucrats over lives and jobs.
Time to bring transparency to bureaucracy. The EPA does not just wage war on coal or family farms, but against the rights of individuals to responsibly make decisions about their property and states to enforce reasonable regulations.
Friday, August 9, 2013
Another Take on Obama's EPA Attacks on Coal and Power Plants
Obama's attacks on power plants and coal mining threaten to take us back to the bad old days, as described by many state historians.
Many historians, chief among them John Alexander Williams of Appalachian State bashed the early industrial development of the state. Most who have ever taken West Virginia history have been taught that companies extracted wealth, shipped it out, and the state never got any benefit.
First off, that assertion is wrong. Historians and others blame the lack of sufficient taxation. But how much could the state have raised taxes before eliminating the competitive advantage enjoyed in attracting the companies in the first place? Benefit comes through the attraction of supporting and satellite industries that expand the ripple effect of wealth extraction.
Coal, timber, and oil companies did bring added economic value to extraction. They employed workers and professionals. Some satellite industries, such as paper mills, grew up in the area. Some railroads were built to support the transport of materials in and out. Could the state's community of capital and political leaders have done a better job in enticing other industries to come in? Certainly. But to say there was no benefit is wrong.
There are at least three stages to development of wealth in extractive industries like coal. First comes the work to get the coal from the ground. Second comes the processing of the material into something useful. A hundred years ago, coke, iron, and steel production used tremendous amounts of coal. Now, much of the coal produces electric power for this part of the nation.
The third part comes in dissemination of the final products.
Unlike our forefathers, the state has succeeded in getting companies interested in taking West Virginia coal and turning it into a useful product within the borders of the state. That would be crucial electric power. Huge facilities such as at Mount Storm and John Amos employ hundreds of state residents in good paying jobs. This is the best way to make sure that the wealth derived from coal stays in the state. Make sure that as much of the production process as is possible remains in West Virginia.
Add to that the fact that cheaper power helps to produce advantages that state officials can use when trying to woo new companies to the state.
But Obama and his EPA have looked at every way possible to shut these plants down, which will have the result of removing wealth and productivity from the state. Whatever coal gets mined will be shipped away with minimal added value to the state and the people.
Exactly what state historians bemoaned about the early industrial period.
Hopefully. West Virginia Democrats made it clear in their EPA meetings that they will not stand for Obama kicking the legs from underneath our chair, economically speaking.
Many historians, chief among them John Alexander Williams of Appalachian State bashed the early industrial development of the state. Most who have ever taken West Virginia history have been taught that companies extracted wealth, shipped it out, and the state never got any benefit.
First off, that assertion is wrong. Historians and others blame the lack of sufficient taxation. But how much could the state have raised taxes before eliminating the competitive advantage enjoyed in attracting the companies in the first place? Benefit comes through the attraction of supporting and satellite industries that expand the ripple effect of wealth extraction.
Coal, timber, and oil companies did bring added economic value to extraction. They employed workers and professionals. Some satellite industries, such as paper mills, grew up in the area. Some railroads were built to support the transport of materials in and out. Could the state's community of capital and political leaders have done a better job in enticing other industries to come in? Certainly. But to say there was no benefit is wrong.
There are at least three stages to development of wealth in extractive industries like coal. First comes the work to get the coal from the ground. Second comes the processing of the material into something useful. A hundred years ago, coke, iron, and steel production used tremendous amounts of coal. Now, much of the coal produces electric power for this part of the nation.
The third part comes in dissemination of the final products.
Unlike our forefathers, the state has succeeded in getting companies interested in taking West Virginia coal and turning it into a useful product within the borders of the state. That would be crucial electric power. Huge facilities such as at Mount Storm and John Amos employ hundreds of state residents in good paying jobs. This is the best way to make sure that the wealth derived from coal stays in the state. Make sure that as much of the production process as is possible remains in West Virginia.
Add to that the fact that cheaper power helps to produce advantages that state officials can use when trying to woo new companies to the state.
But Obama and his EPA have looked at every way possible to shut these plants down, which will have the result of removing wealth and productivity from the state. Whatever coal gets mined will be shipped away with minimal added value to the state and the people.
Exactly what state historians bemoaned about the early industrial period.
Hopefully. West Virginia Democrats made it clear in their EPA meetings that they will not stand for Obama kicking the legs from underneath our chair, economically speaking.
Monday, July 29, 2013
Is the EPA's War on Coal Distracting It From Real Public Safety Threats?
The Environmental Protection Agency has pushed hard against West Virginia coal companies and farmers. It has pushed miners out of work over the questionable and controversial "climate change" agenda. Power plants are slated to shut down in many areas due to draconian new regulations. At the same time, EPA bureaucrats have, with mixed success, launched regulatory broadsides against family farms. But in their zeal to promote certain agendas, have they neglected proven threats to the environment and public safety?
Most people do not consider what happens when they discard electronics. E-waste, as it is often called, contains deadly materials such as mercury and cadmium that can leach into the water supply. Because disposal can be difficult, 70 percent of the world's electronic trash has ended up in China. There, many make a dangerous living washing off old parts in hydrochloric acid, and working directly with mercury coated components.
Press coverage has forced the United Nations and others to watch the illegal traffic more closely, meaning that growing piles of material remain in the United States for legal disposal. A major snag, however, lies in the fact that the EPA has not established guidelines for disposal.
A Washington Guardian report shows that in 2009, the US handled 1.77 million tons of material. It was incinerated, or otherwise disposed of. The EPA's inspector general, however, claimed that "EPA does not have adequate information to ensure effective E-waste management and enforcement to protect public health and conserve valuable resources."
Furthermore, the EPA has very little data on how waste is stored, or what is done with it. Even the cathode ray tube guidelines implemented under the Bush Administration have not been enforced well, due to declining budgets.
The EPA does its best work when it responds capably to proven threats to public safety. Therein, it justifies its existence and budget. Unfortunately, it appears that its zeal to adhere to the unproven theory of climate change may be putting public health at risk.
Most people do not consider what happens when they discard electronics. E-waste, as it is often called, contains deadly materials such as mercury and cadmium that can leach into the water supply. Because disposal can be difficult, 70 percent of the world's electronic trash has ended up in China. There, many make a dangerous living washing off old parts in hydrochloric acid, and working directly with mercury coated components.
Press coverage has forced the United Nations and others to watch the illegal traffic more closely, meaning that growing piles of material remain in the United States for legal disposal. A major snag, however, lies in the fact that the EPA has not established guidelines for disposal.
A Washington Guardian report shows that in 2009, the US handled 1.77 million tons of material. It was incinerated, or otherwise disposed of. The EPA's inspector general, however, claimed that "EPA does not have adequate information to ensure effective E-waste management and enforcement to protect public health and conserve valuable resources."
Furthermore, the EPA has very little data on how waste is stored, or what is done with it. Even the cathode ray tube guidelines implemented under the Bush Administration have not been enforced well, due to declining budgets.
The EPA does its best work when it responds capably to proven threats to public safety. Therein, it justifies its existence and budget. Unfortunately, it appears that its zeal to adhere to the unproven theory of climate change may be putting public health at risk.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Hydrofracturing and the Environmental Protection Agency
Don't get too excited because you never know what might happen.
A week ago, Lisa Jackson, Obama's field marshal in the War on Coal, delivered a stunning message that should make every jaw drop in the continuing struggle over Marcellus Shale drilling and hydrofracturing.
“I think that fracking as a technology is perfectly capable of being clean. I do."
Now you do have to read between the lines; "perfectly capable" leaves Jackson a lot of wiggle room if the Left rears its ugly head and pressures her fearless leader. It does, however, throw a bone towards Pennsylvania, who now relies heavily on revenues from shale gas.
However, it is an encouraging sign that the EPA will not attack gas in the same fashion as coal or oil. At least until they get taken to the woodshed by environmentalists.
A week ago, Lisa Jackson, Obama's field marshal in the War on Coal, delivered a stunning message that should make every jaw drop in the continuing struggle over Marcellus Shale drilling and hydrofracturing.
“I think that fracking as a technology is perfectly capable of being clean. I do."
Now you do have to read between the lines; "perfectly capable" leaves Jackson a lot of wiggle room if the Left rears its ugly head and pressures her fearless leader. It does, however, throw a bone towards Pennsylvania, who now relies heavily on revenues from shale gas.
However, it is an encouraging sign that the EPA will not attack gas in the same fashion as coal or oil. At least until they get taken to the woodshed by environmentalists.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Could Start a Run of Bad Luck For the EPA
http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/25/supreme-court-poised-to-end-homeowners-nightmare-story-of-alleged-epa-abuse/
The above story discusses how the Environmental Protection Agency faced tough questions from the U.S. Supreme Court over their mistreatment of homeowners seeking to fill a mud puddle on their property. It could lead to stricter boundaries on the EPA's purview while opening up the agency to a flood of litigation. Currently, the agency maintains that they cannot be sued and may only answer in a court of law if they choose to file suit. With this challenge to the authority of the courts, it is probably not surprising that eight of the nine justices had tough questions for the EPA's lawyers.
Coal and timber operators should take note. The rule of Queen Jackson of the EPA may be threatened
**************************************************
Love the headline on Don Surber's Daily Mail blog
"West Virginia Gives Tax Break to Crackers"
Being a long time reader of Mr. Surber's, I would not doubt that his sense of humor is behind letting this one slip out. After all, it should garner a lot of attention and hits across the country from the 99.9999995% of people who do not know that a cracker is a natural gas processing facility.
The above story discusses how the Environmental Protection Agency faced tough questions from the U.S. Supreme Court over their mistreatment of homeowners seeking to fill a mud puddle on their property. It could lead to stricter boundaries on the EPA's purview while opening up the agency to a flood of litigation. Currently, the agency maintains that they cannot be sued and may only answer in a court of law if they choose to file suit. With this challenge to the authority of the courts, it is probably not surprising that eight of the nine justices had tough questions for the EPA's lawyers.
Coal and timber operators should take note. The rule of Queen Jackson of the EPA may be threatened
**************************************************
Love the headline on Don Surber's Daily Mail blog
"West Virginia Gives Tax Break to Crackers"
Being a long time reader of Mr. Surber's, I would not doubt that his sense of humor is behind letting this one slip out. After all, it should garner a lot of attention and hits across the country from the 99.9999995% of people who do not know that a cracker is a natural gas processing facility.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Shelley Moore Capito Once Again Fights For Coal and Manufacturing Against the Bureaucrats
Search
Keyword:
Entire Site
This Section
*
Contact Us graphic
Contact Shelly
*
Email Updates
Email Updates
Print
Capito Demands Answers From EPA
6/14/11
Today, Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., wrote a strongly-worded letter to the United States Environmental Protection Agency demanding the agency show proof that jobs were considered when issuing new regulations for coal-fueled power plants over the past year.
Capito’s letter comes on the heels of frustrating news that American Electric Power will shut down five plants in West Virginia and Ohio, resulting in job cuts and higher utility costs across the board.
“The way I see it, either the EPA did not run proper analysis or the administration knew the rules concerning coal-fueled plants would cost jobs and increase utility costs and still went ahead anyway. Either way, this is unacceptable,” stated Capito.
Despite sluggish economic growth, an unsustainably high unemployment rate, and a market so plagued with uncertainty that businesses cannot even fathom hiring or expanding, the administration has insisted on continuing its assault on the energy industry which employs millions of hard-working Americans.
“Whether its providing cheap gas so companies don’t have to pass their costs onto consumers, or keeping home utility prices low so Americans can spend money on other things, or employing millions of workers to exploit resources found right here in America, the energy industry quite literally powers the American economy,” stated Capito. “Especially in West Virginia, the energy industry provides an important source of tax revenue for local and state governments and our manufacturing and service industries benefit from low cost electricity, making them more competitive.”
Specifically, Capito requests “copies of all internal memoranda, communication, analysis, and documents regarding the EPA’s consideration of the impact on economic activity and employment (cumulative and non-cumulative) related to these rules and regulations.”
ATTACHED:Capito letter to United States Environmental Protection Agency
BACKGROUND
Last month, Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., introduced H.R. 1872, the “Employment Protection Act,” which would require the Environmental Protection Agency to take into account jobs and economic activity prior to issuing a regulation, policy statement, guidance, implementing any new or substantially altered program, or issuing or denying any permit—essentially any action taken by the EPA.
Capito Letter to EPA ( 06/14/11 10:49 AM PST )
Keyword:
Entire Site
This Section
*
Contact Us graphic
Contact Shelly
*
Email Updates
Email Updates
Capito Demands Answers From EPA
6/14/11
Today, Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., wrote a strongly-worded letter to the United States Environmental Protection Agency demanding the agency show proof that jobs were considered when issuing new regulations for coal-fueled power plants over the past year.
Capito’s letter comes on the heels of frustrating news that American Electric Power will shut down five plants in West Virginia and Ohio, resulting in job cuts and higher utility costs across the board.
“The way I see it, either the EPA did not run proper analysis or the administration knew the rules concerning coal-fueled plants would cost jobs and increase utility costs and still went ahead anyway. Either way, this is unacceptable,” stated Capito.
Despite sluggish economic growth, an unsustainably high unemployment rate, and a market so plagued with uncertainty that businesses cannot even fathom hiring or expanding, the administration has insisted on continuing its assault on the energy industry which employs millions of hard-working Americans.
“Whether its providing cheap gas so companies don’t have to pass their costs onto consumers, or keeping home utility prices low so Americans can spend money on other things, or employing millions of workers to exploit resources found right here in America, the energy industry quite literally powers the American economy,” stated Capito. “Especially in West Virginia, the energy industry provides an important source of tax revenue for local and state governments and our manufacturing and service industries benefit from low cost electricity, making them more competitive.”
Specifically, Capito requests “copies of all internal memoranda, communication, analysis, and documents regarding the EPA’s consideration of the impact on economic activity and employment (cumulative and non-cumulative) related to these rules and regulations.”
ATTACHED:Capito letter to United States Environmental Protection Agency
BACKGROUND
Last month, Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., introduced H.R. 1872, the “Employment Protection Act,” which would require the Environmental Protection Agency to take into account jobs and economic activity prior to issuing a regulation, policy statement, guidance, implementing any new or substantially altered program, or issuing or denying any permit—essentially any action taken by the EPA.
Capito Letter to EPA ( 06/14/11 10:49 AM PST )
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Congressman McKinley Introduces Bill to Limit EPA Attacks On Coal
For Immediate Release:January 26, 2011Contact: Katie Martin, 202.525.0589 Katie.Martin@mail.house.gov
McKINLEY INTRODUCES LEGISLATION TO STOP EPA FROM VETOING EXISTING PERMITSBi-partisan bill co-sponsored by West Virginia’s Capito & Rahall, other coal-country repsPresses administration official on outrageous EPA power-grab at subcommittee hearing
Washington, D.C. – Rep. David B. McKinley, P.E. (R-WV) filed legislation (H.R. 457) Wednesday that would remove the EPA’s authority to retroactively veto an existing Section 404(c) Clean Water Act permit. The bill amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) to explicitly prevent the EPA from revoking a permit under the Act after one has been issued by the Secretary of the Army.
McKinley’s first piece of legislation is co-sponsored by Reps. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Nick Rahall (D-WV), Bill Johnson (R-OH) and Bob Gibbs (R-OH), and would be retroactive to January 1, 2011 – thereby reinstating the Spruce Mine No. 1 permit in southern West Virginia revoked two weeks ago by the EPA. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) has announced plans to file a similar piece of legislation soon.
“For years, the EPA has been bullying coal companies and the workers they employ,” said McKinley. “But this isn’t just about the Spruce Mine. If their new policy of retroactive revocation is allowed to stand, dozens of heavily-regulated industries and hundreds of thousands of American jobs hang in the balance. Businesses will not invest in new projects and create new jobs if they know that regulatory agencies can ignore existing permits and arbitrarily pull the rug right out from under them. This has to stop.”
Also Wednesday, McKinley pressed the chief White House regulatory official on the EPA’s decision on Spruce Mine. At the request of Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, McKinley asked chief White House regulatory official Cass Sunstein a series of questions at a hearing of the subcommittee. Under the congressman’s questioning, Sunstein acknowledged that the U.S. Supreme Court has generally frowned upon retroactive regulatory action and promised to follow up with more information on the EPA’s actions and the propriety thereof.
Earlier this week, McKinley sent a letter to Stearnsrequesting that the Oversight and Investigations subcommittee call the EPA in front of the panel to directly answer questions about the chilling effect its decision would have on the American economy.
McKinley concluded, “We have a long way to go in this fight. This is just the first step. But the Obama administration and the EPA are now on notice that we will not sit idly by while their arrogance kills West Virginia jobs and threatens thousands more across the country.”
###
McKINLEY INTRODUCES LEGISLATION TO STOP EPA FROM VETOING EXISTING PERMITSBi-partisan bill co-sponsored by West Virginia’s Capito & Rahall, other coal-country repsPresses administration official on outrageous EPA power-grab at subcommittee hearing
Washington, D.C. – Rep. David B. McKinley, P.E. (R-WV) filed legislation (H.R. 457) Wednesday that would remove the EPA’s authority to retroactively veto an existing Section 404(c) Clean Water Act permit. The bill amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) to explicitly prevent the EPA from revoking a permit under the Act after one has been issued by the Secretary of the Army.
McKinley’s first piece of legislation is co-sponsored by Reps. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Nick Rahall (D-WV), Bill Johnson (R-OH) and Bob Gibbs (R-OH), and would be retroactive to January 1, 2011 – thereby reinstating the Spruce Mine No. 1 permit in southern West Virginia revoked two weeks ago by the EPA. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) has announced plans to file a similar piece of legislation soon.
“For years, the EPA has been bullying coal companies and the workers they employ,” said McKinley. “But this isn’t just about the Spruce Mine. If their new policy of retroactive revocation is allowed to stand, dozens of heavily-regulated industries and hundreds of thousands of American jobs hang in the balance. Businesses will not invest in new projects and create new jobs if they know that regulatory agencies can ignore existing permits and arbitrarily pull the rug right out from under them. This has to stop.”
Also Wednesday, McKinley pressed the chief White House regulatory official on the EPA’s decision on Spruce Mine. At the request of Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, McKinley asked chief White House regulatory official Cass Sunstein a series of questions at a hearing of the subcommittee. Under the congressman’s questioning, Sunstein acknowledged that the U.S. Supreme Court has generally frowned upon retroactive regulatory action and promised to follow up with more information on the EPA’s actions and the propriety thereof.
Earlier this week, McKinley sent a letter to Stearnsrequesting that the Oversight and Investigations subcommittee call the EPA in front of the panel to directly answer questions about the chilling effect its decision would have on the American economy.
McKinley concluded, “We have a long way to go in this fight. This is just the first step. But the Obama administration and the EPA are now on notice that we will not sit idly by while their arrogance kills West Virginia jobs and threatens thousands more across the country.”
###
Friday, December 10, 2010
West Virginia Legislature Is Poised to Retaliate In the War on Coal
The original Constitution established a balance of power between the federal government, states, and the people. Protections in the original seven articles. such as state selection of senators and the Electoral College, helped to create that balance. The Tenth Amendment in no uncertain terms protected the rights of states against federal encroachment.Over the past century, we have seen this balance erode. Popular election of senators seems more democratic, but it leaves state governments subject to congressional action while having no voice in the process. The expansion of the Interstate Comnmerce Clause to form the basis of the Civil Rights Acts was necessary only in that situation, but it has formed the basis of federal regulatory action in a wide variety of areas. Executive orders have become a dictatorial function; witness Obama's theft of over a hundred thousand acres of Alaskan land last week.
Individual Americans and state governments have passively watched these transformations for decades under the assumption that the intentions behind the accumulation of power were good. Most of them likely were intended to increase comfort and prosperity. Under Obama, however, the executive rbanch has a new agenda. It wants to slice away at American manufacturing and redistribute wealth within America and around the world. It has no problem creating artificial shortages of energy and rising prices by restricting coal and oil production. It seems to want the third world to gain more manufacturing jobs at the expense of Americans. Regulatory law has become an intolerable burden on so many facets of society from education to business. The EPA, as we have said time and time again, has made it worse.
When the federal government abuses its power, states must stand up. Governor Rick Perry of Texas refused to accept federal education dollars in exchange for giving more authority over curriculum over to the federal Department of Education. And now West Virginia is showing states how to fight the War on Coal.
Delegate Gary Howell (R) 49th is poised to introduce a bill next month that will limit the scope of the Environmental Protection Agency in West Virginia. It will deny the EPA jurisdiction over coal operations that only sell to a consumer in West Virginia. For example, if a mine only sells to the massive John Amos power plant near Charleston, its operation only falls under state authority instead of federal. This limits the scope of the EPA and potentially every federal agency if the model is followed in other areas. If passed, it could redefine the relationship between states and the federal government, restoring some of the lost balance intended by the Founding Fathers.
Some will ask if we can be sure that our environment will be protected by the state as thoroughly as the federal government. My answer is that West Virginia voters will have a lot more input on environmental policy if the state is controlling it. The EPA is as far removed from state voters as the Queen of England. It forgets that it is part of a federal republic beholden to the people. State governments will not. They will recognize the conservation agenda that balances the needs of man and of nature, not the radical environmentalists who would see West Virginians drop back to the stone age.
We must get the word out about the Intrastate Coal and Use Act both within West Virginia and around the country. This could be one of the opening shots in a true political revolution.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Environmental Protection Agency Continues Its March to Irrelevance By Cracking Down on Farm Dust
Farm dust. Yup. Dirt stirred up by men and women working in the ground. The EPA is considering calling dust a pollutant and enacting stringent new regulations to harm our nation's farmers. As usual, this is something that will drive the little man out of business and benefit the big conglomerates.
I live right beside the Potomac State College farm. Yes there is a little bit more dust there than you would normally see. But is it really a pollutant? It is no more a pollutant than pollen that comes from certain flowers or crops. Will the EPA go after that next? I'm not joking. If they are going to regulate dust, the sky is the limit on stupid laws eminating from this agency. Will they next require states to pave every little country road in existence? What is the point of this and where will it stop? Seems to me that those who live by a farm simply have to buy a little bit more Pledge or move. Farmers have a right to use their property to make a living without so much government interference that they cannot operate.
At some point, the EPA will regulate itself into complete irrelevance. Bureaucrats who have never seen a farm are trying to force insane regulations onto teh backbone of this nation. It is constitutionally questionable whether or not the EPA actually has the authority to regulate anything. Just because we have allowed it to does not mean that it has the constitutional authority to do so.
We need to make our state legislators aware of this movement. It would not be hard to get a bipartisan group of West Virginia legislators together to petition our senators and representatives to halt this insanity.
Story below
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
David McKinley Releases Statement on EPA Regulations Against Coal
From McKinley for Congress campaign e mail.
"The EPA is out of control. Nancy Pelosi and the other Democrats in Congress are doing everything they can to stifle the coal industry in West Virginia and ruin our economy. Our people are losing jobs because of this war on coal and it must stop. Someone has to stand up to the EPA and say 'enough is enough.' I plan on watching this debate very closely."
************************************************************
Here's my thoughts on the EPA. Until next year when Republicans control Congress, the states themselves need to hold the line and erect legal defenses. That means throwing down the gauntlet and challenging the constitutionality of regulatory law. Article 1 Section 1 of the Constitution is clear. Only Congress can make law. States cannot nullify federal statutes, but they can attack regulations passed by the EPA and others.
"The EPA is out of control. Nancy Pelosi and the other Democrats in Congress are doing everything they can to stifle the coal industry in West Virginia and ruin our economy. Our people are losing jobs because of this war on coal and it must stop. Someone has to stand up to the EPA and say 'enough is enough.' I plan on watching this debate very closely."
************************************************************
Here's my thoughts on the EPA. Until next year when Republicans control Congress, the states themselves need to hold the line and erect legal defenses. That means throwing down the gauntlet and challenging the constitutionality of regulatory law. Article 1 Section 1 of the Constitution is clear. Only Congress can make law. States cannot nullify federal statutes, but they can attack regulations passed by the EPA and others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)