[VIDEO] EPA ‘secret science’ under the microscope as GOP lawmakers seek ban

The Environmental Protection Agency for years has issued costly clean air rules based, in part, on two '90s-era studies linking air pollution with death. 

But, critics say, the same agency has stymied efforts to access the data behind them. The transparency concerns have Republican lawmakers on a new campaign to end the use of what they dub "secret science." 

"Why would the EPA want to hide this information from the American people?" House science committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, asked EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy at a hearing last week. 

Smith is among those pushing legislation to bar the use of "secret science" for EPA regulations -- namely, Clean Air Act rules that Republicans say are based on research hidden from public view. The bill has passed the House and now awaits action on the Senate floor. 

"The most expensive rules coming out of the EPA rely on secret science," Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), said in a statement to FoxNews.com. "Americans deserve to have access to technical information and data being used to develop EPA rules that significantly impact their daily lives." 

For its part, the EPA has argued that releasing the data could compromise confidential personal information, and that it didn't have access to all the research anyway, among other issues. The agency made an effort to contact the original institutions behind the studies in 2013, but Republicans say they again would not hand over everything. 

During last week's hearing, McCarthy questioned why lawmakers have focused on this -- and why anyone would want to seek out this kind of granular information. 

"The EPA totally supports both transparency as well as a strong peer-reviewed independent science process, but the bill I'm afraid I don't think will get us there," she said. "I don't actually need the raw data in order to develop science, that's not how it's done. ... I do not know of what value raw data is to the general public." 

But Smith said the agency "has a responsibility to be open and transparent with the people it serves, and whose money it spends."

Further, Inhofe said the data pertains to everything from forthcoming emissions rules for power plants to mercury rules recently challenged by a major Supreme Court ruling. 

The Republican legislation -- called the Secret Science Reform Act of 2015 -- would bar the EPA from issuing certain rules unless all relevant research is named and publicly available for those who want it. In seeking the change, critics say the EPA's air quality rules for years have relied largely on two studies from the 1990s whose data is not entirely accessible -- including a 1993 Harvard studylinking air pollution and mortality in certain U.S. cities, and another from the American Cancer Society.  

In the mercury case cited by Inhofe, the high court ruled last month that the EPA should have factored in the costs of recent rules targeting mercury and other pollution. McCarthy reportedly has said the "very narrow" ruling won't affect the separate and ongoing effort to draft new power plant emissions rules, which could be completed in a matter of weeks. The White House has taken a similar stance in downplaying the implications of the 5-4 decision. 

But the ruling nevertheless has emboldened critics. And the "secret science" legislation could add to that pressure. 

An EPW committee aide told FoxNews.com the legislation, if approved, potentially could impact both the mercury and greenhouse gas emissions rules. 

"Really, this is just simple transparency," the aide said. 

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

States, industry groups sue EPA, Army Corps

SALEM, Ohio —  The ink barely dried on new federal rules expanding the Clean Water Act before dozens of states, agricultural and business industry groups filed lawsuits in courts around the country, claiming the changes hand the government an unreasonable amount of authority over land use.

The Clean Water Act already gave Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction over “navigable” waters. The new rule broadens that to include other water bodies, as well as upstream waters, 100-year flood plains and ephemeral streams such as the kind farmers use for drainage and irrigation. It also would encompass lands adjacent to such waters. The new rule was published June 29, and will go into effect Aug. 28.

States sue

The EPA has said the changes, which were rewritten in recent months, should have little impact on agricultural activities and other uses. Dozens of states and industry groups remain unconvinced. Four lawsuits representing 27 states were filed in U.S. District courts in Ohio, North Dakota, Texas and Georgia, starting June 29.

Ohio and Michigan filed suit in Ohio. Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas filed in Texas. Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming filed in North Dakota. Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin filed suit in Georgia.

Via: Farm and Dairy

Continue Reading.....

Driving policies through fraud and fear-mongering

Propaganda tactics employed by the Environmental Protection and its activist allies increasingly employ emotion as a primary media tool. Mothers and children pose on the US Capitol steps, waving signs that claim they are fighting for clean air and their children’s health. Images of these “lovable lobbyists” for EPA’s Clean Power Plan and other rules are intentionally heart-tugging. 

It is maternal instinct versus scientific facts; emotions versus informed debate. If EPA issues dire warnings, that is all these moms need to hear. Indeed, it is hard to overcome such pleadings with cold facts alone.

The well-orchestrated “do something” demonstrations enable politicians and agencies to devise and implement new legislation and regulations. It is much like physicians who succumb to patients’ “do something” demands by prescribing antibiotics for common colds. It is a useless, if not dangerous practice.

The public’s general fear of anything labeled a chemical, or requiring some comfort with numbers, is a powerful psychological tool for alarmists. In-the-street TV interviews showing

fearful reactions to di-hydrogen monoxide represent but one example. The scary-sounding chemical, of course, is H2O: ordinary water.

If the air is hazy, even from natural sources like pine trees, many people automatically assume it is injurious to their health, even if the “pollution” levels are perfectly safe. The dose makes the poison. It’s even worse for invisible toxins. The linear no-threshold mindset now governs virtually all government toxicology programs.

The attitude assumes there is no safe limit. Any and all substances in any amount may be injurious to health, until proven otherwise.  Forgone possible health or economic benefits from the demonized substances are not considered. Economist Julian Simon coined the term “false bad news” to describe how activists, regulators and the media make innocuous substances sound harmful, when they target something and set-out to ban it. 

These crusaders ignore impartial and even convincing scientific rebuttals, since they specialize in publicizing bad news and perpetuating their own prejudiced agendas. Hollywood celebrities and politicians have become pseudo-authoritative fonts of pseudo-scientific knowledge for the media-obsessed public. Actors should be the least believable, as they make a career by pretending to be what they are not and regurgitating words written for them by others. But somehow they become star experts. Many career politicians are little better.

Via: Canada Free Press

Continue Reading....

Countering Progressives' Assault on Suburbia

The next culture war will not be about issues like gay marriage or abortion, but about something more fundamental: how Americans choose to live. In the crosshairs now will not be just recalcitrant Christians or crazed billionaire racists, but the vast majority of Americans who either live in suburban-style housing or aspire to do so in the future. Roughly four in five home buyers prefer a single-family home, but much of the political class increasingly wants them to live differently.

Theoretically, the suburbs should be the dominant politically force in America. Some 44 million Americans live in the core cities of America’s 51 major metropolitan areas, while nearly 122 million Americans live in the suburbs. In other words, nearly three-quarters of metropolitan Americans live in suburbs.

Yet it has been decided, mostly by self-described progressives, that suburban living is too unecological, not mention too uncool, and even too white for their future America. Density is their new holy grail, for both the world and the U.S. Across the country efforts are now being mounted—through HUD, the EPA, and scores of local agencies—to impede suburban home-building, or to raise its cost. Notably in coastal California, but other places, too, suburban housing is increasingly relegated to the affluent.

The obstacles being erected include incentives for density, urban growth boundaries, attempts to alter the race and class makeup of communities, and mounting environmental efforts to reduce sprawl. The EPA wants to designate even small, seasonal puddles as “wetlands,” creating a barrier to developers of middle-class housing, particularly in fast-growing communities in the Southwest. Denizens of free-market-oriented Texas could soon be experiencing what those in California, Oregon and other progressive bastions have long endured: environmental laws that make suburban development all but impossible, or impossibly expensive. Suburban family favorites like cul-de-sacs are being banned under pressure from planners.

Some conservatives rightly criticize such intrusive moves, but they generally ignore how Wall Street interests and some developers see forced densification as opportunities for greater profits, often sweetened by public subsidies. Overall, suburban interests are poorly organized, particularly compared to well-connected density lobbies such as the developer-funded Urban Land Institute (ULI), which have opposed suburbanization for nearly 80 years. 

Via: Real Clear Politics

Continue Reading....

EPA Clueless On 90,000 Tons Of Toxic Waste Imported To US Annually

An estimated 90,000 tons of hazardous waste enters the U.S. each year from foreign countries, but the Environmental Protection Agency often can’t say what or where the dangerous stuff is.

Wherever it goes, hazardous waste presents a huge public health risk to Americans, according to a new EPA Office of Inspector General Report.

“Based on our assessment of data in EPA information systems, the EPA has an incomplete picture of hazardous waste entering the country,” the IG report said. “This can give rise to undetected and unenforced violations of federal hazardous waste laws, which could result in unknown human and environmental exposure to toxic substances.”

The U.S. accepts other nations’ toxic waste — anything from used batteries to discarded cleaning fluids — because the U.S. is more equipped to handle such materials than other countries, and because the U.S. can sometimes turn them into valuable resources.

In other words, one country’s trash can become another’s treasure, but that doesn’t mean the federal government is doing a great job handling toxic waste, the IG said.

EPA employees are supposed to track every shipment that enters the U.S. under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), but federal investigators found that EPA fails to generate half of the consent forms required to accompany each shipment.

Some toxic waste shipments analyzed never reached their intended destination, but the EPA couldn’t confirm whether those shipments were lost, let alone locate them, the IG said. The EPA officials also weren’t sure about the exact volume of hazardous waste entering the U.S. In some cases, they incorrectly identified where the waste shipment originated.

Most of the imported hazardous waste, about 69,000 tons a year, comes from Canada, followed by Mexico at 9,000 tons, Belgium at 3,000 tons, and Japan, Malaysia and the Philippines at 2,000 tons, according to EPA.

Blame may not rest completely with the EPA though, the IG said, because, while the agency is supposed to track imported hazardous waste, officials lack needed enforcement authority to block questionable shipments from reaching U.S. soil.

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

Words Used to Mean Things – Then Came Government

We are a nation founded upon and (allegedly) governed by words. Beginning with – specifically, foundational-ly – the Constitution. Every syllable was by our Founding Fathers debated and carefully crafted. To ensure a limited, enumerated government, maximum freedom for We the People – and a document that clearly, concisely laid out these parameters.

The Constitution is a “living, breathing document” – but with the amendment process as its only respiratory system. If you don’t like it – amend it. Otherwise, it is what it is – it says what it says.

The Constitution established a system that also relies on precise language. The Legislative Branch writes legislation – that must be within government’s Constitutional parameters. Every syllable is debated and carefully crafted. And since we directly elect this Branch’s members, we get to have a direct say in the words meant to lord over us. We get to lobby Congress to redress our grievances – to help shape the words they write.

“We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it” is an unbelievably heinous dereliction of Congressional, Constitutional duty.

When passed, legislation is then sent for signature to the Executive Branch – a President we also elect. If the President signs, the panoply of departments, agencies, commissions and boards then implement it. Though these entities exist in the Executive – they are creations and creatures of the Legislative. They would not exist without law first creating them. They can not do anything unless and until the Legislative with law tells them to do it. And they are bound to adhere to the spirit and the letters of these laws – and to remain within their parameters. The words passed must be the words implemented – no more, no less.

As we’ve seen for decades – and on steroids during the Barack Obama Administration – the huge regulatory apparatus has made rocketing past its limits standard operating procedure. Overreaches, fiats, diktats – the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Health and Human Services (HHS), et cetera ad nauseum. Written words – ignored and eviscerated in favor of ideological impositions.

All of which is why there is a Judicial Branch. The Judicial is in the strict-Constitutional-limits-enforcement business. They are to ensure that the laws written – and the government they create – exist within Constitutional bounds. Justices and judges are unelected to avoid political influence – which only works if they remain unpolitical, within their Constitutional bounds. If they write legislative words rather than merely analyze them – reworking laws into new meanings and mandates – we have (yet more) problems.

In the Supreme Court’s King v Burwell decision, six of its nine Justices green-lit yet another huge Obama Administration overreach. By pretending – and allowing HHS to continue to pretend – that plain words don’t mean plain things.

Via: Red State

Continue Reading....

EPA Predicts: Workers Will Lose $170B in Wages By 2100 Without Global Action on Climate Change

(CNSNews.com) - The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has projected that by 2100, without global greenhouse gas mitigation, labor hours in the U.S. are projected to decrease, costing an estimated $170 billion in lost wages, according to a new EPA report.  

The EPA report, released on June 22, 2015, is titled “Climate Change in the United States: Benefits of Global Action,” and was created to estimate the physical and monetary benefits of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, otherwise referred to in the report as GHG mitigation.

“Without global GHG mitigation, labor hours in the U.S. are projected to decrease due to increases in extreme temperatures,” states the report. “Over 1.8 billion labor hours are projected to be lost in 2100, costing an estimated $170 billion in lost wages.”

The EPA claims that labor hours are lost when the “extreme summer heat” causes workers to take more breaks, get ill, or stop working altogether.

“Extreme summer heat is increasing in the U.S. and will be more frequent and intense in the future,” states the EPA. “Heat exposure can affect workers’ health, safety and productivity. When exposed to high temperatures, workers are at risk for heat-related illnesses and therefore may take more frequent breaks, or have to stop work entirely, resulting in lower overall labor capacity.

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading....

The EPA's big land grab

(Getty Images)

The EPA just finalized one of the biggest land grabs in American history.

Under the Clean Water Rule, all "tributaries" will be categorically regulated by the federal government. Tributaries — which quite literally mean anything with a bed, banks and an "ordinary high water mark" — are now under federal control. Not my words; the Environment Protection Agency's (EPA). This includes ditches and less.

Under the same rule, the word "adjacent" is stretched from the Supreme Court's definition of actually "abutting" what most Americans regard as a real water of the United States to anything "neighboring," "contiguous," or "bordering" a real water, terms which are again stretched to include whole floodplains and riparian areas. Floodplains are typically based on a 100-year flood, but a separate regulation would stretch that to a 500-year flood.

And, finally, under the rule, the EPA cynically throws in a catch-all "significant nexus" test meant as a shout out to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion in Rapanos v. United States when, in fact, the EPA's rule makes a mockery of Kennedy's opinion and of no fewer than three Supreme Court rulings.

Under the three approaches, no land or "water" is beyond the reach of the federal government, never mind the traditional understanding of private property or state and local control of land use.

Farmers, ranchers, dairymen and others, on and off the farm, are in a widespread panic with the finalization of this rule because not only does it allow the EPA onto their land, but it throws the gate wide open to environmental group-led citizen lawsuits that promise to carry the rule's reach beyond what even the EPA had envisioned. That is because even though the EPA may have intended to show some restraint in the exercise of its new found powers, the rule itself is virtually boundless and citizen suits are controlled only by the rule. This rule carries with it fines under the law to the tune of $37,500 per day, but comes with absolutely no clarity for farmers as to what side of the law they are now on.

I started work as an legislative assistant covering agriculture for Sen. John Tower (R) of Texas back in 1971 before serving nearly 20 years in Congress, and I have never seen a bigger land grab by the federal government than the Clean Water Rule.

Like Tower, and like most Texans serving in Congress today, I was consistently ranked as one of the most conservative members in Congress. And that is why it appalls me that instead of libertarian groups announcing that their No. 1 objective is to overturn this rule and protect the private property rights of every American citizen — which is at the very heart of a free society — these groups were reported on June 24 in The Washington Post as saying that their No. 1 objective is, of all things, killing U.S. sugar policy.

Via: The Hill

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Supreme Court rules against EPA on Emissins from Power Plants,

Washington (CNN)In a loss for the Obama administration, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA unreasonably interpreted the Clean Air Act when it decided to set limits on the emissions of toxic pollutants from power plants without first considering the costs of the industry to do so.

The Obama administration argued that air pollutants like mercury and arsenic are associated with birth defects, cancer and other risks, especially for pregnant women and children. They say coal and oil fired power plants are the single biggest contributor to mercury contamination of rivers and lakes.

The Clean Air Act directs the EPA to regulate hazardous pollutants from power plants if the regulation is found to be "appropriate and necessary."

The EPA determined it was appropriate to regulate coal and oil fired power plants.

At issue in this case was whether the EPA violated the Clean Air Act when it declined to consider costs in determining whether it was appropriate to regulate hazardous air pollutants.

Twenty-three states and some in the industry argued that the EPA should have considered costs when making a threshold determination on whether to regulate.

"EPA's decision that it is 'appropriate' to achieve $ 4 million to $6 million in health benefits at a cost of $9.6 billion is not reasonable, imposes great expenses on consumers, and threatens to put covered electric utilities out of business," lawyers for Michigan and 22 other states argued in Court briefs.

Opponents in the industry said that under the EPA rule the industry will be forced to spend billions of dollars to regulate conventional pollutants that are already regulated under other Clean Air Act programs.

On the other hand, the EPA argued that it didn't take costs into consideration initially because the threshold decision is meant to be based on public health alone. Lawyers for the agency said that once it was determined that the air pollutants from coal and oil fired power plants posed a major hazard to public health they moved to the next stage of process under the Clean Air Act to determine what the limits on these pollutants should be. When they considered that issue, they did take costs into consideration.

"EPA did exactly what the Clean Air Act requires," said Neil Gormley a lawyer with Earthjustice DC a group that filed a brief in support of EPA. "The agency correctly focused on public health initially and considered costs once it had the information it needed."

"When you add up all the costs and all the benefits, " Gormley said. "The health benefits of this rule dwarf the costs to the industry. The public gets $9 dollars of health benefits for every $1 dollar the industry spends."

Via: CNN

Continue Reading....

EPA HEAD MCCARTHY: EVEN IF WE LOSE SUIT, WE PRETTY MUCH GOT REGS TO WORK ANYWAY

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said that even if the Supreme Court strikes down the agency’s pollution regulations, since the regulations have been in place for three years, most plants are already in compliance on Friday’s broadcast of HBO’s “Real Time.”

McCarthy predicted that the EPA would win at the Supreme Court. And added “but even if we don’t, it was three years ago. Most of them are already in compliance. Investments have been made and will catch up. And we’re still going to get at the toxic pollution from these facilities.”

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading....

Mike Pence, Indiana governor, says he’ll defy Obama’s carbon regulations

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence discusses the legislative session that ended the day before during a news conference at the Statehouse in Indianapolis, in this April 30, 2015, file photo. (AP Photo/Michael Conroy)

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence said Wednesday he will not comply with the Obama administration’s proposal to limit carbon emissions from existing power plants, the centerpiece of the president’s climate-change agenda.

In a letter to President Obama, Mr. Pence demanded that major changes be made to the plan. If those changes are not made, the governor said his state will defy the Environmental Protection Agency regulations, formally known as the Clean Power Plan.

“If your administration proceeds to finalize the Clean Power Plan, and the final rule has not demonstrably and significantly improved from the proposed rule, Indiana will not comply. Our state will also reserve the right to use any legal means available to block the rule from being implemented,” Mr. Pence said in the letter. “Energy policy should promote the safe, environmentally responsible stewardship of our natural resources with the goal of reliable, affordable energy. Your approach to energy policy places environmental concerns above all others.”

The final version of the Clean Power Plan is expected to be released in August. It would dramatically limit carbon emissions from power plants, and the EPA estimates overall U.S. carbon emissions would fall dramatically as a result of the plan.

The agency also admits that the amount of American energy generated by coal would fall by 25 percent after the plan is implemented.

Energy companies and a coalition of states already have challenged the plan in court, but the lawsuit was deemed premature and ultimately was dismissed. Opponents have vowed to file new lawsuits after the final plan is unveiled.

Via Washington Times

Continue Reading.....

Black Chamber of Commerce: EPA Plan Will Increase Black Poverty 23%, Strip 7M Black Jobs

(CNSNews.com) - A study commissioned by the National Black Chamber of Commerce found that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan would increase black poverty by 23 percent and cause the loss of 7 million jobs for black Americans by 2035.

The study also found that the EPA' plan would increase Hispanic poverty by 26 percent and cause the loss of 12 million jobs for Hispanic Americans by 2035.

The EPA proposed the Clean Power Plan on June 2, 2014 to cut carbon emissions from power plants. The National Black Chamber of Commerce commissioned the study to evaluate the potential economic and employment impacts of the plan on minority groups.

National Black Charmber of Commerce President Harry Alford explained the results of the report, “Potential Impact of Proposed EPA Regulations on Low Income Groups and Minorities” at the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on Tuesday.

“The study finds that the Clean Power Plan will inflict severe and disproportionate economic burdens on poor families, especially minorities,” said Alford in his prepared statement. “The EPA’s proposed regulation for GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions from existing power plants is a slap in the face to poor and minority families.

“These communities already suffer from higher unemployment and poverty rates compared to the rest of the country, yet the EPA’s regressive energy tax threatens to push minorities and low-income Americans even further into poverty,” Alford added.

"According to a recent study commissioned by the National Black Chamber of Commerce," Alford said, "the Clean Power Plan would: increase Black poverty by 23 percent and Hispanic povety by 26 percent; result in cumulative job losses of 7 million for Blacks and nearly 12 million for Hispanics in 2035; and decrease Black and Hispanic median household income by $455 and $515 respectively, in 2035."

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) rebutted this view, saying that states who have taken action on climate change have seen their economies grow.

“Many states, such as New York and Delaware, have already taken action to reduce the largest emitter of carbon pollution - power plant emissions,” Carper said. “As we will hear today, the economies of these states continue to grow at a faster rate than the states that have yet to put climate regulations in place. However, we need all states to do their fair share to protect the air we breathe and stem the tide of climate change. The EPA’s Clean Power Plan attempts to do just that.”

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading....

EPA Chief: ‘Climate Deniers’ Aren’t Normal Human Beings

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told an audience Tuesday gathered at a White House conference “normal people,” not “climate deniers” will win the debate on global warming.

What do you think?

McCarthy’s remarks came as she was talking about the reasons why the EPA put out a report on the negative health impacts global warming will have on public health. She said the agency puts out such reports to educate the public, not answer critiques from global warming skeptics.

1

“I am doing that not to push back on climate deniers,” McCarthy told doctors, health professionals and others gathered at a White House summit. “You can have fun doing that if you want, but I’ve batted my head against the wall too many times and if the science already hasn’t changed their mind it never will.”

What do you think?

McCarthy then remarked how “normal people,” and not skeptics would eventually win the global warming debate. Implicit in her remarks is the contention that skeptics are somehow not “normal people.”

“But in any democracy, it’s not them that carries the day,” McCarthy said. “It is normal human beings that haven’t put their stake into politics above science. It’s normal human beings that want us to do the right thing, and we will if you help us.”

What do you think?

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....