American Elephants


EPA Subjects Human Victims to Lethal Pollutants, Doesn’t Warn of Risks! by The Elephant's Child

McCarthy testifies before a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on her nomination to be administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency

The Environmental Protection Agency has for years been basing their actions on the need to protect human beings from dangerous air pollutants and fine particulate matter (PM). The findings of the Office of Inspector General’s March 31 report say the EPA has followed all laws and regulations concerning human studies research.

While the IG’s report absolves the agency of breaking rules, it notes that the EPA did in fact expose human test subjects to concentrated airborne particles or diesel exhaust emissions in five studies done in 2012 and 2011. And it didn’t bother to plainly inform the subjects of the dangers the agency emphasizes in the proposals for their actions. When the EPA tells Congress about a proposed action, they can tell you exactly how many kids will die from asthma, and how many old folks will die from heart attacks. That’s how they get their way. What congressman could risk refusing to save dying kids?

The agency has said that fine particulate matter can cause premature death, a risk for older individuals with cardiovascular disease. A 2003 EPA document says even short-term exposure to PM can result in heart attacks and arrhythmias for people with heart disease. Long-term exposure can result in reduced lung function and even death. A 2006 review by the EPA reiterates that short-term PM exposure can cause “mortality and morbidity.”

“Particulate matter causes premature death. It doesn’t make you sick. It’s directly causal to dying sooner than you should,” former EPA administrator Lisa Jackson told Congress on September 22, 2011. “If we could reduce particulate matter to healthy levels it would have the same impact as find ing a cure for cancer in our county.”

So why has the EPA been subjecting unknowing human guinea pigs to high levels of carcinogens and potentially lethal pollutants in order to justify tough new air quality standards?  The EPA has been carrying out these unethical human experiments in which subjects are made to inhale freshly pumped-in diesel truck exhaust fumes — without advising them of the risk to their health — which the EPA claims may be mortal. Junk Science.com, October 5, 2012:

EPA has admitted to a federal court that it asks human guinea pigs to sacrifice their lives for regulatory purposes — at $12 per hour.

  • Failure to provide/obtain written consent. The Common Rule, as codified in federal regulation 40 CFR 26.117, specifically requires that written informed consent be obtained when risk of serious injury or death is involved in an experiment. As the consent form provided by EPA makes no mention of the risk of death, written consent acknowledging that they are willing sacrifice themselves for EPA regulatory purposes is not obtained.

EPA administrator Gina McCarthy sounds much like her boss. She doesn’t know anything about that, all studies are of the highest quality, etc. etc. etc.

Steven Milloy, founder and proprietor of JunkScience.com, which attempts to inject real science into phony government claims, has impeccable credentials. He writes that the “EPA air pollution scare is debunked by the best data set ever assembled on particulate matter and deaths.” In a subsequent column he explains just what the rules are on different kinds of studies.

Every time the EPA introduces a new policy that results in another power grab, the need for the power grab is couched in terms of how many kids are going to die from asthma, although doctors don’t even know what causes asthma. I find that suspicious. Yet with all the dead kids off there in the not distant future, the EPA is involving kids in their experiments without informing them or their parents of what the EPA believes to be their expected demise. They are deliberately exposing kids with asthma to what they regard as dangerous levels of toxic pollutants— which they then try to cover up. How do they get volunteers? Breitbart dug up some examples.

I am convinced that the EPA is an organization of environmental zealots solely interested in their own power. I have been writing about them for years, and I think the agency should be shut down and permanently shuttered. They exist only because of the bogus environmental scares fostered by the U.N.’s IPCC for political reasons, not scientific ones.

If fine particulate matter is not dangerous to human health, the EPA needs to stop using it to justify its power grabs. If it is dangerous the EPA has no business conducting tests on human subjects. And not to fully inform the poor guinea pigs of the dangers of the tests is beyond despicable.



The Court Slaps Down the EPA Once Again. by The Elephant's Child

Once again, the courts have slapped down the EPA for exceeding its authority. The EPA in 2012 forced refineries to purchase more than $8 million in credits for 8.65 million gallons of cellulosic biofuel. However none of the biofuel is currently available. The court added that the cellulosic biofuels program was punishing refiners for the failure of fuel producers to make enough biofuel to meet the EPA mandate.

You have to use it anyway, even if it doesn’t exist, and if you don’t we will fine you because nobody made any. That one should never have emerged from the bowels of the EPA, let alone be made public. At least the court can follow simple logic, even if the agency cannot.

Here, by contrast, EPA applies the pressure to one industry (the refiners), yet it is another (the producers of cellulosic biofuel) that enjoys the requisite expertise, plant, capital and ultimate opportunity for profit,” reads the decision. “Apart from their role as captive consumers, the refiners are in no position to ensure, or even contribute to, growth in the cellulosic biofuel industry.”

“‘Do a good job, cellulosic fuel producers. If you fail, we’ll fine your customers,’” the decision says.

Unfortunately the court’s ruling did not strike down EPA mandates for refiners to use other renewable fuels like ethanol and biodiesel added into gasoline.

Two steps forward, and one step back. The EPA’s renewable fuels program is unworkable and must be scrapped. Corn ethanol is affecting the food supply and food prices unnecessarily, and damaging engines as well. Good luck with your gas-powered engines that are in something other than the most recent cars.

CO2 is not causing global warming, and the globe isn’t warming. Hasn’t been for over 16 years. There has been no  warming in the 21st century and the climate is predicted to continue cooling for at least another five years.



Shining the Public Spotlight on Sneaky Secrets at the EPA. What Will Be Revealed? by The Elephant's Child

Lisa Jackson

Splendid news from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is administrator Lisa Jackson’s forthcoming departure. It is a major victory for transparency and accountability in Washington.

There have been whispers for years and rumors that EPA officials used private email addresses, fake names and coded messages to avoid the strictures of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Jackson’s use of “Richard Windsor” as her chosen email address has recently become public, and Jackson admitted to using “Richard Windsor”as her nom de plume on a government email account.

The EPA inspector general opened an investigation into the matter because it is against federal law to use nonofficial or secret email addresses to conduct official business.  The use of private or false flag emails enables government officials to hide things that they would prefer we do not know about. And hiding things from FOIA requests is illegal. But the EPA has been hiding things for a very long time.

During the Clinton years, Carol Browner (a former senatorial aide to Vice President Gore) headed the EPA. She ordered the hard drive on her government computer to be reformatted and all backup tapes destroyed, just hours after a federal judge ordered her agency to preserve all agency email records. Only hopelessly naive or blindly partisan folks took seriously Browner’s doe-eyed claim that it was all just a big mistake and she certainly wasn’t trying to cover up anything. Nothing to see here, so move along, folks.

And nothing was done.

Christopher Horner, a Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and FOIA expert turned up an internal memo from the EPA’s IT department, which described the process for establishing and using secret email accounts.

That particular revelation engendered real warfare among Jackson’s EPA, a federal court, at least two Congressional committees, Horner and the CEI over thousands of other internal emails and documents that are likely to shed light on the illegalities going on at the environmental agency. The EPA has authored hundreds of regulations that damage business, cost jobs, and involve huge costs to innocent bystanders for highly questionable reasons dependent on unusually questionable evidence.

The conflict is ongoing, and there are sure to be more ugly revelations. Those who defend Jackson will claim that her departure has nothing to do with such matters.  Chris Horner makes an obvious point: “It is not only implausible that Lisa Jackson’s resignation was unrelated to her false identity, which we revealed, given how the obvious outcome and apparent objective of such transparency laws was intolerable. But it became an inevitability when, last week, the Department of Justice agreed (as a result of our lawsuit) to begin producing 12,000 of her “Richard Windsor” alias accounts related to the war on coal Jackson was orchestrating on behalf of President Obama outside of the appropriate democratic process.”

Along with all the other things the Obama administration hid until ‘after the election’ there are dozens of Jackson’s most costly and controversial proposed regulations, which the administration is now releasing. These regulations are especially damaging to the coal industry which supplies the major portion of our electric power.

President Obama has long made clear that he wants to bankrupt the coal industry, which seems to be part of his desire to save the planet from a global warming that is proving to be non-existent. There are lots of legal battles to come.

It has become obvious that many of the numbers put forth by the agency are fraudulent, environmental damage is invented, and harm to humanity is exaggerated hooey. That’s what transparency and accountability are all about.

If you believe that the government’s business should be conducted in public, this is a significant beginning. Nobody in government has ever gone to jail for violating a FOIA request, and Jackson won’t go to jail either. But the agency is now an object of attention by the IG office as well as Congressional committees. That can only help.



Your Power Bill Is Going to Skyrocket! by The Elephant's Child

(Click to enlarge)

The Environmental Protection Agency recently issued 946 pages of new rules requiring that U.S. power plants sharply reduce (already low) emissions of mercury and 83 other air pollutants.  EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson claims that, while the regulations will cost electricity producers $10.9 billion annually, they weil save 17,000 lives and generate up to $140 billion in health benefits.

Dr. Willie Soon and Paul Driessen point out that there is no factual basis for these assertions.  “To make this case, the EPA systematically cherry-picked supportive studies (many of them dated) and ignored the extensive evidence and clinical studies that contradict its regulatory agenda, which is to punish hydrocarbon use and close down coal-fired power plants.”

This article is the most devastating takedown of the very arrogant and out-of-control EPA that I have seen. Those of us who cannot readily call scientific facts to mind are left gullible in the extreme. If the EPA claims that their actions are necessary to protect human health and life, we are unable to refute their claims except by our growing suspicions of the reliability of the agency.

I know that Ms. Jackson claimed that these regulations would prevent large numbers of cases of asthma. Yet physicians readily admit that they have no idea of the cause of asthma. They know how to treat the disease, but where it comes from or how it starts is a mystery. So you know she’s lying right off the bat, it’s just a matter of how much.

Mercury, the element at the basis of these regulations, has always existed naturally in the Earth’s environment.  The latest government, university and independent studies show that America’s coal-burning power plants emit an estimated 41 to 48 tons of mercury each year. Wow!  Tons.  But wait — U.S. forest fires emit at least 44 tons a year, cremation of human remains discharges 26 tons per year globally.  Chinese power plants eject 400 tons per year. Volcanoes, subsea vents, geysers and other sources spew out 9,000-10,000 tons per year. All these emissions enter the global atmosphere and become part of the U.S. air mass.

One half of our electricity is produced by coal-fired power plants, and in some states 70-98% of electricity.  All together U.S. power plants account for less than 0.5% of all the mercury in all the air that Americans breathe. Eliminating every molecule of that would still leave 99.5 % of mercury in the atmosphere, harming no one.  But perhaps you missed that number in the first paragraph.

The regulations will cost electricity producers $10.9 billion annually.

And what will that do to your power bill? If these regulations have no effect on health, and they do not, then why?  The Obama administration has made no secret of the fact that they want to penalize hydrocarbon use in order to force Americans to move to the use of unreliable and costly “renewable” energy.

President Obama has said repeatedly that he wants to bankrupt the coal industry, making coal-based electricity prices “skyrocket.” That is why Obama has wasted such huge amounts of taxpayer dollars subsidizing solar plants, battery factories, wind farms, turbine plants, $102,000 luxury hybrid electric cars, and high-speed trains to nowhere. Solar energy is too diffuse.  Wind energy is too intermittent. They will produce a small amount of energy at very high cost. It was all a green pipe-dream.

Do read the whole article. It is an excellent exposé of this out-of-control agency.  If we don’t understand what they are doing, we have no defense against their machinations, and no clear understanding of why this election is so important.

ADDENDUM: Look carefully at that pretty pie chart.  President Obama wants to bankrupt that big blue sector of our electricity producing utilities, so that we are forced to depend on the little purple sector and make it grow. Energy experts doubt the possibility that sector can grow significantly, nor ever produce the dependable, cheap energy we need. Result: blackouts, brownouts and soaring energy costs.



The EPA’s Outrageous Power Grab! Lisa Jackson Must Be Stopped. by The Elephant's Child

The Obama EPA has decreed that “America’s fleet of passenger cars will have to meet an average mileage of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, which will double today’s requirement of about 27 mpg.” The EPA’s director Lisa Jackson is way out of line, and assuming powers not granted to her or her agency.

Lisa Jackson has tossed aside some 35 years of Congressional prerogatives.  In 2007, Congress raised the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard with a bill requiring the U.S. fleet to hit 35 mpg by 2020, which was a 40% increase.  The theory is that the EPA has declared carbon dioxide a “pollutant,.” and because cars emit CO2, Ms. Jackson is depending on the Clean Air Act in her bid to issue commands to Detroit.

The issue of CAFE standards was previously the charge of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.  NHTSA was charged by Congress with taking into account vehicle safety and a rule’s effect on the economy and consumer demand. The rule would reduce the mass of a car by 15% tp 25%. decreasing safety. Vehicles that cost $15,000 or less would be regulated out of existence.

The only way Detroit can hit these averages will be by turning at least 25% of its fleet into hybrids, which is undoubtedly the intention.  Hybrid sales peaked two years ago at 3% of the market and are declining.

Humans also emit CO2, every time we exhale. With something like 330,000,000 of us breathing out, that must be a fair amount of CO2.  Ms. Jackson has no authority to overrule Congress. The whole thing is silly — since carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant, but a colorless, odorless gas that helps plants to grow and resist drought. The Clean Air Act is designed to curb pollutants, not to make up out of whole cloth claims that benign things are damaging to health, in order to increase the power of the EPA.   Other than that, the Wall Street Journal reports that even the EPA’s low estimates show that the rule would cost $157 billion and raise the price of cars by about $3,100 per vehicle.

This is an outstanding example of the general wrongheadedness of the Obama administration. There is no respect for the Constitutional separation of powers, no respect for the rule of law. The normal legislative process is viewed as an inconvenience that is to be avoided or gotten around, so that the administration can achieve their aims without interference. The arrogance of the administration assumes that the administration knows best, rather than the American people.  Congress needs to respond to this power grab, to restore the rule of law, and put the out-of-control EPA in its place.

The rationale behind this move seems to be a firm belief in a nonexistent global warming, caused by our cars’ emissions of CO2. But  any alarming warming exists only in the computer models of climate, not in the real world. The CO2 in the atmosphere arises from the oceans, and the small amounts of warming precede the rise in CO2 by as much as 300 years.  We have had far greater amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past, and are currently at a low point. We need more CO2, not less, to help feed the hungry people of the world.



Ideology, Illegal Power Grab, and the E.P.A. by The Elephant's Child

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is determined to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, which was not something the act was designed to do.  The act was meant to clean up air pollution.  Greenhouse gases are not air pollution.

The term “greenhouse gases’ creates mischief because it suggests a thick blanket of something-or-other holding in the climate, like the glass in a greenhouse holds in the warmer air that makes plants grow.  It’s not like that.

In a greenhouse, the nurserymen pipe in carbon dioxide (CO2) in far greater concentration than we find in the atmosphere, because CO2 is one of the building blocks of life,  a natural fertilizer that makes plants grow.  When we breathe in, our bodies take in oxygen, and we breathe out CO2.  Plants take in CO2.  Surely you remember a little about photosynthesis from high school biology.

The problem with using the Clean Air Act is that it would force churches, schools, warehouses, and other sources to obtain permits, both costly and time-consuming.  It would wreak havoc with the economy and create a huge backlash.

The EPA is attempting to rewrite the Clean Air Act “administratively” by a “tailoring rule,” which would reduce the number of regulated sources.  The problem with that approach is that is illegal.  The EPA has no authority to rewrite the law.  To make that work the EPA would need every state with a State Implementation Plan to rewrite all its statutory thresholds as well.

Well, Don’t mess with Texas! Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and Chairman Bryan W. Shaw of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality saw the “tailoring rule” for what it is — a massive power grab and centralization of authority.  They wrote to the EPA:

In order to deter challenges to your plan for centralized control of industrial development through the issuance of permits for greenhouse gases, you have called upon each state to declare its allegiance to the Environmental Protection Agency’s recently enacted greenhouse gas regulations – regulations that are plainly contrary to U.S. laws. … To encourage acquiescence with your unsupported findings you threaten to usurp state enforcement authority and to federalize the permitting program of any state that fails to pledge their fealty to the Environmental Protection Agency. On behalf of the State of Texas, we write to inform you that Texas has neither the authority nor the intention of interpreting, ignoring or amending its laws in order to compel the permitting of greenhouse gas emissions.

The Obama administration could learn a lot from Texas.  It is the nation’s energy-production capital.  The air is cleaner today than it was in 2000 although the state’s population has increased by nearly 3.5 million people.  According to DOE and EPA data, since 2000, Texas’ CO2 emissions from fossil fuel usage have fallen more than those of almost any other state and any country except Germany.

Washington is attempting to “federalize the air-permitting process and force Texas to ignore their own state laws and the plain language of the Clean Air Act in order to allow an illegal rewriting of the federal statute.  But Texas has neither ‘the authority nor the intention’ of doing so.

Enormous mischief was caused by the Supreme Court ruling that allowed the EPA to regulate CO2 — if it was determined to be a harmful pollutant.  Which of course they decided it was, without any evidence that it was so.

Alan Carlin, a senior analyst at the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics and a colleague presented a 98-page analysis questioning the scientific foundation for the administration’s climate change policies.  They noted that the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best.  It pointed out that global temperatures were on a downward trend and noted the problems with climate models. It highlighted new research that contradicts alarmist warming, and asked for a serious review of the science by the EPA.

The report earned Mr. Carlin an email from his boss, Al McGartland, forbidding him from “any direct communication” with anyone outside of  his office with regard to his analysis.  When Mr. Carlin again tried to disseminate his analysis, Mr. McGartland ordered: “The administrator and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. …Another email “I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change.  No papers, no research etc, at least until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate.”

Did someone say something about transparency?




Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 6,427 other followers

%d bloggers like this: