U.S. EPA Continual Attempt to Destroy the Coal Mining Industry!
- Feb 23, 2015 12:00 pm GMT
- 1645 views
In a survey in 2014 it was reported that coal mining jobs had fallen by 8.3%, based on data provided by the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration.1 These job losses reflect the effects of past EPA regulations targeting mercury, sulfur and other toxic pollutants. The United Mine Workers are estimating that future greenhouse gas regulations will eliminate another 75,000 jobs in coal mining, power plants and railroads that transport coal. That is nearly a third of the 300,000 direct coal-generation jobs currently in the U.S..
Are such cuts scientifically justified by the EPA? In the authors opinion the U. S. EPA is just a politically controlled department of the Obama administration and a nefarious one at that; science is ignored and is not used at all. Why am I saying this?
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told Congress in July, 2014 that the Agencys proposed Existing Source Performance Standards (CO2 reduction) for coal-fired power plants was, in fact, an opportunity for economic growth: The great thing about this proposal is that it really is an investment opportunity. This is not about pollution control. 2 She was correct that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. However, she doesnt realize purpose of the EPA is to regulate pollutants, not promote investment opportunities?
McCarthy was referring to the economic opportunities of billionaires who are part of the far-left environmental machine heavily invested in helping EPA advance such regulations. What she said is what it has always been about and is why Lisa Jackson the previous administrator whose ethics are questionable had a private email address for the Sierra Club, etc. so she could interface directly with the environmental activists so others would not know about it. This should be illegal but this administration thinks it can do anything without reprisal. The U. S. EPA was not formed to develop investment opportunities to the detriment of established industries like coal mining facilities and coal-fired power generating plants.
Other countries have seized the investment opportunities McCarthy claims this regulation will create. Dan Simmons 2, senior vice president for policy at the Institute for Energy Research relayed that Spain heavily invested in wind and solar in the form of taxpayer subsidies and preferential treatment and subsequently lost 2.2 jobs for each green job created. The UK similarly invested in wind and solar and lost 3.7 jobs for each green job created. Those were remarkably bad investments. Spains economy is in a shambles and Germany has started shutting down most of its offshore wind turbines and is building coal-fired power plants as fast as possible to ward off financial disaster.
What are the scientific justifications for recent EPA regulations? The reductions in mercury emissions which are tied to U.S. coal-fired power plants, EPA states will save 11,000 lives per year 3. This is an untruth perpetrated by the EPA, in light of the fact there is no record of even one death from airborne environmental mercury emissions. U.S. power plants release about 48 tons of mercury into the air each year, but there are some 5207 tons/year worldwide emitted by nature ( Regarding another regulation, what about carbon dioxide heating the earth? The ones saying this have about as much understanding of heat transfer as a retarded gnat. Any mass, whether a solid, liquid, or gas between you and a radiant energy source will provide cooling. Stand near a fireplace that is burning and feel the warmth of the radiant energy; then have two people drape a blanket between you and the fireplace - you will feel cooler! Another example, stand outside on a sun shiny day. When a cloud goes over and shades you from the direct rays of the sun, most people feel cooler, but apparently not the UN-IPCC pseudo-scientists and their EPA supporters. Nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor, carbon dioxide and any dust that is in the atmosphere all provide cooling.
More radiation hits our atmosphere from the sun (341 Watts/m2) than is absorbed and reflected by earth (161 Watts/m2) 4, see Figure 1. The overall effect will always be cooling - not warming! The IPCC scientists must not realize we get our energy from the sun; they look at only one-half of the mass and energy balance. It is like saying you dont need a furnace in your house in the winter, insulation alone will keep you warm.
Figure 1. Radiation from the sun and refection back from the earth.
The UN-IPCC and the EPA made up that carbon dioxide warms the earth, as stated earlier, when in fact all gases and dust in the atmosphere cool our planet. Even though so-called greenhouse gases actually cool the earth, according to EPAs own heating model (MAGICC) the policies will prevent less than two-hundredths of a degree Celsius (0.018 oC) of warming by the end of this century. 5 This temperature change is so small it could never be confirmed by man - that is why the EPA hasnt relayed the effect.
Since 1966 it is apparent that CFC destruction of stratospheric ozone was the only mechanism that caused the earth to warm. The stratosphere due to loss of ozone cooled some 1.4 o C and the earth warmed some 0.5 o C. 6 Simple science was used to analyze this effect, but AGW proponents refute this with no science facts to back it up.
Since 2000 when CFC production was stopped in developed countries by the Montreal Protocol and CFC concentration in the stratosphere stopped increasing, the stratosphere stopped cooling and thus the earth temperature has not increased.
Monetary Losses to Public Caused by EPA
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates that these new EPA rules will shut down hundreds of generators, add $289 billion in consumer electricity costs and lower household disposable incomes by $586 billion by 2030. It also projects that the regulations will cost the U.S. economy 2.3 million jobs and half a trillion in lost GDP over the next 10 years. 7 What are the benefits?
A report authored by Dr. Kathleen Harnett-White, a Texas Public Policy Foundation senior fellow, discusses another big EPA fossil energy attack strategy - one that projects hugely inflated health benefits to be gained by reducing ambient levels of six criteria pollutants. Their primary emphasis is upon fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) which they use to justify almost all of their many new air quality regulations. Dr. White observes that the agency does this by projecting highly exaggerated dollar valuations of the number of lives that will be saved from premature deaths at lowest pollution concentrations based upon two cherry-picked studies. In doing so, they ignore or give mere lip service, to hundreds of reputable contradictory studies. 7
U. S. Government Spraying Fine Particles
Although the EPA wants to regulate fine particulate matter from industry, our Department of Defense is spraying us with 40,000 tons/year of fine bauxite (Al2O3), particles as shown below in Figure 2, and 100,000 tons/year of fine ferro-manganese (FeMn, forms wispy clouds) particles. 8 Moisture condenses on the fine particles. This was a concept proposed by Freeman Dyson who taught theoretical physics at the Princeton Institute for Advanced Study. Dyson, in 1979 proposed that bauxite could be sprayed into the stratosphere and absorb more UV light to cool the earth similar to the effect seen with a large volcanic eruption. The US DOD has been doing this since 1998, first with bauxite and then later with ferro-manganese. As a result, Asthma and Alzheimers cases have increased.
Dr. John Costella 9 relays, "Climategate has shattered the myth (the myth of global warming). It gives us a peephole into the work of the scientists investigating possibly the most important issue ever to face mankind. Instead of seeing large collaborations of meticulous, careful, critical scientists, we instead see a small team of incompetent cowboys, abusing almost every aspect of the framework of science to build a fortress around their old boys club, to prevent real scientists from seeing the shambles of their research. It appears the UN created this deception to create a case to increase non-economical wind turbine and solar installations that need tax credits to survive.
Many scientists, including the author, see global warming from CO2 as a cruel global swindle to eliminate conventional fuels, so that a few, at the expense of the many, can reap huge profits from either carbon taxes and/or alternative uneconomical and unreliable non-green bird killing energy sources such as wind turbines and solar power. Conventional fuels are the only real green energy sources. They provide carbon dioxide that increases plant growth; nothing green about wind turbines, solar panels or hydroelectric.
Science is a search for truth - nothing else; when scientific truth is trashed (the US EPA is nefariously complicit in this) for personal gain by a few influential greedy charlatans, the world and the average people in it, are in very deep trouble!
Figure 2. Difference between a Contrail and a Chemtrail.
1. Patrice Hill, Coal-mining jobs in free-fall after EPA regs, The Washington Times, June 12, 2014.
2. Michael Bastasch, Report: EPA CO2 Rules A Huge Boon To The Wind Power Industry, Daily Caller,
August 21, 2014.
3. Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), http://www.epa.gov/mats/health.html
4. K. E. Trenberth, J. T. Fasullo, and J. Kiehl, Earths Global Energy Budget, American Meteorological
Society, March 2009.
5. P. C. Knappenberger and P. J. Michaels, 0.02°C Temperature Rise Averted: The Vital Number Missing from
the EPAs By the Numbers Fact Sheet, Cato Institute, June 11, 2014.
6. Robert A. Ashworth, Ozone destruction major cause of warming!, Hydrocarbon Processing, October. 10,
7. Larry Bell, EPA Uses Junk Science to Wage War on Coal, Newsmax, January 12, 2015.
8. Robert and Sharon Ashworth, The Toxic Sky! - Chemtrails Falling, March 26, 2011.
9. Costella, J.P., "Climategate Analysis", http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/