June 2, 2010
By Marlo Lewis
On June 10, the U.S. Senate will debate and vote on a resolution of disapproval (S.J.Res.26), sponsored by Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, to stop the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from ‘enacting’ controversial global warming policies through the regulatory back door.
S.J.Res.26 would overturn the EPA’s endangerment finding, a December 2009 rulemaking in which the agency concluded that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare. The endangerment finding is both trigger and precedent for sweeping policy changes Congress never approved. America could end up with a bundle of greenhouse gas regulations more costly and intrusive than any climate bill or treaty the Senate has declined to pass or ratify, yet without the people’s representatives ever voting on it.
At a minimum, as former Virginia Gov. George Allen and I explain elsewhere, unless stopped, the EPA will be in a position to determine the stringency of fuel economy standards for the auto industry, set climate policy for the nation, and even amend the Clean Air Act — powers never delegated to the agency by Congress.
S.J.Res.26 puts a simple question squarely before the Senate: Who shall make climate policy — lawmakers who must answer to the people at the ballot box or politically unaccountable bureaucrats, trial lawyers, and activist judges appointed for life?
Precisely because S.J.Res.26 would restore constitutional discipline to climate policymaking, regulatory zealots are mounting smear campaigns against it. Climate Progress calls it “polluter crafted” (impossible, because the language and form of the resolution are fixed by the Congressional Review Act). MoveOn.Org claims the resolution will condemn many Americans to “smoke the equivalent of a pack a day just from breathing the air” (utter nonsense – just one cigarette delivers 12-27 times the daily dose of fine particulate matter that non-smokers get in cities with the most polluted air). Environmental Defense Action Fund says the resolution will give corporate polluters a “bailout” (also impossible, because S.J.Res.26 is not a tax or spending bill).
Train Weighs In, Ignores Obvious, Knocks Down Straw Man
A more sophisticated attack comes from Russell Train, who served as EPA Administrator under the Nixon and Ford Administrations (1973-1977). In a May 24 letter to Senate leaders, Train warns that S.J.Res.26 would “rollback Clean Air Act protections.”
Not so! Yes, the resolution would “prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.” But from its inception in 1970 through the present day, EPA has not regulated greenhouse gas emissions, and its recently finalized motor vehicle emission standards do not take effect until 2011. Train confuses “rollback” with containment. The only thing S.J.Res.26 would roll back is EPA’s regulatory overreach.
Train also claims that, “If passed, this resolution would fundamentally undermine the Clean Air Act, overturning science in favor of political considerations.” Not so. Although some may oppose EPA’s endangerment finding on scientific grounds, S.J.Res.26 neither takes nor implies a position on climate science. The resolution would overturn the endangerment finding’s “legal force and effect,” not its reasoning or conclusions. The resolution is a referendum not on climate science but on the constitutional propriety of EPA making climate policy without new and specific statutory guidance from Congress.
Train, however, would have us believe that Congress already signed off on EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations. When? Why, back in 1970 – decades before global warming became a political issue – when Congress enacted the Clean Air Act. He explains:
Precisely because existing knowledge was so limited at the time, Congress broadly defined the term “air pollutant” and relied on the experts at EPA to evaluate individual pollutants. Congress also clearly established that the sole criterion triggering EPA action was to be a scientific one: whether a pollutant “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger” human health or welfare.
To illustrate the point, Train recounts how he, as Administrator, took action in 1973 to control lead pollution from gasoline combustion, even though the Clean Air Act did not list lead as a pollutant and Congress did not ban leaded gasoline until 1990. EPA used science to determine the dangerousness of lead pollution and then issued regulations. EPA is following the same process today with regard to greenhouse gases. Hence, Train concludes, the Act is working “as Congress intended.”
But all this proves is that EPA has jumped through the requisite procedural hoops, which nobody disputes. That in no way demonstrates that Congress meant to regulate greenhouse gases through the Clean Air Act. Train ignores the obvious. Congress did not design the Clean Air Act to be a framework for climate policy, has never voted for the Act to be used as such a framework, and has never approved the regulatory cascade that EPA’s endangerment finding, if allowed to stand, will ineluctably trigger.
The imposition of costly Clean Air Act permitting requiements on small business (about which, more below) is only the best known part of the aforementioned cascade. In addition, EPA will likely have to establish national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for greenhouse gases set below current atmospheric levels. After all, EPA attributes endangerment to the “elevated concentration” of greenhouse gases, so the agency has already satisfied the substantive criteria for initiating a NAAQS rulemaking laid out in Section 108 of the Clean Air Act.
Unsurprisingly, environmental organizations are petitioning the agency to establish a NAAQS for carbon dioxide at 350 parts per million (roughly 40 ppm below current concentrations), and NAAQS for other greenhouse gases at pre-industrial levels. Train says not a word about this, yet when he was Administrator, he tried and failed to avoid establishing NAAQS for lead pollution. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that EPA had a mandatory duty to establish NAAQS for lead, because it had previously determined that lead endangers public health and welfare (NRDC v. Train, 545 F.2d 320, 1976).
Although NAAQS regulation of lead was both technologically and economically feasible, not even a global depression lasting several decades would suffice to lower atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations below current levels. As Train surely knows, EPA may not take costs into account when determining NAAQS. The endangerment finding thus sets the stage for eco-litigation groups to transform the Clean Air Act into an economic suicide pact. Yet by Train’s logic, Congress signed off on that too, simply because EPA has made an endangerment finding.
Train knocks down a straw man. No one denies that the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to regulate pollutants not specifically listed in the text. No regulatory law can work if the administering agency is forbidden to use evolving knowledge to fill gaps in statutorily created regulatory schemes. However, there is a world of practical and legal difference between EPA filling gaps due to the inevitable limitations of “existing knowledge” and EPA initiating new policies solely on its own initiative. Train’s example actually illustrates this key distinction.
The Clean Air Act directs EPA to identify and regulate pollutants that damage air quality. Lead is an air quality contaminant, so it fits perfectly within the statutory framework. However, search the Clean Air Act from top to bottom, and you will not find any Title, section, or subsection on global climate change, nor will you find the terms “greenhouse gas” and “greenhouse effect.” Just because EPA has authority to regulate lead as an air quality contaminant, it does not follow that EPA has authority to regulate carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas.
Bureaucratic Supremacy
Train takes an uncontroversial thesis – that Congress wanted EPA to apply statutory authorities in light of evolving knowledge – and parleys it into a doctrine of bureaucratic supremacy. As Train reads the Act, EPA has authority to regulate as it sees fit, and may do so in perpetuity regardless of the lack of any specific congressional mandate. In Train’s view, moreover, Congress must accept whatever EPA decides, otherwise Congress is “rolling back” and “undermining” the Act.
It’s not hard to understand why an EPA Administrator (past or present) might profess this doctrine. “It’s good to be the King,” as Mel Brooks famously observed. Congress, however, cannot embrace a doctrine of bureaucratic supremacy without running afoul of the U.S. Constitution.
By putting lead, a gasoline additive, in the same regulatory boat with carbon dioxide, the inescapable byproduct of fossil energy use, Train obscures the singular importance of the power EPA is poised to exercise. The power to regulate carbon dioxide is nothing less than the power to determine climate change policy and restructure America’s energy supply system. It is also potentially the power to destroy trillions of dollars in cumulative GDP. Policy decisions of such economic and political magnitude are beyond the pay grade of any administrative agency to make.
Train argues as if EPA were an apolitical font of scientific objectivity. Yet, how can that be when EPA is both the agency that makes endangerment findings and the agency that writes and enforces regulations based on those findings? Does EPA have no incentives to expand the scale and scope of its power? A conflict of interest is built into EPA’s modus operandi.
Up to now, this ethically flawed situation has been tolerable because Congress clearly specified the types of substances over which EPA has regulatory authority – those that degrade air quality, those that pose acute risks of toxicity, and those that deplete the ozone layer. But when Congress enacted and amended the Clean Air Act, it never specified greenhouse gases as a class of substances to be regulated. As a feat of bureaucratic self-dealing, the endangerment finding is off the charts.
Mass. v. EPA: Is the Court Infallible?
Train also cites the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling, Massachusetts v. EPA (549 U.S. 497, 2007), as proof that Congress intended to regulate greenhouse gases through the Clean Air Act. The Court, he notes, held that greenhouse gases “fit well within” the Clean Air Act’s definition of an “air pollutant.”
Members of Congress, however, have a duty to exercise their own judgment to determine what the law means. They cannot automatically defer to the Court’s interpretation without Congress ceasing to be an independent and co-equal branch. A doctrine of judicial infallibility is as alien to our Constitution as is a doctrine of bureaucratic supremacy.
To reach the conclusion that greenhouse gases are “air pollutants” for regulatory purposes, the Court’s 5-4 majority had to bowdlerize Section 302(g) of the Act. Specifically, the majority had to ignore a key term of the provision’s first sentence and ignore the entire second sentence.
The first sentence of 302(g) defines an air pollutant as an “air pollution agent” emitted into, or otherwise entering, the ambient air. A common sense reading suggests that “air pollution agent” is a qualifier – a criterion for distinguishing pollutants from non-pollutants. To be an air pollutant, a substance must not only be “emitted” or “enter,” it must also be an “air pollution agent.” In other words, it must be a substance that causes or contributes to air pollution — something that fouls or dirties the air.
It is far from evident that carbon dioxide is an “air pollution agent.” A clear, odorless gas that is non-toxic to humans at many times ambient concentrations, carbon dioxide is an essential plant nutrient, and elevated concentrations boost most plants’ biomass productivity, water use efficiency, and resistance to environmental stresses such as ozone pollution. Carbon dioxide is certainly unlike any other substance EPA has previously regulated as an “air pollutant.”
Bush EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson was well within his Chevron deference rights to conclude that carbon dioxide is not an air pollution “agent,” hence not an “air pollutant” within the meaning of Section 302(g). The Court majority, however, cast aside Chevron deference, read the sentence to mean that anything emitted per se is an “air pollutant,” and concluded that greenhouse gases fit the bill.
The second sentence of 302(g) stipulates that “precursors” of previously designated air pollutants are also air pollutants. This sentence would be superfluous if anything emitted is automatically an air pollutant, because precursors can form air pollutants only after being emitted. Courts are not supposed to assume that lawmakers pad statutes with superfluous verbiage, yet the majority made no effort to establish that the second sentence of 302(g) is irrelevant to the definition of “air pollutant.”
The majority’s highly selective reading of Section 302(g) was in fact the lynchpin of their ruling, and it is sobering to reflect that the fate of the economy may hinge on such a dubious construction. Treating “air pollution agent” as a superfluous term or as a synonym for “air pollutant” makes 302(g) hopelessly circular — as if the provision said, “The term ‘air pollutant’ means any ‘air pollutant’ emitted into or otherwise entering the ambient air.” This is not what Congress wrote, and is not likely what Congress meant, because circular definitions define nothing.
The majority’s selective reading also turns 302(g) into a formalism whereby a thing may be an “air pollutant” even if it does not degrade air quality. As Justice Scalia quipped in dissent, given the majority’s reading, “It follows that everything airborne, from Frisbees to flatulence, qualifies as an ‘air pollutant.’” Indeed, if anything emitted into or entering the ambient air is an “air pollutant,” then even absolutely clean, pollution-free air is an “air pollutant” the moment it moves or circulates.
From Misread Statutes Come Absurd Regulatory Results
Regrettably, the Court’s bowdlerization of 302(g) not only leads to absurd conclusions, it also set the stage for absurd regulatory results. Here Train ignores abundant new evidence, piling up in the aftermath of Mass. v. EPA, that Congress never meant to regulate greenhouse gases through the Clean Air Act.
Under the Act, each firm must obtain a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) pre-construction permit in order to build or modify a “major stationary source” and a Title V permit in order to operate such a facility. A stationary source is “major” under the PSD program if it has a potential to emit 250 tons per year of a “regulated air pollutant,” and “major” under Title V if it has a potential to emit 100 tons per year. These definitions make sense when applied to bona fide air pollutants, such as particulate matter and smog-forming chemicals, which are emitted in the threshold amounts only by large industrial facilities.
In contrast, an immense number and variety of previously unregulated entities — office buildings, big box stores, apartment complexes, small manufacturers, commercial restaurants, heated agricultural facilities, hospitals, churches, and schools — emit 100-250 tons per year of carbon dioxide. All become vulnerable to new regulation, penalties, and litigation under the PSD and Title V provisions once EPA’s greenhouse gas motor vehicle emission standards take effect and carbon dioxide becomes a “regulated air pollutant.”
Applying the Clean Air Act to carbon dioxide leads straight to a red ink nightmare, as EPA’s Tailoring Rule acknowledges. Specifically, the EPA and its state counterparts would have to process an estimated 41,000 PSD permits annually (instead of 280) and 6.1 million Title V operating permits annually (instead of 14,700). Such workloads vastly exceed agencies’ administrative resources. Huge, ever-growing backlogs would bog down environmental enforcement, block new construction, and thrust millions of firms into legal limbo. One reason these results are “absurd,” the Tailoring Rule explains, is that they conflict with and undermine congressional intent.
When a court decision leads to “absurd results,” there are only two possibilities. One is that the court brought to light a flaw previously hidden in the statute. The other is that the court misread the statute.
To maintain the correctness of the Court’s decision in Mass. v. EPA, one must suppose that when Congress enacted the Clean Air Act in 1970, it somehow inserted the statutory equivalent of malicious code into the text, the bug lay dormant for 40 years, and then suddenly the malware became active, causing programs that had worked reasonably well since their inception to go haywire, work at cross purposes with themselves and each other, undermine congressional intent, and jeopardize America’s economic future. And if the EPA Administrator, former or present, really believes that, then I have a bridge I’d like to sell him or her.
Conclusion: Uphold the Separation of Powers!
Train congratulates Administrator Jackson for taking a “measured approach” and demonstrating her “sensitivity to economic concerns” by exempting all but the largest carbon dioxide emitters from PSD and Title V permitting requirements for six years. But the Clean Air Act nowhere gives the Administrator the authority to suspend or revise the PSD and Title V applicability thresholds. The so-called Tailoring Rule is actually an amending rule.
To pound the square peg of climate policy into the round hole of the Clean Air Act, EPA has to play lawmaker and effectively rewrite statutory provisions. This breach of the separation of powers only compounds the constitutional crisis inherent in EPA’s hijacking of fuel economy regulation and climate policymaking.
Momentous decisions affecting potentially millions of firms, trillions of dollars in GDP, and U.S. energy security should be based on something more solid than a selective reading of the Clean Air Act’s definition of “air pollutant.” That is an absurd way to make public policy. It is not how the Framers intended for the Constitution to work.
The importance of the vote on S.J.Res.26 is difficult to exaggerate. Nothing less than the integrity of our constitutional system of separated powers and democratic accountability hangs in the balance.
Originally published on MasterResource.org
Leave a Reply
Let us know your thoughts on American energy. Comment below.
I’m sick and tired of dealing with the Arabs and making them rich. We need to disempower the oil cartels and put the environmentalists in their rightful place – away from the US and out of our business. If the environmentalists want to live somewhere that’s primitive and barely touched by humans, they can all move to some third world country. We have all the oil we need right here, so we need to quit sitting on our own resources and use them now.
what is the payback on wind turbines- without government participation?
Great interview with former Governor / Senator George Allen. Wish we still had his leadership in the U.S. Senate. This web site will be very useful as I track what the real and true cost of energy will be in the Commonwealth and to my family living in other states. If Cap and Tax becomes law, it will increase the cost of EVERYTHING for anything grown, produced, transported, sold and bought by the consumer. It will lead to the closure of more businesses and give us more unemployment. Virginians (and people from the other states) need to go back to the root of their beginnings and re-read the documents that James Madison and Thomas Jefferson wrote. Three simple words… “WE THE PEOPLE”. The ruling political class will hear from the people this November and next November if they continue spending and taxing us to death! If countries like China, India and other developing nations refuse to do anything to stop “so-called harmful” emmissions into the atmosphere, why should we? All this will do is transfer more and more jobs to these countries and further hurt the blue collar American worker. As an un-empoyed person stretching every dollar I have to provide for my family, I do not need another mis-guided policy passed by Washington which will further hamper my attempts to find a job and take care of my family.
why don”t we use cane sugar alcohol like brazil? We could adapt the average american auto for 200 dollars to accept this flex-fuel without driving up the price of corn – based products as well as meat related products. How about heat cingues (Concrete Islands) also known as cities. Return plundered land and property to it’s tree-laden and pristine appearence. At any -given minute of every hour , of every day, we have over 3000 airliners in the sky- carbon seeding at its best? The ten largest poluters in the world are not located in the U.S.A. – and yet WE must agree to cap and trade (taxes). We must educate the citizens to the true benefit of conservation without taxing them to oblivion.
Dear Governor Allen,
We have a technology that will certainly help with America’s energy future while combating climate change at the same time. Our patented liquid sorption technology captures 95% of the toxic pollutants from coal fired power plants, refineries, etc. Our technology now allows for the production of liquid fuels from COAL as presently the biggest drawback to this process is the incresed CO2 emissions which we can now capture. Our captured CO2 can also be used for the increased production of algae (Exxon) as an alternative fuel. Please visit our web page for additional details:
http://www.qdsciences.com Please feel free to contact me at any time to discuss our technology and how use of it will make “Cap and Trade” a mute point therby saving the American public alot of their hard earned money. Sincerely, Ray Corbett
Hi Former Governor Allen:
I was a Virginia citizen and voted for you.
As a geologist and environmentalist I have studied past environments and mechanisms concerning climate. As you know (I wish Al Gore, Pelosi, Obama, and the other liberals were also in the loop) the earth’s environment is cyclic (warming and cooling events). Based on the past and current information CO2 has almost nothing to do with Global temperatures. The models do not take into account, the Pacific Decadal Occilation (PDO), ADO, suns energy output, solar wind variations, cosmic ray interactions with low level cloud formation, negative feedback, and of course the greatest green house gas “Water Vapor.” So all of the models are completely wrong. We have been in a cooling phase since 2001. I can asure you that for the next 30 years we will be in a cooling phase. We may even approach a Dalton Minimum. We can expect crop failures, dryer west, wetter east, and colder temperatures for the next 30 years. I am with you for developing all of our energy sources. If CAP and Trade passes the Senate, the US will have major major problems (depression, collapse of the dollar, etc.).
Scott Bullock
George,
Scientists involved have indicated that the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), New Mexico, has operated for over 10 years with no toxic releases to the environment or personnel, while being a disposal site for some nuclear wastes. They also indicate that it has the potential capacity to store all of the nuclear waste humans could create in the next 10,000 years. Being located in a salt formation, the WIPP does not have the problems associated with the fissures at Yucca Mountain. If these claims are valid, the WIPP should have a prominent place in our expansion of Nuclear Energy generation plants.
I have contacted several Government Offices with either a reply that they are not chartered to consider the WIPP, or no onswer at all.
What say you?
Walt – Charlottesville
I believe we must seek energy independance if for no other reason than to denie the funds we currently send to our known enimies. While I understand this will require intrim plans but ultimately I believe we need to turn to technology like the Chevy Volt with triple digit gas milage. If we do not solve the gasoline consumption issue we will never be fuel independant.
Thank God somebody is finally trying to open some eyes.
Think for a moment, warming, whether a house or the world is caused by heat. Carbon and carbon dioxide do not PRODUCE heat. The producer of heat is the energy that the creator supplies to create and sustain what has been created and heat once here cannot escape because the earth, including its atmosphere, exist in a near perfect vacuum that prevents the transmission of heat except and unless in the form of photons.
Think for a moment, carbon is not some dirty evil thing. Carbon is the most heat stable of all atoms. Consider the diamond. Carbon does not make or absorb heat and is fundamental to creation and life. It is the “backbone” of most things including the transformation of energy for life’s processes. It is because carbon is so heat stable that it is residue of processes that involve combustion and oxidation. Actually, Oxygen is the active ingredient in those processes that release heat, not carbon.
Think for a moment. Carbon dioxide does not PRODUCE heat, it absorbs heat when its surroundings are hotter and it releases heat when its surroundings are cooler. Carbon dioxide is the creator’s temperature regulator. When it absorbs heat it causes cooling and when the temperature of the atmosphere (and carbon dioxide) is sufficiently cooled, the carbon dioxide is absorbed by and eventually sinks to the bottom of the oceans where it is converted back into a hydrocarbon compound. Consider this. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is dictated by the amount of heat (coming from the oxygen) it has absorbed from its surroundings (I. E.: the amount of cooling) so an increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere means that the creator’s process of global temperature regulation is working.
What has gone wrong with our ability to reason? We’ve become like dumb animals where a master decides everything even when and how to bred. Are we willing to allow a communal government of bureaucrats to spend billions on global temperature control, which our creator handled perfectly well for billions of years? The “cap and trade” legislation in the Senate must be defeated before the U. S. economy is wrecked.
A winning Energy Game Plan is excellent, so true.
Check out the “R&D Blog by Joe the Miner” on the WV Coal Association’s web site. There are many pages, accessible via links at the bottom of the first, fully documenting the science and technology that does exist, that has been and is being practiced, to both convert coal into liquid fuel AND to reclaim/recycle Carbon Dioxide, and convert it into liquid fuels, as well.
this was sent to me help me get the message out to Americans…
THIS IS QUITE THOUGHT-PROVOKING!
0A
About 6 months ago I was watching a news program on oil and one of the Forbes Bros. was the guest. This is out of context, but this is the actual question as asked. The host said to Forbes, “I am going to ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer, how much oil does theU.S. have in the ground.” Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, “more than all the Middle Eastput together.” Please read below.
The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April (‘08) that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn’t been updated since ‘95) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota ; western South Dakota ; and extreme eastern Montana ….. check THIS out:
The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska ’s Prudhoe Bay , and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of t he oil is recoverable… at $107 a barrel, we’re looking at a resource base worth more tha n $5.3 trillion.
‘When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea..’ says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature’s financial analyst.
‘This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years’ reports, The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It’s a formation known as theWilliston Basin , but is more commonly referred to as the ‘Bakken.’ And it stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada . For years, U. S.oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the ‘Big Oil’ companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken’s massive reserves…. and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!
That’s enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight.
=0 A
2. And if THAT didn’t throw you on the floor, then this next one should – because it’s from TWO YEARS AGO!
U. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World!
Stansberry Report Online – 4/20/2006
Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?
They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth… Here are the official estimates:
0A
- 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia
- 18-times as much oil as Iraq
- 21-times as much oil as Kuwait
- 22-times as much oil as Iran
-20500-times as much oil as Yemen
- and it’s all right here in the Western United States .
HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy…..WHY?
&nbs p;
James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we’ve got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East -more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped. That’s more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post..
Don’t think ‘OPEC’ will drop its price – even with this find? Think again! It’s all about the competitive marketplace, – it has to. Think OPEC just might be funding the environmentalists?
Got your attention/ire up yet? Hope so! Now, while you’re thinking about it …. and hopefully P.O’d, do this:
3. Pass this along. If you don’t take a little time to do this, then you should stifle yourself the next time you want to complain about gas prices— because by doing NOTHING, you’ve forfeited your right to complain
——–
Now I just wonder what would happen in this country if every one of you sent this to every one in your address book..
By the way…this is all true. Check it out at the link below!!!
GOOGLE it or follow this link. It will blow your mind……..>GREG
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
I support Nuclear power, off shore drilling,
use of natural gas.
I support Coal, Nuclear power, off shore drilling and drilling in Anwar
Drill here, now,oil and gas. Stop making ethanol,a net loss in fuel to build w no pipelines,fuel to move it to blend site,import phosphates,poor heat value,upset world grain markets during famines.Solar,wind,tides,sure,but years away.Research clean coal burning and make our #1 energy self-sufficiency,not unproven pipedreams on carbon footprints while ruining our economy, LOSING jobs instead of creating them thru research and new production.
Our energy choices need to be “All of the above.” Let’s free the marketplace to give us the cleanest, most efficient source to meet our economic needs.
Most rational people are all for the untapped and seemingly abundant energy this country can produce on its own. Oil reserves (costly to tap into but enormous), nuclear (clean and efficient), natural gas (we have lots of it). The downside in a global economy is the fall back position of the middle east producers if the world no longer wants their black ‘puddles’. On the other hand, they may perhaps do something constructive instead of wasting time warring.
It would take more than a comment considering what a mess the US is in with regard to energy initiatives and current policy emanating from the Obama administration. First Cap and Trade would be disastrous for the coal and gas states; I am pro nuclear energy, water and wind, hydroelectricity, generating huge amounts of electricty, off shore drilling can be started however the ability to actually use the oil and convert into usable energy is a huge question, where to store it safely on the East coast, subject to weather like the N.O. Coast. What happened to the Alaskan pipeline ,, I could go on.. the last thing we need is an energy Czar from the Obama administration, perhaps we can just hold out until a new “competent” administratin is put into place, all for now ..
The United States is blessed with abundant
resources if permitted to access them To fail
to do so is the height of irresponsibility.
And, if pollution free energy production is truly
desired, the barriers against Nuclear energy
must be removed. Failure to do so defeats the
very stated objectives.
We must develop ALL our energy resources in the continental US immediately to stop the hemorraging of our money into the middle east increasing our deficet and enriching the economies of muslim states who wish us great harm. Our business and economy are suffering just as the average working citizen is suffering from the high cost of energy. We can not afford ever higher taxes on fuel and energy to heat our homes or fuel for transport for work. The Bakken oil discovry must be developed now as well as solar, wind, coal, natural gas, and nuclear power. This must be done immediately to provide jobs and resusitate our economy.
I would submit that it long past time for us to increase domestic oil production. Drill ANWR now, and let’s start working toward getting it in the pipeline. There’s no logical reason not to do so. We can easily be energy independant in five to ten years, if the right incentives are given to our energy producers.
As for so called green energy, the best thing the government can do is get out of the way. As fossil fuels become scarce the energy companies will then begin to concentrate their efforts toward these alternative sources. Supply and demand, it’s worked for hundreds of years in this country, and it will continue to do so. The feds need to simply to do what they do best; NOTHING.
I am sure there is enough arm twisting on all sides to go around. However, I undertand that countries such as Russia is taking advantage of their energy sources in their Artic regions. Understanding how Russia uses natural resources such as natural gas to manipulate former satellites, i.e. Ukraine and even Estonia, I believe the United States Government is now threatening their own people with high prices to control them with cap and trade.
We have the resources and the technology to save ourselves from slavery to the countries who hate us. Keep up the good work.
Dianne Altizer, President
Tazewell Subchapter
10th Amendment Foundation
I think we should tap into our own resorces and at the same time develope new ones. The current government wants to do one without the other which is not very practical and will put this country into financial peril.
We should do everything we can to produce energy in the U.S. This includes more nuclear plants (France proved this works well) and more drilling for oil and gas.
The cap and trade legislation proposed is based on faulty science -this will cause massive unemployment for U.S. citizens. Other countries will cheat, just as they have on trade treaties.
Whatever America needs to be strong and independent of foreign powers America Must do –Drill, Explore, Experiment with New Sources of Energy — all of them– we must go after with all haste. Along the way, we must be careful not to take for granted our resources or our environment.
The Cap & Trade bill is just a portion of a much larger agenda. It allegedly aims at saving the planet and it’s inhabitants from destruction. However, it’s reason for existing is based on deliberately constructed lies. It is one segment of a series of proposals by the Socialist elite to save us from ourselves via a bloodless coup.
It’s very easy to get caught up in the words we hear called the content and to miss the reason they are spoken, which is the context they are generated from. For example, we can be involved in an emotional subject like abortion and not see the massive takeover capacity of the healthcare bill to control so many important aspects of our lives and one-sixth or more of our financial futures.
To paraphrase Stephen Covey, “We have complete control over what choices we make and we have no conrol over the consequences they carry within them.”
One vital component is completely missing in all these Socialistic proposals and that is integrity. Without it all efforts no matter how grandly conceived or majestically presented will ultimately fail as history so aptly reveals again and again. So when people of low or missing integrity speak, “it’s never about what it’s about.
Almost everyone knows the quote ending in “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” If power tends toward currupting people, what can we expect from a group of politicians coming into powerful positions who were already corrupted?
The Founders studied the governments that preceded them. They struggled to create a government that would avoid the majority of the many pitfalls that exist. They started this extraordinary experiment by declaring, “We the People” instead of “We the Politicians.” They knew what they were doing by insisting that the power be vested in the people and the purpose of the government was to serve the people with integrity.
Eckhart Tolle described the Universe’s fundamental nature by saying, “Everything is crumbling. The mountains are crumbling, you and I are crumbling, our systems are crumbling.” Ideas like freedom, honesty, responsibility and truth do not have a life of their own. Someone must speak of them out loud and take a personal stand for them or they simply dissapear.
We have energy sources to utilize in this country — let’s do it! On another note, George Allen is STILL a true patriot. Virginia needs you — perhaps you will run again in a few years after our current president sets us back like Jimmy Carter did years ago. Thanks for your service!
Dear Governor Allen,
I am appalled by the audacity of the EPA officials declaring the very air we breathe as toxic to life. It is as if truth does not matter in any realm of government today–only the implementation of an agenda to take control of all aspects of life in the US and around the world. Much of what they propose will in fact be detrimental to life on earth in real ways that “too much” carbon dioxide will not. Their use of preemptory acts such as this in order to have leverage to pass legislation they know is opposed by the population and even most in Congress should be considered a criminal act. We cannot and must not accept lies as truth just because a bureaucrat declares it is so.
Donna Lauderdale
The GlobaL Warming hype is just another contrived “crisis” to be used to take control of our country by socialists/communists who desire to control the entire world. A hacker released evidence of falsified data and conspiracy by “scientists” desperate to perpetrate this fraud. Both China and India have stated they will not sign this treaty. Why? They don’t want their economies harmed! Why should the US economy be ruined further? Al Gore preaches about the “inconvenient truth” of global warming. However, the inconvenient truth is that Al Gore has invested with an investment firm that has invested almost a billion in “Green industries” and will profit heavily from this if signed. Al Gore had about $2 million when he left office in 2001 but now reportedly has about $100 million in assets. Talk about going green!
American energy needs a significant alternative for betterment of our future generation. To be able to revamp our economy we should come up with such a solution that is going to be a safe for our children and we keep our soberness around the globe. The existing system may not be able to keep us in #1 status therefore we need to do enough due diligence and come up with alternative American energy that can be sold to the rest of the world instead of import to balance our budget under your leadership.
Thank you.
I sent this to Michael Steele and wanted to let you have a copy….Rindy and I look forward to helping you as needed in the coming months…Best Wishes !
GOOD MORNING MICHAEL !
As you know, the tide is turning our way more every day with the strong-arm actions of the Dems. HOWEVER, the talk here in my part of Virginia…and I suspect nationwide….is still strong dissatisfaction with the current positions of the RNC….still too much of a big government…good ole’ boy network….and I agree.
LISTEN TO THE CONSERVATIVE TEA PARTY ACTIVISTS…Those who have spent their own time and moneys to come to rallys both in DC and around the nation! ….WE WANT A RETURN TO THE REAGAN CONSTITUTIONAL APPROACH TO GOVERNMENT !!! and right now only a few are understanding this….like Sen. Jim DeMint. That is why you all are seeing more 3rd party “independent” candidates coming to the forefront …because the RNC won’t bring itself to change its big government ways. There is HUGE FRUSTRATION in my area against the RNC from Republicans and I don’t think you all are getting…AND LISTENING…to the message….Please get out of DC and understand the true mood of the country….WE CAN SWEEP VIRTUALLY EVERY RACE IN 2010 !! IF YOU ALL CHANGE YOUR ATTITUDE ….WE’LL ATTRACT HUGE NUMBERS OF SO-CALLED “INDEPENDENT” VOTERS WHO ARE REALLY SEARCHING FOR A HOME…IF WE MISS THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SECURE THEM INTO OUR FOLD….IT WILL BE A MAJOR MISTAKE.
PLEASE LISTEN TO US !!….I AM ALMOST 70 YEARS OLD AND HAVE BEEN INVOLVED BEHIND THE SCENES IN REPUBLICAN ISSUES FOR MY WHOLE LIFE….OUR PARTY MUST HAVE THE COURAGE…AND CONVICTION TO CHANGE BACK TO OUR CORE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPALS….I AM SURE IF WE DO….WE WILL SEND THE DEMS A MESSAGE BY OUR UNBELIEVEABLE VICTORYS IN 2010 THAT WILL SCARE THE HELL OUT OF THEM FOR 2012….I WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED IF THEY DON’T DUMP OBAMA AFTER HIS 4 DISASTROUS LIBERAL YEARS ! IT CAN BE DONE…BUT WE MUST LISTEN TO THE TEA PARTY PEOPLE…THEY SPEAK FOR MILLIONS OF US !
I believe our country could be in a major recovery and moving forward a flank speed if we would focus on all resources for energy independence. We must back the EPA off and get the American people educated about the incredible progress we have made on safety in those areas of extraction, movement and usage. Television is our worst enemy and our greatest tool. We must try to educate the young people via this medium.
I believe that our loving creator would not have given us all the oil, gas and coal if it would suddenly be gone because we were using what he has given us. I also believe that these sources of energy do renew themselves, because there is no way the only oil was from animals dying and rotting.
Keep up the work.
Push for the French model of recycling spent nuclear rods, a potential key to more nuclear power
There needs to be L.P. tanks at every gas station so we have an alternative to run our vehicles on natural gas. Conversion in the vehicles is fast and cheap. Why no progress on this front? We have the resources. JUST DO IT! and stop supporting terroism against us. Let the Arabs drink their oil.
Drill Here Drill Now. We have lots of oil and natural gas here in this country. This will create jobs and stimulate our economy and energy independence which everyone wants. While we are using our own resources we can be looking for renewable energy.
All this gore talk and poetry about our sick planet is so absurd and lacks credibility.
Weather and climate will always change from year to year, century to century. The world won’t end until everyone hears the Gospel and has a chance to respond to that. When that happens and then we will know the end is near it won’t be green house gas that brings an end to this planet, but man’s rejection of Jesus Christ and not conforming to the plans and purposes of God for our lives.
GOD BLESS AMERICA, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, AND IN GOD WE TRUST! Global climate gate you bet! We are good stewards of what God hs bestowed upon us and we will continue to improve. A legal attempt to fleece the american people and others. THANK YOU LORD FOR WHAT YOU HAVE BESTOWED UPON US. MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Global Warming is another scam for government to raises taxes and for wall street to make money selling air. Total scam
Global Warming is a scam to penalize the ordinary citizen
Ronnie
Please run again!
-I along with the majority 0f West Virginians and US citizens are outraged with the Cap &Trade bill that is being considered-It need to be defeated-It can only destroy america as we know it-Economically it will destoy our way of life in this country as we know it-We hope that voters take note and vote out of office any member of congress who votes for this terrible bill.Thank you
I think Al Gore needs to invest in some really speedy running shoes! I keep wondering if he can be prosecuted for perpetrating a fraud upon the American people. He’s a liar. I’m sick about the damage he has done to how Americans are viewed in the world.
I favor former Governor Palin’s energy ideas. Clean coal, natural gas and start drilling for oil of our own. And certainly the United States of America owes NO ONE money for the agreements drawn up in Copenhagen. I did not agree to this use of tax dollars. Who did Obama think he was up there promising away our dollars for unsubstantiated carbon footprints. Here’s a footprint up your behind sir.
Drill Baby Drill.
Grief – we are being scared over every little
thing from Tsunami, schools lock down, climate, ’severe’ weather every time it rains
This is manipulation city. Yet we hear little
about the real problems- like why health costs go up and up but nobody explains what the causes are. Or why the Credit Default Swap market increased by 500 times in 10 years.
Also, for intermittent energy – it might make
more sense to bring the work to where the
windmills are than trying to connect them to
the grid, and ditto for solar.