Defund the EPA....they are the enemy of America

[Lord of Planar]

Yes, the EPA is an executive function, which allows for the agenda of Obama, or who ever the sitting president is.

Then there is a fact that once a bureaucracy is set in motion, they do whatever they can to keep their jobs. The look for more rules and regulations to justify their existence.

The EPA was once a good organization for America, but they need to be severely downsized, like the atmospheric sciences in NASA. They have served their original missions with pride, but are now a disgrace.

 

[Ikari]

Or, to put this another way: If the EPA banned the use of ethanol in cars, a bunch of other people would be screaming about the Evil Government getting in the way of free enterprise.

Really you just need to end corn subsidies, and a lot of this "corn for fuel" nonsense would go away.

But the EPA in general needs to exists and there is legitimate need for environmental regulation. People cannot be allowed to poison the air or water or ground that other people need to use as well. It can, as with anything government related, go overboard and reach too far. But we still need to keep it, just keep it to a reasonable and regulated size.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Really you just need to end corn subsidies, and a lot of this "corn for fuel" nonsense would go away.

But the EPA in general needs to exists and there is legitimate need for environmental regulation. People cannot be allowed to poison the air or water or ground that other people need to use as well. It can, as with anything government related, go overboard and reach too far. But we still need to keep it, just keep it to a reasonable and regulated size.

Yes.

End the subsidies. Then let's see how much pressure there is to go back to E00.

 

[eohrnberger]

Townhall.... lol

Sorry, but the inflated claims about the alleged damage from the reductions in carbon emissions are, how shall I say... exaggerated, and typically provided by coal- and fossil-fuel concerns, who have a vested interest in casting those changes in the worst possible light.

Any cost increase impact you don't like are 'exaggerated'. Got it.

Well, if you don't like Townhall, there are others.

Will the EPA’s regulations really increase electricity bills?
The Chamber released a report recently saying that the rule would cost businesses more than $50 billion a year; the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has estimated that it would save money overall; and the EPA’s analysis asserts that benefits would outweigh the costs, either because of avoiding climate change costs or because of the public health benefits that come from shutting down coal plants.

Everything you need to know about the EPA’s proposed rule on coal plants

I'm not believing the EPA's assertions. If you want bad numbers that are driven by politics and political agenda, count on the Executive and Legislative branches.

Washington, D.C. – New analysis from NERA Economic Consulting projects significant negative economic impacts resulting from the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed “Clean Power Plan” to regulate CO2 emissions from existing fossil-fuel power plants under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act.

NERA projects that the costs to comply with EPA’s proposed plan could total $366 billion, or more, in today’s dollars. The analysis also finds that 43 states will have double-digit electricity price increases, with 14 states potentially facing peak year electricity price increases that exceed 20 percent. Despite these significant costs, EPA’s proposal would have a meaningless effect on global climate change: atmospheric CO2 concentrations would be reduced by less than one-half of a percent, equating to reductions in global average temperature of less than 2/100th of a degree, and sea level rise would be reduced by 1/100th of an inch—equal to the thickness of three sheets of paper.

NERA also projected that EPA’s Clean Power Plan could cost consumers and businesses a staggering $41 billion or more per year, far outpacing the costs of all Clean Air Act rules for power plants in 2010 ($7 billion) and the annual cost of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule ($10 billion). Much of NERA’s cost projection is based on consumers having to spend more than $500 billion to reduce their use of electricity. The NERA analysis also finds that the proposal could shutter 45,000 megawatts or more of coal-based electricity, which is more than the entire electricity supply of New England.

New Study Confirms Major Economic Costs from EPA

Costs exceed any derived benefits from what I'm seeing here.

Double digit / 20% electricity price increases. Yeah, that's going to keep people from buying electric cars unless gas at the pump is somewhere North of $4/gal, but try as Obama might to dry up the oil flow by denying any permitting on federal lands, he can't do so on private lands, and fracking (next on his ecomentalist agenda?)

Oh, and if you genuinely believe some of those numbers? $51 billion is 0.3% of the US GDP in 2014. 226,000 workers is 0.19% of the US labor force -- and we certainly don't stop companies from laying off tens of thousands of employees at their own discretion, or keep people in inefficient jobs merely for the sake of keeping them employed like it's a welfare program. These are rounding error, not a genuine threat to the US economy or the labor force.

But... but... Obama's still President! Everything he's done is wrong and awful for the economy? How can the economy be on the verge of doing better?!? :lamo

Verge of doing better? I'd disagree.

The U.S. economy isn't off to a great start in 2015.

It's looking so rotten that the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta just cut its growth projection to zero for the first three months of the year.

Atlanta Fed cuts U.S. economic growth forecast to zero - Apr. 2, 2015

I'd say that the economy is doing as poorly as it is because of Obama's legislative and regulatory actions, and the recovery that we have, if you can call zero growth a recovery, is in spite of Obama's legislative and regulatory actions, and not aided by them.

Given the economic damage the recession has caused and the need for healing, we should be looking for ways to accelerate the economic growth, not stagnate it with heaping yet more compliance costs on businesses.

 

[Visbek]

Lots of folks have been sounding an alarm over E-15. In 2011 car manufacturers pleaded with Congress not to allow E-15.

As already discussed, cars made after 2011 will be fine with E15, and will be covered by warranties. (Other power gear, not so much.)

The EPA is supposed to revise the amounts, but is very late in doing so. It's not clear what, if anything, might get changed.

Consumer Report, AAA as well have been warning folks.

Yeah... in 2011

But it's my understanding Congress doesn't have any real control over the EPA

Your understanding is wildly incorrect.

The EPA can only do what Congress empowers it to do. The EPA is only involved in ethanol regulations because Congress ordered it to do so. At any moment, Congress could mandate the total removal of ethanol from auto fuel.

States also control pump labeling, and I believe (but am not 100% sure) they can also set their own ethanol standards.

....whatever political agenda is fueling it passes boatloads of regulations to further their cause which isn't always the best interests of the people.

That "political agenda" was and is largely working through Congress, not the EPA. Bureaucrats are less beholden to lobbyists than legislators.

That said, there is at least one viable reason to push ethanol, namely energy security; it's a local source of fuel. IMO it offers minimal environmental benefits over gas, but there is a viable policy reason for using ethanol.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The EPA can only do what Congress empowers it to do. The EPA is only involved in ethanol regulations because Congress ordered it to do so. At any moment, Congress could mandate the total removal of ethanol from auto fuel.

Not quite true.

It must also be signed by the president. The president has the power to tell the EPA what to do to a larger extent than congress does. The filling of the EPA's administrator is appointed by the president, and is a cabinet member.

 

[Visbek]

Any cost increase impact you don't like are 'exaggerated'. Got it.

Cost estimations put forth by the Republican-leaning Chamber of Commerce are likely to exaggerate economic impacts of policies they don't like, yes. At least, that's what they did in this case.
Fact-checking Obama's rules on carbon and coal plants | PolitiFact

I'm not believing the EPA's assertions.

But you believe the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity? Without reading their source? lol

ACCCE failed to mention a few things. NERA's report looks at 2017 to 2031 -- a 15 year period. They estimate a gain in the cost of electricity, the losses are due to energy efficiency programs, not to private businesses. The cost is $24.4 billion/yr, which sounds less than the $50bn you initially touted. Those figures were also using very high costs for NG and oil, which have been cut about in half since the report was released. That will obviously affect NERA's models in a variety of ways.

Double digit / 20% electricity price increases.

Looks like NERA estimates that the cost of electricity will only increase if the EPA does not go through with its energy efficiency plans (y'know, the one you were screaming about a second ago). It's also not a per-customer increase, it's a national increase -- as in, if we don't do anything to reduce demand, NERA assumes energy consumption will continue as normal. And again, it likely uses outdated NG/oil costs.

And again, these costs are drops in some very big buckets. $26bn a year is chump change in terms of GDP and federal budgets; $10bn/yr in increased energy consumption is about $70 per household, per year.

Oh, and I don't see the federal government -- or these fossil-fuel industry think tanks -- screaming their heads off when the price of oil or gas increases by, oh, 20%. After all, socking consumers and industries with a 20% increase in fuel costs surely has an impact on the economy, right? Yes, I wonder why they don't routinely provide 15-year projections on how much that costs the economy....

Verge of doing better? I'd disagree.

lol You do realize you're disagreeing with yourself, yes?

Given the economic damage the recession has caused and the need for healing, we should be looking for ways to accelerate the economic growth, not stagnate it with heaping yet more compliance costs on businesses.

Fortunately, the new regulations Obama chose for the EPA to pursue will not do any real damage to the economy. The coal sector will take a bit of a hit, there's no way around that. However, spending $26bn/yr on energy efficiency plans won't harm anyone, and reducing both pollution and greenhouse gases will benefit the economy and environment overall.

 

[iguanaman]

WARNING! CALL YOUR LOCAL DEALER TO ASK ABOUT YOUR CAR -- OR EVEN THE CAR COMPANY.

Don't use NEW GAS COMING TO STATIONS

The EPA has changed the rules on corn in gasoline.
Important if you have a car 2012 or older.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/ceW9Nc1hVHU?feature=player_detailpage

Don't blame the EPA for ethanol, it's the farm lobby and their representatives in Congress that have made it the law of the land.

 

[iguanaman]

Not quite true.

It must also be signed by the president. The president has the power to tell the EPA what to do to a larger extent than congress does. The filling of the EPA's administrator is appointed by the president, and is a cabinet member.

But the President would face the wrath of the farm lobby and the Representatives from the farm States too. This is a farm bill not a pollution bill.

 

[vesper]

Not quite true.

It must also be signed by the president. The president has the power to tell the EPA what to do to a larger extent than congress does. The filling of the EPA's administrator is appointed by the president, and is a cabinet member.

Congress currently has had legislation pending for years that was passed in the House and shelved by Reid in the Senate that would reign in the EPA. But nothing can be done until there is a regime change at the WH.

 

[Lord of Planar]

But the President would face the wrath of the farm lobby and the Representatives from the farm States too. This is a farm bill not a pollution bill.

Agreed.

One of these days, we need to stop politicians from buying their votes.

 

[Deuce]

Some Things to Know About Obama's New EPA Regulations - Katie Pavlich

It's as if the economy was just on the verge of actually doing better, and then torpedoed by these added expenses out of everyone's pockets for foolish climate change hysteria.

The EPA's analysis differs from the numbers given in this article.

 

[Deuce]

I see it now, Government agencies are bad about claiming a slowdown in growth is a cut.

Uhh, no. Inflation. Are you familiar with the concept?

You're comparing 1990 dollars to 2010 dollars and going "LOOK, IT GREW!" Of course it did. Inflation.

The gulf would be even wider if you accounted for population growth as well. Regulatory costs increase as the number of people being regulated increases. I mean, you wouldn't keep the same ten-man small-town police department for a city that has grown to a million people, right?

 

[LizardofOz]

So am I missing something what is the problem? Everyone I know has cars that use gasoline not ethanol?

 

[Lord of Planar]

So am I missing something what is the problem? Everyone I know has cars that use gasoline not ethanol?

Almost all gasoline today is E10 (10% ethanol). This caused lots of problems with older cars not designed to run on it. Now, they want to increase the gasoline to 15% ethanol, and cars older than 2002 will likely start having problems. It's iffy if it will affect the newer models.

Just look at the pump carefully where you buy gas. It will say E10, 10% ethanol, or something similar.

 

[clownboy]

So am I missing something what is the problem? Everyone I know has cars that use gasoline not ethanol?

If you are using gasoline you are using ethanol. The states require differing percentage of ethanol be added to gasoline, so do the feds.

 

[longview]

Uhh, no. Inflation. Are you familiar with the concept?

You're comparing 1990 dollars to 2010 dollars and going "LOOK, IT GREW!" Of course it did. Inflation.

The gulf would be even wider if you accounted for population growth as well. Regulatory costs increase as the number of people being regulated increases. I mean, you wouldn't keep the same ten-man small-town police department for a city that has grown to a million people, right?

The purpose of the graph was to imply their funding had basically been level which is not true.
Most years they saw increases in funding, those increases mostly kept up with inflation,
The constitution never required departments keep their funding even with inflation.
I was point out that agencies that only get a 5% increase in funding when they were planning
on a 10% increase, claim their funding was cut.

 

[Deuce]

The purpose of the graph was to imply their funding had basically been level which is not true.
Most years they saw increases in funding, those increases mostly kept up with inflation,
The constitution never required departments keep their funding even with inflation.
I was point out that agencies that only get a 5% increase in funding when they were planning
on a 10% increase, claim their funding was cut.

Except you were wrong on both counts. When adjusted to 2010 dollars, their budget has, in fact, decreased. "Expected" funding was never a factor.

 

[longview]

Except you were wrong on both counts. When adjusted to 2010 dollars, their budget has, in fact, decreased. "Expected" funding was never a factor.

It it a shame most of the taxpayers don't get inflation adjusted salaries.
No, dollars are dollars, they budget went up except between 2012 and 2013.

 

[LizardofOz]

Almost all gasoline today is E10 (10% ethanol). This caused lots of problems with older cars not designed to run on it. Now, they want to increase the gasoline to 15% ethanol, and cars older than 2002 will likely start having problems. It's iffy if it will affect the newer models.

Just look at the pump carefully where you buy gas. It will say E10, 10% ethanol, or something similar.

Still not sure what the problem is, as it still doesn't effect gasoline specifically, this is specifically effecting ethanol only tanks.

 

[longview]

Still not sure what the problem is, as it still doesn't effect gasoline specifically, this is specifically effecting ethanol only tanks.

I think the big problem with ethanol, is from a technical standpoint it is an evolutionary dead end.
Replacing our current transportation energy needs with corn base ethanol, would cause mass
starvation. It is a bad idea to put our energy supply in competition with our food supply!

 

[Lord of Planar]

Still not sure what the problem is, as it still doesn't effect gasoline specifically, this is specifically effecting ethanol only tanks.

No, ethanol breaks down gaskets, and corrodes steel, aluminum, etc. Some cars will flat out break down once you pass a certain percentage of alcohol.

It is rare to be able to buy gasoline that isn't infused with 10% alcohol.

 

[Deuce]

It it a shame most of the taxpayers don't get inflation adjusted salaries.
No, dollars are dollars, they budget went up except between 2012 and 2013.

Fantastic mental gymnastics.

 

[Visbek]

I think the big problem with ethanol, is from a technical standpoint it is an evolutionary dead end.
Replacing our current transportation energy needs with corn base ethanol, would cause mass
starvation.

We have more corn than we know what to do with, tons of it. That's why corn syrup is cheaper than sugar, why corn is in so many processed foods, why using corn for ethanol barely dented corn prices, why farmers are pushing to use more ethanol.

 

[jaeger19]

I think the big problem with ethanol, is from a technical standpoint it is an evolutionary dead end.
Replacing our current transportation energy needs with corn base ethanol, would cause mass
starvation. It is a bad idea to put our energy supply in competition with our food supply!

Actual ethanol from a technical standpoint.. ethanol makes the most sense as a fuel. Its technology is well established compared to other alternatives.

Most people think that the reason that corn is used for ethanol is because of subsidies for ethanol.. not true... in fact.. the use of ethanol decreases the need for corn subsidies not the other way around.

Very frustrating to watch the BS around ethanol.

Ethanol makes sense.. the problem is that how its handled in the US is absolutely stupid... which.. is probably because the oil companies and oil refineries do not want an actual competitor to their product,