November 14, 2018

Is The EPA Being Bound and Gagged?

“Environmentalists said the orders were having a chilling effect on EPA staff already suffering from low morale. Trump and Pruitt have both been frequent critics of the agency and have questioned the validity of climate science showing that the Earth is warming and man-made carbon emissions are to blame.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

EPA Finding: Emissions from Aircraft Creates Public Health Issue

*Editor’s Note* – It is such a farce that this totalitarian/fascist government, that uses draconian regulations, through the Environmental Protection Agency, to bleed the people dry of their hard-earned money and to regulate them out of existence, on a daily basis pollute our sky with chemical aerosol spraying, hidden behind the lie of “controlling the weather.” These fascist idiots have convinced the majority of the rest of the non thinking Americans that exhaust from airplanes contributes to “greenhouse gases” and thus promotes “climate change.” We already have been told by the fascists that “climate change” is a health risk and it’s going to eventually kill us all. And yet we ignorantly allow the government to regulate us to death, while turning up our noses at planes polluting the sky, and at the same time are ignorant to, or turn a blind eye to, the biggest polluter of the planet spraying us with chemicals on a daily, 24/7 basis – the United States Corporation.

But by all means, Don’t Look Up!

SUMMARY: In this action, the Administrator finds that elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations within the meaning of section 231(a)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act (CAA, or Act). She makes this finding specifically with respect to the same six well-mixed greenhouse gases–carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride– that together were defined as the air pollution in the 2009 Endangerment Finding under section 202(a) of the CAA and that together constitute the primary cause of the climate change problem. The Administrator also finds that emissions of those six well-mixed greenhouse gases from certain classes of engines used in certain aircraft are contributing to the air pollution–the aggregate group of the same six greenhouse gases–that endangers public health and welfare under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A).<<<Read More>>>

Share

EPA Caught BUYING It’s “Independent” Science Advisers 

The Energy & Environment Legal Institute (EELI) is suing EPA on behalf of the Western States Trucking Association and Dr. James Enstrom, a retired University of California-Los Angeles epidemiologist who was blacklisted for challenging EPA claims about particulate matter.

“The EPA has stacked the panel, which is required by law to be independent and unbiased, with researchers who have received over $190 million in discretionary grants from the EPA,” said Steve Milloy, an attorney with EELI, in a statement.

“This clearly violates the law and makes a mockery of the notion of ‘independent’ scientific review,” he said.

Source: EPA Caught BUYING It’s “Independent” Science Advisers – California Political Review

Share

Protecting Aquatic Life From Effects of Hydrologic Alteration

Are you smart enough to understand what this really means?

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Geological Survey are releasing a draft technical report: Protecting Aquatic Life from Effects of Hydrologic Alteration, for a 60-day public comment period. This report was developed because hydrologic alteration can be a contributor of impairment for water bodies that are designated to support aquatic life. Stresses on aquatic life associated with hydrologic alteration may be further exacerbated through climate change. Recent climate trends have included the change in frequency and duration of extreme weather events, such as droughts and floods, which can have an impact on flow and affect aquatic life. The report is a nonprescriptive framework with information to help states, tribes, territories, water resource managers, and other stakeholders responsible for the maintenance of hydrologic flow regime to quantify flow targets for the preservation of aquatic life and habitat. This report also provides information on the relationship between hydrologic condition and water quality and gives examples of what some states and authorized tribes have done to address flow concerns using the Clean Water Act. The framework can also be used to translate narrative criteria and develop flow targets to protect aquatic life and habitat.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Stand By for “Citizen Science” and “Crowdsourcing”

upsidebackwards2

Uh huh! You got that right! So here we have it. The EPA is asking that it be given the authority to take anything, from anybody, and deem it usable science for purposes of administering their fascist agenda. I’m not sure if this proposal is a:

DognPonyShowor maybe it’s just:

SmokenMirrors EPA claims they post ALL comments from concerned citizens, etc. and include them in impact statements etc. They do not. EPA wants you to think they use “science” in making their determinations. They do not. EPA now wants you to think that somehow they are going to read and evaluate your input for quantity and quality and utilize it to further enhance the “scientific process” – also known as the Dog and Pony Show. The smoke and mirrors come later, during the actual processes.

All government agencies only use what fits their narrative. After all, they are fascists working under the fascist government, which is controlled by secret members of the Council on Foreign Relations.

If you think this proposal is actually going to change anything, you are quite wrong. If you think this proposal is now going to have the EPA using opinions and paradigm-shifting, post-normal, faux “science” in rendering decisions, they already do. This proposal is for YOU, the non thinker, who actually believes that the government is looking out for you and you now can become a fascist player and be a part of the group. The proposal says so!

Read this. It’s not long. It’s a big joke AND it’s a waste of taxpayer money to even draw up the proposal. But, then again, we have come to see this all as normal and accept it. We must really like it.

How’s that new app for your “eye” phone working out?

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA–HQ–ORD–2015–0659; FRL—9935–10– ORD]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Generic Clearance for Citizen Science and Crowdsourcing Projects (New)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), ‘‘Generic Clearance for Citizen Science and Crowdsourcing Projects (New)’’ (EPA ICR No. 2521.01, OMB Control No. 2080–NEW) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a request for approval of a new collection. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 30, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– ORD–2015–0659 referencing the Docket ID numbers provided for each item in the text, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Generic Clearance for Citizen Science and Crowdsourcing Projects (New), IOAA–ORD, (Mail Code 8101R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number 202–564– 3262; fax number: 202–565–2494; email address: benforado.jay@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202–566–1744. For additional information about EPA’s public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/ dockets.

Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

Abstract: EPA relies on scientific information. Citizen science and crowdsourcing techniques will allow the Agency to collect qualitative and quantitative data that might help inform scientific research, assessments, or environmental screening; validate environmental models or tools; or enhance the quantity and quality of data collected across the country’s diverse communities and ecosystems to support the Agency’s mission. Information gathered under this generic clearance will be used by the Agency to support the activities listed above and might provide unprecedented avenues for conducting breakthrough research. Collections under this generic ICR will be from participants who actively seek to participate on their own initiative through an open and transparent process (the Agency does not select participants or require participation); the collections will be low-burden for participants; collections will be low-cost for both the participants and the Federal Government; and data will be available to support the scientific research (including assessments, environmental screening, tools, models, etc.) of the Agency, states, tribal or local entities where data collection occurs. EPA may, by virtue of collaborating with nonfederal entities, sponsor the collection of this type of information in connection with citizen science projects. When applicable, all such collections will accord with Agency policies and regulations related to human subjects research and will follow the established approval paths through EPA’s Human Subjects Research Review Official. Finally, personally identifiable information (PII) will only be collected when necessary and in accordance with applicable federal procedures and policies. If a new collection is not within the parameters of this generic ICR, the Agency will submit a separate information collection request to OMB for approval.

Form Numbers: None. Respondents/affected entities: Participants/respondents will be individuals, not specific entities. Respondent’s obligation to respond: Voluntary. Estimated number of respondents: 17,500 (total). Frequency of response: The frequency of responses will range from once to on occasion. Total estimated burden: 295,250 to 313,250 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b). Total estimated cost: $9,910,997 to $10,483,217 (per year), includes $525,000 annualized capital for operation & maintenance costs. Changes in Estimates: This is a new information collection. The Agency will make adjustments to the burden numbers as needed. Dated: September 21, 2015. Jay Benforado, Deputy Chief Innovation Officer, Office of Research and Development. [FR Doc. 2015–25025 Filed 9–30–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

Share

EPA Wants 6% Increase in Money, Can’t Answer Simple Questions

Share

Revitalizing The Information Quality Act as a Procedural Cure For Unsound Regulatory Science: A Greenhouse Gas Rulemaking Case Study

Lawrence A. Kogan, Esq.
Introduction – Dr. John D. Graham, Indiana University
Foreword – Jim J. Tozzi, Center for Regulatory Effectiveness

Executive Summary:

Congress passed the Information Quality Act (IQA) in 2000 to implement and amend the Paperwork Reduction Act. The law requires federal agencies to ensure the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of the scientific, technical, and statistical information that federal agencies adopt and disseminate to the public. Although the law is nominally a procedural statute, this WORKING PAPER explains how regulated entities and other stakeholders can successfully seek judicial enforcement of the IQA when agencies rely upon flawed science for federal rules, and those rules impose paperwork, compliance, and other burdens.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is responsible for implementing the IQA. OMB’s IQA Guidelines required that each federal agency develop and adhere to their own IQA guidelines, and set out minimum criteria for scientific peer review of agency-drafted and third-party studies and scientific assessments, as well as criteria for the selection of peer reviewers. OMB dictated that these peer-review standards be especially rigorous for “highly influential scientific assessments.” Federal agencies must also provide an administrative review mechanism that will allow affected entities to seek correction of agency-disseminated information that was not adequately validated. Agencies routinely carry out this mandate by addressing requests for correction as part of their responses to public comments in a final regulation—an approach, the paper argues, that does not afford sufficient due process to stakeholders.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2009 greenhouse gas Endangerment Findings, and the decision-making process underlying them, offers an instructive IQA case study. A review of the extensive record and the peer review activities underlying the Findings reveals extensive violations of conflict-of-interest and other IQA-related standards. EPA also did not consider stakeholders’ challenges regarding these violations in a timely or sufficiently specialized manner. Stakeholders’ requests for reconsideration of the Findings were also rejected.

Stakeholders faced with such adverse, final agency actions would traditionally consider legal action against the responsible federal agency. As the WORKING PAPER explains, however, federal courts have been generally skeptical of regulated entities’ private causes of action to redress agencies’ noncompliance with IQA standards. Those complaints have foundered on plaintiffs’ standing to sue, as well as their assertion of a positive right to properly peer-reviewed government information.

This paper proposes an alternative approach to judicial enforcement of the IQA, one which addresses past lawsuits’ shortcomings. It explains this alternative approach in the context of a challenge to EPA’s violation of IQA during its development of the Endangerment Findings. The contemplated cause of action is based on the theory that Congress intended that the IQA, as an implementation of the Paperwork Reduction Act, protect the negative right of a designated class of persons not to be burdened, financially or otherwise, by poor quality science that agencies disseminate in support of major regulations. The lawsuit would formally be brought as an action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Private entities, such as regulated businesses could establish standing to sue based on the particularized economic injuries they have suffered from regulatory burdens. State governments could take advantage of U.S. Supreme Court precedents that convey standing Copyright © 2015 Washington Legal Foundation ixunder the doctrine of parens patriae when such public actors are suing in their quasi-sovereign capacity. A narrowly-pled, factually-supported challenge utilizing the APA would not only be consistent with the longstanding presumption that Congress intends judicial review of administrative action, but it would also be sufficient to overcome some federal courts’ presumption against implied causes of action.

Fueled by decades of ineffective oversight, federal agencies’ respect for science and the scientific process has severely diminished. For that reason, one can easily foresee many potential applications of the enforcement framework offered in this paper. Other actions by EPA where stakeholders have strongly questioned the supporting science could be particularly inviting targets as well. They include: EPA’s “Waters of the United States” proposal; its social cost of carbon proposal; its proposed ozone regulations; its NEPA review of the Keystone XL pipeline; its study on the impacts of hydraulic fracturing; and EPA and NOAA disapproval of state coastal nonpoint pollution control programs. Another possible target could be the Fish and Wildlife Service’s threatened or endangered species designations.<<<Get Full Study>>>

Share

Critical Thinking on Climate Change

Empirical Evidence to Consider Before Taking Regulatory Action and Implementing Economic Policies – September 4, 2014

Introduction:

When this report was first introduced in July of 2013, a number of important assertions were being made in the public forum, particularly on Capitol Hill, that were wholly factually and scientifically inaccurate. The original version of the report, as well as the expert scientific testimony provided to Congress in the interim, was meant to be helpful in limiting some of the more egregious claims that were being perpetuated. Unfortunately, much of the public discourse on important issues related to climate science has devolved into name-calling, including terminology such as “denier” or “dirty denier.”1 Both have connotations which frequent use of is counter-productive to an honest public discussion involving a matter of such incredible scientific and economic importance. No scientific discussion that requires precision, particularly when it relates to issues as complex as climate science, should utilize means to limit debate and understanding when critical evaluation is necessary.

Additional events that have transpired since the first version of this report was introduced clarify the need for providing some basic level scientific facts that are important to understanding carbon dioxide’s (CO2) role in our environment. Certain media figures have gone so far as to try and discredit the basic science of photosynthesis2 and our understanding of the impacts of anthropogenic CO2. Such mischaracterization does an additional disservice to the understanding of this important greenhouse gas and related policy making.

To rectify some of the challenges in ensuring additional factors based on empirical evidence were understood, this report has been updated to include the following:

1. A new section has been added on the benefits of CO2.
2. Wildfires and forestry management have garnered additional public attention of late, and so was split into its own section with additional information.
3. A new section has been added on the impacts European countries have seen as a result of their climate regulations.
4. A new section has been added on Polar Bear populations and claims of mass extinctions.
5. Nearly all sections have been updated with new information.
6. An addendum was added to provide examples of how the Obama Administration’s National Climate Assessment report ignores critical scientific evidence when submitted by top researchers and scientists.

Four former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrators testified before the EPW Committee in 2014 and provided important answers to questions for the record as it relates to basic CO2 science, economics, and EPA regulations:<<<Read Full Report>>>

Share

Environmental Gestapo Raid Ammo Company

“Environmental Protection Agency and FBI agents raided the ammunition company USA Brass over alleged “environmental violations” early Thursday morning.

NBC Montana was tipped off by witnesses that federal investigators were there until at least 4 a.m. on Thursday. Federal agents could be seen going through the company’s building and taking items to a truck parked outside. EPA lead criminal investigator Bert Marsden said that the agency was looking into alleged “environmental violations” by USA Brass.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

U.S. Government’s Brainwashing of Students on Climate Change

polarbearoniceWhat utter nonsense and I’m pissed that some of my tax dollars are being spent to spread propaganda used to brainwash students about the fabricated lies of man-caused climate change. At a time when all indications disprove the lies about man-caused climate change, when scientists are now saying we are entering a phase of at least 30 years of cooling, when Arctic sea ice is growing at a rapid pace, tax dollars are continuing to be used to indoctrinate our kids with lies.

Why do we stand for this?

The Environmental Protection Agency (protecting us from what?) makes available, on a tax-funded website, lesson plans for teachers so they can fill our students’ heads full of lies and deception. Lesson plan titles include:

1. Weather and Climate: What’s the Difference? (The liars perpetuating fake climate change don’t know the difference.)
2. Mapping Greenhouse Gas Emissions Where You Live – (Teaching our kids to be spies?)
3. Carbon Through the Seasons – (Scientists don’t have all the answers to the role carbon plays in our climate.)
4. Getting to the Core: Climate Change Over Time – (You wonder if they use data taken from the University of East Anglia where the fudged climate data was used to promote more research money and fulfill agendas. Climategate ring a bell with anyone?)
5. Tree Rings: Living Records of Climate – (More fake data.)
6. Sea Level on the Rise – (Hokus-Pokus and now scientists are claiming sea levels have stopped rising.)
7. Coral and Chemistry – (I wonder whose)

Utter nonsense and a damned waste of taxpayer money. We don’t care anymore what we stuff into the heads of our kids. Let the government do it. That’s what we are programmed to do.

Share