CFACT provides expert testimony at EPA coal hearings from coast to coast

EPA's scientific justification for these rules is fatally flawed, and of course it makes no economic calculations for rules that would cripple America.

  • Duggan testifying on EPA

In September, EPA proposed rules that would effectively block the construction and operation of any new coal-fired power plants in the United States.  In October, the agency moved to complete its anti-coal crusade with the publication of a proposal that would effectively shut down nearly every EXISTING coal-fired power plant in the United States.

EPA then announced it would conduct “public listening sessions” in Washington, D.C., and in the 10 cities in which the agency has regional offices.  CFACT sent representatives to five of the hearings, presented expert testimony, and submitted a small mountain of hard facts into the record which exposed the shoddy science behind EPA’s war on coal and the devastation it will wreak on jobs and the economy.   Never forget that these job- and economy-killing rules will do nothing to improve the environment (given that carbon dioxide is not really a pollutant).  At the outset, CFACT announced a  National Petition for Affordable Energy that has been garnering signatures all over the country and the world.

We have previously reported on the work CFACT Collegians did at the October 23 “listening session” in Atlanta, Georgia, at which Georgia State Collegians Chapter leader Jeff Copeland warned, “We believe EPA’s proposed regulations on coal power plants are going to kill jobs, shut down factories, companies and industries and hurt our future. That’s simply unacceptable.”   Moreover, said CFACT Coordinator Rob Harrelson,  “Real science says you change your hypothesis and model if actual facts don’t back them up. What EPA is doing is political science – politics dictating science. That’s wrong.”

As was the case in Atlanta, where only a handful spoke in favor of the EPA proposal, agency staffers got major earfuls in Denver and Dallas.  KVNF public radio (western Colorado) reports that coal miners and power plant and utility workers traveled to Denver on November 4 from Montana, Wyoming, and North Dakota to tell EPA not to regulate carbon dioxide.

Duggan at EPA hearingAnd in Dallas on November 7, CFACT Policy Research Director Duggan Flanakin joined 150 determined speakers, many representing coal miners, power plants, and local governments about to be devastated by EPA’s strong-arm, Congress circumventing  tactics.  Flanakin argued that good public policy must be based on truth and serve the public interest – and that the EPA proposal failed both tests.

Not only is carbon dioxide NOT responsible for ozone formation or brain cancer (despite what we heard from some Sierra Clubbers) the whole world now knows that the IPCC computer models, upon which EPA justifies carbon dioxide regulation, have been shown to be poor predictors of real-world conditions, which is what one might expect when politicians ignore real-world data and then manipulate the computer-based  “evidence” to suit their fancies.  Flanakin added that, while EPA is eager to kill coal and power plant jobs, these rules would provide great job security for EPA employees.

Bonner CohenAt the same time, CFACT’s Bonner Cohen was facing a much more hostile audience in Washington, D.C., as he told EPA their proposal failed the science and regulatory tests for good policy.  Noting that the total U.S. contribution to atmospheric CO2 is 0.01%, and the contribution from coal-fired power plants is but a fraction of that amount, EPA cannot say with any accuracy whether the rules would affect the climate.  On the regulatory side, Cohen noted that China and India have both announced they have no interest in denying their citizens and businesses the affordable energy that coal and other fossil fuels provide.  It is economic suicide, then, for the U.S. to shut down 37% of its electricity generation capacity.

Later that day, CFACT Collegians from the University of Washington spoke at the EPA “listening session” in Seattle. Billy SeattleLHStinson stated that it makes no sense for EPA to attack the miniscule amount of carbon dioxide emitted from coal-fired power plants, especially given that fossil fuels supply 80% of the energy for America’s jobs, living standards, health and welfare.

Laycee Hyde added that the worst impacts of the EPA rules would be felt by the poor through higher energy prices – yet EPA refuses to conduct cost-benefit studies that place quantitative values on lost jobs, injuries to wildlife from wind turbines, lost industrial capacity, and the struggle by the poor to pay soaring utility bills.  Laycee reported that she and Billy were the only two speakers in Seattle opposing the EPA rules – and that she was heckled and Billy’s speech was met with total silence.

CFACT – which is challenging other EPA rules in court – was also represented on November 8 in Chicago by Senior Policy Advisor Paul Driessen, whose testimony must have burned the ears of EPA minions and President Obama’s Hyde Park neighbors.  Driessen noted that EPA’s climate models have been proven useless by real-world data and that NONE of their claims about hurricanes, tornadoes, rising seas, wildfires, and other alleged dangers of carbon dioxide “pollution” have been accurate.

Driessen stated that the EPA’s goal is to kill jobs, shut down factories, companies, and industries and to devastate families and communities that depend on coal mining, factory jobs, and affordable energy.  In sum, every life EPA claims these rules would improve would in reality be made worse by EPA’s own rules – and EPA knows it.

As the EPA hearings drew to a close, CFACT left determined to go on speaking truth to Green power.  CFACT stands prepared to rebut any new enviro-powered initiative with hard facts.  President Obama, EPA, and other federal agencies have become quite intent on wrecking the American dream.  As numerous Americans have said over the centuries, “We have only just begun to fight!”

Categories

About the Author: Duggan Flanakin

Duggan Flanakin

Duggan Flanakin is the Director of Policy Research at the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow. A former Senior Fellow with both the Texas and Arkansas Public Policy Foundations, Mr. Flanakin has a Master's in Public Policy from Regent University. During the years he spent reporting on environmental regulation in Texas and nationwide, Mr. Flanakin authored definitive works on the creation of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and on environmental education in Texas.

  • jameshrust

    The National Academy of Sciences has published a report claiming ethanol in gasoline creates ozone. Carbon dioxide does not create ozone; but the use of ethanol which is supposed to reduce increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide creates ozone.
    James Rust

  • MrLynn

    The EPA is not going to listen to CFACT or anyone else. They are pursuing a radical enviro agenda with the full backing of the President and his CAGW alarmist coterie. However, the EPA can be stopped—by Congress. Can CFACT get House members to introduce a bill to stop EPA CO2 regulation? Such a bill would doubtless pass the House, and with coal-state Democrats joining Republicans, could possibly pass the Senate. Of course it would face a presidential veto, but that would bring the issue square to the fore, and my guess is that the bill could be then passed with a veto-proof majority. Just a guess, but what the heck. Is CFACT in a position to do this kind of lobbying?

  • Burl Henry

    Based upon the climatic cooling resulting from the pollution from a large volacnic eruption, and its ending after the pollution has settled out, it can be stated as a FACT that natural warming will occur whenever a significant amount of pollution is removed from the atmosphere.

    Thus, the cleansing resulting from the Clean Air Act, et al, caused global temperatures to rise–as they HAD to–but the rise (the “hockey stick”) was wrongly attributed to CO2 rather than simply to the cleaner, more transparent air (fewer aerosols)

    This simple, but powerful, empirical model completely demolishes the rationale for the “greenhouse gas” global warming hypothesis, since there has been NO warming that can be tied to CO2.

    Why has this argument not been used to counter the greenhouse gas hypothesis? It appears to be unassailable.

  • tomwys

    tomwys says:

    What happens when you add more CO2 to the atmosphere from current levels.”

    Answer: For the last 17 years, CO2 has been added to our atmosphere, from 360 to 400 ppm. Insofar as global atmospheric temperature is concerned, the answer is quite clear, and I can tell you EXACTLY what happened: Nothing!!!

    Time to let the EPA know!!! Thanks CFACT for trying to do so!!!

    • USACITIZEN97

      SOMETHING DOES HAPPEN:::::: THE PLANTS LIKE TREES FLOWERS, VEGGIES,GRASS, ETC, ALL NEED CARBON DIOXIDE TO GROW AND IN TURN THEY PRODUCE OXYGEN WHICH WE NEED SO IT IS A WIN WIN SITUATION FOR US….. TIME FOR THE EPA TO BE CLOSED DOWN AND PUT OUT OF BUSINESS. IT TAKES PEOPLE WITH INTELLIGENCE AND GOD GIVEN WISDOM TO MAKE PROPER DECISIONS::::::::::: SO FAR THE GOVERNMENT HAS PROVEN THEY HAVE NEITHER INTELLIGENCE OR WISDOM……………………………….

      • Lee O. Welter

        …nor human values.

      • vacmancan

        Sweetheart, you claimed you have god given wisdom, didn’t you? Which god gave you the wisdom? Be specific please.

      • Average Joe.

        vacaman is an idiot. He’s a proselytizing atheist. Just say GOD and the moron shows up with his Bigotry and hate.

        Flag the idiot and save the planet one click at a time.

    • vacmancan

      Sweetheart. we just had the hottest decade in history. See what co2 does to the planet?

      • Average Joe.

        Despite no global warming in 10 years and recording setting cold in 2007-2008, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climatic Change (IPCC) and computer modelers who believe that CO2 is the cause of global warming still predict the Earth is in store for catastrophic warming in this century. IPCC computer models have predicted global warming of 1° F per decade and 5-6° C (10-11° F) by 2100 (Fig. 1), which would cause global catastrophe with ramifications for human life, natural habitat, energy and water resources, and food production. All of this is predicated on theassumption that global warming is caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 and that CO2 will continue to rise rapidly.

        http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here

        The not so settled science of Global Warming!

  • Lee O. Welter

    The Cult of Anthropogenic Climate Alteration is violating the First Amendment prohibition of government established religion.