Testimony on EPA’s proposed rules for existing power plants — Atlanta, Georgia

cfactlogotall

Clean Power Plan Public Hearing Testimony

July 30, 2014

Marita Noon

 Today, I have come to address the EPA’s proposed rule regarding carbon emissions from existing power plants. I speak on behalf of myself and my personal views.

I also represent the Washington DC based group: Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and its 60,000 supporters. Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow has been working on issues of environment and development for more than twenty-five years with a board consisting of more than fifty scientists and academic advisors from leading universities, think tanks, and laboratories from around the world. I serve as a policy analyst for Committee For a Constructive Tomorrow.

I was here yesterday and earlier today. I’ve listened to the well intentioned pleas from many who have begged you,

Marita Noon testifies before EPA in Atlanta

Marita Noon testifies before EPA in Atlanta

the EPA, to take even stronger action than this plan proposes. One even dramatically claimed; “You are the Environmental Protection Agency. You are our only hope. If you don’t protect us no one will.”

I heard a teary-eyed, young woman tell a tale about a man she knows who is dying of cancer, supposedly, because he grew up near a coal-fired power plant—he couldn’t be here, so she told his story. She also said: “I am fortunate enough to have not been around in the 1960s when there was real smog.” Her father has told her about it.

Another addressed how she gets headaches from emissions. She told how lung tissue can be burned. And, how particulates are why people can no longer see the mountain in her region.

An attorney’s testimony told about seeing “carbon pollution” every day from his 36th floor office “a few blocks from here” from where he looks “out over a smog covered city.”

The passion of these commenters supersedes their knowledge as none of the issues I’ve mentioned here, and there are many more, are something caused by carbon dioxide—a clear, colorless gas that each of us breathe out and plants breathe in.

Carbon dioxide is a natural, and essential, part of the environment—with massive, unknown, quantities of carbon dioxide emitted each year from natural sources such as volcanoes. Were you able to eliminate carbon dioxide from every industrial source in the United States, it will have virtually no impact on global carbon dioxide emissions.

I understand the concerns over true smog and pollution. I grew up in southern California—graduating from high school in 1976. At that time, we had made a mess of our environment. We had polluted the air and water. Cleaning up our collective act was an important public policy issue. San Bernardino, California, where my family lived, was in a valley, surrounded by mountains. If was not uncommon for a family to move into the area in the summer, when the smog was the worst, and not even know the beautiful mountains existed. In the fall when the winds came in and blew the smog out to sea, newcomers where amazed to discover the mountains.

But that pollution, that smog, has largely been cleaned up. Utilities have spent hundreds of billion dollars on scrubbers, and other highly technical equipment, to, successfully, remove the vast majority of the particulates. People often see a billowing white cloud coming from the stacks at a coal-fueled power plant and confuse it with pollution when it is really H2O—water in the form of steam. Depending on the time of year, or the time of day, it may be more or less visible. The weather conditions may make it settle like fog until the sun burns it off. And this, I believe, is mistaken for pollution.

If you haven’t seen Randy Scott Slavin’s Bird’s-Eye-View of New York City, I encourage you to check it out as it shows an amazingly clean city—despite the more than 800 million people living in those compact 469 square miles. New York City is one of the most populated places on the planet, yet its air is sparkling.

This rule is not about pollution. It is about shutting down coal-fueled power plants and killing jobs and raising electricity rates—both of which punish people who can least afford it. But plenty of others have addressed the economic impact so I won’t take more of my time on that topic.

But, I do want to address the constitutionality of the proposed plan as it does exactly what the Supreme Court admonished the EPA about on June 23. Justice Antonin Scalia, for the majority, wrote this about the Tailoring Rule decision: “Were we to recognize the authority claimed by EPA in the Tailoring Rule, we would deal a severe blow to the Constitution’s separation of powers… The power of executing laws…does not include a power to revise clear statutory terms that turn out not to work in practice.” Yet, this is exactly what this proposed plan will do.

Later in the decision, Scalia says: “When an agency claims to discover in a long-extant statute an unheralded power to regulate “a significant portion of the American economy” . . . we typically greet its announcement with a measure of skepticism. We expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign an agency decisions of vast “economic and political significance.”

I believe on these grounds, this plan must not go forward.

I fear that if it does, America will pay a dear price. This hearing was scheduled to take place down the street at the Sam Nunn Federal Center. However, it was moved due to a power outage. Note: business cannot be done without power. You were able to move this hearing. In a reduced-power environment businesses will move to places where they have access to energy that is effective, efficient, and economical. They will move, as many have already done, to places with far-looser environmental policies and the perceived gain will be lost.

Thinking that what we do in the United States will have a serious impact on global carbon dioxide emissions is like thinking that declaring a “no pee” sectionin the swimming pool will keep the water urine free.

I’ll end with a quote from the smog-viewing attorney who closed with: “I am hopeful that my new grandchildren. Who will live into the 22nd century, will enjoy a world that my grandparents, born in the 19th century, would recognize.” If this plan is passed, he may get his wish. His grandparents’ world contained of none of the energy-based modern conveniences or medical miracles we consider standard and essential today—let alone those yet to be developed or discovered by the 22nd century.

Remember, the countries with the best human health and the most material wealth are those with the highest energy consumption. America needs energy that is abundant, available and affordable.

Categories

About the Author: Marita Noon

Marita Noon

CFACT policy analyst Marita Noon is the author of Energy Freedom.,

  • bobashworth

    Here is my rebuttal to the EPA. All gases and dust in our atmosphere cool our earth, they don’t warm it. CFC destruction of ozone did warm the earth until 1998 when because of the Montreal Protocol CFC production was shut down. NO warming since then! See my response to the EPA at http://www.principia-scientific.org/epa-rebuttal-no-such-thing-as-greenhouse-gases.html

    • Allen Barclay Allen

      You can’t shut down CFC production of a pine forest. How would you do it CUT THEM ALL DOWN? Whatever CFC’s contributed by man are pale in comparison to these necessary forest and there continues production of CFC’s in the world. The Montreal Protocol people can’t see the forest because there are too many trees in the way.

      Forest burn too. Burning causes CFC’S also. Controlled Burning of under brush in a forest produces a better wood product. Forets cannot reproduce without a fire. Fires that will always cause CFC’s.

      CFC’s had no effect on the Ozone hole that NASA discovered in 1991. That particular destruction was caused by HAARP, degaussing a 150 mile hole in our atmosphere above HAARP in Alaska, and conveniently blamed on R22 and R12 refrigerant gas. Conveniently Blamed, for the procurement of Clinton’s Campaign monies, from Dow chemical and Dupont lobby’s, seeing these chemicals companies needed a excuse to shut down Mexican and Central American competition, making the same product. A well thought out Lobby too, to introduce a new chemical they already had in production R DIY R134 freon, to replace R22 and R12. You scratch my back and we will get you elected.

      R22 and R12 are 10 times heavier than CO2 which is a 100 times heavier than Nitrogen Oxygen air. R22 has to be destructed by Gamma radiation over a 50 year period and turn into Sulfur the atmospheric cooler. unless this sulfur becomes a dioxide how the hell does it get off the ground to cause Ozone Damage. A similar gas in specific gravity weight methane can’t get off the ground either. Methane drops to the Bottom of all Aquifers and oceans and becomes a decontaminant agent of all waters on earth.

      • bobashworth

        You don’t know what you are talking about, The lowest level of ozone in Antarctica was around 110 ppmv last October. In the 1960s it was about 300 ppmv. Do you know about the Montreal Protocol, wherein in 1998 all CFC production was stopped in developed nations. It hasn’t warmed since then. Ozone started to increase slightly since 1998. By 2100 it should be back to normal. University of Alaska estimated one CFC molecule would destroy 100,000 ozone molecules during its lifetime in the stratosphere. Sure wish people knew how to analyze real data, rather than just blabber. Guess you know nothing about gaseous diffusion – look it up.

  • cleanwater2

    I am responding here to reenforce bobashworth and to go the next steps along the way of true science, there is no credible experiments that prove that the greenhouse gas effect exists(GHGE). Because the GHGE does not exist CO2 cannot be causing Global warming aka climate change. As a denier of man-made climate change , I and most “skeptics” recognize that natural climate change is happening over many years.
    The next predicted “Natural climate change” is a return of a Mini-ice age!
    What the EPA is proposing will murder thousands if not millions of people who will not be able to afford the “New cost of electricity”
    The EPA and the president has been made aware of this New Mini-ice age as I have repeatedly E-mailed the following warning to the EPA in their request for responses. Obviously they want to be charged with murder or manslaughter withing the next years, because they chose to ignore scientific fact. EPA fired Dr. Alan Carlin because his EPA paper told them that his research could not find any scientific link between CO2 and average atmospheric temperatures.

    Space and Science Research
    Center

    Verity Management Services, Inc.

    4700 Millenia Blvd. Ste. 175

    Orlando, FL 32839

    Tel: 407-835-3635 Fax: 407-210-3901

    http://www.spaceandscience.net

    President Barack Obama

    The White House

    1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

    Washington, D.C. 20502

    March 2, 2009

    SUBJECT: Final Appeal to
    Reverse US Government Climate Change Initiatives and

    Related Economic Stimulus
    Policies.

    Dear President Obama,

    This letter is sent to you
    today in follow-up to the previous letters sent to you and your cabinet both
    prior and subsequent to your election as President. It is a final appeal to
    your administration to end its programs designed to combat the naturally
    produced phenomena known as global warming and to take immediate action to
    prepare our country and protect its citizens against the rapidly advancing new
    climate era of potentially dangerously cold weather. This includes a new
    request for you to fundamentally alter the recently submitted budget which
    contains hundreds of billions of dollars of climate change/global warming
    related programs. Here are the main points that support our request that the
    administration overhaul its climate change policies:

    1. Global warming has ended. This was announced by the Space
    and Science Research Center (SSRC) in a news conference July 1, 2008 and
    confirmed by independent monitoring stations globally that showed both short
    and long term drops of temperatures world wide.

    2. The Sun has entered a state I predicted two years ago and
    have termed a “solar hibernation.” Such hibernations always result in
    dramatically reduced solar output and activity and along with them destructive
    cold eras on Earth. The next hibernation, the next climate change, has begun.

    3. Substantial science exists that shows that mankind’s
    emissions of carbon dioxide have at most a miniscule effect on the Earth’s
    climate. Therefore, attempts to control it in order to influence climate will
    have a similar result – little to none.

    4. Should the next solar hibernation and cold era be of the
    same magnitude as the last one, it will likely result in massive damage to the
    planet’s agriculture just as it did before. Some scientists say it will be
    colder than what the SSRC forecasts.

    5. Our nation has little time to prepare for the next climate
    era of pronounced and long lasting cold weather. The changeover has already
    started and is expected to advance rapidly in the next few years. Long lead
    time preparations required are even now behind schedule since on a national
    level they may take ten or more years to implement. We don’t have ten years to
    spare.

    6. The worst of the cold will start to manifest itself soon
    with unexpected weather shocks to our agriculture and economy followed by
    sustained cold weather between 2020 and 2040 with a projected bottom in the
    year 2031. Cold weather records are already being set world wide. This era may
    have cold periods amplified by major volcanic eruptions which deliver light
    reflecting or light shielding gases and particles into the upper atmosphere,
    just as happened during the last hibernation.

    7. Because there is no longer a need for them, and because the
    underlying science has been corrupted by misleading data and politics, the
    issuance of carbon trading permits and other climate based financial
    instruments as proposed in the just released administration budget (February
    26, 2009) may be regarded as dealing in worthless securities or otherwise
    carrying an unacceptable level of risk. U.S. and international regulators,
    including state governments, financial institutions, investment rating organizations,
    traders, and utilities, many already under great stress, may not want the added
    exposure of highly speculative investments.

    8. There is a growing chorus of scientists and experts around
    the world who have risen up to condemn the deeply flawed climate assessments
    and conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    (UN IPCC). We have clearly been led astray by the UN. They are the primary
    entity that has caused this current global climate change deception that we
    have all been laboring under. They should no longer be sought out for accurate
    or unbiased advice. It is time the US had its own climate change
    authority with broad powers to objectively and openly investigate and recommend
    actions on the subject.

    9. The administration’s current pursuit of controlling
    something that does not exist, namely global warming (regardless of perceived
    cause) will greatly add to the future distress and loss of life of Americans
    and most people globally who at this point are totally unaware and unprepared
    for the dangerous new climate era we have entered.

    10. These and other actions by your administration have injured
    our ability to conduct business and our attempts to spread the word about this
    coming climate change in order that our people are able to cope with its
    ill-effects.

    Along with other scientists
    around the globe, we have been trying to alert our respective governments to
    the difficult times ahead that this new climate will bring. As a result, we
    have been subjected to much irrational criticism from global warming zealots
    and others in an ad hominem fashion, as expected. The SSRC, though still at its
    early stage of formation, has been the leading science organization in the
    country in requesting government and media action to alert our people to the
    full truth about the next climate change. The SSRC is now the most often quoted
    resource on the web on this new cold era. A former Chairman of the House of
    Representatives Science Committee has said my theory of climate change and prediction
    of the coming cold period “…should be seriously considered….” Internationally,
    there is a growing list of scientists who are now saying the world needs to get
    ready.

    However, this important
    message, in the midst of rapidly dropping temperatures on Earth and the
    incredible changes taking place in the Sun, has received no response from your
    administration. The obvious veil of using the term ‘climate change’ instead of
    ‘global warming’ by some officials does nothing to avert the reality of what is
    coming. The historic changes now taking place in the Sun are among the most
    significant occurrences in the history of science, affecting every person on
    Earth. Yet, this has been intentionally covered up, keeping our people
    uninformed of what is coming. As conveyed by your 2010 budget release, it now
    appears that your administration has adopted a worst case strategy for caring
    for our citizens. The climate directed financial instruments and permits in
    this budget plan may be not only be worthless and unnecessary but will actually
    work against preparing us for the future climate period.

    I strongly urge that you now
    do as I and other former believers in man’s ability to influence climate have
    done. Review your position in light of the changes that are now taking place in
    the Sun and in the Earth’s climate and begin the process of getting our nation
    well prepared to enter this new climate era. I know such a quantum shift in
    thinking will be challenging for anyone. It was for me in April 2007 when I
    joined the list of those scientists who have discovered the 206 year solar
    cycle. There are things in our lives that office titles and legislation cannot
    influence. The Sun is one of them. We must now adjust and adapt to the new
    natural world environment the Sun is imposing on us.

    Mr. President, I
    respectfully make this final request that your administration take the
    immediate actions to address the issues noted above and prepare our country for
    the worst cold in over 200 years. The hibernation of the Sun has already started.
    It is unstoppable. The first cold climate era of the 21st century,
    one that may eventually cause the worst subsistence crisis in recorded human
    history, is here.

    Sincerely,

    John L. Casey

    President, Verity Management
    Services, Inc.

    Director, Space and Science Research Center
    (edited from original)

    Comments
    on Greenhouse gas effect 6-8-09

    Dear
    Readers: I will try to answer comments relative to the statement on the “non
    exist greenhouse gas effect” what I do know and give references where someone
    else does a better job of explaining why the greenhouse gas effect does not
    exist. The “greenhouse gas effect is a “fairy Tale”.

    .

    Any experiment to proving that the “greenhouse
    gas effect exist” must show that there is “back radiation “caused by properties
    of CO2 and other gas molecules. It has been shown by Niels Bohr in 1922 that
    when a gas molecule absorbs electromagnetic energy as photons from IR it causes
    the electrons to go to a higher energy shell in the molecule- it does not cause
    the gas to heat up. The individual molecule can only absorb a specific amount
    of energy before it is reradiated as “light energy” with the same wavelength as
    was absorbed. The “light energy” will be radiated in any direction ( a three
    dimensional model) there is no force that cause it to go back in the direction
    that it came from. Thus the supposed “back radiation of a very, very tiny part
    of the total radiation causes any addition to earth warming.

    Using the
    picture used by advocates of the Greenhouse gas effect is pure fantasy. There
    is no fixed layer of CO2 or “greenhouse gases in the troposphere –The CO2 is
    distribute through out the troposphere thus if the molecule (very few-380ppm)
    absorbs the specific wave lengths that it will accept (only 2 or 3 wave lengths
    in the IR range) they can be from any direction. Thus during the day sunlight
    will be the primary source –very little from outward radiation from the heated
    Earth. At night after sundown the IR radiation from Earth could be absorbed by the CO2 or other gases however as
    stated above only 2 or 3 wavelengths of the IR spectrum will be absorbed. Any
    particular molecule may or may not absorb the IR depending on its individual
    energy level. Most of the molecules are already at an excited level from the
    sun, most of the IR from Earth will escape into space.( about 1 millionth or
    less of out bound IR will be absorbed then reradiated in any direction).

    This is proved every day because the
    temperature from one day to the next is totally different. Daily temperatures
    are obviously controlled by moving air masses. and daily Solar energy
    variations and cloud cover. Ask any
    weatherman/meteorologist-The best they can do is predict the next 5 days with
    some reliability –why should we believe a Climatologist ( fortune teller) who
    is trying to use his frosty crystal ball to predict 10-20-30- 50- 100 years
    into the future can give a more informed “prediction on “climate”. They tell us
    that they have this great computer model that makes all kind of assumptions but
    because there are limitations in the capacity of the computers they have to
    ignore the effects of water and sun light variation. As with all computers “garbage
    in is garbage out”

    Having
    checked with many Meteorologists ( and a few climatologist including the
    retired head of the Climatologist Society) that work with the data daily they
    know that the greenhouse gas effect is bull and that Man-made global warming is
    the product of corrupt politicians and environmental extremes with no/or very
    little science background. If the politicians
    and environmental extremists would close their mouths the Earth’s temperature would drop at least 5 degrees.

    Just a
    short comment about “heating” and “Heat transfer” –Thermodynamics-this is very
    simplified so the environmental extremists can understand it- gases do not get
    heated by absorption of radiation they get heated from conduction from other
    heated bodies- and when it heats up it causes the molecules to move faster
    (higher energy) this energy will then transfer to other molecules (CO2,O2, N,
    NO ,H2O,etc)by collisions. Like pole balls colliding. This explains why the
    experiment that was supposed to prove that the greenhouse gas effect exists is
    in error. The light passes through the gases without heating them (Per Niels Bohr and others) then it is
    absorbed by the glass containers and the black cardboard inside the containers
    that heat up and then the gases are heated by conduction. If one of the
    containers with the air was open than convection through an open top would
    prevent heating as much as the closed top container with CO2 (greenhouse
    effect) We all know that the greenhouse effect exists. The problem is the
    explanations of why it happen is not understood by most people. A detailed
    explanation is found in the work of R.W. Wood and Gerlich& Tscheuschner
    that explains what happens –not back radiation of IR. see the following:

    http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/8430

    – A
    similar experiments with Mylar balloons and 100% CO2, natural gas, butane that
    was better thought out and the results were totally different.

    That is
    why I have gone into the above dissertation on basic physics, thermodynamics,
    not so basic radiation physics and a little nuclear physics.

    –Some one has experiment using glass containers this does not prove
    that CO2 is a greenhouse gas- it proves that the “greenhouse effect” does exist- again it proves that they set the
    experiment up wrong and proved the opposite –the greenhouse gas effect does not
    exist. The greenhouse
    effect is not the “greenhouse gas effect”

    The reference to “Gerlich and Tscheuschner “is a first class reference the tests that they explained and
    gotten the results they said it would . Yes it is written by Ph D physicists
    for knowledgeable scientists. Reading the comment have not been any that shows
    any errors just rhetoric by environmental extremists who do not want to realize the works of
    Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius is Hypothesis that contain theoretical
    calculations and no actual test data.

    There has
    been much scientific research and great scientific discovery like the work of
    Einstein, Niels Bohr and many others that shows that these early Hypotheses
    have not been supported by facts.

    Another
    reference that I have given before is “Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates
    Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme This work has about 10 or 12
    link that support the truth that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax. It is a
    lot easier for the average person to read and understand this paper than
    Gerlich. It also is consistent with the
    work of Gerlich etc.

    Another
    reference is “Ponder the Maunder” that is an excellent reading for the
    beginner. It has been written by a young lady scientist that started out to
    learn the fact without any previous bias. Her conclusion is that “MAN-MADE
    global warming” does not exist.

    In
    additions I have communicated with physicists that are experts in IR
    photography and they have supplied data on the absorption of IR by CO2 and
    other gases. This supports the fact that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax.

    I am not
    contending that what I have written is absolutely correct, much has been
    simplified for understanding. Many of the references and there links give more
    complete explanations.

    It is not possible to condense 7000 years of scientific research and learning into a few
    pages. There have been many mistakes made during that time like the Earth is
    Flat (Known by the ancient Egyptians that it is spherical) or that the Earth is
    the center of the Universe but to go back 150 years to a Hypotheses that has
    not been proven by data is asinine.

    There have been references to the 95% CO2 atmosphere of Venus and the fact that it is at a mush higher pressure than on Earth and the temperature of it is mush higher.
    Some idiots claim this is proof that the greenhouse gas effect exists-they are
    wrong. Venus is much closer to the Sun therefore it receives much more
    radiation than Earth and this will make it hotter. In the data from NASA it is
    shown that the temperatures of all the planets have increased along with the
    temperatures on Earth. When the temperature on Earth decreases their
    temperatures will decrease.

    Because of
    the higher pressure and higher concentration of CO2 there are many, many, many
    more molecules of CO2 in the atmosphere-if the greenhouse gas effect existed
    all the IR radiation from the hot Planet (2 or 3 wavelengths) would be captured
    and back radiated to the planet. NASA has data that this is not happening. .
    Also there are clouds of Sulfuric Acid gas over the layer of CO2 that has the
    same effect as the water cloud on Earth.

    These are
    not greenhouse gases-Water has proven effects on temperature because of known
    properties. There are Thousands of volumes about water and it effect. Water
    and CO2 are essential for live on this planet.

    NASA data from http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
    shows that we have more ice in the Arctic and
    Antarctic than in 2004.

    There are
    a few million pages of scientific information or more and yet people prefer to
    believe the fantasy and fiction of a few corrupt politicians, Henny Pennies and
    climatologist that use frosty and dirty crystal balls to predict 50 or 100
    years into the future based on illogical and unproven fantasy.

    Bibliography: http://strata-sphere.com
    , icecap.com

    • Gary H Cook

      Great comment best explanation I have ever read. I will copy and study so that I may explan my position better.

  • Allen Barclay Allen

    The smog is still there. Its been proven, since the 60’s emission standards were in place, that they had no effect on Smog. Had better test been done, to determine the real cause of Smog, Instead of jumping, to illogical conclusions for a emission standard that made no sense, with REAL SCIENCE it would have been known early that, CFC from California’s huge pine Forest around San Francisco cause Smog. But that being known, Tree Huggers would have bought chain saws and cut all those forest down to satisfy their paranoia.
    It would seem that with these type people that started the Environmental Revolution on False premise, will stop at nothing and in the end, cause the environmental damage they, indeed, meant to stop.
    Take Catalytic converter on your car by federal mandate, that this false science was the cause of. Where is the 15% of hydrogen emissions going to wind up from a normally function catalytic converter.? In our Centrifugal weather forcing heavier atmospheric chemicals to the Equator, where is the lightest of all molecules Hydrogen going to wind up? When our polar regions of the world reach a ignitable Hydrogen saturation point Hope God can rescue us from our stupidity, because a huge part of the atmosphere will leave.
    So after real scientist found the true cause was CFC’s from pine forest, did we stop the production of Catalytic Converters ? Well no, Gold futures now fully involved in the Production of this failure, to boost their financial bottom line by talking the rest of the world into using the DAMN thing. If this stupidity was just confined to California its not a problem. Now with the entire world using it, will fulfill Bible prophecy destroying the world by fire this time, instead of water. And what of God’s promise to destroy those that destroyed the earth?? Who will they be but those that use foney science to back up their wildly false claims.

  • Bert Cobb

    Fantastic. Great testimony.

  • Bob

    Typo in the 800 million people in New York?