The EPA myth of “Clean Power”

By |2015-05-19T10:48:59+00:00May 19th, 2015|CFACT Insights|14 Comments

There are many things I do not like about the Environmental Protection Agency, but what angers me most are the lies that stream forth from it to justify programs that have no basis in fact or science and which threaten the economy.

Currently, its “Clean Power” plan is generating its latest and most duplicitous Administer, Gina ginamcMcCarthy, to go around saying that it will not be costly, nor cost jobs. “Clean Power” is the name given to the EPA policy to reduce overall U.S. carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 30% from 2005 levels by 2030. It is requiring each state to cut its emissions by varying amounts using a baseline established by the EPA.

Simply said, there is no need whatever to reduce CO2 emissions. Carbon dioxide is not “a pollutant” as the EPA claims. It is, along with oxygen for all living creatures, vital to the growth of all vegetation. The more CO2 the better crops yields will occur, healthier forests, and greener lawns. From a purely scientific point of view, it is absurd to reduce emissions.

Writing in The Wall Street Journal on April 22, Kenneth C. Hill, Director of the Tennessee Regulatory Authority, said “Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) set off a firestorm when he advised states not to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan. Yet that advice isn’t as radical as his detractors make it sound. As a state public utilities commissioner who deals with the effects of federal regulations on a regular basis, I also recommend that states not comply.”

Noting its final due date in June, that refusal would impose a Federal Implementation Plan on states “that risks even greater harm,” said Hill. “But the problem for the EPA is that the federal government lacks the legal authority under either the Constitution or the Clean Air Act to enforce most of the regulation’s ‘building blocks’ without states’ acquiescence.”

As this is being written, there are two joined cases before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, State of West Virginia v. EPA and Murray Energy v. EPA. They are a challenge to President Obama’s “War on Coal” and the EPA efforts to regulate its use. Fifteen states, along with select coal companies, have sued for an “extraordinary whit” to prevent the EPA from promulgating the new carbon regulations found it the Clean Power plan.

Writing in The Hill, Richard O. Faulk, an attorney and senior director for Energy Natural Resources and the Environment for the Law and Economics Center at George Mason University, noted that “The EPA’s argument confidently hinges on convincing the courts that the Clean Air Act doesn’t mean what it says. By its plain language, the bill prohibits the EPA from regulating the power plants from which these emissions derive. Moreover, coal plants are already addressed under an entirely different section of the bill than the one EPA insists justifies its powers.”

capitoThe latest news, as reported by Myron Ebell, the director for energy and environment of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, is that “Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) this week introduced a bill to block the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed rules to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new and existing power plants. S. 1324, the Affordable Reliable Energy Now Act, has 26 original co-sponsors, including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee Chairman James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), and Democrat Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).”

“Both Majority Leader McConnell and Chairman Inhofe have said that they are determined to stop the EPA’s greenhouse gas rules, so I expect quick action to move Capito’s bill.  In the House, a bill to block the rules, H. R. 2042, the Ratepayer Protection Act, was voted out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee on 29th April and is awaiting floor action.”

It’s worth noting that, when Obama took office, 50% of America’s electrical energy was supplied by coal-fired plants and, just 6 years later, that has been reduced by 10%. What kind of President would deliberately reduce American’s access to affordable power?

It’s the same kind of President that believes—or says he does—the pronouncements of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC’s “Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report” claims that world will face “severe, pervasive, and irreversible damage” if coal-fired and other carbon-based—coal, oil, and natural gas—energy sources are not replaced with “renewable energy sources”—wind and solar—by 2050. It wants fossil-fueled power generation “phased out almost entirely by 2100.”  Now this is just insanity, unless your agenda is to destroy the world’s economic system and kill millions. That would be the only outcome of the IPCC recommendations.

The columnist Larry Bell, a professor at the University of Houston, points out that, “As for expecting renewables to fill in the power curve, European Union experiences offer a painful reality check. Approximately 7.8% of Germany’s electricity comes from wind, 4.5% from solar. Large as a result, German households already fork out for the second highest power costs in Europe—often as much as 30% above the levels seen in other European countries. Power interruptions add to buyer’s remorse.”

As reported in The Heartland Institute’s Environment & Climate News, “European governments, once at the vanguard of renewable energy mandates, appear to be having second thoughts about their reliance on giant wind farms…” There has been a sharp drop in such projects with installations plunging 90% in Denmark, 75% in Italy, and 84% in Spain.

What the EPA is attempting to impose on America is a drain on our production of electricity coupled with an increase in its price. It is an obscene attack on our economy.


  1. Dano2 May 19, 2015 at 1:18 PM

    OK, fine: cleaner power than what we have now. Happy?



    • Brin Jenkins May 19, 2015 at 5:55 PM

      When the sun shines an daylight only. The Germans only atain 16% efficiency with wind power how will you do better?

  2. cshorey May 19, 2015 at 2:43 PM

    Mr. Caruba has an incorrect definition of pollutant, which puts a dagger in the heart of his argument, and as Dano2 mentioned, we are going for cleaner energy, and we should. Pure water can be a pollutant if it disrupts the natural balance or intended use.

    • Brin Jenkins May 19, 2015 at 5:53 PM

      Then explain!

      • cshorey May 19, 2015 at 6:42 PM

        To you Brin? I’ve tried. You don’t even get the difference between absorption and refraction. I will continue where I left off with you. What is the difference between absorption and reflection? When you show me that you get that basic point I will continue educating you.

        • Brin Jenkins May 20, 2015 at 11:51 AM

          Stop prevaricating, just explain the mechanism of CO2 being the man made cause of Global Warming. Exactly how does it work so I can understand why you believe. You come onto this Climate realist site, and need to do the explanation.

          How can anyone take you seriously when you seem unable to?

          Is there any point in your contributions without showing us?

  3. cshorey May 19, 2015 at 2:46 PM

    Just looked at Mr. Caruba’s blog site. “Our Muslim President” is the title of one of his screes. Mr. Caruba’s words are apparently not worth much.

    • Brin Jenkins May 26, 2015 at 2:43 PM

      But you never give examples for debate?

  4. Warren O'Really May 19, 2015 at 4:27 PM

    Carbon-dioxide is not a pollutant: get used to it.

  5. TheMutt May 20, 2015 at 8:33 AM

    CO2 is indeed required by all plants as a simple life cycle picture presented in first grade (I’m sure that is not done anymore) shows. In return for providing plants CO2 we obtain our O2.

    If we would spend as much money on researching what can be done with power plant emissions as we do on uneconomical solar and wind power the issue would have been solved long ago.

    I have no desire to live in a cave and when I flip the switch I want my lights to come on. I like a hot shower after a hard day of cutting wood in the cold winter time and a warm house to relax in.

    For all of those who want to rid the world of fossil fuels, take a look around you. Now put your electronics in the trash especially your precious phone, ditch your clothes, move out of your house, find a field and try to survive. That’s what is coming. It would be good if we could put smart-meters only on your houses and when a brownout is required, it is your house that is first cut, it is your house that does not get the propane or oil delivery in the dead of winter, something, anything to make you realize just how much fossil fuels play a part of your lives and it does so economically. Cheap energy has provided a standard of living in this country that is well above most.

    Can someone explain why “…electric rates will necessarily need to rise.” helps the poor in this country? The taxpayers will need to endlessly feed the government more and more so that we can pay for electricity, food, etc. for our poor. Their life is clearly not made better by these policies and the taxman wants more and more to cover the costs of providing for them. I don’t mind assisting those less fortunate, but I want my tax dollars well spent to do so.

  6. Steinar Hansen May 20, 2015 at 8:34 AM

    In 2013, Denmark’s 32.5 % of electrical power came from wind mills. In 2014, 39 %. Their goal is 50% by 2020.

    I’m not sure how this can be measured as a 90% drop in such projects

  7. Steinar Hansen May 20, 2015 at 8:47 AM

    In Germany, people have collectively installed solar panels for 21 millions households lately. (This is this scary word “socialism” in practice). Their power cost may very well be 30% higher than some other European countries, but that’s because Germany is a high cost country, not because their solar power is expensive. They can actually sell their extra power to the cities, and earn money 🙂

  8. Mug Wump May 20, 2015 at 2:32 PM

    Do enviro-wackos ever wonder why France does not shut down its nuclear power plants in favor of wind and solar power or, why it’s okay for France to have nuclear power but not the US?

    • TheMutt May 20, 2015 at 3:49 PM

      For the same reason Germany is going back to more coal plants, its cheap and it works when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind isn’t blowing. Europe is recognizing that while alternative energy is a grand idea, it is not economical.

Comments are closed.