EPA adds methane to its job-killing rules

By |2016-06-13T07:22:11+00:00June 13th, 2016|Energy|100 Comments

Having already done yeoman’s work stifling economic growth and job creation, President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency is doubling down again.

The United States created a paltry 38,000 new jobs in May: one for every 8,000 Americans. Its labor force participation rate is a miserable 63% – meaning 93 million Americans are not working, while 6.4 million more are trying to feed their families on involuntary part-time positions and a fraction of their previous salaries. Manufacturing lost another 20,000 jobs in May, as the economy grew at an almost stagnant 0.8% the first quarter of 2016. Middle class family incomes and net worth continue to slide.

Meanwhile, well-paid federal bureaucrats increasingly regulate our lives, livelihoods and living standards, hand down fines and jail terms for some 5,000 federal crimes and 300,000 criminal offenses, and inflict $1.9 trillion in annual regulatory compliance costs on families and businesses.

EPA’s war on coal has already cost thousands of jobs in mines, power plants and dependent businesses. Low oil prices amid a tepid, over-regulated, climate-fixated, crony-corporatist American, European and international economy have already killed thousands of US oil patch jobs.

On June 3 EPA issued more rules: methane emission standards for new and modified oil and natural gas drilling, fracking, pipeline and other operations. Under steady environmentalist pressure, it may be only a matter of time before the agency covers existing operations – and maybe even livestock, rice growing, landfills, sewage treatment plants and other methane-emitting activities.

The agency justifies these new job-killing rules by citing something it calls the “social cost of methane,” which is patterned after its equally arbitrary, speculative, infinitely malleable “social cost of carbon.” (Carbon, of course, actually means carbon dioxide – the miracle molecule that enables plant growth and makes all life on Earth possible.) Both the SCM and SCC are needed, EPA insists, to prevent dangerous manmade global warming and climate change, which it claims are driven by these two trace gases.

EPA’s methane claims are absurd. Methane emissions from US hydraulic fracturing operations have plummeted 79% and from the overall US natural gas sector by 11% since 2005.

Moreover, methane is a tiny 0.00017% of the atmosphere, the equivalent of $1.70 out of $1 million. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 17% of that is from energy production and use; 26% comes from agriculture, landfills and sewage; and the remaining 57% is from natural sources. (Carbon dioxide, the other climate bogeyman, is 0.04% of the atmosphere – 400 ppm.)

The United States accounts for a mere 9% of the world’s total manmade methane – and just 29% of that is from oil and gas operations that provide 63% of all the energy that powers America. That means US oil and gas account for less than 3% of global manmade methane emissions – and thus just 0.000004% of all the methane in Earth’s atmosphere. That’s equivalent to 4 cents out of $1 million!

EPA insists that this undetectable amount will cause a global climate EPA Building Plaquecatastrophe, and forcing the oil industry to spend billions of dollars to reduce its already minimal methane emissions will bring billions in health and environmental benefits via climate change prevention. It says methane is 23 (or 28 or 35) times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, and the USA must lead the way. What nonsense.

The atmosphere contains 235 times more carbon dioxide than methane – so this “ultra-potent” greenhouse gas will have only 10-15% of CO2’s supposed global warming power. The US petroleum industry’s contribution is utterly meaningless, especially compared to the solar, oceanic, cosmic and other powerful natural forces that have driven climate change throughout Earth and human history.

Of course, EPA’s shenanigans don’t end there.

The agency’s “social cost of methane” calculations rely on arbitrary 2.5, 3 and 5 percent “discount rates” that supposedly quantify the present value of future regulatory benefits, derived from preventing climate chaos 20, 50 or 100 years from now. The rates yield miraculous compounded benefits up to $1,700 per ton of methane emissions prevented by 2020 to $3,300 per ton by 2050. They could bring up to $550 million in alleged health benefits by 2025 – for “only” $330 million in oil industry costs.

But if EPA had used the 7% discount rate required under Office of Management and Budget guidelines, the supposed benefits would plummet to only $259 per ton by 2020. Naturally, EPA didn’t use that rate.

Even more dishonest, as it did for its “social cost of carbon,” EPA’s analysis incorporates virtually every conceivable “cost” of methane emissions and thus alleged “dangerous climate change” – to agriculture, forestry, water resources, “forced migration” of people and wildlife, human health and disease, rising sea levels, flooded coastal cities, ecosystems and wetlands harmed by too much or too little rain, et cetera.

But it completely ignores every obvious and enormous benefit of using oil and natural gas: generating reliable, affordable electricity for lights, heat, air conditioning, computers, electric vehicles and countless other applications; manufacturing fertilizers, plastics, paints and pharmaceuticals; and even reducing CO2 emissions by replacing coal in electricity generation. EPA also ignores the real, obvious and enormous health impairment from millions more people rendered unemployed, poor and unable to heat their homes.

That is the critical point. But almost as important, the alleged, exaggerated, computer-conjured and illusory benefits from these SCM regulations accrue to the world as a whole – while the very real costs are incurred solely by American companies, consumers and taxpayers. EPA doesn’t mention that.

And to top it off, the mandated reductions in US methane emissions will be imperceptible amid the world’s enormous and rapidly increasing oil, natural gas and coal production and use. In fact, 59 nations are already planning to build more than 1,200 new coal-fired power plants – on top of what they and developed nations are already building.

China, India, Russia and Europe together emit more than five times the methane that the USA does, and the world just set new oil and natural gas consumption records. In fact, the net increase in petroleum consumption was 2.6 times the overall increase in renewable energy use.

Indeed, fossil fuels now account for 79% of total global energy consumption – compared to 0.7% for wind and solar energy combined. The much-touted figure of 19% global renewable energy cleverly hides the fact that 68% of that consumption total is wood, animal dung and hydroelectric energy. Even more astounding, wood and dung account for 13 times more energy worldwide than wind and solar combined!

India has said it will not ratify the Paris treaty anytime soon, and will continue using fossil fuels to bring electricity to people and businesses and improve living standards. Meanwhile, renewable energy spending fell 46% in Germany and 21% overall in Europe in 2015 from the previous year.

EPA’s SCC and SCM scam underscores the religious dogma that drives the Obama Administration’s climate change agenda and ideological determination to end hydrocarbon use in America. Perhaps worse, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has bragged about putting still more coal miners out of work. She has also said she would ban drilling on all onshore and offshore public lands, and regulate fracking into oblivion on state and private lands. Senator Bernie Sanders will almost assuredly push her and the Democratic Party even further to the Left on energy policies.

These policies would put even more Americans out of work, landing them on welfare rolls and forcing them to depend on unsustainable government handouts that rely on taking more money from an ever-shrinking workforce. Americans would have to get used to the idea of having lights, AC and computers when increasingly expensive electricity is available – instead of when we need it. What a depressing future that would be for our children and grandchildren.


  1. Roguewave1 June 13, 2016 at 12:34 PM

    Just because a molecule contains carbon and is capable of capturing heat energy in a laboratory does not mean it captures heat energy in the atmosphere. There also has to be energy present in the absorbable radiation bands upon which the molecule works for energy capture to be in the equation. That is where and why ambient methane fails to collect energy. It is competing with a vastly more prevalent gas in its limited sphere of influence.

    Before you permit yourself to get all scare-defied over more methane being released into the atmosphere, and even if you buy into recent (since WWII) surface temperature rise being as a result of increased greenhouse gasses, do your research and find that methane is an irrelevant gas in the theoretical causes because of the limited bands of energy from which it can possibly absorb and from those two bands upon which it can act, it must share that potential with one more prevalent, which has already done the job almost completely in those bands leaving nothing much for methane to work upon. Those who promote gloom & doom from impending release of stores of methane wrongly assume the gas would have unlimited stores of energy upon which it could draw to heat the planet should that release occur. Therein lies the failure of this sub-theory even assuming such release is possible and imminent. There is no such pool of energy.

    The energy beamed by the sun comes to Earth in the form of short waves, is absorbed by the planet, and some is transmitted back to space in the form of long waves in various bands of energy. Warmists’ Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory holds that greenhouse gasses intercept by absorption and transmit back to Earth a percentage of the long wave radiation energy in the form of kinetic heat in natural balance until humans destroy the balance by over supplying unnatural amounts of greenhouse gasses by which such process and added heat causes more of the principle greenhouse gas, water vapor, to be produced accelerating the process in an ever heightening loop of heating Gaia. Methane is a “greenhouse gas.” The misnamed process acts nothing like a greenhouse, BTW, and empirical measurements, the acid test of science, do not reflect water vapor increasing as required in proportion to CO2 increases or even out of proportion. No increase of water vapor at all in fact has been measured among the several failures of the theory to be sustained by empirical measurement.

    Methane (CH4) by its physical properties has only two narrow absorption bands at 3.3 microns and 7.5 microns in the overall broad electro-magnetic spectrum from which it can absorb energy. Theoretically, CH4 is 20 times more effective an absorber than CO2 – in those bands in a laboratory. However, CH4 is only 0.00017% (1.7 parts per million) of the atmosphere. Moreover, both of its bands occur at wavelengths where H2O is already absorbing virtually all energy. Because water vapor is much more plentiful in the atmosphere than methane (or any other GHG), H­2O absorbs vastly more energy and is by far the most important greenhouse gas. On any given day, H2O is a percent or two of the atmosphere (1.0-2.0% or 5,882 to 11,764 times as prevalent as methane in the atmosphere, or 5882÷20=294.1 [or 588.4] multiple the absorber as methane); we call that humidity. Hence, any radiation that CH4 might absorb has already been absorbed by H2O in the only radiation bands methane absorbs energy. Once the energy in a band of the spectrum has been sucked dry, no additional absorptive gas can absorb more. Painting a black window another coat will not keep out more light. In other words, the ratio of the percentages of water to methane is such that the effects of CH4 are completely masked by H2O because the absorption of infrared energy in the bands of the spectrum affected by methane has already been saturated by H2O absorption. The amount of CH4 would have to increase 100-fold to make it comparable to H2O and even then it would no longer matter because water vapor has beat it to the punch.

    There is not much ambient energy in those two little short, stray bands of the radiation spectrum to start with and most of that has already been worked over by H2O from time immemorial leaving only the scraps to poor CH4, which can never effect climate to any appreciable or worrisome amount. Because it absorbs energy in a laboratory does not mean it works that way in a chaotic atmosphere with other agents and processes present.

    Learn more of what the science neophytes should have investigated before fearing methane, which is an irrelevant greenhouse gas (graphs, observed facts & all that tedious math kind of stuff) —



    Methane is fine vehicle to instill fear, the politicians greatest ally, on an uninformed populace though. It is the rare person whose knowledge on the substance reaches even the level of understanding the stuff coming from their gas stove is raw methane much less how it works in the atmosphere…easy targets for manipulation.

    • Cass Moret June 13, 2016 at 1:46 PM

      I once had a colleague who used the word “enviromaniacs.” Good word, that. The radical environmentalists, like Obama, his science advisor, John Holdren, and Maurice Strong, responsible for creating the IPCC, are immune to rational arguments – whether economic, scientific, or ethical. They know (underline know) that humans in general and industrial nations in particular are destroying the environment. The planet would be far better off if there were significantly less humans (ideally none) and if that reduced number had a low standard of living. The zealots that inhabit EPA are hard at work on Obama’s vendetta against fossil fuels. They’ll be there after he is long gone.

    • Dano2 June 13, 2016 at 2:13 PM

      Disinformation site! Drink!



      • Roguewave1 June 15, 2016 at 5:23 PM

        And your data from where and how CH4 specifically absorbs and dispenses energy from the electro-magnetic specrum are…??? I’ve shown you mine; you show me yours.

        • Dano2 June 15, 2016 at 5:35 PM

          You can’t hide your dependence on a disinformation site.

          You lost.



          • Roguewave1 June 15, 2016 at 5:36 PM

            Nice data…

            • Dano2 June 15, 2016 at 5:37 PM

              …and you linked to Tim Ball.

              Joke’s on you.



              • Roguewave1 June 15, 2016 at 5:39 PM

                I see you at least opened one of the cites. Refute it now.

                • Dano2 June 15, 2016 at 5:44 PM

                  It is a disinformation site.

                  Civil society doesn’t read that cr*p.

                  If you are whining that this guy is right and all them thar physicist is wrong, link to his manuscript where he lays it out in the literature.



                  • Roguewave1 June 15, 2016 at 5:48 PM

                    Pontification w/o data. Wasted bits.
                    I told readers we are “arguing with a sign post”

                    • Dano2 June 15, 2016 at 5:53 PM

                      Feel free to link to a scientific publication that says CH4 is irrelevant.

                      Disinformation sites are not scientific publications. Let us know when you find a paper finding similar in the literature.



                    • Isandhlwana79 June 15, 2016 at 8:39 PM

                      Your inability to refute what Roguewave has posted says it all about you. You are a fraud trying to act like you know something about climate dynamics. It is clear you have no clue. LMAO at Dano the FRAUD.

                    • Dano2 June 16, 2016 at 9:27 AM

                      Another weak bluff from our LOLO. Nobody discusses some crank’s fringer assertion published on a disinformation site. What a waste of time.

                      If it appears in the literature, let us know, LOLO. Otherwise, it is beneath reg’lur people to waste time discussing every crank fringer babble at LoWatts.



                    • Isandhlwana79 June 16, 2016 at 10:02 AM

                      Again, you have NOTHING.
                      LMAO at the FRAUD.

                    • Dano2 June 16, 2016 at 10:48 AM

                      There is indeed, LOLO, nothing in the literature to support this fringer. I have nothing to discuss about what the literature says regarding that fringer’s kooky statement.



                    • Isandhlwana79 June 16, 2016 at 2:00 PM

                      All you do is troll climate sites spouting inane garbage that shows nothing but your arrogance and ignorance. You are a poor troll at that and a poorer advocate of AGW. You are simply a FRAUD.

                    • Dano2 June 16, 2016 at 2:33 PM

                      You lack talent and capacity to show inane garbage.

                      Probably because you can’t find any evidence in the literature that the LoWatts fringer is anywhere close to sane or correct.



                    • Isandhlwana79 June 16, 2016 at 2:40 PM

                      Poor Dano the FRAUD……still flailing away…..LMAO at the stupid FRAUD

                    • Dano2 June 16, 2016 at 2:42 PM

                      That’s not backing your claim. Can’t LOLO back its claim?



                    • Isandhlwana79 June 16, 2016 at 3:04 PM

                      What claim? That you are a FRAUD? You do that all by yourself!…..LMAO at Dano the FRAUD

                    • Dano2 June 16, 2016 at 3:05 PM

                      Nope. That’s not backing it either. More bumbling instead.



                    • Isandhlwana79 June 16, 2016 at 3:13 PM

                      Good job, FRAUD. You have proved yourself again….LMAO!!

                    • Dano2 June 16, 2016 at 3:23 PM

                      LOLO can’t back claim.

                      Transparently made up hokum. Got it.



                    • Isandhlwana79 June 16, 2016 at 3:31 PM

                      Dano the FRAUD. Got it.

    • Isandhlwana79 June 15, 2016 at 3:23 PM

      Dano, the AGW kook, couldn’t refute a word of what you wrote. Well done!

      • Roguewave1 June 15, 2016 at 4:44 PM

        I ran into the nitwit on another cite. He claimed to have a horticulture as “one” of his degrees and to have “many” published and peer-reviewed papers to his credit, but did not know that plants extract the vast majority of the carbon binding their protoplasm together was from CO2. He also refused to expose any of his many papers.

        He is relegated to criptic blerts, like here. Do not argue with a sign post.

        • Isandhlwana79 June 15, 2016 at 5:22 PM

          Yeah! He has made the same educational, published claim to me. He refuses to offer any proof of his claims. He is simply a fraud.

          • Dano2 June 15, 2016 at 5:34 PM

            You simply are making up stuff about fraud and weakly and dishonestly exploit a user’s choice for anonymity.

            No bravery or high-functioning thought process from you, again.



            • Isandhlwana79 June 15, 2016 at 7:12 PM

              I said no lie. All truth and you, the fraud, know it!
              to the fraud…..LMAO!!

              • Dano2 June 15, 2016 at 7:33 PM

                Thanks, LOLO, you are transparently using low-wattage flailing and bluffing to transparently take advantage of a user’s anonymity. Obvies.



                • Isandhlwana79 June 15, 2016 at 8:27 PM

                  You can’t even make a witty comment. That shows how shallow your intellect is and yet you want people to believe you’ve been published? yeah, right! LMAO at the FRAUD.

                  • Dano2 June 16, 2016 at 9:29 AM

                    Another derp thought from our LOLO. I don’t give a cr*p whether you believe I’m published or not. No one seeks your validation.

                    Especially with using such a low-wattage, transparent ploy that a fourth-grader sees through it.



                    • Isandhlwana79 June 16, 2016 at 10:01 AM

                      The same goes for you, you fraud. No cares what kind of garbage you bring to the debate. You know nothing about climate dynamics. Why? You have been unable to show that you do…..LMAO at the FRAUD.

        • Dano2 June 15, 2016 at 5:33 PM

          More fibbin from you. Is that the best you can do?!

          Typical fare.



          • Roguewave1 June 15, 2016 at 5:34 PM

            There he goes again…

            • Dano2 June 15, 2016 at 5:36 PM

              …pointing out your limp rhetorical tactics? Go on!



      • Dano2 June 15, 2016 at 5:32 PM

        High-functioning comment! Well done!



        • Isandhlwana79 June 15, 2016 at 7:12 PM


  2. Crystal June 13, 2016 at 1:10 PM

    Gee, I guess that means getting rid of cattle too… they produce an awful lot of Methane…

    • Earn nest June 13, 2016 at 1:44 PM

      I like Mexican food too.

      • Crystal June 13, 2016 at 6:08 PM

        Oh no! I can’t give up Mexican food! I suppose they’ll invent filters to put on cattles you know whats, and ours too?? 🙂

    • Earn nest June 14, 2016 at 11:06 AM

      Getting used to the exhaust stack, especially while sitting, will be the greater problem.

  3. far2right June 13, 2016 at 1:15 PM

    When will lawmakers ever require EPA to also factor in public health and welfare impacts due to EPA’s regulations.

    There is a recognized and measurable relationship between public health and increasing cost of electricity.

    In the UK it is termed “energy poverty”.

    And people are dying by the thousands because they choose to eat a meal instead of turning on the heat.

    Black Africans still have to cook with animal dung as a source for fire.

    Environmental justice?

    Right, for the environment.

    Not the people.

    Therein lies the whole problem.

    The liberal “progressives” in the EPA do not consider man as part of the environment.

    Man is the enemy of the environment.

    • Dano2 June 15, 2016 at 6:05 PM

      When will lawmakers ever require EPA to also factor in public health and welfare impacts due to EPA’s regulations.

      Smart people know they already do.

      And the benefits outweigh the costs by roughly 4-6:1.

      /basic knowledge sharing



      • Isandhlwana79 June 15, 2016 at 8:43 PM

        You have no clue what the cost/benefit ratio is. Disinformation is all you have…..LMAO at Dano the FRAUD

        • Dano2 June 16, 2016 at 9:24 AM

          Weak, flailing play: You have no clue what the cost/benefit ratio is.

          A report comes out every couple of years. Educate yourself.



          • Isandhlwana79 June 16, 2016 at 10:04 AM

            A report that dummies like you lap up like it is the absolute truth. Gullible fool you must be…..LMAO at the FRAUD.

            • Dano2 June 16, 2016 at 10:46 AM

              Does LOLO now have some basic knowledge that everyone else already knew?

              Yay you! Go you!



              • Isandhlwana79 June 16, 2016 at 2:03 PM

                There is no way to accurately come up with figures like you spout. They are wild guesses at best. Show the methodology used, if you can, FRAUD.

                • Dano2 June 16, 2016 at 2:28 PM

                  Poor flailing LOLO incapable of grasping simple concepts. Sad!

                  Section 812 of the 1990 Amendments (Public Law 101-549) requires EPA conduct scientifically reviewed studies of the impact of the Clean Air Act on the public health, economy and environment of the United States. These studies ask:

                  How do the overall health, welfare, ecological, and economic benefits of Clean Air Act programs compare to the costs of these programs?



                  • Isandhlwana79 June 16, 2016 at 2:30 PM

                    Poor FRAUD Dano doesn’t understand that what he just posted doesn’t mean anything. Sad…..LMAO at Dano the FRAUD

                    • Dano2 June 16, 2016 at 2:44 PM

                      Weak-minded LOLO transparently tries to deflect from being refuted.

                      LOLO lacks capacity and talent to deflect from failure.



                    • Isandhlwana79 June 16, 2016 at 2:46 PM

                      You have refuted nothing, especially the FACT that you are a FRAUD…..LMAO…….hahahahahaha

                    • Dano2 June 16, 2016 at 2:47 PM

                      Any half-wit can see you were refuted.

                      Then there is our little LOLO.



                    • Isandhlwana79 June 16, 2016 at 2:49 PM

                      Only half-wits like you???….LMAO at the FRAUD. Published????? hahahahahaha Credentialled???? hahahahaha F R A U D

                    • Dano2 June 16, 2016 at 2:58 PM

                      Still can’t hide the fact you were refuted.

                      All your prancing and ululating and clowning can’t hide that fact.



                    • Isandhlwana79 June 16, 2016 at 3:01 PM

                      You can’t hide the FACT that you are a liar and a FRAUD…..hahahahhaha

                    • Dano2 June 16, 2016 at 3:06 PM

                      Prancing and flouncing and buffooning….but not hiding the fact you were refuted.

                      That is: you were refuted.



                    • Isandhlwana79 June 16, 2016 at 3:13 PM

                      The world sees you for what you are, a FRAUD……hahahahaha

      • far2right June 16, 2016 at 11:32 AM

        Hey it’s Dopey Dano. Where ya been?

        Nope again DD. Dumbasses think EPA does.

        EPA monetized cost of compliance to the CPP and declared it affordable. Meanwhile electricity in New England is nearly $0.20/KWh and rising.

        Energy for me, but not for thee, eh DD? (I’m a poet and I know it.)

        Then they claim they know the monetized improvement of lowered GHGs manufacturing costs out of thin air and feather in the usual and predictable co-benefits from other NAAQS pollutant reductions like they do for all other air regs.

        Alas, nothing to be found in the RIA about mortality impact due to old poor people choosing not to use expensive electricity when it’s 10 °F below zero outside. You know, like the thousands that have died in the UK.

        Of course, the environment is more important than people, right DD?

        Why do you hate poor people, DD?

        • Dano2 June 16, 2016 at 12:27 PM

          Weak-minded bumbling aside,

          Them thar ee-pee-eh does a cost:benefit analysis of the CAA every few years.




          • Isandhlwana79 June 16, 2016 at 2:02 PM

            You trust them? Figures. They did a real bang up job on the Colorado spill and dummies like you think what they say is absolute truth. Poor FRAUD Dano……LMAO!!!

            • Dano2 June 16, 2016 at 2:32 PM

              Surely, LOLO, there is an ideologically pure, free market study that was conducted. Or at least a whine from Heritage, Heartland, Cato, or other whiner column that whined about one of the studies to support your sads…

              Maybe you should link to it to show me how awesome you are and how wrong-a-rama I am to link to.

              Make it so smart guy.



              • Isandhlwana79 June 16, 2016 at 2:35 PM

                Poor stupid Dano still trying to show he knows something he doesn’t. You are a lemming incapable of independent thought and OH!, let me add, a FRAUD as well!…..LMAO

                • Dano2 June 16, 2016 at 2:43 PM

                  Hapless LOLO can’t cough up a fossil think-tank study showin sumpin different?




                  • Isandhlwana79 June 16, 2016 at 2:45 PM

                    Poor Dano the kook FRAUD…..LMAO

                    • Dano2 June 17, 2016 at 9:32 AM

                      Can’t post a study to show that Dano a thing or two. Got it.



                    • Isandhlwana79 June 17, 2016 at 11:59 AM


                    • Dano2 June 17, 2016 at 12:08 PM

                      That’s not a study either, LOLO. Another failure.



                    • Isandhlwana79 June 17, 2016 at 12:26 PM

                      Who needs a study to show that you’re a FRAUD. Another success….LMAO!!

                    • Dano2 June 17, 2016 at 4:16 PM

                      I’m beginning to think our little LOLO is prancing and clowning because it can’t show I’m wrong and it looks like a fool.



                    • Isandhlwana79 June 17, 2016 at 4:34 PM

                      You mean you are starting to think? Amazing! LMAO!! You are dumb as a rock no matter what bogus credentials you claim (which you don’t have really). That is why you are a FRAUD and always will be a FRAUD.
                      LMAO at the FRAUD Dano………hahahahahahahaha

                    • Dano2 June 17, 2016 at 4:43 PM

                      Yup. LOLO looks like a fool so clowning to try and hide it.

                      You are dismissed.



                    • Isandhlwana79 June 17, 2016 at 4:45 PM

                      Poor Dano the FRAUD. Nothing witty to say? figures given your limited intellect. You are a sheep unable to think for yourself and it is apparent for all to see. You lose, FRAUD.
                      LMAO at Dano the idiot FRAUD who can’t convince people of the scam he believes in……….hahahahahaha

          • far2right June 17, 2016 at 8:46 AM

            Hooboy. You’ve gradiated to Dumbass Dano again!

            Thanks for indirectly acknowledging I was right.

            Show me an RIA where EPA has included the impact of public health due to increased cost of electric power.

            It is much more easily quantifiable than climate change.

            But you don’t care about poor dumb Appalachian elderly hicks, do you Dumbass Dano?

            And you hate poor black African children.

            Racist bastard.

            • Dano2 June 17, 2016 at 9:07 AM

              Speaking of dumbass, your weak red herring about due to increased cost of electric power.
              is ridicule-worthy. States with stronger RES portfolios have cheaper electric rates.

              Run along little one.



              • far2right June 17, 2016 at 9:24 AM

                Wow, Dumbass Dano.

                You really should try Gaggling before you respond and show everyone how stupid you truly are.


                Yeah, that Hawaii, they have really cheap electricity, ya know.

                And New England. With hardly a coal-fired power plant.

                Gotcha again Dumbass.

                Admit it. You want the elderly to just go ahead and die already.

                And you hate little black African children.

                Now you have gradiated to a racist son-of-a-bitch.

                You truly are a peice of shit human being, Dumbass Dano.

                • Dano2 June 17, 2016 at 9:32 AM

                  Only the weak-minded post this sort of notsmart commentary.



                  • far2right June 17, 2016 at 9:37 AM

                    Yeah, only problem with that is you were proven wrong, again.

                    All those old Brits dying because they choose to eat instead of turn on the heat. Your ilk are such asses.

                    I’m weak-minded. OK then.

                    What does that make you?

                    • Dano2 June 17, 2016 at 9:40 AM

                      You didn’t prove me wrong at all.

                      But at least you toned down the dimwitted commentary. That’s a start I guess.



                    • far2right June 17, 2016 at 9:51 AM

                      Where’s the link then?


                      Until you show us, you’re wrong.


                    • Dano2 June 17, 2016 at 9:56 AM

                      The link to your notsmart commentary? Just upthread, smartie boot-boot.



                    • far2right June 17, 2016 at 10:11 AM

                      Not there Dano.

                      It’s really not there. What a dumbass.

                      I conclude that you do not understand the question.

                      Hard debating someone with such a dearth of reading comprehension.

                      But it is fun.

                    • Dano2 June 17, 2016 at 10:18 AM

                      You are, clearly, smart.

                      I bolded and put in a mouseover to make it as easy as it can be for smart people to notice the hyperlink. You are even beyond those smart people, truly remarkable.



                    • far2right June 17, 2016 at 12:39 PM

                      Nope, still does not answer my question, dipwad.

                      Still huffing unicorn farts we see.

                      There is a reason why the PTC is absolutely necessary for solar and wind to move forward. And there is a reason why EIA puts these sources in the non-dispatchable sources category. Take away the PTC and these projects stop dead in their tracks.

                      Meanwhile, back in the good ole UK old folks are dying because of lunatics like Dumbass Dano.

                      And Denmark hearts their €0.3/kWh.

                    • Dano2 June 17, 2016 at 4:14 PM

                      Thanks, smartie boot-boot, states with stronger RES portfolios have cheaper electric rates.

                      BTW, Denmark’s wholesale price is among the lowest in the EU. The high retail price is the VAT et al. but you knew that, cuz you’re totes a smartie.

                      /basic knowledge



                    • far2right June 17, 2016 at 7:56 PM

                      Such a dreamer. It’s OK to dream DD. 😉

                      Power Plant Type Cost
                      Coal $0.095-0.15
                      Natural Gas $0.07-0.14
                      Nuclear $0.095
                      Wind $0.07-0.20
                      Solar PV $0.125
                      Solar Thermal $0.24
                      Geothermal $0.05
                      Biomass $0.10
                      Hydro $0.08

                      US DOE 2015

                      Your too easy Dumbass Dano.

                    • far2right June 17, 2016 at 7:59 PM

                      And yet wind STILL needs the PTC to survive.

                      Unicorn farts Dano.

                      You’re still huffing unicorn farts.

                      Get off the farts. Dude!

                    • far2right June 17, 2016 at 8:12 PM

                      And add:

                      Yeah, that Hawaii, really cheap electricity.

                      Too easy DD, too easy.

                    • far2right June 17, 2016 at 8:17 PM

                      Too easy DD.

                      You hate black African children.


                    • Dano2 June 18, 2016 at 10:27 AM

                      More weak-minded namie-names let’s us know your abilities and strength of position.

                      You’re precious.



                    • far2right June 18, 2016 at 11:04 AM

                      Sorry that facts are so confusing to you.

                      But that’s why I call you Dumbass Dano.

                      That PTC, such a waste of money when RE is so very affordable.

                      And satellite temps are less accurate than thermometers 6 feet above grade.

                      Your simply too easy DD.

                      And cheap too. 😉

                    • Dano2 June 18, 2016 at 11:31 AM

                      Weak-minded weak from our smartie-boots.

                      Smart people don’t paste a chart from a disinformation site, they go right to the source. No word on why you didn’t go to the source.

                      Laughable amusement aside, here is what is regarded worldwide as the most accurate LCOE, a little different than the chart you were duped into believing – the worldwide costs, compared.




                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6cfdfe7f2bea2a54e486d22281dd274153cbe5b6d6b46170d442e161d4711765.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8746e1fb6a18659c119fddc38dccdddb9fc12f62005e80dd6dd0926f208512be.jpg

    • Isandhlwana79 June 16, 2016 at 2:06 PM

      Dano is an AGW kook trolling climate sites. He is an exceptionally poor troll. He isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed.

  4. Earn nest June 13, 2016 at 1:39 PM

    Methane as apposed to CO2 actually has a noticeable effect on green house effect. However government meddling certainly isn’t warranted.

  5. MarcJ June 13, 2016 at 2:11 PM

    Our Eco-Nazis (that’s my name for “environmentalists”) protect “wetlands’ – i.e. swamps which are large producers of methane from dying vegetation and of desease-born mosquitos.

  6. geneww1938 June 13, 2016 at 3:18 PM

    Sientist who are not funded through the One World Government criminal cabal should have equal space and funding for a rebuttal. EPA should be dissolved after salvaging the the original objectives of the that agency’s (department’s) original mission.

  7. Michels June 13, 2016 at 4:00 PM

    The rivers and streams the EPA poisoned are still a problem. Shouldn’t they focus on fixing their own polluting actions first?

  8. AllenBarclayAllen June 13, 2016 at 4:41 PM

    The EPA are all idiots ! Methane ,the nobal gas , is nessare for life on this plannet ! Incredibly nessare to life Microbs have to have methane to multiply since they do not with out it ! Microbes in the atmosphere , ocean and land completely depend on methane which they consume , a starvation diet , then and only then they cell devide , after they cell devide and only then do they take in nitrogen completely nessare for all plant life ,ocean ,atmosphere, and land ! With out this nobal gas life on earth is impossible because these life forms microbes ,the basses of life on earth would never take in nitrogen so nessare to life !
    Now my scientest here on CFACT NASA very well knows this in their search for extraterrestrial life ! Methane is the first marker of life forms on other planets!
    Methanes to microbes taking in nitrogen is only the greatest discovery in botany of 5000 years of mankind on Earth !
    Methane was previously used by the EPA and agencies before the EPA to clean up mine water of heavy metals for 200 years now! Methane pump down a heavy metal contaminated mine will purify the water in two weeks with the microbes that work with methane!
    These EPA mental midgets STOPED using methane for cleaning water in mines and city water as in Lapeer Michigan! These EPA mental midgets did not use methane to clean clean up water in the mine that they contaminate the Colorado River with because of their global warming bullshit with methane !
    If we allow the mental midgets to run our plannet they will shove us all into extinction !
    If methane at 16.09 atomic weight is a problem why not burn it turning it into CO2 at 44. 16 atomic weight ! Burning it into carbon dioxide is the only logical thing to do with it since they think it’s a global warming agent which it is not! Methane is necessary to clean up all the bodies of water accufers ,River and oceans on Earth ! Without methane they would self Polute us into extinction !
    Letting it go into the atmosphere has never Been a problem on earth since it is eaten by microbes that cause rain !

    Recently discovered methane contribution to farming is the hugest discovery since the beginning of time farming ! Armed with this knowledge about methane’s contribution to farming we cannot stop turning this planet into a damn desert!
    It’s not shit that makes things grow people ! It’s the stink off of shit methane ! It also cleans all our water supplies !
    Fracking absolutely poses no threat to humanity! Burning methane poses absolutely no threat to humanity!
    These mindless EPA people are our biggest threat to human life on this planet!

  9. sancheleezy June 18, 2016 at 6:07 PM

    Everything these uninformed and highly Ill-educated bureaucrats, do is more concerned with taxing and regulating and controlling the private sector. They really know that what they promote is more about feeding crony wind and solar projects that the public subsizes and pays for. It is ultimately about power and control alone!

Comments are closed.