New EPA regulations intended to address “global warming” will have no measurable impact. This has been known for several years, and now the EPA Administrator in effect admits it. All cost, and no benefit, simply so the rich can get richer while the poor suffer.
Every water and wastewater system in the US will be adversely affected by EPA climate-related rules because of higher energy costs, which in turn must be passed on to customers. The Safe Drinking Water Act requires best available science when setting drinking water regulations. Further, the benefits must justify the costs. (In this case, there apparently are little or no quantifiable benefits for regular Americans who will have to pay a high cost so others can get richer.)
The Clean Air Act has no direct requirement for regulations to be based on best available science but it should. The practical result is that EPA can (and has) issued a scientific “snow job” on its new climate rules. Apparently, the Agency feels no obligation whatsoever to address the real science. It is long over due for EPA to be held to a higher science standard.
h/t: Climate Depot
“From Tom Steyer to Nat Simons, billionaires have hijacked the environmental movement to line their own pockets. Hedge funds and billionaire investors with a line into government contracts, grants and loan guarantees have built relations with these lobby groups to influence government to ensure taxpayer largess flows to the green industries which they are invested in. A new report by the Energy & Environment Legal Institute examines some of the largest contributors to the Sierra Club and their self-interested dealing that gives new definition to the meaning of “going green.” “
Novikov SM, Shashina TA, Dodina NS, Kislitsyn VA, Vorobiova LM, Goryaev DV, Tikhonova IV, Kurkatov SV.
[COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE MULTIMEDIA CANCER HEALTH RISKS CAUSED BY CONTAMINATION OF THE KRASNOYARSK KRAI REGIONS’ ENVIRONMENT]. Gig Sanit. 2015 Mar-Apr;94(2):88-92. [Article in Russian]
Krasnoyarsk Krai is a region with developed mining and processing industries, notoriously known industries, as sources of carcinogenic emission. For 55 administrative units of the Krai 303 large enterprises’ industrial emissions were preliminary prioritized and their location was designated. Only 52% out of the carcinogens emitted into the ambient air by industries were controlled, in other environments the figures ranged from 20% (soil, food) to 48% (drinking water), 10 carcinogens were not controlled in the environment at all. Based on the results of ranking carcinogenic emission and analysis of the carcinogens monitoring in the environment in 2007-2011 31 substances were selected. A comparative analysis of multiple environmental carcinogenic risks showed that 78% of the areas, based on the receipt of carcinogens from two media, and 80% of the areas taking into account the receipt of carcinogens from three media attributed to the alarming level of risk for population, that requires continuous monitoring and routine health interventions for its mitigation. The maximal multiple environmental risk values that took into account inputs from all sources were close to the upper boundary alarming level of risk, in Divnogorsk (7,80E-04), Norilsk (7,97 E-04), Krasnoyarsk (8,84E-04) and Achinsk (9,4 E-04). The greatest inputs to total individual cancer risk from polluted ambient air were made by benzene, chromium VI, formaldehyde and nickel, from drinking water–by arsenic, aldrin and heptachlor from soil–by arsenic and lead. The ambient air input into total multiple environmental carcinogenic risk ranged from 31.5 to 99.5%, drinking water input–from 0.5 to 68.5%, soil–up to 0.1%. Areas with maximum levels of total carcinogenic risk are characterized by the highest levels of average long-term indices of cancer development. The study discussed in this article has screening nature. Further in-depth researches for carcinogenic and toxic multimedia risks are required.
The Philly.com headline (here) is one of the more ridiculous headlines I have seen in a long time. Even the statements made in the body of the article are weak.
Natural changes in climate cannot be stopped. Temperatures go up. Temperatures go down. And yes there are fatalities. In fact, there is a much greater health risk when temperatures drop to below freezing and the elderly cannot afford fuel oil or gas to heat their home or apartment.
Why can’t they afford it?
Because counterproductive, ineffective, and unnecessary regulations from US government agencies like EPA simply drive energy prices up and up, making the rich richer, and the poor poorer.