In today’s edition of The Heartland Institute Daily Podcast, Research Fellow Isaac Orr speaks with Jessica Sena. Sena is the communications director at the Montana Petroleum Association. Jessica Sena and Isaac Orr discuss the impact drilling setback regulations and more.
Was there a resounding clamor for an EPA? Certainly not from Republicans. And not from Democrats – else Nixon could have (should have) gone to the bi-cameral-Democrat-majority Congress for legislation. (Actually, to expand the federal government’s purview to this massive degree would have – should have – required a Constitutional amendment.)
The fact the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee is attacking the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) management—er, mismanagement—of the federal renewable fuel standard (RFS) is indicative of the growing frustration over both the agency and the RFS itself.
WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency is pursuing an “extreme regulatory agenda,” but Congress is using its oversight authority to rein in the rogue agency, said Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas)[…]
In today’s edition of The Heartland Daily Podcast, H. Sterling Burnett, managing editor of Environment & Climate News speaks with Isaac Orr. Orr is a Heartland Research Fellow and energy expert. Orr and Burnett talk about the EPA’s new report on hydraulic fracturing.
There has not been this kind of palace intrigue at the Vatican since the 1500s. Foreign potentates are making a power grab, trying to seize the moral authority of the papacy for their own, secular ends. Like modern day courtiers, lay and clerical aides to Pope Francis are slyly assisting these foreign princes from the United Nations, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and other such non-friends of Catholicism. In public comments, for months, officials such as Jeffrey Sachs and Ban Ki Moon from the United Nations, and lay leaders such as Margaret Archer at the Vatican, have been telling the public the pope believes it is time for radical regulatory action on the environment.
Nearly 10 years have passed since the federal government imposed a national mandate requiring gasoline be blended with ethanol. At that time, President George W. Bush claimed the United States was addicted to oil and that biofuels, especially ethanol produced from corn, offered an important way to bring down gasoline prices while weaning the nation off of foreign sources of oil and supporting economic development in rural America.
The EPA released a study Thursday noting that hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking” does not cause widespread or systemic pollution to drinking water, contrary to what environmental activists have claimed.
On climate, EPA relies on computer models and discredited IPCC reports to predict global catastrophes that it insists can be prevented if the United States slashes its fossil fuel use, carbon dioxide emissions and living standards, even if China, India and other developing countries do nothing. Meanwhile, real-world temperatures, hurricanes, tornadoes, polar ice and sea levels continue to defy the fear-mongering. So now the rhetoric has shifted yet again, to alleged national security and asthma threats from climate change.
One year ago, Gina McCarthy, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator, announced the controversial centerpiece of the Obama Administration’s climate change legacy: the Clean Power Plan (CPP). The rule is slated for finalization this summer.
In a previous post we pointed out that alternative energies (solar, wind, ethanol and other biofuels) bump up against implacable physical realities which no amount of government spending or research can overcome, and which are environmentally destructive despite propaganda to the contrary. Ethanol in gasoline, for example, according to EPA’s own data, increases key pollutants such as volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxide by as much as 7 percent. Yet it was on the basis of phony scientific claims that ethanol would reduce pollution from automobile emissions that it use was mandated by the government.
If you care about our environment, our government, our children, our future and society in general, you must read this amazing book. There have now been many outstanding books describing the damage being done by environmental zealotry, most of which I cited in my recent paper encouraging the phase out of the EPA as we know it.
In March 2009 while the Environmental Protection Agency was rushing to fulfill a presidential campaign pledge to document that carbon dioxide (CO2) and five other greenhouse gases endangered public health and the environment, a longtime employee, Alan Carlin, put out a 93-page report challenging the science being cited and the drift of the agency from its initial role to one captured by fanatical activists and alarmists, treating environmentalism more as a religion than based in science.
The EPA is radically redefining “navigable waterways” to include 3% more of the nation’s water – and it’s not drawing any corresponding limitations on itself. In addition to lakes, rivers, bays and creeks, the EPA is coming from your drainage ditches, your reservoirs and yes, your big puddles.
What if global climate change could actually reduce ground-level ozone levels? A group of scientists at the University of Houston say that higher land temperatures could actually be cleaning the air in coastal cities worldwide – and that could spell disaster for our current environmental policies.
President Obama and the cronies in his administration (with his tacit support) continue to violate laws, rules and regulations. Obama and his friends evidently believe the rules don’t apply to them.
It is an empirical fact – a metaphysical certitude. Government overreaches. And the Barack Obama Administration has the longest, most overactive arms ever. With many, many, MANY power-grabbing hands.