Sierra Club took $26 million from natural gas lobby to battle Mississippi Power’s Lignite Coal Plant

This battle has more to do with the destruction of America’s economy and energy than the environmental issues of coal. This is Sustainable Development through the United Nations  and will be the end of America IF we don’t stop it.  The first step is for us to learn more about it and see for yourself, know for yourself, then decide what action you can do.

Start here.   http://www.freedomadvocates.org/

Sierra Club took $26 million from natural gas lobby to battle coal industry

12:45 AM 02/04/2012

A Time magazine blogger reported Thursday that the Sierra Club, America’s oldest and most august environmental organization, accepted millions of dollars in donations from one of the nation’s biggest natural gas-drilling companies for a program lambasting coal-fired power plants as environmental evildoers.

The total take for John Muir’s conservation group? A whopping $26 million over four years from Chesapeake Energy and its subsidiaries, mostly through Chesapeake CEO Aubrey McClendon.

The news rocked the environmental movement, sent the Sierra Club headlong into explanation mode, angered coal companies that the organization targeted with natural gas money, and had free-market advocates shaking their heads.

The episode “raises concerns about influence industry may have had on the Sierra Club’s independence and its support of natural gas in the past,” wrote Time’s Bryan Walsh.

The Daily Caller asked Chesapeake Energy spokesman Jim Gipson whether his company’s donations were made with the expectation that the Sierra Club would attack the coal industry, and whether the company has subsidized other green groups that oppose generating electricity by burning coal. Gipson did not respond to the email.

The Sierra Club launched its “Beyond Coal” campaign in 2001 on a shoestring budget, aiming to shut down as many coal-fired power plants as it could. McClendon’s money appears to have helped that campaign during a critical time when it was firing on all cylinders, lobbying against new power plant construction and working to close existing facilities, all the while hammering clean-coal advocates and blaming “big coal” for mercury pollution, asthma and assorted unforgivable ecological sins.

In 2007, the natural gas industry was also engaged in trying to persuade the federal government that its product was a more environmentally benign alternative to coal. Having the Sierra Club as a compatriot didn’t hurt.

“Back in 2007,” Gipson told Time, “Chesapeake and the Sierra Club had a shared interest in moving our nation toward a clean energy future based on the expanded use of natural gas, especially in the power sector.”

The company made its Faustian bargain with the Sierra Club’s then-leader Carl Pope, whose replacement Michael Brune put an end to it more than a year ago and refused an additional $30 million of Chesapeake’s money. The green group likely found that bitter financial pill easy enough to swallow, however, after New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg pledged $50 million from his personal philanthropy in July 2011 for the anti-coal program.

On the Sierra Club’s blog Thursday, Brune explained his organization’s past lapse of judgment, saying “[t]he idea was that we shared at least one common purpose — to move our country away from dirty coal.”

But that was then. When the Chesapeake dollars began flowing five years ago, the natural gas extraction process called hydraulic fracturing — or “fracking,” in industry-speak — had not yet become the environmental movement’s bête noire.

Now, Brune quickly added, “It’s time to stop thinking of natural gas as a ‘kinder, gentler’ energy source.”

A Charleston, West Virginia-based business newspaper reported that a Friday morning meeting of the West Virginia Coal Association ended with a new accusation of undue influence by natural gas industry insiders.

Kentucky Coal Association president Bill Bissett told the meeting that Chesapeake has also funded the American Lung Association’s Clean Air Initiative. The result, he said, is that the lung health group has attacked the coal and oil lobbies while leaving the natural gas industry alone.

Scott Rotruck, Chesapeake’s vice president of corporate development and state government relations, holds a seat on the American Lung Association’s board. The association’s Clean Air Initiative website currently features a large Chesapeake Energy logo and describes a $500,000 matching-gift pledge by the company.

Competitive Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Chris Horner told TheDC that the natural gas industry’s financial support “apparently dictated, as opposed to followed,” the Sierra Club’s advocacy work.

“Here we see the group being paid so much money I have no idea how they could possibly spend it all, to tout gas, block — according to their own boasts — more than 100 coal plants and now force closure of many existing plants. Only to no longer receive support and coincidentally find gas to be a very, very bad thing. Huh.”

Food and Water Watch, another environmental group with a strong position against natural-gas fracking, declined to comment.

Ron Arnold, the executive vice president of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, told TheDC that the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign is a divide-and-conquer tactic to convince electric utilities to use natural gas instead of coal. But by 2010, he said, with the Sierra Club nearing its goal of making coal-derived power production burdensome and prohibitively expensive, “it backed out of the gas deal and suddenly refused to take any more dirty money.”

“How long will the Sierra Club’s grassroots members put up with this?” Arnold asked.

National Mining Association spokesman Luke Popovich was livid Friday, blasting the Sierra Club for “both its hypocrisy and its incompetence.”

“[I]ts support for gas as the bridge fuel has ironically dampened investment in renewable energy which the Club claims to support,” Popovich told the Platts energy newswire. “With friends like the Sierra Club, the renewable energy industry doesn’t need any enemies.”

At the helm of a crisis of confidence, the Sierra Club’s Brune may find himself with a shrinking pool of allies after President Obama fondly name-checked natural gas in his Jan. 24 State of the Union address.

“We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly 100 years,” Obama said, “and my administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy.”

“Experts believe this will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade. … The development of natural gas will create jobs and power trucks and factories that are cleaner and cheaper, proving that we don’t have to choose between our environment and our economy.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/04/sierra-club-took-26-million-from-natural-gas-lobby-to-battle-coal-industry/#ixzz1lfqTeXVX

Advertisements

HAPPY Start in 2012 for America in their Fight Against EPA’s U.N. Regulations

Happy new year to report the voluntary UN Kyoto Protocols are on hold so 2 coal plants can keep in operation.  Keep up the pressure America.

Luminant to keep units online as court halts EPA rule

Luminant Generation Co. will continue operating two coal-fired electricity units it had previously planned to close now that a federal court temporarily halted a pollution regulation from being implemented, the company said Friday.

In September, Luminant said it would idle two units that provide 1.2 gigawatts of capacity at its Monticello power station in Titus County this coming Sunday to comply with the EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.

A federal three-judge panel on Friday granted some utilities’ and states’ request for a temporary stay on the rule, which would have required power plants in 28 states, including Texas, to cut smog- and soot-forming emissions that can cross state lines starting Sunday.

The Dallas-based company, Texas’ largest electricity generator, said in a statement the stay “allows Luminant’s Monticello units 1 and 2 to continue operating and providing needed generation for the Texas electric market.”

Luminant said it can also prevent an unspecified number of worker layoffs and continue operating some lignite coal mines it had planned to shut down.

But since the stay is temporary, Luminant “intends to continue closely evaluating business and operational decisions,” it said.

In early December, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, the state’s main grid operator, projected that power reserves would fall below its desired minimum target in 2012 because several power-generating units would be absent and power demand would tick up.

ERCOT’s press office didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

But President Trip Doggett, who has long expressed concerns about the rule’s compliance timeline, said recently ERCOT would meet its minimum power-reserves target if Luminant’s units were indeed operating.

Some of Texas’ U.S. lawmakers also blame the cross-state rule for raising the risk of blackouts on the state’s main grid. EPA and environmental groups reject those concerns, saying the agency’s clean-air rules have never caused power reliability problems.

The court didn’t rule on the merits of the regulation, the EPA said in a statement. “EPA firmly believes that when the court does weigh the merits of the rule it will ultimately be upheld,” the agency said.

Additionally, the EPA said it was disappointing that the stay was granted in light of the agency’s recently proposed tweaks to the rule.

The agency has said the proposed increase in allowed emissions for 10 states, including Texas, and a two-year delay in a cap on interstate emissions trading would help ease utilities’ transition into the rule.

A number of utilities and states including Texas and Luminant challenged the cross-state rule in federal court. Texas’ suit alleges that the state wasn’t given enough notice and comment on its inclusion for certain pollution reductions.

The court’s decision to stay the rule “is a prudent one that now gives the court time to review the regulation and its burdensome effects on Texas,” state Attorney General Greg Abbott said in a statement.

The EPA, defending its rule, has said Texas was part of a similar George W. Bush-era rule that a court sent back to the agency to rewrite; the cross-state rule is the Bush-era regulation’s replacement.

While Texas was included only for smog-season emission cuts when the new rule was proposed, the agency put the Lone Star State into the full rule when it was finalized on the basis of comments and feedback from state utilities and officials, said Gina McCarthy, EPA assistant administrator.

For now the EPA will transition back to the Bush-era rule “as seamlessly as possible,” the agency said.

The Environmental Defense Fund, an environmental group, said it was disappointed with the ruling but vowed it “will continue to vigorously defend these vitally important reductions of harmful smokestack pollution against the legal attacks brought by large power companies and states such as Texas.”

“The pollution reductions at stake are some of the single most important clean air protections for children, families and communities across the eastern half of the United States,” Vickie Patton, general counsel for the EDF, said in an emailed statement.

The EPA has said the cross-state rule would save up to 34,000 lives a year starting in 2014 and have annual benefits of up to $280 billion versus annual costs of less than $1 billion. Environmentalists say the rule would help address non-attainment of U.S. smog and particulate-matter air standards in the downwind states where the power-plant pollution drifts.

Luminant and other utilities had plenty of time to prepare for the EPA’s recently finalized environmental regulations because they were years in the making, Jim Marston, head of the Texas office of the EDF, said earlier this month.

The EPA and some analysts also have said Luminant could have switched fuels, bought emissions allowances and ramped up pollution controls to comply with the cross-state rule instead of idling the two power-generating units.

The environmental group’s Texas branch didn’t immediately return requests for comment.

Mississippi High Court Justices Seek Reasons why PSC Reversed Itself to allow Kemper Co. Coal Plant

JACKSON, Miss. — Three Mississippi Supreme Court justices asked repeatedly Wednesday where the state Public Service Commission laid out its reasoning when it modified its decision to allow the construction of a Kemper County power plant last year.

The Sierra Club is trying to get the Supreme Court to derail the $2.7 billion power plant, now under construction in Kemper County’s Liberty community. The environmental group argues the PSC broke the law by failing to lay out its reasoning clearly when it eased the financial terms under which Mississippi Power Co. could build what it calls Plant Ratcliffe.

A lawyer for Mississippi Power said the commission didn’t have to provide such reasoning, though. He said judges could find reasons to support the decision in the 30,000-plus pages of testimony and records submitted as part of the appeal.

Mississippi Power says rates will go up about 33 percent to pay for the plant. However, Sierra Club lawyer Robert Wiygul told the court Wednesday that confidential documents he has reviewed show rates would rise as much as 45 percent. The Mississippi Business Journal reported the same amount in August 2010, citing documents obtained through a public records request.

A unit of Atlanta-based Southern Co., Mississippi Power would buy lignite mined nearby, turn it into a synthetic gas, and burn the gas, capturing byproducts such as carbon dioxide and selling them. The technology is supposed to allow coal to be burned more cleanly and cut emissions of carbon dioxide, which scientists say contribute to global warming. Mississippi Power says the plant is needed to provide more electricity for its 193,000 customers scattered from Meridian to the Gulf Coast.

The Sierra Club opposes the project, saying that the technology behind the plant is unproven and that it’s undesirable under any circumstances to build new coal mines and new coal-fired power plants. The environmental group says it would be cheaper for Mississippi Power to build a natural gas plant or buy power from independent natural gas generators.

“The law requires the Public Service Commission to choose the cheapest and most reliable technology and power plant,” Louie Miller, executive director of the Mississippi Sierra Club, said at a pre-hearing news conference. “This is neither.”

The PSC originally voted in April 2010 to cap at $2.4 billion the amount that Mississippi Power could charge ratepayers for the plant. The company is also getting about $300 million in federal assistance. Commissioners also said the power company couldn’t charge ratepayers for the plant before it started operation.

Mississippi Power said it couldn’t build under those conditions and asked the PSC to reconsider.  (Previously suggested most corrupt in MS) Lawyer Ben Stone  said Wednesday that it needed wiggle room for cost overruns, and wanted to charge ratepayers early to cut the interest customers would pay on money borrowed for the project.

"Uncle Ben Stone", Haley Barbour, and Steven Palazzo

"Uncle Ben Stone", Haley Barbour, and Steven Palazzo

“We could not go to the financial markets without some relief in both of those areas and finance the plant,” Stone said.

If this scheme had any merit it could have found investors.  With a negative credit score and historical pattern of Lignite Coal plant failure, Investors know Mississippi Power and Southern Company’s Kemper Coal Plant is a money pit with no intention of making money. It will be fined, regulated with fees, and taxed right out of any possible profits.  Among other costs to run problems they will encounter.  The profit comes in when MS power can charge a percent of its overall costs to the ratepayers.  Criminal and truly un-American, isn’t it? 

 A month later, commissioners voted 2-1 to give Mississippi Power what it wanted, raising the cost cap by 20 percent, to $2.88 billion. The commission must still agree that company spending is “prudent” for it to collect any money, even below $2.4 billion. It also allowed Mississippi Power to start charging before the plant’s scheduled start in 2014. Under state law, Mississippi Power can keep the money even if the plant is never completed.

It is not prudent to charge ratepayers for an experimental CO2 capturing mechanism that fails to produce any electricity, and  is founded on global warming science fraud, and a cap-and-trade system not yet in adopted. 

The key issue in Wednesday’s case is not whether the plant is a good idea, but whether the PSC adequately laid out its rationale for what Miller labeled a “flip-flop” by commissioners Leonard Bentz and Lynn Posey, who voted for the amended conditions.

The Sierra Club said the PSC didn’t adequately explain. “That’s going to require some evidence you can see and really get your arms around,” Wiygul said.

He said judges shouldn’t have to pick and choose reasons from the overflow of material submitted with the appeal, and the three justices sitting Wednesday seemed sympathetic to that argument.

“I did not see and still do not find anywhere where the commission explained to the court why this was now not too risky,” said Associate Justice Randy “Bubba” Pierce. “I want to know what happened between April 29 and May 26. What additional facts were submitted to the record?”

Stone said the new facts were contained in Mississippi Power’s motion to reconsider and its post-hearing briefs. “It’s very obvious to us that all those matters are supported,” he told the justices.

More importantly, though, he said the PSC was not required to summarize its reasoning for court review. Stone said that a prior court case says that as long as the court can find the reasoning in the record leading to the decision, the court must let the PSC’s decision stand.

JEFF AMY  Associated Press

Progress Exposed on Facebook

From a Facebook Post: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-UN-Agenda-21-Stop-ICLEI/284021125057

“To be clear, you will not find the words UN Agenda 21, ICLEI or any other similar term, anywhere in this dispute, but that is exactly what this case and this ruling are about. 100%.

However, the obscure headline: “Federal judge: Washington must restrict greenhouse gas emissions from state’s 5 oil refineries” gives enough information to show the links to UN Agenda 21, “greenhouse gas emissions” and “oil refinery”. I’ve gone round and round with our local property rights activists, who can’t seem to accept that the game here is rigged from the jump with the provisions of the Growth Management Act, or more commonly known as the GMA here in WA. Well, here’s your proof and it doesn’t get any clearer than this. If you still can’t see it…. Quote from the article: “The court affirmed that Washington has the authority and the obligation to address impacts from climate change pollution,” she said. “Our state can no longer afford to have our regulators sit on their hands and wait for the federal government to deal with the issue. It is time for our state regulators to follow the law and implement long-overdue measures to protect our climate.” Does it need to be spelled out more clearly than that? The federal judge ruled on the applicability of Washington’s Growth Management Act, entirely Agenda 21 derived and driven I might add, on businesses in Washington State. This is also why the Agenda 21 derived GMA must be attacked head on and it must be repealed. Or, at the very least, the more ridiculous and overarching elements need to be removed from it. The opponents of American business and American sovereignty, Sierra Club, EarthJustice, WEC, et al, know that by insisting on these CO2 controls and forcing it through the courts, that they will knee-cap these businesses into submission with the ridiculous idea that CO2 is causing harm to the environment, making them less efficient and less productive. Agenda 21 is about controlling CARBON. Life is CARBON. Therefore Agenda 21 is about controlling LIFE. CO2 is NOT harmful or a pollutant!!! “He who controls carbon, controls life.” ~ Unknown”

 

“SEATTLE — Washington must restrict greenhouse gas emissions from the state’s five oil refineries and possibly other industries under a federal judge’s ruling Friday.

The Sierra Club, the Washington Environmental Council and their lawyers at Earthjustice sued the state Ecology Department and two regional clean air agencies in March to force them to do a better job curbing emissions from the refineries. The groups estimate the refineries are responsible for up to 8 percent of all greenhouse gases released in Washington.

Under the state’s own environmental rules, U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman noted, regulators are supposed to require “reasonably available control technology” by industrial emitters of greenhouse gases such as methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide. State regulators never actually enforced that, even though the rules were first approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1995.

Instead, state regulators require refineries only to comply with reductions of certain other air pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide.

Earthjustice attorney Janette Brimmer called the ruling a big deal for the state.

“The court affirmed that Washington has the authority and the obligation to address impacts from climate change pollution,” she said. “Our state can no longer afford to have our regulators sit on their hands and wait for the federal government to deal with the issue. It is time for our state regulators to follow the law and implement long-overdue measures to protect our climate.”

Though the environmental groups sued over the emissions from Washington’s five refineries, the language of the judge’s ruling — that state regulators must require reasonably available control emission-control technology from emitters of greenhouse gases — would seem to apply to other industries as well.

“The court affirmed that Washington has the authority and the obligation to address impacts from climate change pollution,” she said. “Our state can no longer afford to have our regulators sit on their hands and wait for the federal government to deal with the issue. It is time for our state regulators to follow the law and implement long-overdue measures to protect our climate.”

The other major emitters of greenhouse gases in the state include the TransAlta Corp. coal-fired power plant in Centralia, which is already getting new pollution controls before it is shut down in 2025, and cement kilns. It’s not clear whether any “reasonably available technology” exists that would cut greenhouse gas emissions from cement kilns, Brimmer said.

What is clear is that oil refineries can reduce their emissions, primarily by making their processes more efficient and thus burning less fuel during refining, she said.

Seth Preston, a spokesman for the state Ecology Department, said Friday that officials had just received the ruling and were reviewing it.

“To be able to talk about far-reaching implications, we’re not there yet,” he said.

The refineries are BP PLC’s Cherry Point near Blaine, ConocoPhillips’ in Ferndale, Shell Oil Co.’s in Anacortes, Tesoro Corp.’s in Anacortes and U.S. Oil’s in Tacoma. A spokesman for the Western State Petroleum Association, which represents the refineries and intervened in the case, said its lawyers were reviewing the decision and did not have any immediate comment.

Pechman said she would determine later how quickly the state must apply greenhouse gas emission standards to the refineries. The environmentalists argued that the state could begin enforcing the rule within 90 days, but the agencies suggested they would need three years.”

HERE

The EPA is an ARM of the United Nations

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/the_un_states_envrio_protection_agency.pdf

THE UNITED NATIONS STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
by Dennis Ambler
SPPI ORIGINAL PAPER ♦ May 26, 2011

2

THE EPA STAKE IN THE IPCC ………………………………………………………………………………………… 3
THE BIG MYTH – THE EPA AS DEFENDERS OF THE PEOPLE …………………………………………………….. 5
EPA AS DEFENDER OF THE PLANET ……………………………………………………………………………. 6
MISSION CREEP …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7
BUILDING STRONG ENVIRONMENTAL INSTITUTIONS AND LEGAL STRUCTURES ………………………….. 7
EPA FUNDING FOR IPCC CLIMATE MODELS ……………………………………………………………………… 8
STRATUS CONSULTING INC. …………………………………………………………………………………… 13
EPA – ENVIRONMENTAL PALS AGENCY ………………………………………………………………………….. 14
EPA FUNDING FOR OTHER IPCC SCIENTISTS ………………………………………………………………. 16
EPA AUTHORS OF THE TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT WHO ARE ALSO IPCC AUTHORS ……….. 18
CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 19
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3
THE UNITED NATIONS STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
by Dennis Ambler | May 26, 2011
THE EPA STAKE IN THE IPCC
In view of the rejection by the EPA of challenges to their endangerment finding, why would we be surprised to find that they have a long-term stake in the IPCC’s climate models and in the continuance of the IPCC itself.
The EPA mounted a solid defence of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia after the “Climategate” scandal that broke just before the UNFCC COP 15 at Copenhagen in 2009. Their main purpose was to defend the IPCC because of the major damage done to its credibility by the e-mail revelations, and thus in turn damaged the flawed justification for the EPA endangerment finding. The EPA has a web page purporting to show Myths and Facts relating to “climate science”, in defence of their rejection of petitions against the Endangerment finding.
They were adamant that the science was not flawed or that the scientific process had been compromised. They had “carefully reviewed the e-mails” and found “no indication of improper data manipulation or misrepresentation of results.” They insist that they have relied on “major scientific assessments, including reports from the U.S. Global Change Research Program, National Academy of Sciences, and IPCC, because they represent the best available information to determine the state of climate change science and that this approach ensures that EPA benefits from the depth and strength of thousands of climate scientists.”
They were still promoting the scientific consensus in this EPA press release in July last year:
“America’s Climate Choices,” a report from the National Academy of Sciences and the most recent assessment of the full body of scientific literature on climate change, along with the recently released “State of the Climate” report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration both fully support the conclusion that climate change is real and poses significant risk to human and natural systems. The consistency among these and previously issued assessments only serves to strengthen EPA’s conclusion.”
In view of the rejection by the EPA of challenges to their endangerment finding, why would we be surprised to find that they have a long-term stake in the IPCC’s climate models and in the continuance of the IPCC itself.
4
The consistency occurs because many of the same groups and often the same people are represented on these various panels and their task is to sell the IPCC reports. In fact the Panel for America’s Climate Choices contains remarkably few climate scientists, but does have many political activists, including the President of the Pew Centre and the CEO’s of WWF and Environmental Defense.
The small number of climate scientists on the panel are established IPCC authors who are also activists in support of carbon dioxide control. The “State of the Climate” report is critiqued here.
There is a long history of association between the Pew Centre and the EPA. The president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Eileen Claussen, is a former assistant secretary of state for Oceans, Environment, and Science and a former Special Assistant to President Clinton and Senior Director for Global Environmental Affairs at the National Security Council. She has also served as Chairman of the United Nations Multilateral Montreal Protocol Fund.
Ms. Claussen was Director of Atmospheric Programs at the EPA where she was responsible for activities related to the alleged depletion of the ozone layer and Title IV of the Clean Air Act. She is also a member of the Pew Oceans Commission.
Lisa Jackson is a great fan of the Pew Centre and these quotes are from a copy of a speech to them, which is on the EPA website:
“Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, Remarks at the Pew Center for Climate Change, As Prepared” 25/06/2009
“Our hosts at Pew have some of the most talented and committed people in the field, from President Claussen, to the Regional Policy Coordinators doing the work on the ground.”
“I speak for EPA when I say that we’re counting on your partnership to help us advance the urgent environmental issues of the day, particularly climate change.”
“But I speak for myself when I say I’m counting on your help – on your counsel, your hard work, and your understanding.”
“I can’t think of a higher calling than coming back here to work with you to address the urgent, ongoing and in many cases, long overdue environmental issues our nation faces.”
The consistency occurs because many of the same groups and often the same people are represented on these various panels and their task is to sell the IPCC reports.
There is a long history of association between the Pew Centre and the EPA.
5
She met with Eileen Claussen in closed session on October 20th 2010, in Washington, maybe looking for counsel on how to handle the challenges to her policies.
Jackson is a gung ho regulator and is well-practised in emissions legislation, as former Vice President of the Executive Board of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a program organized by northeast states to develop a regional cap-and-trade program.
She was hubristically bullish about her first year in office, on the EPA website:
“During my first year as Administrator, the EPA finalized an endangerment finding on greenhouse gases, proposed the first national rules to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions under the Clean Air Act and initiated a national reporting system for greenhouse-gas emissions. All of these advances signaled historic progress in the fight against climate change.”
“Climate change must be considered and integrated into all aspects of our work. While the EPA stands ready to help Congress craft strong, science-based climate legislation that addresses the spectrum of issues, we will assess and develop regulatory tools as warranted under law using the authority of the Clean Air Act.”
THE BIG MYTH – THE EPA AS DEFENDERS OF THE PEOPLE
The EPA presents itself as a non-aligned body, working in the public interest and objectively taking on-board scientific reports, in order to protect the American people from the “air pollutant” CO2.
It has in fact, a major stake in the IPCC process, as former EPA officials, (non-scientists), have been heavily involved in the IPCC reports, with funding from the EPA. Those former employees are also consultants to EPA and have major input to their regulatory findings, including the endangerment finding. Bizarrely, the EPA website says, “The process used by the IPCC stands as one of the most comprehensive, rigorous, and transparent ever conducted on a complex set of scientific issues.”
They seem to forget the widespread integration into the IPCC reports of non-peer reviewed papers from NGO’s such as WWF and Greenpeace and the embedding of NGO’s into the IPCC process. They seem to forget the undue influence of a small core of scientists on the IPCC reports. The extensive reliance by the EPA on non-scientists flies in the face of their claims that the endangerment finding is based on the work of thousands of climate scientists.
It has in fact, a major stake in the IPCC process, as former EPA officials,
(non-scientists), have been heavily involved in the IPCC reports, with funding from the EPA. Those former employees are also consultants to EPA and have major input to their regulatory findings, including the endangerment finding.
6
In a Time magazine interview on Friday April 2nd, Lisa Jackson was again “defending the science”:
“The biggest criticism that I’ve leveled – and I’ve done it in my hearing testimony – is that what the current efforts do is overrule scientists on a scientific finding. Congress is essentially passing a law that says, ‘We, a bunch of lawmakers, have decided what the science is on this issue,’” Jackson said.
The trouble is that the major input is not from climate scientists but from policy wonks and political science graduates, including some who publish “scientific” papers. Lisa Jackson is also pursuing an international agenda as she describes again on the EPA website.
EPA AS DEFENDER OF THE PLANET
Administrator Jackson is a woman on a mission; to save the planet. In a run of 150 speeches from 2009, she is protecting, saving or improving the planet, some 65 times. Her speeches are high on rhetoric but low on science, as in this hotch potch of familiar distortions in “Remarks on the Endangerment Finding on Greenhouse Gases”, December 7th 2009: “Polar ice caps crumbling into the oceans, changing migratory patterns of animals and broader ranges for deadly diseases, historic droughts, more powerful storms, and disappearing coastlines.”
She seeks to imbue the EPA with the same sense of mission and this address for EPA employees sets out her international agenda:
TO: All EPA Employees
“Today our world faces unprecedented environmental challenges ranging from making sure our air, water and land are healthy to facing down the growing threat of climate change. At the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, it is part of our mission to confront these challenges both at home and around the world.
While we have a long history of international collaboration on numerous global environmental issues, our bilateral and multilateral partnerships have taken on a renewed significance. The Commission for Environmental Cooperation is one of those vital partnerships. Since 1994, the Commission has been focused on developing innovative, collaborative solutions to reduce environmental impacts and promote mutual prosperity.
The extensive reliance by the EPA on non-scientists flies in the face of their claims that the endangerment finding is based on the work of thousands of climate scientists.
Lisa Jackson is also pursuing an international agenda as she describes again on the EPA website.
The Agency already has around 20,000 employees and an annual budget of $10 billion, but it seems Lisa Jackson wants to expand this burgeoning behemoth even more.
7
Today at the CEC’s annual meeting, I will publicly announce EPA’s international priorities.”
The Agency already has around 20,000 employees and an annual budget of $10 billion, but it seems Lisa Jackson wants to expand this burgeoning behemoth even more.
MISSION CREEP
“It is our vision that by working with global partners we can advance our shared priorities, including adapting to climate change, ensuring national security, facilitating commerce, promoting sustainable development, protecting vulnerable populations and engaging diplomatically around the world.
Aren’t those the tasks normally entrusted to elected representatives?
BUILDING STRONG ENVIRONMENTAL INSTITUTIONS AND LEGAL STRUCTURES
Countries need adequate governmental structures to enforce environmental protections.
The EPA will work with countries such as India, Ghana, Kenya and Brazil to develop and support the promotion of good governance, improve judicial and legal structures and design the regulatory systems necessary for effective environmental protection around the world.
She was of course warmly welcomed at the UNFCCC in Copenhagen 2009 where she grandstanded the new EPA Endangerment ruling on greenhouse-gas emissions. The EPA is seen by the UN and its supporters as the Trojan horse for controlling carbon dioxide emissions in the US, leaving the way open for global control via the UN. The Agency’s considerable involvement with the IPCC and the UNFCCC on many levels gives strong support to that agenda.
The EPA will work with countries such
as India, Ghana, Kenya and Brazil to develop and support the promotion of good governance, improve judicial and legal structures and design the regulatory systems necessary for effective environmental protection around the world.
The EPA is seen by the UN and its supporters as the Trojan horse for controlling carbon dioxide emissions in the US, leaving the way open for global control via the UN. The Agency’s considerable involvement with the IPCC and the UNFCCC on many levels gives strong support to that agenda.
8
EPA FUNDING FOR IPCC CLIMATE MODELS
The input of the EPA into the IPCC reports is demonstrated by the fact that they provide funding for one of the core climate models, MAGICC/SCENGEN, a coupled gas-cycle/climate model (Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change) that drives a spatial climate-change SCENario GENerator (SCENGEN). MAGICC version 6 is currently in use. The companion product, SCENGEN, is a global and regional climate change scenario generator.
The widely-used MAGICC model has been one of the primary models used by IPCC since 1990, to produce projections of future global-mean temperature and sea level rise. You can download a user’s manual for version 5.3, where they describe how they had to change the model to fit the AR4 conclusions. “Changes have been made to MAGICC to ensure, as nearly as possible, consistency with the IPCC AR4.”
The MAGICC manual says that “considerable input has come from the EPA, in that “Versions 4.1 and 5.3 (and intermediate versions) were funded largely by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through Stratus Consulting Company. In this regard, Jane Leggett (formerly EPA, now Library of Congress) and Joel Smith (formerly EPA and now Stratus) deserve special thanks for their enthusiastic support over many years.” Additionally it says that “the CMIP3/AR4 multi-model data set is supported by the Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy.”
Anything that doesn’t agree with their pre-determined conclusions is rejected:
“-1.8 forcing value as a lower bound (1.1 W/m2 below the best estimate) would lead to extremely low total historical anthropogenic forcing unless compensated by a large underestimate in some positive forcing term, and we consider this highly unlikely. We therefore retain +/-0.4 for the uncertainty range for indirect aerosol forcing.”
Some of the inputs are known to be false, yet they still use them, for example, they have always used a figure of 1% annual increase in CO2 levels, when they have actually been 0.5 to 0.7%.
You can download a user’s manual for version 5.3, where they describe how they had to change the model to fit the
AR4 conclusions.
Some of the inputs are known to be false, yet they still use them, for example, they have always used a figure of 1% annual increase in CO2 levels, when they have actually been 0.5 to 0.7%.
9
Notice the acknowledgement: “Development supported by: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency”. This was in May 2008.
Although four separate bodies are shown as contributors to the model, implying independent scientific agreement, in fact all are connected via the IPCC, and by current or former positions at CRU and UEA, including model originator, Tom Wigley, at NCAR, who is a former Director of CRU. At least five of those mentioned on the front page are significant names in the CRU e-mails, so it is to be expected that the EPA would seek to minimise the whole affair.
The CRU is of course the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, shown separately above to imply two independent bodies. NCAR and Stratus Consulting are both located in Boulder, Colorado.
MAGICC and SCENGEN contain the templates that produce the colourful global pictures showing a heating planet. Anyone can obtain the program and use the pre-installed databases to produce “new research” for any region in the world.
Here are some slides from a UNFCCC Climate Model Training guide:
At least five of those mentioned on the front page are significant names in the CRU e-mails, so it is to be expected that the EPA would seek to minimise the whole affair.
10
Dr Kevin Trenberth, Head of Climate Analysis at NCAR and a major figure in the IPCC, expressed his concerns about climate models in a Nature Science Blog post in June 2007:
 “There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess.”
 None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the
observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate.
 In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models.
 Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors.
These are damning indictments by a leading light of the IPCC and the US climate community, throwing major doubts on the modelling claims of the IPCC.
These are damning indictments by a leading light of the IPCC and the US climate community, throwing major doubts on the modelling claims of the IPCC.
11
In 2007, Professor Lenny Smith, a statistician at the London School of Economics, warned about the “naïve realism” of current climate modelling. In a New Scientist interview he said, “Our models are being over-interpreted and misinterpreted. Over-interpretation of models is already leading to poor financial decision-making. We need to drop the pretence that they are nearly perfect.”
When we hear the familiar phrase, “new research shows” it means that someone has done another model run with different parameters and yet again “things are worse than we thought”.
Dial a Climate:
End result?
“Our models are being over-interpreted and misinterpreted. Over-interpretation of models is already leading to poor financial decision-making. We need to drop the pretence that they are nearly perfect.”
When we hear the familiar phrase, “new research shows” it means that someone has done another model run with different parameters and yet again “things are worse than we thought”.
12
Jane A. Leggett, who is mentioned in the MAGGIC manual, is currently a Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy for the Congressional Research Service (CRS), which serves Members of Congress and their staff. She coordinates “CRS expertise on climate change, and leads responses on climate change science, federal funding, international cooperation and other topics, including China’s policies and performance”.
Leggett worked for the EPA for more than 15 years, having been director of the Climate Change Division from 1995-2001 during Carol Browner’s tenure and senior advisor on climate change mitigation and risk analysis to the EPA from 2001-2006. She was a convening lead author of the 1992 IPCC special report on emissions scenarios to 2100, (SRES). At EPA, she represented the U.S. Government on climate change at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, (UNFCCC) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, (OECD).
Jane A. Leggett is a political scientist, not a climate scientist, with a Masters in City and Regional Planning (MCRP) and a B.A. in Political Science.
Jane A. Leggett, who is mentioned in the MAGGIC manual, is currently a Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy for the Congressional Research Service (CRS), which serves Members of Congress and their staff.
[She] is a political scientist, not a climate scientist, with a Masters in City and Regional Planning (MCRP) and a B.A. in Political Science.
13
STRATUS CONSULTING INC.
Also mentioned is Joel Smith, vice president at Stratus Consulting, who has been an IPCC author since 1998. Stratus claims Joel Smith is a Nobel Prize winner because of the award in 2007 to IPCC and Al Gore. He is in charge of their climate change division and is another example of non-scientists being portrayed as scientists, by those who present the IPCC as the authoritative voice of climate science, such as the EPA in reaching their endangerment finding. This is a list of his involvement in the climate change agenda.
 Coordinating Lead Author for the synthesis chapter on climate change impacts for the IPCC Third Assessment Report, TAR.
 Lead Author for IPCC AR4 WG II Ch. 19 Assessing Key Vulnerabilities and the Risk from Climate Change
 Contributing Author AR4 WG II Ch.17: Assessment of Adaptation Practices, Options, Constraints and Capacity
 Lead Author on the Summary for the Policy Makers Report for both the Third and Fourth Assessment Reports
 Lead author for the U.S. National Assessment on climate change impacts and technical coordinator on vulnerability and adaptation for the U.S. Country Studies Program.
 Co-ordinator of the Pew Center Global Climate Change series.
Joel Smith is another political scientist, not a climate scientist; he has a BA in Political Science and a Masters in Public Policy. He put his name to the February 2011 “Scientists’ Statement on the Clean Air Act” carried on the Democrat website. The letter repeated the EPA statement about the scientific evidence, quoting the same sources:
“The scientific evidence overwhelmingly suggests that climate change poses a clear threat to public health. Numerous scientific studies, including the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s 2009 report, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States and the National Academy of Sciences’ report, America’s Climate Choices, show that if heat-trapping emissions continue unabated, global warming is likely to cause more extreme heat in our cities, severe water shortages, loss of species, hazards to coasts
Stratus claims Joel Smith is a Nobel Prize winner because of the award in 2007 to IPCC and Al Gore. He is in charge of their climate change division and is another example of non-scientists being portrayed as scientists, by those who present the IPCC as the authoritative voice of climate science.
Joel Smith is another political scientist, not a climate scientist; he has a BA in Political Science and a Masters in Public Policy.
14
from sea level rise, and extreme weather. The economic and social costs of such impacts are potentially calamitous.
The EPA must be allowed to fulfill its responsibilities and take action to regulate global warming emissions under the Clean Air Act. This science-based law has prevented 400,000 premature deaths and hundreds of millions of cases of respiratory and cardiovascular disease during the 40 years since it was first passed—all without diminishing economic growth.”
Smith worked for the EPA from 1984 to 1992, where he was the deputy director of the Climate Change Division, an analyst for oceans and water regulations, and a special assistant to the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation.
He was a co-editor of EPA’s Report to Congress: “The Potential Effects of Global Climate Change on the United States,” published in 1989. He has written on climate change impacts and adaptation issues for the U.S. Country Studies Program, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Office of Technology Assessment, the Electric Power Research Institute, the World Bank, the Global Environment Facility, the United Nations Environment Programme, and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. He has produced papers on Technology Transfer to Developing Nations for the UNFCCC.
Stratus has carried out work in Africa for USAID and the U.S. Country Studies Program “to assist West and Central African nations in the design and development of climate change assessments.”
Smith has co-published with scientists such as the late Stephen Schneider of Stanford and Tom Wigley of NCAR, including this poster presentation with Wigley in 2005 on the merits of MAGICC-SCENGEN, Using Climate Model Output to Understand and Adapt to Climate Change Joel B. Smith. Stratus Consulting Inc., Boulder, Colorado, Tom M, L Wigley, National Canter for Atmospheric Research. Boulder, Colorado.
It was part of an assessment of the Aspen Ski and Snow Industry, co-ordinated by the Aspen Global Change Institute, which is funded by NASA, NOAA, The National Science Foundation (NSF), The Department of Energy (DOE), The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation and International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), a UN body.
EPA – ENVIRONMENTAL PALS AGENCY
Stratus Consulting Inc. has been built into a sizeable company on the back of extensive consultancy work for the EPA and other agencies, which must run into several hundred million dollars. “The company has been awarded 942 government contracts since 1999. Many, but not all, involved work for either NOAA, the EPA or the Justice Department. From 1999 to 2007, Stratus Consulting pulled in an average of 64 contracts per year. From 2008 to 2010, the average per year nearly doubled — to 121 per year. So far, the company has generated only
15
three contracts in 2011”. They received the second-largest amount of money, $22.73 million, from the contracts stemming from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
In 2007, they picked up a five year contract worth $39.4 million. “Stratus Consulting has worked with EPA on climate change issues, specifically greenhouse gas emissions, since 1996, said Joel Smith, vice president at Stratus. “We’ve been looking at energy efficiency programs within a number of states,” he said. “We’ve also looked at consequences of climate change and done work on the science of climate change.”
But they are not climate scientists.
They describe themselves as assisting in crafting federal guidance and providing analytical support for regulatory development at the U.S. EPA for the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and global climate change. They have extensive input into the EPA web sites and into their data management processes:
 EPA home page
 EPA’s environmental education web sites
 EPA’s High School Environmental Center
 Data Quality Act/EPA Information Quality Guidelines
 Information Quality Guidelines
 Critical evaluation of EPA audit regimes
 EPA Data Quality Strategic Plan
 Business rules to support EPA’s Facility Registry System
 EPA’s Quality System
 EPA Integrated error correction process
 EPA Data Quality Strategic Plan.
It is no wonder that the website says so strongly that “the science is unequivocal,” As major content contributors to the website, Stratus are simply defending their EPA contracts.
Joel Smith and a Stratus colleague edited the Endangerment Finding Technical Support Document.
Some of the other Stratus staff who are also heavily involved with the EPA and other agencies are shown here, there are many more:
Charles N. Herrick, Interim Chief Executive Officer of Stratus Consulting, Inc. is a former Associate Director of the Council on Environmental Quality, and Assistant Director of the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, (acid rain). He has also been a senior analyst with NOAA’s Office of the Chief Scientist,
It is no wonder that the website says so strongly that “the science is unequivocal,” As major content contributors to the website, Stratus are simply defending their EPA contracts.
16
a position recently revived by NOAA administrator Jane Lubchenco, to bring in an “acid oceans” scientist.
Charles N. Herrick is another political scientist, not a climate scientist, he has a PhD in Public Policy, an MA in Political Theory and a BA in Political Science but he “serves as a peer reviewer on several NAS and USGCRP panels.”
Lauraine G. Chestnut is an economist and a contributing Pew Centre author with Joel Smith and David Mills to a 2010 paper “U.S. Market Consequences of Global Climate Change”. She has served on EPA’s Science Advisory Board’s Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis.
Robert D. Rowe, Stratus Chairman, is an economist and has been a consultant member of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board.
Leland Deck, Managing economist. Economic benefits analyses for EPA air regulations, air pollution analyses for the IPCC, the California Air Resources Board, (CARB) and other government bodies. A former senior economist with the EPA, he has a PhD in economics, an MA in economics and a BS in geology.
EPA FUNDING FOR OTHER IPCC SCIENTISTS
Susanne Moser, is a former NCAR scientist, (Geography) and now a private consultant, she is a committed activist and is a former member of the Union of Concerned Scientists. She was a member in 2010, of the NAS/NRC panel, “Toward a New Era of Climate Change Science: America’s Climate Choices Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change”, with Pew’s Eileen Claussen, which EPA quotes as one of the validations for their rejection of petitions against Endangerment Finding.
She is currently involved in eight government programs, including this one funded by the EPA in conjunction with Stratus Consulting, entitled Impactful Communication of EPA’s Climate Change Research. She was an IPCC author for AR4 and was invited as Lead Author, Coastal Systems (Chapter 5) of WG2, IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (withdrawn for personal reasons). Contributing Author, Coastal Systems chapter of WG2, IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
She is the Review Editor 2009-2011, for Chapter 1 of the IPCC Special Report on “Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation.”
Susanne Moser is not a climate scientist and has a PhD and an MA in Geography.
Charles N. Herrick is another political scientist, not a climate scientist, he has a PhD in Public Policy, an MA in Political Theory and a BA in Political Science but he “serves as a peer reviewer on several NAS and USGCRP panels.”
Susanne Moser, is a former NCAR scientist, (Geography) and now a private consultant, she is a committed activist and is a former member of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
17
There is no way that the EPA is going to criticise the IPCC when so much of its output comes from IPCC authors working as consultants to the EPA, but still Lisa Jackson denies that the IPCC forms a major part of their endangerment finding:
“At a Senate hearing this morning, Environmental Protection Agency Director Lisa Jackson defended her agency’s recent finding that carbon is a pollutant and minimized the role that data from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change played in that decision.
Jackson defended the IPCC data as still worthwhile, while also arguing that the EPA relied on other data, not just the IPCC’s, for the finding. She refused at one point to directly answer whether the IPCC still represented the best data in climate change science.”
Yet she is contradicted by her own documents:
Endangerment Findings Technical Support document
This document provides technical support for the endangerment analysis concerning greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that may be addressed under the Clean Air Act.
The conclusions here and the information throughout this document are primarily drawn from the assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.”
This document itself does not convey any judgment or conclusion regarding the question of whether GHGs may be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, as this decision is ultimately left to the judgment of the Administrator.
The EPA authors of the Endangerment Technical Support Document are mainly economists and environmental policy specialists, with qualifications like Masters in International Affairs or Public Policy and Management, although there are a couple of chemists, engineers and one meteorologist. Some are also IPCC authors and many are involved in the production of the proposed regulations, for example:
There is no way that the EPA is going to criticise the IPCC when so much of its output comes from IPCC authors working as consultants to the EPA, but still Lisa Jackson denies that the IPCC forms a major part of their endangerment finding.
The EPA authors of the Endangerment Technical Support Document are mainly economists and environmental policy specialists, with qualifications like Masters in International Affairs or Public Policy and Management.
18
Melissa Weitz is an environmental protection specialist in EPA’s Climate Change Division, within the Office of Air and Radiation.
“Her areas of work include rulemaking for the proposed mandatory greenhouse gas reporting rule, offsets protocols and policy analysis, and the national greenhouse gas inventory.”
She has a B.S. in Animal Science and a Master’s degree in Energy and Environmental Policy.
David Chalmers has “managed research, analysis and communication efforts on adaptation and ocean acidification and provided technical, analytic and management support to coastal adaptation projects funded through EPA’s Climate Ready Estuaries program.” He has also “produced key elements of EPA’s Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act. He has an MA in International Affairs and a B.A. in Environmental Science.
EPA AUTHORS OF THE TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT WHO ARE ALSO IPCC AUTHORS
Darrell Winner, who is acting Deputy Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment at EPA and a former National Program Director for Global Change Research at EPA. He was a member of IPCC Working Group II, AR4 Climate Change 2007: Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Appendix III: Reviewer of the IPCC WGII Fourth Assessment Report. He has a Ph.D in Environmental Engineering Science and a B.S in Chemical Engineering.
Leif Hockstad, another “environmental engineer” with EPA, was a COP-15 negotiator and a Lead author of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.
Bill Irving is Chief of the Program Integration Branch of EPA’s Climate Change Division and a “technical expert” on the United States delegations to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. He has been with the EPA since 1997 and was a co-ordinating Lead Author of the IPCC Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Mr. Irving holds a Bachelor’s degree from Queen’s University in Kingston, Canada, and a Master’s degree in International Affairs from Columbia University.
Dina Kruger is the current Director of the Climate Change Division at EPA. She holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Washington, and a Master’s degree from the Energy and Resources Group at the University of California, Berkeley. She was the presiding officer for the Proposed Rulemaking for EPA’s Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under the Clean Air Act, Monday, May 18, 2009. Kruger was a Review editor for the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.
Lisa Hanle was another Lead Author for the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, along with another eleven EPA employees.
In order to add gravitas, the document has Federal Reviewers, but again they are not all climate scientists, although they are IPCC authors. Some are members of the U.S. Global Change
19
Research Program and some are members of the panel on America’s Climate Choices, which are the bodies in which the EPA places so much faith and which, according to Lisa Jackson, form the basis of the science behind the EPA Endangerment finding. By acting as reviewers they are effectively validating their own work.
In particular we have these big hitters in the climate debate, as reviewers of the Endangerment Finding Technical Support Document.
Thomas Karl, director of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. He has been quoted as saying:
“Internationally, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), under the auspices of the United Nations (UN), World Meteorological Organization (WMO), and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), is the most senior and authoritative body providing scientific advice to global policy makers.”
He was a member of the Committee on America’s Climate Choices until his new appointment.
Dr Gavin Schmidt of NASA, and contributing editor of the RealClimate blog. IPCC Lead Author and modeller.
Susan Solomon, NOAA Senior Scientist, Co-chair, IPCC Working Group 1, 2002-2008. She was recently challenged about the Inspector General’s report relating to FOA requests concerning the IPCC. She is a member of America’s Climate Choices Panel.
CONCLUSION
It is plain to see that the claim by Lisa Jackson that the Endangerment finding is based on sound science is false, when in fact it is overtly political and the culmination of many years of manoeuvering by the EPA. We find that “thousands of climate scientists”, narrows down to the same familiar cohorts, supported by economists and political graduates, who then acquire the status of “climate scientists” and are often quoted as such.
The major involvement of IPCC authors in the process, the extensive use of contractors who are former EPA employees and IPCC authors, the use of reviewers who are also IPCC major players and members of the US scientific panels quoted by the EPA, all leads to an incestuous “group
By acting as reviewers they are effectively validating their own work.
It is plain to see that the claim by Lisa Jackson that the Endangerment finding is based on sound science is false, when in fact it is overtly political and the culmination of many years of manoeuvering by the EPA. We find that “thousands of climate scientists”, narrows down to the same familiar cohorts, supported by economists and political graduates, who then acquire the status of “climate scientists” and are often quoted as such.
20
think” situation, which has no place in the determination of public policy on energy and the
economy.
Cover photo of EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson announcing
that greenhouse-gas emissions pose a danger to public health,
as posted on nydailynews.com. Background photo of the
United Nations flag from topnews.

Obama’s Solar Scandal & Mississippi Powers’ New Lignite Coal Plant

Guaranteed Loan Linked to Scandal

Obama’s Solar scandal has split the United Nations environmental scam wide open for all to witness.  $535 million guaranteed loans for a failed green company as payback for political contributions?  Americans will not tolerate such corruption.

Solyndra was the first company to receive a loan guarantee from the Department of Energy as part of the 2009 stimulus package. This wasn’t small potatoes. The loan guarantee was for $535 million.

It was, Vice President Biden said, “exactly what the Recovery Act was all about.” Energy Secretary Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize winner, said it would help “spark a new revolution that will put Americans to work.” It was part of the Obama administration’s program to create so-called “green jobs,” which we were told were the key to future economic growth.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/09/15/obama_tainted_by_loan_guarantees_to_solar_firms_111336.html

  • Both Kemper Coal Plant and Obama’s Solyndra Solar received federal loan guarantees.(1)
  • Both Mississippi Powers’ IGCC  Kemper Coal Plant and the Solyndra Solar Plant Claim to bring green  jobs and boost the economy.  I would like to see the bogus study where Mississippi Power will be employing more Full Time Permanent workers over the next few years.  It is not logical with the layoffs and closings they have planned. I say put it in writing or quit deceiving the people.  What Mississippi Power is about to do with the Kemper Coal Plant will cause a terminal cancer in the economy of Mississippi.


Both Kemper County Coal Plant and Obama’s Solar Plant Scandal have Energy Secretary Steven Chu involved in the promoting and supporting the projects.
Most importantly, both The Mississippi lignite experiment and the Solar experiment were a product the KYOTO PROTOCOLS of the United Nations, Agenda 21.  A plan to reduce manmade greenhouse gasses and trading carbon units to redistribute the wealth from America to poorer nations all under the disguise of doing good through environmental causes. 

(1) http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cctc/EIS/kemper_pdf/Front%20Matter%20and%20Summary.pdf

Remove the CO2 capture portion all together, and put in proven reliable technology coal with new scrubbers and add new scrubbers to the old plants.  Stop bankrupting companies and businesses. Quit making our rates skyrocket for a false science on global warming and quit following the Kyoto Protocols of the united Nations.  Follow the America way to prosperity.

Worst Scam is Good Business For Mississippi?

The article below is an example of how the media is used to publicize Kemper Coal plant propaganda. Can anyone hear them saying, “Come into the Gas Chamber for a nice warm shower?”  Lets expose the deceptions.

Kemper Lignite plant has little to do with coal, energy, or Mississippians and much to do with Cap and Tax, promoting Agenda’s of international Governments, and crippling America.  The Southern Co is following the United Nations’ Kyoto Protocols to redistribute the wealth and land.  While Tom Fanning CEO of Southern Co suggests their companies are against bigger expanding regulatory government the truth is he is fully cooperating, volunteering Mississippi to bridge the gaps for more regulations.  Who can blame them since their cooperation allows them to help write the new regulations.

Those Promoting Cap and Trade say we will have “basic availability“- We will not, because Southern co is moving forward with the Kyoto Protocols voluntarily which will lead other coal companies to be mandated to follow their new regulations they are helping to write.  Fanning says we will then lose up to 50% of coal plants but fails to say it is due to his new regulations he helped write. 

http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/2011/05/20/summit-speakers-take-whacks-at-u-s-energy-policies-rules/

Reliability will be clearly lost due to the number of closed coal plants.

Affordable energy, is the biggest lie of them all because the regulations, by design are intended to cause ALL coal plants to eventually go bankrupt even Kemper County’s plant, according to Steven Chu Department of energy.

 

Development: Energy is a key

12:05 PM, Sep. 2, 2011|

The key to economic development always
is an educated, available and motivated

workforce, but it also is the basic
availability of reliable, affordable energy.

Mississippi has made strides in both of
those components, but especially the latter.

Gov. Haley Barbour has stressed and
promoted Mississippi’s energy resources.
Those resources continue not only to
expand, but more important, to diversify.

Not true, there will be no expansion of energy sources because of the closures about to take place in Mississippi and all over America if this global warming scam/kyoto Protocols is not stopped. 

Mississippi Power President and CEO Ed
Day told The Clarion-Ledger Editorial
Board last week that the company is
proceeding rapidly on its new “clean coal”
power plant in Kemper County.

There is nothing clean about Lignite coal it is a low-grade brown wet mushy coal and if one pours a bottomless amount of money at it you might be able to remove 65% of the CO2. This is the most inefficient way to utilize coal imaginable.  This is a scam!

The $2.5 billion plant will use Mississippi’s
vast stores of lignite coal in a cutting-edge
process that will not burn, but gasify the
coal and produce energy. The CO2
byproduct will be captured and sold to
state oil producers who use it reclaim old
wells.

Selling this CO2 will be a legal battle because Carbon trading has not yet passed and now we have objective science proving there is no manmade global warming because our coal plants are giving off Carbon DioxideIt is a SCAM! Selling a scam on the stock exchange is illegal!

The Kemper plant will add a new type of
energy-producing resource to the
company.

The lignite is cheap, plentiful and easy to
mine, producing a long-term consistent
fuel cost.

LIE.  The cost will be the most expensive venture America has ever seen in EnergyProve this statement Wrong, I dare you.

It is interesting new technology, with jobs
and an important addition to the state’s
energy portfolio.  How many Jobs?

You put the Meter readers out of work, close Coal plants, put families out of their homes, and businesses go under.  There is NOTHING job building about the Kemper County Coal Scam.

Kemper is just one of the important
developments: Kior’s planned five bio-fuel
facilities in Mississippi; the Gulf LNG project
in Jackson County at the Port of Pascagoula;
Entergy’s planned upgrade of the Grand
Gulf Nuclear Station; and the expansion of
the Chevron refinery facility in Pascagoula.

In addition, there are new solar
manufacturing facilities.

Advance Mississippi – a coalition of
business, education, utility and economic
development leaders – has promoted the
creation of a sound state energy policy that
is a major component necessary for the
state’s future economic growth.

Sounds like a comment straight out of the hand book of the United Nations’ Agenda 21.  I bet if you looked up Advance MS you will find the links to Agenda 21. I did and yes the connection is clearly the United Nations’ Agenda.

Former TVA chairman and former Tupelo
mayor Glenn McCullough heads the
Advance Mississippi effort. As he has
pointed out, there is more capital
investment in energy than any other

industrial sector in the U.S. Southern states.

Mississippi is reaping some of that
investment and is poised to reap more
benefits.

INVESTMENT!?  LIE!!!  They are sowing Cap and Trade regulations and ALL of America will reap that destruction. 

The Obama administration has stressed
the growth of green energy and companies
like Mississippi Power are experimenting
beyond its traditional operations.

This is at no risk to Southern Co investors, because ratepayer are paying for the experiment.  If Mississippi Power or Southern Co had to pay for it, the Kemper County Scam would not have proceeded without international or George Soros  funding.  The new books of regulations must be written before they can be enacted.

Most important, the nation needs a sound
energy policy that balances interests by
protecting the environment while providing
efficient, affordable energy.

Sounds nice but is straight out of the United Nations handbooks, again.  It is All about the ENVIRONMENT not the people. Gaia is the reason in the fine print if you read it.  

Mississippi is on the right track in that
department.

http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20110904/OPINION01/109040314/Development-Energy-key?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Opinion|s

NASA Assisted Study: Global Warming Alarmists Wrong

NASA Study: Global Warming Alarmists Wrong.

New study that may proves global-warming alarmists have been wrong all along.

Data from NASA’s Terra satellite covering the period 2000 through 2011 shows that when the earth’s climate heats up, the atmosphere appears to be better able to channel the heat to outer space.

The satellite data call into question the computer models favored by global warming believers and may put to rest controversy over the discrepancy between the computer models and actual meteorological readings.

Co-author of the study, Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama’s Earth System Science Center, said in a press release, “The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show. There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

In an Op-Ed in Forbes, senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute James M. Taylor, said, “In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth’s atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space.

“Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth’s atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space that the alarmist computer models predict.”

The new research further shows that not only is more energy released to space than had been theorized, but also that the energy is released at an earlier point in a cycle of warming than previously documented.

In fact, the new data reveal, energy is discharged beginning at a point about three months before a cycle peaks. “At the peak,” Spencer said, “satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained.”

The research was published in the journal Remote Sensing.

Carbon Capture and Storage‬‏ is Very Inefficient

 

@ 3:15 he talks about how we have a process to “economically” capture co2.  This process, is very inefficient as you can see, cooling the exhaust gasses, reabsorb the co2, then reheating the ammonia solution, then re-cooling it again…

 

 

Brandon Presley: Consumers lost in Mississippi Power’s planned Kemper County plant | Better MS Report

Brandon Presley: Consumers lost in Mississippi Power’s planned Kemper County plant | Better MS Report.

From Better Mississippi Report:

JACKSON (Tuesday, July 6, 2010) – Public Service Commissioner Brandon Presley says consumers lost in Mississippi Power Co.’s planned Kemper County coal plant because the utility doesn’t have to guarantee the technology behind the project will ever work.

Mississippi Power’s plant, the first of its kind in the world, will use a new technology that converts a soft coal called lignite into a gas to fuel turbines and create electricity. The concept is high risk because no one can guarantee that the technology to be used in the plant will work.

Presley said Gov. Haley Barbour and U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu sent letters asking for support of the Mississippi Power plant. But Presley voted in April and May against forcing Mississippi Power ratepayers to finance the plant.

“I received letters urging me to support the project from everyone from Gov. Barbour to Steven Chu, secretary of energy in the Obama administration,” said Presley, who represents the Northern District on the three-member PSC.

“If they thought it was such a good project, why didn’t they find a way to pay for it rather than forcing Mississippi Power’s customers to be the sole investors in the plant?” Presley told the Better Mississippi Report.

The PSC voted 2-1 in April to allow Mississippi Power Co. to build the Kemper County plant at a cost of no more than $2.4 billion. Commissioners said they would decide at a later date whether to grant Mississippi Power’s request for ratepayers to finance the plant before it begins operating.

Less than a month later in May, the PSC voted 2-1 to increase the cost cap of the Mississippi Power plant to $2.88 billion and also allowed the company to charge ratepayers for financing costs before the plant is completed.

Presley cast the sole no votes at the April and May meetings.

Presley, 32, a lifelong resident of Nettleton, is in his first term on the PSC – winning the position in 2007 after serving as mayor of Nettleton from 2001 to 2007. He talked about the Mississippi Power plant and other issues in an interview with the Better Mississippi Report.

Better Mississippi Group: You were the only member of the Mississippi Public Service Commission to oppose the Mississippi Power Co. plan to build a coal-burning plant in Kemper County. Can you explain your concerns about this proposal and why you voted against it?
Brandon Presley:
Very simple. Mississippi Power wanted the ratepayers to pay in advance hundreds of millions of dollars in financing costs and then $2.4 billion (now up to $2.88 billion) for the plant itself, and after hours and hours of sworn testimony and days of hearings they would not, and to this day, still will not, guarantee their new technology to be used in this plant will work.
If I had voted yes for this plant, I would have been a part of forcing ratepayers in one of the poorest states in the nation to pay, in advance, for something the company can’t even guarantee will work and that was, obviously, a big concern to me. I strongly support innovative technology, and I have a deep admiration for the scientists and engineers who bring about groundbreaking ideas that could make our lives better. But I believe the companies themselves and private sector investors should be willing to take some of the risks and not force all the risk on ratepayers who don’t have a choice in their providers. Remember, customers of Mississippi Power can’t choose who provides their electricity. They must use Mississippi Power or be in the dark, literally. So they are now being forced, via their electric bill, to invest in this plant.
I received letters urging me to support the project from everyone from Gov. Barbour to Steven Chu, secretary of energy in the Obama administration. I wondered if they thought it was such a good project, why didn’t they find a way to pay for it rather than forcing Mississippi Power’s customers to be the sole investors in the plant?
Also, I felt strongly that since there are so many unknowns out there, especially about the technology itself, that nothing would have been harmed by waiting. As I have said, Henry Ford built a better car five years after he started on his first one.
In a few years, we should have a better idea about other discoveries going on now, such as the impact of shale natural gas and also about the technology in the plant. Maybe then Mississippi Power will be able to guarantee that it will work. In a few years, we should also have a better understanding of the current energy legislation and environmental regulation that is being debated in Washington.
If Mississippi Power is going to ask consumers to pay up to $2.88 billion, plus hundreds of millions in banking fees (before the plant puts out any electricity), they need to have their ducks in a row with technology that they can guarantee works and share some of the risk. They didn’t. So I voted “no” twice.

Better Mississippi: The vote was a total change from a stand the PSC took days earlier. Can you tell us what led to the about-face on the PSC?
Presley:
I’ve been consistent – I voted no both times. You would have to ask the other two commissioners that question. Even though I could not support the project after hearing and studying the facts presented to us for months, I felt the first order on April 29th was strong and at least had some good protections in it for the ratepayers. I do not know why the majority voted to ease up on that order and grant the company another $480 million in spending authority under certain circumstances.

Better Mississippi: Mississippi Power Co. won’t release the possible increase in electric rates that customers may have to pay to finance construction of the Kemper County plant. Is this something that should be released to the public? Why?
Presley:
Absolutely. They should have been disclosed before the plant was approved. It was one of the reasons I voted against the project. Two times before the final votes, I asked if the rate impacts were going to be made public before the project was approved, and both times the answer was “no.”
The customers of Mississippi Power have a right to know how this plant is going to impact their bills. They shouldn’t have to wait until they get the bill out of their mailbox to understand how much it is going to cost them. I had proposed changing the rule that allowed Mississippi Power to deem these rate impacts “confidential” prior to the final vote on Kemper. I raised the issue of changing this rule in May but was out-voted. The issue was taken up in our June meeting, at which time it passed unanimously.

Better Mississippi: With the Sierra Club taking the Mississippi Power Co. Kemper County issue to court, how do you see things working now? Will this be a long, protracted case?
Presley:
All I know is that I will keep fighting for taxpayers and ratepayers no matter what happens.

Better Mississippi: You are one of three commissioners on the PSC. Can you tell us about your relationship with the other commissioners? Do you all tend to get along? How do you handle disagreements on major issues, such as the one with Mississippi Power Co.?
Presley:
I like my fellow commissioners and think they’re good men. As with any three-member commission, we are going to disagree from time to time.
With that said, I tend to be very passionate about the job the people elected me to do. I’m passionate about what I believe a regulator is supposed to do. I won’t back down when I believe consumers are getting a raw deal or when I see something unfair about the process. I think that’s what the ratepayers expect and it’s certainly how an elected official who is protecting the public’s interest should act, in my opinion.
When you have the courage of your convictions, you don’t mind going against the grain or standing alone. I recently heard a pretty good saying that fits this situation, “Even a dead fish can go with the flow.” I don’t plan to be a “go with the flow” commissioner.

Better Mississippi: What do you see as the biggest challenge of the PSC these days?
Presley:
The single biggest challenge is making sure that consumers aren’t left out of the picture at the PSC. It seems that almost every rate plan, service plan, rule and regulation was written for and by the utilities for their benefit. Too many times the people who actually have to pay the utility bills have just been left out of the process and forgotten. The simple fact is that if the PSC doesn’t stand up for the consumer, nobody else is going to.
We desperately need balance at the PSC. And by that, I mean that we need to remember that there are real people, families, small businesses and industries that have to pay for these rate hikes and proposals. The utilities have a vast reservoir of attorneys, lobbyists, experts and cheerleaders. All the general public has is the PSC.

Better Mississippi: What do you see as the most important regulatory issues facing the PSC and consumers in the state?
Presley:
So many Mississippians are facing very tough economic situations in their homes and at their businesses. My mission is to do everything possible to keep money in the pockets of taxpayers and ratepayers and not help the big utilities make undeserved profits. That is our single biggest challenge. I believe we can craft policies that are pro-consumer and pro-business. Letting utilities increase rates whenever they want hurts so many small businesses that are the backbone of our state’s economy. I am proud to say that I have voted against more spending and rate increases than any other commissioner in the history of the PSC.

Better Mississippi: How do you see your role on the PSC?
Presley:
I see my role as a watchdog for the public interest – period.
A commissioner I’ve gotten to know from another state says it best. One time, when the hearing room was full of attorneys and high-paid lobbyists for the utility companies, he called the meeting to order by asking everyone who was there on behalf of the utilities to please stand up. Almost the whole room, of course, stood to their feet. Then he told them to sit down. He then asked, “Who is here on behalf of the ratepayers?” Nobody responded and he stood up and said “You see, folks? That’s why I’m here. That’s my job.” I couldn’t agree more.

Better Mississippi: Statewide and district elections will take place in 2011. Do you plan to run for re-election? Why or why not?
Presley:
I honestly haven’t given it much thought. I’m consumed daily with issues at the PSC and getting my job done. I will make a decision about the election in the coming months.

 

%d bloggers like this: