GlobalWarming.org

The Duggar family, stars of the TLC program 18 Kids and Counting, are under scrutiny because of all those children (they are expecting a 19th) and their environmental impact:

According to recent research, having lots of kids may have a much bigger impact on the environment than previously thought.

Here’s why: Oregon State University researchers say that if you’re serious about reducing your carbon footprint, the best way to do it is to have one less child. They claim the effect is almost 20 times greater than recycling, driving a high-mileage car, or using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs over your entire lifetime.

So by the mathematical logic by the clowns in Corvallis, if the Duggars planned to have 26 kids, then they should do their part and have 25 instead. Problem solved!

India and China talk the Al Gore talk of climate Armageddon and the necessity for urgent action — yet their emissions keep going up and they refuse to adopt emission caps or carbon taxes. The world’s two most populous countries with the biggest “emerging” economies act on the premise that global warming policies are more dangerous than global warming itself. It’s time for their words to match their deeds, as I explain today on MasterResource.Org.

Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, the double-minded man on cap-and-tax, is continuing his high-stepping through the the hot coals of global warming policy prescriptions. In a Flathead Beacon article that attempts to assess the prospects of the national Waxman-Markey bill, the chairman of the Western Governors Association and the Democratic Governors Association is said to “clarify” his position on carbon emissions trading schemes, but in reality he only muddies further:

In an interview last week, Schweitzer clarified his position, saying he “categorically” believes gasses produced by humans, like methane and CO2, were causing climate change and the U.S. needs to take action to reduce emissions of these gasses. But then added: “Do I believe that the carbon cap-and-trade system is the best proposal? The answer is no.”

As for Waxman-Markey, Schweitzer said, “I have some concerns with it” and that he hasn’t “been able to find anyone who can understand” the bill.

But Schweitzer would not speculate on the political prospects of Waxman-Markey’s passage, saying only that the bill is sure to be altered by the Senate and eventual conference committees, which could result in a much different bill. Nor did the governor say he backed cap-and-dividend. Instead, he said he would like to see some type of policy mechanism where fees on carbon emissions were used to develop new technologies dedicated to a cleaner, more efficient energy system, encompassing everything from carbon capture, to new transmission grids, to wind and solar power. Such a system would allow the market to motivate companies to develop these technologies, whether a carbon cap is imposed or not.

“I don’t know that you need a hard cap if you send clear market signals that you need to decrease carbon dioxide emissions,” Schweitzer said.

So what does that mean for his state’s continued participation in the Western Climate Initiative’s cap-and-tax scheme, as the governor sees it? Your guess is as good as anyone’s, but he will probably be allowed to evade a straight answer as long as Montanans (and their media) let him.

Yesterday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sent a draft proposed rule to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that would exempt small emitters of carbon dioxide (CO2) from Clean Air Act (CAA) pre-construction permitting requirement, Greenwire reports.

The proposed rule, as described in Greenwire, is blatantly illegal. It is a tacit admission that the Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA set the stage for an economic disaster. It is additional evidence that Mass v. EPA was wrongly decided. It confirms CEI’s warning that the Court’s ruling imperils a core constitutional principle — the separation of powers.

In Mass. v. EPA, the Supreme Court, by a narrow 5-4 majority, decided that CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHG) are “air pollutants” within the meaning of CAA, and gave EPA three options: (1) issue a finding that GHG-related “air pollution” “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,” (2) issue a finding of no endangerment, or (3) provide a “reasonable explanation” why the agency cannot or will not exercise its discretion to make such a determination.

The Court further held that if EPA makes a finding of endangerment, then it has a duty, under CAA Sec. 202, to develop and adopt GHG emission standards for new motor vehicles.

EPA picked option (1), and last month, it sent OMB a draft proposed rule to establish GHG emission standards for new motor vehicles.

Although the Court majority asserted that an endangerment finding could not lead to “extreme measures” and would only require a cost-constrained adjustment of existing federal fuel-economy standards (see. p. 28 of the decision), in fact the endangerment finding will trigger a chain reaction throughout the CAA — a regulatory cascade potentially exceeding in cost, scope, and intrusiveness the Kyoto Protocol and many other GHG-control schemes Congress has never seen fit to pass.

For starters, establishing GHG emission standards for new motor vehicles will by definition make CO2 a CAA-regulated air pollutant. As such, CO2 would automatically be ”subject to regulation” under the Act’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) pre-construction permitting program (CAA Sec. 165). Under the CAA, any firm that plans to build a new “major” stationary source, or modify an existing major source in a way that would significantly increase emissions, must first obtain a PSD permit from EPA or a state environmental agency.

A PSD source is “major” if it is in one of 28 listed categories and has a potential to emit 100 tons per year (TPY) of an air pollutant, or if it is any other type of establishment and has a potential to emit 250 TPY (CAA Sec. 169). 

And there’s the rub. Whereas only large industrial facilities have a potential to emit 250 TPY of air contaminants such as sulfur dioxide or particulate matter, an immense number and variety of entities – office buildings, hotels, big box stores, enclosed malls, small manufacturing firms, even commercial kitchens – have a potential to emit 250 TPY of CO2. A September 2008 report commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce  estimates that 1.2 million buildings and facilities – most of them currently unregulated under the CAA – actually emit 250 TPY of CO2. All would be vulnerable to new PSD regulation, controls, paperwork, penalties, and litigation.

To obtain a PSD permit, firms must document their compliance with ”best available control technology” (BACT) standards. Even apart from any technology investments needed to comply with BACT, the PSD permitting process is costly and time-consuming.  In a recent year, each permit on average cost $125,120 and 866 burden hours for a source to obtain,  EPA estimates. No small business could operate subject to the PSD administrative burden.

The costs, uncertainties, and delays from applying PSD and BACT to CO2 would have a chilling effect on economic development and construction activity. It would turn the CAA into a gigantic Anti-Stimulus Package in a period of financial crisis and high unemployment. Definitely not something the Obama administration wants on its record in the 2010 election season.

EPA’s July 2008 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) outlined several administrative remedies to shield small entities from PSD requirements, all of doubtful legality. But if the Greenwire article is accurate, EPA is opting for the most brazenly illegal option of all. It proposes to revise, on its own authority, the PSD threshold from 250 TPY to 25,000 TPY.

Now friends, under the 1984 Supreme Court case of Chevron v. NRDC, EPA has considerable discretionary authority in interpreting the CAA where the statute is “silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue.” But there is nothing ambiguous about the number 250. No matter how you squint at the page, 250 is 100 times smaller than the threshold EPA proposes to put in its place.

According to Greenwire, Sierra Club’s David Bookbinder, a counsel for petitioners in Mass. v. EPA, “said the rule would also deflect claims from Republican lawmakers and industry groups that the Obama administration is seeking to regulate small emission sources such as doughnut shops, schools, and nursing homes.” But the Obama administration’s intent is not the issue. The issue is whether EPA, as a matter of law, must apply PSD requirements to doughnut shops, etc. once it starts regulating CO2 under Sec. 202.

Greenwire then quotes Bookbinder: “Putting this rule in place deflates a lot of political rhetoric about regulating CO2.” Well, I hope industry and the GOP are not so naive as to put their trust in an illegal rule. A rule that flouts clear statutory language of the CAA can provide no durable protection from the regulatory cascade that an endangerment finding and EPA adoption of motor vehicle GHG emission standards would unleash.

EPA’s proposed draft rule is a tacit admission of what CEI has said all along: EPA cannot regulate CO2 under the CAA without endangering the U.S. economy — unless EPA plays lawmaker, amends the Act, and violates the separation of powers. When the Supreme Court handed down the Mass. v. EPA decision, it set the stage for a constitutional crisis.

Of course, the bigger constitutional crisis stemming from Mass. v. EPA is that we could end up with an energy suppression regime far more costly than Kyoto or Waxman-Markey, yet without the people’s elected representatives ever voting on it.

For the gory details, see my blog post on MasterResource.Org and my comment (pp. 28-56) on EPA’s proposed endangerment finding.

People aren’t willing to pay much to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases to fight global warming, according to a Washington Post-ABC News Poll. 52 percent said they would support a law that “significantly lowered greenhouse gas emissions” — but only if it cost them less than $10 a month. Only 39 percent said they would support such a law if it cost them $25 a month — which is vastly less than it would actually cost.

In the name of cutting greenhouse gases, the House passed a cap-and-trade carbon tax scheme backed by the Obama Administration in June. But the bill won’t significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions even in the U.S. One reason is that the bill was larded up with corporate welfare. 85 percent of its carbon allowances were given away to special interests free of charge, thanks to lobbying that turned the bill into an orgy of corporate welfare.

The bill also contains environmentally-harmful provisions, such as massive ethanol subsidies, which will result in “damage to water supplies, soil health and air quality.” Ethanol subsidies have resulted in forests being destroyed in the Third World, and caused famines that have killed countless people in places like Haiti.

Worse, the cap-and-trade tax will cost much, much more than $25 a month — with politically connected businesses like GE profiting at the expense of the taxpayer, as the Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney has chronicled in story after story. Carney calls the bill a “hidden bailout” for GE and other well-connected businesses.

Capping emissions through taxes and regulations isn’t cheap — Obama himself told the San Francisco Chronicle that under his cap-and-trade tax to fight global warming, Americans’ electricity bills would “skyrocket,” and coal power plants that now provide much of the nation’s energy would go “bankrupt.” There’s no free lunch (except for the politically-connected businesses that are backing the bill, and will be able to hike consumer prices as a result).

Under the bill, the average household will pay about $248 more a month, say economists, about ten times more than voters said they were unwilling to pay in the Post-ABC News poll. Electricity bills alone will rise by more than $30 a month, utilities will rise by $69 a month, and other consumer goods will also become more expensive, because energy is part of the cost of almost everything we buy.

Even the researchers backing the bill say it will have a tiny effect on global warming by the year 2050 — “much less than one degree.” But it will cost the economy $7.4 trillion, destroying much of our industrial base.

So it’s all pain and no gain, something reinforced by the bill’s poor drafting and politically-motivated giveaways — and the fact that most greenhouse gas emissions occur outside the U.S. and beyond the reach of U.S. cap-and-trade taxes. In fact, the bill could actually increase pollution by driving smokestack industries overseas to places like India and China, where they would avoid not only costly greenhouse gas regulations, but also American law’s restrictions on traditional pollutants like sulfur dioxide that were restricted because of their dangerousness long before global warming even became an issue. (China has restrictions on auto emissions, but its restrictions on industrial pollution are minimal and poorly unenforced, leading to vast amounts of smog and acid rain).

Meanwhile, the Administration is undermining alternative energy, which doesn’t give off greenhouse gases. Obama is killing a state-of-the-art nuclear waste facility at Yucca Mountain after billions of taxpayer dollars had already been spent preparing it for use. Doing that foolishly puts taxpayers on the hook for up to $100 billion in payments to nuclear power plant owners under government contracts. The killing of the facility will make it more difficult to dispose of nuclear waste from existing power plants, and harder to construct new nuclear power plants to generate badly-needed energy.

The Obama Administration is also doing nothing to use federal law to preempt state and local barriers to alternative energy. Wind and solar power continue to be blocked by people who say “Not in My Backyard.” California’s liberal Senators oppose developing solar power in the barren Mohave Desert, where virtually no one lives, wanting to keep it in its pristine state. But if solar panels can’t be put there, where plants and animals are sparse, where on Earth can they be put? The Kennedy family long blocked a wind power facility near Cape Code, worrying that it would interfere with their view of the oceean.

Rather than doing anything constructive about this, the Obama Administration is opposing preemption that would reduce the arbitrary power and prerogatives of local bureaucrats and trial lawyers. For ideological reasons, it issued an “anti-preemption” rule on May 20 that will undercut federal policies like developing alternative energy. The federal government should be using its power under the Commerce Clause to override parochial regulations that interfere with alternative energy projects and refineries.

One of Obama’s own advisers admits that the cap-and-trade energy-rationing scheme backed by the “Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats” would “have a trivially small effect on global warming while imposing substantial costs on all American households. And to get political support in key states, the legislation would abandon the auctioning of permits in favor of giving permits to selected corporations.”

Obama adviser Martin Feldstein notes that “the Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that the resulting increases in consumer prices” from capping the amount of carbon dioxide energy users can emit “would raise the cost of living of a typical household by $1,600 a year,” a figure that “would rise significantly” from year to year.

That’s the question that Carbon Control News considers today in an article the publication has placed outside its subscriber wall, just for you special blogreaders! Unfortunately CCN‘s reporter can draw no definitive conclusions:

(Florida Gov. Charlie Crist’s appointee) George LeMieux, who will be sworn in as Florida’s junior senator when Congress reconvenes next week, ran Crist’s successful 2006 campaign for governor and served as Crist’s chief of staff until the beginning of last year, when he returned to private practice at a Tallahassee law firm. As Crist’s top aide, LeMieux helped organize the governor’s first climate summit in 2007, during which activists, scientists and public officials from around the world gathered in Miami to consider the challenge presented by global warming and develop potential solutions.

As the Miami Herald reported (and I blogged about) last month, Crist has begun his run to replace quitting Sen. Mel Martinez by running with hair on fire from the no-longer-helpful global warming issue, after basking in media love the last two years when he hosted climate panic conferences featuring California Gov. Arnold Warmalarmer. This year Charlie says he may not hold another speech meet because of concern over the costs to sponsors (really!). But even though LeMeiux (“I am a Charlie Crist Republican”) will placehold, CCN says there’s no telling how he’ll vote on the Senate version of a cap-and-tax bill this year:

While environmentalists are encouraged by the appointment, LeMieux’s membership on the board of an industry organization that opposes cap-and-trade, combined with the potential pressure created by Crist’s conservative Republican primary opponent (that’s former Fla. House Speaker Marco Rubio), suggest his support for climate legislation is far from assured.

Because the two are so closely aligned, Crist likely will have to answer on the campaign trail for LeMieux’s votes on Senate legislation, which likely will include a cap-and-trade bill expected to be introduced by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and John Kerry (D-MA) as soon as next month.

If the belief still exists that Crist is anything more than the Sunshiny State’s Specter of Arlen, then Orlando Sentinel columnist Mike Thomas squashes it like a malarial mosquito:

…Predicting Crist is simple. Simply do the political calculation.

He would easily beat any Democrat in the Senate race. All he has to worry about is Rubio in the primary. So the environmentalists are of little use to him now. They may grumble as he abandons them, but he knows they won’t publicly attack him because he is going to win. And they will need him in the future, if not for climate change then for Everglades funding.

Crist is on your side when there is something in it for him.

And when it comes to climate change, there is nothing in it for Crist anymore.

That is, until the political winds change again.

Click here to check out the new trailer for ‘Climate Chains,’ a documentary on global warming alarmism by the Cascade Policy Institute. The film exposes why cap-and-trade is economically destructive and will lead to no measurable environmental benefit. The target release date for “Climate Chains” is mid-September before the Senate begins tackling cap-and-trade legislation.