Fact Sheet -- Proposed Rule: Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas...

Fact Sheet -- Proposed Rule: Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule

* On September 30, 2009, EPA announced a proposal that is focused on large facilities emitting over 25,000 tons of greenhouse gases a year. These facilities would be required to obtain permits that would demonstrate they are using the best practices and technologies to minimize GHG emissions.

* The rule proposes new thresholds for greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) that define when Clean Air Act (CAA) permits under the New Source Review (NSR) and title V operating permits programs would be required for new or existing industrial facilities.

* The proposed thresholds would “tailor” the permit programs to limit which facilities would be required to obtain NSR and title V permits and would cover nearly 70 percent of the national GHG emissions that come from stationary sources, including those from the nation’s largest emitters—including power plants, refineries, and cement production facilities.

* Small farms, restaurants and many other types of small facilities would not be subject to these permitting programs.

* This proposal addresses the emissions of the group of six greenhouse gases (GHGs) that may be covered by an EPA rule controlling or limiting their emissions: 1. Carbon dioxide (CO2) 2. Methane (CH4) 3. Nitrous oxide (N2O) 4. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) 5. Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) 6. Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)

Any time that the federal government wants to make a rule they must allow public comments. Every federal government regulation and every federal government rule proposal has a comment period of 60- 90-sometimes 120 days, usually 60days. This is your chance to influence Government policy.

In the last year of the Bush administration, OSHA tried to implement an ammunition storage rule. That was blasted during the comment period and never saw the light of day again. That was a big win.

This proposed rule change is to require active coal burning power plants and other sources of CO2, Methane and other supposed pollutants. Mainly this is aimed at coal powered power plants. To fall into new stricter guidelines will cause the coal powered power plants to have to file for new state and federal permits and install equipment that is very expensive and will not result in a cleaner environment. This will drive up energy costs, -“YOUR electric bill will necessarily skyrocket” Barrys words. But this goes even further in regulating industry that burns anything for fuel. Small factories and even others will be impacted by these rule changes.

Why is this important, CO2 is a by product of life. It is what the plants use to make oxygen. I think lord Monkdon says it far better than I can. Here he is on Glenn Beck

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqwxKOQYcsc why CO2 is not a controllable pollutant and why it makes no sense to try.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fsAGJwQhoY part one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it589JiPs8o part two

The main thing here is that the administration is trying to stop the use of coal as a power source. And using the global climate change fraud as a justification. The actual reason for the control is POWER. Just like the “oil crisis”, it is a sham.

We may not be able to stop it, but we can with numbers make it grind to a halt. With enough numbers we can tip the scales in our favor. It may get ignored but they will hear us.

The comment period ends on 12 – 27 at midnight EST. You can email your comments to a-and-r-docket@epa.gov

A fact sheet is here http://www.epa.gov/NSR/fs20090930action.html

Cut and paste the links in a new window

OK. EPA FReeped. Mine:

Subject: Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0053 — Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant and is not trapped in the atmosphere as heat in a greenhouse.

The science is not settled. The arguments rely on 1) a motley collection of suspect historical data about global temperatures and 2) the idea that the earth’s atmosphere is analogous to a backyard greenhouse. The following papers have not been successfully refuted:

Greenhouse Misconceptions, Tom Kondis. November 2008. (Speculators blame IR absorption by carbon dioxide, approximately 0.035% of the atmosphere, for changing our climate. They haven’t verified their unique viewpoint by utilizing IR radiation, synthetic gas mixtures and temperature measurements independent from the influences of poorly understood and incompletely considered natural forces that do control earth’s climate and weather. Their arguments lack substance and veracity.)

Greenhouse Gas Facts and Fantasies, by Tom Kondis. May 21, 2008. (Advocates of man-made global warming have intermingled elements of greenhouse activity and infrared absorption to promote the image that carbon dioxide traps heat near earth’s surface like molecular greenhouses insulating our atmosphere. Their imagery, however, is seriously flawed.)

The Great Global Warming Hoax? James A. Peden. (Man’s contribution to Greenhouse Gasses is relatively insignificant. We didn’t cause the recent Global Warming and we cannot stop it.)

GREENHOUSE EFFECT IN SEMI-TRANSPARENT PLANETARY ATMOSPHERES, Dr. Ferenc M. Miskolczi. Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Society, 2007. (Any imbalance [in] CO2 emissions [is] effectively countered by about 1 per cent decrease in the water vapor amount, and the system still fluctuates around its theoretical equilibrium value. [C]alculations on the NASA / NCAR atmospheric database proved that the Earth’s greenhouse effect does not show any steady increase, regardless of our CO2 emissions.)

THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE, Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD. (Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere.)

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics, (Submitted on 8 Jul 2007 (v1), last revised 4 Mar 2009 (this version, v4))

Abstract: The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? Richard S. Lindzen, Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate Massachusetts Institute of Technology, September 27, 2008. (What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet destroying toxin.)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.