Skip to comments.More fraudulent science from EPA
Posted on 03/31/2014 5:54:41 AM PDT by rktman
The Obama Environmental Protection Agency recently slashed the maximum allowable sulfur content in gasoline from 30 parts per million to 10 ppm. The agency claims its new Tier 3 rule will bring $7 billion to $19 billion in annual health benefits by 2030.
These standards are a win for public health, a win for our environment and a win for our pocketbooks, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy insists.
Its all hokum. Like almost everything else emanating from EPA these days, the gasoline regulations are a case study in how Americas economy, jobs, living standards, health and welfare are being pummeled by secretive, deceptive, and indeed fraudulent and corrupt government practices.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
It’s not about your health and well being its all about control. They would much rather you be dead than be a thorn in their a##
They need to weigh this against all the deaths that will be caused by this rule through the loss of economic activity.
Deaths at the hands of the eco terrorist left are a good thing. They reduce the burden on Gaia. sarc/
The EPA is an anticapitalist cabal that is lowering American energy consumption, increasing poverty and decreasing the standard of living. If by chance the ideologues are thrown out of office, they will simply return to their tenured tax supported universities or the tax exempt foundations. They themselves never suffer.
EPA (which once promised to be ultra-transparent) claims its rules will add less than a penny per gallon to gasoline prices; but it wont say how it arrived at that estimate. Industry sources say the Tier 3 rules will require $10 billion in upfront capital expenditures, an additional $2.4 billion in annual compliance expenses, significant increases in refinery energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, an extra 5-9 cents per gallon in manufacturing costs, which will certainly hit consumers at the pump.
But regardless of their ultimate cost, the rules will reduce monthly ozone levels by just 1.2 parts per billion during rush hour, says Environ. Thats equivalent to 12 cents out of $100 million or 1.2 seconds out of 32,000 years. These minuscule improvements could not even have been measured by equipment existing a couple decades ago. Their contribution to improved human health will be essentially zero.
Not so, say the EPA, Sierra Club and American Lung Association (ALA). The rules will reduce asthma in the children, they insist. However, asthma incidences have been increasing, while air pollution has declined demonstrating that the pollution-asthma connection is a red herring. The disease is caused by allergies, a failure to expose young children to sufficient allergens to cause their immune systems to build resistance to airborne allergens, and lack of sufficient exercise to keep lungs robust. Not surprisingly, a Southern California study found no association between asthma hospitalizations and air pollution levels.
Sadly, only the bigs would be cast aside. There are thousands of underlings with the same ideology who will be in place for many years to come. In this case, a new broom will only get some of the major cobwebs but won’t reach in to the dark corners.
Probably the epa used common core math standards to arrive at their number. Just round up or down to arrive at what you “believe” is the best conclusion. HUH? LOL!! :>}
“Public health”? Since when is “health” a collective concept?
Individuals have health. Like other methods of trying to determine an “average”, such a measure is highly subjective, and relates only to trying to impose an agenda.
There are highly sensitive people, and others who can adapt to some extremely problematic situations. By failure to expose individuals to what may be a problem for them, unilaterally banning a certain element or set of circumstances, only results in the individual being left unable to cope with the situation when it arises, outside the “safe” boundaries established by the “wise and learned” among us.
Boundaries are broken through every day, intentionally or otherwise. One of the primary reasons for establishing the boundaries in the first place is because an inordinate amount of danger may exist on the other side. But sometimes, it turns out, the danger is entirely imaginary, or by developing adequate precautions, the danger may be averted or at least minimized. But if the boundary is never crossed, who is to know what is possible to deal with, and what is not?
“We don’t need no stinkin’ rules!” Maybe not, but you also have to respect the consequences, and the Universe is a cruel and unforgiving place.
There is a balance, somewhere, between too little order, and too much. And that is where “critical thinking” comes in.
Same reason I HATE actuarial tables. Generalization made up to get you to pay for a collective determination of “everybody’s” condition. I still smoke (evil me) but in “general” I’m probably a lot healthier than a whole lot of people out there. Resulting in higher health care costs and increased life insurance premiums. Oh well.
Let me be the first to say ‘Thank You’ Tricky Dick !
This map is wrong of course. Try to buy no alcohol fuel in Colorado.
Right on the money ... if you read the history of Joseph McCarthy ... you realize he was correct ... he actually underestimated how deeply into the bone marrow of America the cancer of communist thought had burrowed ... the left are a cancer ... and I’m not sure what kind of chemotherapy can work on them!
EPA and Science , would this be an Oxymoron ? LOL
I live in a mild climate area, but this winter got cold. Energy prices are so high that most of my neighbors just burned wood.
I could be wrong, but burning wood isn’t exactly “clean.”
Children and minorities hardest hit.
But it is done to save the children and minorities.
And being prohibited in some places because it uh, ain’t so clean.
There's nothing that says Rat-infested states can't add even more stringent mandates of their own on top of the EPA's baseline stupidity.