Legal attack aimed at EPA's power to regulate GW emissions
Massey Energy CEO, Don Blankenship.
The EPA Clean Air Act endangerment finding, under attack in the U.S. Senate by Lisa Murkowski and her lobbyist allies, is also facing opposition in the courts. Last month, a band of industry interests asked a federal appeals court to review the EPA's finding, which is a prerequisite for using the Clean Air Act to reduce global warming pollution in the U.S.
Among the companies and business associations crusading against the endangerment finding is the coal giant Massey Energy—whose CEO Don Blankenship is a fervid denier of global warming, a position he championed without compunction in a recent debate with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. over mountaintop removal mining.
His line of argument was skillfully captured in a tweet by Earthjustice Campaign Director Jared Saylor, who attended the debate. Others, however, realize that our national addiction to fossil fuels must be overcome, and the endangerment finding is a step towards sobriety.
Last Friday, 16 states and New York City filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit in order to defend the endangerment finding and the option of using the Clean Air Act in the future to cut down on pollution that is worsening global warming.
Blankenship and his ilk have profited tremendously from our fossil-fuel burning revelry, so it's really no surprise that they want the party to continue. But Blankenship's dogmatic, tragicomic denial of global warming in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary makes him look like the last guy at the party, yelling "beer run!" long after everyone else has gone home to sleep it off.
Print this page
Email this page
Well done! Thank you very much for professional templates and community edition
omegle gizzlesene
I remember the original master of this artwork, Scott Kim, who published 'Inversions' back in 1980. omegle sohbet I find it amazing how Kim and Langdon can find the symmetry to create these calligraphic cartwheels. chat roulette A perfect art for signs and book covers.
Very informative and trustworthy blog. Please keep updating with great posts like this one. I have booked marked your site and am about to email it to a few friends of mine that I know would enjoy reading
omegle sohbet
cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias
Doesn't anybody gets it? This is not about pollution, global warming, or the environment.
This is about Constitutional law. And, it is also a turf battle between the US Congress and the EPA.
Oh Boy. The pollution lobby is out in force today.
What I don't get about these people is why they resist climate science and the move to green energy. I thought green money was the kind of green conservatives liked?
Even Texas now gets it.
Consider this...
"When all of these wind farms are completed, Texas will have 53,000 megawatts of wind generating capacity-the equivalent of 53 coal-fired power plants. This will more than satisfy the residential needs of the state's 24 million people, enabling Texas to export electricity, just as it has long exported oil."
(- Lester Brown, earth policy institute)
Maybe all the denialist's investments are tied up in fossil fuels and that explains their anger about pollution regulation and building a sustainable energy system?
Hmm, got an investment that's gonna tank because it's obsolete? Fight like hell to keep it's replacement from going on the market.
It's only self-defense.
But it's still a homicide.
Also Bob, I do not feel I am a part of the polution lobby! Here is a recent slideshow I have done
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fN5ZtMFtEzQ
along with results
http://theintermountain.com/page/content.detail/id/524362.html
Just because I do not share your strong belief in the IPCC should not put me in the same catagory as the "pollution lobby". I just think there are better ways to approach polution, rather than deception! Sound science and realistic ideas work much better!
Bob, I do believe green energy has its place, until I have read this article Rethinking Wind Power
http://cleantech.com/news/5561/rethinking-wind-power I was very much under the assumption we could replace coal with wind and solar. Winds effectiveness from most perspectives is inferior. For instance (because of the wide and unpredictable fluctuations of wind), it only produces, on average, about 30 percent of its nameplate power, Which means your 53000 megawatts of power willl actually produce 15900 megawatts.(just being realistic) I do believe in climate change, but I do have my doughts, as most people probably do with the IPCC report. We need solid evidence, statements made in this reportis based on NO data! Admittedly statements was placed in the report for politital purposes. This is something that needs to be addressed, other words we need real data!
What we can do in the mean time is step up and get laws changed on Mountaintop Removel and the destruction of watersheds. This is one subject I will not sway on! This is rape of the mountains! Climate Change should be put on the back burner for now until a change at the IPCC is made! It should be addressed, but only on sound scientific data. Also when a better alternative is available. The only option right now is nuclear which is not with out its problems. So we find a better alternative, or go with nuclear. I prefer the first option!
Once again, the proponents of AGW start off by calling people who don't agree with them "deniers". That is a sure sign of a lack of confidence in the science. Science, by definition, must always come under scrutiny and withstand its attack through repeatable experiments that confirm the conclusion of the theory. This is not the case. As many AGW proponents claim, Climate is not Weather, but yet, they use a computer model based on Weather forecasting to forecast the climate. In addition, many of the weather stations in colder areas such as northern Canada are not being included in the data. Also, they skip over higher elevation, landlocked Bolivia and extrapolate temps there by using data in the lower/warmer surrounding countries. We also have seen admitted scare tactics acknowledged by the IPCC in the GlacierGate episode unraveling now. Add ClimateGate, brutally cold global winters and a total lack of any sea level rise (except for those pacific nations that are SINKING) and you have a logical conclusion this is a massive scam. It is only fitting the courts are the avenue to stop the intrusion into business and peoples lives. I am beggining to see a resemblence to the famed Bagdad Bob whenever an AGW proponent tells us there is something there that no logical thinking human being can see. Thank God people are waking up to the charade of AGW much like the empty rhetoric of Barrack Obama.
Post new comment