EPA Abuse http://epaabuse.com The Truth About the EPA Fri, 31 Oct 2014 18:37:56 +0000 en-US hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.2 Video: Hagel: ‘Climate Change Presents Security Issues For Us’ http://epaabuse.com/17015/videos/hagel-climate-change-presents-security-issues-us/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=hagel-climate-change-presents-security-issues-us http://epaabuse.com/17015/videos/hagel-climate-change-presents-security-issues-us/#respond Fri, 31 Oct 2014 18:37:56 +0000 http://epaabuse.com/?p=17015 Right, right…
chuckhagel

Watch the Video and Comment: Hagel: ‘Climate Change Presents Security Issues For Us’]]>

Right, right…


chuckhagel

Watch the Video and Comment: Hagel: ‘Climate Change Presents Security Issues For Us’]]>
http://epaabuse.com/17015/videos/hagel-climate-change-presents-security-issues-us/feed/ 0
Video: Here’s Why The EPA’s Proposed Carbon Rules Are Bad For Arizona http://epaabuse.com/17008/videos/epas-proposed-carbon-rules-bad-arizona/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=epas-proposed-carbon-rules-bad-arizona http://epaabuse.com/17008/videos/epas-proposed-carbon-rules-bad-arizona/#comments Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:01:35 +0000 http://epaabuse.com/?p=17008 If the EPA’s proposed carbon rules are not changed to allow for more time and flexibility, Arizona’s rural areas will be devastated. The plan calls for the closure of all of Arizona’s coal power plants which will send electricity costs skyrocketing, especially for rural areas.
rules

Watch the Video and Comment: Here’s Why The EPA’s Proposed Carbon Rules Are Bad For Arizona]]>

If the EPA’s proposed carbon rules are not changed to allow for more time and flexibility, Arizona’s rural areas will be devastated. The plan calls for the closure of all of Arizona’s coal power plants which will send electricity costs skyrocketing, especially for rural areas.


rules

Watch the Video and Comment: Here’s Why The EPA’s Proposed Carbon Rules Are Bad For Arizona]]>
http://epaabuse.com/17008/videos/epas-proposed-carbon-rules-bad-arizona/feed/ 4
RI Flooding Not WV’s Fault http://epaabuse.com/17013/editorials/ri-flooding-wvs-fault/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=ri-flooding-wvs-fault http://epaabuse.com/17013/editorials/ri-flooding-wvs-fault/#respond Thu, 30 Oct 2014 18:02:14 +0000 http://epaabuse.com/?p=17013
Read More and Comment: RI Flooding Not WV’s Fault]]>

Joe Manchin SC

It must have taken the patience of Job for West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin to participate in Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s climate change tour of the Ocean State on October 10. Whitehouse promised Manchin that he would go to West Virginia to learn about the coal industry if Manchin would come to Rhode Island to view the supposed effects of global warming on sea-level.

It is important to put the concerns of the two senators in perspective.

On the one hand, Manchin is fighting for the survival of West Virginia’s coal sector, his state’s most important industry, the source of 95% of its electricity, and the foundation for thousands of jobs in dozens of communities. The state’s use of abundant, domestically mined coal gives West Virginia the 7th lowest electricity costs in America – at about one-half the price in California, New York, Rhode Island, and several other states.

But West Virginia’s coal sector is under siege from increasingly damaging Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules. Those rules have meant total coal production in West Virginia declined 9% between 2012 and 2013, a period during which 17% of the Mountain State’s coal mines closed, and coal employment decreased 6.4% for a loss of 3,457 jobs already. Even before the EPA’s new Clean Power Plan regulations, which Whitehouse promotes, come into force, the EPA and Obama Administration’s “war on coal” already cost West Virginia billions of dollars.

Senator Manchin, in other words, is concerned about the immediate, real-world impacts of climate change regulations on real people, families, and businesses in his state.

Senator Whitehouse has a different perspective and is apparently not concerned about the cost of EPA emission regulations. Rhode Island gets none of its electricity from coal, having chosen less-carbon-intensive natural gas as its preferred source of power.

As a result, the state has the 7th highest electricity prices in the continental United States. The impact of these high prices on hospitals, schools, churches, businesses, and families is significant.

The White House, of course, shares Senator Whitehouse’s perspective. Neither seems worried that, under the EPA rules, electricity prices will “necessarily skyrocket,” as Obama put it when describing his energy plans as Democratic candidate for president in 2008.

Mr. Whitehouse is, however, worried about the hypothetical future impact of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from coal-fired power stations on “global temperatures.” He believes this will cause a “dangerous” sea-level rise along Rhode Island’s coast. Mr. Whitehouse does not hide the fact that, because of these beliefs, he sees his mission as “more or less” to put the coal industry out of business.

If it were known with a high degree of probability that dangerous human-caused sea-level rise was right around the corner, then Mr. Manchin might have reason to sacrifice his constituents’ livelihoods to help save Rhode Islanders from being submerged. But this is not the case.

The September 2013 report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change states: “Sea-level rise is not accelerating. The global average sea-level continues to increase at its long-term rate of 1–2 mm/year [0.04-0.08 inches/year] globally” – or four to eight inches over the next century.

As it happens, sea-level rise on the coast of Rhode Island is slightly faster than the global rate – about a tenth of an inch per year in Newport, for example – or ten inches over the next 100 years. Nonetheless, such a slow rate of rise is relatively easy to adapt to, and certainly not worth ruining West Virginia’s economy on the off-chance that it would make any difference to coastal conditions in Rhode Island.

Bear in mind that sea levels have already risen nearly 400 feet since the end of the last Pleistocene Era ice age some 12,000 years ago.

The conflict between the two senators arises because of Mr. Whitehouse’s outmoded belief that rapid CO2-driven global warming is occurring. This, he believes, will cause accelerated glacial melting, the ocean volume to expand, and global sea-level to rise quickly. That in turn would subject low-lying coastal areas of Rhode Island to increasingly intense peak-tide or storm-surge flooding.

Drastically reducing our CO2 emissions is necessary to avoid this looming crisis, he asserts.

However, every step in Whitehouse’s chain of reasoning is either wrong or misleading and based on computer models that falsely assume rising atmospheric CO2 levels will cause rapid global warming. In reality, no global (atmospheric) warming has occurred for the last 18 years, even though CO2 levels have risen 9% during this time.

Neither has there been significant ocean warming since at least 2003. As a consequence, the ocean is not expanding and cannot be causing extra sea-level rise. In fact, the global rate of sea-level rise has actually decreased over the last decade.

The only way the sort of sea-level rise feared by Mr. Whitehouse is possible is if massive quantities of the Antarctic and Greenland ice-caps melted. Not only did that not happen even during the two-degree warmer Holocene Optimum, five to nine thousands years ago; but both the Greenland and Antarctic ice fields have been expanding in recent years.

Moreover, rates of modern sea-level change are controlled by the volume of water in the ocean (which is dependant on worldwide volumes of land ice at any given time), by dynamic oceanographic features such as movements in major ocean currents, and by the uplift or subsidence of the solid earth beneath any measuring station. Humans control none of these factors.

Senator Whitehouse should recognize that Rhode Island’s coastal management problems are his own state’s responsibility, not those of West Virginians. As sea-level continues its natural slow rise along Rhode Island’s coast, flooding due to peak tides and storm surges will continue much as it has for the past century. The way to cope with any small increase in the magnitude of these events is to apply and strengthen current strategies that increase coastal resilience.

In his June 4, 2008 speech on winning the Democratic primaries, President Obama said, “If we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that, generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment …when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”

Senator Whitehouse may still believe this pious dream. However, Senator Manchin must resist the nonsensical demand that West Virginians sacrifice their livelihoods and living standards in a vain and King Canute-like attempt to stop the seas from rising.

_____________

Tom Harris is Executive Director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition (www.ClimateScienceInternational.org). Bob Carter is former professor and head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University in Australia.



Read More and Comment: RI Flooding Not WV’s Fault]]>
http://epaabuse.com/17013/editorials/ri-flooding-wvs-fault/feed/ 0
Video: Co-Founder Of Weather Channel Destroy’s Al Gore’s Climate Change Hoax http://epaabuse.com/17003/videos/co-founder-weather-channel-destroys-al-gores-climate-change-hoax/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=co-founder-weather-channel-destroys-al-gores-climate-change-hoax http://epaabuse.com/17003/videos/co-founder-weather-channel-destroys-al-gores-climate-change-hoax/#comments Wed, 29 Oct 2014 18:42:18 +0000 http://epaabuse.com/?p=17003 Meteorologist and co-founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman, was with Megyn Kelly talking about the myth that is climate change and global warming. “There is no significant man-made global warming at this time, there has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future,” he told Kelly. He […]
cofounder

Watch the Video and Comment: Co-Founder Of Weather Channel Destroy’s Al Gore’s Climate Change Hoax]]>

Meteorologist and co-founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman, was with Megyn Kelly talking about the myth that is climate change and global warming.

“There is no significant man-made global warming at this time, there has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future,” he told Kelly.

He went on to say that it is difficult to find a platform to speak on this topic ever since Al Gore “made it a plank of the Democratic Party.”

Coleman brings up Gore’s credentials in his humiliating discussion of him, citing that Gore had “one class in science…he got a D, and yet he has made a billion dollars off of climate change.”

“Whoops, he got that one wrong,” Coleman said, speaking to Gore’s claim that the polar ice caps are receding at alarming rates, when in fact, all evidence points to the ice caps being at record breaking size in coverage and thickness.

He went on to add that “more polar bears are alive and happy today,” refuting Gore’s claim that polar bears are dying out.

“Life is good, Ms. Kelly, I got to tell you, life is good,” Coleman finished.

If you would like to see the entire interview, watch below:

 

h/t Mediaite


cofounder

Watch the Video and Comment: Co-Founder Of Weather Channel Destroy’s Al Gore’s Climate Change Hoax]]>
http://epaabuse.com/17003/videos/co-founder-weather-channel-destroys-al-gores-climate-change-hoax/feed/ 4
EU Climate Compromise: I Will, If You Will http://epaabuse.com/17006/editorials/eu-climate-compromise-will-will/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=eu-climate-compromise-will-will http://epaabuse.com/17006/editorials/eu-climate-compromise-will-will/#respond Wed, 29 Oct 2014 17:42:29 +0000 http://epaabuse.com/?p=17006
Read More and Comment: EU Climate Compromise: I Will, If You Will]]>

Photo credit: KevinYeaux (Creative Commons)

The European Union’s new climate and energy goals are being heralded as “a new global standard”—though it’s really more “I will, if you will.”

On Thursday, October 23, 28 European leaders met to reach a climate deal.

Countries such as Poland and Portugal threatened to block it. Poorer states in Eastern Europe feared new cuts in carbon output would hurt them economically by slowing business growth. Industrialists complained it would discourage business and investment.

A deal was struck. “It was not easy, not at all, but we managed to reach a fair decision,” European Council President Herman Van Rompuy stated.

Opposing countries like Poland were essentially bought off. Van Rompuy pledged “extra support for lower-income countries, both through adequate targets and through additional funds to help them catch up in their clean-energy transition.” Reports indicate that Poland “secured a complex set of financial incentives…to soften the impact of the target on Polish coal miners and the coal-fired power stations on which its 38 million people depend.”

The “decision” calls for a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions of at least 40 percent and a 27 percent increase in renewables and energy efficiency from 1990 levels by 2030.

Environmentalists accuse Europe of abdicating its “climate policy leadership.” The EU accounts for about a tenth of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, but has generally done more than other major industrial powers to curb them.

Greenpeace claimed the compromise “pulled the handbrake on clean energy”; and Oxfam called for targets of 55 percent in emissions cuts, increases of 40 percent in energy savings (efficiency), and 45 percent for use of renewable energy.

While environmentalists are not happy, the BBC reports: “Europe’s leaders have been under heavy pressure not to impose much higher costs, especially when the economy is struggling.”

“Poland has long argued,” according to Reuters, “there is no reason for Europe …to commit to deeper emissions cuts before the rest of the world does”—this is where “I will, if you will” comes in.

EU leaders claim to be “setting an example for the rest of the world”; yet the final text includes a “flexibility clause,” also called the “Paris review clause.” According to the EU Observer, “The EU agreement—the so-called climate and energy framework—is to be reviewed after an international summit on climate change in Paris in 2015. This means that, in theory, the European Council can change the targets if they are not matched by non-European countries.” The report continued: “Several eastern and central European countries feared that if the EU set too ambitious targets, while other nations like China or the US, slack, it could harm their competitiveness.”

The chances of a new global treaty in Paris are slim.

190 countries that in 2009 pledged $190 billion in aid for climate-related projects for developing countries can’t agree on a formula for their commitments. Without the aid, island nations won’t agree to emissions reductions.

President Obama, according to the New York Times (NYT), looks toward an “agreement,” a “politically binding” deal, not a “legally binding treaty” with “voluntary pledges”—as the Senate will not ratify a new climate treaty (especially if the Republicans take control).

The NYT reporting concurs with the “I will, if you will” approach: “unilateral action by the world’s largest economy will not be enough to curb the rise of carbon pollution across the globe. That will be possible only if the world’s largest economies, including India and China, agree to enact similar cuts.”

Engaging in symbolism over substance, the EU agrees to emissions cuts—but only if everyone else does (the U.S. won’t).

(A version of this content was originally published on Breitbart.com)

 

 

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy—which expands on the content of her weekly column.

Photo credit: KevinYeaux (Creative Commons)



Read More and Comment: EU Climate Compromise: I Will, If You Will]]>
http://epaabuse.com/17006/editorials/eu-climate-compromise-will-will/feed/ 0
Video: Here’s How EPA Rate Hikes Could Impact Students http://epaabuse.com/16998/videos/heres-epa-rate-hikes-impact-students/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=heres-epa-rate-hikes-impact-students http://epaabuse.com/16998/videos/heres-epa-rate-hikes-impact-students/#comments Tue, 28 Oct 2014 18:36:07 +0000 http://epaabuse.com/?p=16998 When electricity rates increase as a result of more regulation, everyone suffers including our rural schools. The EPA’s proposed carbon rules would result in the shutdown of all coal power plants in Arizona and significant increases for all electricity consumers.
students

Watch the Video and Comment: Here’s How EPA Rate Hikes Could Impact Students]]>

When electricity rates increase as a result of more regulation, everyone suffers including our rural schools. The EPA’s proposed carbon rules would result in the shutdown of all coal power plants in Arizona and significant increases for all electricity consumers.


students

Watch the Video and Comment: Here’s How EPA Rate Hikes Could Impact Students]]>
http://epaabuse.com/16998/videos/heres-epa-rate-hikes-impact-students/feed/ 3
It’s Rarely About The Environment Anymore http://epaabuse.com/17001/editorials/rarely-environment-anymore/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rarely-environment-anymore http://epaabuse.com/17001/editorials/rarely-environment-anymore/#comments Tue, 28 Oct 2014 17:36:23 +0000 http://epaabuse.com/?p=17001
Read More and Comment: It’s Rarely About The Environment Anymore]]>

Photo credit: DonkeyHotey (Creative Commons)

Back in 1970, when I got involved in the first Earth Day and nascent environmental movement, we had real pollution problems. But over time, new laws, regulations, attitudes, and technologies cleaned up our air, water, and sloppy industry practices. By contrast, today’s battles are rarely about the environment.

As Ron Arnold and I detail in our new book, Cracking Big Green: To save the world from the save-the-Earth money machine, today’s eco-battles pit a $13.4-billion-per-year U.S. environmentalist industry against the reliable, affordable, 82% fossil fuel energy that makes our jobs, living standards, health, welfare, and environmental quality possible. A new Senate Minority Staff Report chronicles how today’s battles pit poor, minority, and blue-collar families against a far-left “Billionaires Club” and the radical environmentalist groups it supports and directs, in collusion with federal, state, and local bureaucrats, politicians, and judges – and with thousands of corporate bosses and alarmist scientists who profit mightily from the arrangements.

These ideological comrades in arms run masterful, well-funded, highly coordinated campaigns that have targeted not just coal, but all hydrocarbon energy, as well as nuclear and even hydroelectric power. They fully support the Obama agenda, largely because they helped create that agenda.

They seek ever-greater control over our lives, livelihoods, living standards, liberties, and wealth. They know they will rarely, if ever, be held accountable for the fraudulent science they employ and the callous, careless, even deliberate harm they inflict. They also know their own wealth and power will largely shield them from the deprivations that their policies impose on the vast majority of Americans.

These Radical Greens have impacted coal mines, coal-fired power plants, factories, the jobs that went with them, and the family security, health, and welfare that went with those jobs. They have largely eliminated leasing, drilling, mining, and timber harvesting across hundreds of millions of acres in the western United States and Alaska – and are now targeting ranchers. In an era of innovative seismic and drilling technologies, they have cut oil production by 6% and gas production by 28% on federally controlled lands.

Meanwhile, thanks to a hydraulic fracturing revolution that somehow flew in under the Radical Green radar, oil production on state and private lands has soared by 60% – from 5 million barrels per day in 2008 (the lowest ebb since 1943) to 8 million bpd in 2014. Natural gas output climbed even more rapidly. This production reduced gas and gasoline prices, and created hundreds of thousands of jobs in hundreds of industries and virtually every state. So now, of course, Big Green is waging war on “fracking” (which the late Total Oil CEO Christophe de Margerie jovially preferred to call “rock massage”).

As Marita Noon recently noted, Environment America has issued a phony “Fracking by the Numbers” screed. It grossly misrepresents this 67-year-old technology and falsely claims the industry deliberately obscures the alleged environmental, health, and community impacts of fracking, by limiting its definition to only the actual moment in the extraction process when rock is fractured. For facts about fracking, revisit a few of my previous articles: herehere and here – and another new US Senate report.

Moreover, when it comes to renewable energy, Big Green studiously ignores its own demands for full disclosure and obfuscates the impacts of technologies it promotes. Wind power is a perfect example.

Far from being “free” and “eco-friendly,” wind-based electricity is extremely unreliable and expensive, despite the mandates and subsidies lavished on it. The cradle-to-grave ecological impacts are stunning.

The United States currently has over 40,000 turbines, up to 570 feet tall and 3.0 megawatts in nameplate output. Unpredictable winds mean they generate electricity at 15-20% of this “rated capacity.” The rest of the time, mostly fossil fuel generators do the work. That means we need 5 to 15 times more steel, concrete, copper, and other raw materials, to build huge wind facilities, transmission lines to far-off urban centers, and “backup” generators – than if we simply built the backups near cities and forgot about the turbines.

Every one of those materials requires mining, processing, shipping – and fossil fuels. Every turbine, backup generator, and transmission line component requires manufacturing, shipping – and fossil fuels. The backups run on fossil fuels; and because they must “ramp up” dozens of times a day, they burn fuel very inefficiently, need far more fuel, and emit far more “greenhouse gases” than if we simply built the backups and forgot about the wind turbines. The environmental impacts are enormous.

Environmentalists almost never mention any of this – or the outrageous wildlife and human impacts.

Bald and golden eagles and other raptors are attracted to wind turbines, by prey and the prospect of using the towers for perches, nests, and resting spots, Save the Eagles International president Mark Duchamp noted in comments to the US Fish & Wildlife Service. As a result, thousands of these magnificent flyers are slaughtered by turbines every year. Indeed, he says, turbines are “the perfect ecological trap” for attracting and killing eagles, especially as more and more are built in and near important habitats.

Every year, Duchamp says, they also butcher millions of other birds and millions of bats that are attracted to turbines by abundant insects – or simply fail to see the turbine blades, whose tips travel at 170 mph.

Indeed, the death toll is orders of magnitude higher than the “only” 440,000 per year admitted to by Big Wind companies and the USFWS. Using careful carcass counts tallied for several European studies, I have estimated that turbines actually kill at least 13,000,000 birds and bats per year in the USA alone!

Wildlife consultant Jim Wiegand has written several articles that document these horrendous impacts on raptors, the devious methods the wind industry uses to hide the slaughter, and the many ways the FWS and Big Green collude with Big Wind operators to exempt wind turbines from endangered species, migratory bird, and other laws that are imposed with iron fists on oil, gas, timber, and mining companies. The FWS and other Interior Department agencies are using worries about sage grouse and White Nose Bat Syndrome to block mining, drilling, and fracking. But wind turbines get a free pass, a license to kill.

Big Green, Big Wind, and Big Government regulators likewise almost never mention the human costs – the sleep deprivation and other health impacts from infrasound noise and constant light flickering effects associated with nearby turbines, as documented by Dr. Sarah Laurie and other researchers.

In short, wind power may well be our least sustainable energy source – and the one least able to replace fossil fuels or reduce carbon dioxide emissions that anti-energy activists falsely blame for climate change (that they absurdly claim never happened prior to the modern industrial age). But of course, their rants have nothing to do with climate change or environmental protection.

The climate change dangers exist only in computer models, junk-science “studies,” and press releases. But as the “People’s Climate March” made clear, today’s watermelon environmentalists (green on the outside, red on the inside) do not merely despise fossil fuels, fracking, and the Keystone pipeline. They also detest free enterprise capitalism, modern living standards, private property … and even pro football!

They invent and inflate risks that have nothing to do with reality, and they dismiss the incredible benefits that fracking and fossil fuels have brought to people worldwide. They go ballistic over alleged risks of using modern technologies, but are silent about the clear risks of not using those technologies. And when it comes to themselves, Big Green and the Billionaires Club oppose and ignore the transparency, integrity, democracy, and accountability standards that they demand from everyone they attack.

The upcoming elections offer an opportunity to start changing this arrogant, totalitarian system – and begin rolling back some of the radical ideologies and agendas that have been too institutionalized in Congress, our courts, the Executive Branch, and many state governments. May we seize the opportunity.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.

Photo credit: DonkeyHotey (Creative Commons)



Read More and Comment: It’s Rarely About The Environment Anymore]]>
http://epaabuse.com/17001/editorials/rarely-environment-anymore/feed/ 1
A War On Fossil Fuels Is The Wrong War To Be Fighting http://epaabuse.com/16996/editorials/war-fossil-fuels-wrong-war-fighting/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=war-fossil-fuels-wrong-war-fighting http://epaabuse.com/16996/editorials/war-fossil-fuels-wrong-war-fighting/#comments Mon, 27 Oct 2014 18:35:06 +0000 http://epaabuse.com/?p=16996
Read More and Comment: A War On Fossil Fuels Is The Wrong War To Be Fighting]]>

Obama's War On Fossil Fuels SC

We know President Obama has been waging a war on coal—with tens of thousands of jobs lost due to his attacks since he was elected in 2008–but why has the oil-and-gas industry escaped the harsh regulations that have virtually shut down both coal mining and coal-fueled power plants?

The oil-and-gas industry has added millions of jobs to the U.S. economy in the past six years and represents the bright spot in the jobs numbers. Imagine where the unemployment numbers would be if the oil-and-gas industry had been treated as poorly as coal.

With an eye always on politics, Obama can’t afford the negative job numbers a war on all fossil fuels would cause. Less concerned about the political fallout, using a death-by-a-thousand-cuts approach, his allies have been fighting oil and gas—as they’ve done with coal.

Environmental extremist groups repeatedly oppose the Keystone pipeline and lock themselves to the White House gates to prove their point. They believe fracking should be a crime and want it banned—which would shut down 96 percent of all oil-and-gas drilling in America.

Because the average American understands that “drill here, drill now” results in lower prices at the pump—as we are seeing right now, I believe they use “fracking” as a canard when the real target is drilling. Capitalizing on the public’s lack of awareness about the safe-and-proven technology of hydraulic fracturing—or “fracking”—anti-fossil fuel activists have been able to give “fracking” their own definition that essentially covers everything from permitting to production, even delivery.

Anti-fracking legislation, resolutions, and/or moratoriums have passed in many cities and counties—mostly liberal communities with little or no drilling potential. The environmentalists then claim success and build momentum as an argument for others to follow suit.

Colorado had two anti-oil-and-gas initiatives on November’s ballot, but the supporters agreed to pull them when it became clear the measures would drive Republicans to the polls and hurt troubled re-election chances for Senator Mark Udall and Governor John Hickenlooper.

Mora County, New Mexico has been bold enough to pass a ban on all drilling for hydrocarbons, not just fracking—a move that’s resulted in two lawsuits and fiscal liabilities against the little county.

California’s Santa Barbara County is one of the latest targets. With out-of-state money pouring in, as it did in Mora County, residents will be voting on November 4 on Measure P—which Ballotpedia calls the “Santa Barbara County Fracking Ban Initiative.”

Yet, in a letter to the editor (LTE), the Santa Barbara Region Chamber of Commerce states: “The ballot measure is written in a way that is likely to mislead voters. Its title says that it is a ban on ‘fracking.’ This is misleading for two reasons: there is no fracking in Santa Barbara County and, in addition, the ballot measure also prohibits many other forms of oil and gas extraction.” The LTE continues: “An impartial analysis prepared by Santa Barbara County found that 100 percent of the active oil and gas wells currently use one or more of the production techniques prohibited by Measure P.”

If Measure P passes on November 4—giving the environmentalists another win and the economy another loss, well-paid jobs in the oil industry will go away; and surrounding communities will suffer (similar to the impact felt in coal country).

A vote against Measure P sends a signal bigger than Santa Barbara. In the war on fossil fuels, it shows we are fighting back. It supports America’s economic potential and energy security while tamping down the fear and uncertainty being spread by Obama’s moneyed allies.

 

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy—which expands on the content of her weekly column.



Read More and Comment: A War On Fossil Fuels Is The Wrong War To Be Fighting]]>
http://epaabuse.com/16996/editorials/war-fossil-fuels-wrong-war-fighting/feed/ 2