GOP eases limits on seven major air pollutants: Party over People

Once again, the GOP has put party and profits over people.  The Republican-led Senate approved to overturn an EPA rule that limited some of the most hazardous air pollutants emitted by heavy industry. 

For the first time in the 55-year history of the Clean Air Act, Congress has weakened the rules on emitting seven pollutants.

Republican Senator John Curtis introduced the resolution, saying it “disincentivized” companies to deploy new technology to reduce pollution. He said the rule passed by the Biden Administration “shut the door on progress”.

Of course, Lee Zeldin, Environmental Pollution Agency Administrator, who lives in a fantasy world, said it won’t have adverse impacts on health or the environment.

Just FYI, here are the seven pollutants named in the resolution and their impacts on health.

Alkyllead compounds – Most common are tetraethyllead and tetramethyllead used as gasoline additives.  Neurotoxins, more toxic than inorganic forms of lead.  Lead adversely affects almost every organ of the body.

Polycyclic organic matter (POM) – A class of compounds that includes hundreds of chemicals including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH).

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.healtheffects.org/system/files/SR16-Polycyclic_Organic_Matter.pdf

Mercury – Seriously?

Hexachlorobenzene – Shown to cause death, systemic, neurological, developmental, endocrine, and immunological toxicity in humans. One of the “dirty dozen” chemicals outlawed by the Stockholm Convention in 2001.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp90-c2.pdf

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) – Manufacturing was banned in 1979.  Possible carcinogen.

https://www.epa.gov/pcbs/learn-about-polychlorinated-biphenyls#healtheffects

 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofurans (TCDF) – 100% fatal if swallowed,  allowed to come in contact with skin, or inhaled.

https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/2_3_7_8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran#section=Safety-and-Hazards

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin – Linked to liver injury, dysbiosis, and heart defects

https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/2_3_7_8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran#section=Associated-Disorders-and-Diseases

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-votes-to-overturn-epa-rule-limits-7-hazardous-air-pollutants-clean-air-act/

 

 

Federal judge sees through Zeldin's lies

 

Tuesday, US District Judge Tonya Chutkan blocked the tRump’s Environmental Pollution Agency from ending $14 billion dollars in grants awarded to three climate groups: Climate United Fund, Coalition for Green Capital and Power Forward Communities.  The groups work towards long-term solutions for clean energy and climate-friendly projects.

Last week, EPA administrator/climate change denier/anti-science Lee Zeldin announced the funds would be frozen in what he called a “gold-bar” scheme.  He went onto say the grants “raises significant concerns and poser unacceptable risk”. 

However, Zeldin failed to prove any of his accusations. Judge Chutkan ruled the EPA have not explained why terminating the grants was a rational precursor to reviewing the green bank program, which is where the funds for the groups are kept.

She also said Zeldin’s “vague and unsubstantiated assertions of fraud are insufficient”.

In less than two months, Zeldin has tried to show he is on the side of the people by telling us he is saving our tax dollars. Each time, his lies prove he is not a champion for the people nor the environment. 

 https://apnews.com/article/epa-green-bank-zeldin-climate-trump-380000b014480350b35b7b53bd14e277#

https://apnews.com/article/epa-green-bank-zeldin-climate-trump-5168d11b7f63aeaf72001b50221c3c19

8th Circuit Court of Appeals (anti-science, clueless) repeals ban on dangerous pesticide

The Hill reported yesterday that the 8^th Circuit Court of Appeals tossed out the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ban on chlorpyrifos, an insecticide used for protecting crops like broccoli, cauliflower, and fruit trees.  Chlorpyrifos has also been linked to lower IQ in children, impaired working memory, and negative effects on motor development.

The EPA instituted the ban in 2021, after the previous administration refused to when then-EPA administrator Scott Pruitt said further studies were warranted. As if he understood the big words and stuff.  This was after Pruitt had a closed meeting with the manufacturers of chlorpyrifos, in which no other EPA staff were in attendance.  So much for the “transparency” he promised.

 Organizations, including the United Farm Workers, celebrated the ban. However, a Republican senator from North Dakota called the lifting of the ban “a victory for our farmers”.  Clearly, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.  As with Pruitt, it comes down to pure, simple greed.  I’ll bet the good senator is also a “pro-lifer” since it is obvious he doesn’t care about the health of children.

The 2021 ban came after a prior court ruling that gave the EPA just 60 days to find a safe use for chlorpyrifos or ban it completely.  They determined this deadline contributed to a rushed decision that was ultimately “arbitrary and capricious”. 

The 8^th Circuit Court of Appeals said the ruling does not preclude the agency from reinstating the ban in the future, saying, the EPA needs to “give greater consideration to whether there are cases where the pesticide could be used safely”.  Why is it up to the EPA to find out if it can be used safely?

More tRumpism, cronyism, and anti-science in our government, bogging down the pursuit of safety, for the purpose of money.  Two of the judges were appointed by Shrub, Jr. and the third from that previous guy. 

Finding other uses for chlorpyrifos is NOT the job of the agency!  That’s the job of the manufacturers.  The EPA only has to determine if their applications are safe or not.  The manufacturers are the ones who have to go back to the drawing board to find out how their creation can be used safely.  They need to determine how to prevent health problems in children. 

Are the judges of the 8^th Circuit Court of Appeals in the pesticide manufacturer’s pocket, too? 

This is like someone coming up to you and saying, “here’s my pet rattlesnake. YOU have to find out what it’s good for.”

The EPA needs to send this back to the chlorpyrifos manufacturers and charge THEM with finding out safer uses and applications. 

This isn’t my baby, so don’t leave it crying in my arms.

 https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/4291117-court-tosses-epa-ban-pesticide/

 https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/568439-epa-bans-use-of-pesticide-linked-to-neurotoxicity-in-children/

 

When comedy becomes reality

The other day, I watched an episode of Not Necessarily the News, an HBO comedy that poked fun at the government during the 1980s.  I enjoyed this series because of its satire, snarky attitude and political commentary disguised as comedy.  (Also Mitch Laurence was gorgeous!). This episode aired in April 1983 and I was expecting that although still funny, that it had not aged well either.

To my utter surprise, I realized how many things HAVE NOT changed.  Among the skits in this episode:

1. A celebrity for president, who has trouble pronouncing words and reading teleprompters
2. A vacuous first lady who though pretty, doesn't have much going on upstairs.
3. Dioxin Dolly, a character formulated after then EPA Administrator Anne Gorusch who gutted the program in favor of corporate interests
4. A news flash about Russian missiles heading to the US that turns out to be a false alarm.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.  And it's scary

The Donald paves the way for the U.S. to become the world's biggest polluter

Yesterday, The Donald signed an executive order, telling the Environmental Protection Agency to reverse its course on the Clean Power Plan which President Obama put in place to reduce greenhouse gases from power plants.  According to the New York Times, The Donald said coal miners were going back to work.

This was part of The Donald's campaign promises but many say it is not going to work.  First of all, the demand for coal has been declining as (cheaper) natural gas and renewable energy sources are on the rise.  No energy company has plans to build new coal-burning plants, so The Donald's promises are just going to be hot air.  Like many of his other campaign "promises".  The move may save coal mining jobs from being eliminated, but not created.

The U.S. had signed the Paris Agreement in 2015 as part of a global effort to reduce carbon emissions and slow global warming.  The New York Times reports that the U.S. is the second biggest polluter in the world, so what will happen if The Donald takes us out of it?

The U.S. might become the world's biggest polluter!  Is that what The Donald meant by making America "great" again?


https://nyti.ms/2nJlxAt
https://nyti.ms/2nJlXqP

Inhofe accuses EPA of "brainwashing" children, offers no proof. Sound familliar?

Sen. Inhofe continues his parade of insults and accusations against the EPA, now claiming they are "brainwashing" our kids, but taking a page from The Donald's MO, offers no proof, no evidence and no reasoning bechind his false statements.

In this interview with CNN, he "justifies" Scott Pruitt's numerous law suits against the EPA by saying that other states havae also sued the EPA.  Why, Inhofe?  You don't say why.  You just keep accusing them of over-reaching their authority, brainwashing, and alarmism.

Pruitt doesn't "believe" carbon dioxide contributes to global warming

Scott Pruitt once again proves that he is not competent to head an agency that bases its actions on science.  Nor is he in any position to prove his outrageous claims, which can't be proven, because of the overwhelming evidence by scientists who know what they are doing.  Pruitt does not.

Pruitt stated that he does "not agree that [CO2] is a primary contributor to the global warming that we see."  So he admits there is global warming?  But where is the basis for his "belief"?  He choses to ignore what scientists have been tracking for over 100 years, with mountains of data to back their claims.

How do we impeach an EPA administrator?

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/09/519425866/epa-chief-scott-pruitt-questions-basic-facts-about-climate-change?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=npr&utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/epa-chief-scott-pruitt-says-carbon-dioxide-not-primary-contributor-n731141

Trump proposes 93% cut to Chesapeake Bay clean up program

In another reversal from his campaign rhetoric, The Donald has proposed a 93% budget cut to the Chesapeake Bay Program, a six-state effort with Washington, DC to clean up the largest estuary in the country.  That would mean a budget of $73M to $5M.  It supports a lucrative fishing industry as well as a favorite tourist destination.

As early as last Tuesday, Trump vowed “to promote clean air and clear water” but he also promised to create jobs.  Not only is he putting clean air and clean water in jeopardy, he is proposing cutting 3000 jobs at the EPA.  He has no plans to keep his promises.

Remember that Scott Pruitt is from Oklahoma, and has no knowledge of how to keep such a large body of water free from pollution.  This could set  clean-up efforts back years.


http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/green/blog/bs-md-trump-epa-budget-20170302-story.html
http://www.dailypress.com/news/science/dp-nws-bay-budget-slashed-20170302-story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2017/live-updates/trump-white-house/real-time-fact-checking-and-analysis-of-trumps-address-to-congress/trump-vows-clean-air-and-clean-water-as-epa-cuts-loom/?utm_term=.6a9c64626d75

Hey, Trump! No evidence WOTUS cost hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Trump's claim that the "Waters of the U.S." cost hundreds of thousands of jobs is baseless. No evidence exists that so many Americans lost their  jobs due to the EPA's rule.

The Washington Post reports that two of the biggest critics of the ruling, the U.S. Chamber of  Commerce and American Farm Bureau Foundation did not conduct any sort of review to see how many jobs had been lost since the rule was enacted.  By the way, the rule has been in stasis since 2015 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.

The Post reached out to other opponents of the rule but did not receive any information on lost jobs.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/03/02/trumps-claim-that-waters-of-the-united-states-rule-cost-hundreds-of-thousands-of-jobs/?utm_term=.378a1daab22f

House Republicans introduce a bill to terminate the EPA

In a move that shouldn't surprise anyone but should alarm everyone, House Republican Matt Gaetz (Florida) along with co-sponsors Thomas Massey (Kentucky), Steve Palazzo (Mississippi) and Barry Loudermilk (Georgia) has introduced a bill H.R. 861 to terminate the Environmental Protection Agency.  The bill was introduced on February 3 and referred to the Subcommittee on the Environment February 10.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/861

The Subcommittee on the Environment is lead by Lamar Smith (Texas) who is an outspoken climate-denier and brought a lawsuit against NOAA, claiming they were falsifying data to spread an alarmist agenda.  An independent study proved that NOAA did NOT fudge their data.  Global warming is real, folks!


The Subcommittee doesn't even have it listed on their front page, but it doesn't look like the page has been updated since September 2016.

https://energycommerce.house.gov/subcommittees/environment-and-economy-115th-congress

But Republicans don't get it.  Why terminate the EPA?  What justification is there for exposing millions of Americans to pollutants when we've worked so hard to get clean water, clean air, etc.  I sent a tweet to Jim Inhofe, asking him where his snowball this past month but haven't received a response.

So Trumpsters, how do you justify this one?

Our environment is doomed: The Donald begins his dismantling of the EPA

NPR reports that The Donald is planning to do away with the EPA's "Waters of the U.S." rule, which tries to define what small bodies of water are subject to the Clean Water Act.  There has been much controversy over the ruling when it was signed by President Obama, but Pruitt has sued the EPA over the ruling (2015).

Trump and Pruitt have both used strong language that seems to put the EPA into some sort of eco-terrorist light.

Trump stated:
"Regulations and permits started treating our wonderful small farmers and small businesses as if they were a major industrial polluter. They treated them horribly."
But the EPA's fact sheet on the Clean Water Act clearly shows farmers and ranchers being exempt:

From the Agriculture Fact Sheet:

The Act requires a permit if a protected water is going to be polluted or destroyed, however, agricultural activities like planting, harvesting, and moving livestock across a stream have long been excluded from permitting, and that won’t change under the rule. In other words, farmers and ranchers won’t need a permit for normal agricultural activities that happen in and around those waters. 

If it's clarification that is needed, don't eliminate the rule, revise it, Pruitt!  This isn't rocket science, which you wouldn't believe anyway.

It's old news that Pruitt is in thick with the oil and gas companies who contribute to his campaigns and lawsuits against the EPA to lighten or eliminate restrictions on releasing pollutants.

Trump and Pruitt have no inclination to preserve our environment.  They plan to dismantle the EPA which since 1970 has worked to give us clean air (remember Los Angeles and Manhattan in the 70's?), clean water and clean power.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/28/517016071/trump-aims-to-eliminate-clean-water-rule

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-05/documents/fact_sheet_agriculture_final.pdf

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/as-the-planet-warms-senators-shrug/513746/

https://www.desmogblog.com/scott-pruitt

Celebrating Black History Month: Lisa P. Jackson, first African-American administrator of the EPA

Lisa Perez Jackson, the first African-American to be appointed Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, graduated from Tulane University in New Orleans with B.S in Chemical Engineering and then received her Masters in ChemE from Princeton University in 1986.  She began with the EPA in 1987.  In 2002, she joined the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

Jackson took over as Chief of Staff in 2008 but shortly after, President Obama appointed her as Administrator of  the Environmental Protection Agency.

Our environment is doomed...Pruitt has been confirmed as EPA Administrator

Our environment, world and global climate are all doomed.  The bastards in the Senate have confirmed the worst bastard of them all, Scott Pruitt, former Oklahoma AG, as administrator of the EPA.  Pruitt has made a career of suing the EPA, accusing them of over-reaching their authority and spreading lies such as global warming.

Kiss your clean air good-bye!


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/17/us/politics/scott-pruitt-environmental-protection-agency.html

The Donald orders EPA media blackout, freezes contracts

In a move that doesn't surprise anyone but should frighten everyone, The Donald's administration has ordered a media blackout for the Environmental Protection Agency.

CBS News obtained a copy of the memo distributed to EPA employees:

“Incoming media requests will be carefully screened,” one directive said. “Only send out critical messages, as messages can be shared broadly and end up in the press.”

“No press releases will be going out to external audiences,” it said. “No social media will be going out. A Digital Strategist will be coming on board to oversee social media. Existing, individually controlled, social media accounts may become more centrally controlled.”

“No blog messages,” it added.

Doug Ericksen, the communications director for Trump's transition team at EPA said "We're just trying to get a handle on everything and make sure what goes out reflects the priorities of the new administration."  

Within hours of his inauguration, information on climate change and global warming disappeared from the White House's website.  The Donald's campaign included denying global warming as a "hoax" perpetrated by the Chinese, a claim he later denied.  So it is clear what the White House's priorities are.  Ericksen predicted the news blackout will be lifted by the end of the week.  It is still censorship.

We shall see.

BTW, News of this censorship of the EPA is strangely absent from the NewsOK.com website.  Just FYI.

The Donald has also promised to kill a number of federal programs including the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Justice Department, which prosecutes polluters.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/president-trump-administration-orders-epa-media-blackout-contract-freeze/

http://kutv.com/news/nation-world/trump-bans-epa-employees-from-providing-updates-on-social-media-or-to-reporters-bars-awar

http://time.com/money/4639544/trump-nea-sesame-street-budget-cut/

Scientists race to save data on climate-change, fearing a Trump dump

The Huffington Post, Business Insider and Inverse Science have reported in the past few days that scientists are racing to protect and save climate data stored at the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration prior to Trump’s inauguration tomorrow.  Trump, a devout climate change-denier, has nominated another global warming denier Scott Pruitt to head the EPA.  Scientists fear this administration could wipe out important data on environmental issues beyond just climate data.  

On January 12, 2017, the Sierra Club filed Freedom of Information Act requests for information held by the EPA and the Department of Energy, while similar efforts are being undertaken elsewhere, such as DataRefuge, at University of Pennsylvania’s Program in Environmental Humanities.  PhD students at Harvard have joined with other scientists and policymakers to form Environmental Data and Governance Initiative, which is working to archive publicly available information and monitor changes in government websites. 

Data purges have been carried out by previous administrations, such as W. for example.  During his regime, EPA shut down some of its research libraries and reduced access to important data.  A Trump advisor has suggested NASA cease its climate research and focus on space exploration.  The Trump team has also asked the Department of Energy to provide names of employees and contractors who have participated in international climate talks and President Obama’s work on regulating carbon emissions, a request the DoE has denied.  Ronald Regan, whom the New York Times said trees cause pollution, appointed two champions of industry, including Anne M. Burford as Administrator for the EPA, but forced to resign after being investigated by Congress in mismanaging toxic waste remediation.

There is no direct promise from the Trump group to purge scientific data or make it vanish, but scientists are taking no chances.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/13/scientists-are-frantically-copying-u-s-climate-data-fearing-it-might-vanish-under-trump/?utm_term=.7f1a53f6ac05

https://envirodatagov.org/

https://www.inverse.com/article/25184-scientists-backup-climate-change-data-donald-trump

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/scientists-save-environmental-data-before-trump_us_58797f6de4b09281d0eb07fa

https://www.wired.com/2017/01/rogue-scientists-race-save-climate-data-trump/

http://www.businessinsider.com/scientists-archiving-government-data-trump-2017-1

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/02/us/reagan-and-environment-to-many-a-stalemate.html?pagewanted=all

Our environment is doomed: $cott Pruitt favor$ donor$ over environmental safety

In 2005, Drew Edmondson, then Oklahoma Attorney General, sued several large poultry producers for damages to then scenic Illinois River caused by chicken manure pollution.  The suit also sought to force the companies to change the way the poultry producers disposed of 300K tons a year of animal feces.

Thirty of the executives named in the lawsuit dumped money into Pruitt's campaign and, behold, he won!  Instead of continuing the battle to clean up the waters, Pruitt ground the process to a halt, negotiating a "study" of the "appropriate levels of phosphorous" in the Illinois River.

Here is the committee's final report:
https://www.ok.gov/conservation/documents/IR%202016.12.19%20Final%20Report.pdf

It has very little in practical solutions for cleaning up the river, other than recommending the river be cleaned up.  Much of the report seems aimed at determining what different types of "nuisance algal taxa" are present, how levels of phosphorous affect their blooming, etc.

Pure science, but not applied science.

So, the committee has wasted several years and no doubt loads of money on this "study" and yet, little has been done for the Illinois river.  In 2003, Edmondson brokered a contract with Arkansas poultry producers to reduce pollution from animal waste.  Phosphorous levels have dropped in recent years.  Pruitt allowed the contract to expire without seeking an extension, then dissolved the environmental group that brought the lawsuits against the poultry producers.  Phosphorous levels remain above the state standard.

And once again, I must mention the number of suits Pruitt has brought against the EPA, proposing easing restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions by fossel fuel-burning power plants.  His track record is clear who he has in his best interests.

US District Court Judge Kimberley J. Mueller wrote in an opinion of a law suit brought against the EPA by Pruitt and others:

“The court concludes plaintiffs have not brought this action on behalf of their interest in the physical or economic well-being of their residents in general, but rather on behalf of a discrete group of egg farmers whose businesses will allegedly be impacted."

https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/5493

Let's hope intelligent minds like this are weighing in on Pruitt's confirmation hearings.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/14/us/scott-pruitt-trump-epa-pick.html?_r=1
https://www.ok.gov/conservation/Agency_Divisions/Water_Quality_Division/IR_Joint_Study_Committee.html

Our environment is doomed...Sen. Inhofe endorses Pruitt for EPA leadership

I've had this clip in my draft folder for several days now and I have to get it out there.  Sen. James Inhofe, anti-science, has endorsed AG Scott Pruitt for heading the EPA. This is a disaster in the making.  I don't know what pull Inhofe has in the confirmation hearings for the EPA, but he is chair of the Senate Environment Committee.  The fox guarding the hen house.

In his speech, Inhofe said:

Pruitt has seen first-hand the abuses of power at the hands of this agency and has fought back to ensure environmental quality without sacrificing jobs.

http://www.inhofe.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/inhofe-statement-on-meeting-with-scott-pruitt-nominee-for-epa-administrator-

What abuses?  Since its inception in 1970, the EPA has managed to lower harmful and toxic emissions from fuel-burning power plants.  The abuses will come at the hands of Pruitt, a global warming-denier, absolutely no background in environmental issues and a total disregard for the Earth.

http://okiefunk.com/content/record-inhofe-says-pruitt-ideal-epa

Five reasons Scott Pruitt is the worst choice for EPA

The Donald has put Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt's name forth as director of the Environmental Protection Agency, a man who is a global warming denier, anti-clean air, and on his knees in the oil and gas industry.

The  Sierra Club posted 5 things about Scott Pruitt that are terrifying.  I actually most of them except his fight against EPA's Mercury and Air Toxins safeguards.

In a nut shell,

Pruitt receives major donations from oil and gas industries, which oppose the Clean Air Act, a policy that has  been in place since 1970 and has greatly reduced air emissions from fossil fuel burning power plants.

He has plagiarized a letter from an oil and gas industry giant and sent it to the federal government and EPA using State of Oklahoma's stationery.

He has sued the EPA several times opposing anything that doesn't allow the oil and gas industry free reign to pollute the atmosphere.

http://www.sierraclub.org/compass/2017/01/top-5-things-you-didn-t-know-about-polluting-scott-pruitt

http://www.npr.org/2016/12/07/504723628/trump-selects-oklahoma-attorney-general-scott-pruitt-to-run-the-epa

Our environment is doomed, because the GOP lied. Here's the proof:

Trump and Trumpsters have an unhealthy, inexplicable love affair with the coal industry and the GOP sees itself as its savior.  During his campaign, Trump maligned President Obama, Hillary Clinton and the EPA by stating they had declared war on the coal industry.  Trump promised to repeal “all the job-destroying Obama executive actions”.  In his America First Energy Plan he actually said the difference is between wealth and poverty. 

What does Trump know about poverty?

It’s obvious he and his cabinet know nothing about science, either.  Or reading.

At the Republican National Convention, the GOP listed coal’s wonderful quality and vowed to dismantle Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which limits emissions from coal-fired power plants.  GOP Activist David Barton, who has absolutely no background in science, convinced delegates, who approved unanimously to add the adjective ‘clean’ to the platform’s statement:

“The Democratic Party does not understand that coal is an abundant, clean, affordable, reliable domestic energy resource.”

What the Republican Party does not understand is that Democrats are not as stupid as the GOP is.  Democrats base their energy platform on facts, not personal beliefs.  Coal can be made less harmful but it cannot be made clean. 

Barton’s wording comes from the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE).  In a July 11, 2016 posting, the ACCCE set about to debunk ‘myths’ about coal fired power plants.  Addressing the ‘myth’ that coal-fired plants are dirty, the site references an EPA article from 2016. 

This is where the GOP and the ACCCE lied to mislead the public.  The first citation claims the EPA states the total tonnage of three major pollutants (SO₂, NO_x and PM) has been reduced by 83% since 1970. 

The article, National Air Pollutant Emission Trends, 1900-1998 does NOT say that.  Yes, some air pollutant levels have declined but due to the EPA’s Clean Air Act, which the GOP promises to eliminate!  And the reductions are nowhere near what ACCCE claims the EPA said.

Sec. 3.4.1, page 54 states:

“As a result of the EPA’s regulations SO₂ and PM₁₀ emissions from coal-fired electric power facilities fell by 8 and 85 percent, respectively.”  Note the ACCCE quote does not differentiate between PM₁₀ (particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter) and PM_2.5 (particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter).

The numerous data tables also show the coal-fired industry is not as rosy as the GOP would have you think.  The ACCCE ignored coal’s contribution to carbon monoxide which has soared since 1970 (Table 3-1).  Coal emitted NO₂, which ACCCE said had been reduced, has also increased since 1970 (Table 3-2).

I could continue but I'll let you read the reports for yourself.  Links are below.

The GOP has been outspoken in criticizing NOAA and NASA, accusing them of falsifying data.  But they have no data of their own to support their claims.  They lied and they knew it and they don’t care.  

Just as long as you voted for them.  

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/an-america-first-energy-plan

http://www.americaspower.org/issue/myths-coal-fired-power-plants/

https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/2000ETJA.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=2000+Thru+2005&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C00thru05%5CTxt%5C00000002%5C2000ETJA.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=hpfr&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/12/2016-anti-science-trump-pence-flint-nra-hurricane-matthew

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/11/climate-deniers-trump-administration

"I'm a Republican, but I also realize...the sea level is rising" - Mayor, Tybee Island, Georgia

So much is put into that one statement. Mayor Jason Buelterman of Tybee Island, Georgia admits that Republicans are sticking their heads into the ground when it comes to global warming.  Still seen as a hoax, fellow Republicans such as Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt are suing the Environmental Protection Agency over their clean air plans.

Since when do we need to be saved from clean air?

Tybee Island is suffering the effects of rising sea levels caused by rising temperatures across the globe, to the point their city council voted unanimously in April to accept a plan that addresses the risks from rising seas over the next 50 years.  Buelterman may find himself excommunicated from the Republican party.

According to NOAA, Tybee Island has experience a sea-level rise of 10 inches.  And the community is a low-lying barrier island (which means it protects Savannah from hurricanes) and is especially vulnerable to flooding.

Congress has turned a deaf ear to communities asking for help in guidance and funds to pay for pumps and road improvements to buy some time.  In a New York Times post in September, reporter Stephen Morton said that Congress has even tried to block military plans to combat the problem at numerous bases, naval bases most importantly.

With the new Republican regime about to sit upon the throne, it doesn't seem likely that anything in Washington will change.  At least not until the Chesapeake Bay is lapping at the door.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/science/flooding-of-coast-caused-by-global-warming-has-already-begun.html?hpw&rref=science&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=1

http://seagrant.noaa.gov/News/FeatureStories/TabId/268/ArtMID/715/ArticleID/663/Community-Resilience-Tybee-Island-creates-Georgia%E2%80%99s-first-sea-level-rise-plan.aspx