Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The EPA Is a Racket

"You have no idea what you're up against. You don't know the power that is the EPA."

(Page 2 of 2)

But even that didn't stop the EPA.

Jill Barron told me, "We won, but after we were home for a month maybe, the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA sent us another letter saying, 'how nice for you that you won in the criminal court, but we still feel it's a wetlands.' And the decision made by the jury did not matter to them. 'And if you don't get off the property, we're going to fine you (in) civil (court).'"

The EPA threatened a fine of $37,500 a day.

The Barrons sold their home and moved into a trailer.

"We'll be bankrupt, obviously." Jill told me, "You have no idea what you're up against. You don't know the power that is the EPA."

So I'm glad that Trump wants to limit the EPA. Scott Pruitt, the agency's new director, understands that bureaucrats often abuse their power. When he was Oklahoma attorney general, he sued the EPA 13 times for regulatory overreach.

I hope he cuts the bureaucrats back to proper size.

The agency was necessary in 1970, when it was created. At the time, cities dumped whatever we flushed into nearby waterways—with no treatment.

Smokestacks filled the air with actual pollutants: soot, sulfur dioxide, etc. In New York City, we didn't dare leave windows open because filth would blow in.

The EPA required sewage treatment, scrubbers in smokestacks and catalytic converters in car exhaust systems. The regulations worked. America's air and water is cleaner than it's been for decades. I can even swim in the Hudson River, right next to millions of people—who are still flushing.

Now, in a rational world, the EPA would say, "Stick a fork in it, it's done! EPA now stands for 'Enough Protection Already.'" But bureaucracies never say they're done. "Done" means bureaucrats are out of work. Can't have that.

So politicians keep adding unnecessary new rules and keep harassing people like the Barrons.

COPYRIGHT 2017 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • BTS11||

    "The agency was necessary in 1970, when it was created."No it wasn't needed in the 1970s

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    It was necessary as a political shiny to distract voters and the media.

  • some guy||

    Government action is always a lagging indicator. People were already moving to clean up the environment when the EPA was founded. It may have actually accelerated the process a bit, but at significantly higher costs. It also, of course, did a bunch of pointless or downright harmful stuff as well. Regardless, it certainly wasn't "needed". I expected better of Stossel. I thought he realized all of this...

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Many of the largest pollution sites are government sites, like Hanford WA. The EPA still has not cleaned up these places. How you get one government Executive agency to force another executive agency to do anything, does not work.
    Superfund sites

    The key would have been to allow Americans to put politicians and bureaucrats in jail for polluting their land and sue. No politician will go for that, so the EPA was formed.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Many of the largest pollution sites are government sites

    +1 Rocky Flats.

  • timbo||

    + Lake Okeechobee and the canals that flow from it to both coasts via the sugar lobby's ironclad control over both parties in the state. And the subsequent ruining on the fishery and tourism industries in the indian river system and opine island sound over several periods.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    There was a reason for it in the 1970's. There were serious pollution problems that needed to be addressed, though even at the time the Progressive Left exaggerated them.

    Aside; My mither remembered cities heated largely with coal, with heavy reliance on horses, and coal burning trains. When told (in the '70's) that "air pollution is worse than ever before" she had a tendency to laugh.

    The problem is, no government agency likes to declair a problem solved and start disbanding.

  • ||

    Progressives exaggerate? PAS VRAI!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "The agency was necessary in 1970, when it was created. At the time, cities dumped whatever we flushed into nearby waterways—with no treatment.
    Smokestacks filled the air with actual pollutants: soot, sulfur dioxide, etc. In New York City, we didn't dare leave windows open because filth would blow in."

    Right, government polluted the rivers with untreated sewage.

    Government also made it more difficult for people to sue companies for violating their property rights via pollution.

    The solution would have been shrink government in the 1970s and allow juries to decide pollution class actions against polluters.

    That and technology would have moved people to cleaner and cheaper alternatives like natural gas and solar.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    It's debatable whether solar is cleaner and it sure as hell isn't cheaper.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Most solar products are recyclable metal and silicate. Its cleaner to get energy from the Sun than continuing to use fossil and nuclear.

    As to cheaper, we won't know what could have been. We do know that government subsidies of fossil and nuclear skewed the market potential and price of solar and wind. Battery technology to make solar even better during off-peak hours was ignored too because of preferential treatment of fossil fuels. When fossil fuels true price is skewed, there is not incentive to spend money on better tech in solar and batteries.

    I use solar during the day and sell back my excess. Crappy batteries and a small wind generator for nighttime energy provide sufficient power. I expect my solar/wind system to have paid for itself in 10 years. After that, it costs me $0 to have all the electricity that I need.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    How often do you need new batteries and where do the old ones go?

  • TheHeathen||

    And how often and at what cost do the photo cells need to be changed out due damage from the weather?

  • BYODB||

    And for the record, they have a lifetime because the chemicals inside of them are physically altered in the photovoltaic process so eventually it simply stops working and will never work again. Period.

    At least that's the case with the models I was looking at years ago. I honestly couldn't tell you if that's still the case, but chemically speaking I doubt it's changed since I'm sure it still relies on many of the same reactions to generate power.

  • renewableguy||

    Solar panels are warranteed to perform at 80% specifications after 25 years. That means they will last much longer than that.

  • Greg F||

    Solar panels are warranteed to perform at 80% specifications after 25 years. That means they will last much longer than that.

    The inverters typically have a 5 or 10 year warranty and there will be a significant number of failures at 20 years.

  • renewableguy||

    The return on the money after 5 to 7 years pays for itself.

  • Greg F||

    The return on the money after 5 to 7 years is phony.

  • renewableguy||

    So is your no source rebuttal. If you earn back your money in 7 to 10 years, then it works for some people just based in money. For others it is the right thing to do about the environment, since we are treating our skies like sewers.

  • Greg F||

    You made the claim now support it.

  • renewableguy||

    https://cleantechnica.com/2013/11/08/solar-worth/

    This article is from 2013. The price of solar has dropped dramatically since then. So it is even a wider area by now in the world that it is worthwhile financially in.

  • Greg F||

    That article is just more bull shit. Let me give you a hint. It starts with getting real data from real solar arrays.

  • renewableguy||

    The whole world is not listening to you Greg F. You may declare your thoughts the true reality of the world as much as you want. But, there is a serious problem of ghg emissions going on world wide. If you don't recognize it, far be it from me to change your mind. But it is out there. I am in the main stream science view on this. Where are you?

  • Greg F||

    The whole world is not listening to you Greg F.

    IOW, you have never actually looked at real data from from solar panels. The 5 to 7 year payback is just bull shit you spew like a religious zealot. Now your trying to change the subject with a lot of hand waving.

    It is very simple:
    Provide proof of 5 to 7 year payback using data from real solar arrays in the real world.

  • renewableguy||

    You havent produced one iota of data to represent yourself. As soon as main stream science is accepted into law, fossil fuels are toast. Stay in ground and leave them there. They are destructive to the climate.

    https://goo.gl/DcZ8uZ

    This shows even shorter payback, I was using older numbers from memory.

  • Greg F||

    You havent produced one iota of data to represent yourself.

    You made the 5 to 7 year claim.

    It is very simple:
    Provide proof of 5 to 7 year payback using data from real solar arrays in the real world.

  • ||

    What the hell is 'mainstream science'?

  • renewableguy||

    People that have accepted the data for what it says. At one time mainstream did not know for sure based in data what the climate was really doing. Now they do. Human activity has overwhelmed the climate on the earth.

  • Finrod||

    Human activity has overwhelmed the climate on the earth.

    [citation needed]

  • renewableguy||

    https://goo.gl/MgMxfH

    Human influence overwhelms natural influence. Go to graph one.

  • Sevo||

    Oh, my! Look at that! A meta-study which shows it's likely that human activity is a major cause without any suggestion why we should be concerned.
    Busted again, renewableguy!

  • renewableguy||

    Oh, my! Look at that! A meta-study which shows it's likely that human activity is a major cause without any suggestion why we should be concerned.
    Busted again, renewableguy!

    Why are you concerned about this? Isn't the conclusion enough for you based in science.?

  • Galane||

    Photovoltaics lose 10% of their capacity in the first 5 years of daily Sun exposure. They continue to degrade after but at a much slower rate.

    So an install of new PV should be oversized at least 15%. If you can get used panels that are at least 5 years old, and have been in use all that time, you won't need to oversize the install so much.

  • renewableguy||

    In single crystal photovoltaic panels, there is very little loss.

    In amorphous panels that would be true.

  • renewableguy||

    Batteries are recyclable. How often depends on the technology.

  • Sevo||

    renewableguy|4.5.17 @ 7:02PM|#
    "Batteries are recyclable."

    You're full of shit.

  • renewableguy||

    Sevo|4.8.17 @ 12:07AM|#

    renewableguy|4.5.17 @ 7:02PM|#
    "Batteries are recyclable."

    You're full of shit.

    Another empty response SEVO. Lead acid batteries are the most reccled material on earth. 98% recycled.

  • BYODB||

    The key phrase you used to waffle on the 'dirt' level of solar energy is the section where you gloss over the subject entirely:

    "Most solar products are recyclable metal and silicate."

    The rest are chemicals that require vast mining industries to pull toxic shit out of the ground to put between those pieces of metal and silicate. These materials are, to my knowledge, not recyclable. Not all of them, anyway.

    Fact:

    There is no 'clean' source of 'renewable' energy in existence. None. It's all a game of comparison, but there's still going to be some filthy shit somewhere. At the moment it seems we're perfectly happy to let China screw over their environment for our benefit. It's still Earth, genius.

    After all, most of Nuclear power involves steam!

  • timbo||

    Solar and Wind are diffused energy sources. It is not currently possible to concentrate the energy in any form even remotely comparable to the BTU loads you can get from fossil fuels. The whole thing is such a monumentous scam.

    If not for 100% subsidy, we all know there would be no turbines or solar farms. And until the battery can store ample amounts of energy to rival the kinetic storage in fossil fuels, we will further indebt our future generations with mountainous obligations in the name of a ginned up boogey man by the name of Man-Bear-Pig.

  • BYODB||

    Even diffuse energy can be condensed into something usable with the right storage medium, but I entirely agree. In their current forms it's a massive scam used to prop up politically connected business ventures with the adoring approval of their voters.

    You can tell how stupid those voters are when they have no idea how much mining and filth is connected to their so-called 'renewable' sources of energy, but at the end of the day it always comes down to NIMBYism.

    It's not about how 'clean' something is, it's where the dirt is being heaped. In this case, as long as it's heaped in China who gives a fuck. Start talking about putting those piles here? You're out of luck.

    Not that China really cares, mind you. They're starting to, but after they got a taste for capitalism they're having a lot of problems slamming on the brakes. For a culture where the bottom rung, which is most of society, literally have no value that's hardly surprising.

  • renewableguy||

    Conservatives want clean energy in larger numbers. That is in all the poles.

    Capitalism needs a leader for world problems. The capitalism role is to make money at solving those problems. It is up to government to lead at solving problems.

    Hostility to governement causes lag in getting problems solved.

  • Johnny B||

    Yes, take advice from ``renewableguy''. He, who is so illiterate to confuse ``that's in all the pole's'' with ``polls''.

  • renewableguy||

    Conservatives like clean energy. Maybe not a majority but nearly half do.

  • renewableguy||

    Conservatives don't need to lie about liking clean energy. As a matter of fact they want it. It isn't just one poll, it is multiple polls showing this. They also want to get rid of coal. Conservatives clearly understand pollution is bad for us all in multiple ways.

  • ||

    Ah.

    /rolls eyes. Slowly turns away.

  • renewableguy||

    Solar and wind have never had 100% subsidy. It would be nice if renewables were at the same rate as fossil fuels for the next 100 years. Fossil fuels has had stable subsidies while fighting subsidies for renewable energy and mostly winning at it.

  • Greg F||

    All you appear to be capable of is spewing green myths. Fossil fuel companies actually pay taxes.

  • renewableguy||

    The atmosphere mixes everyones carbon dioxide together and it becomes all our problem. this is a huge number.


    Impact of fossil fuel subsidies
    A 2016 study estimated that global fossil fuel subsidies were $5.3 trillion in 2015, which represents 6.5% of global GDP. ...
    According to the OECD, subsidies supporting fossil fuels, particularly coal and oil, represent greater threats to the environment than subsidies to renewable energy.
    More items...
    Energy subsidies - Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies

  • Greg F||

    According to the OECD ...

    Didn't your teachers tell you never to use Wikipedia?

    Now if you want to use that dubious OECD report then use it. Point to and quote the relevant sections.

  • renewableguy||

    I guess you are just lazy. This was a source right out of wiki.


    https://goo.gl/JQQRwU

    Highlights

    Fossil fuel subsidies are large, amounting to 6.5% of global GDP in 2015.

    Mispricing from a domestic perspective accounts for the bulk of the subsidy.

    Coal subsidies account for the largest part (about half) of global subsidies.

    In absolute terms, subsidies are highly concentrated in a few large countries.

    The environmental, fiscal, and welfare gains from subsidy reform are substantial.

  • Greg F||

    And you are to lazy to actually quote what those subsidies are in the report. Show me the numbers.

  • renewableguy||

    https://goo.gl/JQQRwU

    All you have to do is read down a couple of paragraphs.

  • Greg F||

    I read more than a couple of paragraphs some time ago. The devil is in the details and they are not what you think. To give you a hint consider the price at the pump in Saudi Arabia. That is a subsidy by their definition. Those types of subsidies are concentrated geographically and it isn't in the OECD countries. Thus, the percentage of world GDP is meaningless unless you are attempting to mislead the reader. The rather dubious 'externalities' are simply fudge factors to increase the scare quotient.

  • renewableguy||

    I'm not asking you to believe reality. that is your choice to do so. But there it is. There is a lot of subsidy in fossil fuels. It is huge. The damage from fossil fuels financially, economically, and health costs are substantial. There are plenty of more sources that I am sure I can go to.

    https://goo.gl/JQQRwU

    The sustained interest in energy subsidy reform also reflects increasing recognition of the perverse environmental, fiscal, macroeconomic, and social consequences of fossil fuel subsidies—in fact it is difficult to think of products that are more harmful to subsidize than fossil fuels. These subsidies:


    Damage the environment, causing more premature deaths through local air pollution, exacerbating congestion and other adverse side effects of transportation systems, and increasing greenhouse gas emissions;1

    Impose large fiscal costs, which need to be financed by some combination of higher public debt, higher tax burdens, and lower public spending, all of which can be a drag on economic growth;2

    Discourage needed investments in energy efficiency, renewables, and energy infrastructure, and increase the vulnerability of countries to volatile international energy prices;3 and

    Are a highly inefficient way to support low-income households, since most of the benefits from low energy prices leak away to the non-poor.4

  • Greg F||

    I'm not asking you to believe reality.

    Correct. Your asking me to believe the bull shit you're serving up.

  • renewableguy||

    I have heard your opinion tonight. I have quoted professional sources. The idea that you have been vomiting isn't my problem.

  • Finrod||

    Note how he uses the word 'professional' like a shield.

    Just remember: prostitutes are professionals too.

  • renewableguy||

    I source my stuff. Deniers sit on their butts and whine.

  • Sevo||

    renewableguy|4.6.17 @ 11:38PM|#
    "I source my stuff."

    From bullshit sources. Busted once more.

  • renewableguy||

    Looks like you are a butt whiner SEVO. You are welcome to talk about the subject with your own sources. If you have the ba__s to do it.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    No form of energy has been more subsidized by unit that so called renewables. It's not even close. So yes we kniw exaxtly what solar could have been because that's exaxtly where we are today. The only way your solar system pays for itself in 10 years is through explicit government subsidies in thw form of investment tax credits worth 30% of the install costs and the grid subsidy from net metering. How convenient that your neighbors get to back you ip when solar's fatal flaw arrives: night.

  • renewableguy||

    With the serious time problem we have with fossil fuel exhausts in the sky like its our open sewer, solar is he best bargain there is besides wind.

  • ||

    'Time problem?

    You're just full of vague terms, huh.

    Time problem. You mean, like, "if we don't do something NOW Great Britain will sink in, like, 15 minutes!"

    Something stupid like that? Let's make hasty decision built on faulty premises and fear and get one or two sciencters and call it a consensus!

    THAT'LL LEARN 'EM!

  • renewableguy||

    Sounds like you don't know the climate issue very well there champ. The time issue is one of bringing down ghg emissions fast enough to avoid the worst conditions climate change can bring us. After all, this has not been done before in human history. There is also risk that the scientists are being conservative and things will be worse than they say. It is better to change and not take the risk to pass on a great climate for our offspring.

  • Finrod||

    We know the "climate issue" a lot better than you think, bubba.

    Quit pissing down our legs and telling us it's raining.

  • renewableguy||

    You aren't Rufus, Finrod.

  • renewableguy||

    Now that I have read many of your posts, you barely know squat on climate Finny.

  • Sevo||

    Now that I have read many of your posts, you barely know squat, renny.

  • renewableguy||

    You haven't said squat SEVO. That means you know even less?

  • Sevo||

    "Most solar products are recyclable metal and silicate. Its cleaner to get energy from the Sun than continuing to use fossil and nuclear."
    Cites missing

  • renewableguy||

    https://goo.gl/na6gR1

    Benefits of Renewable Energy Use

    Contents
    Little to no global warming emissions
    Improved public health and environmental quality
    A vast and inexhaustible energy supply
    Jobs and other economic benefits
    Stable energy prices
    A more reliable and resilient energy system

  • renewableguy||

    As soon as you apply the external cost of carbon pollution to fossil fuels, solar is a bargain. Also it is peak power supply. We demand the most energy during the day.

  • Finrod||

    You can't even get basic facts right. Most energy is expended during the afternoon, not during the day.

  • renewableguy||

    So tell me Finrod. Does the sun shine in the afternoon? I call day the sunshine time and then there is night time. sun shines during the day?

    Are you trying to be intelligent?

    How about a little more substantial conversation instead being nit picky.

  • ThomasD||

    The EPA was never 'needed.' The EPA is a shining example of what happens when you think an ever expanding government bureaucracy is the solution to any problem.

  • Domestic Dissident||

    All the EPA ever really did was make it a whole lot easier for heavy manufacturing and industry to outsource to other countries where there is no fucking EPA.

    Though sometimes I suspect that was kind of the goal of the left all along. But they didn't put quite enough thought about what sort of unintended consequences that might have in society.

  • timbo||

    I think the only settled part of the discussion around global change/cooling/warming is that it is rooted in Marxist thought first and foremost.

    The most zealous of the crazies deep down only wants regression from progress and utter destruction of for-profit companies.

    They are luddite retards and that is all they bring to the table.

  • renewableguy||

    Capitalism is embracing main stream science on global warming, and they are pledging 100% renewable energy.

  • renewableguy||

    Main stream science has no ideology. Just because you can't change or learn doesn't make global warming something you project false ideology on . The solution works against your ideology though.

  • Finrod||

    Put down the crack pipe and back away from the keyboard.

  • renewableguy||

    Wow. Blown away man by how remarkable you are. Far out.

    LoL

    Waiting for intelligent conversation. Anytime you are ready.

  • renewableguy||

    Unfortunately we have ever expanding problems created by our own living condtions on earth. If we don't change our ways, there are serious consequences that we face.

  • Finrod||

    Yes, if we keep electing leftist Democrats the world will suffer serious consequences.

  • renewableguy||

    This is starting to become a bipartisan issue as it should.

  • Longtobefree||

    When will the EPA sue itself for using an office built on a swamp?
    They better hurry, before the swamp gets drained (again)

  • Leo Kovalensky||

    "Swamp" is hate speech against alligators, bureaucrats, and the like. Please use "wetlands" it's more FEELZ.

  • Zeb||

    A swamp is only one of many types of wetlands.

  • timbo||

    Listen to you Zeb. Next you'll be saying they should have their own schools.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    Oh, god, yes! YES! More- MORE! Deeper! FUCKING DEEPER! Fuck me til my orbs blow with your bureaucracy-busting Louisville slugger, Johnny Boy. That thick thrusting sweeping stick of logic and reason smacking and cracking the goddamn arrogant pillars from neath belligerent wallet-razing governing conglomerates of sneering excess.

    Every citizen should cum for every dollar returned because freedom is fucking pleasure. And freedom is a wallet secure from decades of ingrained preposterous confiscations that have zero to do with legitimate governing.

  • dean777||

    damn just get crazy?what the heck i love crazy people

  • colorblindkid||

    Even if you fully believe all of the apocalyptic predictions peddled by climate scientists, using that very same science says we reached the point of no return decades ago and even if the US went emissions-free tomorrow, the effects on the climate would be negligible. It's as simple as that. It would make more sense to spend the billions of dollars on building up protections from storm surges in low-lying coastal areas.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    It's not just climate scientists. Climate-change faith has invaded even modern expositions of Greek thought. Fancy that one.

    Within mere minutes of an 18-hour discourse called Masters of Greek Thought: Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle Professor Robert Bartlett fucking managed to infect his screed by suavely proclaiming the Greek geniuses provided material relevant to climate change! Rape of the hoary ancients.

  • BTS11||

    Rewrite history lib/prog 101

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    "Either way, Obama's expensive regulation wouldn't make a discernible difference. By 2030—if it met its goal—it might cut global carbon emissions by 1 percent...The Earth will not notice."

    Yes, but 1% is like 1 child, and if all of these efforts only save 1 [%] child, it will all be worth it. Right?

    Or do you want to decide which 1 [%] child gets sacrificed? Now just picture the little match girl, freezing to death [I mean burning to death...] in a world a global warming. Can you honestly tell me that you want to kill that little girl? Just so you can go on about your "liberty" and "love for freedom" from government? Huh?

    I thought so. Heartless bastards.

  • ||

    You are using the logic that is presently used for all sorts of efforts to pass legislation in this country! Basically, all one has to say is that it is "for the children"! So who are the heartless bastards? Those sponsoring the bill? Those voting for the bill? Those NOT voting for the bill? Refer to the "soda tax" that was passed in Philadelphia(the bill is currently under judicial review even though the law has already been enacted).

  • ||

    Hilda is a terrible teacher. We need to replace her with a better educator. YOU HATE EDUCATION!

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Needed? Not Needed?

    I don't disagree with the above commenters that there are/were other ways of addressing the pollution John alludes to, primarily through the courts.

    However, if you believe as I do, that the only legitimate function of government is to protect individual rights, you could make an argument for an agency that goes after the violators. Perhaps their function, instead of regulation, would be to seek out violators and take them to civil court on behalf of oppressed? That might go a ways toward negating the advantage large companies, with teams of lawyers and money, have over smaller companies and individuals. Just stormin, here.

    Clearly, the EPA goes well beyond protecting individual rights now, but I see that as an issue with not bounding government to a specific purpose/functionality.

    BTW, have I mentioned I like Stossel?

  • DaveSs||

    Perhaps their function, instead of regulation, would be to seek out violators and take them to civil court on behalf of oppressed?

    Problem is that wouldn't really solve the problem as government has nearly unlimited resources to go after people.

    Taking a case like the Barrons mentioned in Stossel's article. Even after losing in court they still went after them. Why? Because they can.

  • Entelechy||

    How did the Reason Stafff figure out the outcome of :

    "But probably not. The science is definitely not settled."

    ANd if they did not, why bother to lie about it ?

  • dantheserene||

    I don't understand what you're trying to say. Could you please restate?

  • timbo||

    I think what they meant to say is that "THE SCIENCE IS NOT SETTLED"

    And it is not. Correct?

  • renewableguy||

    The science of global warming is very well understood. We know that with polluting ghg's the earth will warm easily 3*C with 560 ppm co2 by 2100. IF the science is conservative, it will go higher than 3*C.

  • Greg F||

    The science of global warming is very well understood.

    Obviously not by you.

  • renewableguy||

    I actually know it well.

    https://goo.gl/MgMxfH

    Natural vs human influence on climate. In most studies natural is very mildly cooling, while human influence overwhelms the whole system.

  • Finrod||

    No, you believe the scammers. Too bad for you there hasn't been any warming since 2000. Reality is a harsh mistress.

  • renewableguy||

    rolling on the floor laughing my ass off.

    Goodness. Have been awake in the last 3 years?

    Crawl out from under your rock, get your head out of the sand. smell the extra co2 in the air.

    each successive year since 2014 have set records for average world temperature.. Past records were crushed each time.

    https://goo.gl/Nl7DxS

    See for yourself.

  • Sevo||

    renewableguy|4.6.17 @ 11:56PM|#
    "rolling on the floor laughing my ass off."

    Oh, gee, twit! Why not just "LOL"? It's equally juvenile.

  • renewableguy||

    Sevo|4.8.17 @ 12:15AM|#

    renewableguy|4.6.17 @ 11:56PM|#
    "rolling on the floor laughing my ass off."

    Oh, gee, twit! Why not just "LOL"? It's equally juvenile.

    It actually pains me to see how empty you are SEVO.

  • BYODB||


    Jill Barron told me, "We won, but after we were home for a month maybe, the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA sent us another letter saying, 'how nice for you that you won in the criminal court, but we still feel it's a wetlands.' And the decision made by the jury did not matter to them. 'And if you don't get off the property, we're going to fine you (in) civil (court).'"


    So, really, all the government needs to do is create a bunch of new categories of law to get around double jeopardy. See, in addition to criminal and civil there need to be more types of law like 'Climate Justice' and 'Gender Equality'. I know that there are laws already on the books for those types of thing, but we need identical laws with a different category so we can just keep retrying the same crime until we get the verdict that we want.


    It's disheartening to see the same shit going on today that caused a revolutionary war to be fought over 200 years ago. I guess we really are doomed, but nothing is forever. That's a comfort for my grandkids I suppose.

  • Bob Armstrong||

    I prefer noting that every bite of food we eat starts with CO2 married 1-1 with H2O by solar powered photosynthesis .

  • renewableguy||

    The evil twin to global warming is ocean acidification. Our carbon dioxide is dissolving in the oceans and changing the ocean chemistry. The more sensitive ocean life will respond to this shifting the balance of life based on human pollution.


    About one-third of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity has already been taken up by the oceans.[78] As carbon dioxide dissolves in sea water, carbonic acid is formed, which has the effect of acidifying the ocean, measured as a change in pH. The uptake of human carbon emissions since the year 1750 has led to an average decrease in pH of 0.1 units.[79] Projections using the SRES emissions scenarios suggest a further reduction in average global surface ocean pH of between 0.14 and 0.35 units over the 21st century.
    The effects of ocean acidification on the marine biosphere have yet to be documented.[79] Laboratory experiments suggest beneficial effects for a few species, with potentially highly detrimental effects for a substantial number of species.[78] With medium confidence, Fischlin et al. (2007)[80] projected that future ocean acidification and climate change would impair a wide range of planktonic and shallow benthic marine organisms that use aragonite to make their shells or skeletons, such as corals and marine snails (pteropods), with significant impacts particularly in the Southern Ocean.

  • Finrod||

    You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

    CO2 trails global temperature by about 800 years. Numerous ice cores have shown this.

    What was 800 years ago? The peak of the Medieval Warm Period, which scammers like you deny.

  • renewableguy||

    That's for denial wankers there bud. CO2 in the atmosphere first, CO2 does not care how it got there. It just does its job of reacting to infrared based energy. CO2 does not play by your rules. That is why we have science. What are the rules of co2 in the atmosphere?

    Interesting point is, there is a positive feedback even to co2 in the atmoshere. As the earth thaws further toward the poles, more co2 goes into the atmosphere further warming the earth. We aren't done after we stop polluting co2.

  • Sevo||

    renewableguy|4.6.17 @ 11:51PM|#
    "That's for denial wankers there bud. CO2 in the atmosphere first, CO2 does not care how it got there. It just does its job of reacting to infrared based energy. CO2 does not play by your rules. That is why we have science. What are the rules of co2 in the atmosphere?
    Interesting point is, there is a positive feedback even to co2 in the atmoshere. As the earth thaws further toward the poles, more co2 goes into the atmosphere further warming the earth. We aren't done after we stop polluting co2."

    Gee, what a lot of arm-waving! Did you have a point?

  • renewableguy||

    Gee, what a lot of arm-waving! Did you have a point?

    Do you know what positive feedback is? As the co2 warms the earth, the earth thaws releasing more co2 into the atmosphere. Warming the earth some more. That goes on until the earth reaches a new balance. This how we came out of the ice ages. Positive feedback of different systems on earth.

  • Greg F||

    The uptake of human carbon emissions since the year 1750 has led to an average decrease in pH of 0.1 units.[79]

    The reference unfortunately doesn't support the statement. Another reason Wiki shouldn't be used as a reference. In fact on page 99, fig 2.5, only show pH decrease of 0.06.

  • renewableguy||

    The reference unfortunately doesn't support the statement. Another reason Wiki shouldn't be used as a reference. In fact on page 99, fig 2.5, only show pH decrease of 0.06.

    It is a clear reason to quit carbon based fuels. Shell type creatures which are the back bone of the food chain have more difficulty living as the ph gets more acidic. Many areas of the ocean have experienced more than ,06 decrease.

  • Greg F||

    Shell type creatures which are the back bone of the food chain have more difficulty living as the ph gets more acidic.

    Again, support your claim.

  • renewableguy||

    https://www.nap.edu/read/12491/chapter/2#8

    This source does not copy paste. Go to the bottom of the paragraph and the source and summation is listed.

  • Sevo||

    It took all of two or three paragraphs to see statements absent evidence; that's propaganda.
    Fuck off, renny.

  • renewableguy||

    Sevo|4.8.17 @ 12:38AM|#

    It took all of two or three paragraphs to see statements absent evidence; that's propaganda.
    Fuck off, renn

    Don't care to live in your world SEVO.

  • Entelechy||

    One of these years, a jury willl acquit John on all charges of rhetorical dementia, but by then, he may no longer be able to notice.

  • renewableguy||

    The effects of global warming are extensively documented. This is all based in science in which it becomes clear to stop fossil fuels.


    https://goo.gl/e3CT0p

    2 Temperature changes
    2.1 SRES emissions scenarios
    2.2 Projected warming in context
    3 Physical impacts
    3.1 Effects on weather
    3.1.1 Extreme weather
    3.2 Cryosphere
    3.3 Oceans
    3.3.1 Acidification
    3.3.2 Oxygen depletion
    3.3.3 Sea level rise
    3.3.4 Ocean temperature rise
    4 Regions
    4.1 Observed impacts
    4.2 Projected impacts
    5 Social systems
    5.1 Food supply
    5.1.1 Projections
    5.1.1.1 Food security
    5.1.2 Droughts and agriculture
    5.2 Health
    5.2.1 Projections
    5.3 Water resources
    5.4 Migration and conflict
    5.5 Aggregate impacts
    5.5.1 Observed impacts
    5.5.2 Projected impacts
    6 Biological systems
    6.1 Observed impacts on biological systems
    6.2 Projected impacts on biological systems
    7 Abrupt or irreversible changes
    7.1 Biogeochemical cycles
    7.2 Greenland and West Antarctic Ice sheets
    7.3 Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation
    7.4 Irreversibilities
    7.4.1 Commitment to radiative forcing
    7.4.2 Irreversible impacts
    8 Benefits of global warming
    8.1 CO2 fertilisation effect
    8.2 Human health
    8.3 Ice-free Northwest Passage
    8.4 Animal population changes
    9 Scientific opinion
    9.1 NASA data and tools

  • LifeStrategies||

    Not so. see the lies and misrepresentations of the global warming fanatics:

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/a.....limate.php

    "In the 30 years between the 1979 Charney report to the National Academy of Sciences on an investigation of the possible effects of increased carbon dioxide on the earth's temperatures to the 2009 EPA's finding that carbon dioxide, and other greenhouse gases, endanger human health and welfare, government-funded Climate Studies have largely turned from empirical science to dogma – a belief system unsubstantiated by physical evidence. ..."

  • renewableguy||

    This is an article in a power magazine. Opinion only. Then there is data collected of the last 150 years of climate. We are in a shit load of trouble if society heads your way. That would be called social stupidity of which our future offspring will pay the price for.

  • Finrod||

    You're way off in "Dead men DO bleed!" territory. The only sources you will accept are your own.

    That's not science.

  • renewableguy||

    https://goo.gl/mSzZoF

    Ipcc ar5 used 9200 science articles, most of them peer reviewed science. they even looked seriously at denial science. It has to fit into good sound practices of how science finds the truth. One look at that paper and I could tell it came from a fossil fuel source.

    The Charney paper is done in sound science and is accepted science today.

  • Finrod||

    And everything you quote is from people who have a vested financial interest in making sure that global warming is not debunked.

  • renewableguy||

    Finrod|4.6.17 @ 4:11PM|#

    And everything you quote is from people who have a vested financial interest in making sure that global warming is not debunked.

    science works until they have the nugget called the truth of the situation. It is actually a very challenging thing to do is to study and write science on what they have found. If it is faulty, it is ssent back to be corrected or withdrawn. I have been watch fossil fuel sources for 11 years now. They are really easy and quick to spot.

  • Sevo||

    renewableguy

    Lies BOLDED are lies.
    Fuck off.

  • renewableguy||

    Sevo|4.7.17 @ 11:59PM|#

    renewableguy

    Lies BOLDED are lies.
    Fuck off.

    I'll take that as I'm doing the right thing.

  • LifeStrategies||

    How nice to see a Reason article applauding Trump's actions without the usual negativity which denigrates him at the same time.

    But he deserves congratulations, where are the plaudits?

  • Tionico||

    No, the EPA was never "necessary". There were already laws in place to prevent most of thost things that are cited above. EPA have NO authority to exist or do anything granted FedGov in the Constitution. End it. Now. The quicker the better. And reverse most of their fatwas against this and that. Let industry and the free market deal with these issues. The railroads cleaned up their locomotives not because of Uncle Stupid threatening or mandating... because it saves money on fuel that used to be discharged into the air unburnt, stinking and making dense black smoke and lots of particulate. By re-engineering their fuel systems and redesigning the engines, they save millions in fuel costs simply by burning the fuel in a cleaner less wasteful system.

  • Tionico||

    No, the EPA was never "necessary". There were already laws in place to prevent most of thost things that are cited above. EPA have NO authority to exist or do anything granted FedGov in the Constitution. End it. Now. The quicker the better. And reverse most of their fatwas against this and that. Let industry and the free market deal with these issues. The railroads cleaned up their locomotives not because of Uncle Stupid threatening or mandating... because it saves money on fuel that used to be discharged into the air unburnt, stinking and making dense black smoke and lots of particulate. By re-engineering their fuel systems and redesigning the engines, they save millions in fuel costs simply by burning the fuel in a cleaner less wasteful system.

  • ||

    That Barron story pisses me off to no end.

  • finerbiner||

    Given the opportunity, business owners will show a complete disregard for anything that decreases their bottom line or increases their toil. That is basic human nature. It's also the reason we have 14,000 old, played out mines leaching heavy metals into our water table here in Colorado. The people affected have no recourse.
    Who is to blame?
    Government is big and unwieldy
    Big business is big and unwieldy

  • Dadlobby||

    John Stossel needs to check out the Riverkeeper web site (https://www.riverkeeper.org/) before he goes swimming in the Hudson River. Further up into the Albany Pool fecal counts are high due to antiquated sewage systems. In the Mohawk River (feeds the Hudson River north of Albany) the City of Amsterdam had sewage system problems which is dumping into the rivers daily (it all flows downriver). This is all fixable (and the City Mayors would do so) if there were adequate funding directed to them - federal funds . Just as New York State stuffs mandates onto the Counties (80% of funding) with no funds, the Feds stuff clean water mandates onto localities which have no means to fund. Then again, they are probably to busy finding private homeowners on wetlands after the fact.

  • David Sims||

    Did Jack Barron get back the money he spent on his legal fees? If he didn't, then the government essentially won the conflict, even if it didn't convict the defendant. They imposed a cost on Jack (his lawyer's fees) though a malicious and unnecessary prosecution. Morally and in consideration of justice, the EPA owes Jack restitution for all of the costs it imposed on him. Doing wrong should hurt government agencies just as much as it hurts private citizens. If anything, it is MORE important (not less so) to keep the government toeing the line, morally, than it is to ensure that you or I do.

  • renewableguy||

    Renewables get cheaper and fossil fuels get more expensive.


    https://goo.gl/gK4LB5

    A solar power project is likely to register a per kWh price below two US cents at some stage during 2017, according to analysis firm GTM Research.

    As part of its 2017 market forecast, the company suggested that an impending tender round in Saudi Arabia was the most likely contender following on from a 2.3 cents tender for the Sweihan project under similar conditions in Abu Dhabi.

    "Similar to the conditions that brought record low bids in Sweihan, namely a long project timeline, an escalating or split tariff, near-zero land cost, permitting costs, taxes, and most significantly, highly-attractive financing terms, the first Saudi tender could create a perfect storm for another record-setting bid that could dip below two cents," Ben Attia, research associate at GTM Research and lead author of the report told PV Tech.

  • Sevo||

    renewableguy|4.6.17 @ 7:16PM|#
    "Renewables get cheaper and fossil fuels get more expensive."

    Yeah, oil has really rocketed in cost, right?
    Pretty sure we're dealing with an adolescent here, involved in a post-mosaic religion.

  • renewableguy||

    The easy fossil fuel is gone. What is left is the more difficult expensive stuff to get. That is how the Saudis hurt the US market tanking the price by overwhelming the supply. Renewables are getting cheaper while fossil fuels rise in price.

  • ZacharyP||

    Great artical John. A prime example of how our government continues to steal our money and destroy the livelihoods of those who work hard. Keep up the good work.

  • renewableguy||

    Capitalism needs rules to play by. Other wise they are off giving full priority to profit over everything else. Double co2 in the atmosphere leads to more turbulence and more extreme turbulence for flying. Amongst a whole host of many other issues. Extreme untethered capitalism makes for extreme dirty problems. EPA still has a good solid purpose for us in our society.

    https://goo.gl/53GyVN

    Williams used supercomputer simulations that calculate clear-air turbulence along Transatlantic routes in winter and found all turbulence strength levels will increase in a world with twice as much CO2, especially the kind of severe shaking that could hurl passengers and other objects around an aircraft cabin.

    The computer models show the average amount of light turbulence will increase by 59%, light-to-moderate turbulence by 75%, moderate by 94%, moderate-to-severe by 127%, and severe by 149%

  • renewableguy||

    Government helps to accelerate the market when time is of the essence in reducing carbon emissions. This is government working hand in hand with capitalism moving the market in directions good for society.


    https://goo.gl/BGmzQT

    "'Brian, why do you care? … You'll be dead in 10 years,'" the 71-year-old retired teacher recalled friends asking. His response: "Yeah, I will, but my children won't."

    He's one of a group of Ontario teachers calling on their pension fund to flex its $175 billion in financial muscle and pull its investments out of oil and gas

  • Sevo||

    renewableguy, you're full of shit.

  • renewableguy||

    You are going to burst a valve there guy. This is what people do and you have no control over it. They don't play by your rules.

  • GasGirl||

    I am the energy manager of an industry juggernaut whose mothership resides in the idyllic Germany countryside. We often absorb top-down directives from the international for sustainability initiatives

    Our calculable ROI is often indeterminable.

    It's largely dependent on the financial structure.

    With the 30% ITC:
    CapEx: 13 - 14 year ROI
    OpEx: (a bank monetizes the 30% ITC, and leases the equipment) The first 5 - 7 years are cash-flow positive; at the 7th / 8th year, there is a buy-out, which nukes the NPV, and re-sets the pay-back clock; normally resulting in a 3-4 year pay-back timeline.

    Without the 30% ITC:
    CapEx: 17 - 19 years ROI
    OpEx: There's nothing to capitalize

    Solar is only affordable due to the ITC.

    And then: you have the cannibalization effect in micro-markets such as Duke Energy (solar markets are typically carved up by state, and further sub-divided by the incumbent utility companies as they are the MUSH entities that regulate the region) which can no longer support the bottleneck of solar projects /due/ to the generous subsidies, and find themselves unable to meet pace with their own demand.

    Utility companies despise solar. It's inefficient, detracts from the bottom-line (on the delivery/demand side of the bill) and it imperils the grid. This is reflected in your local rate/tariff increases.

    In short: solar drives up the costs in local micro-markets, and is astonishingly expensive both in hard and soft costs.

  • renewableguy||

    https://goo.gl/GfRzoD

    Abstract
    As the solar photovoltaic (PV) matures, the economic feasibility of PV projects is increasingly being evaluated using the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) generation in order to be compared to other electricity generation technologies. Unfortunately, there is lack of clarity of reporting assumptions, justifications and degree of completeness in LCOE calculations, which produces widely varying and contradictory results. This paper reviews the methodology of properly calculating the LCOE for solar PV, correcting the misconceptions made in the assumptions found throughout the literature. Then a template is provided for better reporting of LCOE results for PV needed to influence policy mandates or make invest decisions. A numerical example is provided with variable ranges to test sensitivity, allowing for conclusions to be drawn on the most important variables. Grid parity is considered when the LCOE of solar PV is comparable with grid electrical prices of conventional technologies and is the industry target for cost-effectiveness. Given the state of the art in the technology and favourable financing terms it is clear that PV has already obtained grid parity in specific locations and as installed costs continue to decline, grid electricity prices continue to escalate, and industry experience increases, PV will become an increasingly economically advantageous source of electricity over expanding geographical regions.

  • GasGirl||

    ^ That was meant for the solar conversation upthread

  • Sevo||

    This is not surprising to those of us who know that the market will select the most efficient solutions, while the government will select those that buy the 'stated preference' of the public.

  • renewableguy||

    Sevo|4.7.17 @ 11:56PM|#

    Since you know and I know anthropogenic global warming to be true, then time is of the essence on getting our energy systems around the world clean and off of co2. That is why photovoltaics is being accelerated around the world to help bring production efficiencies up and costs down to bring in competitive LCOE. (levelized cost of energy). What will really bring this about is to add to the cost of fossil fuel production the true external costs that is not being paid for. All renewable energy will win hands down then.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    "CO2 is what we exhale. It's not a pollutant."

    Yes, it's a by-product of breathing. Just as sh-t is the by-product of eating. Would you sh-t in your own drinking water?

  • KeninIL||

    So how come Gina McCarthy or any of her admins were PERSONALLY not fined $37,500 until the Animus River disaster was cleaned up??? How come the company that screwed up doesn't have a daily fine??? Weren't they scheduled to get a $300M contract to clean up the mine? $1M a day would seem to be about right!!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online