Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

Letter: EPA support

September 26, 2013

Advertisement

To the editor:

Kansas Interfaith Power & Light and member congregations across Kansas stand in support of the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal for carbon pollution safeguards on new power plants.

We have a moral obligation to do everything we can to protect the health of all people, preserve Creation, and leave a safe climate for future generations. The new EPA rules are an important first step in cutting carbon pollution and improving air quality nationwide. We aim to fulfill the call from God to be stewards of Creation, and will be championing the EPA’s action in houses of worship across the state.

Power plants emit 40 percent of carbon pollution in the country, posing a major threat to Creation and the welfare of humankind. Yet there are currently no limits on carbon pollution from power plants. Just as the EPA has enforced safeguards to protect our health from arsenic, mercury and lead, the EPA can and must protect our health and take action on dangerous carbon pollution.

A strong standard for carbon pollution from new power plants, coupled with an upcoming standard for existing power plants, represent a historic effort to address the nation’s largest cause of global climate changing pollution, and we applaud the EPA for their work.

Comments

rtwngr 11 months, 1 week ago

I agree that we are called to be good stewards of God's creation and at one time the pollution that was being generated would have consumed us all if not brought under control. The new EPA regulations are designed to end the coal fired power plant industry as promised by our president, "he who shall not be named." The surface temperatures of the Earth have remained static for the last 15 years and now it appears that the polar ice caps are increasing rather than decreasing as decried by left leaning environmentalists. I would also disagree that there are no current regulations on coal fired power plants.

3

jafs 11 months, 1 week ago

They didn't say "no regulations on power plants", they said no limits on carbon emissions.

0

asixbury 11 months, 1 week ago

The ice caps are melting faster in the summer than before. That is a fact. http://www.physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v66/i2/p17_s1?bypassSSO=1.

0

Ken Lassman 11 months ago

Hmm.... let's look just at the surface and a few feet of the atmosphere since the incredibly hot year of 1998, ignoring the trend of the past century or more and call this the great turnaround. Or, if perhaps we look even at those years and include the ocean temps, what do we see?

Combined land ocean and air temps

Combined land ocean and air temps by Ken Lassman

1

Liberty275 11 months ago

I see a GIF file I could make in Excel in about 5 minutes.

0

Ken Lassman 11 months ago

Oh, you're actually interested in the journal paper? Well here's a link, compliments your friends at skepticalscience.com: http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Comment_on_DK12.pdf

1

Chris Golledge 11 months ago

Tell us; did the laws of physics change in 1998? Because if they did not, we should look at the longer trend to average out ENSO cycles etc, and that shows in increasing upward trend.

0

Liberty275 11 months, 1 week ago

Doing as little environmental damage is something we should all be in favor of. Using scare tactics to undermine corporations, not so much.

"At the heart of the problem lie the computer models which, for 25 years, have formed the basis for the IPCC’s scaremongering: they predicted runaway global warming, when the real rise in temperatures has been much more modest. So modest, indeed, that it has fallen outside the lowest parameters of the IPCC’s prediction range. The computer models, in short, are bunk."

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100238047/global-warming-believers-are-feeling-the-heat/

1

jafs 11 months, 1 week ago

How would you deal with the fact that many aren't, in fact, interesting in minimizing the damage we all do?

If we all did that on our own, both individually and collectively, we wouldn't be in the situation we're in, in which there's already been significant disruption of the natural environment in a number of ways.

1

Liberty275 11 months ago

"How would you deal with the fact that many aren't, in fact, interesting in minimizing the damage we all do?"

That depends on what you mean by damage. If you dump oil and it seeps into my property you pay to remedy the situation or the court makes you give me your stuff. Now that cannot happen without due process, so I have to make the case that you are polluting my property.

The petroleum industry finds itself in the leftist crosshairs because their product is controlled by global corporations and their product endows the common man much of what the left is fighting, that is expansion and suburbanism, freedom to travel without a schedule and large, powerful cars. Mostly they complain about SUVs.

Global warming is a war being waged against petroleum. I refuse to join your war because I like the benefits of petroleum more than I believe your cause.

"we wouldn't be in the situation we're in"

What situation? Whatever the fudged up computer models say?

40 miles. Tell me of one place within 40 miles that proves global warming is real.

I spent half of my life 10 feet above sea level, and I go back there occasionally. I can tell you that sea levels have not risen. You have a computer model which says only what it is programmed to say and I have first-person real-world evidence that your computer models are lying.

1

jafs 11 months ago

I'm not going to argue with you about whether or not we're destroying the natural environment.

For me, it's obvious.

And, whenever I've followed these conversations in more depth between deniers and believers, I have always been convinced that the believers have science and facts on their side, and understand what's happening much better than the deniers.

But, I find that deniers are never convinced, and so it's not worth arguing with them.

My main point is that government action wouldn't be necessary if we were all mindful and did our best not to destroy the environment on which we rely for our existence, but that's not the reality we live with.

2

Liberty275 11 months ago

"My main point is that government action wouldn't be necessary"

Your main point should be wondering what the government's authority regarding the environment is based upon. Does it say somewhere in the constitution that it is the federal government's job to regulate the temperatures on earth?

0

jafs 11 months ago

Why?

If we're destroying ourselves along with the planet, that's a larger concern for me.

As far as authority, I suspect that any regulations of corporations are completely fine, given that we've created them through our legal system, and as such have the power/authority to regulate them in numerous ways.

0

Liberty275 11 months ago

So the government needs no constitutional authority to write law?

If they needed to abuse the interstate commerce clause to regulate drugs, don't you think they need at least some fraudulent constitution authority to be the earth's thermostat by making my electric bill higher? Do you think they can just violate our freedom without having a legal mandate to do so?

Also, I agree to disagree with you regarding global warming in a civil and friendly manner. You can be wrong and I will still like you. :-)

0

jafs 11 months ago

Corporations, as creations of our legal system, can be regulated in whatever ways we choose to do so, as part of the requirements for incorporation, and the ability to continue to operate as such.

They're not people, nor are they simply collections of people - they're separate legal fictions that we have created and continue to create.

If we want to tell Westar that they have to lower emissions as part of the ongoing ability to operate as a legal corporation, with all of the legal benefits that accrue, we can do that without any constitutional issues that I can see. Westar then has decisions to make about how to do that, and the KCC (in KS) is responsible for deciding about requested rate hikes.

Well, I'm glad about that - hope you're right and I'm wrong, in fact :-) But, I've been concerned about environmental issues for 30 years or so now, and have gotten more pessimistic about them over that time.

0

Ken Lassman 11 months ago

Liberty, Since you've repeatedly ignored links to information that clearly contradict your "I can tell you that sea levels have not risen" assertion, I have very little faith that you will pay any attention to yet another link that flat out contradicts your perceptions. But when I stumbled across this, I can't resist to offer it to you: data from U of Miami professor showing increases in the Florida sea levels, including a nice projection about your beloved Sanibel Island: http://spacecoastclimatechange.com/images/Wanless%20presentation.pdf

1

Liberty275 11 months ago

Really, projections of catastrophe with pictures of hurricane damage and red lines photoshopped in to tell me exactly what I'm supposed to fear?

BTW, Tarpon Bay is as beautiful today as it was 30 years ago when we fished it for redfish and snook.

Have you ever heard of the Calusa indians? Did you know that you can still see the canals they built on Pine Island 1000 years ago. Most are above the waterline now, which is odd, since you would think that with rising ocean levels the opposite would be true.

You post links to multimedia presentations. I'll post something different.. Something simple. 26°39'24.00"N 82° 9'2.48"W.

0

Ken Lassman 11 months ago

I'm amused that faced with data, you retreat to attacking form, not content. Included in the Power Point that you cast aspersions toward is the graph of sea level data from Key West which shows that it has gone up 9 inches since 1930. Since there can be local variations in the amount of sea rise, I looked up the sea level readings from Fort Myers, very close to Sanibel Island, which are located here: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/data_menu.shtml?bdate=19300731&edate=20130801&wl_sensor_hist=W5&relative=&datum=6&unit=1&shift=g&stn=8725520+Fort+Myers%2C+FL&type=Historic+Tide+Data&format=View+Plot

As you can see, the data did not start getting collected until around 1964, so there is a mere 49 years data. A cursory glance at the data shows an approximate increase of sea level there of around 5 inches during that time. Interpolate the annual rise rate from Key West from that 75 year record and you would have gotten 5 3/4" for that time period, which is pretty close to the Fort Myers rate.

Sorry to analyze your arguments by using data, but that's what you should have expected.

0

Ken Lassman 11 months ago

Liberty quotes an "authority" who pronunces " The computer models, in short, are bunk."

Really? We should throw out the combined, evolving scientific endeavor of thousands of scientists around the world due to the evaluation and judgements of a Mr. James Delingpole, novelist, columnist and libertarian? The same person who when asked if he had read peer reviewed journal articles on climate change maintained that as a journalist "it is not my job" to read peer reviewed papers, but be "an interpreter of interpretations?"

To each his or her own, I guess.

2

Liberty275 11 months ago

Can you name that logical fallacy? LOL.

Seriously though, do you believe in science? Do you believe in peer reviewed science?

How about this science? http://www.agbioworld.org/about/index.html

0

jafs 11 months ago

What does that have to do with climate change?

I looked at it, and they're an agricultural biotechnology non profit organization, but I found nothing about climate change there.

0

Ken Lassman 11 months ago

Liberty, Occasionally, the facts are relevant to the conclusion (that is what science is based on, after all), which is why your source has absolutely no credibility. Science is fallible, in fact its "truths" remain open to retesting so that viable criticism is always given the opportunity to force a reconsideration. That reconsideration, however, is not based on a critique from an individual who does not even read the primary sources, let alone examine the data.

1

Liberty275 11 months ago

So you only believe in some science?

0

Ken Lassman 11 months ago

You are the one who quoted a journalist who openly admitted not having read the science, not me. I believe in the scientific method as the most viable way to get as close to the truth as is humanly possible, certainly considerably closer than the blogster you quoted. Do you believe in the scientific method?

0

FarleyM 11 months ago

You can't make any money if you say everything is fine.

0

Ken Lassman 11 months ago

What exactly are the oil companies making then?

0

Liberty275 11 months ago

My car go fast. That is what they are making.

1

Ken Lassman 11 months ago

That'll be $3.25 per gallon, please. It's been a pleasure doing business, and feel free to lay rubber when you leave the pump!

0

Liberty275 11 months ago

I thought it was like $3.60/gallon. I just put in the ATM card and fill the car until the pump shuts off, so I don't really know what the price is.

I'm not laying much rubber right now because my second gear clutches are worn and I'm trying to not kill my car until I have time to fix it.

0

Chris Golledge 11 months ago

Anyone with a PhD in the physical sciences has plenty of ways of making money other than doing climate research.

2

Chris Golledge 11 months ago

Can you tell use what computer Arrhenius used when he first determined that our extraction of fossil fuels and converting them to CO2 would warm the planet? Hint: That was in 1896.

1

FarleyM 11 months ago

The temperature has remained constant for the last 15 years. This is because of the EPA's tireless work? Where are the praises for their work. They have saved the earth.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.