"Former Chief Oceanographer of the US Navy, Admiral David Titley, a PhD meteorologist in his own right, testifies before the Senate on the real significance of satellite temperatures and climate modeling."
Fun fact of the day: Satellite data is calibrated using weather balloons. For over a decade weather balloon and satellite data have shown divergence: Source.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 01-23-2016).]
I haven't been hanging around here on the forum, but since I started this thread, what, eight years ago, and flyinfieros frequently hijacked it with his spam, I thought I'd stop by and make one more post than he did.
I've always been amused by the fact that people reply to a thread titled "The evidence against anthropogenic global warming" with "The evidence for anthropogenic global warming" and get all butt hurt when it is rejected with an opposing set of facts that support the title of the thread.
It makes about as much sense as an atheist running into a Sunday service to bring proof that God and/or Christ do not exist, gets offended that they didn't accept his call to reason and labels them all close minded irrational fools......
I trust motives more than data because data will be manipulate to support motives. So when I see a chart that supports either position, my question is ;
Why do they need that to be true. If it's wrong, what will it cost them. Is their belief based on facts or fears.
For me, I think if there were any substantial evidence that human activities are directly affecting global climate change and temperature, It could be presented in a way that the average citizen would understand. If the proof were there, they wouldn't have to ban or penalize any activities or products because the demand for them would drop so low there would be no profit to gain.
I don't know about any of you, but I believe putting a gun to my head would and pulling the trigger could present a very high likelihood of death. I have not personal seen it done nor have I tried it, but I feel certain that a bullet to the head is a life altering event. I'm just not convened, to the same degree, that our actions are causing or correcting the problem. In this case, I more interested in dealing with the symptoms until the root cause has been positively identified.
Do you think that modern humans would thrive if the climate were to shift over the next 150 or 200 years to repeat some of the warmest global climates that occurred during the roughly 135 million year period when there were dinosaurs? Should "we" look forward to that, instead of doing what looks to be possible to avoid it?
Have you considered the magnitude of the evolutionary changes that occurred during the 135 million years of dinosaurs? Are you aware of how many different dinosaur species appeared and then vanished as the planet's climate oscillated through very warm and very cold cycles during this 135 million year period? Are you aware of the dissimilarities that are inherent in comparing the 135 million year lineage of the dinosaurs to the roughly 100,000 year lineage of modern humans? That is like comparing 1350 to 1.
Why are you seeming to be trying to draw a comparison that is the equivalent of apples to oranges asteroids?
I don't think that you are really thinking it through (to use that idiom), when it comes to the topics that are being discussed here.
Are you saying that man will not adapt? You have already said that the dinosaur had adapted, and when they couldn't they died out...are you assuming/saying that man was/is meant to occupy the earth forever from now on? There are species that have had a shorter life span on this planet other than man.
Are you certain that man deserves to continue on living (if we are destroying our habitat then perhaps not and maybe best that we don't)? Are you certain an asteroid will not strike again and wipe out most life forms that now exist?
It is just odd that some people that post here complain that other "cherry pick" data to support their argument, but then themselves post "data" that also supports their argument - is that NOT the same?
Sure things would be much nicer if man wasn't such a "pig" with the environment, but why all of a sudden did "anthropogenic global warming" get changed to just "climate change" ?
He's making a very poor argument. Dinosaurs had neither the intelligence nor the dexterity to overcome their environment. They are also cold blooded, and can live in a much narrower temperature range than we can, and they can't do anything about it like we can, like building shelters, heating and cooling the shelters, and so on.
Mankind, on the other hand, will survive even if global warming happens to the point of predicted disasters. We will adapt. But it is highly unlikely it will come to that. All the warmists predictions of imminent doom have failed to unfold. Bottom line, it ain't gonna happen. But that hasn't stopped ideologues and government rent seekers from keeping up the push. They are no better than common criminals.
I haven't been hanging around here on the forum, but since I started this thread, what, eight years ago, and flyinfieros frequently hijacked it with his spam, I thought I'd stop by and make one more post than he did.
Ah, yes. Right on cue. Seeing that the coast is clear, the bully returns.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 01-28-2016).]
And politicians and corporations have been ignoring the issue for decades, to the point that unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return, Gore said.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a major blow to President Barack Obama by putting on hold federal regulations to curb carbon dioxide emissions mainly from coal-fired power plants, the centerpiece of his administration's strategy to combat climate change.
The court voted 5-4 along ideological lines to grant a request by 27 states and various companies and business groups to block the administration's Clean Power Plan, which also mandates a shift to renewable energy away from fossil fuels.
The highly unusual move by the justices means the regulations will not be in effect while a court battle continues over their legality.
The White House on Tuesday night said it disagrees with the court decision but said it expects the rule will survive the legal challenge.
"We remain confident that we will prevail on the merits," the White House said, adding that the Environmental Protection Agency will continue to work with states that want to cooperate and that it will continue to take "aggressive steps" to reduce carbon emissions.
The plan was designed to lower carbon emissions from U.S. power plants by 2030 to 32 percent below 2005 levels. It is the main tool for the United States to meet the emissions reduction target it pledged at U.N. climate talks in Paris in December.
A senior administration official told reporters on Tuesday night that despite the court's "procedural decision," the United States can deliver those commitments and take "new and additional steps" to lead internationally on climate change.
The Supreme Court's action casts doubt on the long-term future of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's rule because it increases the chances that the conservative-leaning Supreme Court would take the case after a lower court issues a decision on the legality of the regulations and ultimately would strike it down.
As recently as June, the high court ruled 5-4 against the Obama administration over its efforts to regulate mercury and other toxic air pollutants.
The states, led by coal producer West Virginia and oil producer Texas, and several major business groups in October launched the legal effort seeking to block the Obama administration's plan. The states said the emissions curbs would have a devastating impact on their economies.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey described the Supreme Court action on Tuesday as a "historic and unprecedented victory" over the EPA.
Tom Donahue, chief executive officer of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said the high court stay "will ensure that America will not be forced to make costly and irreversible implementation decisions based upon an unprecedented regulation until judicial review is complete."
Originally posted by fierobear: He's making a very poor argument. Dinosaurs had neither the intelligence nor the dexterity to overcome their environment. They are also cold blooded, and can live in a much narrower temperature range than we can, and they can't do anything about it like we can, like building shelters, heating and cooling the shelters, and so on.
Mankind, on the other hand, will survive even if global warming happens to the point of predicted disasters. We will adapt. But it is highly unlikely it will come to that. All the warmists predictions of imminent doom have failed to unfold. Bottom line, it ain't gonna happen. But that hasn't stopped ideologues and government rent seekers from keeping up the push. They are no better than common criminals.
OK, my friend, but here's where I disagree.
For those who are unconvinced that AGW is a reality, there's nothing for you in this one new post from me.
But for those who are convinced that AGW is a reality, there seem to be three ways to think about responding from a "human species" perspective:
Let it happen and just ride it out, wherever it takes "us" (the world's current population and all of our/their descendants)
Try to stop it, or more realistically, make it a more leisurely paced AGW (temperatures keep rising, but not quite as rapidly)
Be proactive about adapting human societies to cope with the consequences of a warmer temperature regime, including higher sea levels
I cannot "do the math". No single person possibly could, and even no single research organization could possibly do it all (in terms of the "math").
The problem that I have with the posts here from Mickey_Moose and fierobear (to the extent that either accepts some or all of the "consensus" reality of AGW) is that I think they are talking about the potential for human adaptation in a way or a "tone" that is disturbingly untroubled by the difficulties of human adaptation progressing as rapidly as AGW. In my mostly layman's estimation, I think that if nothing of significance can be achieved in the way of slowing the progression (I wouldn't call it "progress") of AGW, the human adaptations are likely to fall way behind the curve, vs AGW, because I don't think that human societies are capable of adapting "that rapidly".
To offer an illustration--absurdly oversimplified, but I think it gets my point across--people without air-conditioned homes will be up s**t creek without a paddle, faster than anyone with their naked eyes would be able to perceive the mercury in the proverbial old-fashioned glass thermometer rising; and people with air-conditioning will be wearing out their air-conditioners so quickly that it would take anyone's breath away.
I don't think that Just Riding It Out is a "nice" option. I think that would be the least desirable of the three options. I think that there will be people trying to migrate en masse from less favorable temperature and rainfall regimes and inundated coastlines to more AGW-attractive areas in numbers that no one could possibly describe as anything other than "Climate Refugees".
I am inclined to believe in the viability (from a "species" perspective) of some combination of Mitigation--slowing the progress of AGW by reducing Human Greenhouse Gas Emissions--and Adaptation--working to plans for a new "AGW-style" of living that are carefully researched--respecting that the Devil is always in the Details--with a realistic planning horizon that looks ahead by decades (not just years) in order to allow time for all of the spadework to be completed.
Unless there is some very solid Mitigation, in terms of reducing the global reliance on fossil fuels, or being able to use fossil fuels without releasing the carbon and other GHG emissions into the atmosphere, I think the Adaptation is going to be very disappointing to anyone who would like to think that the next few generations of humans will be able to have lives that are anywhere near as "comfy" as many people in the First World countries are currently having. Or the next few generations of humans will somehow be diminished in numbers that are considerably smaller than what would be expected in the way of progeny under a no-AGW scenario.
That--a diminished number or arrested population increase for the next several generations of humans--doesn't particularly "bother" me. But I expect that will be rather difficult to achieve in a "safe for prime time when children could be watching" kind of scenario. Just to illustrate what I am getting at, consider what has been and is now continuing without a clearly foreseeable end in and around Syria. There are people who have said--and I don't think they are all that far off base--that one of the significant sources of "fuel" that first fed the fires of revolt and chaos in Syria was related to the severe drought conditions that (some years ago) was behind a large migration of Syria's Sunni Muslims from their rural and agricultural districts into Syria's urban districts. For reasons that I am not fully educated about, the government of Syria was not able to comfort these Sunni migrants very effectively in the way of drought-compensation and resettlement. So those who were watching from outside began to see conflicts emerging within Syria's highly urbanized areas.
Could the various conflicts have been resolved more peacefully and more permanently if the varied demographics that were involved were not (at least in part) "hangry" (to use that new Madison Avenue term for hawking candy bars), as a consequence of the drought having negatively impacted Syria's agricultural sectors?
How rapidly (in terms of years vs decades vs centuries) can human societies adapt to an aggressively AGW-dominated climate trend? Realistically, what are the potentials and capabilities?
As a consequence of AGW, there will be the potential for agriculture and livestock-centric enterprises (beef, pork, chicken, eggs, dairy) to migrate to new areas that are (to be simple-minded about it) farther North, or farther Inland. But how rapidly can that be expected to proceed? For example, there may be new and generally flat acreages in Northern latitudes that transition from Permafrost to No Frost, but how rapidly would agriculture and ranching be able to move in from their previous areas of concentration? Infrastructure? Being able to farm and keep livestock in environments where the harmful insects and plant and animal infections may not be quite like the ones that farmers and ranchers are already familiar with?
I could go on in this vein, but I think to put it in summary, Mickey_Moose and fierobear are coming across to me as "overly sanguine" about the prospects for human societies to adapt at a rate that will keep pace with the progression of the unmitigated variety of AGW. Without some big time Mitigation (of AGW), I think that the adaptations are altogether likely to involve numerous scenarios that result in a diminishing of human populations as a consequence of starvation, diseases and epidemics and armed conflict over resources that would be in increasingly short supply such as immediately arable land with the already existing infrastructure to support large scale farming and ranching.
One more thought: Which is going to be worse? A large volcanic eruption that has some uncomfortable global effects on the planet's weather and climate for a few years afterwards? Or the same volcanic scenario, impacting a global human population that is already "on the edge" because of the consequences of unmitigated AGW?
You make the call.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-24-2016).]
I could go on in this vein, but I think to put it in summary, Mickey_Moose and fierobear are coming across to me as "overly sanguine" about the prospects for human societies to adapt at a rate that will keep pace with the progression of the unmitigated variety of AGW. Without some big time Mitigation (of AGW), I think that the adaptations are altogether likely to involve numerous scenarios that result in a diminishing of human populations as a consequence of starvation, diseases and epidemics and armed conflict over resources that would be in increasingly short supply such as immediately arable land with the already existing infrastructure to support large scale farming and ranching.
One more thought: Which is going to be worse? A large volcanic eruption that has some uncomfortable global effects on the planet's weather and climate for a few years afterwards? Or the same volcanic scenario, impacting a global human population that is already "on the edge" because of the consequences of unmitigated AGW?
You make the call.
...adapt or die - and if we all die, would that not be "better for the planet"? Hell wouldn't a smaller population not be better? The earths population is getting fairly large no and at some point it will exceed the earth ability to sustain life period even in a "perfect" environment. No species lives forever and with the crap that is going on in the world today, probably the sooner the better (man can't live with himself, never mind the environment).
I have stated this many times, I am not against "helping" the planet. I am against all these people telling me that we are doomed unless we throw trillions of dollars at the problem using unproven processes/tech that someone came up with just to jump on the band wagon. AND then you got these so called celebrities that going around beaking off how the oil sands in Alberta are so bad that they are ruining the planet yet themselves have no problem wasting energy of leaving behind a large carbon foot print. AND all this money that is suppose to be collected via the "carbon tax", where is that going? I can tell you it is not going back into research to help solve any "climate" problem (or very little of it is).
There is also all this focus on JUST the dirty oil problem - what about the amount of garbage that goes to a cities landfill on a daily bases, or how much trash is dumped into the ocean? It is also funny how all the focus is on the Alberta oil sands - what about the oil production going on in California where it has been proven that it has much higher emissions then the one in Alberta (thus "dirtier"). Were are all the people to speak out against that?
The fact is that the climate has been changing since the dawn of time and it is only speculation that it is worse now then it has ever been when in fact they only have data from the last century. There are many places on the planet that were once covered by an ocean, areas in the north that were tropical (fossils say so) and at points the earth had no ice coverage at all and at times was mostly covered. The magnetic poles of the earth (they say) are moving faster than any time in human history - could this also perhaps some how also not affect the climate? It has been admitted by some in this thread that climate science is complex, yet then turn around and pin any change solely on man - could there not be other factors in play here as well?
One thing for sure is, if FlyinFieros was still around he would reply by posting the same old graphs over and over again.
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 02-25-2016).]
Who gets the honor of defining what a "better world" would be? Looking across the world stage I see very little experience among the current leaders to provide an example of a "better world". Instead I see tyranny, corruption, genocide and incompetence. If this is the way they treat people, how can I trust them to do any better with the environment.
Who gets the honor of defining what a "better world" would be? Looking across the world stage I see very little experience among the current leaders to provide an example of a "better world". Instead I see tyranny, corruption, genocide and incompetence. If this is the way they treat people, how can I trust them to do any better with the environment.
I like driving through Texas and seeing this instead of this.
If I have to pay an extra $100 dollars on my next exhaust job and $100 a year in an inspection on my car I think that is a fair price to pay for clean air and water. I love nature, and the United States has much better air quality than nations like China or India where pollution is unregulated. Its not like a Cat really takes away a noticeable amount of horsepower, and you can buy a brand new car for 50k that makes 700+ horse power that passes emissions so it doesn't really hurt us.
I credit the EPA with our air quality, and I am thankful for it.
I credit the EPA with our air quality, and I am thankful for it.
I credit the Cities, Manufactures and Consumers they made the hard choices, did all the work and paid all the cost. All the EPA did was be the Bully the Government created. They no longer (if ever) benefit the environment. They just issue fines...... I wonder how much of that money goes to fixing the problem that generated the fine....
Anybody else heard of being fined for bucket of water... Frivolous
I credit the Cities, Manufactures and Consumers they made the hard choices, did all the work and paid all the cost. All the EPA did was be the Bully the Government created. They no longer (if ever) benefit the environment. They just issue fines...... I wonder how much of that money goes to fixing the problem that generated the fine....
Anybody else heard of being fined for bucket of water... Frivolous
You really think the companies and consumers would have made the same decisions if they had not been forced to by the government?
Originally posted by Threedog: You really think the companies and consumers would have made the same decisions if they had not been forced to by the government?
Yes, in this litigious environment and society. But, what gives the Government the right to walk into a state to directly confront a company. It is a state level issue unless you think that smog in a California city has a direct effects on the environment in Texas, Maine and Florida.....
Yes, in this litigious environment and society. But, what gives the Government the right to walk into a state to directly confront a company. It is a state level issue unless you think that smog in a California city has a direct effects on the environment in Texas, Maine and Florida.....
If the Federal Government enacts Federal laws they have every right to enforce said laws don't they?
Yes, in this litigious environment and society. But, what gives the Government the right to walk into a state to directly confront a company. It is a state level issue unless you think that smog in a California city has a direct effects on the environment in Texas, Maine and Florida.....
When we are talking about Greenhouse Gas emissions, it does.
Aside from Greenhouse emissions, any large coal-fired power station is going to have a footprint that crosses state boundaries in terms of particulate emissions, sulfur dioxide and mercury emissions.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-29-2016).]
If the Federal Government enacts Federal laws they have every right to enforce said laws don't they?
Does that apply to all laws or just the laws we personally prefer. Does the "right" to enforce enacted laws also include laws they had no constitutional authority to enact. Does the Federal Government also have the right to abolish an enacted law?. and if so would they have the authority to re-enact slavery and have the right to enforce it.
That is way too much power for a Government when it's leaders are chosen by children with adult bodies still arguing to get their way.
But to answer your question, The Government has no rights. They have Responsibilities and Permission given them by the people under our Constitution. As such they maybe right to act, that does not necessarily give Them The responsibility (Obligation) or permission (Authority) to do so. In the case of the EPA (in light of your example) They also have the "right" selectively enforce their regulations. And they do.
[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 03-01-2016).]
When we are talking about Greenhouse Gas emissions, it does.
Aside from Greenhouse emissions, any large coal-fired power station is going to have a footprint that crosses state boundaries in terms of particulate emissions, sulfur dioxide and mercury emissions.
Can you show where an operation in 1 state clearly demonstrates a direct affect in the air quality or climate of another. Also include a description of how the EPA was instrumental in resolving the issue.
BTW, I grant you the argument that the hazardous and irresponsible dumping of specific materials without a doubt can have a negative affect on water resources, land and even local air quality. But the topic is not about the relationship people directly affected by the activities of others. This entire thread exists solely to deal with the idea that human activities are responsible for global warming (aka Climate Change).
So is there an incident where the activities of a company's poor handling or processing of chemicals, gasses, etc had a direct affect on the air quality or climate outside of their state boundaries.
Four Corners Power Plant electricity from coal, 2100 MW, more than 500,000 customers in Arizona, New Mexico, California, and Texas
Four Corners is the largest single source of air pollution in the state of New Mexico, according the Arizona Public Service’s monitoring reports. Every year Four Corners’ five generating units burn over ten million tons of coal, and discharge into the air of the Colorado Plateau approximately 42,000 tons of nitrogen oxides,12,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, and 1,300 tons of particulate matter. These pollutants are the major components of haze.
Because Four Corners is within 300 kilometers of sixteen Class I national parks and wilderness areas, much of this pollution degrades their beauty. In fact, the National Park Service has found that Four Corners has the greatest visibility impact on Class I national parks of any coal plant in the country. Places with world-recognized cultural and natural value, including Mesa Verde, Canyonlands National Parks are among those most affected by Four Corners’ pollution.
“When the wind is blowing pollution from the Four Corners plant to Mesa Verde, Bryce Canyon or Grand Canyon National Parks, visibility is seriously impaired,” said Roger Clark, air and energy program director for the Grand Canyon Trust. “Only when the wind is coming from another direction is the clarity of the landscape anything like what it used to be. The number of days when views in these parks is clouded by pollution seems to be ever-increasing.”
Air modeling done for the Arizona Public Service Company has found that the plant’s air pollution reduces visibility by 25 times the amount defined as causing impairment by the Environmental Protection Agency. The Clean Air Act states that Class I areas deserve the highest level of protection, and should be free from man-made haze.
“Not only is the pollution hurting national parks, but the Four Corners Region, which is home to several indigenous tribes,” said Anna Frazier, Diné CARE Coordinator, who lives on the Navajo reservation. “Their health and way of life are impacted by deadly chemicals from pollution.”
CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE
National Parks and Wilderness Areas in four states--Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Utah--were affected by airborne pollutants from the Four Corners Power Plant, sited in the northwest corner of New Mexico.
In 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency told San Juan's (Four Corners Power Plant) owners to reduce the plant's toxic air emissions. At the time, the plant was among the most polluting power sources in the nation. To bring the plant into compliance, the federal regulators and the Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) agreed to partially shut down the plant. PNM filed for state approval of this plan and a proposal to replace the lost power in December 2013.
Under the final agreement reached last month, two of the plant's four units will be retrofitted with emission-reduction technology, and the remaining two units will be retired by the end of 2017. Doing so will bring the plant into compliance with a host of federal air standards, including the Clean Power Plan, which targets greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.
For PNM, the replacement power includes a 134-megawatt nuclear power unit. The utility is also building four solar plants with a combined capacity of 40 megawatts and a natural gas plant with a capacity of at least 80 megawatts.
Does that apply to all laws or just the laws we personally prefer. Does the "right" to enforce enacted laws also include laws they had no constitutional authority to enact. Does the Federal Government also have the right to abolish an enacted law?. and if so would they have the authority to re-enact slavery and have the right to enforce it.
That is way too much power for a Government when it's leaders are chosen by children with adult bodies still arguing to get their way.
But to answer your question, The Government has no rights. They have Responsibilities and Permission given them by the people under our Constitution. As such they maybe right to act, that does not necessarily give Them The responsibility (Obligation) or permission (Authority) to do so. In the case of the EPA (in light of your example) They also have the "right" selectively enforce their regulations. And they do.
Four Corners Power Plant electricity from coal, 2100 MW, more than 500,000 customers in Arizona, New Mexico, California, and Texas
Four Corners is the largest single source of air pollution in the state of New Mexico, according the Arizona Public Service’s monitoring reports. Every year Four Corners’ five generating units burn over ten million tons of coal, and discharge into the air of the Colorado Plateau approximately 42,000 tons of nitrogen oxides,12,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, and 1,300 tons of particulate matter. These pollutants are the major components of haze. --------
So we protected them from the components of haze?. Did they have a haze problem or just components....
quote
National Parks and Wilderness Areas in four states--Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Utah--were affected by airborne pollutants from the Four Corners Power Plant, sited in the northwest corner of New Mexico.
Affected how?
quote
The EPA Sulfur dioxide – High concentrations of SO2 affect breathing and may aggravate existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease. Sensitive populations include asthmatics, individuals with bronchitis or emphysema, children, and the elderly. Sulfur dioxide is also a primary contributor to acid deposition, or acid rain.
Particulate matter – Short term exposure to particulate matter can aggravate lung disease, cause asthma attacks and acute bronchitis, may increase susceptibility to respiratory infections and has been linked to heart attacks.
Nitrogen oxides – Nitrogen oxides can cause ground-level ozone, acid rain, particulate matter, global warming, water quality deterioration, and visual impairment. Nitrogen oxides play a major role, with volatile organic chemicals, in the atmospheric reactions that produce ozone. Children, people with lung diseases such as asthma, and people who work or exercise outside are susceptible to adverse effects such as damage to lung tissue and reduction in lung function.
I'm still waiting for the Government/EPA/Scientist to use more definitive language that reaches beyond "it's possible" "maybe" or "is believed". Seriously, if I get an estimate, I ask will that resolve my problem. If the say "it's possible" "maybe" or "I believe" it will, I move on to the guy/gal who is more confident in their troubleshooting results... Such weak language from people with higher education should be able to speak with more certainty or at a minimum more conviction than we average chickens.....
The allegation was not that Four Corners negatively affected the air quality or climate. They were not accused of causing Haze, Health issues, Environmental damage or a rise in temperature. The accusation and conclusion was they were not in compliance. The settlement requires four corners to obtain and install the Best catalytic reduction systems Available Retrofit Technology.
There was no requirement to clean up those affected areas, no fund setup to pay for damages or harm to others. No the entire investigation and suit wrapped up with only a settlement requiring further reduction of emissions at their facilities.....
The loosely used term affected, in this case, does not equal a direct effect on the environment outside of their area where it was generated.
quote
By the EPA Four Corners Power Plant Clean Air Act Settlement
(Washington, DC – June 24, 2015) EPA and the Department of Justice announced today a consent decree with Arizona Public Service Company (APS), Southern California Edison (SCE), El Paso Electric Company (El Paso Electric), Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM), Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (Salt River Project), and Tucson Electric Power Company (Tucson Electric Power), (collectively Defendants).
As you pointed out, several states were involved but neither were accused or found to have a directly affected a neighboring states air quality or climate. Each state mentioned was a defendant named in the suit (collectively Defendants).
Next example please,
[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 03-01-2016).]
"SEC. 401. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES. "(a) FINDINGS.-The Congress finds that- "(1) the presence of acidic compounds and their precursors in the atmosphere and in deposition from the atmosphere represents a threat to natural resources, ecosystems, materials, visibility, and public health; "(2) the principal sources of the acidic compounds and their precursors in the atmosphere are emissions of sulfur and nitrogen oxides from the combustion of fossil fuels; "(3) the problem of acid deposition is of national and international significance;
"SEC. 401. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES. "(a) FINDINGS.-The Congress finds that- "(1) the presence of acidic compounds and their precursors in the atmosphere and in deposition from the atmosphere represents a threat to natural resources, ecosystems, materials, visibility, and public health; "(2) the principal sources of the acidic compounds and their precursors in the atmosphere are emissions of sulfur and nitrogen oxides from the combustion of fossil fuels; "(3) the problem of acid deposition is of national and international significance;
