The evidence against anthropogenic global warming (Page 564/600)
2.5 FEB 29, 03:09 PM

quote
Originally posted by newf:
If the Federal Government enacts Federal laws they have every right to enforce said laws don't they?



Boy I sure wish they'd figure that out with other things, like immigration for example.
rinselberg FEB 29, 05:33 PM

quote
Originally posted by jmclemore:


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).]

jmclemore MAR 01, 02:12 AM

quote
Originally posted by newf:

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).]

jmclemore MAR 01, 02:36 AM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

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.


rinselberg MAR 01, 06:25 AM
attn: jmclemore

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.


Conservation Groups Ask Federal Agencies to Require Nation's Biggest National Park Polluter to Clean Up
Feb 17, 2010
https://www.npca.org/articl...ire-nation-s-biggest


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.


January 28, 2016
http://insideclimatenews.or...nerating-station-pnm

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.


Final EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) for the Four Corners Power Plant and Navajo Mine Energy Project, May 1, 2015
FIND IT HERE
http://www.wrcc.osmre.gov/i...documentLibrary.shtm

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-01-2016).]

newf MAR 01, 06:42 AM

quote
Originally posted by jmclemore:


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.




So your answer is yes?
jmclemore MAR 01, 11:56 AM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

attn: jmclemore

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).]

jmclemore MAR 01, 12:00 PM

quote
Originally posted by newf:


So your answer is yes?



The Government has no rights.
but that was covered in the quote of me by you....
newf MAR 01, 12:15 PM

quote
"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;



http://www.epa.gov/airmarke...d-deposition-control

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 03-01-2016).]

jmclemore MAR 01, 12:25 PM

quote
Originally posted by newf:

"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;

http://www.epa.gov/airmarke...d-deposition-control




So a four corners plant was found to have created acid rain in another
state or country outside of their state of operation?

[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 03-01-2016).]