Government Wast at the EPA

Almost $9 million spent on foreign governments to promote Global Warming.

A report by Science and Public Policy.org show the EPA spent $1.9 million promoting the conversation on environmentalism and work for environmental justice. This money was given to 76 not for profit and local governments. 

Reading the report I found that the total listed CUM Award for the 15 foreign grants and the 6 UN grants is $8,886,707. Far grater then the $1.9 million stated in the report. 

Below is the break down of the grants to foreign government/foreign not for profit and, the total value of the grant. See the report at  Science and Public Policy.org.

15 Foreign Grant

Brazil 

Project Title: Methane Atlas Energy Gen. in Brazilian Landfills

Recipient Name:  Abrelp Associacao Brasileira De Empres De Limp Pub

Award Date: 01/08/2011 Cum Award: $160,000

Project Start: 01/08/2011 Project End: 31/01/2013

Colombia

Project Title: Implementation-Methane Usage Systems-Colombia

Recipient Name:  CNPMLTA 

Award Date: 19/03/2009 Cum Award: $64,350

Mongolia

Project Title: Assessmnt-Methane Resources-Agri Wastes-Mongolia

Recipient Name:  Advanced Technology Development Centre

Award Date: 15/08/2011 Cum Award: $90,000

China (10 Grants)

Project Title: Scale-up of Biomass Stoves in Western China

Recipient Name:  China Assoc. of Rural Energy Industry

Award Date: 28/04/2010 Cum Award: $230,000

Project Title: Workshop/Biogas Technology, Policy Development

Recipient Name:  China Biogas Society

Award Date: 31/10/2007 Cum Award: $55,000

Project Title: Coal Mine Methane to Markets Partnership in China

Recipient Name:  China Coal Information Institute 

Award Date: 25/01/2010 Cum Award: $375,000

Project Title: Power Generation Using Low Quality Coal Methane

Recipient Name:  China Coal Information Institute

Award Date: 18/09/2007 Cum Award: $100,000

Project Title: Technical Assessment of Coal Mine Gas Recovery & Utilization in China

Recipient Name:  China Coal Information Institute 

Award Date: 06/08/2010 Cum Award: $180,000

Project Title: Further Promotn-M2M-Coal Sector of China

Recipient Name:  China Coal Information Institute

Award Date: 08/09/2011 Cum Award: $140,000 

Project Title:  Managing Pollution from Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) and Other 

Toxic Substances in China

Recipient Name:  ChinaEPA - China State Env Protection Administration

Award Date: 27/01/2010 Cum Award: $718,000

Project Title: Capacty Bldg-CBM/CMM Devlpmnt & Utilization

Recipient Name:  China University of Petroleum Bejing 

Award Date: 07/04/2011 Cum Award: $199,805

Project Title: Landfill Gas Utilization Feasibility Studies-China

Recipient Name:  China Urban Const Design and Research Academy

Award Date: 09/06/2010 Cum Award: $175,000 

Project Title: CMM Recovery & Utilization Initiative-Guizhou China

Recipient Name:  Guizhou Intl Cooperation Center for Env Protection

Award Date: 02/02/2011 Cum Award: $210,730

Former Soviet States (2 Grants)

 Project Title:  Strengthening the Links Between USA and Central and Eastern Europe on 

Environmental Health Issues.

Recipient Name:  CRERMS 

Award Date: 09/04/2010 Cum Award: $120,651

Project Title: Ventilation Air Methane (VAM) at Russian Coal Mines

Recipient Name:  NPO UGLEMETAN 

Award Date: 20/07/2011 Cum Award: $170,143

6 United Nations Grants 

Project Title: UNEP - Clearing-House/Partnership-Clean Fuel

Recipient Name:  United Nations Environment Programme

Award Date: 21/09/2011 Cum Award: $1,376,841

Project Title: Environmentally Sound Mgmt-Hazardous Waste

Recipient Name:  United Nations Environment Programme 

Award Date: 07/12/2010 Cum Award: $270,000

Project Title: Russian Fed Support to the Natl Prog of Action for Protection of the Arctic

Recipient Name:  United Nations Environment Programme

Award Date: 29/09/2010 Cum Award: $368,300

Project Title: Partnership for Clean Fuels

Recipient Name:  United Nations Environment Programme 

Award Date: 09/07/2008 Cum Award: $1,675,862

Project Title: Promote Environmental Sound Management Worldwide

Recipient Name:  United Nations Environment Programme

Award Date: 13/09/2007 Cum Award: $1,200,000

Project Title:  Developing Product Inventories and a Pollutant Release and Transfer 

Register for Mercury

Recipient Name:  United Nations Institute for Training & Research 

Award Date: 08/04/2011 Cum Award: $1,007,025

US greenhouse gases drop to 15-year low

From the Financial Times

This article from the FT.com tells us that Greenhouse gas emissions in the US has dropped to there lowest level in 15 years.

Not a shock, the lingering recession and the exporting of US manufacturing job to India and China has really helped with our carbon emissions.

It also shows the best path to a greener society is through poverty. To me it looks like the EPA has know this for years, how else can you explain there pursuit of job killing regulation.  

Read more.

I will try to post a link to the full EPA report latter today.

EPA Forced To Admit Jobs Do Not Matter To Them

Ever wonder why manufacturing is moving to China: 

• is it because you are paid to much, 
• is it that your inefficient, 
• is it your to stupid to build these complex new fangled iPads.

No it the government creating rules the kill off our ability to build anything in the US.

You need to watch this video where Rep Cory Gardner tries to find out if the EPA looks at the affect of its proposed rules on Job. It is a shocking exchange of dialog right out of Atlas Shrugged. Ayn Rands horror novel has come true and this is the proof.  

EPA: Breath causes cancer

This is a great one from junkscience.com, it looks like the proposed cancer risk value of 0.008 parts per billionis well below what we produce in our own bodies.
"the World Health Organization] reports people produce formaldehyde in their bodies and exhale it in the range of less than 0.8 to 8 parts per billion. EPA’s proposed cancer risk value of 0.008 parts per billion would suggest that human breath poses an unacceptable risk of cancer; yet, experience and science tell us that couldn’t possibly be the case."

It just makes you wounder. 

Link to American Chemistry Council report on this

EPA Lisa Jackson joins with International Socialists at Energy Action Coalitions Power Shift

On Saturday, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency Lisa Jackson will be giving the keynote speech at the Energy Action Coalition's Power Shift 2011 conference, a meeting of potentially 10,000 green youth activists in Washington, D.C.
According to the schedule, President Obama's former green jobs czar Van Jones will be speaking Friday evening, and members of the International Socialists Organization will be hosting a panel discussion Saturday:

Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/04/13/epa-administrator-speak-youth-climate-conference-van-jones-and-intern#ixzz1JUVc5MX0

Senate rejects attempt to control the EPA on climate regulation

On April 6 the senate shot down attempts to control the EPA from destroying the US economy. This is unfortunate news for those looking for work in this economy.

There is some good news in this vote in the fact that a majority of Senators voted to restrain the EPA in some form. Several bills were voted on that would block the EPA's goals to regulate carbon emissions, in total 16 Democrats voted to block the EPA in its global warming goals.

Looks like there starting to get the message.

EPA’s mercury-heart disease claim debunked

A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine today debunks the EPA-claimed link between exposure to mercury and cardiovascular disease.

The study abstract can be found here. 

This study is important as it debunks part of the EPA’s rationale for its recently proposed clamp down on mercury and other emissions from power plants.

Click here for the proposed rule excerpt in which the EPA discusses its view of the methymercury-heart disease data.

Can we trust the EPA?

Is the EPA pretending air pollution is worse than it is? The people at JunkScience.com think so. Take a look at there responce to the EPA's claim that they are saving money and lives with the Clean Air act. Below is Junk Science executive summary this is the link to there full report.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to tighten air quality standards at considerable societal expense under the guise that new standards are necessary to protect public health. Focusing on the EPA’s proposed Clean Air Transport Rule (CATR), this analysis shows that:

• America’s air is already safe to breathe and it is much better than the EPA would have the public believe; and that
• The EPA relies on health studies that exaggerate harm and economic studies that understate regulatory costs in order to maintain the fiction that its ever-more stringent regulations are providing meaningful public health benefits.

Some of this analysis’ notable points include:

• Among the 32 Midwest and Eastern states that would be covered by the CATR, the daily air quality standard for fine particulate matter (i.e., soot) was violated less than one-tenth of a percent of the time (0.096%) in 2009.
• According to the most recent data for ground-level ozone (i.e., smog), the 8-hour ozone standard was violated only 1.3 percent of the time in the 32 CATR states.
• There is no tangible scientific evidence that current air quality standards are not already more than sufficiently protective of public health. Data has been hidden from the public by the agency and by a clique of EPA-funded researchers. The EPA’s scientific research has not been systematic or comprehensive despite the availability of data to the agency. Purported links between exposures to particulate matter and ground-level ozone, and health effects range from the entirely hypothetical to the subclinical (i.e., temporary changes that are physiologically detectable, but not otherwise meaningful).
• EPA’s economic analysis of its air quality rules is utterly fantastic. The EPA claims, for example, that the estimated $7 billion in one-time costs of the CATR may produce economic benefits that equate to as much as $840 billion annually or 5.7 percent of U.S. GDP for 2009. The EPA claims that its implementation of the Clean Air Act produces monetized health benefits amounting to $1.3 trillion annually, or about 9 percent of 2009 U.S. GDP.
• There is no meaningful or independent oversight of the EPA’s implementation of the Clean Air Act by Congress or the courts.

Congress should amend the Clean Air Act to better manage the current state of U.S. air quality, instead of allowing the EPA to pretend that it is still 1970 and air quality is poor and emissions are unregulated.