Comments on: Setting the Record Straight on the Chamber of Commerce‚Äôs Report The EPA Blog Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:24:21 +0000 hourly 1 By: Alison Wilkins Wed, 02 Jul 2014 05:40:18 +0000 Have to agree with Frank J, we need cleaner energy solutions. Biofuel is an excellent substitute, however has been constantly ignored by energy companies. Yes, initial implementation costs may be an issue but rewards are long term and sustainable. Climate change is a real thing and we need to take action soon, for many it doesn’t seem like a priority now but when it does eventually become a serious problem, it will be too late for corrective measures.

What surprises me more is, there are so many incentives in the form of grants, funding, R&D concessions available for the production of renewable energy solutions. Below are just the very few from the list:

USDA Rural Development Grants:
Google Solar Energy Grants:
US Dept of Energy Funding:
Green Energy Grants:
Dept of Commerce:
Water Energy Grants:

Some incentives in Australia and UK:
Green Deal Energy Fund UK:
Energy Saving Trust:
Business Aid Centre reviews energy grants:
Australian Renewable Energy Grant:
UK Renewable Grants:
Alternative Fuel Grants:

We need to utilise these opportunities and create sustainable alternatives.

By: Frank Joseph Fri, 06 Jun 2014 20:07:19 +0000 Besides investing in more cleaner, renewable and natural resources like solar, wind and hydroelectric to cut carbon emissions which I think is awesome; another feasible answer to our problems could be Industrial Hemp. Power Plants run on coal, oil or natural gas but what about biofuel? Industrial Hemp can be made into a biofuel that cars and even kitchen appliances like stoves can run on. Which is a healthier alternative for the environment and humans as a whole. Just type into your google search bar “industrial hemp turned into biofuel.” This could cut our dependence on importing oil and even stop fracking for other resources, which most find to be an awful practice to begin with. We have more than enough farmland within the United States to successfully grow and produce industrial hemp, which will create new jobs! Besides that, Industrial Hemp can even be made into paper, which saves us from cutting down trees. We all know that trees take in carbon and produce oxygen, which is also the air we breathe.

Food For Thought

By: Christopher Hart Thu, 05 Jun 2014 14:45:34 +0000 Mr. Reynolds,

Please clarify the statement, “And EPA has indicated frequently that CCS would not be considered for existing power plants.” I hope, following the President’s comments that all technologies would be a part of our future energy solution, that the intent of this statement is that CCS would not be required for existing power plants.

Stating that a technology will not be considered, one that many people are heavily vested in and working hard to develop, is regulatory overreach at best, and ethically suspect at the worst. Other technologies, such as nuclear and hydroelectric power generation, seem to be absent from the discussion as well, despite the overwhelming advantage to reducing carbon emissions that they may present.

By: Patrick Gabriel Tue, 03 Jun 2014 20:08:38 +0000 A few years ago, I watched a special documentary on the discovery channel that explained the phases the earths atmosphere goes through every so often that went on over hundred and thousands of years ago, before man made carbon emission sources were a factor and the earth still went through its phases, cool down, wet cycles, storm cycles etc.

So this phenomena isn’t any thing new about the recent cycles the earth goes through, yet without more proof of the extent of mans contribution to this phenomena, we have to endure pain and no gain, and
the earth is going to go on its same old path as show in past articles and scientific evidence set forth.

I am for reasonable, measured/balanced conservation efforts but I think the current proposed measures are extreme and will ultimately
prove futile.
Balance the new source of electricity production first before you go spending money on hampering current electrical production. Good grief, we could be cut short on electrical supply and
rising prices before anything gets done except hurt the consumer and economy.
This sounds like the left hand of government doesn’t know what the right hand is doing and that will be the ultimate catastrophic event.

Your honor, I think we need a new government because the current one is being paid to much and is performing very poorly, not doing their job for the American people.
If the government was run like a business, the whole lot of them would be fired and replaced with qualified people.
God save us from our current oppressor, the US Government.

By: Cindy Stoppa Mon, 02 Jun 2014 20:02:12 +0000 Or we may be spending billions on a solution that won’t mean jack in the big scheme of things, because China is not going to follow our lead. Come on people, let’s wake up…

By: Steven Mon, 02 Jun 2014 19:47:22 +0000 The new EPA guidelines would seem to be one of the most sweeping diktats ever imposed by a bureaucratic agency without explicit congressional authorization. I think that such overreach is going to undermine public support for the EPA, and given that the EPA leadership changes with the end of a presidential term this will introduce considerable uncertainty into energy policy. Moreover, atmospheric CO2 levels are an international problem and require a solution that will be affordable for developing nations, so we should be focused on developing technologies that can achieve real progress. Near term limits on CO2 generation will require expensive changes made from a limited menu of inefficient options and will do little to lead to the types of developments that will enable affordable and feasible global change.

By: Mike R. Mon, 02 Jun 2014 17:23:37 +0000 Actually the science is very clear. Every reputable scientific organization in the world supports the main conclusion of 97% of the worlds climatologists that 1) overall the climate is becoming hotter; 2) the increase of carbon dioxide and methane emissions are the root cause of the temperature rise and, finally, 3) the increase in those emissions is due to the burning of fossil fuels. Oh, and it’s not just EPA’s agenda, it’s also the agenda (although much more aggressive) of most of the European countries.

By: Mike R. Mon, 02 Jun 2014 17:13:26 +0000 Just the response you would expect from the coal industry’s mouthpiece. EPA is taking the first step in a long process to bring us back from the brink of global chaos. A healthy economy depends upon a healthy planet. That has been shown to be true time and again. Fossil fuels like coal are making our planet sick and soon unlivable. How will the economy respond to that?

By: john Mon, 02 Jun 2014 14:26:27 +0000 Hi Wayne

over at the NSA they read all the comments and make sure the IRS audits you if they are not Pro Big Brother and Pro Big Govt.

By: Joe Bastardi Mon, 02 Jun 2014 10:59:03 +0000 This is nonsense. We have record corn yields steadily climbing. Global wheat and rice are climbing Global ACE activity is at record lows. Tornadoes well below normal. Wildfires well below normal yet again Global temps since the PDO flip have started a slow descent as per climate cycle theory. Global sea ice is well above normal. The US generated CFSV2 the climate model is forecasting the arctic ice to be above normal this summer at the height of the melt season due to the AMO starting its shift to colder, the very summer that there was opinion a few years ago the ice cap would be gone. There is no support for trapping hot spots over the tropics, quite the opposite mixing ratios ARE DROPPING INDICATING WET BULBS ARE DROPPING. 90% of the record highs in this country occurred in the 1930s. The palmer drought index was much worse in the 1950s and 1930s. 35 major hurricanes hit the US 1931-1970, since then ( 43 years) ONLY 20. COMPUTER MODELS HAVE BUSTED and solar based models are now showing a descent of temperatures the next 20-30 years. I can go on and on, Your lines of evidence for the endangerment are NOT BACKED BY FACTS.

This is taken apart.. YOUR 3 LINES OF EVIDENCE are plainly wrong.

I am a big supporter of the overall epa mission. Soot and particulate are one thing, a naturally occurring greenhouse gas that is .04% of the atmosphere, 1/100th of the GHG in air that has ONE ONE THOUSANDTH THE HEAT CAPACITY OF THE OCEAN, which are doing exactly what Bill Gray at CSU said 40 years ago , is not pushing the climate arrive
Bills paper, which explained the cyclical nature of the ocean

I have read everything that comes out from your agency. I can come to know other conclusion then this is being driven by an agenda that refuses to pursue the correct answer, but only the answer that you have pre-determined, for fear of losing credibility. This is a shame since the vast good the EPA does is being blown away as your ideas are shackling the very freedoms this country needs to support and agency like yours, and the infrastructure we all know is needed for society. This is a fools errand and is hurting all around them. There is no metric left outside of trying to point out the events that have always occurred and stand out even more today now that we can observe them, and use that as propaganda. I can not believe its come to this