Posts tagged with: environmental protection agency

Blog author: bwalker
Tuesday, July 14, 2015

A Hindu Reflection on Pope’s Climate Change Encyclical
Sunita Viswanath, Huffington Post

Through this Encyclical, the Pope has invited every person on the planet into dialogue on the many pressing ecological issues facing humanity – and their impact on the poorest people of the world. As I read the Ramayana and lose myself in the beautiful descriptions of forests, lakes and roaring confluences of rivers, each such site is revealed to me as holy. I am filled with renewed conviction that the only thing I can do in the face of gargantuan challenges such as global warming and global hunger and poverty is to try and keep my heart as clear as the river where Valmiki bathed, and learn to transform my grief and despair into selfless service (seva).

Pope Francis’ Call for Climate Action
Gina McCarthy, Huffington Post

Earlier this year in a series of meetings at the Vatican on the Encyclical with key Papal advisors, Cardinal Turkson laid out our moral obligation to act on climate change not only from the compelling scientific data, but also from his own firsthand experience in Ghana. The meetings ended with a sense of urgency, but also with a feeling of opportunity and hope.

Boehner versus the pope
Bill Press, The Hill

The pope also condemned capitalism because of its role in development of global warming, thereby putting “at risk our common home, sister and mother earth.” As in his recently published encyclical Laudato Si’, Francis preached that climate change is real, that its primary cause is human activity and that political leaders have a moral duty to do something about it. This certainly won’t sit well with Congress’s Republican posse of climate deniers.

This Catholic supports climate fix
Tom Engelmann, Quad-City Times

Republicans, can you see the reality of what’s happening? Sens. Joni Ernst, Chuck Grassley? I wanted to write before when the Pope’s encyclical came out and the Quad-City Times interviewed the vice-chair of the Scott County Republican party to demonstrate Catholic opposition to the Pope’s words. At that time, the only point he made was the Pope should keep his nose out of politics and stick to morality.


supreme-courtJune is a busy month for the Supreme Court. The Daily Signal has given us a tidy round-up of seven cases to keep an eye on.

Reed v. Town of Gilbert: This is a free speech case. The Good News Community Church in Gilbert, Ariz., uses signage to promote events at the church. The town has codes regarding signage, and the church says they are not fair. For example, the church is allowed to put signs for only 12 hours before their Sunday services. Meanwhile, a real estate agency can post much larger signs for 30 days.

The Supreme Court will decide whether the town’s claim that the ordinance lacks a discriminatory motive is enough to justify its differential treatment of religious signs.


I grew up with the attitude that wealth was measured by whether the sun was shining and the fish were biting and whether my belly was full and the family larder stocked with canned vegetables and fruit as well as fresh meat and poultry raised on our tiny 80-acre farm in Michigan. To quote Dylan Thomas: “And the sabbath rang slowly / In the pebbles of the holy streams.” Certainly there were items and conditions we desired, desires often unmet but with little or no detriment to my siblings and me. When one of us would watch a TV commercial, and lament the absence of any given material possession in our respective lives, our mother would tell us: “If ifs and buts were fudge and nuts we’d all have a Merry Christmas.” For his part, dad would say: “If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.”

These phrases also hold true when applied to the repeated proxy shareholder resolutions of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility. If both my parents still were alive, and the figurative Fern Hill of my youth once again in their possession, I’d suggest to the religious investors of ICCR hold a retreat on the premises. My parents could’ve instructed the good nuns and clergy that their “ifs and buts” and “wishes” related to reducing carbon emissions, if successful, would make energy beggars of us all, reduced to riding horses or bicycles.

Although recent reports indicate U.S. households will spend an estimated average $550 less on gasoline in 2015, ICCR seems to say while endeavoring to drive up energy costs by demanding economically indefensible measures. Among ICCR’s current efforts is backing the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed Clean Power Plan, which aims to cut 30 percent of emissions by electric power plants. (more…)

SCLCLast June the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a rule change on carbon-dioxide emissions that would affect energy producers, especially in states that rely on coal-fired power plants.

The change is being sold as an attempt to curb global warming, though even it’s supporters grudgingly admit it won’t have much, if any, effect. The change is so small—equivalent to a roughly 6 percent cut in overall US emissions, a 1 percent cut in total global emissions—that’s it’s impact may not even be measurable.

One impact that can be measured, though, is the increase in average monthly electricity bills that will be caused by the change. Depending on who you ask, the increase could be anywhere from 6-7 percent (EPA estimates) to 80 percent (National Mining Association estimates).

While all Americans will be impacted by the increase, our most vulnerable neighbors—the poor, the sick, the mentally ill—will be most affected. As civil rights leader Charles Steele, Jr., president and CEO of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, says, Christians should find increased energy costs due to this regulation deeply troubling:


eparulesA few weeks ago I wrote about how some leaders of the religious left were supporting the EPA’s proposed new regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired electric generating units. At the time I wrote, “While there may be some religious liberals who have been duped into thinking the new proposals will actually affect climate change, most are just signaling their allegiance to the Obama administration and the Democratic Party.”

After I wrote that sentence I wondered if I had been too harsh. Was it possible that these liberal religious leaders had looked at the actual evidence and concluded that the changes would indeed affect climate change? It turns out that the answer must be “no.” There is simply no reason to believe the regulations will have an impact. In fact, using a climate model emulator that was in part developed through EPA support, researchers at the CATO Institute found that the new regulations’ effect on climate change is so minuscule as to be almost immeasurable:

frackingA new report by the Environmental Protection Agency finds that one of our cheapest sources of energy may be cleaner than we had previously thought:

The Environmental Protection Agency has dramatically lowered its estimate of how much of a potent heat-trapping gas leaks during natural gas production, in a shift with major implications for a debate that has divided environmentalists: Does the recent boom in fracking help or hurt the fight against climate change?

Oil and gas drilling companies had pushed for the change, but there have been differing scientific estimates of the amount of methane that leaks from wells, pipelines and other facilities during production and delivery. Methane is the main component of natural gas.

The new EPA data is “kind of an earthquake” in the debate over drilling, said Michael Shellenberger, the president of the Breakthrough Institute, an environmental group based in Oakland, Calif. “This is great news for anybody concerned about the climate and strong proof that existing technologies can be deployed to reduce methane leaks.”

The EPA credits stricter regulations, but as Erika Johnsen points out, we should not “overlook the overarching role of the free market in inspiring increased efficiency, innovation, and improved technology.”

As citizens await state decisions on new state EPA “fracking” regulations, many are worried radical environmentalist may compromise a promising opportunity in the development of gas reserves.

Natural gas advocates say radical environmentalists have long demonized the oil industry in their fight against free enterprise. Environmental groups claim fracking techniques to extract natural gas threatens the cleanliness of ground water, but their attacks contradict EPA studies that report there are no proven cases where fracking has contaminated water.

Extreme environmental groups have teamed up with some in the media to push their anti-growth agenda. A Heritage Foundation blog reports,

Environmentalists […] have hijacked media outlets like The New York Times to run biased reports against fracking’s key contributions to America’s current and future energy supplies that would be a tremendous catalyst for the country’s economic recovery.

Though more EPA fracking studies are currently underway, environmentalist accusations contradict solid facts and studies. With almost any human activity, there will be some sort of environmental effect, but the benefits of shale drilling blows the costs out of the water. According to experts, a typical Marcellus Shale well can generate up to $4 million in economic benefits while only creating $14,000 in environmental damage.

If given the chance, the Independent Petroleum Association of America suggests the oil industry has the potential to lift our economy back on its feet again:

Petroleum powers the economy of this nation overall, evidenced by [a] strong correlation between states that have high petroleum use and high output. Petroleum is integral in our daily lives, not just as a fuel, but because it is present in common objects that are crucial to living a high-quality life.

But radical environmental groups often stand in the way. Some of these groups insist on “biological egalitarianism” in which all life forms are considered equal. An Acton publication titled A Biblical Perspective on Environmental Stewardship explains the dangerous connotation of this faulty environmental philosophy:

Instead, this philosophy negates the biblical affirmation of the human person’s unique role as steward and eliminates the very rationale for human care for creation. The quest for the humane treatment of beasts by lowering people to the level of animals leads only to the beastly treatment of humans.

Extreme environmental groups should remember the oil industry is not evil. They fail to see that their radical ideology is hurting the nation’s poor. Increasing oil production can fuel economic growth and provide jobs for the unemployed. To attack the oil industry in such a way is indirectly attacking human development. Cited in Ray Nothstine’s commentary on high gas prices and its impact on the poor are these words from John Paul II,

Besides the earth, man’s principle resource is man himself. His intelligence enables him to discover the earth’s productive potential and the many different ways in which human needs can be satisfied.

Of course, any human action has some effect on the environment; and so we have the responsibility to exercise environmental stewardship rather than prioritizing the fish in the Chesapeake Bay over the welfare of the human person.