The EPA vs. farmers

oilseedsEPA’s appetite for control appears insatiable.

Indeed, EPA is poised to apply obscure provisions of its energy-sapping “Clean Power Plan” to impose fuzzy “sustainability” standards on farmers.

EPA now wants to count “biogenetic CO2” emissions. These emissions are not from power plants, but from agricultural products such as grains and oilseeds that contain biogenetic carbon – carbon which comes from the atmosphere and returns to the atmosphere when these products are consumed.

These natural emissions do not increase overall atmospheric CO2 and should not be looked at as CO2 from fossil fuels. But that is exactly what the EPA plans to do.

CFACT senior policy analyst Bonner Cohen explains this latest EPA overreach at CFACT.org:

“By appointing itself the biogenetic overlord of American farmers, EPA, not for the first time, is engaging in ‘mission creep.’ It is intruding on bureaucratic territory that has traditionally belonged to the Department of Agriculture. As Brian Seasholes, a former research fellow at the Reason Foundation, pointed out in a recent email, ‘The growing reach of land-use-control laws, coupled with increasingly aggressive pressure groups looking to find regulatable things on people’s land, and the growing power of remote sensing devices (satellite and drone imagery) is a massive and growing threat to landowners.’”

The concept of “sustainability” arises from the “Earth Summit” the UN held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 (CFACT was there as a watchdog!) and the UN’s “Agenda 21” scheme that flowed from it.

In practice, this ill-defined term means giving the Green-Left whatever new control over our economy it desires.  EPA should not be playing this game.

If EPA and its ideological soul mates truly cared about “sustainability,” they would support our free-market system and the science-based modern agriculture it has produced.

Instead, they seem more intent on plowing under our nation’s farmers with more junk science and unfruitful red tape.

For nature and people too.

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (2)

  • Avatar

    Steven

    |

    This is a bizarre bit of overreach by the EPA.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Charles Hagley

    |

    CO2 needs to be removed from the EPA’s purview and recognized as being plant food. We need more, not less CO2 as we move into Maunder Minimum 2.0. With more CO2, plants are more tolerant to both warm and cool ends of their temperature tolerance and require less nutrients and water to grow.

    No gas at any concentration in the atmosphere can detectably warm Earth’s climate. Claiming so is junk science and fraud. Even if greenhouse gases did exist (they really do not), warmed air near the surface, which also picks up water vapor, has decreased density and rises by convection (water vapor also decreases the air density). The warm air rises, undergoes adiabatic cooling, and condenses at altitude to form clouds; cool rain then falls back to the surface. This is a huge heat engine—the water cycle—which carries about 85% of the surface energy budget away from the surface to altitude. When the climate warms a bit, this heat engine ramps up as a huge negative feedback mechanism.

    Earth’s main long-term climate is determined by Earth’s orbit, various orbital and rotational parameters (Milankovich Cycles), and the Sun’s activity. That climate is then modulated in the shorter term by ocean cycles, such as the PDO and AMO, and what appears to be heat flux from the ocean bottom that creates the El Nino/La Nina heat injections. As the Sun appears to be going into a form of hibernation, Earth’s main climate is going to be turned cooler for a while.

    It is important to point out that the water cycle, which is taught to all US grade school children, is notably missing or given almost no weight in the global computer models and the reports of the IPCC. This is a purposeful oversight as the alarmists insist that water vapor acts as a positive feedback mechanism to any possible warming CO2 might cause. They know that CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas and had to alter a physical constant for CO2 by 12-fold to make it more effective. Then, they literally fabricated the (unwritten) assumption that water vapor is effectively enslaved by CO2’s warming effects such that more warming means more water vapor which means more warming which means … ad nauseous, inventing the run away greenhouse effect, which does not exist, even on Venus (venus is not a greenhouse in any way).

    From the above it is easy to see that the fraudulent positive feedback effect would only serve to ramp up the water cycle and dissipate the energy to space when the water vapor condenses and releases its latent heat.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Loading Disqus Comments ...

No Trackbacks.