GOP plans strategy to stymie EPA

	Dec 1, 2010	Politico
	Robin Bravender Get ready for a string of up-or-down votes on the Obama administration's environmental record. Republicans plotting their offensive against the Obama administration's environmental policies are eyeing a powerful weapon that would force the Democratic-held Senate to schedule votes on nullifying controversial regulations. GOP lawmakers say they want to upend a host of Environmental Protection Agency rules by whatever means possible, including the Congressional Review Act, a rarely used legislative tool that allows Congress to essentially veto recently completed agency regulations. The law lets sponsors skip Senate filibusters, meaning Republicans don't have to negotiate with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) for a floor vote or secure the tricky 60 votes typically needed to do anything in the Senate. The House doesn't have the same expedited procedures, but it's assumed the GOP majority would have little trouble mustering the votes needed to pass disapproval resolutions. A spate of contentious EPA rules that are soon to be finalized could be prime targets, including the national air quality standard for ozone, toxic emission limits for industrial boilers and a pending decision about whether to regulate coal ash as hazardous waste. "We're not going to let EPA regulate what they've been unable to legislate. And if I'm chairman, we're going to have a very aggressive, proactive schedule," Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), the likely incoming chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, told POLITICO. Upton said specific legislative plans won't be made for the Energy and Commerce Committee until the fight for the chairmanship shakes out. Rep. Joe Barton of Texas and several other Republicans are challenging Upton for the slot. Once the chairmanship is nailed down, "then we will launch a full offensive," Upton said. As far as specific options, he said, "the Congressional Review Act certainly is a good one." But the law comes with complications. For one thing, direct attacks against the administration's policies would certainly face White House opposition and difficulty getting the two-thirds vote needed in both chambers to overcome a veto. And it might look bad politically to be seen as simply undoing environmental regulations with no replacement or direction. "It's kind of a blunt instrument," a former House Republican aide said of the review act. "Whatever it is you're doing, you're knocking it out of the box. That doesn't necessarily get you the right policy result." And Republican efforts to demonize EPA could come back to bite them, a former Senate Democratic staffer said. "The risk in that strategy is being seen as politically motivated even though public health is at stake." The review act has been successful only once since it was enacted in 1996. In 2001, the Republican-controlled Congress voted to overturn the Clinton administration's ergonomics rule. The resolution was signed by incoming President George W. Bush. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) attempted to use it in June to block EPA climate regulations, but her resolution narrowly failed to clear the chamber by a vote of 47-53 after a furious lobbying effort from the White House and Democratic leadership. Several moderate Democrats were placated by a promise to hold a vote on a two-year delay of the EPA climate rules, which has yet to be scheduled. Matt Dempsey, spokesman for Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), predicted several Democrats would join the GOP in voting to roll back energy regulations. "Democrats received the message loud and clear about the Obama agenda" after this fall's election, he said. "I wouldn't be surprised at all if Democrats joined Republicans in stopping some of these regulations coming down the pike." Jeff Holmstead, an industry attorney and former EPA air chief during the George W. Bush administration, said the mere threat of a congressional vote could prod EPA to issue less aggressive rules. "In some ways, the threat of the CRA may be just as useful as actually doing a resolution of disapproval because if the White House believes that a rule is controversial enough or may be controversial enough, they certainly don't want to be in a position to have to veto," he said. "I think they are certainly and legitimately concerned about being viewed as anti-industry and anti-business." Republicans are also considering efforts to force the administration to win congressional approval before major rules are final. Upton suggested such an approach in an October Washington Times op-ed. "Federal government agencies have overstepped their authority and have not been held accountable for their aggressive actions," he wrote. "No significant regulation should take effect until Congress has voted to approve it and the president has had an opportunity to approve or veto congressional action." One option being floated is to reform the Congressional Review Act to force lawmakers to endorse major rules before they take effect, said industry attorney Scott Segal. "In essence, for some smaller category of regulations, the burden of proof would be reversed relative to the existing CRA," he said. "Such a proposal has analogs in certain states and would be consistent with several of the 2010 campaign themes: smaller government, economic recovery and forcing elected officials to take responsibility for the actions of government," Segal said. While a direct assault on environmental regulations might not work, Republicans and EPA foes have other weapons at their disposal. A popular strategy in both chambers next year will be to choke off funding for contentious EPA regulations, including efforts to address global warming. "You're going to see House Republicans aggressively oppose efforts through the front door or the back door to implement a national energy tax, which continues to be the president's approach to energy," Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), former House GOP Conference chairman and a possible 2012 presidential candidate, told POLITICO. "We think that's the wrong approach, and you'll see House Republicans use the power of the purse to prevent any regulatory effort to implement that," Pence added. During this year's markup of EPA's annual spending bill, House members defeated several amendments aimed at limiting EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. "I suspect we will have more success with that type of thing in this coming session," said Idaho Rep. Mike Simpson, the top Republican on the House subcommittee that oversees EPA's spending. "There's obviously concern about EPA regulating greenhouse gases." Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), seeking to reclaim the Appropriations Committee chairmanship, said this week the panel "will be exercising its prerogative to withhold funding for prospective EPA regulations and defund through the rescissions process many of those already on the books." Other "must-pass" bills could be used to attack EPA, as well. "The most dangerous, or draconian, scenario would be one in which a rider prohibiting any EPA spending on climate issues is attached to, say, DOD appropriations," the former Democratic aide said, because the administration would face a tough political choice over whether to veto the massive spending bill. EPA officials and greens have warned that the impending campaigns against EPA rules pose a threat to public health, and the White House has consistently opposed efforts to hamstring the agency. "This comes back to public health. It's extremely important for EPA to base its decisions on the best science, to be in concert with the law," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said Monday during a panel discussion. "The environment is not a partisan issue," she added. "It shouldn't be." And the environmental community plans to fight "tooth and nail" against any efforts to stymie EPA regulations, said Joe Mendelson, director of global warming policy at the National Wildlife Federation. "In the end, we don't think they will prevail, because when faced with a vote between more pollution [and] protecting public health, public health will win." Darren Samuelsohn contributed to this report.

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com

Steven Chu, Department of Energy-CSpan Nov 29, 2010

Information Provided by:Scotty,Scott's Contracting GREEN BUILDER, St Louis Renewable Energy Missouri-http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com- contact scottscontracting@gmail.com for additional information or to Schedule a "Free Green Site Evaluation" Home Repair and Green Building Specialist!!!

Steven Chu Depart of Energy-

About This Video

Run time: 59 minutes
Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy, will talk about accelerating innovation to help meet our energy and climate goals at a National Press Club luncheon on Monday, November 29. As United States Secretary of Energy, Chu, is charged with helping implement President Obama’s agenda to invest in clean and renewable energy, end the nation’s addiction to foreign oil and address the global climate crisis. Chu was co-winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1997. Prior to his appointment, Chu was director of DOE’s Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, and professor of physics and molecular and cell biology at the University of California. Previously, he held positions at Stanford University and AT&T Bell Laboratories.

All Republicans in Office Take Heed-Science the GOP can't wish away

 Global Warming and Climate Change is Science the GOP can’t wish away-  Step away from the Monetary Feed Trough filled by Big Oil and Big Coal

Suggestions for the Republicans in Office:

1. Get with the Program and push yourself away Monetary Feed Trough; supported by the Big Oil and Big Coal Campaign Donations, it is clouding your Judgment on Global Warming / Climate Change.
• The Fog in your Head is being caused by the CO2 emissions from Fossil Fuels
  
• The Donations have Clearly Altered Your Perceptions that: Fossil Fuels are not Destroying our Planet.
• If you think God will save us like Republican John Shimkus-Joke of the Day- Rep J Shimkus believes god will save us from Global Warming-- I'd like to introduce you too Reality- "The World is Warming at an Alarming Rate" see the Following Web Links
  
• global warming (3)
• Global Warming Basics for Research (1)
• Global Warming Research (1)
2. See for Your Self and determine which Politician in your States Elected Officials-  whose side of the Bread gets Buttered by the Big Oil and Big Coal Companies at: http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=congress (Missouri's Roy Blunt made the Top 5.  (That's sure something to be proud of-NOT!))
   
3. If you think the USA does not want Clean Energy for Homes and Business- Take note of the Nov 2, 2010 Election and the Clean Green Energy-http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_7_%282008%29
4. It obvious that the Republican Party is not interested in Creating Jobs-yet so many Americans are out of Work-WTF?  Is not a portion of your Pay Check created by the Taxes levied against our Pay Checks? Maybe Americans should claim Exempt on their W4's?
   
5. Food For Thought: What if the Political Leaders Pay Checks were determined by the Performance of their Actions or Lack of Actions in the Congress and Senate.  I bet many would be singing a different tune.
   
6. Mark my Words: Lack of Bi-Partisanship  will be a factor in the Next Election
7. Republicans supposedly support Business Growth- How much will a Business Grow if the Un-Employed can't buy any products?
   

I encourage everyone to contact your Leaders in the House and Senate, use the following web link to find your Elected Officials Contact Information and Let them know your Thoughts.  They are supposed to Listen to their Constituents. 

Science the GOP can't wish away

By Sherwood Boehlert

Friday, November 19, 2010 

Watching the raft of newly elected GOP lawmakers converge on Washington, I couldn't help thinking about an issue I hope our party will better address. I call on my fellow Republicans to open their minds to rethinking what has largely become our party's line: denying that climate change and global warming are occurring and that they are largely due to human activities.


National Journal reported last month that 19 of the 20 serious GOP Senate challengers declared that the science of climate change is either inconclusive or flat-out wrong. Many newly elected Republican House members take that position. It is a stance that defies the findings of our country's National Academy of Sciences, national scientific academies from around the world and 97 percent of the world's climate scientists.

.

• Why do so many Republican senators and representatives think they are right and the world's top scientific academies and scientists are wrong? I would like to be able to chalk it up to lack of information or misinformation.

I can understand arguments over proposed policy approaches to climate change. I served in Congress for 24 years. I know these are legitimate areas for debate. What I find incomprehensible is the dogged determination by some to discredit distinguished scientists and their findings.

In a trio of reports released in May, the prestigious and nonpartisan National Academy concluded that "a strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems."

• Our nation's most authoritative and respected scientific body couldn't make it any clearer or more conclusive.

When I was chairman of the House Committee on Science, top scientists from around the world came before our panel. They were experts that Republicans and Democrats alike looked to for scientific insight and understanding on a host of issues. They spoke in probabilities, ranges and concepts - always careful to characterize what was certain, what was suspected and what was speculative. Today, climate scientists - careful as ever in portraying what they know vs. what they suspect - report that the body of scientific evidence supporting the consensus on climate change and its cause is as comprehensive and exhaustive as anything produced by the scientific community.

While many in politics - and not just of my party - refuse to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change, leaders of some of our nation's most prominent businesses have taken a different approach. They formed the U.S. Climate Action Partnership. This was no collection of mom-and-pop shops operated by "tree huggers" sympathetic to any environmental cause but, rather, a step by hard-nosed, profit-driven capitalists. General Electric, Alcoa, Duke Energy, DuPont, Dow Chemical, Ford, General Motors and Chrysler signed on. USCAP, persuaded by scientific facts, called on the president and Congress to act, saying "in our view, the climate change challenge will create more economic opportunities than risks for the U.S. economy."

There is a natural aversion to more government regulation. But that should be included in the debate about how to respond to climate change, not as an excuse to deny the problem's existence. The current practice of disparaging the science and the scientists only clouds our understanding and delays a solution. The record flooding, droughts and extreme weather in this country and others are consistent with patterns that scientists predicted for years. They are an ominous harbinger.

The new Congress should have a policy debate to address facts rather than a debate featuring unsubstantiated attacks on science. We shouldn't stand by while the reputations of scientists are dragged through the mud in order to win a political argument. And no member of any party should look the other way when the basic operating parameters of scientific inquiry - the need to question, express doubt, replicate research and encourage curiosity - are exploited for the sake of political expediency. My fellow Republicans should understand that wholesale, ideologically based or special-interest-driven rejection of science is bad policy. And that in the long run, it's also bad politics.

What is happening to the party of Ronald Reagan? He embraced scientific understanding of the environment and pollution and was proud of his role in helping to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals. That was smart policy and smart politics. Most important, unlike many who profess to be his followers, Reagan didn't deny the existence of global environmental problems but instead found ways to address them.

The National Academy reports concluded that "scientific evidence that the Earth is warming is now overwhelming." Party affiliation does not change that fact.


The writer, a Republican, represented New York's 24th District in Congress from 1983 to 2007. He is a special adviser to the Project on Climate Science.


--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http:scottscontracting.wordpress.com

Additional Reading:
Decision Points, Climate Change Reconsidered: The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science, The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change: A Guide to the Debate

Part 1-Get the Most Out-Put from Your HVAC System- 1 of 7 Part Series, saving $ on Home Energy Use

In this 7 part series on Saving Money on Home Energy Use-age is brought to you in conjunction with: Dariusz Rudnicki.  Part 1 of 7 Maximizing your HVAC System Efficiency

Maximizing Your HVAC System Efficiency

Energy is not just the monthly bill you have to pay each month; it is the foundation of everything you do and the life to everything you have. 

But with the increasing cost of energy, it cannot be denied that we need to take important measures to limit our energy consumption.

Saving energy becomes a must and a habit that everyone should seriously adapt.

Let us break apart a typical household monthly energy bill (the following are just approximate numbers); 

43% goes to the heating and cooling systems  37% goes to lighting, electronics and other appliances  12% goes to heating the water  8% goes to the refrigerator  Take note of this power distribution to know where exactly you can maximize your savings. Since over 40% of your energy bill goes for your heating and cooling systems, let me show you how to maximize your savings here: 1.  Have your heating and air conditioning system serviced by a known and TRUSTED professional on (at least) a seasonal basis - this will help to lower energy cost and it will keep you safe! Remember - a TRUSTED professional, ask around - check this post - http://www.checkthishouse.com/furnace-ac-seasonal-inspection-do-you-trust-your-hvac-guy.html If you have a 15-20+ year old forced air gas furnace, ask for its heat exchanger evaluation! Compromised heat exchangers may lead to Carbon Monoxide Poisoning. I highly recommend following those two links:  Where to Install Carbon Monoxide Alarm  Carbon Monoxide Alarm Maintenance and Testing 2.  Clean (if they are the cleanable type) or replace your air filters every one to four months - this time span depends on the filter type installed in your forced air HVAC system.  A contaminated air filter blocks air flow and forces the system to work much harder in order to provide the same output. You might have your HVAC system air filter access installed in your attic or crawlspace and you don't even remember that it needs replacement on a regular basis. Replacing your HVAC system air filter on regular basis can lower your monthly heating / AC bill by up to 25%.  3.  Clean baseboard heaters, radiators, air ducts, and air registers as often as necessary; make sure that they are working properly. Ensure that they are not blocked by drapes, carpeting, and / or furniture.  If you have furry pets in your home, your cleaning efforts will need to double or even triple.  4.  Bleed air from the hot water heating system radiators before and during the heating season to maximize their performance. Touch their surface, heat should be distributed evenly.  If they are cold or lukewarm, make sure that their valves are fully open, and if that does not help - bleed the air. 5.  Always set the thermostat at a comfortable level - do you really need to make a freezer out of your home and wear a sweater during the summer?  Are you opening the windows during the winter because it is too hot in your home? 6.  Make sure the thermostat is free of dust and installed in a strategic location - far from heat sources, door / window openings and ventilation ports.  Utilize programmable type thermostats - they are not much more expensive (some even cheaper) than the regular, old fashioned ones, and they can save you up to $180 in yearly heating and air conditioning bills.  7.  Prepare the humidifier(s) before the cold season. Properly operating whole house units that are attached to the central air heating system make your life more comfortable.  By slightly increasing the humidity in your home, you will be able to lower the thermostat temperature, while still feeling comfortable and saving energy at the same time. However, not every humidifier will save you money - do some research and pick Energy Star rated humidifiers. I can personally recommend one by Desert Spring; it is extremely energy efficient and performs well in my house - this is going to be its third winter. Honeywell TrueSTEAM whole house humidifiers are also a great choice.  Keep the humidity level below 50% to avoid condensation buildup and mold growth - you should be OK at the 35%-40% level. 8.  Clean the AC condenser and the "A" coil as needed - this will dramatically improve their efficiency, thus lowering your energy bill. 9.  Make sure that the immediate area surrounding your AC condenser is open - no shrubs, vines, or anything else blocking air movement. Putting a deck over your AC condenser is not a good idea, either. 10.  If you are planning to upgrade your HVAC system, do some research first. Look for the Energy Star label when choosing your appliance. All of the above will save you a lot of cash every month and you can do it with little or no money out of your pocket... well, except for a professional servicing of your HVAC equipment.  Look out for the Part 2 of "How to Instantly Reduce Typical Household Energy Consumption" E-Course coming to you in a few days. I will be talking about making your house shine for 1/4 of your current cost.  For more details about HVAC energy savings and tons of other energy saving tips that will immediately and dramatically improve your home's efficiency, check my 100% Risk-Free E-Book - "How to Instantly Reduce Typical Household Energy Consumption" http://typicalhouseholdenergyconsumption.checkthishouse.com Best Regards,  Dariusz Rudnicki

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com