Stopping the Regulation of CO2 by the EPA

This is one of those rare moments in history where action must be taken by all concerned citizens.  From now until June 25th is all the time that we have left to stop the EPA from pushing an energy policy that will cut almost 70 GW of electric generating capacity in the US.  That is ~10% of the coal capacity in the United States.  Coal is one of the cheapest methods available to generate electricity and the loss of 10% of the capacity will increase the cost of electricity for everyone.  The impacts of this will ripple throughout the economy.

The Inconvenient Skeptic

Cost for the different types of electrical generation. US. Department of Energy

The alternatives that the warmists push (wind, solar) have an installed capacity of about 50 GW, but it would take more than 200 GW of installed capacity to equal the amount of generation that will be taken off-line by this onerous regulation.  This is simply because of the capacity factor that wind and solar have.  There is no way that the cost of energy will not significantly increase as a result.

Since the EPA regulation will primarily only impact coal plants, I will focus on that only.  Coal in the United States produces 2.1 GT of CO2 on average over the past 5 years.  Nature emits 770 GT of CO2 each year.  So the total emissions of the United States are only 0.2% of what nature emits each year.  Even if the regulation reduces the emissions by coal plants by 15%, the impact on the total carbon cycle will be 0.03% of natural emissions.  Does that really sound like pollution to anyone?

Is it worth further damaging the economy and increasing the price of electricity in this country to cause a change of 0.03% of what nature emits each year?  It is the same industry that produces jobs that will be hit the hardest by this regulation.  The semiconductor industry is EXTREMELY energy intensive.  It takes a lot of electricity to produce every type of semiconductor.  Costs will go up and the expense of keeping jobs in the United States will increase yet again.  This regulation appears to be designed to move even more jobs overseas.  Here is a source for even more economic impact.

What Can You Do?

I have made a guide for how to make your voice heard.  It will take you less than 10 minutes to let the people of the EPA hear your voice on this matter.  The following directions were made from when I made my own comment on this regulation.  Below this there are also instructions for emailing comments to the EPA.

Step 1:

Click here for the website.  Copy and paste this (Docket #):  EPA‐HQ‐OAR‐2011‐0660

into the website as shown here.

The Inconvenient Skeptic

Paste the Docket # into the website

Step 2:

Prepare your comment in advance.  You will only have a short while before you time out.  DON’T send a form letter.  A quick guideline about that is here.  It is your comments and your views that matter, not a mass mail of identical forms.  Make them read what you have to say, not bundle them into a pile of identical submissions.

Click the Comment Now button when you are ready.

Click the Comment Now button as shown here.

Step 3:

Fill in your name or organization.  You can click here to find your representative.  If you prepare a comment ahead of time, past it into the comment section.  Otherwise feel free to type what you want.  There is a 20 minute time limit before it times out.

The Inconvenient Skeptic

If you represent and Organization, use that, but otherwise use your name, or remain anonymous.

Step 4:

Submit your comment before June 25th.  All comments made will be public, so keep that in mind.  Keep the comments on topic.

Comments can also be submitted by these other methods:


ATTN:  Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0660


(202) 566–9744

Attn: Docket ID No.  EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0660.


EPA Docket Center, U.S. EPA,

Mail Code
2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460,

Attn: Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0660.

Please include a total of two copies. In
addition, please mail a copy of your
comments on the information collection
provisions to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: Desk
Officer for EPA, 725 17th St. NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

Here is the full comment that I made to the EPA.


Dear EPA,

According to the NASA Earth Observatory the natural annual carbon cycle of the Earth is 210 Billion metric tons of carbon.  In terms of emissions that is 770 billion tons of CO2 that are naturally emitted each and every year without any contribution by mankind.

In contrast, the United States has produced an average of 2.1 billion tons of CO2 per year by the use of coal.  That accounts for an entire 0.2% of the carbon dioxide that is produced by nature each year.  It is absurd to rule that any emission that stands at 0.2% of the natural emissions could be considered hazardous.

The proposed rule will increase the cost of electricity in the United States by a much greater percentage than it will have an impact on the amount of CO2 that is emitted into the atmosphere.  If the rule manages to reduce CO2 emissions by 15%, then it will have made exactly no measureable impact on the total amount of CO2 that is emitted each year, but it will do so at a significant impact on the installed electric capacity of the United States.  The reduction of ~10% of the total installed conventional electricity will lead to cost increases that could easily exceed 10%.  For instance, the cost of electricity in California has already increased by ~67% since 2000, part of which is due to the limitations placed on electric generation in that state.

The proposed rule will increase the cost, but will have no measurable benefit.  This is bad regulation from beginning to end.  It is regulation based on politics, rather than science.  If this regulation goes into place, everyone will feel the cost impact, but no one will notice the impact that it will have on CO2 in the atmosphere.  This regulation must not be put into place.

John Kehr
Eagle, Idaho


Posted in Bad Science and Causes and Fear and Misinformation and Politics and Politics and Global Warming and Pollution by inconvenientskeptic on May 29th, 2012 at 1:47 am.


This post has 3 comments

  1. I commented on the site – thanks for the information and walkthrough. Your comment is straight-forward, reliable and logical, I hope something gets to them. Here’s what I posted:

    Dear EPA,

    You must surely realize that this is an extremely harmful idea. Even if you believe that our CO2 emissions are causing global warming, you must also realize that this sort of thing will not change anything. The effect of this on the environment will be negligible at best, but it’s effect on people’s lives can be quite severe.

    Decreasing efficiency, raising people’s costs of living, reducing living standards is equivalent to taking a step backwards in the development of our civilization. People who work hard from dusk until dawn to feed their families and raise their children will have their lives made harder. If they want to use less electricity, by all means, may they do so, but forcing this upon them is inhumane and selfish.

    Having a well-paid job, not having to worry too much about bills, being able to go on holiday once, maybe twice a year makes people blind to reality. We mustn’t forget that not everyone can afford laptops, cars and restaurants. People who can afford these things, this rule will probably not bother them very much. But there are a lot of people who will be suffering because of this, you will be essentially punishing innocent people.

    There are many possible reasons for you to be proposing this rule, but you have to bear in mind that one of them is that you are willing to sacrifice the well-being of probably millions of people for something you simply believe in.

    I truly hope you have thought about this from all angles, because I personally would not be able to sleep well at night if I were responsible for this rule seeing the light of day.”

  2. There is a bill in Congress about forcing a vote on large impact regulations such as this one, rather than allowing government agencies to impose them by fiat which in my opinion goes against the constitution. I think appealing to the EPA who are bunch of nutcase zealots is unlikely to have any impact. They could care less about public opinion. But you should write your representatives in Congress to get this bill passed so that at least there will be some accountability to major regulatory moves by the government. Read George Will’s column about it:

  3. inconvenientskeptic Jun 11th 2012


    I agree that the EPA could care less about public opinion, but sufficient force of public opinion will help push congress to make such a change. SOPA was crushed by overwhelming public outrage, such activity can make a difference.

Web Design & Dev by

Mazal Simantov Digital Creativity