Or there children.

Poor little eaglings . . .

food for wolves... 😞

And their children.

The circle of life . . . .
Windmills . . . .

I can hear Boehner crying -

🤣

Al Gore hates bald eagles.... 😠

GOP lawmakers accuse EPA of muzzling scientists on climate regulations
Published December 20, 2013

Republican leaders on the House Science Committee are accusing the Environmental Protection Agency of disregarding science in its push to impose carbon dioxide limits on power plants.

Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, and 20 other Republican lawmakers sent a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on Thursday, claiming the agency has "muzzled" members of its independent science advisory board.

The EPA released a proposal in September that would set emissions caps for new coal-fired power plants and would likely require the industry to use carbon-capture technology, which involves burying the carbon underground.

Critics of the proposed rule say the technology, which is still under development, is too expensive, not commercially available and poses safety risks.

The lawmakers claim the agency is ignoring dissenting voices on its science advisory board, which recommended a review of the science underpinning the newest power plant rule.

A senior official at EPA recently deflected the scientists' criticisms by claiming that the rule, which has yet to be finalized, doesn't need to address carbon dioxide storage, the lawmakers said.

“We are concerned about the agency’s apparent disregard for the concerns of its science advisors,” the lawmakers wrote. “Science is a valuable tool to help policymakers navigate complex issues. However, when inconvenient facts are disregarded or when dissenting voices are muzzled, a frank discussion becomes impossible."

The agency maintains the carbon-capture technology has been "adequately demonstrated" based on a government-funded projects under construction in Mississippi and three planned projects in Texas, California and Canada.

The lawmakers said the proposed mandates in the rule would "create regulatory burdens" and "litigation risks" for the coal industry and would result in the loss of American jobs.

“The EPA’s proposed power plant regulations will put Americans out of work and will make electricity more expensive and less reliable," the lawmakers wrote. "It is misleading and dangerous for EPA to quietly dismiss inconvenient facts and ignore the consequences of its costly regulations. Americans deserve honesty.”

In October, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., released draft legislation to block the EPA's proposal to limit emissions from new power plants and require the agency to set new rules that incorporate "commercially feasible" technologies.

The Manchin-Whitfield proposal has yet to be officially introduced.


Film at 11.... 😟

"Hillary, if you run on the Anti-Man Bear Pig platform you'll definitely win the Democratic nomination. Excelsior!"

Al Gore [gonzo]

Pollution?
If pollution is so bad, then why hide behind the title of global warming?
Just tell me that we should clean our air. Get rid of pollution. Give a hoot, and all.

Don't ram-rod the wind turbines and solar panels produced by political supporters down our throats.

Who gains? Is that a serious question?

Uh, because of the metric system?
JK

They call it global warming (now climate change) to focusing the attention on the permanent long term damage to the environment. "Pollution" summons up images of a kid tossing a paper cup out the window - read "no big deal".

Really I don't think if could be much clearer - I am surprised that you would not have it clearly in your mind that this is pollution we are talking about.

All I'm saying is that for every truth we hear a series of lies.
You say "now" it's called climate change? Hell, it was climate change back in the 70's when the world was afraid of "global cooling". A "new ice age" was threatened.

But more on point, you ask "who benefits" from the government lies?
Look no further than Cap and Trade: Rich nations funneling billions into poor countries.
Now ask yourself: Who would want to redistribute the wealth in this manner??

Man made pollutants are bad for the environment. You can say it's permanent, but it's probably not. A single volcanic eruption can disperse worse havoc than decades of oil burning. Yet the world survives.
But I'm not suggesting that we simply burn more oil because we can.
If we invented a means to burn fossil fuels with zero emissions it would still be imperative to move towards renewable energy.
It will happen, and should be encouraged.

But fear mongering and saying "it's for the children" is not the way to achieve a working solution.