Archive for the ‘EPA’ Tag


Want to know what the EPA manipulation of the Pebble Mine permitting process has cost Alaska?

The Alaska Dispatch News ran a great article this weekend on it.

A year after Pebble, Iliamna Lake communities adjust to a new normal

Essentially, it’s gutted the economy of the area and left people who aren’t set netters or trawlers without any future.

Way to go, EPA and the Greenpeace-funded Bristol Bay Forever crowd.

State of Alaska — what are you going to do about it?



Fairbanks utility chief says EPA emissions rule could cost ratepayers   Leave a comment

Fairbanks utility chief says EPA emissions rule could cost ratepayers – Fairbanks Daily News-Miner: Local News.

Of course, it’s no reason for Mr. Borgeson to worry. His electricians are being paid nearly $43 an hour. For those of us currently paying $250 a month electric bills on considerably smaller salaries, it’s something to worry about.

Fairbanks, when are we as a community going to say “Go pond sand, EPA! You don’t live here, you don’t understand the challenges here and carbon emissions are faulty science anyway. Go back to DC and worry about your own air quality and let us balance our concerns between staying warm in the winter and having healthy air to breathe.”

But of course, we won’t do that until they can no longer hold highway funds over our heads.

Pebble suing EPA over steps that could bar mine   Leave a comment

Pebble suing EPA over steps that could bar mine – Fairbanks Daily News-Miner: Alaska News.

The saga continues ….

Nobody is talking about developing an unsafe mine. All of us what a mine that is safe for the environment, but the environmentalists are insisting that the mine must be absolutely safe with no impacts on the environment at all.

Extremism is no way to run a government agency and the EPA is in thrall to the extremists.

Posted May 22, 2014 by aurorawatcherak in Alaska

Tagged with , , ,

Pebble cites EPA emails in claim assessment was biased – Alaska Journal of Commerce – May Issue 3 2014 – Anchorage, AK   Leave a comment

Pebble cites EPA emails in claim assessment was biased – Alaska Journal of Commerce – May Issue 3 2014 – Anchorage, AK.

For the record, I support Bristol Bay fishing as well as Pebble Mine. I do not believe they are mutually exclusive. Until the full environmental assessment is done on Pebble there is no reason to suppose that the mine is a danger to the fishery. The end of this article tries to boost the value of the Bristol Bay fishery. I do not argue with the numbers, but add to them so that readers can understand why Alaskans should support Pebble and not be in a lather about Bristol Bay fishing. It does not provide that many jobs for Alaskans. The majority of the permits are let to West Coast outfits.

From the 2013 Bristol Bay Economic Report, authored by the Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska-Anchorage:

  • About one-third of Bristol Bay fishermen and two-thirds of Bristol Bay processing workers live in West Coast states (not Alaska).
  • Almost all major Bristol Bay processing companies are based in Seattle (not Alaska).
  • Most of the supplies and services used in fishing and processing are purchased in Washington state (not Alaska).
  • Significant secondary processing of Bristol Bay salmon products occurs in Washington and Oregon (not Alaska).

There are about 3000 seasonal jobs created in Alaska by the Bristol Bay fisheries. Unfortunately, many of these workers are from other states because the Seattle-based boat captains and processors put the call out at the University of Washington rather than University of Alaska-Fairbanks. I tried for three years in a row to get a job on a processor back in college and never even got a call back. Meanwhile, I had three cousins out of Seattle working in Bethel. My daughter tried a couple of years ago and was told by State employment that she had to go to a website and compete with out-of-state workers.

There will be at least 1000 year-round  jobs created in Alaska by Pebble. Year-round means Alaskan-based. Alaskan-based workers spend their money in Alaska, not Seattle.

Point-Counterpoint: Murkowski wrong to take on EPA over Pebble   Leave a comment

Also from the Anchorage Daily News.

Chip Treinen makes some salient points, but what he fails to understand is that the regulatory process is already so enthrall to the special-interest evironmental groups that it has refused to even employ the regulatory process and allow Pebble Mine a fair science-based hearing in a neutral system.

Point-Counterpoint: Murkowski right to take on EPA   Leave a comment

From the Anchorage Daily News

I’m not a fan of Princess (Senator) Lisa Murkowski, but she’s been doing the right thing on these issues.

Official: Fairbanks making progress toward federal pollution standards – Fairbanks Daily News-Miner: Local News   Leave a comment

Official: Fairbanks making progress toward federal pollution standards – Fairbanks Daily News-Miner: Local News.

The ever-increasing loss of liberty from the nanny state in the name of good health. Ah! Smell the tyranny!

Heating our homes is not optional for Alaskans. We die within hours if we don’t heat our homes. Yet the EPA wants to restrict the only affordable heating option left for us since the price of home heating diesel went through the roof. We do not yet have natural gas and it will be at least five years before we do, IF we can afford to convert and furnace conversions are pricey.

The science is not settled on PM 2.5. In fact, the environmental scientists say that diesel and gasoline from cars are a greater contributor to PM 2.5 than wood burning is … but that doesn’t stop the nanny staters from insisting that they just want “reasonable” reductions for the “health of the community.”

Freezing to death is unhealthy. Starving to death because you can afford to heat your home and feed your family is also unhealthy. The wood we burn in our home woodstoves will not be contributing to the forest fires in the summer. You would have to breath deeply outside for 22 hours during one of our extreme smoke forest fire days in the summer to inhale as much PM 2.5 as the average smoker takes in from a single cigarette.

But pay no attention to these inconvenient facts.

Posted March 26, 2014 by aurorawatcherak in Alaska

Tagged with , , , , ,

Guest: New EPA emission standards would hurt short-sea shipping | Opinion | The Seattle Times   Leave a comment

Guest: New EPA emission standards would hurt short-sea shipping | Opinion | The Seattle Times.

Considering Pebble Mine   Leave a comment

Let’s remember that the mine report is not yet completed or submitted and no application for permit has been filed, but that the EPA has already published its “final” report on the subject insisting that mining anywhere near Bristol Bay is just too dangerous to contemplate. Pay no attention to the science or the safeguards that will be employed. We’re going to make up our minds before we have any actual evidence to the contrary.

So, this is my thought on that subject.

1 Bumper Sticker Mining

Go on! Do an inventory of everything you use every day and prove me wrong!

Please kindly remember all the minerals that went into building the computer you are reading this on.

Skewed Benefits   Leave a comment

The Obama Administration has defended the high costs of its regulations by pointing to the projected benefits of the rules. Okay, I like benefits, but the total burden of regulation is a concern independent of benefits. Regulatory costs are like federal spending: Even if the benefits of a particular program exceed its costs, it is still important to track how much is being spent.

Moreover, benefit estimates—as calculated by the agencies—need to be considered with skepticism. While regulators have an incentive to minimize estimates of the costs of regulations, they also have an incentive to inflate their projected benefits.

The two most expensive regulations of 2012—the EPA’s so-called Utility MACT rule for power plants and the EPA’s and Department of Transportation’s (DOT) automotive fuel-efficiency standards—both have dubious benefit estimates. The new emission standards for power plants, which the EPA estimated will cost $10.8 billion annually, have been trumpeted by agency officials as a way to reduce dangerous mercury levels in the air. Sounds good, right? Mercury is bad for us. Benefits were estimated at an eye-popping $33 billion to $90 billion. Whoo-hoo!

Not mentioned in the EPA’s press releases is that virtually all of the asserted benefits—99.993%—stem from reductions in airborne “particulate matter” (PM), a pollutant that is already subject to EPA regulations, which the EPA has separately said are sufficient to protect public health. Moreover, the benefits of additional reductions in particulate matter are speculative, lacking any connection to real-world exposures. As I explained in an earlier post, Fairbanks, Alaska, has the “dirtiest” air in American with regards to PM 2.5, but you’d have to stand outside 24 hours a day for over a month breathing very deeply to inhale as much PM 2.5 as you would get from smoking one cigarette.

But coming into compliance with this PM 2.5 standard would cost my family alone — if my neighbors cooperated — $5000 a year and that’s only talking about wood-burning. It’s highly likely the community would still violate the PM 2.5 standard burning diesel fuel for heating, but there is no other viable alternative at this time, so chances are good the costs will be much, MUCH higher.

The most costly new rule of 2012, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards jointly adopted by the EPA and the DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), illustrates the growing use of “private benefits,” (that’s government mandates usurping consumer decision making even in the absence of a market failure). In its own analysis, the EPA determined the largest impact of the new rules to be consumers saving money due to buying less gasoline, not improved air quality or reductions in global warming. The EPA claims these private savings outweigh the higher sticker prices consumers will inevitably pay. The problem with “private savings” is that they are not quantifiable.

What if consumers do not seem to agree and buy less-fuel efficient automobiles than what is mandated? Here in Alaska, many of us do just that because the higher fuel-efficiency tends to lower vehicle reliability in the cold and many of us have jobs that require cargo capacity. I don’t know the reason why people in other parts of the country buy less fuel efficient vehicles — comfort, reliability, able to carry more than three people, safety. If fuel efficiency was such a good deal for consumers, why are regulations needed to force us to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles? Either consumers are wrong or the regulators are wrong. The EPA and NHTSA—at the behest of Congress—have concluded that consumers do not know what is in our own interest. Thus, the rejection of consumer preference is counted as a benefit and they make more reliable, safer automobiles unavailable by dictatorial fiat.

And this is only two examples among many.

The Libertarian Ideal

Voice, Exit and Post-Libertarianism


Social trends, economics, health and other depressing topics!

My Corner

A Blog Showcasing My Writing and Me

The Return of the Modern Philosopher

Deep Thoughts from the Shallow End of the Pool

Steven Smith

The website of an aspiring author


a voracious reader. | a book blogger.


adventure, art, nature, travel, photography, wildlife - animals, and funny stuff


The Peaceful Revolution Liberate Main Street

%d bloggers like this: