In the Name of Global Warming

First, it was cows.  Now it's humans.  Will Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama not stop until everything is regulated in the name of global warming, or climate change, or whatever it's called this week? 

On March 28, 2014, Obama released aFact Sheet meant to justify his unilateral actions to regulate climate change.  TheFact Sheet states that:

... last June, President Obama issued a broad-based Climate Action Plan, announcing a series of executive actions to reduce carbon pollution, prepare the U.S. for the impacts of climate change, and lead international efforts to address global climate change.

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced seven new "climate hubs" to help farmers and ranchers adapt their operations to a changing climate and the President's Budget proposed a $1 billion in new funding for new technologies and incentives to build smarter, more resilient infrastructure to help communities prepare for a changing climate.

In June, in partnership with the dairy industry, the USDA, EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] and DOE will jointly release a "Biogas Roadmap" outlining voluntary strategies to accelerate adoption of methane digesters and other cost-effective technologies to reduce U.S. dairy sector greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020.

 That portion of the Fact Sheet was based upon an EPA study that said cows are a leading cause of methane (CH4).  But neither the EPA report nor the Fact Sheetmentioned the ocean floor or volcanoes or landfills.  The study says that:

Methane is produced as part of normal digestive processes in animals.  During digestion, microbes resident in an animal's digestive system ferment food consumed by the animal.  This microbial fermentation process, referred to as enteric fermentation, produces CH4 as a byproduct, which can be exhaled or eructated [belched] by the animal.

From the Fact Sheet we get this:

Reducing methane emissions is a powerful way to take action on climate change; and putting methane to use can support local economies with a source of clean energy that generates revenue, spurs investment and jobs, improves safety, and leads to cleaner air.  When fully implemented, the policies in the methane strategy will improve public health and safety while recovering otherwise wasted energy to power our communities, farms, factories, and power plants.

 The fact sheet also says that $1 billion will be available "for new technologies and incentives to build smarter, more resilient infrastructure to help communities prepare for a changing climate."   Sounds familiar.  Oh, yeah, green energy technology.  I'll bet that a vast portion of that money will go to Obama's donors and cronies.  When history repeats itself, no new technology will be developed.  But the money will be spent, and we taxpayers will again foot the bill.  What a fiasco green energy was, and still is.

So the stage is set.  The EPA will protect us from evil cows that emit methane.  We can all sleep better now.  Or can we?

Yesterday (April 2, 2014) we learned from an EPA Inspector General (IG) reportthat "The Environmental Protection Agency has been conducting dangerous experiments on humans over the past few years in order to justify more onerous clean air regulations." [emphasis mine]

It seems that the EPA conducted five experiments in 2010 and 2011 on people with health issues such as asthma and heart problems, and on the elderly.  The experiments exposed people to dangerously high levels of toxic pollutants, including diesel exhaust fumes.  Diesel exhaust fumes contains forty toxic air contaminants, including nineteen that are known carcinogens along with particulant matter [PM]. 

The EPA has publicly warned of the dangers of PM.  An EPA document from 2003 that says short-term exposure to PM can result in heart attacks and arrhythmias for people with heart disease.  It further states that long-term exposure can result in reduced lung function and even death.

The EPA has what it calls PM2.5, PM that is 2.5 microns or less in diameter, about 1/30th the thickness of a human hair.  The EPA sets its PM2.5 standard at 15 micrograms per cubic meter of outdoor air.  Yet the EPA exposed people to PM levels of 600 micrograms per cubic meter. So 600 micrograms per cubic meter is forty times what the EPA sets as an acceptable outdoor air standard. The EPA advises "... [e]veryone should avoid any outdoor exertion.  People with respiratory or heart disease, the elderly and children should remain indoors" when PM2.5 levels are between about 250 and 500 micrograms per cubic meter.

In the IG report were these statements:

• "... the EPA did not include information on long-term cancer risks in its diesel exhaust studies' consent forms."
• "An EPA manager considered these long-term risks minimal for short-term study exposures..."
• "... only one of five studies' consent forms provided the subject with information on the upper range of the pollutant" [they would be exposed to].
• "... two of five [study consent forms] alerted study subjects to the risk of death for older individuals with cardiovascular disease."
• "... exposed people with health issues to levels of pollutants up to 50 times greater than the agency says is safe for humans."

The IG report also contains these two statements:

• The EPA needs to ensure that the human research study team members obtain annual ethics training to properly protect study subjects.
• This lack of warning about PM is also different from the EPA's public image about PM.

Let's see. 2010 and 2011, both years during Obama's watch. Where was the MSM on this?

But that's just my opinion.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/04/in_the_name_of_global_warming.html