1

From: David Talmage [david.junk.mail@comcast.net]

Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 3:51 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

global warming is a hoax to collect more taxes.

we need no regulation on carbon emission.

Not only that regualtions are not constitutional.

 

 

David Talmage – Senior Engineer 

 

56 Kendall Pond Road, Derry, NH 03038-4395

 Phone: 603-216-6344

 
2

From: Christine Sgro [Christine.Sgro@rosebudmining.com]

Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 1:55 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

If forecasters cannot get the weather right a week from now, how can they forecast and model extremely 

complex global weather patterns decades out in advance with any level of accuracy, and spend billions 

trying to influence it? 

Instead of wasting resources combatting a perceived threat of climate change, should those resources not be 

spent on world hunger, elimination of wide spread disease and suffering, and other various controllable, 

 tangible, realizable, and worthy goals. While this is outside the prevue of the EPA, so is global weather 

controls that may or may not be needed – do-gooding, well-meaning environmental activism is no different 

than do-gooding, well-meaning charity work. There is no reason American taxpayers and workers should 

 bear the economic costs of trying to influence the Earth’s ever-changing weather patterns. 

Christine L. Sgro 

Rosebud Mining Company 

301 Market Street 

Kittanning, PA 16201 

724-545-6222 X-313 
3

From: Curt Stockdale [Curt.Stockdale@rosebudmining.com]

Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 1:18 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

EPA, 

• I work in the coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am gainfully employed 

supporting myself and my family and have no need for government assistance via either welfare or regulations 

that could someday negatively affect my industry. 

• The climate has changed for millions of years, from dinosaurs in a very warm climate to an ice age and everything 

in between. Grapes were growing in Greenland not too long ago and conversely the Dark Ages in Europe were 

partially due to a cooler period where crops failed. The Earth’s climate is always changing and your regulations 

will do literally nothing to change it or counter China’s present and growing emissions. 

• CO2 is beneficial for plants so how can they treat it as a pollutant 

• The EPA has arbitrarily assigned a cost to CO2 when they way the benefits of regulation against the costs to the 

economy. That arbitrary assignment of value was done because it does not make any true economic sense and is 

simply false, wrong, and improper 

• The poorest folks in America spend the largest percentage of their income on energy, i.e. heat for their homes, gas 

for their cars, electricity for their refrigerators and lights. Anything increasing the cost of these basic necessities of 

life greatly impacts them and is simply wrong and not in anyone’s best interest 

• The EPA outsourced to the IPCC their scientific study on whether CO2 is causing climate change and did not do 

their own internal study of it. Also, the EPA recognized how disruptive and economically horrible regulation of 

all sources of CO2 would be, so they developed the tailoring rule that only effects large stationary sources like 

coal fired power plants, at least initially. The tailoring rule is illegal and improper, as is the EPA accepting 

international group think tank’s analysis of the Earth’s weather patterns. 

• If forecasters cannot get the weather right a week from now, how can they forecast and model extremely complex 

global weather patterns decades out in advance with any level of accuracy, and spend billions trying to influence 

it? 

• Instead of wasting resources combatting a perceived threat of climate change, should those resources not be spent 

on world hunger, elimination of wide spread disease and suffering, and other various controllable, tangible, 

realizable, and worthy goals. While this is outside the prevue of the EPA, so is global weather controls that may 

or may not be needed – do-gooding, well-meaning environmental activism is no different than do-gooding, wellmeaning charity work. There is no reason American taxpayers and workers should bear the economic costs of 

trying to influence the Earth’s ever-changing weather patterns. 

• Our global economic competitors are not enacting this and we will be economically disadvantaged. The cost of 

energy is buried in everything we buy, produce, and provide services for. To increase energy costs is to increase 

societies cost, decrease our living standards, and give an economic edge to those countries we compete against, 

such as China. 

Sincerely, 

 

*********************** ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED ******************* 

cid:310593919@070520

12-2C 31 Curt Stockdale | Rosebud Mining Company | 301 Market St. Kittanning, PA 16201

Office: 724.545.6222 x263 | Cell: 724.664.7269| www.rosebudmining.com
4

This Email message contained an attachment named 

 image001.jpg 

which may be a computer program. This attached computer program could 

contain a computer virus which could cause harm to EPA's computers, 

network, and data. The attachment has been deleted. 

This was done to limit the distribution of computer viruses introduced 

into the EPA network. EPA is deleting all computer program attachments 

sent from the Internet into the agency via Email. 

If the message sender is known and the attachment was legitimate, you 

should contact the sender and request that they rename the file name 

extension and resend the Email with the renamed attachment. After 

receiving the revised Email, containing the renamed attachment, you can 

rename the file extension to its correct name. 

For further information, please contact the EPA Call Center at 

(866) 411-4EPA (4372). The TDD number is (866) 489-4900. 

*********************** ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED *********************** 
5

From: Brian R. Bjella [bbjella@crowleyfleck.com]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 3:34 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: CO2 Emissions From Existing Power Plants

Coal is America’s most abundant and low cost source for electrical power. I oppose proposed EPA regulations which 

would regulate CO2 emissions from existing coal fired power plants. CO2 is not a pollutant. The proposed regulations 

should be scrapped. 

Brian R. Bjella 

400 East Broadway, Suite 600 

Bismarck, ND 58502 

voice 701.224.7532 fax 701.222.4853 

This electronic mail transmission may constitute an attorney-client communication that is privileged at law. It is not 

intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. If you have received this electronic mail 

transmission in error, please delete it from your system without copying it, and notify the sender by reply e-mail or by 

calling Crowley Fleck PLLP, so that our address record can be corrected. 

This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information 

please visit http://www.mimecast.com 
6

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Mark Long [mdl1954@gmail.com]

Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 6:59 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Mon, 12/02/2013 - 18:59 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Mark Long 

Email: mdl1954@gmail.com

Comments: The models allegedly showing CO2 will cause global warming have been proven useless 

and the earth is actually cooling. The effect of the sun on the climate trends has not been 

accounted for. Your plan to take control of the energy sector of the economy with the intent 

of trying to grow government in your grand communist scheme is not something I wish you to 

do. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
7

From: lorenzracing887@windstream.net

Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 7:49 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: lorenzracing887@windstream.net comment

•I work in the coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am 

gainfully employed supporting myself and my family and have no need for government assistance 

via either welfare or regulations that could someday negatively affect my industry. 

•The climate has changed for millions of years, from dinosaurs in a very warm climate to an 

ice age and everything in between. Grapes were growing in Greenland not too long ago and 

conversely the Dark Ages in Europe were partially due to a cooler period where crops failed. 

The Earth’s climate is always changing and your regulations will do literally nothing to 

change it or counter China’s present and growing emissions. 

•CO2 is beneficial for plants so how can they treat it as a pollutant •The EPA has 

arbitrarily assigned a cost to CO2 when they way the benefits of regulation against the costs 

to the economy. That arbitrary assignment of value was done because it does not make any true 

economic sense and is simply false, wrong, and improper •The poorest folks in America spend 

the largest percentage of their income on energy, i.e. heat for their homes, gas for their 

cars, electricity for their refrigerators and lights. Anything increasing the cost of these 

basic necessities of life greatly impacts them and is simply wrong and not in anyone’s best 

interest •The EPA outsourced to the IPCC their scientific study on whether CO2 is causing 

climate change and did not do their own internal study of it. Also, the EPA recognized how 

disruptive and economically horrible regulation of all sources of CO2 would be, so they 

developed the tailoring rule that only effects large stationary sources like coal fired power 

plants, at least initially. The tailoring rule is illegal and improper, as is the EPA 

accepting international group think tank’s analysis of the Earth’s weather patterns. 

•If forecasters cannot get the weather right a week from now, how can they forecast and model 

extremely complex global weather patterns decades out in advance with any level of accuracy, 

and spend billions trying to influence it? 

•Instead of wasting resources combatting a perceived threat of climate change, should those 

resources not be spent on world hunger, elimination of wide spread disease and suffering, and 

other various controllable, tangible, realizable, and worthy goals. While this is outside 

the prevue of the EPA, so is global weather controls that may or may not be needed – dogooding, well-meaning environmental activism is no different than do-gooding, well-meaning 

charity work. There is no reason American taxpayers and workers should bear the economic 

costs of trying to influence the Earth’s ever-changing weather patterns. 

•Our global economic competitors are not enacting this and we will be economically 

disadvantaged. The cost of energy is buried in everything we buy, produce, and provide 

services for. To increase energy costs is to increase societies cost, decrease our living 

standards, and give an economic edge to those countries we compete against, such as China. 

 
8

From: BRIAP@aol.com

Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 11:39 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: carbon dioxide regulations

I am sure that at least a few of your EPA scientists took biology in high school. If they did, they would have learned that 

carbon dioxide is a trace gas essential to life on earth. It is no more a pollutant than oxygen is! When we add carbon 

dioxide to our atmosphere we actually increase the productivity of plant life, increasing food production across the planet. 

Since carbon dioxide is a very weak greenhouse gas it may cause a slight warming of the planet as well. We have NO 

true understanding of how much this warming will be, but the best guesses are that the doubling of the concentration of 

CO2 in the atmosphere would result in a average temperature rise of 1 degree C. Interesting is the fact that in the last 17 

years we have added lots of CO2, yet temperatures have not risen at all, yet there are 17 year time periods in the late 

1800's where temperatures rose while there was very little CO2 added. This is an indication that natural climate variability 

overwhelms any possible warming by added CO2. I argue that adding CO2 is beneficial and regulating it is foolish and 

harmful. Harmful because regulations will increase the cost of energy, hurting the poorest of our population the most, and 

slowing our whole economy as well. I can go on about the futility of CO2 regulations in this country while the developing 

world goes on increasing their CO2 output in order to pull their poor out of poverty. You folks at EPA need to find 

something useful to do because regulating CO2 is more than just foolish, it is harmful to the poor! Thank you for the 

opportunity to express my opinion. 

 

Sincerely, 

 

Brian P Ritter 

5519 Norwood 

Fairway, KS 66205 
9

From: Scott Belden [scott.jonni@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 1:06 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Comments on Program to Address Carbon Pollution From Existing Power Plants

EPA, 

I appreciate the EPA soliciting input through the "Listening Sessions" and understand it is a daunting task to 

obtain input from across the nation. I was unable to attend a session and am providing my opinion, as a 

concerned citizen, related to regulation of carbon from existing power plants. 

Given that carbon dioxide is now considered a pollutant tied to green house gas and anthropogenic global 

warming, EPA is challenged to do something to regulate this problem. While you may disagree, there are many 

people who consider the science unsettled on the true impacts of increased C02 in the atmosphere. Therefore, it 

makes sense that any changes to existing standards be addressed slowly and utilize a phased approach, maybe 

15 years or more. At the same time, I encourage EPA to recommend the pursuit of funding for carbon capture 

and storage research and demonstration projects. 

Challenges have been provided to industry before and they have found ways to address those challenges. But 

the solutions usually took cooperation from academia, state and federal governments and industry. A 

collaborative approach seems prudent to address carbon pollution as well. 

Given that coal has provided a relatively inexpensive, constant and plentiful supply of fuel for our country's 

energy needs, it seems unwise that our government would regulate that condition to the point the industry is 

severely weakened or killed. This is what some people are saying about the result to the coal industry if the 

regulation of existing plants. Renewables will no doubt be in the mix of energy supply in the future, but the 

role of technology in cleaning up emissions from burning coal cannot be denied. Whether a person likes it or 

not, coal is a critical part of our nation's energy and if the industry is eliminated, it will have negative impacts 

on many of the nation's poor, not to mention those many people tied to the coal industry and dependent on low 

cost electricity. This is not good for our nation. 

So I repeat, please consider any regulation to be implemented slowly to minimize negative impacts to many of 

our population and allow for time to develop technological solutions, such as CCS to the point of commercial 

feasibility. I do not think we are headed for immediate disaster and we should take our time. 

One last point, has the EPA considered the real impact of reducing CO2 emissions from US coal power plants 

relative to the CO2 emissions coming from coal power plants in other countries? The science has to be global 

and it is not fair for the US to comply with reductions only to have foreign power plants continue to add CO2 to 

the atmosphere with an overall result of very limited reduction to CO2. 

Thank you and good luck. Your agency has done a lot of good over the years. I am confident you will be able 

to address this topic with wisdom. 

Scott Belden 
10

From: dustie lawrence [dlcs_05@yahoo.com]

Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 12:44 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Coal-fired Power Plants

Here are just a few facts for you:

*The climate has changed for millions of years, from dinosaurs in a very warm climate to an ice age and everything in between. Grapes were growing in Greenland not too long ago and conversely the Dark Ages in Europe were partially due to a cooler period where crops failed. The Earth's climate is always changing and your regulations will do literally nothing to change it or counter China's present and growing emissions! 

*Coal has been used and has worked for many years. Why change this resource for something that may not work as well and risk even more damages? 

*CO2 is beneficial for plants so how can they treat it as a pollutant? 

*There is no reason American taxpayers and workers should bear the economic costs of trying to influence the Earth's ever-changing weather patterns. 

*The poorest folks in America spend the largest percentage of their income on energy, i.e. heat for their homes, gas for their cars, electricity for their refrigerator's and lights. Anything increasing the cost of these basic necessities of life greatly impacts them and is simply wrong and not in anyone's best interest! 

*I work in the coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am gainfully employed supporting myself and my family and have no need for government assistance via either welfare or regulations that could someday negatively affect my industry. 

SO, Let me ask you this....

 -Have you ever struggled paying bills? 

 -Have you ever worried if you were going to have a job? 

 -Have you ever worried about not having heat or electricity? 

There are many more questions I could ask but no need to go on. I am sure all your answers are "NO" but all my answers, plus many others I know are, "I have". 

Why should we have to struggle and worry but you don't? 

Sincerely, 

Hardworking Coal miners 
11

From: Mario Rocco [mariorocco8220@yahoo.com]

Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 11:50 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: CO2 Regulations

Hi. My name is Mario Rocco and i am a underground coal miner from Pennsylvania. This email is to 

let the EPA hear my voic on the regulations on CO2 and what an impact they will have on my job and 

family. I am speaking for my family and as well as many other coal miner families. These regulations 

will eventually ruin my job. I am a 4th generation coal miner and I love my job. If it wasn't for coal, I 

wouldn't of had the opportunities that i have now if it wasn't for coal. I can provide for my family and 

live a middle class lifestyle without to many struggles and if u put these regulations on i will be out of 

a job and on welfare. I don't want any government handouts, I just want to mine coal and keep my 

job. How is it fair that China has no emissions and they burn as much as they want , while we have 

strict guidelines to refer to. We can't even use our own fossil fuels. 

 CO2 is beneficial for plants so how can the EPA treat it as a pollutant. The climate has been 

changing since the dinosaurs roamed the earth and it wasn't due to CO2 that caused the dinosaurs to 

go extinct , so why are you putting so many regulations on CO2. The poorest people in America 

spend the largest percentage of their income on energy for heat, electricity, and lights. Anything 

increasing the cost of energy to us Americans is just wrong and unfair. Also, our global economic 

competitors are not enacting this and we will be economically disadvantaged. 

All of these regulations are going to impact my family and many other energy jobs for the negative. So please take into consideration the people that you are going to affect. All we want is to keep working and supplying energy to the great country of America. Coal mining runs deep in western PA and we will no longer be able to provide descent lifestyles to my wife and kids. 

Sincerely, 

Mario Rocco 
12

From: SIDNEYPIE@aol.com

Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 1:05 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: EPA rules on Carbon dioxide emissions.

Dear Administrators, 

I protest your new rules on the emission of carbon dioxide because they are absolutely unnecessary and without any 

benefit. CO 2 is a trace gas that has no effect on the temperature of the atmosphere. Temperatures have been steady 

for the past 18 years. The climate models predicted over 6 degrees increase that never happened. Not one hurricane hit 

the United States his year. Tornado activity has also decreased. 

 

The rules you have issued will destroy thousands of jobs and increase the cost of living. 

 

Over $100,000,000,000 have been wasted by our government on global warming studies that have accomplished 

absolutely nothing. Dozens of other governments around the world have also destroyed their economies by squandering 

precious funds on worthless schemes to reduce CO 2 emissions. 

 

This madness has to stop. 

 

Sidney Wagner 

367 Lakeshore Dr 

McCook Lake, SD 57049 

605-232-4511 

 

 
13

From: kennethjlorenz@windstream.net

Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 9:18 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Public listening session

 The EPA outsourced to the IPCC their scientific study on whether CO2 is causing climate 

change and did not do their own internal study of it. Also, the EPA recognized how disruptive 

and economically horrible regulation of all sources of CO2 would be, so they developed the 

tailoring rule that only effects large stationary sources like coal fired power plants, at 

least initially. The tailoring rule is illegal and improper, as is the EPA accepting 

international group think tank’s analysis of the Earth’s weather patterns. 

 Also, CO2 is beneficial for plants so how can it be treat it as a pollutant? 

 Please consider this information when deciding the fate of hundreds of men and women who 

make their living from coal. 

Ken Lorenz 

Rimersburg, Pa 
14

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Virginia Dougherty [james-virginia@comcast.net]

Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 11:38 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Wed, 11/06/2013 - 11:37 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Virginia Dougherty 

Email: james-virginia@comcast.net

Comments: You High School grade "C" science students are killing this country with your 

pseudo science. Any student worth their medal know that there is no consensus but trends and 

indications and only a few scientific phenomenum (entropy and gravity) that are worthe of Law 

and consensus. There is some MINUTE indication of man's effect on the environment. But not to 

the degree you are reporting. It is a sham and a travesty that you C/D grade science students 

are running the EPA. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
15

From: Greg Blainer [Greg.Blainer@rosebudmining.com]

Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 8:39 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

I do not understand the EPA's agenda. Why are you trying to cripple America and make life so 

hard for the average American? First it was global warming. Now let's try climate change 

since global warming wasn't accepted. To make CO2 a pollutant is absurd, plants need it to 

grow and we ingest it in beverages every day. Please use some common sence and let's keep the 

lights on. 

GB 
16

From: Daisy Smith [dljsmith10@gmail.com]

Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 8:19 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: EPA Listening Session on November 8th

To the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): 

 

• I work in the coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am gainfully 

employed supporting myself and my family and have no need for government assistance via either 

welfare or regulations that could someday negatively affect my industry. 

• The climate has changed for millions of years, from dinosaurs in a very warm climate to an ice age and 

everything in between. Grapes were growing in Greenland not too long ago and conversely the Dark 

Ages in Europe were partially due to a cooler period where crops failed. The Earth’s climate is always 

changing and your regulations will do literally nothing to change it or counter China’s present and 

growing emissions. 

• CO2 is beneficial for plants so how can they treat it as a pollutant 

• The EPA has arbitrarily assigned a cost to CO2 when they way the benefits of regulation against the 

costs to the economy. That arbitrary assignment of value was done because it does not make any true 

economic sense and is simply false, wrong, and improper 

• The poorest folks in America spend the largest percentage of their income on energy, i.e. heat for their 

homes, gas for their cars, electricity for their refrigerators and lights. Anything increasing the cost of 

these basic necessities of life greatly impacts them and is simply wrong and not in anyone’s best interest

• The EPA outsourced to the IPCC their scientific study on whether CO2 is causing climate change and 

did not do their own internal study of it. Also, the EPA recognized how disruptive and economically 

horrible regulation of all sources of CO2 would be, so they developed the tailoring rule that only effects 

large stationary sources like coal fired power plants, at least initially. The tailoring rule is illegal and 

improper, as is the EPA accepting international group think tank’s analysis of the Earth’s weather 

patterns. 

• If forecasters cannot get the weather right a week from now, how can they forecast and model extremely 

complex global weather patterns decades out in advance with any level of accuracy, and spend billions 

trying to influence it? 

• Instead of wasting resources combatting a perceived threat of climate change, should those resources not 

be spent on world hunger, elimination of wide spread disease and suffering, and other various 

controllable, tangible, realizable, and worthy goals. While this is outside the prevue of the EPA, so is 

global weather controls that may or may not be needed – do-gooding, well-meaning environmental 

activism is no different than do-gooding, well-meaning charity work. There is no reason American 

taxpayers and workers should bear the economic costs of trying to influence the Earth’s ever-changing 

weather patterns. 

• Our global economic competitors are not enacting this and we will be economically disadvantaged. The 

cost of energy is buried in everything we buy, produce, and provide services for. To increase energy 

costs is to increase societies cost, decrease our living standards, and give an economic edge to those 

countries we compete against, such as China. 

 

Thank you for your time. 

Daisy Smith 

226 Cashdollar Road 

Shelocta, Pa 15774 
17

From: Steve Stewart [TuskyForeman@rosebudmining.com]

Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 7:30 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

• I work in the coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am gainfully employed 

supporting myself and my family and have no need for government assistance via either welfare or regulations 

that could someday negatively affect my industry. 

• The climate has changed for millions of years, from dinosaurs in a very warm climate to an ice age and everything 

in between. Grapes were growing in Greenland not too long ago and conversely the Dark Ages in Europe were 

partially due to a cooler period where crops failed. The Earth’s climate is always changing and your regulations 

will do literally nothing to change it or counter China’s present and growing emissions. 

• CO2 is beneficial for plants so how can they treat it as a pollutant 

• The EPA has arbitrarily assigned a cost to CO2 when they way the benefits of regulation against the costs to the 

economy. That arbitrary assignment of value was done because it does not make any true economic sense and is 

simply false, wrong, and improper 

• The poorest folks in America spend the largest percentage of their income on energy, i.e. heat for their homes, gas 

for their cars, electricity for their refrigerators and lights. Anything increasing the cost of these basic necessities of 

life greatly impacts them and is simply wrong and not in anyone’s best interest 

• The EPA outsourced to the IPCC their scientific study on whether CO2 is causing climate change and did not do 

their own internal study of it. Also, the EPA recognized how disruptive and economically horrible regulation of 

all sources of CO2 would be, so they developed the tailoring rule that only effects large stationary sources like 

coal fired power plants, at least initially. The tailoring rule is illegal and improper, as is the EPA accepting 

international group think tank’s analysis of the Earth’s weather patterns. 

• If forecasters cannot get the weather right a week from now, how can they forecast and model extremely complex 

global weather patterns decades out in advance with any level of accuracy, and spend billions trying to influence 

it? 

• Instead of wasting resources combatting a perceived threat of climate change, should those resources not be spent 

on world hunger, elimination of wide spread disease and suffering, and other various controllable, tangible, 

realizable, and worthy goals. While this is outside the prevue of the EPA, so is global weather controls that may 

or may not be needed – do-gooding, well-meaning environmental activism is no different than do-gooding, wellmeaning charity work. There is no reason American taxpayers and workers should bear the economic costs of 

trying to influence the Earth’s ever-changing weather patterns. 

• Our global economic competitors are not enacting this and we will be economically disadvantaged. The cost of 

energy is buried in everything we buy, produce, and provide services for. To increase energy costs is to increase 

societies cost, decrease our living standards, and give an economic edge to those countries we compete against, 

such as China. 
18

From: LadyJaneForeman [LadyJaneForeman@rosebudmining.com]

Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 6:09 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

• I work in the coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am gainfully employed 

supporting myself and my family and have no need for government assistance via either welfare or regulations 

that could someday negatively affect my industry. 

• The climate has changed for millions of years, from dinosaurs in a very warm climate to an ice age and everything 

in between. Grapes were growing in Greenland not too long ago and conversely the Dark Ages in Europe were 

partially due to a cooler period where crops failed. The Earth’s climate is always changing and your regulations 

will do literally nothing to change it or counter China’s present and growing emissions. 

• CO2 is beneficial for plants so how can they treat it as a pollutant 

• The EPA has arbitrarily assigned a cost to CO2 when they way the benefits of regulation against the costs to the 

economy. That arbitrary assignment of value was done because it does not make any true economic sense and is 

simply false, wrong, and improper 

• The poorest folks in America spend the largest percentage of their income on energy, i.e. heat for their homes, gas 

for their cars, electricity for their refrigerators and lights. Anything increasing the cost of these basic necessities of 

life greatly impacts them and is simply wrong and not in anyone’s best interest 

• The EPA outsourced to the IPCC their scientific study on whether CO2 is causing climate change and did not do 

their own internal study of it. Also, the EPA recognized how disruptive and economically horrible regulation of 

all sources of CO2 would be, so they developed the tailoring rule that only effects large stationary sources like 

coal fired power plants, at least initially. The tailoring rule is illegal and improper, as is the EPA accepting 

international group think tank’s analysis of the Earth’s weather patterns. 

• If forecasters cannot get the weather right a week from now, how can they forecast and model extremely complex 

global weather patterns decades out in advance with any level of accuracy, and spend billions trying to influence 

it? 

• Instead of wasting resources combatting a perceived threat of climate change, should those resources not be spent 

on world hunger, elimination of wide spread disease and suffering, and other various controllable, tangible, 

realizable, and worthy goals. While this is outside the prevue of the EPA, so is global weather controls that may 

or may not be needed – do-gooding, well-meaning environmental activism is no different than do-gooding, wellmeaning charity work. There is no reason American taxpayers and workers should bear the economic costs of 

trying to influence the Earth’s ever-changing weather patterns. 

• Our global economic competitors are not enacting this and we will be economically disadvantaged. The cost of 

energy is buried in everything we buy, produce, and provide services for. To increase energy costs is to increase 

societies cost, decrease our living standards, and give an economic edge to those countries we compete against, 

such as China. 

 

 

Lady Jane Prep Plant

Rosebud Mining Company

2798 Moose Grade Road

P.O. Box 306

Penfield, PA 15849

P: 814-637-5239

F: 814-637-5510
19

From: Clair Edward Kelly [kellyedward@verizon.net]

Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 11:47 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

• I work in the coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am gainfully 

employed supporting myself and my family and have no need for government assistance via either 

welfare or regulations that could someday negatively affect my industry. 

• The climate has changed for millions of years, from dinosaurs in a very warm climate to an ice age and 

everything in between. Grapes were growing in Greenland not too long ago and conversely the Dark 

Ages in Europe were partially due to a cooler period where crops failed. The Earth’s climate is always 

changing and your regulations will do literally nothing to change it or counter China’s present and 

growing emissions. 

• CO2 is beneficial for plants so how can they treat it as a pollutant 

• The EPA has arbitrarily assigned a cost to CO2 when they way the benefits of regulation against the 

costs to the economy. That arbitrary assignment of value was done because it does not make any true 

economic sense and is simply false, wrong, and improper 

• The poorest folks in America spend the largest percentage of their income on energy, i.e. heat for their 

homes, gas for their cars, electricity for their refrigerators and lights. Anything increasing the cost of 

these basic necessities of life greatly impacts them and is simply wrong and not in anyone’s best interest

• The EPA outsourced to the IPCC their scientific study on whether CO2 is causing climate change and 

did not do their own internal study of it. Also, the EPA recognized how disruptive and economically 

horrible regulation of all sources of CO2 would be, so they developed the tailoring rule that only effects 

large stationary sources like coal fired power plants, at least initially. The tailoring rule is illegal and 

improper, as is the EPA accepting international group think tank’s analysis of the Earth’s weather 

patterns. 

• If forecasters cannot get the weather right a week from now, how can they forecast and model extremely 

complex global weather patterns decades out in advance with any level of accuracy, and spend billions 

trying to influence it? 

• Instead of wasting resources combatting a perceived threat of climate change, should those resources not 

be spent on world hunger, elimination of wide spread disease and suffering, and other various 

controllable, tangible, realizable, and worthy goals. While this is outside the prevue of the EPA, so is 

global weather controls that may or may not be needed – do-gooding, well-meaning environmental 

activism is no different than do-gooding, well-meaning charity work. There is no reason American 

taxpayers and workers should bear the economic costs of trying to influence the Earth’s ever-changing 

weather patterns. 

• Our global economic competitors are not enacting this and we will be economically disadvantaged. The 

cost of energy is buried in everything we buy, produce, and provide services for. To increase energy 

costs is to increase societies cost, decrease our living standards, and give an economic edge to those 

countries we compete against, such as China. 

 CEKelly 
20

From: tkkennedy@windstream.net

Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 11:07 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: CO2 Regulations

• I work in the coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am gainfully employed 

supporting myself and my family and have no need for government assistance via either welfare or regulations 

that could someday negatively affect my industry.Please Stop destroying good American jobs with silly EPA 

regulations. 

• The climate has changed for millions of years, from dinosaurs in a very warm climate to an ice age and everything 

in between. Grapes were growing in Greenland not too long ago and conversely the Dark Ages in Europe were 

partially due to a cooler period where crops failed. The Earth’s climate is always changing and your regulations 

will do literally nothing to change it or counter China’s present and growing emissions. Global warming is a lie 

and has been proven by many to be a lie. 

• CO2 is beneficial for plants so how can they treat it as a pollutant ? 

• The EPA has arbitrarily assigned a cost to CO2 when they way the benefits of regulation against the costs to the 

economy. That arbitrary assignment of value was done because it does not make any true economic sense and is 

simply false, wrong, and improper.

• The poorest folks in America spend the largest percentage of their income on energy, i.e. heat for their homes, gas 

for their cars, electricity for their refrigerators and lights. Anything increasing the cost of these basic necessities of 

life greatly impacts them and is simply wrong and not in anyone’s best interest . With CO2 regulations more jobs 

will be lost adding to more struggling Americans. Al Gore doesn’t care . He is still making millions Scaring the 

uninformed with lies. 

• The EPA outsourced to the IPCC their scientific study on whether CO2 is causing climate change and did not do 

their own internal study of it. Also, the EPA recognized how disruptive and economically horrible regulation of 

all sources of CO2 would be, so they developed the tailoring rule that only effects large stationary sources like 

coal fired power plants, at least initially. The tailoring rule is illegal and improper, as is the EPA accepting 

international group think tank’s analysis of the Earth’s weather patterns. More lies paid for by my hard earned tax 

money. I and many more Americans could use that extra tax money. So please quit waisting it on nonsense like 

this. 

• If forecasters cannot get the weather right a week from now, how can they forecast and model extremely complex 

global weather patterns decades out in advance with any level of accuracy, and spend billions trying to influence 

it?

• Instead of wasting resources combatting a perceived threat of climate change, should those resources not be spent 

on world hunger, elimination of wide spread disease and suffering, and other various controllable, tangible, 

realizable, and worthy goals. While this is outside the prevue of the EPA, so is global weather controls that may 

or may not be needed – do-gooding, well-meaning environmental activism is no different than do-gooding, wellmeaning charity work. There is no reason American taxpayers and workers should bear the economic costs of 

trying to influence the Earth’s ever-changing weather patterns. So please stop. 

• Our global economic competitors are not enacting this and we will be economically disadvantaged. The cost of 

energy is buried in everything we buy, produce, and provide services for. To increase energy costs is to increase 

societies cost, decrease our living standards, and give an economic edge to those countries we compete against, 

such as China. So are you anti coal or anti America? Or both?
21

From: Linda Blose [lindablose@windstream.net]

Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 11:00 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

• I work in the coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am gainfully 

employed supporting myself and my family and have no need for government assistance via either 

welfare or regulations that could someday negatively affect my industry. 

• The climate has changed for millions of years, from dinosaurs in a very warm climate to an ice age and 

everything in between. Grapes were growing in Greenland not too long ago and conversely the Dark 

Ages in Europe were partially due to a cooler period where crops failed. The Earth’s climate is always 

changing and your regulations will do literally nothing to change it or counter China’s present and 

growing emissions. 

• CO2 is beneficial for plants so how can they treat it as a pollutant 

• The EPA has arbitrarily assigned a cost to CO2 when they way the benefits of regulation against the 

costs to the economy. That arbitrary assignment of value was done because it does not make any true 

economic sense and is simply false, wrong, and improper 

• The poorest folks in America spend the largest percentage of their income on energy, i.e. heat for their 

homes, gas for their cars, electricity for their refrigerators and lights. Anything increasing the cost of 

these basic necessities of life greatly impacts them and is simply wrong and not in anyone’s best interest

• The EPA outsourced to the IPCC their scientific study on whether CO2 is causing climate change and 

did not do their own internal study of it. Also, the EPA recognized how disruptive and economically 

horrible regulation of all sources of CO2 would be, so they developed the tailoring rule that only effects 

large stationary sources like coal fired power plants, at least initially. The tailoring rule is illegal and 

improper, as is the EPA accepting international group think tank’s analysis of the Earth’s weather 

patterns. 

• If forecasters cannot get the weather right a week from now, how can they forecast and model extremely 

complex global weather patterns decades out in advance with any level of accuracy, and spend billions 

trying to influence it? 

• Instead of wasting resources combatting a perceived threat of climate change, should those resources not 

be spent on world hunger, elimination of wide spread disease and suffering, and other various 

controllable, tangible, realizable, and worthy goals. While this is outside the prevue of the EPA, so is 

global weather controls that may or may not be needed – do-gooding, well-meaning environmental 

activism is no different than do-gooding, well-meaning charity work. There is no reason American 

taxpayers and workers should bear the economic costs of trying to influence the Earth’s ever-changing 

weather patterns. 

• Our global economic competitors are not enacting this and we will be economically disadvantaged. The 

cost of energy is buried in everything we buy, produce, and provide services for. To increase energy 

costs is to increase societies cost, decrease our living standards, and give an economic edge to those 

countries we compete against, such as China. 

Sent from my iPad 
22

From: Long Run Foreman [LongRunForeman@rosebudmining.com]

Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 7:41 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

• I work in the coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am gainfully employed supporting 

myself and my family and have no need for government assistance via either welfare or regulations that could someday 

negatively affect my industry. 

• The climate has changed for millions of years, from dinosaurs in a very warm climate to an ice age and everything in 

between. Grapes were growing in Greenland not too long ago and conversely the Dark Ages in Europe were partially due to a 

cooler period where crops failed. The Earth’s climate is always changing and your regulations will do literally nothing to 

change it or counter China’s present and growing emissions. 

• CO2 is beneficial for plants so how can they treat it as a pollutant 

• The EPA has arbitrarily assigned a cost to CO2 when they way the benefits of regulation against the costs to the economy. 

That arbitrary assignment of value was done because it does not make any true economic sense and is simply false, wrong, 

and improper 

• The poorest folks in America spend the largest percentage of their income on energy, i.e. heat for their homes, gas for their 

cars, electricity for their refrigerators and lights. Anything increasing the cost of these basic necessities of life greatly impacts 

them and is simply wrong and not in anyone’s best interest 

• The EPA outsourced to the IPCC their scientific study on whether CO2 is causing climate change and did not do their own 

internal study of it. Also, the EPA recognized how disruptive and economically horrible regulation of all sources of CO2 

would be, so they developed the tailoring rule that only effects large stationary sources like coal fired power plants, at least 

initially. The tailoring rule is illegal and improper, as is the EPA accepting international group think tank’s analysis of the 

Earth’s weather patterns. 

• If forecasters cannot get the weather right a week from now, how can they forecast and model extremely complex global 

weather patterns decades out in advance with any level of accuracy, and spend billions trying to influence it? 

• Instead of wasting resources combatting a perceived threat of climate change, should those resources not be spent on world 

hunger, elimination of wide spread disease and suffering, and other various controllable, tangible, realizable, and worthy 

goals. While this is outside the prevue of the EPA, so is global weather controls that may or may not be needed – do-gooding, 

well-meaning environmental activism is no different than do-gooding, well-meaning charity work. There is no reason 

American taxpayers and workers should bear the economic costs of trying to influence the Earth’s ever-changing weather 

patterns. 

• Our global economic competitors are not enacting this and we will be economically disadvantaged. The cost of energy is 

buried in everything we buy, produce, and provide services for. To increase energy costs is to increase societies cost, 

decrease our living standards, and give an economic edge to those countries we compete against, such as China.

Gregg Rumbaugh 

Longrun Foreman 

 
23

From: Lance Daniels [ldaniels1@atlanticbb.net]

Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 7:40 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: My Job, My family, My future

I work in the coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am gainfully employed 

supporting myself and my family and have no need for government assistance via either welfare or regulations 

that could someday negatively affect my industry. 

The climate has changed for millions of years, from dinosaurs in a very warm climate to an ice age and everything 

in between. Grapes were growing in Greenland not too long ago and conversely the Dark Ages in Europe were 

partially due to a cooler period where crops failed. The Earth’s climate is always changing and your regulations 

will do literally nothing to change it or counter China’s present and growing emissions. 

CO2 is beneficial for plants so how can they treat it as a pollutant 

The EPA has arbitrarily assigned a cost to CO2 when they way the benefits of regulation against the costs to the 

economy. That arbitrary assignment of value was done because it does not make any true economic sense and is 

simply false, wrong, and improper 

The poorest folks in America spend the largest percentage of their income on energy, i.e. heat for their homes, gas 

for their cars, electricity for their refrigerators and lights. Anything increasing the cost of these basic necessities of 

life greatly impacts them and is simply wrong and not in anyone’s best interest 

The EPA outsourced to the IPCC their scientific study on whether CO2 is causing climate change and did not do 

their own internal study of it. Also, the EPA recognized how disruptive and economically horrible regulation of 

all sources of CO2 would be, so they developed the tailoring rule that only effects large stationary sources like 

coal fired power plants, at least initially. The tailoring rule is illegal and improper, as is the EPA accepting 

international group think tank’s analysis of the Earth’s weather patterns. 

If forecasters cannot get the weather right a week from now, how can they forecast and model extremely complex 

global weather patterns decades out in advance with any level of accuracy, and spend billions trying to influence 

it? 

Instead of wasting resources combating a perceived threat of climate change, should those resources not be spent 

on world hunger, elimination of wide spread disease and suffering, and other various controllable, tangible, 

realizable, and worthy goals. While this is outside the prevue of the EPA, so is global weather controls that may 

or may not be needed – do-gooding, well-meaning environmental activism is no different than do-gooding, wellmeaning charity work. There is no reason American taxpayers and workers should bear the economic costs of 

trying to influence the Earth’s ever-changing weather patterns. 

Our global economic competitors are not enacting this and we will be economically disadvantaged. The cost of 

energy is buried in everything we buy, produce, and provide services for. To increase energy costs is to increase 

societies cost, decrease our living standards, and give an economic edge to those countries we compete against, 

such as China. 

Furthermore, I have 5 children that I am trying to give a future to...please do not let them down. Do not let them 

think this country will dictate their every move.... I and everyone I work with WANT to work for a living, help 

the working class, the working class exist and continue. 
24

From: bowserfamily [bowsertponderosa@windstream.net]

Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 7:27 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

Comments supporting the use of our most abundant domestic energy resource, coal. 

 

• I work in the coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am gainfully employed 

supporting myself and my family and have no need for government assistance via either welfare or regulations 

that could someday negatively affect my industry. 

• The climate has changed for millions of years, from dinosaurs in a very warm climate to an ice age and everything 

in between. Grapes were growing in Greenland not too long ago and conversely the Dark Ages in Europe were 

partially due to a cooler period where crops failed. The Earth’s climate is always changing and your regulations 

will do literally nothing to change it or counter China’s present and growing emissions. 

• Instead of wasting resources combatting a perceived threat of climate change, should those resources not be spent 

on enforcing mandatory recycling and trying to decrease the amount of waste that goes into landfills everyday. 

Landfill gas is approximately forty to sixty percent methane, with the remainder being mostly carbon 

dioxide. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that there are approximately six thousand 

landfills in the United States. Most of these landfills are composed of municipal waste, and, therefore, 

producing methane. These landfills are the largest source of anthropogenic methane emissions in the 

United States. These landfills will contribute an estimated four hundred and fifty to six hundred and fifty 

billion cubic feet of methane per year. 

• Our global economic competitors are not enacting this and we will be economically disadvantaged. The cost of 

energy is buried in everything we buy, produce, and provide services for. To increase energy costs is to increase 

societies cost, decrease our living standards, and give an economic edge to those countries we compete against, 

such as China. 

• If the government keeps putting the American people out of work, and sending our jobs over-seas, how 

will our country be able to survive. It is the working class people that keep this country strong.
25

From: Tim n Deb [dtturner79@aol.com]

Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 7:10 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: supporting coal

• I work in the coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am gainfully employed 

supporting myself and my family and have no need for government assistance via either welfare or regulations 

that could someday negatively affect my industry. 

• The climate has changed for millions of years, from dinosaurs in a very warm climate to an ice age and everything 

in between. Grapes were growing in Greenland not too long ago and conversely the Dark Ages in Europe were 

partially due to a cooler period where crops failed. The Earth’s climate is always changing and your regulations 

will do literally nothing to change it or counter China’s present and growing emissions. 

• CO2 is beneficial for plants so how can they treat it as a pollutant 

• The EPA has arbitrarily assigned a cost to CO2 when they way the benefits of regulation against the costs to the 

economy. That arbitrary assignment of value was done because it does not make any true economic sense and is 

simply false, wrong, and improper 

• The poorest folks in America spend the largest percentage of their income on energy, i.e. heat for their homes, 

gas for their cars, electricity for their refrigerators and lights. Anything increasing the cost of these basic 

necessities of life greatly impacts them and is simply wrong and not in anyone’s best interest 

• The EPA outsourced to the IPCC their scientific study on whether CO2 is causing climate change and did not do 

their own internal study of it. Also, the EPA recognized how disruptive and economically horrible regulation of all 

sources of CO2 would be, so they developed the tailoring rule that only effects large stationary sources like coal 

fired power plants, at least initially. The tailoring rule is illegal and improper, as is the EPA accepting international 

group think tank’s analysis of the Earth’s weather patterns. 

• If forecasters cannot get the weather right a week from now, how can they forecast and model extremely complex 

global weather patterns decades out in advance with any level of accuracy, and spend billions trying to influence 

it? 

• Instead of wasting resources combatting a perceived threat of climate change, should those resources not be 

spent on world hunger, elimination of wide spread disease and suffering, and other various controllable, tangible, 

realizable, and worthy goals. While this is outside the prevue of the EPA, so is global weather controls that may or 

may not be needed – do-gooding, well-meaning environmental activism is no different than do-gooding, wellmeaning charity work. There is no reason American taxpayers and workers should bear the economic costs of 

trying to influence the Earth’s ever-changing weather patterns. 

• Our global economic competitors are not enacting this and we will be economically disadvantaged. The cost of 

energy is buried in everything we buy, produce, and provide services for. To increase energy costs is to increase 

societies cost, decrease our living standards, and give an economic edge to those countries we compete against, 

such as China. 

 
26

From: Ted Bearer [Ted.Bearer@rosebudmining.com]

Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 4:26 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

Dear EPA: 

I am opposed to the EPA’s plan to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants. Below are 

reasons why I am strongly against the EPA’s plan:

• I work in the coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am gainfully employed 

supporting myself and my family and have no need for government assistance via either welfare or regulations 

that could someday negatively affect my industry. 

• The EPA has arbitrarily assigned a cost to CO2 when they way the benefits of regulation against the costs to the 

economy. That arbitrary assignment of value was done because it does not make any true economic sense and is 

simply false, wrong, and improper 

• The poorest folks in America spend the largest percentage of their income on energy, i.e. heat for their homes, gas 

for their cars, electricity for their refrigerators and lights. Anything increasing the cost of these basic necessities of 

life greatly impacts them and is simply wrong and not in anyone’s best interest 

• The EPA outsourced to the IPCC their scientific study on whether CO2 is causing climate change and did not do 

their own internal study of it. Also, the EPA recognized how disruptive and economically horrible regulation of 

all sources of CO2 would be, so they developed the tailoring rule that only effects large stationary sources like 

coal fired power plants, at least initially. The tailoring rule is illegal and improper, as is the EPA accepting 

international group think tank’s analysis of the Earth’s weather patterns. 

• If forecasters cannot get the weather right a week from now, how can they forecast and model extremely complex 

global weather patterns decades out in advance with any level of accuracy, and spend billions trying to influence 

it? 

• Instead of wasting resources combatting a perceived threat of climate change, should those resources not be spent 

on world hunger, elimination of wide spread disease and suffering, and other various controllable, tangible, 

realizable, and worthy goals. While this is outside the prevue of the EPA, so is global weather controls that may 

or may not be needed – do-gooding, well-meaning environmental activism is no different than do-gooding, wellmeaning charity work. There is no reason American taxpayers and workers should bear the economic costs of 

trying to influence the Earth’s ever-changing weather patterns. 

• Our global economic competitors are not enacting this and we will be economically disadvantaged. The cost of 

energy is buried in everything we buy, produce, and provide services for. To increase energy costs is to increase 

societies cost, decrease our living standards, and give an economic edge to those countries we compete against, 

such as China. 

Ted Bearer, PLS

Rosebud Mining Company

E-Mail: ted.bearer@rosebudmining.com

Office: 724-545-6222 x223 

Mobile: 724-5251560
27

From: Dane Potts [Dane.Potts@rosebudmining.com]

Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 4:00 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

Gentlemen, 

My name is Dane Potts and for 33 years I have worked in the coal fields of Pennsylvania. Thanks to the coal industry, I 

have been able to provide for my family as well as pay taxes. I hold degrees in Biology and Earth Science. One could say 

that I have somewhat of a unique perspective concerning global warming, proposed CO2 regulation, and the certain 

detriment such regulations will have on my livelihood. Why is the EPA so willing to rush towards further regulation 

when it is obvious to me that the theory of manmade global warming is based on conflicting and incomplete data? THIS 

IS BAD SCIENCE! Furthermore, I don’t believe that the EPA has given enough consideration to the socioeconomic impact 

that such regulation would have on the people of our coal producing regions. To many of us, coal mining is a way of life.

I have been hearing about American energy independence since the Carter administration. Thanks to recent natural gas 

and shale oil discoveries coupled with this nation’s already abundant coal reserves, we finally have a real chance to 

become energy independent. To regulate away coal from an affordable energy mix would be short sighted and 

irresponsible. In these hard economic times now is not the time to handcuff ourselves unnecessarily. Imagine our 

nation with cheap affordable energy, where we no longer have to put our young soldiers in harm’s way in some far off 

land that is of strategic importance simply because it happens to be sitting on top of an oil field. Do you have sons and 

daughters? 
28

From: Karen Howell [Karen.Howell@rosebudmining.com]

Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 3:56 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

Ladies/Gentlemen: 

• I work in the coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am gainfully employed 

supporting myself and my husband and have no need for government assistance via either welfare or regulations 

that could someday negatively affect my industry. 

• The climate has changed for millions of years, from dinosaurs in a very warm climate to an ice age and everything 

in between. Grapes were growing in Greenland not too long ago and conversely the Dark Ages in Europe were 

partially due to a cooler period where crops failed. The Earth’s climate is always changing and your regulations 

will do literally nothing to change it or counter China’s present and growing emissions. 

• CO2 is beneficial for plants so how can they treat it as a pollutant 

• The EPA has arbitrarily assigned a cost to CO2 when they way the benefits of regulation against the costs to the 

economy. That arbitrary assignment of value was done because it does not make any true economic sense and is 

simply false, wrong, and improper 

• The poorest folks in America spend the largest percentage of their income on energy, i.e. heat for their homes, gas 

for their cars, electricity for their refrigerators and lights. Anything increasing the cost of these basic necessities of 

life greatly impacts them and is simply wrong and not in anyone’s best interest 

• The EPA outsourced to the IPCC their scientific study on whether CO2 is causing climate change and did not do 

their own internal study of it. Also, the EPA recognized how disruptive and economically horrible regulation of 

all sources of CO2 would be, so they developed the tailoring rule that only effects large stationary sources like 

coal fired power plants, at least initially. The tailoring rule is illegal and improper, as is the EPA accepting 

international group think tank’s analysis of the Earth’s weather patterns. 

• If forecasters cannot get the weather right a week from now, how can they forecast and model extremely complex 

global weather patterns decades out in advance with any level of accuracy, and spend billions trying to influence 

it? 

• Instead of wasting resources combatting a perceived threat of climate change, should those resources not be spent 

on world hunger, elimination of wide spread disease and suffering, and other various controllable, tangible, 

realizable, and worthy goals. While this is outside the prevue of the EPA, so is global weather controls that may 

or may not be needed – do-gooding, well-meaning environmental activism is no different than do-gooding, wellmeaning charity work. There is no reason American taxpayers and workers should bear the economic costs of 

trying to influence the Earth’s ever-changing weather patterns. 

• Our global economic competitors are not enacting this and we will be economically disadvantaged. The cost of 

energy is buried in everything we buy, produce, and provide services for. To increase energy costs is to increase 

societies cost, decrease our living standards, and give an economic edge to those countries we compete against, 

such as China. 

Sincerely, 

Karen Howell

Human Resources, Ohio

Rosebud Mining Company

95 North Lisbon Street

Carrollton, OH 44615

Phone: 330-627-6175

Fax: 330-627-6184

www.rosebudmining.com
29

From: Shawn Bowers [Shawn.Bowers@rosebudmining.com]

Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 3:11 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

• I work in the coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am gainfully employed 

supporting myself and my family and have no need for government assistance via either welfare or regulations 

that could someday negatively affect my industry. 

• The climate has changed for millions of years, from dinosaurs in a very warm climate to an ice age and everything 

in between. Grapes were growing in Greenland not too long ago and conversely the Dark Ages in Europe were 

partially due to a cooler period where crops failed. The Earth’s climate is always changing and your regulations 

will do literally nothing to change it or counter China’s present and growing emissions. 

• CO2 is beneficial for plants so how can they treat it as a pollutant 

• The EPA has arbitrarily assigned a cost to CO2 when they way the benefits of regulation against the costs to the 

economy. That arbitrary assignment of value was done because it does not make any true economic sense and is 

simply false, wrong, and improper 

• The poorest folks in America spend the largest percentage of their income on energy, i.e. heat for their homes, gas 

for their cars, electricity for their refrigerators and lights. Anything increasing the cost of these basic necessities of 

life greatly impacts them and is simply wrong and not in anyone’s best interest 

• The EPA outsourced to the IPCC their scientific study on whether CO2 is causing climate change and did not do 

their own internal study of it. Also, the EPA recognized how disruptive and economically horrible regulation of 

all sources of CO2 would be, so they developed the tailoring rule that only effects large stationary sources like 

coal fired power plants, at least initially. The tailoring rule is illegal and improper, as is the EPA accepting 

international group think tank’s analysis of the Earth’s weather patterns. 

• If forecasters cannot get the weather right a week from now, how can they forecast and model extremely complex 

global weather patterns decades out in advance with any level of accuracy, and spend billions trying to influence 

it? 

• Instead of wasting resources combatting a perceived threat of climate change, should those resources not be spent 

on world hunger, elimination of wide spread disease and suffering, and other various controllable, tangible, 

realizable, and worthy goals. While this is outside the prevue of the EPA, so is global weather controls that may 

or may not be needed – do-gooding, well-meaning environmental activism is no different than do-gooding, wellmeaning charity work. There is no reason American taxpayers and workers should bear the economic costs of 

trying to influence the Earth’s ever-changing weather patterns. 

• Our global economic competitors are not enacting this and we will be economically disadvantaged. The cost of 

energy is buried in everything we buy, produce, and provide services for. To increase energy costs is to increase 

societies cost, decrease our living standards, and give an economic edge to those countries we compete against, 

such as China. 

Shawn M. Bowers 

Rosebud Mining Company 

Sales & Logistics 

301 Market Street 

Kittanning, PA 16201 

(Office) 724-545-6222, Ext 369 

(Cell) 724-919-2140 
30

From: Harmony Foreman [HarmonyForeman@rosebudmining.com]

Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 1:49 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

• I work in the coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am gainfully employed 

supporting myself and my family and have no need for government assistance via either welfare or regulations that 

could someday negatively affect my industry. 

• The climate has changed for millions of years, from dinosaurs in a very warm climate to an ice age and 

everything in between. Grapes were growing in Greenland not too long ago and conversely the Dark Ages in Europe 

were partially due to a cooler period where crops failed. The Earth’s climate is always changing and your regulations will 

do literally nothing to change it or counter China’s present and growing emissions. 

• CO2 is beneficial for plants so how can they treat it as a pollutant 

• The EPA has arbitrarily assigned a cost to CO2 when they way the benefits of regulation against the costs to the 

economy. That arbitrary assignment of value was done because it does not make any true economic sense and is simply 

false, wrong, and improper 

• The poorest folks in America spend the largest percentage of their income on energy, i.e. heat for their homes, 

gas for their cars, electricity for their refrigerators and lights. Anything increasing the cost of these basic necessities of 

life greatly impacts them and is simply wrong and not in anyone’s best interest 

• The EPA outsourced to the IPCC their scientific study on whether CO2 is causing climate change and did not do 

their own internal study of it. Also, the EPA recognized how disruptive and economically horrible regulation of all 

sources of CO2 would be, so they developed the tailoring rule that only effects large stationary sources like coal fired 

power plants, at least initially. The tailoring rule is illegal and improper, as is the EPA accepting international group think 

tank’s analysis of the Earth’s weather patterns. 

• If forecasters cannot get the weather right a week from now, how can they forecast and model extremely 

complex global weather patterns decades out in advance with any level of accuracy, and spend billions trying to 

influence it? 

• Instead of wasting resources combatting a perceived threat of climate change, should those resources not be 

spent on world hunger, elimination of wide spread disease and suffering, and other various controllable, tangible, 

realizable, and worthy goals. While this is outside the prevue of the EPA, so is global weather controls that may or may 

not be needed – do-gooding, well-meaning environmental activism is no different than do-gooding, well-meaning 

charity work. There is no reason American taxpayers and workers should bear the economic costs of trying to influence 

the Earth’s ever-changing weather patterns. 

• Our global economic competitors are not enacting this and we will be economically disadvantaged. The cost of 

energy is buried in everything we buy, produce, and provide services for. To increase energy costs is to increase societies 

cost, decrease our living standards, and give an economic edge to those countries we compete against, such as China. 
31

From: Mike Cady [Mike.Cady@rosebudmining.com]

Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 1:40 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

• I work in the coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am gainfully employed 

supporting myself and my family and have no need for government assistance via either welfare or regulations 

that could someday negatively affect my industry. 

• The climate has changed for millions of years, from dinosaurs in a very warm climate to an ice age and everything 

in between. Grapes were growing in Greenland not too long ago and conversely the Dark Ages in Europe were 

partially due to a cooler period where crops failed. The Earth’s climate is always changing and your regulations 

will do literally nothing to change it or counter China’s present and growing emissions. 

• CO2 is beneficial for plants so how can they treat it as a pollutant 

• The EPA has arbitrarily assigned a cost to CO2 when they way the benefits of regulation against the costs to the 

economy. That arbitrary assignment of value was done because it does not make any true economic sense and is 

simply false, wrong, and improper 

• The poorest folks in America spend the largest percentage of their income on energy, i.e. heat for their homes, gas 

for their cars, electricity for their refrigerators and lights. Anything increasing the cost of these basic necessities of 

life greatly impacts them and is simply wrong and not in anyone’s best interest 

• The EPA outsourced to the IPCC their scientific study on whether CO2 is causing climate change and did not do 

their own internal study of it. Also, the EPA recognized how disruptive and economically horrible regulation of 

all sources of CO2 would be, so they developed the tailoring rule that only effects large stationary sources like 

coal fired power plants, at least initially. The tailoring rule is illegal and improper, as is the EPA accepting 

international group think tank’s analysis of the Earth’s weather patterns. 

• If forecasters cannot get the weather right a week from now, how can they forecast and model extremely complex 

global weather patterns decades out in advance with any level of accuracy, and spend billions trying to influence 

it? 

• Instead of wasting resources combatting a perceived threat of climate change, should those resources not be spent 

on world hunger, elimination of wide spread disease and suffering, and other various controllable, tangible, 

realizable, and worthy goals. While this is outside the prevue of the EPA, so is global weather controls that may 

or may not be needed – do-gooding, well-meaning environmental activism is no different than do-gooding, wellmeaning charity work. There is no reason American taxpayers and workers should bear the economic costs of 

trying to influence the Earth’s ever-changing weather patterns. 

• Our global economic competitors are not enacting this and we will be economically disadvantaged. The cost of 

energy is buried in everything we buy, produce, and provide services for. To increase energy costs is to increase 

societies cost, decrease our living standards, and give an economic edge to those countries we compete against, 

such as China. 

 Mike 

Cady, Rosebud Mining 
32

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Robert Wolff [bob@webwolff.com]

Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 1:36 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 11/05/2013 - 13:35 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Robert Wolff 

Email: bob@webwolff.com

Comments: The "global warming" agenda has been perpetrated by the UN using false and 

misleading data. This is simply another attempt at redistribution of wealth. When the coalfired plant in Pekin, IL is on line, we can't even tell it's running. When the "renewable" 

energy plant in Pekin is operating, it belches black smoke and emits a stench that can be 

smelled for miles. Lay off the coal industry. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
33

From: Harmony Clerk [HarmonyClerk@rosebudmining.com]

Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 1:34 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

• I work in the coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am gainfully employed 

supporting myself and my family and have no need for government assistance via either welfare or regulations that 

could someday negatively affect my industry. 

• The climate has changed for millions of years, from dinosaurs in a very warm climate to an ice age and 

everything in between. Grapes were growing in Greenland not too long ago and conversely the Dark Ages in Europe 

were partially due to a cooler period where crops failed. The Earth’s climate is always changing and your regulations will 

do literally nothing to change it or counter China’s present and growing emissions. 

• CO2 is beneficial for plants so how can they treat it as a pollutant 

• The EPA has arbitrarily assigned a cost to CO2 when they way the benefits of regulation against the costs to the 

economy. That arbitrary assignment of value was done because it does not make any true economic sense and is simply 

false, wrong, and improper 

• The poorest folks in America spend the largest percentage of their income on energy, i.e. heat for their homes, 

gas for their cars, electricity for their refrigerators and lights. Anything increasing the cost of these basic necessities of 

life greatly impacts them and is simply wrong and not in anyone’s best interest 

• The EPA outsourced to the IPCC their scientific study on whether CO2 is causing climate change and did not do 

their own internal study of it. Also, the EPA recognized how disruptive and economically horrible regulation of all 

sources of CO2 would be, so they developed the tailoring rule that only effects large stationary sources like coal fired 

power plants, at least initially. The tailoring rule is illegal and improper, as is the EPA accepting international group think 

tank’s analysis of the Earth’s weather patterns. 

• If forecasters cannot get the weather right a week from now, how can they forecast and model extremely 

complex global weather patterns decades out in advance with any level of accuracy, and spend billions trying to 

influence it? 

• Instead of wasting resources combatting a perceived threat of climate change, should those resources not be 

spent on world hunger, elimination of wide spread disease and suffering, and other various controllable, tangible, 

realizable, and worthy goals. While this is outside the prevue of the EPA, so is global weather controls that may or may 

not be needed – do-gooding, well-meaning environmental activism is no different than do-gooding, well-meaning 

charity work. There is no reason American taxpayers and workers should bear the economic costs of trying to influence 

the Earth’s ever-changing weather patterns. 

• Our global economic competitors are not enacting this and we will be economically disadvantaged. The cost of 

energy is buried in everything we buy, produce, and provide services for. To increase energy costs is to increase societies 

cost, decrease our living standards, and give an economic edge to those countries we compete against, such as China. 
34

From: Nancy Burton [Nancy.Burton@rosebudmining.com]

Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 1:31 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

• I work in the coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am gainfully employed 

supporting myself and my family and have no need for government assistance via either welfare or regulations that 

could someday negatively affect my industry. 

• The climate has changed for millions of years, from dinosaurs in a very warm climate to an ice age and 

everything in between. Grapes were growing in Greenland not too long ago and conversely the Dark Ages in Europe 

were partially due to a cooler period where crops failed. The Earth’s climate is always changing and your regulations will 

do literally nothing to change it or counter China’s present and growing emissions. 

• CO2 is beneficial for plants so how can they treat it as a pollutant 

• The EPA has arbitrarily assigned a cost to CO2 when they way the benefits of regulation against the costs to the 

economy. That arbitrary assignment of value was done because it does not make any true economic sense and is simply 

false, wrong, and improper 

• The poorest folks in America spend the largest percentage of their income on energy, i.e. heat for their homes, 

gas for their cars, electricity for their refrigerators and lights. Anything increasing the cost of these basic necessities of 

life greatly impacts them and is simply wrong and not in anyone’s best interest 

• The EPA outsourced to the IPCC their scientific study on whether CO2 is causing climate change and did not do 

their own internal study of it. Also, the EPA recognized how disruptive and economically horrible regulation of all 

sources of CO2 would be, so they developed the tailoring rule that only effects large stationary sources like coal fired 

power plants, at least initially. The tailoring rule is illegal and improper, as is the EPA accepting international group think 

tank’s analysis of the Earth’s weather patterns. 

• If forecasters cannot get the weather right a week from now, how can they forecast and model extremely 

complex global weather patterns decades out in advance with any level of accuracy, and spend billions trying to 

influence it? 

• Instead of wasting resources combatting a perceived threat of climate change, should those resources not be 

spent on world hunger, elimination of wide spread disease and suffering, and other various controllable, tangible, 

realizable, and worthy goals. While this is outside the prevue of the EPA, so is global weather controls that may or may 

not be needed – do-gooding, well-meaning environmental activism is no different than do-gooding, well-meaning 

charity work. There is no reason American taxpayers and workers should bear the economic costs of trying to influence 

the Earth’s ever-changing weather patterns. 

• Our global economic competitors are not enacting this and we will be economically disadvantaged. The cost of 

energy is buried in everything we buy, produce, and provide services for. To increase energy costs is to increase societies 

cost, decrease our living standards, and give an economic edge to those countries we compete against, such as China. 

John Chuey 

Rosebud Mining Company 

301 Market Street 

Kittanning, PA 
35

From: Nancy Burton [Nancy.Burton@rosebudmining.com]

Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 1:29 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

• I work in the coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am gainfully employed 

supporting myself and my family and have no need for government assistance via either welfare or regulations that 

could someday negatively affect my industry. 

• The climate has changed for millions of years, from dinosaurs in a very warm climate to an ice age and 

everything in between. Grapes were growing in Greenland not too long ago and conversely the Dark Ages in Europe 

were partially due to a cooler period where crops failed. The Earth’s climate is always changing and your regulations will 

do literally nothing to change it or counter China’s present and growing emissions. 

• CO2 is beneficial for plants so how can they treat it as a pollutant 

• The EPA has arbitrarily assigned a cost to CO2 when they way the benefits of regulation against the costs to the 

economy. That arbitrary assignment of value was done because it does not make any true economic sense and is simply 

false, wrong, and improper 

• The poorest folks in America spend the largest percentage of their income on energy, i.e. heat for their homes, 

gas for their cars, electricity for their refrigerators and lights. Anything increasing the cost of these basic necessities of 

life greatly impacts them and is simply wrong and not in anyone’s best interest 

• The EPA outsourced to the IPCC their scientific study on whether CO2 is causing climate change and did not do 

their own internal study of it. Also, the EPA recognized how disruptive and economically horrible regulation of all 

sources of CO2 would be, so they developed the tailoring rule that only effects large stationary sources like coal fired 

power plants, at least initially. The tailoring rule is illegal and improper, as is the EPA accepting international group think 

tank’s analysis of the Earth’s weather patterns. 

• If forecasters cannot get the weather right a week from now, how can they forecast and model extremely 

complex global weather patterns decades out in advance with any level of accuracy, and spend billions trying to 

influence it? 

• Instead of wasting resources combatting a perceived threat of climate change, should those resources not be 

spent on world hunger, elimination of wide spread disease and suffering, and other various controllable, tangible, 

realizable, and worthy goals. While this is outside the prevue of the EPA, so is global weather controls that may or may 

not be needed – do-gooding, well-meaning environmental activism is no different than do-gooding, well-meaning 

charity work. There is no reason American taxpayers and workers should bear the economic costs of trying to influence 

the Earth’s ever-changing weather patterns. 

• Our global economic competitors are not enacting this and we will be economically disadvantaged. The cost of 

energy is buried in everything we buy, produce, and provide services for. To increase energy costs is to increase societies 

cost, decrease our living standards, and give an economic edge to those countries we compete against, such as China. 

Thank You and PLEASE LET US use our natural resources the rest of the world does it. 

Nancy Burton 

Rosebud Mining Company 

301 Market Street 

Kittanning, PA 16201 
36

From: Brandy Schaeffer [Brandy.Schaeffer@rosebudmining.com]

Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 1:23 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

• I work in the coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am gainfully employed 

supporting myself and my family and have no need for government assistance via either welfare or regulations 

that could someday negatively affect my industry. 

• The climate has changed for millions of years, from dinosaurs in a very warm climate to an ice age and everything 

in between. Grapes were growing in Greenland not too long ago and conversely the Dark Ages in Europe were 

partially due to a cooler period where crops failed. The Earth’s climate is always changing and your regulations 

will do literally nothing to change it or counter China’s present and growing emissions. 

• CO2 is beneficial for plants so how can they treat it as a pollutant 

• The EPA has arbitrarily assigned a cost to CO2 when they way the benefits of regulation against the costs to the 

economy. That arbitrary assignment of value was done because it does not make any true economic sense and is 

simply false, wrong, and improper 

• The poorest folks in America spend the largest percentage of their income on energy, i.e. heat for their homes, gas 

for their cars, electricity for their refrigerators and lights. Anything increasing the cost of these basic necessities of 

life greatly impacts them and is simply wrong and not in anyone’s best interest 

• The EPA outsourced to the IPCC their scientific study on whether CO2 is causing climate change and did not do 

their own internal study of it. Also, the EPA recognized how disruptive and economically horrible regulation of 

all sources of CO2 would be, so they developed the tailoring rule that only effects large stationary sources like 

coal fired power plants, at least initially. The tailoring rule is illegal and improper, as is the EPA accepting 

international group think tank’s analysis of the Earth’s weather patterns. 

• If forecasters cannot get the weather right a week from now, how can they forecast and model extremely complex 

global weather patterns decades out in advance with any level of accuracy, and spend billions trying to influence 

it? 

• Instead of wasting resources combatting a perceived threat of climate change, should those resources not be spent 

on world hunger, elimination of wide spread disease and suffering, and other various controllable, tangible, 

realizable, and worthy goals. While this is outside the prevue of the EPA, so is global weather controls that may 

or may not be needed – do-gooding, well-meaning environmental activism is no different than do-gooding, wellmeaning charity work. There is no reason American taxpayers and workers should bear the economic costs of 

trying to influence the Earth’s ever-changing weather patterns. 

• Our global economic competitors are not enacting this and we will be economically disadvantaged. The cost of 

energy is buried in everything we buy, produce, and provide services for. To increase energy costs is to increase 

societies cost, decrease our living standards, and give an economic edge to those countries we compete against, 

such as China. 

Brandy M. Schaeffer 

Rosebud Mining Company 

Phone: 724-545-6222 x364 

Fax: 724-548-4156 

Email: brandy.schaeffer@rosebudmining.com
37

From: Sarah Shriver [Sarah.Shriver@rosebudmining.com]

Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 1:20 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

• I work in the coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am gainfully employed 

supporting myself and my family and have no need for government assistance via either welfare or regulations that 

could someday negatively affect my industry. 

• The climate has changed for millions of years, from dinosaurs in a very warm climate to an ice age and 

everything in between. Grapes were growing in Greenland not too long ago and conversely the Dark Ages in Europe 

were partially due to a cooler period where crops failed. The Earth’s climate is always changing and your regulations will 

do literally nothing to change it or counter China’s present and growing emissions. 

• CO2 is beneficial for plants so how can they treat it as a pollutant 

• The EPA has arbitrarily assigned a cost to CO2 when they way the benefits of regulation against the costs to the 

economy. That arbitrary assignment of value was done because it does not make any true economic sense and is simply 

false, wrong, and improper 

• The poorest folks in America spend the largest percentage of their income on energy, i.e. heat for their homes, 

gas for their cars, electricity for their refrigerators and lights. Anything increasing the cost of these basic necessities of 

life greatly impacts them and is simply wrong and not in anyone’s best interest 

• The EPA outsourced to the IPCC their scientific study on whether CO2 is causing climate change and did not do 

their own internal study of it. Also, the EPA recognized how disruptive and economically horrible regulation of all 

sources of CO2 would be, so they developed the tailoring rule that only effects large stationary sources like coal fired 

power plants, at least initially. The tailoring rule is illegal and improper, as is the EPA accepting international group think 

tank’s analysis of the Earth’s weather patterns. 

• If forecasters cannot get the weather right a week from now, how can they forecast and model extremely 

complex global weather patterns decades out in advance with any level of accuracy, and spend billions trying to 

influence it? 

• Instead of wasting resources combatting a perceived threat of climate change, should those resources not be 

spent on world hunger, elimination of wide spread disease and suffering, and other various controllable, tangible, 

realizable, and worthy goals. While this is outside the prevue of the EPA, so is global weather controls that may or may 

not be needed – do-gooding, well-meaning environmental activism is no different than do-gooding, well-meaning 

charity work. There is no reason American taxpayers and workers should bear the economic costs of trying to influence 

the Earth’s ever-changing weather patterns. 

• Our global economic competitors are not enacting this and we will be economically disadvantaged. The cost of 

energy is buried in everything we buy, produce, and provide services for. To increase energy costs is to increase societies 

cost, decrease our living standards, and give an economic edge to those countries we compete against, such as China. 

Sarah Shriver 

Accounts Payable 

Rosebud Mining Company 

301 Market Street 

Kittanning, Pa 16201 

724.545.6222 Ex: 353 

724.545.6416 Fax 
38

From: Gary Hooten [Gary.Hooten@rosebudmining.com]

Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 1:19 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

• I work in the coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am gainfully employed 

supporting myself and my family and have no need for government assistance via either welfare or regulations 

that could someday negatively affect my industry. 

• The climate has changed for millions of years, from dinosaurs in a very warm climate to an ice age and everything 

in between. Grapes were growing in Greenland not too long ago and conversely the Dark Ages in Europe were 

partially due to a cooler period where crops failed. The Earth’s climate is always changing and your regulations 

will do literally nothing to change it or counter China’s present and growing emissions. 

• CO2 is beneficial for plants so how can they treat it as a pollutant 

• The EPA has arbitrarily assigned a cost to CO2 when they way the benefits of regulation against the costs to the 

economy. That arbitrary assignment of value was done because it does not make any true economic sense and is 

simply false, wrong, and improper 

• The poorest folks in America spend the largest percentage of their income on energy, i.e. heat for their homes, gas 

for their cars, electricity for their refrigerators and lights. Anything increasing the cost of these basic necessities of 

life greatly impacts them and is simply wrong and not in anyone’s best interest 

• The EPA outsourced to the IPCC their scientific study on whether CO2 is causing climate change and did not do 

their own internal study of it. Also, the EPA recognized how disruptive and economically horrible regulation of 

all sources of CO2 would be, so they developed the tailoring rule that only effects large stationary sources like 

coal fired power plants, at least initially. The tailoring rule is illegal and improper, as is the EPA accepting 

international group think tank’s analysis of the Earth’s weather patterns. 

• If forecasters cannot get the weather right a week from now, how can they forecast and model extremely complex 

global weather patterns decades out in advance with any level of accuracy, and spend billions trying to influence 

it? 

• Instead of wasting resources combatting a perceived threat of climate change, should those resources not be spent 

on world hunger, elimination of wide spread disease and suffering, and other various controllable, tangible, 

realizable, and worthy goals. While this is outside the prevue of the EPA, so is global weather controls that may 

or may not be needed – do-gooding, well-meaning environmental activism is no different than do-gooding, wellmeaning charity work. There is no reason American taxpayers and workers should bear the economic costs of 

trying to influence the Earth’s ever-changing weather patterns. 

• Our global economic competitors are not enacting this and we will be economically disadvantaged. The cost of 

energy is buried in everything we buy, produce, and provide services for. To increase energy costs is to increase 

societies cost, decrease our living standards, and give an economic edge to those countries we compete against, 

such as China. 
39

From: Jason Duncan [Jason.Duncan@rosebudmining.com]

Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 1:17 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards for Existing Sources

• I work in the coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am gainfully employed 

supporting myself and my family and have no need for government assistance via either welfare or regulations 

that could someday negatively affect my industry. 

• The climate has changed for millions of years, from dinosaurs in a very warm climate to an ice age and everything 

in between. Grapes were growing in Greenland not too long ago and conversely the Dark Ages in Europe were 

partially due to a cooler period where crops failed. The Earth’s climate is always changing and your regulations 

will do literally nothing to change it or counter China’s present and growing emissions. 

• CO2 is beneficial for plants so how can they treat it as a pollutant 

• The EPA has arbitrarily assigned a cost to CO2 when they way the benefits of regulation against the costs to the 

economy. That arbitrary assignment of value was done because it does not make any true economic sense and is 

simply false, wrong, and improper 

• The poorest folks in America spend the largest percentage of their income on energy, i.e. heat for their homes, gas 

for their cars, electricity for their refrigerators and lights. Anything increasing the cost of these basic necessities of 

life greatly impacts them and is simply wrong and not in anyone’s best interest 

• The EPA outsourced to the IPCC their scientific study on whether CO2 is causing climate change and did not do 

their own internal study of it. Also, the EPA recognized how disruptive and economically horrible regulation of 

all sources of CO2 would be, so they developed the tailoring rule that only effects large stationary sources like 

coal fired power plants, at least initially. The tailoring rule is illegal and improper, as is the EPA accepting 

international group think tank’s analysis of the Earth’s weather patterns. 

• If forecasters cannot get the weather right a week from now, how can they forecast and model extremely complex 

global weather patterns decades out in advance with any level of accuracy, and spend billions trying to influence 

it? 

• Instead of wasting resources combatting a perceived threat of climate change, should those resources not be spent 

on world hunger, elimination of wide spread disease and suffering, and other various controllable, tangible, 

realizable, and worthy goals. While this is outside the prevue of the EPA, so is global weather controls that may 

or may not be needed – do-gooding, well-meaning environmental activism is no different than do-gooding, wellmeaning charity work. There is no reason American taxpayers and workers should bear the economic costs of 

trying to influence the Earth’s ever-changing weather patterns. 

• Our global economic competitors are not enacting this and we will be economically disadvantaged. The cost of 

energy is buried in everything we buy, produce, and provide services for. To increase energy costs is to increase 

societies cost, decrease our living standards, and give an economic edge to those countries we compete against, 

such as China. 
40

From: Jim Barker [Jim.Barker@rosebudmining.com]

Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 11:25 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Stop trying to regulate CO2

EPA: 

Please see the reasons I cite below to stop trying to regulate CO2, it is wrong for America and harmful to our economy. 

• I work in the coal fields and have a job that CO2 regulations will eventually impact. I am gainfully employed 

supporting myself and my family and have no need for government assistance via either welfare or regulations 

that could someday negatively affect my industry. 

• The climate has changed for millions of years, from dinosaurs in a very warm climate to an ice age and 

everything in between. Grapes were growing in Greenland not too long ago and conversely the Dark Ages in 

Europe were partially due to a cooler period where crops failed. The Earth’s climate is always changing and your 

regulations will do literally nothing to change it or counter China’s present and growing emissions. 

• CO2 is beneficial for plants so how can they treat it as a pollutant 

• The EPA has arbitrarily assigned a cost to CO2 when they way the benefits of regulation against the costs to the 

economy. That arbitrary assignment of value was done because it does not make any true economic sense and is 

simply false, wrong, and improper 

• The poorest folks in America spend the largest percentage of their income on energy, i.e. heat for their homes, 

gas for their cars, electricity for their refrigerators and lights. Anything increasing the cost of these basic 

necessities of life greatly impacts them and is simply wrong and not in anyone’s best interest 

• The EPA outsourced to the IPCC their scientific study on whether CO2 is causing climate change and did not do 

their own internal study of it. Also, the EPA recognized how disruptive and economically horrible regulation of 

all sources of CO2 would be, so they developed the tailoring rule that only effects large stationary sources like 

coal fired power plants, at least initially. The tailoring rule is illegal and improper, as is the EPA accepting 

international group think tank’s analysis of the Earth’s weather patterns. 

• If forecasters cannot get the weather right a week from now, how can they forecast and model extremely 

complex global weather patterns decades out in advance with any level of accuracy, and spend billions trying to 

influence it? 

• Instead of wasting resources combatting a perceived threat of climate change, should those resources not be 

spent on world hunger, elimination of wide spread disease and suffering, and other various controllable, 

 tangible, realizable, and worthy goals. While this is outside the prevue of the EPA, so is global weather controls 

that may or may not be needed – do-gooding, well-meaning environmental activism is no different than dogooding, well-meaning charity work. There is no reason American taxpayers and workers should bear the 

economic costs of trying to influence the Earth’s ever-changing weather patterns. 

• Our global economic competitors are not enacting this and we will be economically disadvantaged. The cost of 

energy is buried in everything we buy, produce, and provide services for. To increase energy costs is to increase 

societies cost, decrease our living standards, and give an economic edge to those countries we compete against, 

such as China. 

Jim Barker 

360 Adams Road 

Kittanning, PA 16201 
41

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Mark Saito [mswxerman@comcast.net]

Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 6:10 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Mon, 11/04/2013 - 18:10 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Mark Saito 

Email: mswxerman@comcast.net

Comments: 

The Proposed Carbon Pollution Standard for New Power Plants (Standard) should be delayed. 

Since the Standard was first proposed, the following events have taken place: 1. The global 

surface temperature record had not experienced 17 years with no warming. 

2. The U.S. Supreme Court had not agreed to hear a challenge as to whether greenhouse gas 

emissions from stationary sources can be regulated. 

3. The U.S. is on pace to experience the fewest tornadoes on record. 

These events show that the current theory of catastrophic global warming from man-made 

emissions of CO2 is dubious at best. Given that these recent events should not be happening, 

implementing the Standard may not reduce global temperatures while succeeding in only 

damaging the U.S. economy. 

Further study should be conducted to better determine the connection between global 

temperatures and greenhouse gas emissions. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
42

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Christopher Brown [chrisbrown@bna.com]

Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 4:59 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Mon, 11/04/2013 - 16:59 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Christopher Brown 

Email: chrisbrown@bna.com

Comments: Is it possible to listen in by phone to the listening sessions? 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
43

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Andy Miller [aj.miller@alcatel-lucent.com]

Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 3:41 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Mon, 11/04/2013 - 15:40 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Andy Miller 

Email: aj.miller@alcatel-lucent.com

Comments: 

Carbon Dioxide is "Plant food" - It is NOT air pollution! 

In fact, it is necessary, for earth's very existence! 

Air polution is Sulfer dioxide, Carbon MONoxide, mercury, lead, etc! 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
44

From: Justin Burggraff [jbrggrff@gmail.com]

Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 12:48 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

 Dear Ms. McCarthey, 

 

I writing to comment on your plans to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants. I am 

very concerned about this and feel it is quite unnecessary. I am also against the the heavy handed rules 

proposed to regulate new plants which pretty much kills any initiative to use coal, our most abundant and 

reliable resource to generate energy. 

 

I have looked at too much geology around the world to buy into the theory that mankind is causing a 

wholesale change in the climate. The climate has been changing forever. In the part of the world in which I 

grew up and have worked for the last 25 years, I can see evidence of multiple events of both extreme cold and 

heat in virtually any construction, mining, or even erosion cut. 

 

Just logical thinking points out that the CO2 levels during the age of the dinosaurs would have to be very high 

compared to today to support the plant life necessary to support such massive creatures. There was at one 

time tropical seas and swamps across much of the mid United States. That is where the coal came from. Can 

you imagine the CO2 required to support the plant material needed to form the massive and abundant coal 

seams contained in the US? I have personally seen volcanoes that put huge amounts of greenhouse gases into 

the atmosphere. And there are many. Makes mans contribution seem pretty puny. 

 

I do not support the theory that we must harm our economy for a "just in case". I support land reclamation 

around mining and air quality controls to remove particulates and other harmful emissions. I do not feel the 

greenhouse gases are harmful emissions. 

 

Putting these unnecessary controls on our sources of electricity creates too much of a burden on society, 

especially the poor. The price of household power is just a small piece of the pie. Heightened energy costs 

cause prices to rise in nearly every aspect of life including transportation, food, building, manufacturing, 

medical, entertainment just to name a few. And as these costs go up, as we have seen happen in this country, 

the jobs go elsewhere adding to the burden. 

 

I have heard of plans the Federal government will implement to help the poor. But if prices rise, there will be 

more poor. Where does this money come from? 
45

 

I have traveled extensively around the world. My observations has been that where there is affordable energy, 

the quality of life is better. Not affordable energy, the quality is down. 

 

Now just some facts. These regulations will kill jobs. Not only the mining and energy jobs, but the 

manufacturing jobs. I believe there will be green jobs. But I also believe that jobs created for something that 

is really not necessary such as greenhouse gas reduction cannot sustain. 

 

I believe the calls for efficiency are a good course. I also believe the resources would be best used to work 

towards efficiencies worldwide. 

 

I hear that the US is the biggest polluter. Well that seems a bit outlandish. I have seen the air in the US 

versus other parts of the world and it is just not true. 

 

Now some thoughts on markets, supply, and demand. Prices stay low when there is fair competition. Will 

the prices of all non coal electricity rise when coal is removed from competition? I believe any cursory study 

at all of history will point to an answer of "yes". 

 

In conclusion, I am a father of 4 children and a grandfather of 3 with hopes for many more. I have watched 

and thought about this debate for a long time. I believe the best future for my loved ones and for that 

matter, the world, involves the utilization of clean affordable energy. And I believe a significant factor in 

having clean and affordable energy is with the use of coal. The facts all show it. The real answer is to 

embrace coal and build new, cleaner, and more efficient power plants to power the economy in a sustainable 

way and use the money we are throwing at the the greenhouse phantom to help the world to power up. 

 

Very truly yours, 

Justin Burggraff

 

 
46

From: Curt Lightle [curtlightle@copper.net]

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 11:13 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Contact Us Comment - Carbon Pollution Standards

Please, it is about time that the government supports standards that provide the people with a high standard of living. Regulating Carbon is ridiculous. The air is as clean as it has been in many many decades. Regulating CO2 as the cause for global warming, if it really even exists as measured over a short period of time, doesn’t matter if the rest of the world continues to prosper while we here are risking our quality of life and national security because a few scientists have marketed and convinced the ignorant public. 

Please keep America strong and don’t implement rules against its citizens, 

Sincerely, 

Curt Lightle 
47

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Bill Watkins [wwatkins@kc.rr.com]

Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 6:08 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Thu, 10/31/2013 - 18:08 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Bill Watkins 

Email: wwatkins@kc.rr.com

Comments: 

I would like to provide input to the EPA Public Listening Sessions program. 

I strongly believe that the EPA should use caution in regulating the reduction of carbon 

pollution from existing power plants, due to the consequential impact on energy costs and the 

economy. The EPA should make decisions based upon proven factual data from credible sources, 

with clearly identified and substantiated problems and solutions. Many of the dire warnings 

of the consequences of mankind’s influence on climate have not held true, and yet the 

alarmists continue to be granted a level of 

credibility that they have not earned. There has been “global warming” 

since the end of the last Ice Age, and I don’t think that the first cave man who lit a fire 

was the cause. 

I am not a scientist, but I recognize and respect disciplined and objective scientific 

methodology. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has repeatedly 

provided false or misleading “findings”, and yet some policy makers advocate the immediate 

implementation of their recommendations on curbing global emissions. I believe that 

contradictory research, such as the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change’s 

Scientific Critique of IPCC’s 2013 “Summary for Policymakers”, should also be considered 

before our government takes action that may have no impact on climate issues - but negatively 

impacts the economic health of our nation. 

As I learned during my military career, credibility is difficult to earn and easy to lose. I 

am not surprised by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scandals, because I accept 

that they have a political agenda that supersedes scientific facts. I do, however, hold the 

EPA to a much higher standard – as public servants entrusted with a significant 

responsibility to enhance the welfare of this great country, I expect the EPA to make 

decisions based solely upon the FACTS. Please DO NOT introduce policies that harm our 

economy based upon unproven, disproven, or politically-motivated beliefs. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input! 

Bill Watkins 

Lansing, KS 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
48

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Betty Gibbs [Betty.gibbs@gmail.com]

Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 2:32 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Thu, 10/31/2013 - 14:31 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Betty Gibbs 

Email: Betty.gibbs@gmail.com

Comments: 

In reference to: Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 

- Carbon Dioxide is required for life on Earth. To call carbon dioxide a 

pollutant is scientifically embarrassing. The popular notion of those benefitting from 

taxpayer research funding is to raise fears that carbon dioxide is causing global warming and 

dire consequences will certainly be the doom of mankind. The actual global temperatures 

measured are debunking models that predict that the temperature increase as carbon dioxide in 

the atmosphere increases. The software is built to assume that temperature rises as carbon 

dioxide rises. It is scientifically shameful to continue to use those models to cause 

unrealistic fears of the negative effects of global warming without a balancing view of the 

positive effects of a warmer climate. 

It is also scientifically embarrassing to lay extreme weather events at the feet of debatable 

global warming caused by burning coal and other fossil fuels. 

- Natural Resources on Earth. God put resources on earth that can be used by 

plants and animals. Human animals have developed brains that can use resources to benefit all 

life on earth. We have learned to use coal and other resources more cleanly and efficiently. 

Excessive government regulation such as the new EPA regulations target to the coal industry 

are more likely to result in the unintended consequence of more environmental degradation 

that could be avoided by incentives to develop ways to produce useful energy more 

efficiently. The coal industry has demonstrated this capability, but these current proposed 

regulations go too far and are more likely to strangle further technical and economic 

development than to protect the environment. 

- Reclaimed mined lands. It is a beautiful sight to see reclaimed mined lands 

teeming with vegetation and wildlife such as the sage grouse and deer. 

Besides returning land to a useful and environmental benefit, the resources under the surface 

have provided warmth, light, and huge economic benefits. 

See hundreds of examples of mined land reclamation at: 

http://www.mineralseducationcoalition.org/reclamation-stories

- Effect on Native American Populations. The following statement is from an 

article published in the Wall Street Journal and a report from Perc.org: 

“Those who care about real-world Indians might want to focus instead on how the Obama 

administration's hostility to the coal industry does more harm to Native Americans than any 

NFL franchise ever will.” - See more at: 

http://perc.org/articles/war-coal-punishing-indian-country#sthash.y6vHFsQQ.dpuf. 

 And: “Indian reservations contain almost 30% of the nation's coal reserves west of the 

Mississippi, as well as significant deposits of oil, natural gas and uranium.” Many reasons 

have been cited about why the Indian nations have a high rate of poverty, but why add to it 

by the use of too much government control and excessive regulation? 

I urge you to at least take a step back from the predetermined conclusion to proceed with the 

current onerous set of coal regulation and consider that coal and fossil fuels provide: 

- Hundreds of thousands of high paying jobs that support families and improve 

economic conditions for many communities. 

- Ability to support yourself and/or a family and have a sense of self-esteem 

and self-worth that no amount of government handouts can provide. 
49

- $97 billion contribution to GDP. 

- Base load for the electrical grid across the country that no amount of 

‘renewable’ sources can duplicate. 

The numbers of real people actually mining coal may be a small percentage of the total 

population, but the effects of a shutdown of the industry would ripple through the entire 

economy with serious negative effect. Do you want that on your heads? 

I am sure you know these facts as well: 

“The EPA does not anticipate that this proposed rule will result in notable 

CO2 emission changes, energy impacts, monetized benefits, costs, or economic impacts by 

2022,” the EPA writes under the comments section of its proposal. 

The EPA also admits that “the owners of newly built electric generating units will likely 

choose technologies that meet these standards even in the absence of this proposal due to 

existing economic conditions as normal business practice.” 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
50

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of David Adams [long83dt@charter.net]

Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 2:28 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Wed, 10/30/2013 - 14:27 

Submitted values are: 

Name: David Adams 

Email: long83dt@charter.net

Comments: We as a nation should not spend much time or recources in reducing CO2. It has 

been proven to my satisfaction that the man made CO2 that the US produces is a small fraction 

of that produced globally. More significantly it (man made CO2) has been proven to have only 

a small significance on global temperatures. Solar activity has by far the most significant 

dominance over our global temperature. When we have paid all our debts such that we won't be 

passing said debt on to other generations, we should then revisit man made 

CO2 in the US. CO2 is beneficial to plant growth and no further industrial penalties or 

requlation should be considered until we get our budget in order. Further regulation would 

be detrimental to the US in the global economy, do very little to the percent of total global 

CO2 production, and have very little impact on global temperature. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
51

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Bob Armstrong [bob@cosy.com]

Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 4:50 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 10/29/2013 - 16:49 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Bob Armstrong 

Email: bob@cosy.com

Comments: 

It is not possible to adequately express the contempt I feel for the damage to our country , 

both human and environmental , done by , what at this point in time can only be seen as 

willful -- and therefore criminal -- falsehood in the EPA's designation of the very building 

block of the biosphere itself as a pollutant . 

The damage you have done to the teaching and understanding of science and its method may be 

your greatest and long lasting sin . 

I am one of the tens of thousands of quantitatively educated citizens trying to halt and 

ameliorate the damage your nonscience continues to do . My efforts to make understandable the 

most basic physics of planetary temperature at the talented teen level on my website 

http://CoSy.com . 

There is no question that history will see this global statist arrogance as the most harmful 

ever , even eclipsing Stalin's Lysenkoism which damaged the welfare of only a portion of one 

continent . 

It's not feasible for me to make it up to your "listening tour" charade in Denver tomorrow 

for the pointless attempt to interject some high school and even grade school science into 

your considerations . I know your careers depend on denying the ever more undeniable reality 

and understanding that the sole source of carbon to the organic world is a boon not a bane , 

but hopefully your house will be cleansed after the next couple of election cycles . 

Unfortunately some of you who are willful fraudsters rather than simply lacking a 

quantitative education , will never go to prison for the damage and hardship you continue to 

cause in your disregard of science and common sense . 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
52

From: Jack Cranfill [jackcranfill@me.com]

Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 12:52 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Gentlemen, 

Call me a "Flat Earth" person if you will, but while I accept and believe that climate change 

is real, it is my opinion (as well as many other scientists) that mankind has little impact 

as the cause of climate change. Even if you believe that C)2 is the cause of climate change, 

of the 300 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere mankind is responsible for 4 ppm. We are wasting 

tremendous amounts of dollars and greatly increasing the cost of power - there is no way that 

is good for the economy or our country. 

Jack Cranfill 

Chemical Engineer 

8835 Sarita Court 

Fort Myers, FL 33912 
53

From: David Opitz [dopitz@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 7:46 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: David Opitz comment

carbon is not a pollutant 

 

or did you guys fail high school chemistry
54

From: ben wilson [mrbenwilson@hotmail.com]

Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 11:22 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: ben wilson [mrbenwilson@hotmail.com] comment

 Remeber this little gem? Jesus Christ the EPA is run by a bunch of ignorant bastards. 

Shocker: EPA air chief ignorant of atmospheric CO2 

level

At today’s House Energy and Power Subcommittee hearing on EPA’s job killing greenhouse gas regulations, 

Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) asked panel witness Gina McCarthy — chief of EPA’s air programs, including the 

agency’s greenhouse gas regulations — whether she had any idea of what the atmospheric level of carbon 

dioxide is, SHE ADMITTED THAT SHE DID NOT! 
55

From: ben wilson [mrbenwilson@hotmail.com]

Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 11:18 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: ben wilson [mrbenwilson@hotmail.com] comment

We know the EPA only does this for show, and you aren’t really interested in listening to the public’s 

ideas and concerns. If Carbon is a pollution, the EPA is the largest emitter and should be shut down.

You idiots are so out of touch with reality. You need an education on what carbon dioxide is and isn’t. 

It is not a pollution. The IPCC is a group of activists, they have not even proved the hypothesis that 

carbon dioxide is causing catastrophic warming. (where is the warming anyway?) Carbon dioxide, if 

anything, is too low. My God I hope you get defunded soon. 

Read this crap. It is from your website. All bullshit. Your ethanol mandate is contributing to smog. 

Should have researched methanol a tad more. Politics.

Health effects of carbon pollution

Unchecked carbon pollution leads to long-lasting changes in our climate, such as:

• Rising global temperatures 

• Rising sea level 

• Changes in weather and precipitation patterns 

• Changes in ecosystems, habitats and species diversity

These changes threaten America's health and welfare for current and future generations. Public health risks 

include:

• More heat waves and drought 

• Worsening smog (also called ground-level ozone pollution) 

• Increasing the intensity of extreme events, like hurricanes, extreme precipitation and flooding 

• Increasing the range of ticks and mosquitoes, which can spread disease such as Lyme disease and West 

Nile virus 

Our most vulnerable citizens, including children, older adults, people with heart or lung disease and people 

living in poverty may be most at risk from the health impacts of climate change.
56

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Robert Steinhaus [steinhausq@yahoo.com]

Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 4:55 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 10/22/2013 - 16:55 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Robert Steinhaus 

Email: steinhausq@yahoo.com

Comments: 

EPA does not have the expertise and engineering core to decide issues on power generation for 

the American people. Power plants are private and collectively owned technology worth 

billions of dollars that defend American quality of life. For EPA to assume authority not 

given it by legislation and ratchet air and water quality standards to the point it actually 

starts closing existing safe operating power plants producing billions of dollars of benefits 

for communities that invested in them injures America. 

The American public demands to see the cost-benefit analysis that stands behind EPA 

regulatory actions. If EPA is willing to take sweeping actions that put safe operating power 

plants out of service, there needs to be viable, economical, and practical power generation 

technology directly available to replace that power generation. 

EPA, you need a stronger engineering case for your environmental actions before you design 

new regulation to selectively close power plants that employ technology you currently do not 

favor (but which are cost effective technologies that American communities have built at the 

costs of billions of dollars). 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
57

From: Daniel McNeil [danieldmcneil@yahoo.com]

Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 4:19 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Clean Air Act approaches to reducing carbon pollution

We are concerned, shocked and disappointed by the EPA in regards to actions on CO2.

1. CO2 is NOT a pollutant! It is a trace gas required for life on the planet. Am I "polluting" when I exhale?

2. The IPCC models are NOT scientific proof of anthropogenic global warming. They are just models. We have had 17 years of no global warming. None of the 

IPCC models predicted no warming, thus the models are WRONG. The EPA endangerment finding is in fact WRONG because it is based on faulty, politicallydriven IPCC reports. The endangerment finding should be based on REAL science.

3. Even if the U.S. did limit its CO2 production, those same IPCC reports show it will NO EFFECT on global temperatures! China, India and other countries are 

increasing their CO2 output well beyond any decrease we might achieve. The proposed EPA regulation will only hurt us economically while having no effect 

globally.

4. The clean air act was never intended to cover CO2.

5. The U.S. economy is struggling. Household incomes are not rising. We cannot afford the increase in energy prices that more regulations will cause.

For all these reasons, the EPA should withdraw these new regulations.

Sincerely,

Daniel and Gini McNeil
58

From: John Perry [normaajohn@aol.com]

Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 2:54 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Carbon pollution standards

I am a nuclear engineer with a longtime interest in global warming. I have concluded that 

carbon dioxide has only a slight but not troubling ability to warm the world. Furthermore it 

is a plant fertilizer and allows significantly more vigorous plant growth. I am opposed to 

limits on carbon dioxide emissions and oppose subsidies for green enery. 
59

From: Richard Luke [rhlukejr@gmail.com]

Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 2:10 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is plant food. My suggestion is drop the whole idea, and stop 

exhaling. 
60

From: illiya ananiev [illiya@ananiev.net]

Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 2:05 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: CO2

Please stop calling CO2 a pollutant, it is far from it. 

I would be very happy to present on behalf of the scientific community to clarify your misconception of this 

simple point. 

Regards, 

Illiya
61

From: Carl Fetterman [fetterm60@gmail.com]

Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 1:46 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: carbonpollutioninput

Subject: Reducing Carbon Pollution from Existing Power Plants 

One accepted definition of pollution is “the action of polluting especially by environmental contamination with 

man-made waste”. While some substances composed mainly of carbon meet this definition, not all do. The 

question then is, what do you include as “Carbon Pollution”. Defining the issue is the first step in initiating a 

discussion. 

Carbon in the form of soot is certainly a pollutant, and something that we have successfully dealt with in the 

United States, although more can be done. I am assuming, however, that your group is referring to Carbon 

Dioxide. Although it would be difficult to find anything positive about carbon in the form of soot, CO2 is a 

very different compound. 

Life on earth would not be possible without about 200ppm carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is a natural part 

of most biological processes, either as a byproduct or a raw material. Increasing carbon dioxide concentration 

is an accepted way of boosting growth rates in greenhouses. Higher carbon dioxide concentrations reduce the 

need for water and other nutrients. Most carbon dioxide originates naturally, it is necessary for life, increasing 

concentrations are generally beneficial, and the biosphere has the ability to moderate concentrations of carbon 

dioxide, therefore it should not be considered a pollutant. Animals can tolerate many times the concentration of 

carbon dioxide now in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than water vapor and is just as 

essential for life. 

It is established scientific fact that carbon dioxide mixed with air will reduce the transmittance of long wave 

radiation to space. It is also known that other gasses, mainly dihydrogen oxide, absorb far more than does 

carbon dioxide. What is not known is exactly how the climate system works. Why have the many, very 

expensive, computer models been so wrong lately? Perhaps because the real climate system is more complex 

than the models. The trap that many, including the climate experts and the politicians, have fallen into is 

placing more confidence in the model results than they do in the real world. They refuse to believe that the 

models are wrong, while simultaneously requesting more money for more models. 

The models use multiple variables, carbon dioxide being only one of them, although carbon dioxide was treated 

as the prime driver of temperature change. The atmospheric response to carbon dioxide, it was assumed, is 

boosted by an increase in humidity in response to the minor warming caused by carbon dioxide. However, the 

real world has not followed the models. In fact, the actual climate response to increases in carbon dioxide is not 

known with certainty. The fact that the many models don’t agree with each other would seem to be a good 

indicator that the modelers don’t know all there is to know about climate response. 

It was predicted that, as carbon dioxide concentrations increased, the climate would respond with increasing 

temperatures, more and bigger hurricanes, more floods, more droughts, more tornadoes, accelerated sea level 

rise, and other negative results. Essentially, the EPA doctrine is that every negative aspect of normal weather, 

and none of the positive aspects, is the result of carbon dioxide. None, repeat none, of those things has 

happened. Despite the fact that the models are demonstratively wrong, we still have the same dire predictions 

coming out of Washington. There is apparently more faith in the models than in the real world. 
62

President Obama is one that believes more in the fantasy world of computer models than in the empirical data. 

He has stated in the past that his energy policy would make electricity rates skyrocket. Why he would want to 

do this is a question for others to answer. The actions planned by the EPA, to close many power plants and 

replace them with wind, solar, and biofuels, will succeed in doing just that, making rates skyrocket. In addition, 

such a program will result in degradation in the reliability of our power supply and do permanent damage to the 

economy. 

As a first step in deciding what to do about our power system, which is really the subject here, we first need to 

determine what the goals are and prioritize them. Eliminating coal fired plants will reduce carbon dioxide in the 

atmosphere, but by how much? Even assuming that the models, with their exaggerated carbon dioxide response 

are correct, what warming of the planet is likely to be avoided? China is building more coal plants than we are 

planning to shut down, so is this plan ultimately beneficial? What will be the cost to society in jobs and cost of 

living and quality of life? Given that coal fired plants are getting old and will be closing through natural 

attrition anyway, what power sources should we replace them with? Solar is too expensive and as you may 

remember, only works during the day. Wind, while a bit cheaper, is unpredictable. An analysis of wind power 

in Idaho, for example, found that the wind blows least at the time of year that power demand peaks. My 

analysis is that wind and solar are not something we should be putting any money into, and certainly should not 

be subsidizing with tax dollars. 

In summary, if EPA really wants to improve the overall situation, the goal should be to develop a new plan for 

the national power grid based on the lowest cost, most reliable power sources available, including existing 

sources (nat gas, coal, biofuels, nuclear, hydro, geothermal), and new possibilities such as Thorium based 

nuclear. In addition, we should continue to do research into energy storage (batteries). Batteries that can 

achieve an energy density equivalent to petroleum at a reasonable cost would be revolutionary for the power 

industry and transportation. Deploying more wind and solar systems is folly. If wind and solar are ever 

competitive, without subsidies and artificially high feed-in rates, then private industry will build them. There is 

no reason for the government to be involved at this time in wind and solar. 

Carl Fetterman 

7421 E Grey Lag Dr. 

Nampa ID 83687 

208-468-7925 
63

From: Doug Hilliard [drhillia@bellsouth.net]

Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 1:27 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Carbon from power plants

I will not be able to make any of the listening meetings you are holding for input to the EPA. My only input is that carbon 

dioxide is not pollution, it is plant food and regulating it as a poison is a tragic mistake. While CO2 contributes to slight 

atmospheric warming, it does not contribute enough to be a concern and we should not punish the citizens of this or 

any other country by adding more regulatory requirements to power generation. Inexpensive power is the key to a 

growing economy and increasing the prices assures slow or no growth in our economy which destroys peoples’ ability to 

make a living.

Sincerely,

Doug Hilliard

1029 Batchelor Rd.

Apex, NC 27523 
64

From: Connie&mark [m93arkj@paulbunyan.net]

Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 11:34 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: More Coal

Dear EPA 

 

Are your new proposals based on science???

 

Carbon pollution or carbon dioxide?

 

EPA to Hold Public Listening Sessions on Reducing Carbon Pollution from Existing Power Plants

 

Ban CFL ilight bulbs not cheaper electricity

 

Get some of those NASA engineers making coal fired plants even better then they have gotten since 

1972

 

Don't F*&^% them 9Coal plants out of business

 

Sincerely.

 

mark

 
65

From: JOHN MURRAY [forjmm31@hotmail.com]

Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2013 9:17 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Our examination of the science of global warming (Chapter Two) finds that global warming alarmism 

wrongly claims that recent temperature changes have been greater and more rapid than those of the past and 

therefore must be manmade, not natural. It exaggerates the influence of manmade greenhouse gases on global 

temperature and ignores or underestimates the influence of natural cycles. It mistakenly takes the output of 

computer climate models as evidence when it is only predictions based on hypotheses that must be tested by 

observation. It falsely claims overwhelming scientific consensus in favor of the hypothesis of dangerous 

manmade warming (ignoring tens of thousands of scientists who disagree) and then falsely claims that such 

consensus proves the hypothesis and justifies policies to fight it. It seeks to intimidate or demonize scientific 

skeptics rather than welcoming their work as of the very essence of scientific inquiry: putting hypotheses to the 

test rather than blindly embracing them. 

Our examination of the economics of global warming alarmism (Chapter Three) finds that it exaggerates 

the harms from global warming and ignores or underestimates the benefits not only from warming but also from 

increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. It grossly underestimates the costs and overestimates the benefits of 

policies meant to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. It exaggerates the technical feasibility and underestimates 

the costs of alternative fuels to replace fossil fuels in providing the abundant, affordable energy necessary for 

wealth creation and poverty reduction. It ignores the urgent need to provide cleaner energy to the roughly two 

billion poor in the world whose use of wood and dung as primary cooking and heating fuels causes millions of 

premature deaths and hundreds of millions of debilitating respiratory diseases every year. It fails to recognize 

that the slowed economic development resulting from its own policies will cost many times more human lives 

than would the warming it is meant to avert. 

In light of all these findings, we conclude that 

• human activity has negligible influence on global temperature, 

• the influence is not dangerous, 

• there is no need to mandate the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and 

• environmental and energy policy should remove, not build, obstacles to the abundant, affordable 

energy necessary to lift the world's poor out of poverty and sustain prosperity for all.