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: 603-216-63442 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

c omplex 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.

C hristine L. Sgro Rosebud Mining Company 301 Market Street Kittanning, PA 16201 724-545-6222 X-3133 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

E PA,

• 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 w arm 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 mayor 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.com4 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

w ould 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.



### Th is email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com6 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
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Mark Long Email: mdl1954@gmail.com
Commen ts: 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 Standards7 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 outsidethe 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 662059 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 Belden10 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 miners11 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 Rocco12 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 605-232-451113 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, Pa14 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
S ubmitted 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 reportin g. It is a sham and a travesty that you C/D grade science students are running the EPA. Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards15 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 h ard 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.
GB16 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

e mployed 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

e verything 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

c osts 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 h omes, 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 d id 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 ex tremely 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 1577417 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 w arm 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 mayor 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 mayor 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: 814-637-551019 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.

CEKelly20 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

s upporting 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

e conomy. 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

t heir 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
g lobal 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

o n 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 mayor 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

e nergy 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

e mployed 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

e verything 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

c osts 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 h omes, 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 d id 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 can not 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 per ceived 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 iPad22 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

L ongrun Foreman23 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 w arm 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 mayor 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

s upporting 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 ever ything 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

o n 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 a nd 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

e nergy 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

w ill 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, real izable, and worthy goals. While this is outside the prevue of the EPA, so is global weather controls that may ormay 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

r easons 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 inco me 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 mayor 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 Mo bile: 724-525156027 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,

M y 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. hea t 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 mayor 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.com29 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 mayor 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) 724-919-214030 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

s upporting 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 an d 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 mayor 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 Mining32 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
S ubmitted values are:

Name: Robert Wolff Email: bob@webwolff.com Comments: The "global warming" agenda has been perpetrated by the UN using false andmisleading 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 Standards33 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

s upporting 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 an d 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

s upporting 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 an d 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, PA35 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

s upporting 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 an d 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 1620136 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 mayor 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 R osebud Mining Company Phone: 724-545-6222 x364 Fax: 724-548-4156 Email: brandy.schaeffer@rosebudmining.com37 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

s upporting 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 an d 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 A ccounts Payable Rosebud Mining Company 301 Market Street Kittanning, Pa 16201 724.545.6222 Ex: 353 724.545.6416 Fax38 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 w arm 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 mayor 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 mayor 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:

P lease 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 controlsthat 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
3 60 Adams Road Kittanning, PA 1620141 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
S ubmitted 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 Standards42 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
S ubmitted 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 Standards43 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
S ubmitted 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 Standards44 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 a nd 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 Burggraff46 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 Lightle47 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
S ubmitted 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 fr om 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 Standards48 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
S ubmitted 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 be nefit 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 u seful 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-co untry#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 Standards50 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
S ubmitted 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 sig nificantly 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 detrimen tal 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 Standards51 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
S ubmitted 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 Standards52 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,

C all 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 3391253 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 chemistry54 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 le vel

A t today’s House Energy and Power Subcommittee hearin g 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



### W e 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 bullsh it. Your ethanol mandate is contributing to smog. Should have researched methanol a tad more. Politics.


# Health effects of carbon pollution

U nchecked 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 diversit y

Th ese 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 pollut ion)

• Increasing the intensity of extreme events, like hurr icanes, extreme precipitation and flooding

• Increasing the range of ticks and mosquitoes, which c an spread disease such as Lyme disease and West Nile virus

Ou r 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
S ubmitted 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 Standards57 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 I PCC 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 i ncreasing 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,

D aniel and Gini McNeil58 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

e xhaling.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,

Illiya61 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

O ne 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 red uce 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 208-468-792563 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 2752364 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.

mark65 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 ga ses 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 underest imates 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

.