Energy and Environment Monitorwww.eem.jacksonkelly.com

USEPA Proposes Reinterpreting TSCA to Accelerate Cleanups

Often when reviewing proposed USEPA regulations and interpretations published in the Federal Register, we conclude that the net result is to increase the overall regulatory burden on the regulated community.  However, in the case of the Notice of Request for Public Comment (Federal Register, February 29, 2012, Volume 77, Number 40, p.12293-12295), “PCB Bulk Product v. Remediation Waste,” we seem to have a case where USEPA is proposing to simplify and streamline one facet of the cleanup and disposal of PCBs under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  Unfortunately, while the public comment period has already closed, I think it is worth taking note of USEPA’s proposed reinterpretation of its position regarding the cleanup requirements and disposal options for PCB-contaminated building materials.  In particular, USEPA is proposing to reinterpret its definitions of bulk product waste (e.g., PCB-contaminated caulk, paint, mastics, sealants, or adhesives) and remediation waste (e.g., PCB-contaminated masonry or concrete). 

PCBs can be present in caulk, paint, mastics, sealants, or adhesives if these materials were manufactured between 1950 and 1978; therefore, PCBs can be present in a broad range of structures.  In recent years, USEPA has been focusing greater attention on the potential presence of PCBs in schools built before 1980 and potential exposure of children to dust containing PCBs generated during construction/maintenance activities.  

Currently under TSCA, when building materials such as masonry or concrete (termed “substrate” by USEPA) that are designated for disposal are “coated or serviced” by PCB-containing caulk, paint, mastics, sealants, or adhesives, the masonry or concrete must be managed as a PCB remediation waste while the caulk, paint, mastics, sealants, or adhesives can be managed separately as a PCB bulk product waste.  The different disposal options for these two waste streams are significant.  For example, in a “high-occupancy” (e.g., residential, school, etc.) setting, PCB remediation waste must be cleaned up down to a concentration of 1 ppm for an unrestricted use and if the concentrations of PCBs in the remediation waste are greater than 50 parts per million (ppm), the remediation waste must be disposed in a TSCA-permitted facility.  However, PCB bulk product waste, even at concentrations of PCBs greater than 50 ppm, can be disposed in a non-hazardous solid waste facility, as long as this disposal is permitted by that State’s solid waste regulations.  

USEPA believes that be expediting the clean-up of building materials containing PCBs, the overall result will be to decrease potential exposure to PCBs in dust and vapors generated during maintenance/demolition activities.  Therefore, USEPA is proposing to reinterpret its definitions of bulk product waste and remediation waste so that the underlying substrate (masonry or concrete) can also be managed as a bulk product waste, subject to the following conditions: 

1. The caulk, paint, etc. is still attached to the substrate.  If these materials have been separately removed, then the substrate would be considered a remediation waste for disposal purposes.
2. The source of the PCBs present in the substrate is due to the leaching of PCBs from the caulk, paint, etc. onto the substrate, and not due to a spill or release from a source other than the caulk, paint, etc. 

A discussion of USEPA’s proposed reinterpretation and links to USEPA guidance documents is available at:   www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/tsd/pcbs/pubs/caulk/reinterpretation.htm.

This article was authored by Greg Tieman, Acacia Environmental Group LLC. For more information on the author see here. 

Anti-Mining Groups Sue Montana Official in Federal Court to Restrict New Surface Mining Permits

Two environmental groups (Sierra Club and the Montana Environmental Information Center) have sued the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (“MDEQ”) in federal court seeking to compel MDEQ to use water quality standards as the basis for “material damage” findings in surface mine permitting.  The case implicates significant jurisdictional and programmatic issues that anti-mining groups previously pursued with limited success in the east.  

Background 

The federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (“SMCRA”) is implemented by the Department of Interior’s Office of Surface Mining (“OSM”), but authorizes states to assume “exclusive authority” over the SMCRA program within their respective state borders.  MDEQ or its predecessors have implemented an OSM-approved State program since 1980.  In addition, MDEQ has entered into a “cooperative agreement” with OSM for the purposes of implementing SMCRA on federally-owned lands.  See 30 U.S.C. §1273(c) (authorizing states with OSM-approved SMCRA plans to enter agreement “to provide for State regulation of surface coal mining . . . on Federal lands. . . .”) & 30 C.F.R. §926.30 (text of the agreement).  SMCRA requires permitting authorities to prepare “cumulative hydrologic impact assessments” or “CHIAs” as part of their permit review process in order to ensure that proposed mine operations do not cause “material damage” to the hydrologic balance outside the mine site.  30 U.S.C. §§1257(b) & 1260(b)(3).  

Allegations of Lawsuit 

The Sierra Club argues that MDEQ has a federal obligation to implement both its OSM-approved program and its Cooperative Agreement in accordance with the provisions of the federal SMCRA and OSM’s federal SMCRA rules.  It argues that MDEQ has violated those obligations in the way it prepares CHIAs and determines that mines will not cause “material damage.”  

The term “material damage” is not defined by SMCRA or its implementing rules, but the Sierra Club contends that the concept requires application of “objective” criteria, including “each Montana water quality standard.”  Complaint, ¶37(b).  It alleges further that the CHIAs previously prepared by MDEQ for federal land tracts and for permits to mine them did not properly account for water quality standards in their “material damage” determinations.  In particular, it faults CHIAs prepared for ongoing or proposed operations by Westmoreland Coal, Western Energy, Spring Creek Coal, Decker Coal, Big Sky Coal and Bull Mountain Coal.  It seeks an injunction to prevent the issuance of new permits or permit modifications at each specified site until MDEQ develops objective “material damage” criteria which incorporates State water quality standards.  The Complaint alleges that many of the receiving streams already violate State water quality standards and suggests that new “material damage” determinations would require MDEQ to withhold future SMCRA permits.  

The format of the lawsuit is a familiar one.  It alleges that MDEQ has federal obligations under SMCRA to maintain its federally-approved program.  It has to allege this because the 11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been construed to prohibit most lawsuits against State agencies in federal court for violations of state law—states generally can be sued in federal court only for violations of federal law.  Two similar attempts by anti-mining groups ultimately failed in the Third and Fourth Circuits.  See Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, Inc. v. Hess, 297 F.3d 310 (3rd Cir. 2002) & Bragg v. W.Va. Coal Ass’n., 248 F.3d 275 (4th Cir. 2001).  

In both of those cases, the Court ruled that a federally-approved state SMCRA program was state—not federal—law and, therefore, the 11^th Amendment barred the action against the state agency.  It appears that the Sierra Club hopes to rely on the State-OSM Cooperative Agreement to bypass these rulings, and will argued that MDEQ’s obligations under that Cooperative Agreement arise under federal, rather than state, law.  However, the SMCRA provision authorizing such agreements provides only that states with federally-approved programs “may elect to enter into a cooperative agreement” with [OSM] to provide for State regulation of surface coal mining . . . on Federal Lands. . . .”  Thus, the question will be whether elements of the Cooperative Agreement convert any of MDEQ’s State law obligations into federal obligations that do not implicate the 11^th Amendment.  

As for the substantive claims in the case, the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition recently concluded years of generally unsuccessful litigation in the Fourth Circuit arguing that OSM was required to ensure that states use water quality standards adopted to comply with Clean Water Act requirements as a measure of material damage.  See OVEC v. Salazar, 2012 WL 50635 (4th Cir. 2012).  

This article was authored by Robert G. McLusky, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the author see here.

Climate Change Headlines:

04/18/12: Hot air vs. cold facts

Edmonton Sun

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2012/04/18/hot-air-vs-cold-facts

 

04/18/12: Earth Day and the Great "Sustainability" Lie

AXcess News

http://axcessnews.com/index.php/articles/show/id/22559

 

04/19/12: Are We Warming The Planet? That Is The Key Question

NPR (blog)

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/04/18/150864705/are-we-warming-the-planet-that-is-the-key-question

 

04/19/12: Eco-group: Free speech doesn't cover 'deniers'

Eco-group: Free speech doesn't cover 'deniers'

http://newsok.com/eco-group-free-speech-doesnt-cover-deniers/article/feed/372711

 

04/20/12: A Vivid Reminder of How The Climate Debate is Broken

Forbes

http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/04/19/a-vivid-reminder-of-how-the-climate-debate-is-broken/

 

04/20/12: Global warming: New study says Himalayan glaciers not melting as fast as …

Summit County Citizens Voice

http://summitcountyvoice.com/2012/04/20/global-warming-new-study-says-himalayan-glaciers-not-melting-as-fast-as-previously-predicted-at-least-for-now/

 

04/22/12: Who We Are: Doubting Marty: A dissenting voice on climate change

Summit Daily News

http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20120422/NEWS/120429940/1078&ParentProfile=1055

 

04/22/12: Biodiversity Bombshell: Polar Bears And Penguins Prospering, But Pity Those …

Forbes

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/04/22/biodiversity-bombshell-polar-bears-and-penguins-prospering-but-pity-those-paramecium/

 

04/23/12: The Perils of Apocalyptic Thinking

The Atlantic

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/04/the-perils-of-apocalyptic-thinking/255758/

 

04/24/12: Fact Checking Global-Warming Hysteria

National Review Online (blog)

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/296802/fact-checking-global-warming-hysteria-mona-charen

P&G Releases Supply Chain Environmental Sustainability Scorecard

On April 4, 2012, Procter & Gamble (P&G) released its “Supply Chain Environmental Sustainability Scorecard” (“Scorecard”) analysis tool for use by any company and not just for use by P&G’s external supply chain business partners (e.g., supplier, agency, etc.).  P&G is requesting that its external business partners report sustainability results relating directly to the creation of P&G-specific materials and services.  P&G is also requesting that its partners use the tool to evaluate their own supply chains.  The Excel-based tool (spreadsheet) is intended to allow companies to measure and interpret key environmental sustainability metrics (Core Measures) and to identify progress and opportunities for improvement.  The Scorecard, two training modules, and a video introduction from Rick Hughes, P&G Global Purchasing Office, are available at www.pgsupplier.com/en/current-suppliers/environmental-sustainability-scorecard.shtml.  In addition, P&G is hosting a training webinar on use of the Scorecard on Wednesday, April 18 at 9:00 A.M.  Registration for the webinar is available at the above noted web page. 

P&G’s sustainability framework consists of two programs: Environmental Sustainability and Social Responsibility.  As a key component of their sustainability program, P&G has adopted the following long-term vision:

• Powering facilities using 100% renewable energy.
• Using 100% renewable or recycled materials in all products and packaging.
• Landfilling 0% of consumer or manufacturing waste.
• Designing products that delight consumers while maximizing conservation of resources.

Further information regarding P&G’s sustainability approach and programs is available at www.pg.com/sustainability.  P&G first launched the “Supply Chain Environmental Sustainability Scorecard” in May 2010 for use by its external business partners.  The Scorecard was developed in collaboration with its Supplier Sustainability Board, which consists of 20 corporations such as DOW, BASF, International Paper, and J.B. Hunt.  P&G notes that its Scorecard “is built on accepted worldwide measurement standards and sound science, including protocols from the World Resources Institute (WRI), the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP).  Core Measures used in the Scorecard to develop a Final Rating are as follows:

• Energy usage (electric and fuel).
• Water usage (withdrawal and discharge).
• Hazardous and non-hazardous waste disposal.
• Kyoto greenhouse gas emissions (direct and indirect).

After data for the Core Measures for 2010 and 2011 are entered in the Scorecard, a Final Rating is calculated for the supplier/agency.  Ratings range from 5, Far Exceeds Expectations; to 1, Far Below Expectations.  P&G states that the purpose of the Scorecard is to measure and reward a supplier’s improvement over time in each of the Core Measures and for P&G to recognize supplier improvement.  Finally, it should be noted, that P&G will use the Rating developed in the Scorecard as part of P&G’s “total value business award decisions” (e.g., Spend Category).

This article was authored by Greg Tieman, Acacia Environmental Group LLC. For more information on the author see here. 

EPA Issues Updated Air Pollution Standards for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry

On April 18, 2012, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued the finalized rules for the oil and natural gas air pollution standards.  EPA states that significant changes were made between the proposed rules and the final rules, including the introduction of a phase-in, or transition, period and revised definitions of “natural gas well”, “green completion” and “modification”.  A copy of the final rules, a fact sheet and additional information can be found on EPA’s website at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/actions.html 

The final action by the EPA included review of four rules for the oil and natural gas industry, including a new source performance standard for VOCs, a new source performance standard for sulfur dioxide, an air toxics standard for oil and natural gas production, and an air toxics standard for natural gas transmission and storage.  The final rules apply to natural gas wells which have been hydraulically fractured and specifically require that newly fractured wells utilize certain technologies and practices so as to reduce harmful emissions.  The final rules also address emissions from storage tanks and other equipment.   

The EPA asserts that the final rules will reduce 95% of the harmful emissions from fractured natural gas wells and will enable companies to collect additional natural gas, which can then be sold.  The final rules are consistent with existing rules enacted by the various states and will provide for industry flexibility.  The final rules also “[do] not require new federal permits”, instead the rules “[set] clear standards and [use] enhanced reporting to strengthen transparency and accountability.”  Notably, the final rules incorporate new data provided during the public comment period and now include a phase-in, or transition, period.  The phase-in period was incorporated due to concerns about availability of equipment utilized in “green completions”.  The phase-in period is broken down into two phases: 

• During the first phase, until January 2015, owners and operators must either flare their emissions or use emissions reduction technology called “green completions”.
• In 2015, all new fractured wells will be required to use “green completions”.   

Additional and important changes to the final rules are noted below. 

• The definition of “natural gas well” was modified to establish key indicators of wells, including geologic formation and natural gas infrastructure location. 
• The definition of “green completion” was modified to focus on performance or end result of the technology instead of focusing on a specific technology itself.  During “green completions”, special equipment separates gas and liquid hydrocarbons from flowback, which can then be used or sold.
• Low pressure wells were exempted from “green completion” requirements.
• The definition of “modification” pursuant to the New Source Performance Standard (“NSPS”) program was changed to encourage early adopters of “green completions” and also to recognize those owners and operators who have already adopted use of “green completions”. 
• EPA opted to not apply emission controls to transmission pipeline gas (those areas past the point where gas enters the transmission pipeline) due to low VOC content of the gas.
• Pre-notification requirements for completion of hydraulic fracturing were changed to sending an email no later than 2 days prior completion.  Notifications based on state requirements are sufficient for compliance of this rule.

15 State Associations Challenge U.S. EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards

Fifteen state chambers, coal associations, and manufacturing and energy associations have joined together to challenge U.S. EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) final rule that was published in the Federal Register on February 16, 2012 (77 Fed. Reg. 9304).  The associations’ petition for review was filed on April 13, 2012, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.  The group includes eight state chambers of commerce, five state coal associations, and two state manufacturing and energy associations located in ten Midwestern and Southern states.  The eight state chambers are: (1) the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce, Incorporated; (2) the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, Inc. (3) the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, Inc. (4) the North Carolina Chamber (5) the Ohio Chamber of Commerce; (6) the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry; (7) the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce; and (8) The Virginia Chamber of Commerce.  The five state coal associations are: (1) the Indiana Coal Council, Inc.; (2) the Kentucky Coal Association, Inc.; (3) the Pennsylvania Coal Association; (4) The Virginia Coal Association, Incorporated; and (5) the West Virginia Coal Association, Inc.  The two manufacturing and energy associations are: (1) the Georgia Association of Manufacturers, Inc.; and (2) the Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group, Inc.  A decision on the MATS final rule is not expected until the end of 2012 or early 2013. 

The MATS final rule will require coal-fired power plants to reduce mercury emissions by 90% in four years.  The MATS final rule and U.S. EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) are driving early retirements of many existing power plants and effectively discourage the construction of new coal-fired power plants.  U.S. EPA’s recently proposed Carbon Pollution Standard for New Power Plants, if finalized, will effectively prohibit construction of new coal-fired power plants through 2030.  The D.C. Circuit heard oral argument on challenges to U.S. EPA’s CSAPR on April 13, 2012.  A decision is expected in the CSAPR litigation before summer 2012.  For a summary of the MATS final rule, see article titled “EPA Announces Final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for Power Plants” and posted on January 12, 2012, on the Jackson Kelly PLLC Energy & Environment Monitor.  

The MATS final rule took effect on April 16, 2012.  Existing sources generally have up to four years or until April 2016, if they need it, to comply with MATS. This includes the standard three years provided to all sources by the Clean Air Act, and an additional fourth year that U.S. EPA is “encouraging permitting authorities to make . . . broadly available for technology installations.” If more time is needed, U.S. EPA has issued an enforcement policy document that provides a pathway for reliability-critical units to obtain, on a case-by-case basis, a schedule with up to an additional fifth year to achieve compliance. Further, U.S. EPA states that if there are still “other situations where sources cannot come into compliance on a timely basis…. EPA will address individual noncompliance circumstances (if there are any) on a case-by-case basis, at the appropriate time, to determine the appropriate response and resolution.” See U.S. EPA Fact Sheet: Benefits and Costs of Cleaning Up Toxic Air Pollution from Power Plants and U.S. EPA Fact Sheet: Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for Power Plants (links to both Fact Sheets available, www.epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics/actions.html). 

This article was authored by Gale Lea Rubrecht, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the author, see here.

Climate Change Headlines:

04/11/12: Orrin Pilkey's prediction of massive sea level rise is sheer fantasy

Charlotte Observer

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/04/11/3164367/orrin-pilkeys-prediction-of-massive.html

 

04/11/12: Astronauts Condemn NASA's Global Warming Stance

WebProNews

http://www.webpronews.com/astronauts-condemn-nasas-global-warming-stance-2012-04

 

04/12/12: LETTER — The science of climate change is not settled

HollandSentinel.com

http://www.hollandsentinel.com/opinions/x898665975/LETTER-The-science-of-climate-change-is-not-settled

 

04/12/12: Wasting a Trillion Dollars to "Prevent" Global Warming Is Stifling Economic …

Ideal Taxes Association

http://www.idealtaxes.com/post3511.shtml

 

04/13/12: Mississippi Federal Court Sacks Climate Change Lawsuit for a Second Time

Mississippi Federal Court Sacks Climate Change Lawsuit for a Second Time

http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=0168006f-7ab6-480d-854b-c07a339d29a9

 

04/14/12: 2012 WEATHER EXTREMES CAUSED BY INCREASED SOLAR ACTIVITY, NOT GLOBAL WARMING

The Cypress Times

http://www.thecypresstimes.com/article/News/Opinion_Editorial/2012_WEATHER_EXTREMES_CAUSED_BY_INCREASED_SOLAR_ACTIVITY_NOT_GLOBAL_WARMING/58648

 

04/14/12: Glacier surge, not avalanche, buried soldiers at Siachen: expert

The News International

http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-6-103071-Glacier-surge-not-avalancheburied-soldiers-at-Siachen-expert

 

04/15/12: Fakegate' attempts to destroy global warming skeptic Heartland Institute

Madison County Record

http://www.madisonrecord.com/arguments/243206-fakegate-attempts-to-destroy-global-warming-skeptic-heartland-institute

 

04/16/12: No ice loss seen in major Himalaya glaciers despite climate change: scientists

China Post

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/life/environment/2012/04/17/338044/No-ice.htm

 

04/17/12: Global Warming's Reckless Rhetoric

Global Warming's Reckless Rhetoric

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/global_warmings_reckless_rhetoric.html

Electronic Reporting of Toxics Release Inventory Data

On March 5, 2012, US EPA proposed to require facilities to report non-confidential Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) data to EPA using electronic software provided by the Agency.  [Federal Register Vo1. 77, No. 43 13061]  In addition, facilities would be required to submit any revisions or withdrawals of previously submitted submissions electronically.   This would be effective on January 1, 2013.  

Facilities can continue to send confidential trade secret information and public versions as paper forms under the proposal.  

Currently facilities can file TRI reports using the TRI-MEweb (Toxic Release Inventory Made Easy Web) online-reporting application or on paper forms.  Last year approximately 95 percent of the TRI reporting facilities were using TRI-MEweb.  

TRI-MEweb is a web based application that a facility accesses through a Central Data Exchange (CDX) account.  TRI-MEweb allows the user to prepare, validate, certify and submit TRI reports.    

Representatives can prepare and validate TRI reports with a CDX account without an Electronic Signature Agreement (ESA).  The Certifying Official must certify the TRI report before submittal.  EPA’s current electronic reporting procedures require each Certifying Official to sign and submit a hard-copy Electronic Signature Agreement (ESA) to EPA before certifying any TRI reports.  Once a facility representative registers in CDX, EPA sends an ESA to that representative via email.  The Certifying Official must sign this ESA in hard-copy and return it to the agency.  The EPA may take five to seven days to approve the ESA once it has been received.   

Comments will be received until May 4, 2012, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-TRI-2011-0174.  

This article was excerpted from publically available information, and was authored by Joyce Gentry, Acacia Environmental Group LLC.  For more information on the author see here.

Gale Lea Rubrecht Authored the EPA Headquarters Report for the March 2012 ABA Air Quality Committee Newsletter

Jackson Kelly’s Gale Lea Rubrecht authored the EPA Headquarters Report for the March 2012 Air Quality Committee Newsletter of the American Bar Association’s Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources.  Gale’s EPA Headquarters Report discusses the following topics: 

• Air Toxics – Boiler Area Sources and Major Source Boiler MACT; Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources; Chromium Electroplating and Steel Pickling Facilities; Group IV Polymers and Resins; Pesticide Active Ingredient Production; and Polyether Polyols Production; Petroleum Refineries; Secondary Aluminum Production; Secondary Lead Smelting; and the Utility MACT, now known as Mercury and Air Toxics Standards or MATS.
• Climate Change – GHG Reporting; and 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards. 
• Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program and Renewable Fuels—Palm Oil. 
• Mobile Sources – Nonconformance Penalties for Manufacturers of Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines. 
• NAAQS – Lead and Ozone Designations. 
• Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. 
• Regional Haze. 

For Gale’s EPA Headquarters Report, click here.

Climate Change Headlines:

04/04/12: Obama Regulators' Grab Beyond Courts, Congress

Town Hall

http://townhall.com/columnists/shannongoessling/2012/04/04/obama_regulators_grab_beyond_courts_congress

 

04/04/12: Climate Change, Act Three

American Thinker

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/climate_change_act_three.html

 

04/05/12: Polar bear population healthy, may be growing in northern Canada

GlobalPost

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/canada/120404/polar-bear-population-healthy-may-be-growing-northern-c

 

04/05/12: When is Global Warming Enough?

Canada Free Press

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/45779

 

04/06/12: Climate-change scientists cling to illusions

Climate-change scientists cling to illusions

http://www.blueridgenow.com/article/20120406/ARTICLES/204061003

 

04/06/12: Poll: Many conservatives doubt global warming

OCRegister

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/global-347969-warming-among.html

 

04/07/12: Lib Logic: Global Warming Skeptics are Crazy Racists

Town Hall

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/danieljmitchell/2012/04/07/lib_logic_global_warming_skeptics_are_crazy_racists

 

04/08/12: Fakegate': Climate Change Fanatics Wage War on Dissenters

American Thinker

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/fakegate_climate_change_fanatics_wage_war_on_dissenters.html

 

04/09/12: Global Warming Rides Again

Blogcritics.org (blog)

http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/global-warming-rides-again/

 

04/10/12: Simple vs. easy, &c.

National Review Online

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/295614/simple-vs-easy-c-jay-nordlinger