We The People     2020

Stephen Feldmeie​r




The mission of EPA is to protect human health and the environment.

EPA's purpose is to ensure that:

  • all Americans are protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work;
  • national efforts to reduce environmental risk are based on the best available scientific information;
  • federal laws protecting human health and the environment are enforced fairly and effectively;
  • environmental protection is an integral consideration in U.S. policies concerning natural resources, human health, economic growth, energy, transportation, agriculture, industry, and international trade, and these factors are similarly considered in establishing environmental policy;
  • all parts of society -- communities, individuals, businesses, and state, local and tribal governments -- have access to accurate information sufficient to effectively participate in managing human health and environmental risks;
  • environmental protection contributes to making our communities and ecosystems diverse, sustainable and economically productive; and
  • the United States plays a leadership role in working with other nations to protect the global environment.at we don't do

  • Set the standards according to the 1985 levels.
  • Get the federal government out of the EPA.
  • Let the states manage EPA regulation through their own Division of Environmental Quality.
  • There never was nor will there ever will be a "greenhouse gas" that will cause tempters to rise. This was a federal government political scam to make the population believe that burning coal produces greenhouse gases.


The buttons below are emails between the EPA and Sierra Club to push regulations just for the sole purpose to shut down the coal industry.





Environmental Protection Agency

Our Atmosphere Make-up

​Nitrogen - 78% or 780,000 ppm (parts per million)

Oxygen - 21% or 210,000 ppm

Argon - 0.9% or 900 ppm

​Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 0.039% or 390 parts ppm (in all practical terms is non existent) 


      Over the past forty, years the demographics of these United States were changing from an industrialized nation into an echo friendly leader of the world. To reach this goal, we as a nation kept encouraging the EPA to constantly raise the standards of emissions of the manufacturing facilities. We felt that we were “saving the environment” with these new tougher regulations. I will be the first to say, the EPA was a much needed resource when it was started in 1970s.

    The land, air, and water quality of these United States were being polluted to unsafe levels. So in the 1970s and 1980s congress through the EPA, set emission standards to clean up this pollution. These standards worked well and the pollution was being cleaned up. As an example, in 1980s, the discharged "water" being dumped into Lake Michigan from the Chicago sewage treatment plant was "cleaner" than the water in Lake Michigan itself. To prove this point, that the "discharged water" was clean enough to drink, the Chicago City Manager, demonstrated this fact by drinking a full glass of that discharged water during a television news cast.

   But it didn't stop there, even though the EPA emission standards were set to where emissions were cleaner than the surrounding air and the discharge waters from factories were cleaner than the water source, that wasn't good enough for the political scene. You see politicians need to be elected and some of the environmentalist even though that the new emission standards were above that of the existing air and water, they still did not like the idea of fossil fuel, no matter how clean the emissions. So the only thing left to attack was CO2. A gas that is in all practical terms nonexistent in our atmosphere at only 390 parts per million. 

      Anyone with a brain knows our glaciers are receding, but the debate is; What is causing "Global Warming," which is melting the glaciers? One belief is; the rise in the CO2, level, will cause the atmosphere to warm up. Such as burning coal in our power plants that produces CO2, thus increasing the level of CO2, which causes the atmosphere to warm up.

     The other belief is; the more the atmosphere warms up, the more CO2 is released from the ground and water. As an example you have 2 bottles of "pop or soda" depending in what part of the country you live in. One bottle has been warmed to 85 degrees Fahrenheit, and the other bottle has been kept at near freezing temperatures. You open both bottles simultaneously, naturally the  warmed bottle would release most of its CO2 while the bottle kept at near freezing temperatures would retain most of the of CO2.  

   As any can see CO2 cannot be the answer. So what is causing the atmosphere to warm if it's not CO2? I believe in the Milankovitch Theory, which is the changing of the Earth axis combined with the changing of the orbit around the sun. These two changing factors is what causes the glaciation cycles of the Earth. According to the Milankovitch Theory, the Earth is coming out of a glaciation cycle.

    Why did this "Green House Gas" become political in the first place? Taxes! It's a way for the federal government to impose a tax on the people without the people having to pay more in the form of an "Income Tax". In the 1990s congress decided they would leave it up to the EPA to set their own emission standards. This left the door wide open for the President’s administration to use the EPA as a political tool. Since the EPA is controlled now by the Executive branch, each President from Reagan to Obama, used the EPA to generate more taxes. This was the birth of the Greenhouse Gas Era. “Cap and Trade” was born, a new way of taxing the people. The government knew these taxes were going to be passed onto the public by these facilities by raising the price of electricity or by the manufacturing facilities by raising the prices of the items they were producing. These ridiculous regulations imposed on these industries were forcing them out of business and/or out the country if these facilities could not pass the cost onto the consumer.


     So what do we do now? Set the EPA standards back to what they were in 1985. The reason for the 1985 standards? It was the last year the actual level of poison materials were set at safe and common sense levels. At these levels we can manufacture anything we want and still be environmentally friendly as demonstrated with the sewage treatment plant in Chicago. By imposing common sense regulations, we can take the stranglehold off the oil industry, so we can start building the new generation oil refineries to meet the current supply of gas and diesel demands. These new generation refineries will operate with fewer emissions.

    Once a common sense guideline on emissions has been set, this will become the emission baseline for the country. I will then transfer the EPA authority to the state level, since, all fifty states today have their own version of a Division of Environmental Quality. The baseline standard at this point can only be changed with a 50 state approval. Congress or anyone else cannot change the baseline standard, not even the president or the courts. BUT, Local municipalities or even a state itself might want to have tighter restrictions. Each state will have the authority to raise the EPA standards above the baseline in their own state. The federal EPA, which will be nothing like it is today, will set standards for the items manufactured, such as automobiles, aircraft engines, etc.


     The politicians are saying now, exporting our natural resources will bring prosperity and fortune, and lower the unemployment rate in the United States. If we look at all the countries that export oil and natural gas as their main source of revenue, these countries have unstable governments, majority of the population lives in poverty, and with no infrastructure whatsoever. Exporting natural resources produces the lowest percentage of jobs compared to manufacturing.

      All the revenue that countries collect from selling their natural resources go directly to those governments and not to the people. The majority of the revenue, generated by the selling of goods the people have manufactured, goes the people.

     The wealth of a country comes from what is above the ground and not what is below the ground. The wealth of a country comes from what the people of that country can manufacture. The revenue the country receives from manufacturing goes directly back to the people and not to the government.

     If you use "X" amount of a certain fuel for manufacturing, you would get five times the amount of return by selling those manufactured items than you would get from selling that same "X" amount of fuel in the open market.

     The use of oil, coal, and natural gas to aid our manufacturing might be far more valuable to individual posterity than it is to just sell those commodities out right.

       My war on coal would be "you can't get it out of the ground fast enough." Manufacturing depends on this cheap fuel to keep the cost of manufacturing down, as with power plants to keep electrical cost down. Coal is the best fuel suited for these applications because it is a non-transportable fuel. Meaning that it is a fuel that has to be consumed in a stationary format, as we no longer have steam operated locomotives and such. Using natural gas and oil which is a transportable fuel in these stationary facilities is a waste of fuel.

Coal vs wind for power generation.

    First of all the unit of measure for power generation generators is the megawatt. As an example the most common type of wind generator used in the US is the GE 1.5 megawatt or (mw). The top 10 coal power plants produce on the average of 2,600 mw. The majority of the coal plants produces around 550 mw. An average size wind farm produces 250 mw. Now when you look up wind farm electrical output, you will see the maximum wattage output. What you don't see is the sustained wattage output. Wind farms are calculated at 30% of max efficiency. Not all windmills will be in the same wind current, so a 30% efficiency rating is used to determined the load to the main power grind at any given time.

   So the average 250 mw wind farm has a sustained output of only 75 mw. On the other hand the sustained output for a coal power plant is 100%. So lets go back the wind farm. The largest wind farm is in California and is rated at 1,568 mw. and takes up 32,000 acres. Has the capacity to power 3,400 homes, but in reality the sustained power output is only 470 mw. So, out of those 3,400 homes that wind farm will only provide power to 1,020 homes. Which means 2,380 homes will be without electricity.

   In the long story wind farms are the least efficient and the most expensive ways of producing electricity. When you hear that a coal power plant of 300 mw was taken off line permanently and replaced with a wind of max rating 250 mw remember that wind farm is only producing 75 mw resulting in a net lost to the main power grid of 175 mw of power. So in the long run we have a net lost 30% to the main power grid in the US with all of these wind farms.

   The average nuclear power plant in the US produces around 650 mw. Hoover Dam produces 2,080 mw.

   If you want a wind farm to replace a coal power plant rated a 2,500 mw you will need 1,250 windmills to match the maximum available output, but to much the sustainable output you will need a total of 2,125 windmills. Again this is using the GE 1.5 megawatt generator.

   So is coal dead? No, the more people realize how inefficient wind power really is, they will be scrambling back to coal.

   I would go back to coal while we build more nuclear power plants. You can't go cleaner than nuclear. 

"Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer."

John F. Kennedy


EPA should be about clean air, water, and land. Not a tax generator

Stephen Feldmeier




EPA: What we don't do!

Sometimes problems seem like something we would handle, but may actually be the responsibility of other federal, tribal, state or local agencies. It may be most appropriate for you to contact your city, county, or state environmental or health agency rather than EPA.

Well, as you can see this a bold lie from the EPA