-
New EPA rule on Coal Plants
[b]
[h1]Everything you need to know about the EPAs proposed rule on coal plants[/b][/h1]
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/epa-will-propose-a-rule-to-cut-emissions-from-existing-coal-plants-by-up-to-30-percent/2014/06/02/f37f0a10-e81d-11e3-afc6-a1dd9407abcf_story.html]http://www.washingtonpost…1dd9407abcf_story.html[/link]
The Environmental Protection Agency on Monday proposed a rule [link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/epa-to-propose-cutting-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-coal-plants-30percent-by-2030/2014/06/01/f5055d94-e9a8-11e3-9f5c-9075d5508f0a_story.html]designed to cut carbon-dioxide emissions from existing coal plants by as much as 30 percent by 2030[/link], compared with 2005 levels. The regulation has prompted heavy lobbying from industry and environmental groups, and the ensuing battle promises to become, as the Natural Resources Defense Council Climate Director Peter Altman put it, the Super Bowl of climate politics.
Existing power plants are the [link=http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html]largest source of the nations carbon dioxide emissions[/link], accounting for 38 percent. (The transportation sector comes in second, at 32 percent.) Much of this pollution stems from aging, coal-fired power plants.
___
The new regulation will provide an impetus for energy-efficiency measures to flatten out or even lower electricity consumption. A [link=http://aceee.org/press/2014/03/new-report-finds-energy-efficiency-a]March report[/link] by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy looked at efficiency programs in 20 states from 2009 to 2012 and found an average cost of 2.8 cents per kilowatt hour about one-half to one-third the cost of alternative new electricity resource options, the group said.
Moreover, energy-efficiency measures sidestep the criticism that some opponents of regulation make about wind and solar power: that they lack adequate storage technology and can strain the grid.
Its cheaper to save electricity than it is to generate more, said Rodney Sobin, director of research and regulatory affairs at the Alliance to Save Energy. And he said energy efficiency enhances the reliability of the grid by reducing the load on it.
____
Several constituencies will welcome the administrations proposal. Environmentalists consider the regulation the most important step President Obama can take to address climate change, and they have put him on notice that they consider this a [link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/environmental-groups-say-obama-needs-to-address-climate-change-more-aggressively/2014/01/16/1e891608-7ebd-11e3-93c1-0e888170b723_story.html]litmus test for his second term[/link]. Renewable-energy producers from the solar and wind sector stand to benefit from the regulation because it would provide utilities with a greater incentive to invest in carbon-free electricity sources. Some utility companies that have a low-carbon fleet with natural gas or nuclear-powered plants including Exelon, PG&E and Calpine also want a strict limit on greenhouse-gas emissions.
By contrast, the coal industry and its allies including lawmakers from West Virginia, North Dakota and other states oppose the proposal. So do many business groups, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, which have argued that the rule would boost electricity prices and therefore increase the cost of doing business.
___
If the EPA rule reduced the use of coal, it also would reduce emissions of conventional pollutants that contribute to asthma, other lung diseases and heart attacks, according to a joint study by the Harvard School of Public Health and Syracuse University Center for Health and the Global Environment.
Carbon pollution standards for existing power plants would not only help confront the challenge of global climate change, they would confer substantial local and regional benefits by reducing power plant emissions of these major co-pollutants by up to 27 percent for sulfur dioxide and mercury and 22 percent for nitrogen oxides by 2020, the study said. It said the greatest benefits would come in the Ohio River Valley and the Rocky Mountain region.
Ecosystems would also benefit from decreases in air pollution and atmospheric deposition of sulfur and nitrogen, the study added. Reduced ground-level ozone will increase the health and productivity of crops and timber.
The EPA has estimated that the public health and climate benefits of the rule would outweigh the costs by anywhere from 8 to 1 to 12 to 1 by 2030, according to people briefed on the proposal, who spoke on the condition of anonymity before it was announced.
-
68 Replies
-
The ‘war on growth’ kicks into high gear.
-
The Democrats can kiss West Virginia goodbye. Kentucky is a goner. Pennsylvania is stupidly Democrat, but that is going to be severely tested. Ohio… who knows? Too many people on welfare in Cleveland, but maybe the coal thing will come to bear when their electricity costs go up through the roof.
This EPA proposal is the epitome of stupidity. Clean coal can produce cheap electricity without pollution. Evolution to clean sources would have occurred in an orderly fashion under free markets. Now, instead of progress, we will see many jobs will being lost over this liberal wet dream. Obama, the worst president in American history is really pushing for that negative GDP legacy.-
Texas, of all places, is doing quite well using wind power. Now if only the hot air from the Right could be harnessed we’d be 100% energy independent using renewable resources.
[link=http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterdetwiler/2014/03/30/texas-sets-new-wind-power-record/]http://www.forbes.com/sit…new-wind-power-record/[/link]
The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) announced last week that March 26 saw [link=http://www.ercot.com/news/press_releases/show/26611]a new wind power record: 10,296 MW at 8:48 PM[/link]. This represented close to 29% of the nearly 36,000 MW of electricity on the power grid at that moment, and smashed the record set only weeks ago by 600 MW. No issues concerning integration were reported. According to the American Wind [link=http://www.forbes.com/energy/]Energy[/link] Association, the 10,296 MW is the most for any U.S. power system to date. (The following day, 9,868 MW of wind generation achieved a record 38.43 percent of the 25,677 MW systemwide demand at 3:19 a.m.)
1,433 MW of the wind resource came from turbines on the Gulf Coast, while 8,863 MW came from other regions, mostly West Texas. That area of the state is dotted with wind farms, in the specially designated Competitive Renewable Energy Zones, which are linked by approximately 18,000 MW of transmission to facilitate wind integration. ERCOTs vice president of Grid Planning and Operations, Ken McIntyre, commented in a press release,
[blockquote] With the continuing growth in wind generation capacity and the completion of new transmission projects to get it to the grid, ERCOT is making greater use of this resource.
[/blockquote] Texas has more developed wind power capacity than any other state. According to ERCOT, 11,000 MW of generators already contribute to the grid, and another 8,000 MW are due to come on line shortly. In addition, more than 26,700 MW are under study. In 2013, wind power contributed 9.9% to the states overall electricity supply, up from 9.2% the year prior.
-
Quote from aldadoc
The Democrats can kiss West Virginia goodbye. Kentucky is a goner. Pennsylvania is stupidly Democrat, but that is going to be severely tested. Ohio… who knows? Too many people on welfare in Cleveland, but maybe the coal thing will come to bear when their electricity costs go up through the roof.
Heart of coal country poses a challenge for dems this year. Grimes took out anti-Obama ads in today’s paper and punched at him hard and very early.
Ohio has millions of dollars planned up North for lake Erie wind farm. Here in CLE the regs are considered pro-growth for clean jobs.
This EPA proposal is the epitome of stupidity. Clean coal can produce cheap electricity without pollution. Evolution to clean sources would have occurred in an orderly fashion under free markets. Now, instead of progress, we will see many jobs will being lost over this liberal wet dream. Obama, the worst president in American history is really pushing for that negative GDP legacy.
“Clean coal” is perfectly acceptable under the new EPA regs. If you clean the coal emissions, you can keep burning it. It’s the dirty coal that is targeted.-
Quote from dergon
Quote from aldadoc
The Democrats can kiss West Virginia goodbye. Kentucky is a goner. Pennsylvania is stupidly Democrat, but that is going to be severely tested. Ohio… who knows? Too many people on welfare in Cleveland, but maybe the coal thing will come to bear when their electricity costs go up through the roof.
Heart of coal country poses a challenge for dems this year. Grimes took out anti-Obama ads in today’s paper and punched at him hard and very early.
Ohio has millions of dollars planned up North for lake Erie wind farm. Here in CLE the regs are considered pro-growth for clean jobs.
This EPA proposal is the epitome of stupidity. Clean coal can produce cheap electricity without pollution. Evolution to clean sources would have occurred in an orderly fashion under free markets. Now, instead of progress, we will see many jobs will being lost over this liberal wet dream. Obama, the worst president in American history is really pushing for that negative GDP legacy.
“Clean coal” is perfectly acceptable under the new EPA regs. If you clean the coal emissions, you can keep burning it. It’s the dirty coal that is targeted.
I think that Lake Erie wind farm thing was falling through. Failed to procure the dollars. I agree scrub the coal emissions.
[link=http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2014/05/lake_erie_wind_farm_fails_to_m.html]http://www.cleveland.com/…d_farm_fails_to_m.html[/link]-
[link=http://www.vox.com/2014/6/2/5770506/remember-when-the-gop-believed-in-climate-change]http://www.vox.com/2014/6…eved-in-climate-change[/link]
McCain’s plan would have limited emissions not just from power plants, but also from transportation, manufacturing, and commercial businesses. It sought to bring total US emissions 66 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. It wasn’t quite as ambitious as the cap-and-trade plan Obama proposed (here’s [link=http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/quickfacts_cap-and-trade.cfm#2]a good comparison[/link], if you’re interested), but it was a real effort to deal with an urgent problem.
Three months later, Sarah Palin accepted McCain’s invitation to join the ticket which meant running on is cap-and-trade plan. Then, at the September convention, the Republican Party officially endorsed the McCain/Palin ticket, which still included a cap-and-trade plan. When Gwen Ifill asked Sarah Palin whether she supported capping carbon emissions, Palin’s answer left no room for confusion: “I do,” she replied.The power plant regulations the Obama administration will announce today are far less ambitious than the proposal McCain offered in Oregon in 2008. They’re less ambitious than the proposals Newt Gingrich championed through the Aughts. They’re far less than what’s required to keep the rise in temperatures to two degrees Celsius.
“We have many advantages in the fight against global warming, but time is not one of them,” McCain said in 2008. “Instead of idly debating the precise extent of global warming, or the precise timeline of global warming, we need to deal with the central facts of rising temperatures, rising waters, and all the endless troubles that global warming will bring. We stand warned by serious and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the dangers are great. The most relevant question now is whether our own government is equal to the challenge.”
Sigh
-
Quote from Thor
[link=http://www.vox.com/2014/6/2/5770506/remember-when-the-gop-believed-in-climate-change]http://www.vox.com/2014/6…eved-in-climate-change[/link]
McCain’s plan would have limited emissions not just from power plants, but also from transportation, manufacturing, and commercial businesses. It sought to bring total US emissions 66 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. It wasn’t quite as ambitious as the cap-and-trade plan Obama proposed (here’s [link=http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/quickfacts_cap-and-trade.cfm#2]a good comparison[/link], if you’re interested), but it was a real effort to deal with an urgent problem.
Three months later, Sarah Palin accepted McCain’s invitation to join the ticket which meant running on is cap-and-trade plan. Then, at the September convention, the Republican Party officially endorsed the McCain/Palin ticket, which still included a cap-and-trade plan. When Gwen Ifill asked Sarah Palin whether she supported capping carbon emissions, Palin’s answer left no room for confusion: “I do,” she replied.The power plant regulations the Obama administration will announce today are far less ambitious than the proposal McCain offered in Oregon in 2008. They’re less ambitious than the proposals Newt Gingrich championed through the Aughts. They’re far less than what’s required to keep the rise in temperatures to two degrees Celsius.
“We have many advantages in the fight against global warming, but time is not one of them,” McCain said in 2008. “Instead of idly debating the precise extent of global warming, or the precise timeline of global warming, we need to deal with the central facts of rising temperatures, rising waters, and all the endless troubles that global warming will bring. We stand warned by serious and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the dangers are great. The most relevant question now is whether our own government is equal to the challenge.”
Sigh
A lot of this is similar to the health care debate. Exchanges and the individual mandate were conservative ideas. Cap & Trade was originally a conservative idea to have a market based solution to deal with carbon emissions. At the time many democrats opposed cap & trade as a “license to pollute” and not stringent enough.
It just shows how the GOP has been effective in pushing the entirety of American policy discourse to the right over the last 20 years.
-
It says everything about the GOP that’s important. Issues and solutions aren’t as important as manufacturing issues to oppose The Kenyan President & Democrats in general. Clinton was able to adopt Republican positions as his own and was thus able to defeat Republicans using their own policies and positions. When Obama won in 2008, McConnell & Boehner agreed they would not allow the same scenario to happen again. So we have total war where any solution, including past Republican solutions are fully rejected. The funny part is that these Republican ideas are now Socialist ideas.
It works only because the Republican audience is led around by their noses,not knowing history or even the facts, past & present. Rush & Fox feed the ignorance & paranoia of a tribal mentality.
-
-
-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
I think that Lake Erie wind farm thing was falling through. Failed to procure the dollars. I agree scrub the coal emissions.
[link=http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2014/05/lake_erie_wind_farm_fails_to_m.html]http://www.cleveland.com/…d_farm_fails_to_m.html[/link]
[link=https://fox8.com/2019/03/25/company-receives-key-approval-for-wind-turbines-on-lake-erie-near-downtown-cleveland/]https://fox8.com/2019/03/…ar-downtown-cleveland/[/link][b]Lake Erie Wind Farm project wins key approval from Army Corps of Engineers[/b]
-
That’s cool. When I clicked on this thread I actually figured the next post would be something like ‘Trump orders end of the EPA’.
admittedly I know nothing of wind turbines but I find these numbers seem high for only 6 turbines.
“The company says the 6-turbine wind farm would create a minimum of [b]500 jobs[/b] and power [b]7,000 homes[/b].”-
Bloomberg pledges $500 million to close coal-fired power plants[/h1]
[link=https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/447401-bloomberg-pledges-500-million-to-close-coal-fired-power-plants]https://thehill.com/polic…oal-fired-power-plants[/link]
“Im committing $500 million to launch @BeyondCarbon the largest-ever coordinated campaign to tackle the climate crisis our country has ever seen,” he tweeted Thursday. “This is the fight of our time.”
-
Doesnt matter
Coal plants are dying because natural gas is cheaper and the new plants require less human labor
Coal is not coming back because of economic factors are making it more expensive
-
Good.
-
Good. Less money he can waste on harassing gun-owners.
-
You need an Oprah.
FREE GUNS FOR EVERYONE!
Everyone’s a winner!
Now, back to the topic. Coal… -
Finding ways to restore the land after coal is dead.
After taking billions of $ from the ground, why is coal country one of the poorest places in America?
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/lifestyle/magazine/appalachia-kentucky-reforestation/]https://www.washingtonpos…entucky-reforestation/[/link]
from[size=”0″]] [/size]
ripsnortinroy
I just wanted to touch on another issue raised here that never gets raised enough n the state of KY; the poverty left in the wake of the coal and timber industries.
I s’pect I’m not altogether too far out of the ballpark if I were to guess that natural resources worth in the hundreds of billions of dollars have left the eastern KY coalfields, while simultaneously leaving the area mired in poverty.
I mention this while reminding everyone that in the early 70s, the then County Judge of Pike County, long the state’s largest coal-producer-Wayne T. Rutherford, proposed and got enacted a coal severance tax to be used to expand the area’s economic base against the day when coal was gone.
Almost immediately, the richer areas of the state, specifically, what is referred to as the Golden Triangle, sat up and took notice. Within a remarkably short time, those legislators proposed and passed a law depriving the coal counties of the right to enact and collect coal severance taxes.
Next, they granted that right to the state at large, leaving the coalfields w/nothing to fall back on. This was Mitch McConnell’s area of the state that led the rush to take what was rightfully due the state’s coalfields, just in case anyone wants to remember it when the U S Senator for Eternity is up for re-election.
If you think maybe McConnell deserves his 7th term. compare the coalfield’s economy in 1980 with what McConnell’s cronies have left it with, now, then vote your conscience.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from aldadoc
The Democrats can kiss West Virginia goodbye. Kentucky is a goner.
[link=http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/06/broad-concern-about-global-warming-boosts-support-for-new-epa-regulations/]http://abcnews.go.com/blo…r-new-epa-regulations/[/link]
New poll makes it seems like regs could be a net win with significantly less down side than thought.
Seven in 10 Americans see global warming as a serious problem facing the country, enough to fuel broad support for federal efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions even if it raises their own energy costs, a new ABC News/Washington Post poll finds.
Notably, indicating public concern about the issue, 63 percent of Americans say theyd support a regulatory effort that significantly lowered greenhouse gases even if it raised their own energy expenses by $20 per month. (The figure is hypothetical, meant to test attitudes about the possible cost of new regulations. Actual cost impacts, if any, are a subject of sharp debate.)
Support for new regulations is linked closely to concern about the issue. Sixty-nine percent of Americans in this poll, produced for ABC by [link=http://www.langerresearch.com/]Langer Research Associates[/link], see global warming as a serious problem; among them, eight in 10 favor new regulations, and three-quarters are willing to pay higher energy bills if it means significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions. Among those who dont see a serious problem, by contrast, fewer than half favor cutting emissions, and just 36 percent back regulations that would raise their energy costs.
PARTISANSHIP AND IDEOLOGY Despite strong political and ideological components to views on global warming, majorities across the political spectrum support new regulations, albeit to varying degrees.
Even among Republicans, a group generally more skeptical of government regulation and less apt to see global warming as a serious problem 63 percent nonetheless favor reducing power plant emissions, and 57 percent back state-level limits on greenhouse gases. These also are backed, respectively, by 55 and 54 percent of conservatives. (On one of these, power plant emissions, theres a substantial gap in support between somewhat and strong conservatives.)
Support rises to eight in 10 Democrats, and peaks among liberals.
There are similar results on willingness to bear higher costs personally. Fifty-one and 44 percent of Republicans and conservatives, respectively, say theyd support efforts that significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions but also raised their energy bills by $20 a month. That increases among independents and moderates, and tops out among Democrats and liberals.
Also of note are cases in which theres no meaningful difference among groups. Climate change is seen as a serious problem almost equally in the red states won by Mitt Romney in 2012 and in the blue states won by Barack Obama, at 67 and 70 percent, respectively. And support for limits on greenhouse gas emissions are about the same in the Midwest where regulation may have the strongest impact as in the nation as a whole.
-
Quote from dergon
Quote from aldadoc
The Democrats can kiss West Virginia goodbye. Kentucky is a goner.
[link=http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/06/broad-concern-about-global-warming-boosts-support-for-new-epa-regulations/]http://abcnews.go.com/blo…r-new-epa-regulations/[/link]
New poll makes it seems like regs could be a net win with significantly less down side than thought.
Seven in 10 Americans see global warming as a serious problem facing the country, enough to fuel broad support for federal efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions even if it raises their own energy costs, a new ABC News/Washington Post poll finds.
Notably, indicating public concern about the issue, 63 percent of Americans say theyd support a regulatory effort that significantly lowered greenhouse gases even if it raised their own energy expenses by $20 per month. (The figure is hypothetical, meant to test attitudes about the possible cost of new regulations. Actual cost impacts, if any, are a subject of sharp debate.)
Support for new regulations is linked closely to concern about the issue. Sixty-nine percent of Americans in this poll, produced for ABC by [link=http://www.langerresearch.com/]Langer Research Associates[/link], see global warming as a serious problem; among them, eight in 10 favor new regulations, and three-quarters are willing to pay higher energy bills if it means significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions. Among those who dont see a serious problem, by contrast, fewer than half favor cutting emissions, and just 36 percent back regulations that would raise their energy costs.
PARTISANSHIP AND IDEOLOGY Despite strong political and ideological components to views on global warming, majorities across the political spectrum support new regulations, albeit to varying degrees.
Even among Republicans, a group generally more skeptical of government regulation and less apt to see global warming as a serious problem 63 percent nonetheless favor reducing power plant emissions, and 57 percent back state-level limits on greenhouse gases. These also are backed, respectively, by 55 and 54 percent of conservatives. (On one of these, power plant emissions, theres a substantial gap in support between somewhat and strong conservatives.)
Support rises to eight in 10 Democrats, and peaks among liberals.
There are similar results on willingness to bear higher costs personally. Fifty-one and 44 percent of Republicans and conservatives, respectively, say theyd support efforts that significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions but also raised their energy bills by $20 a month. That increases among independents and moderates, and tops out among Democrats and liberals.
Also of note are cases in which theres no meaningful difference among groups. Climate change is seen as a serious problem almost equally in the red states won by Mitt Romney in 2012 and in the blue states won by Barack Obama, at 67 and 70 percent, respectively. And support for limits on greenhouse gas emissions are about the same in the Midwest where regulation may have the strongest impact as in the nation as a whole.
All you socialist liberals who don’t like coal….don’t use electricity. If you are now using electricity you are a hypocrite, but isn’t that standard protocol for socialists? Freeze your donkeys off in the cold. Maybe obummer will send you a warm blanket while he basks in the warmth of his coal-fueled Washington bungalo, while sipping on a cup of hot coffe from a coffee maker operating on, you guessed it, coal-fueled electricity. You are such hypocrites. Ask old al gore, the king of hypocrites.-
Pointless, what “liberals” say they don’t like coal?
You, on the other hand, have no problem getting paid by our “redistribution of wealth” insurance industry, so tell us again who the hypocrite is? Of course that presumes you really are a physician, which is a huge leap of faith on my part.
-
Quote from Point Man
All you socialist liberals who don’t like coal….don’t use electricity. If you are now using electricity you are a hypocrite, but isn’t that standard protocol for socialists? Freeze your donkeys off in the cold. Maybe obummer will send you a warm blanket while he basks in the warmth of his coal-fueled Washington bungalo, while sipping on a cup of hot coffe from a coffee maker operating on, you guessed it, coal-fueled electricity. You are such hypocrites. Ask old al gore, the king of hypocrites.
it doesn’t seem socialist to want electrical production and clean air/water at the same time. You do realize coal isn’t the only way to produce electric, right? Also they can use smoke scrubbing technology on the coal stacks. I think it’s actual similar to modern diesel engine, they shoot some ammonia mix into the exhaust. Let me make you some coffee from Lake Erie water near the shore of the coal fired electric plant. Enjoy the mercury.
-
Quote from Point Man
All you socialist liberals who don’t like coal….don’t use electricity. If you are now using electricity you are a hypocrite, but isn’t that standard protocol for socialists? Freeze your donkeys off in the cold. Maybe obummer will send you a warm blanket while he basks in the warmth of his coal-fueled Washington bungalo, while sipping on a cup of hot coffe from a coffee maker operating on, you guessed it, coal-fueled electricity. You are such hypocrites. Ask old al gore, the king of hypocrites.
OK
1) Electricity can be generated from other sources than coal.
2) Wanting clean generation of electricity makes a person neither liberal nor socialist.
3) It is not hypocritcal to use electricity and yet desire cleaner sources of said electricity.
then the rest of the post fals into the usual pointman “blah blah blah I hate obummer blah blah rant blah…. rant … I hate libs … blah blah …..oh and I hate Gore too …”
-
The big issue is going to be the job losses. People can say what they want about being willing to pay more for clean energy, but when thousands of jobs are lost and heads of households are unemployed, the Democrats are going to pay a big political price.
Coal generates almost 50% of electricity in the US, and is 30% cheaper than the next cheapest alternative. The coal powered plants of today are much cleaner than those of the 70’s. A politically forced rapid re-conversion by EPA fiat will cost thousands of job losses and $$billions.
Just today we saw the job figures showing the lowest number of private sector jobs created in four months. The economy is on the brink of recession. These stupid Quixotic endeavors are going to push the US economy into a recession. We can’t rely on money generated by the ongoing DOJ shakedown of banks as a source of revenue forever. At some point, industrial output and job growth comes to bear in a big way.
This EPA debacle is going to be political kryotonite for the Democrats in the heartland. You just watch.-
I don’t see the point in being content to do nothing. Here’s an opportunity for the US to lead the way and the same people that complain the US is losing stature don’t like it. Why is there job losses? I don’t see the point as being anti-coal but using it in a better way. Sure the power company pays for technology to clean the smoke but they’re already raking in profits. What the DOJ is getting out of banks really isn’t all the much.
-
Quote from aldadoc
The big issue is going to be the job losses. People can say what they want about being willing to pay more for clean energy, but when thousands of jobs are lost and heads of households are unemployed, the Democrats are going to pay a big political price.
Coal generates almost 50% of electricity in the US, and is 30% cheaper than the next cheapest alternative. The coal powered plants of today are much cleaner than those of the 70’s. A politically forced rapid re-conversion by EPA fiat will cost thousands of job losses and $$billions.
Actually, yes, compensation can be done. It’s been done before with the tobacco industry.
I think the markets are showing coal is not the cheapest. Because really, it is the market that is doing most of the work about the declining use of coal. Not Obama & not Democrats, but the free market.
[link=http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/04/23/4-reasons-coal-declines-even-as-natural-gas-prices-rise-eia/]http://www.forbes.com/sit…l-gas-prices-rise-eia/[/link]
U.S. power plants began burning more coal in February as natural gas prices rose, but coals resurgence will not overcome its long-term decline, according to a report released today by the U.S. Energy Information Agency.
EIA analyzed the horse race between gas and coal under five scenarios reflecting variations in cost and supply of the two fuels. While coal is recovering ground in the short term, EIA found, coal loses in the long term as coal plants retire.
In all five cases, coal-fired generating capacity in 2025 is below the 2011 total and remains lower through 2040, as retirements outpace new additions of coal-fired capacity, according to [link=http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/IF_all.cfm#coal_gas]Competition between coal and natural gas in the electric power sector[/link], a newly released section of EIAs 2013 Energy Outlook, which the agency releases in parts.-
I agree that under the free market, there has been a gradual shift towards cleaner energy, such as clean coal and nat gas. This was progressing in an orderly fashion. There was no need for the EPA to force an acceleration of the process that will result in loss of many head-of-household jobs and a large economic impact to our feeble economic growth.
We’re going to see another big bump in unemployment and food stamps. I guess, that if you believe in Nancy Pelosi’s school of economics, this is good for the country.-
[b]”We’re going to see another big bump in unemployment and food stamps. I guess, that if you believe in Nancy Pelosi’s school of economics, this is good for the country.” [/b]
Alda, that is the socialist plan. Make everyone dependant upon the government.
[b]
[/b]-
Quote from Point Man
Make everyone dependant upon the government.
Sure, so then I guess you also must believe the Democrats are trying to [u]LOWER[/u] the minimum wage and [u]INCREASE[/u] taxes to the middle class. After all, what better way to make people “dependent upon the government”, right Pointless?
Oh wait, that’s what the REPUBLICANS are trying to do!
Hmmm.
-
-
Quote from aldadoc
I agree that under the free market, there has been a gradual shift towards cleaner energy, such as clean coal and nat gas. This was progressing in an orderly fashion. There was no need for the EPA to force an acceleration of the process that will result in loss of many head-of-household jobs and a large economic impact to our feeble economic growth.
There is an absolute need for EPA to step in.
As long as there was little to no cost for polluting while undertaking energy production of course cleaner alternatives won’t be able to compete.
As for the job losses…. I’m not so sure. Yeah there will be “creative destruction”. Some people who mine coal and work in dirty power plants that refuse to update will lose their jobs.
But that doesn’t mean in any way that there will be a [i]net[/i] job loss.
When Henry Ford started making automobiles a lot of buggy manufactures horse farriers lost their jobs. But in the long run both the auto industry itself and the gains that autos brought to economic efficiency resulted in mass job production of the course of a century. Renewable energy could very well run the same course.
-
So Obama proposes a solution that is to the right of Gingrich’s and McCain’s federal cap and trade proposals; leaves it up to the states to decide how they are going to meet the new levels and somehow he is the socialist…sure
-
-
-
-
Quote from aldadoc
Just today we saw the job figures showing the lowest number of private sector jobs created in four months. The economy is on the brink of recession. ….
[link=http://online.wsj.com/articles/second-quarter-gdp-expands-at-4-0-rate-1406723867]http://online.wsj.com/art…at-4-0-rate-1406723867[/link]
[h1][b]U.S. Second-Quarter GDP Expands at 4.0% Rate[/b]
[/h1]
Aldadoc. Always hopeful for the Obama collapse that never seems to come.-
Don’t pop the champagne cork just yet Dergon. Wait until the inevitable downward revision figures come out. There is no way we grew GDP at a 4% rate.
[link=http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2014/07/30/is-obamacare-still-casting-cloud-over-gdp-probably/?mod=MW_home_latest_news]http://blogs.marketwatch….od=MW_home_latest_news[/link]
BTW, the Obama collapse is occurring right under our noses.-
Quote from aldadoc
Don’t pop the champagne cork just yet Dergon. Wait until the inevitable downward revision figures come out. There is no way we grew GDP at a 4% rate.
[link=http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2014/07/30/is-obamacare-still-casting-cloud-over-gdp-probably/?mod=MW_home_latest_news]http://blogs.marketwatch….od=MW_home_latest_news[/link]
[link=http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/08/28/second-quarter-gdp-revised/14708597/]http://www.usatoday.com/s…-gdp-revised/14708597/[/link]
OK — so for the GDP – Second quarter was actually revised [i]upwards[/i] to 4.2% with estimates of final revisions potentially 4.7%
____
And back to coal
[link=http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119400/gop-legal-challenges-epa-coal-power-plant-rule]http://www.newrepublic.co…-coal-power-plant-rule[/link]
GOP efforts to block the EPA in the courts continue
…the pro-coal side is also charging that the EPA is doing something actually illegal. On Wednesday, 15 Republican governors sent a [link=http://www.scribd.com/doc/239195664/Republican-Governors-Urge-President-Obama-to-Promote-Reliable-Affordable-Energy-Policy]letter[/link] to Obama claiming that the regulation “exceeds the scope of federal law.” Coal-mining company Murray Energy and a [link=http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-epa-lawsuit-20140805-story.html]dozen states[/link] have already filed lawsuits to take this argument to the courts. Congress probably won’t be able to interfere with the EPA’s plan (that would involve amending the Clean Air Act), but the Supreme Court definitely could.
The letter echoes previous legal arguments against the regulation, making two main points: First, that the EPA can’t regulate existing power plants because the Clean Air Act prohibits it. This seems like a strange argument, given that the Clean Air Actspecifically Section 111(d)is what necessitates the EPA to act. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gasses could be regulated under the law, if the EPA determines they pose a threat to public health. But conservatives argue that existing power plants are already regulated under another section of the law, so Section 111(d) shouldn’t apply. The EPA used this second section, Section 112, as the legal grounds for regulating mercury pollution from existing power plants.
Second, the letter argues that the EPA can’t force states to regulate emissions beyond the point where they are emitted from power plants themselves. The EPA’s proposal sets emissions targets for each state, and then allows the state to pursue a system for reaching that target, which it can do by increasing natural gas production, renewable energy, and energy efficiency. The letter says this shows the EPA has “overstepped this hypothetical authority when it acted to coerce states to adopt compliance measures that do not reduce emissions at the entities EPA has set out to regulate.”
…
Environmentalists have watched for signs that the Supreme Court might agree with the EPA, or coal. After a string of legal victories, they seem optimistic. The EPA won a [link=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-29/obama-power-plant-pollution-rule-upheld-by-u-s-supreme-court.html]6-2 decision[/link] in April that upheld its cross-state air pollution rule requiring states to clean up power plants that pollute across borders. But it is surely not the last time we’ll be hearing from both sides about the legal justification for the EPA’s plan.-
[link=http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-pacific-warming-20140923-story.html]http://www.latimes.com/sc…ng-20140923-story.html[/link]
-
Are natural causes also the reason for the melting of the world’s glaciers, in Greenland, Alaska, South America, USA, Canada, Africa, Europe, Asia, or melting permafrost in Alaska, Canada & Russia or melting Antarctic land ice & Arctic sea ice?
-
Ask those who were around during prior mini ice ages and warming cycles who didn’t even have an SUV to drive.
-
Well you are admitting that the climate is getting warmer so chink by chink that wall is coming down. Only a few years ago there was no such thing as climate change at all outside of eons of change.
-
False. Alarmists have been declaring climate catastrophes for years. They have ALL been wrong. Some things never change.
-
Heat waves found due to climate change.
[link=http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/09/29/climate-change-extreme-weather-heat-waves-drought/16421151/]http://www.usatoday.com/s…aves-drought/16421151/[/link]
Climate change influenced several of the world’s most extreme weather events of 2013, including heat waves in Australia, Europe, China, Japan and Korea, says a series of studies out Monday in the [i]Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.[/i]
Though links between global warming and events such as droughts and heavy rainfall were not obvious, connections were clearest with extreme heat: An analysis of five extreme heat events overseas “overwhelmingly showed that human-caused climate change is having an influence,” according to the report.
Australia endured its hottest year ever recorded in 2013, which helped fuel several outbreaks of ferocious wildfires.
Overall, the report, “Explaining Extreme Events of 2013 from a Climate Perspective,” addressed the causes of 16 individual extreme events that occurred on four continents in 2013.
-
And since we’re talking about all this stuff today —
[link=http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-09-30/carbon-taxes-don-t-kill-jobs]http://www.bloombergview….-taxes-don-t-kill-jobs[/link]
[b]
Carbon Taxes Don’t Kill Jobs[/b][/h1]Where they’ve been tried, [link=http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-09-29/climate-march-climate-summit-climate-tax]the evidence shows[/link], well-designed carbon taxes have succeeded in reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. But that doesn’t necessarily end the debate over their effects — nor should it. The next question is whether that success is bought at the expense of jobs and incomes.
The answer is no. As long as the tax is well-designed, it can cut emissions at little or no economic cost. And that is a conservative assessment: In practice, a carbon tax has been shown to provide an economic boost. The reason is that the revenue raised by a carbon tax can be used to cut other, more damaging, taxes.
The evidence shows it’s worked in practice, not just in theory. The chart shows the results from a [link=http://www2.dmu.dk/cometr/COMETR_Summary_Report.pdf]study of countries that tax carbon[/link], comparing in each case two projections for gross domestic product — actual GDP with the tax in place, and hypothetical GDP with the equivalent revenue raised in other ways. Typically, GDP was a little higher thanks to the carbon tax.
Granted, one can always question the details of such studies. But at the very least, the evidence suggests that concerns about economic damage from moderate, well-designed carbon taxes are overblown.
The debate about a carbon tax shouldn’t ignore the transition costs and the more long-lasting effects on jobs and output. How the tax is phased in and how to help those most affected by it should be part of the discussion, and will be necessary to win public support for the policy. But that’s not an argument against doing it. Carbon taxes can help the economy as well as the environment — as long as the revenue is put to good use. Our next editorial in this series will turn to that crucial question of design.
-
[link=http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-11-12/obama-outmaneuvers-republicans-on-climate-change]http://www.bloombergview….cans-on-climate-change[/link]
Obama Outmaneuvers Republicans on Climate Change[/h1]Republicans’ best argument against regulating carbon emissions from U.S. coal plants has always been this: If China won’t act, what use is it? Why risk harming the U.S. economy if the resulting drop in emissions isn’t enough to slow the worst effects of climate change?
…. if Republicans in Congress block {the EPA} rules, they risk tanking the agreement with China, which in turn gives China a reason to back out of the deal. The EPA rules that previously looked senseless in the absence of Chinese emissions reductions are now, arguably, the single most important thing the U.S. can do to ensure those reductions.
You could dismiss the importance of China’s 2030 pledge on any number of grounds — that it’s unlikely to come true, or that it was probably going to happen anyway, or that it’s not fast enough even if it does happen. But it’s leagues better than nothing and could produce momentum elsewhere, so anything that undermines that deal would be a step backward when we can’t afford it.
Will any of this sway Republicans? [link=http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mcconnell-blasts-obamas-china-carbon-deal-unrealistic_818926.html]It seems unlikely[/link]. But by linking the EPA rules to Chinese action, President Barack Obama has taken the most compelling case against those rules and co-opted it overnight. For a lame-duck president, that’s a pretty neat trick.
-
That’s why they are so pissed.
-
Quote from Frumious
That’s why they are so pissed.
Yep.
[link=http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120246/us-china-2014-climate-deal-enrages-republican-politicians]http://www.newrepublic.co…republican-politicians[/link]
Republicans are furious that President Barack Obama has [link=http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120242/us-and-china-reach-agreement-climate-change]cut a historic deal with China[/link] to lower both countries greenhouse gas emissions. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell just spent his reelection campaign claiming that China would never curb its emissions, so the [link=http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119823/mitch-mcconnell-debate-us-should-follow-chinas-lead-climate]U.S. shouldnt either[/link]. Many other Republicans have argued [link=http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/11/awkward-supercut-republicans-using-china-excuse-climate-inaction?utm_source=huffingtonpost.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange_article]the same[/link]. And yet China just proved Republicans wrong by committing to reach a peak level of carbon pollution by 2030the first time the worlds largest polluter has set a deadline for lowering emissions.
Republicans wont admit they were wrong, of course. They’ve already moved on to their next talking point. Remarkably, the party thats become synonymous with climate-change denial has avoided any mention of it this time. A statement from McConnell’s office stressed only that Environmental Protection Agency regulations hurt coal jobs.
…
The hardest parthow to move both countries’ giant economies away from fossil fuel dependencecomes next. Republican opposition will be firm, even if their excuses shift away from climate-change denial. -
[link=http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/25/supreme-court-air-pollution-epa/70089820/]http://www.usatoday.com/s…ollution-epa/70089820/[/link]
[b]
Supreme Court to review EPA mercury emission rules [/b][/h1]Federal limits on mercury emissions from power plants, nearly 15 years in the making, will be reconsidered by the Supreme Court.
The justices on Tuesday agreed to hear complaints from 21 states and industry groups that regulations first imposed in 2000 on coal- and oil-fired utilities are too expansive and expensive.
___
This comes the same day that the Obama administration plans to release additional EPA regs on ozone emisssions.
-
Hg in the air we breathe and the H2O we drink, that’s the air and water of freedom.
-
[link=http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120616/first-epa-regulation-coal-ash-weak-environmentalists-say]http://www.newrepublic.co…-environmentalists-say[/link]
EPA adds coal ash dispaosal regulations. Environmentalists not happy.
For the first time, the Environmental Protection Agency has set a minimum baseline for coal-ash disposal that leaves enforcement to states. Ponds will now have to be inspected regularly and monitored for groundwater contamination; those that are leaky will be shut down. New ponds will now have to be lined and located away from sensitive areas like earthquake zones and wetlands. Otherwise, the EPA doesn’t address what to do with inactive ponds.
While EPAs coal ash rule takes some long overdue steps to establish minimum national groundwater monitoring and cleanup standards, it relies too heavily on the industry to police itself,” said Eric Schaeffer, executive director of the Environmental Integrity Project and former EPA director of civil enforcement.
Environmentalists hoped the EPA would label coal ash as a hazardous waste, requiring utilities to dispose of it in facilities that are lined and sealed and far away from bodies of water. They’ve been asking the EPA to set stricter requirements for yearsever since the coal ash spill in [link=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/us/27sludge.html]Kingston, Tennessee in 2008[/link]. The EPA labeled it as a solid waste instead, meaning coal ash ponds are subject to requirements similar to those controlling household waste.
Its stunning that 21st century America would store millions of tons of industrial waste in such a primitive and outmoded way, Senior Attorney Frank Holleman of the Southern Environmental Law Center said. This was a lost opportunity on the part of the EPA and national government to protect rivers and lakes. -
[link=http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/tesla-battery-storage-will-accelerate-exit-of-coal-generators-88203]http://reneweconomy.com.a…-coal-generators-88203[/link]
[b]
Tesla battery storage will accelerate the exit of coal generators[/b][/h1]It changes everything. In one fell swoop, Tesla has cut the cost of stationary battery storage by more than half, delivering disruption to the doorsteps of incumbent utilities and fossil fuel generators that most did not imagine would emerge for at least another decade.
What it means for the consumer and conventional energy providers is that the combination of rooftop solar and lithium ion battery storage is now cheaper than the grid particularly in places with high electricity costs and good sun, and that means countries like Australia.
Its a moot point about how quickly this will take off in the US, where the rate of rooftop solar is growing, but still relatively low penetration.
But it has huge implications for Australia, which because of its high retail electricity costs (around 30c/kWh and higher in time of use areas), excellent solar resource, and huge penetration of rooftop solar (one in four houses in some states) finds itself at the cutting edge of this revolution.
Some utilities already recognise this. The biggest in Europe and the US are either jettisoning their centralised fossil fuel generators, or at least recognising their age of dominance is coming to an end, and focusing their efforts on solar, storage, electric vehicles and micro-grids.
-
-
Quote from aldadoc
Don’t pop the champagne cork just yet Dergon. Wait until the inevitable downward revision figures come out. There is no way we grew GDP at a 4% rate.
Aldadoc was totally right. There was indeed [b]no way[/b] we grew at a 4% rate.
….
We grew at a [i]4.6%[/i] rate.
[link=http://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2014/09/26/u-s-gdp-grew-4-6-in-second-quarter-2014-up-from-earlier-estimates/]http://www.forbes.com/sit…rom-earlier-estimates/[/link]
[b]
[h1]U.S. GDP Grew 4.6% In Second Quarter 2014, Up From Earlier Estimates[/b][/h1]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ahh, to have the economy and environmental legacy of Communist East Europe, the aspirations of Capitalist Republicans.
[link=http://www.atlantic-times.com/archive_detail.php?recordID=2298]http://www.atlantic-times…tail.php?recordID=2298[/link]The communist dictatorships did not view the environment as an important issue. Communism meant not only submission but also unrestricted destruction of the natural environment. The fall of the totalitarian regimes revealed the scale of the environmental destruction. In countries like East Germany or the Czech Republic, the situation was exacerbated by the environmental havoc left by the Soviet Army after its departure in 1990.
If the people in the former communist countries look back at the past 20 years, they can say that in addition to political and economic freedom and an increased standard of living their environment is much cleaner than it used to be.
About 106 out of around 150 environmentally risky operations in Poland are located in the relatively small area of Silesia, the most heavily industrialized region of the country. Four million people alone live within the conurbation of Katowice. The area also has the largest sludge bed of industrial waste in the entire European Union, at Zelazny Most. The reservoir contains up to 28 million tons of liquid waste created from mining copper ore.The poorest countries of the European Union, Bulgaria and Romania, are even worse off. The environmental disaster 10 years ago in a Romanian gold mine in the north of the country, which almost destroyed life in the great Hungarian river of Tisa because of cyanide, remains alive in the memories of many people, especially of Hungarians.
[link=http://www.rinr.fsu.edu/fallwinter99/features/sb_cleaningup.html]http://www.rinr.fsu.edu/f…res/sb_cleaningup.html[/link]
The environmental wake-up call that sounded in the U.S. in the mid-70s triggered a social and political upheaval that radically changed the way American industries conducted business and sent a message of hope to an emerging environmental consciousness worldwide.
America, though, was in far better position economically and politically than most countries to reverse its polluting ways. In regions of the world still under the yoke of communism, for example, the environmental movement faced implacable difficulties.
When the Iron Curtain finally collapsed in November 1989, the world saw for the first time the great environmental cost of decades of communist rule in Central and Eastern Europe (see “Hard Road to Recovery,” this magazine, [link=http://www.rinr.fsu.edu/summer96/features/nightmare.html]summer96[/link]). Throughout the region, emphasis on production at the expense of the environment led to severe degradation of air and water quality, coastal areas, soils, sediments, crops and forestlands.
For most of the last decade of the 20th century, countries such as Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Romania, and the former East Germany struggled to absorb the enormous economic costs associated with massive environmental clean-up. Facing much of the same problems that plagued major U.S. industrial regions 40 years ago, such countries also had to deal with an almost complete lack of regulatory incentives essential for stopping some of the worst pollution and for opening the door to Western help in the form of capital and investment.
[link=http://doc.utwente.nl/1973/1/Steenge91survey.pdf]http://doc.utwente.nl/1973/1/Steenge91survey.pdf[/link]
The type of air pollution in Eastern Europe reflects the kind of energy resources that have been locally available. The drive for self-sufficiencyand the general lack of hard currency strongly stimulated the exploitation of the large deposits of brown coal or lignite in the GDR, Poland, and Czechoslovakia. The choices made are reflected in a pattern of energy consumption characteristic of much of Eastern Europe (see Table 2).
Sulphur emissions, especially caused by combustion in highly inefficient coal power plants for energy production, are probably the largest airborne contributor to acid rain. In Eastern Europe they are notoriously high. Inefficiency in the generation of electricity is due mainly to the combustion of indigenous supplies of lignite, soft or brown coal with an extremely high sulphur content (from 2-2.5% up to 5% or even more in the lowest-quality types of fuel) and a low calorific value [often less than 50% of the major types of hard coal (French, 1990)]. Table 3 gives an indication of the amounts of SO2, NOx, and CO2 being generated.
Variations in the table reflect local differences. For example, 80% of Poland’s energy is supplied by coal. Although a less polluting type of hard coal is often used here, these fuels possess other undesirable characteristics, such as a high ash content, resulting in high concentrations of ash or dust particles. This explains why particulates (soot) and nitrogen oxides ( N O J are the second worst airborne pollutants.
In Communist countries, we don’t need no stinking environmental regulations to kill jobs.
Actually the solution is easy, Clean Coal vs natural gas generation. Or <GASP> renewables!
-
-
[url=http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/25/barack-obama-climate-change-legacy]Obama sets sizzling climate action pace in push to leave legacy[/url]
The White House has churned out about 40 new measures to fight carbon pollution just since the start of 2015, stepping up the pace ahead of critical talks for a global climate change deal. Two years after Barack Obamas sweeping promise to fight climate change on 25 June 2013, the president has used his executive powers to spit out new climate events or announcements at a dizzying rate of one every 4.5 days this year, according to the running tally kept by the White House.
…
Those measures are offset by furious attempts by Republicans and industry to stop the climate plan in its tracks, and other Obama policies which campaigners say would increase the greenhouse gas emissions causing climate change, such as opening up the Arctic, one of the worlds great carbon bombs, to oil drilling and expanding coal mining in Wyomings Powder river basin.
…
Since {the 2013 announcement}, Obama has taken initial action on all 75 of the goals set out in the plan to cut carbon pollution, prepare the US for climate change, and help reach a global warming deal, according to an [url=http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/climate-action-plan-2-year-update-06-15.pdf]analysis by the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES)[/url]. -
[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/new-epa-rule-on-greenhouse-gases-the-latest-blow-to-king-coal/2015/08/01/c8bd3936-3791-11e5-9739-170df8af8eb9_story.html]New EPA rule on greenhouse gases[/url]
On Monday, the Obama administration takes on the coal industry with the final version of rules it has dubbed the Clean Power Plan, a complex scheme designed to reduce, on a state-by-state basis, the amount of greenhouse gases the nations electric power sector emits. The main target: coal.
…
The reason for the focus on coal is that it remains the largest U.S. producer of greenhouse gases at a time when President Obama is striving for an agreement at the December climate summit in Paris. In March, the United States submitted its own goal to the United Nations, vowing to reduce by 2025 U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions by 26 percent to 28 percent below 2005 levels. Trimming coal emissions must be a part of that.
…Foes of the Clean Power Plan have admitted they hope to gum up the works for the EPA with their barrage of litigation. But they are likely to lose, David Doniger, director of the climate and clean air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement. The business world understands this well, whatever the politicians might say. And many utilities have been changing their mix of fuels not only to meet earlier EPA regulations and renewable quotas adopted in more than half of U.S. states, but also for their own business reasons, cutting costs and boosting profits.
-
[url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/01/14/obama-administration-set-to-announce-moratorium-on-some-new-federal-coal-leases/]Obama announces moratorium on new coal leases[/url]
The Obama administration announced on Friday a halt to new coal mining leases on public lands as it considers an overhaul of the program that could lead to increased costs for energy companies and a slowdown in extraction.
Given serious concerns raised about the federal coal program, were taking the prudent step to hit pause on approving significant new leases so that decisions about those leases can benefit from the recommendations that come out of the review, said Interior Secretary Sally Jewell. During this time, companies can continue production activities on the large reserves of recoverable coal they have under lease, and well make accommodations in the event of emergency circumstances to ensure this pause will have no material impact on the nations ability to meet its power generation needs.
The move represents a significant setback for the coal industry, effectively freezing new coal production on federal lands and sending a signal to energy markets that could turn investors away from an already reeling industry. President Obama telegraphed the step in his State of the Union address on Tuesday night when he said Im going to push to change the way we manage our oil and coal resources so that they better reflect the costs they impose on taxpayers and our planet.
-
He should just figure out a way to help with the cutover to NAT gas. As someone who eats perch we catch in Lake Erie I’m glad to see the coal plant going down.
-
[url=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-22/obama-s-carbon-rule-victory-is-more-important-than-you-think]Obama administration scores major legal victory over carbon emissions[/url]
On Thursday, in the first skirmish over new carbon-emissions rules, a federal appeals court in Washington refused to temporarily block their implementation. The war is on. The decision didn’t address whether the new rules are legal. But the lack of a delay means the utilities, coal producers and two dozen states challenging Obama’s Clean Power Plan must start planning how to comply.
…
The big question is: At what point in the legal process will opponents start planning for compliance instead of resistance? Each step toward the U.S. Supreme Courtstarting with the appeals court ruling, requests for rehearings, and ultimately, a petition to the high courtwill force utilities closer to deadlines for compliance under the law, unless a stay is eventually granted.On a more practical level, climate change is already becoming entwined with government and business. The EPA has issued rules cutting greenhouse-gas pollution from cars, trucks, and now power plants. It raised energy efficiency standards, greened government procurement, and built climate risk into the cost-benefit analysis of regulation. In New England, California and other countries, American companies are already paying to emit CO2. Suddenly, the Clean Power Plan looks a little more real than it did last week. That conclusion is likely to radiate out to to state capitalsand maybe even back to Washington.
-
-
-
[h1]Congress Will Probe Clean Coal[/h1]
[link=https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2B7194?il=0]Reuters[/link]: The U.S. Congress is investigating a multibillion-dollar subsidy for chemically treated coal that is meant to reduce smokestack pollution, after evidence emerged that power plants using the fuel produced more smog not less.
The outcome of the probe could play a big role in whether lawmakers vote to renew the subsidy, on track to expire at the end of this year.
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, is examining the refined coal tax credit program which generates at least $1 billion a year for U.S. corporations.
-
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/03/31/epa-advisory-panels/]EPA dismisses dozens of key science advisers picked under Trump[/link]
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Michael Regan will purge more than 40 outside experts appointed by President Donald Trump from two key advisory panels, a move he says will help restore the role of science at the agency and reduce the heavy influence of industry over environmental regulations.
Critics say that under Trump, membership of the two panels the EPAs Science Advisory Board (SAB) and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) tilted too heavily toward regulated industries and their positions sometimes contradicted scientific consensus.
The Biden administration said the move is one of several to reestablish scientific integrity across the federal government after what it characterizes as a concerted effort under the previous president to sideline or interfere with research on climate change, the novel [link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/coronavirus/?itid=lk_inline_manual_7]coronavirus[/link] and other issues.
-
[ul][*][link=http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_allpolitics/~3/TrK9GOpsKbw/index.html]Biden administration formally launches task force to ensure scientific decisions are free from political influence[/link]
[/ul]
The review comes after several former Trump administration officials have said they felt political pressures while doing their jobs during the pandemic.
The effort is being led by the White House Office of Science and Technology and stands as an early example of the Biden administration’s commitment to science and government accountability. In a statement Monday, OSTP said mobilizing the task force “would the lift up the voices of Federal scientists of many perspectives and backgrounds, in order to ensure that scientific integrity is paramount in Federal governance for years to come.”
“Scientific and technological information, data, and evidence are key to the development of effective policies and equitable program delivery throughout government,” wrote OSTP Deputy Directors Alondra Nelson and Jane Lubchenco to Scientific Integrity Task Force co-chairs and members.
“As evidence-based policymaking becomes increasingly central to the work of the Federal government, it is important to affirm, strengthen, and safeguard the policies, procedures, and diverse and inclusive communities of practice that facilitate the production of rigorous research evidence, free from interference or intervention.”[/QUOTE]
-
[link=https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/592133-biden-administration-proposes-to-restore-legal-basis-for-power]Biden administration proposes restoration of power plant rules undermined by Trump
[/link]
In 2020, the Trump administration [link=https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/493226-epa-issues-rule-critics-say-threatens-power-plant-pollution]undercut a regulation[/link] known as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule by changing its legal justification in a way that made it more vulnerable to lawsuits.
The MATS rule, in general, puts limits on how much of these toxic substances power plants can release into the air. Mercury is a neurotoxin that is particularly harmful to children.
[color=”#000000″]..[/color].
Instead, the Biden administration proposed to affirm on Monday that it is appropriate and necessary to regulate the emissions of these pollutants from power plants, while the Trump administration had said the regulations were not appropriate and necessary.
[/QUOTE]
-
oh my gawd …
[link=https://twitter.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1539941722129580032]https://twitter.com/Jason…us/1539941722129580032[/link]
Newsmax guest on coal emissions: “You actually don’t want to live in world with nothing in the air. If you have, like, a totally clean world, you become extremely vulnerable”
-
EPA badly neutered
Bannon getting what he called for with the dismantling of the administrative state
The Supreme Court issued a decision limiting the power of regulatory agencies within the federal government, saying the Environmental Protection Agency overstepped its authority in 2015 when it tried to limit greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants, the Wall Street Journal reports.
The EPA powers at issue are central to Mr. Bidens climate agenda. With fragile majorities in the Senate and House, Democrats have limited ability to advance their platform through new legislation.
-
Coal is not coming back regardless
This is more of vendetta thing if anything at all-
This is a landmark ruling.
The SCOTUS logic allows almost any judge, anywhere, at any level to raise an eyebrow at executive branch actions, label them “major” policy changes, and block action.
It goes well beyond the EPA.
-
Quote from dergon
This is a landmark ruling.
The SCOTUS logic allows almost any judge, anywhere, at any level to raise an eyebrow at executive branch actions, label them “major” policy changes, and block action.
It goes well beyond the EPA.
What a novel concept ! One branch of the government keeping another branch to adhere to the law as written. Someone should come up with a name, like ‘checks and balances’ or something like that.
But no, we are probably better off with a system where federal agencies write their own rules and just reply ‘because I said so’ whenever their authority to do somehing is questioned.
-
fw is spot on. This SCOTUS, as much as I and others don’t like the policy changes, is saying to the legislative branch it must do it’s job better. It’s about time. Don’t count on SCOTUS to uphold decisions that are not supported by actual laws.
-
Right because the legislative branch just knows so much more about science including climate and medicine than actual scientists and physicians
Yay
-
Quote from Chirorad84
Right because the legislative branch just knows so much more about science including climate and medicine than actual scientists and physicians
Yay
As weve seen, over and over and overn
-
-
Waddyyawant, clean water & air or companies having greater profits & less expenses?
Whats a few superfund sites with dumped PCBs & other chemicals, flammable rivers, brown/gray air, acid rain, ozone holes, undrinkable water in the home, streams full of gunk?
You know, the good old days for those of you too young to remember the days before the EPA. Rubber Fish in the Hudson River, floating turds & other raw sewage in rivers, needles & syringes at public beaches.
Heaven on earth.
-
Quote from Frumious
Waddyyawant, clean water & air or companies having greater profits & less expenses?
Whats a few superfund sites with dumped PCBs & other chemicals, flammable rivers, brown/gray air, acid rain, ozone holes, undrinkable water in the home, streams full of gunk?
You know, the good old days for those of you too young to remember the days before the EPA. Rubber Fish in the Hudson River, floating turds & other raw sewage in rivers, needles & syringes at public beaches.
Heaven on earth.
Come on Frumi. The slope is not that slippery. There is still plenty of authority in the EPA to affect those issues.
This was about coal fired plants and their relation to the Clean Air Act regarding CO2 emissions, not all of the other things the EPA has clear legal authority over.
I agree it would be nice to read the act with the amount of flexibility the EPA took with their interpretation but they are not legal scholars and the fact is SCOTUS called them out. Back to the drawing board I guess. I’m not happy but I’m pragmatic. -
[h1][b]Climate Law Defines Greenhouse Gases as Pollution[/b][/h1] [link=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/22/climate/epa-supreme-court-pollution.html]New York Times[/link]:
When the Supreme Court restricted the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to fight climate change this year, the reason it gave was that Congress had never granted the agency the broad authority to shift America away from burning fossil fuels.
Now it has.
Throughout the landmark climate law, passed this month, is language written specifically to address the Supreme Courts justification for reining in the E.P.A., a ruling that was one of the courts most consequential of the term. The new law amends the Clean Air Act, the countrys bedrock air-quality legislation, to define the carbon dioxide produced by the burning of fossil fuels as an air pollutant.
That language, according to legal experts as well as the Democrats who worked it into the legislation, explicitly gives the E.P.A. the authority to regulate greenhouse gases and to use its power to push the adoption of wind, solar and other renewable energy sources.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
