EPA issues new coal-fired power plant regulations capping carbon emission reductions

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Fox News: Obama administration unveils controversial emissions cap on power plantshttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...missions-from-fossil-burning-plants-part-his/http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...missions-from-fossil-burning-plants-part-his/

The Obama administration on Monday unveiled the first-ever national limits on carbon emissions from existing power plants, a controversial regulation aimed at fulfilling a key plank of President Obama's climate change agenda.

The Environmental Protection Agency wants existing plants to cut pollution by 30 percent by 2030, under the plan.

The draft regulation sidesteps Congress, where Obama's Democratic allies have failed to pass a so-called "cap-and-trade" plan to limit such emissions. The EPA plan will go into effect in June 2016, following a one-year comment period. States will then be responsible for executing the rule with some flexibility.

We're seeing our nation acquiesce to a dictatorship. The Little Marxist Dictator used his pen and his phone to require sweeping reform in the coal-fired industry and push a "green" agenda that is questionable at best, and will be a disaster similar to the ACA at worst. He buys into the politics -- not the science, the politics -- of "global warming." While the new regs are controversial enough, threatening coal industry and power plant industry jobs, the regulations require states to put their own plans into effect or face EPA direct regulation of power plants within the individual states.

Governors in Kansas, Kentucky, Virginia and West Virginia have already signed legislation requiring their states' environmental agencies to enact such plans. A bill awaits the governor's signature in Missouri while the legislatures in Louisiana and Ohio are about to take final action on similar bills.

Obviously, given some of those are very conservative states, no one sees fit to question this very questionable federal authority. We've apparently thrown in the towel and will allow this clown to become our new king.

 

[Revmitchell]

Obama is a job killer

 

[Crabtownboy]

There was a time when there were beautiful mountains at this location.

 

[InTheLight]

There was a time when there were beautiful mountains at this location.

Yeah, so?

There was a time when there were beautiful pristine woods and wildlife at this location.

 

[InTheLight]

Interesting how the major papers handled this story.

NYTimes: The regulation takes aim at the largest source of carbon pollution in the United States, the nation’s more than 600 coal-fired power plants. Experts say it could close hundreds of the plants.

LATimes: But the facts are clear. For over four decades, EPA has cut air pollution by 70% and the economy has more than tripled.

 

[InTheLight]

Now Obama is saying he's doing it "for the children."

 

[Crabtownboy]

Would not want to live nearby downwind of this.

 

[padredurand]

Would not want to live nearby downwind of this.

Please provide me with the location of just one US coal-fired power plant that has stack emissions that look like that. I'm talking about particulate emissions not steam.

 

[Crabtownboy]

It is estimated that with the new rules 100,000 asthma attacks and 2100 heart attacks will be avoided in the first year.

 

[just-want-peace]

OFF TOPIC!!

Now, answer the stated point from padredurand - if possible!!!

 

[abcgrad94]

It is estimated that with the new rules 100,000 asthma attacks and 2100 heart attacks will be avoided in the first year.

I wonder how many more people in my state will lose their livelihood as a result of this. How many people will get diagnosed with depression, anxiety, and malnutrition as a result of not being able to feed their families? How many people will experience heart problems and other medical issues when the loss of jobs and health insurance causes them NOT to go to the doctor for treatment. How many people will stop taking meds once they have no insurance to help pay for them? How many more WV families will have to go on the government dole?

I'd also like to see a real PLAN for how the president expects to keep electricity running. If this causes power plants to close, the grid will be overtaxed and we'll have elderly people dying of the heat and cold.

The nasty gas coming from Washington DC needs to be cut, not our livelihoods.

 

[abcgrad94]

This is a little OT, but since Crabby posted a pic of mountaintop removal, I'll toss this in: We have family working coal mining. With mountaintop removal the coal companies actually plant trees when they are done. In some cases, the area will look BETTER than before, it just may take a few years. Anybody can take a pic of a mining site before the grass and trees have grown back.

I'm sick and tired of people trashing the coal industry when they don't live here or work here. All the media does is tell us how terrible coal mining is to the environment. They don't tell the REAL story of what the workers do.

Next time the politicians flip a light switch, they should remember WHERE that electric came from. Without coal, we'd all be in the dark.

 

[Crabtownboy]

This is a little OT, but since Crabby posted a pic of mountaintop removal, I'll toss this in: We have family working coal mining. With mountaintop removal the coal companies actually plant trees when they are done. In some cases, the area will look BETTER than before, it just may take a few years. Anybody can take a pic of a mining site before the grass and trees have grown back.

I'm sick and tired of people trashing the coal industry when they don't live here or work here. All the media does is tell us how terrible coal mining is to the environment. They don't tell the REAL story of what the workers do.

Next time the politicians flip a light switch, they should remember WHERE that electric came from. Without coal, we'd all be in the dark.

My grandfather was a coal miner. He died of black lung disease.

I had two uncles who worked in the coal mines and industry, both died of lung cancer.

Prior to that I had relatives who were involved in the Coal Field Wars where owners hired private planes and bombed them.

I remember the script that was paid to miners instead of dollars. It could only be spent at company stores ... that ripped off the miners.

I remember miners coming home from work, dog tired and completely covered with coal dust. The only thing white about any of them regardless of race was their teeth and eyes.

The coal industry has exploited the people and raped the land.

The mountain above the old home place was stripped at least fifteen years ago. Nothing has bee planted there. I doubt anything would grow. I wish I could paste from Google Earth, but if it is possible I do not know how.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

It is estimated that with the new rules 100,000 asthma attacks and 2100 heart attacks will be avoided in the first year.

Got a source ?

 

[Matt Black]

On the one hand, this is a long-overdue step in the right direction in the fight against anthropogenic climate change. On the other hand, Washington will in consequence owe something of a duty of care to aid consequently laid-off power industry workers to find alternative employment.

 

[Revmitchell]

There is no "anthropogenic" climate change.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

... anthropogenic climate change ...

The atmosphere is .0039% carbon dioxide. Look carefully at that number. Let it burn into your mind. Realize how little a percentage of the atmosphere that actually is.

Global warming alarmists love to talk about carbon dioxide in terms of the billions of tons of volume weight of it there is in the atmosphere, but the fact remains, it is just less than four thousandths of one percent of the atmosphere's total makeup. But the remarkable thing is, 96.4% of it is put into the atmosphere by plants: trees, shrubs, bushes, flowers, etc., in the natural process of photosynthesis. Another one percent of that occurs from volcanic eruptions and forest fires. That leaves "anthropogenic contribution" of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere at just over one-ten-thousandth of one percent of the carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere.

Remarkably, this minute part of the atmospheric makeup is responsible for 83% of the heat absorption that warms the Earth, and I mean that literally. If not for the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, our mean temperature globally would be about -18 degrees Celcius. As it is, our mean temperature is 15 degrees Celcius. On the Fahrenheit scale, that's 0 and 59. So in a very real sense "global warming" is a very, very good thing. We can't live without it.

Scientists say the Earth has warmed about half a degree in 100 years. That's an average, though over the last 20 years, the average temperature has actually declined. The Earth stopped warming in the mid 1990s. Yet they continue to yammer on about "anthropogenic global warming." You can call it climate change if you want. I'll call it "warming" because that's what they claim is happening.

I want you and them to explain to me how the massive volumes of carbon dioxide we pour into the atmosphere every year can, over the last 100 years, continue to represent less than one-ten-thousandth of one percent of the total carbon dioxide volume and manage to raise the temp only a half-degree, and represent "global warming." Don't attempt to blame it on other so-called "greenhouse gases" such as methane and the like, because those are just bold-faced lies. There is so little of those other gases present in the atmosphere that if you stacked man's contribution of carbon dioxide next to them, the comparison would be Denali vs. Bunker Hill. Or smaller.

They do absorb heat at a far greater rate than carbon dioxide, but they are such an infinitesimal amount of total atmospheric volume as to be inconsequential. You can probably find charts and graphs that would appear to show otherwise, but trust me, those charts and graphs are inventions of a political agenda and in no way, shape or form represent actual scientific fact.

So, I'll await your explanation. With bated breath. Not.

 

[Revmitchell]

The climate change agenda is a lie for the purpose of gaining control of people's lives and collecting money from the US for wealth distribution around the world.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Got a source ?

Of course

http://www.thetimesherald.com/usatoday/article/9877579

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/politics/obamas-plan-to-cut-emissions-why-some-politicians-hate-it.html/

http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-nine-things-you-need-to-know-about-obamas-new-climate-rules/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...ses-sharp-cuts-power-plant-emissions/9859913/

 

[Revmitchell]

The atmosphere is .0039% carbon dioxide. Look carefully at that number. Let it burn into your mind. Realize how little a percentage of the atmosphere that actually is.

Global warming alarmists love to talk about carbon dioxide in terms of the billions of tons of volume weight of it there is in the atmosphere, but the fact remains, it is just less than four thousandths of one percent of the atmosphere's total makeup. But the remarkable thing is, 96.4% of it is put into the atmosphere by plants: trees, shrubs, bushes, flowers, etc., in the natural process of photosynthesis. Another one percent of that occurs from volcanic eruptions and forest fires. That leaves "anthropogenic contribution" of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere at just over one-ten-thousandth of one percent of the carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere.

Remarkably, this minute part of the atmospheric makeup is responsible for 83% of the heat absorption that warms the Earth, and I mean that literally. If not for the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, our mean temperature globally would be about -18 degrees Celcius. As it is, our mean temperature is 15 degrees Celcius. On the Fahrenheit scale, that's 0 and 59. So in a very real sense "global warming" is a very, very good thing. We can't live without it.

Scientists say the Earth has warmed about half a degree in 100 years. That's an average, though over the last 20 years, the average temperature has actually declined. The Earth stopped warming in the mid 1990s. Yet they continue to yammer on about "anthropogenic global warming." You can call it climate change if you want. I'll call it "warming" because that's what they claim is happening.

I want you and them to explain to me how the massive volumes of carbon dioxide we pour into the atmosphere every year can, over the last 100 years, continue to represent less than one-ten-thousandth of one percent of the total carbon dioxide volume and manage to raise the temp only a half-degree, and represent "global warming." Don't attempt to blame it on other so-called "greenhouse gases" such as methane and the like, because those are just bold-faced lies. There is so little of those other gases present in the atmosphere that if you stacked man's contribution of carbon dioxide next to them, the comparison would be Denali vs. Bunker Hill. Or smaller.

They do absorb heat at a far greater rate than carbon dioxide, but they are such an infinitesimal amount of total atmospheric volume as to be inconsequential. You can probably find charts and graphs that would appear to show otherwise, but trust me, those charts and graphs are inventions of a political agenda and in no way, shape or form represent actual scientific fact.

So, I'll await your explanation. With bated breath. Not.

mmmmmmmmmmmmmm