Obama to Seek 30% Cut in Emissions at Power Plants

[green73]

President Barack Obama will propose cutting greenhouse-gas emissions from the nation’s power plants by an average of 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, according to people briefed on the plans.

The proposal, scheduled to be unveiled by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency tomorrow morning, represents one of the boldest steps the U.S. has taken to fight global warming -- and a political gamble.

cont.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-01/obama-said-to-propose-30-cut-of-power-plant-greenhouse-gases.html

[oyarde]

How much per KWH would that raise coal fired electric ?

[Anti Federalist]

Regulation without representation.

[juleswin]

Another feel good regulation that one wouldn't do a damn thing to reduce CO2 emissions in any significant way and two further diminish our economic competitiveness with other countries.

[James Madison]

Does China have to cut emissions, too?

[oyarde]

Another feel good regulation that one wouldn't do a damn thing to reduce CO2 emissions in any significant way and two further diminish our economic competitiveness with other countries.

Yes , the Dems are economic terrorists.

[mad cow]

"So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted". ~ Barack Hussein Obama 2008

It's not like we weren't warned.

[juleswin]

Yes , the Dems are economic terrorists.

Yup and you know, I saw something on TV a few hrs that made me sick. I was watching the new cosmos show on Fox national channel and you wouldn't believe the kind of green propaganda they was spreading on that program. I hope someone else saw it cos it was so blatant what they were trying to do.

The scientist host was talking about how society harnessed the power of the sun by going from nomadic society to agricultural society. He said they was a big explosion in civilization after the transition and was sorta implying the same will happen if we transitioned to green technologies. Ofc he did not tell the audience that the transition(more like discovery of agriculture) did not cost the nomadic society anything, in fact it was a cheaper change unlike what this CO2 emission reduction will cost our economy.

Also left out of his analysis was the bigger explosion in civilization and population that came after the discovery of oil. It was just a very one sided analysis in favor of a green economy and I am afraid that a lot of people are slowly buying into that way of thinking. My guess is nothing of political consequence will come off this policy and more regulations like this will follow without congress or society as a whole doing anything.

More manufacturing jobs will leave the country as a result of this regulation and Obama will go back on his soapbox to berate the republicans for not raising the minimum wage.

[Brian4Liberty]

Nothing but redistribution of wealth from the everyday peons who consume energy to a variety of cronies and Wall St.

[I<3Liberty]

Natural gas is certainly the lesser of the evils, but it's definitely not ideal.

While I disagree with their method, I'm not entirely opposed to their goal. Driving up prices is what it's going to take to get the majority of Americans to be more conservative with resources. It's better to artificially do this earlier on than wait until we hit the point where there's not enough supply to meet our energy demand, insufficient viable alternative energy sources, and energy prices REALLY skyrocket. I'd rather see prices inflated with a tax that would go toward clean energy research.

Climate change isn't the only concern. There is a lot of evidence the air pollution from current energy sources is increasing the prevalence of certain cancers, birth defects, respiratory diseases, and neurological disorders. These are extremely costly!

[VIDEODROME]

Is there necessarily something wrong with an interest in Green Energy? I mean if it really does work and is not pseudoscience or a misguided policy?

I mean cleaner air is a good thing right? Or do we embrace a dirty environment because we think doing otherwise would cost jobs? I don't think we need to pick one or the other. That feels like a false choice much like our elections do when we're told to choose a Republican or Democrat.

With that said, Obama does have a very weird Magic Wand view of his power. He thinks he can just waive his magic pen and change reality. He has no concept of freakin Innovation of new ideas to solve problems. He just regulates it or throws money at it.

[juleswin]

Is there necessarily something wrong with an interest in Green Energy? I mean if it really does work and is not pseudoscience or a misguided policy?

Nothing wrong with green technology. If it was reliable and cost effective, I will be first in line to buy it. The problem is that at this moment in time, it is not reliable and or cheaper than what we have now. Force it on society and it will only lead to increase cost of living. Its sorta like if govt started forcing everyone to move from combustion engines to Tesla type electric vehicles


I mean cleaner air is a good thing right? Or do we embrace a dirty environment because we think doing otherwise would cost jobs? I don't think we need to pick one or the other. That feels like a false choice much like our elections do when we're told to choose a Republican or Democrat.

With that said, Obama does have a very weird Magic Wand view of his power. He thinks he can just waive his magic pen and change reality. He has no concept of freakin Innovation of new ideas to solve problems. He just regulates it or throws money at it.

The problem is that they consider CO2 to be dirty. They are not talking about some cancer causing compound or some other gas that will give our children asthma and at the same time block out the sun, they are targeting CO2 with this new policy change and that is what I have a problem with.

[oyarde]

"So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted". ~ Barack Hussein Obama 2008

It's not like we weren't warned.
Yeah and the saddest part is at least half of America is too stupid to realize how hard that will hit them monthly .

[VIDEODROME]

Okay. I was mostly responding to what was mentioned regarding the CosmosTV show.

[FindLiberty]

Something needs to be done A.S.A.P. before the next crisis comes along.

Maybe they can try reducing the nation's 120 VAC line voltage by 30%,
but I don't think my refrigerator's compressor will run properly on only
84 VAC. Maybe rolling blackouts are the answer.

Should I throw out all my food now before the CO2 levels get too high,
or should I wait for the next planet-saving directive?

[klamath]

Electric cars aren't going to be so cheap to run in the future yet most users will just blame the companies for the high cost of electricity..... and democrats will get elected in the future by promising to sock it to these greedy electric companies....

[ClydeCoulter]

Nothing but redistribution of wealth from the everyday peons who consume energy to a variety of cronies and Wall St.

Yep, if someone wants to actually do something, let them find viable alternatives. In the mean time, beating people over the head and taking most of their livelihood is not the way to advance anything but cronyism.

[jbauer]

Natural gas is certainly the lesser of the evils, but it's definitely not ideal.

While I disagree with their method, I'm not entirely opposed to their goal. Driving up prices is what it's going to take to get the majority of Americans to be more conservative with resources. It's better to artificially do this earlier on than wait until we hit the point where there's not enough supply to meet our energy demand, insufficient viable alternative energy sources, and energy prices REALLY skyrocket. I'd rather see prices inflated with a tax that would go toward clean energy research.

Climate change isn't the only concern. There is a lot of evidence the air pollution from current energy sources is increasing the prevalence of certain cancers, birth defects, respiratory diseases, and neurological disorders. These are extremely costly!

Out of curiosity, how can you disagree with the method and then go on for a paragraph of how you agree with the end results?

[Brian4Liberty]

The problem is that they consider CO2 to be dirty. They are not talking about some cancer causing compound or some other gas that will give our children asthma and at the same time block out the sun, they are targeting CO2 with this new policy change and that is what I have a problem with.

On some newscast (can't remember the station), they had condensed and modified this story to say that "CO2 causes asthma in children, and President Obama is going to reduce CO2 emissions." At first I :D, then I :rolleyes:, and finally I :mad:.

[Brian4Liberty]

Is there necessarily something wrong with an interest in Green Energy? I mean if it really does work and is not pseudoscience or a misguided policy?


Green energy is great. But we don't need taxpayer money and crony oligarchs picking winners and losers in the market place.


I mean cleaner air is a good thing right? Or do we embrace a dirty environment because we think doing otherwise would cost jobs? I don't think we need to pick one or the other. That feels like a false choice much like our elections do when we're told to choose a Republican or Democrat.

Clean air is a great thing. But when Obama is doing nothing for the environment and everything to enrich his cronies, it's not the same argument.


With that said, Obama does have a very weird Magic Wand view of his power. He thinks he can just waive his magic pen and change reality.

There was a woman (from the Obama Admin?) on a show talking about the benefits of this new regulation, and she brought up the cost of hurricanes and tornadoes as justification. They are claiming that they will regulate hurricanes out of existence.

[tangent4ronpaul]

yep - global warming, er... climate change causes asthma. heard that one too.

She was downplaying that costs would skyrocket, saying it's a right wing meme that is being spread around. That costs would rise no more than the costs of normal things like milk and would keep pace with inflation...

uhhh....

I also seen to clearly remember Obama saying on national TV that under his plan, energy costs would necessarily skyrocket...

-t

[oyarde]

yep - global warming, er... climate change causes asthma. heard that one too.

She was downplaying that costs would skyrocket, saying it's a right wing meme that is being spread around. That costs would rise no more than the costs of normal things like milk and would keep pace with inflation...

uhhh....

I also seen to clearly remember Obama saying on national TV that under his plan, energy costs would necessarily skyrocket...

-t

Well , milk up , probably 100 % since 07 and that is with price controls. No thanks govt , I do not need your wisdom or help .Fuck off .

[RabbitMan]

So here is what I posit to you guys:

Assuming the premise of human-influenced Climate Change is real, and that projections of temperatures and sea levels rising is also true, would you still be opposed to a societal enforced effort to slow this process down by curbing emissions? Even if it would take 50 years to really see the progress? Or would the violation of your liberties be your #1 concern above all? Again, assume that the premise is true.

I'm not trying to push people one way or the other, and to be pure liberty is not to be selfish, but I do see a lot of folks' dodging this tough question by a cop-out attack of its premise.

For those that say the tech isn't there yet, Germany has broken several records lately with a net generation of 75% of its country's needs worth of renewable electricity(though they only used 25% of it domestically).

[tangent4ronpaul]

lets talk about sea levels rising for a second... where is all this extra water supposed to come from.

anyone remember basic science in jr high school. You know that lecture on phase changes.

take 100ml of water and add 100ml of water and it takes up 200ml of space.
then take 100ml of liquid water and add 100ml of frozen water and it takes up 225ml of space...

now we've got 2 really F'n huge ice cubes on the planet. If they melt, the 225ml of offset space becomes 200ml of space. That means more beach front property, not NYC turning into a submarine!

I can believe liberals being stupid enough to believe this, considering the, ahem, stellar quality of education in this country, but when this BS is spouted by people that have earned science degrees and having letters after their name... SRSLY... :rolleyes:

-t

[CableNewsJunkie]

ALL economic activity relies on energy, and prices will go up across the board.

This strikes me as an indirect dollar devaluation more than anything else.

[Carlybee]

They say..as they fly to and fro in jets and drive in Tahoes and Suburbans.

[Root]

Yet the US Military remains the worlds largest polluter. Someone let me know when they cut back 30% mkay?

[Occam's Banana]

Obama to Seek 30% Cut in Emissions at Power Plants

I'd be happy with a 30% cut in "emissions" at the White House ...

[jbauer]

lets talk about sea levels rising for a second... where is all this extra water supposed to come from.

anyone remember basic science in jr high school. You know that lecture on phase changes.

take 100ml of water and add 100ml of water and it takes up 200ml of space.
then take 100ml of liquid water and add 100ml of frozen water and it takes up 225ml of space...

now we've got 2 really F'n huge ice cubes on the planet. If they melt, the 225ml of offset space becomes 200ml of space. That means more beach front property, not NYC turning into a submarine!

I can believe liberals being stupid enough to believe this, considering the, ahem, stellar quality of education in this country, but when this BS is spouted by people that have earned science degrees and having letters after their name... SRSLY... :rolleyes:

-t

To play devils advocate, there is plenty of water held up in ice sheets above water. Whether that be the two big ice cubes or the significant amount of water held up in the glaciers. Not all the "ice" is in the water, hence the difference in densities. Still think that the illustrations showing the entire world drowning are nothing more than propaganda though.....although my 1k ft above sea level looks pretty good!!

[jbauer]

So here is what I posit to you guys:

Assuming the premise of human-influenced Climate Change is real, and that projections of temperatures and sea levels rising is also true, would you still be opposed to a societal enforced effort to slow this process down by curbing emissions? Even if it would take 50 years to really see the progress? Or would the violation of your liberties be your #1 concern above all? Again, assume that the premise is true.

I'm not trying to push people one way or the other, and to be pure liberty is not to be selfish, but I do see a lot of folks' dodging this tough question by a cop-out attack of its premise.

For those that say the tech isn't there yet, Germany has broken several records lately with a net generation of 75% of its country's needs worth of renewable electricity(though they only used 25% of it domestically).

Assuming global climate change is happening, I think the main rub is that it isn't being changed via our elected officials. Its being done via executive order and by a "letter agency" in the EPA. Now you have to go back to the assumption. To what extent is human involvement part of climate change & to what extent are you willing to change the economies of the world for something like it? How do you factor in the human variable to an equation that we don't know the outcome or even many of the variables and should we be making significant changes to how the world works because someone said so?

I think most people would agree we've had some messed up weather over the past decade. I can say from personal experience that its warmer than it was when I was a kid, no doubt about it but it was dang COLD this past winter. Now attribute how much if any is attributable to humans burning nonrenewable fuels?

[klamath]

So here is what I posit to you guys:

Assuming the premise of human-influenced Climate Change is real, and that projections of temperatures and sea levels rising is also true, would you still be opposed to a societal enforced effort to slow this process down by curbing emissions? Even if it would take 50 years to really see the progress? Or would the violation of your liberties be your #1 concern above all? Again, assume that the premise is true.

I'm not trying to push people one way or the other, and to be pure liberty is not to be selfish, but I do see a lot of folks' dodging this tough question by a cop-out attack of its premise.

For those that say the tech isn't there yet, Germany has broken several records lately with a net generation of 75% of its country's needs worth of renewable electricity(though they only used 25% of it domestically).What if AGW is true? Well until AGW believers start being realistic about the problem and not hysterically screaming that everything from more diaper changes to super nova's in distant galaxies are going to be the result of AGW then maybe people can talk sanely about it. Not all effects of GW are going to be bad, and the end of the earth. Life on earth DEPENDS on heat energy to thrive on earth. The earth has been colder and hotter throughout its history but you know what life has found a way. A ice age would be far far more catastrophic than a warming earth. If the oceans raise so what! people can and do migrate. Canada and Siberia and Greenland would become temperate.
The constant FEAR, FEAR, FEAR! is blowing all sane discussion of the possible problem. Politicians thrive best during a hysterical crisis and that is the reason the fear is being pushed.

[nobody's_hero]

Does China have to cut emissions, too?

Oh on the contrary. They're probably designing a power plant which burns medical waste and ejects the emissions straight into the water supply. China is not stupid enough to sacrifice their entire economy so they can have squeaky clean windmills that need to run for a week to power half a house for 5 minutes.

[Occam's Banana]

So here is what I posit to you guys:

Assuming the premise of human-influenced Climate Change is real, and that projections of temperatures and sea levels rising is also true, would you still be opposed to a societal enforced effort to slow this process down by curbing emissions? Even if it would take 50 years to really see the progress? Or would the violation of your liberties be your #1 concern above all? Again, assume that the premise is true.

I'm not trying to push people one way or the other, and to be pure liberty is not to be selfish, but I do see a lot of folks' dodging this tough question by a cop-out attack of its premise.

Why should I "assume" that the "premise" that "a societal enforced effort would slow this process down" is true?

"But just assume that the premise is true!" :rolleyes: Well, then ...

Let's "assume" that the "premise" that "socialist wealth-redistribution schemes will achieve economic equality" is true.
Let's "assume" that the "premise" that "the NSA's violations of civil rights keep us safe from terrorism" is true.
Let's "assume" that the "premise" that "the world would be better off if the Jews were exterminated" is true.
Let's "assume" that the "premise" that "totalitarian Communism is the best form of government" is true.
Let's "assume" that the "premise" that "the War on Drugs and the police state protects children" is true.
Let's "assume" that the "premise" that "pink unicorns fart rainbows that smell like flowers" is true.

What then? What do you imagine that any of those "assumptions" would actually prove?
And why should it be any different if we just "assume" that the "premise" you posit is true?

It is utterly ridiculous to accuse people of "dodging this tough question" because they do not want to play a rigged game with the stacked deck of your "assumptions." The only "cop-out" here is your insistence that other people should take your string of assertions and just "assume" that they are true.

[VIDEODROME]

So should we be more like China?

[jbauer]

So should we be more like China?

China did 7.8% GDP growth last year. :confused:

[Ranger29860]

Also left out of his analysis was the bigger explosion in civilization and population that came after the discovery of oil. It was just a very one sided analysis in favor of a green economy and I am afraid that a lot of people are slowly buying into that way of thinking. My guess is nothing of political consequence will come off this policy and more regulations like this will follow without congress or society as a whole doing anything.



You might want to go watch it again. They did a very good job of explaining exactly why solar (which existed at the time of discovery of oil) did not take hold. It was the cheapness of and availability of oil over solar at the time and how that led to a boom. Nothing in that episode was wrong or misleading. If anything I think it was one of the best ways I have seen the greenhouse effect explained.

[Ranger29860]

lets talk about sea levels rising for a second... where is all this extra water supposed to come from.

anyone remember basic science in jr high school. You know that lecture on phase changes.

take 100ml of water and add 100ml of water and it takes up 200ml of space.
then take 100ml of liquid water and add 100ml of frozen water and it takes up 225ml of space...

now we've got 2 really F'n huge ice cubes on the planet. If they melt, the 225ml of offset space becomes 200ml of space. That means more beach front property, not NYC turning into a submarine!

I can believe liberals being stupid enough to believe this, considering the, ahem, stellar quality of education in this country, but when this BS is spouted by people that have earned science degrees and having letters after their name... SRSLY... :rolleyes:

-t

Seriously?

Ok lets try your experiment with things that actually mirror Antarctica.

Take a large bowl and fill it half way with water. Now in the middle turn a cup upside down in it. Now put a large block of ice on top of the cup and not in the water. Now come back 2 hours later.

[RabbitMan]

Assuming global climate change is happening, I think the main rub is that it isn't being changed via our elected officials. Its being done via executive order and by a "letter agency" in the EPA. Now you have to go back to the assumption. To what extent is human involvement part of climate change & to what extent are you willing to change the economies of the world for something like it? How do you factor in the human variable to an equation that we don't know the outcome or even many of the variables and should we be making significant changes to how the world works because someone said so?

I think most people would agree we've had some messed up weather over the past decade. I can say from personal experience that its warmer than it was when I was a kid, no doubt about it but it was dang COLD this past winter. Now attribute how much if any is attributable to humans burning nonrenewable fuels?

I'm no scientist, but I did take advanced environmental classes in school a ways back. The term global warming is a misnomer that seems to confuse a lot of people. If I recall correctly, the warming part primarily referred to the ocean warming up due to more heat being trapped in the Earth's atmosphere. Even small changes in such a vast body of water could lead to accelerated melting in the polar ice-caps and the ice-sheets off places like Greenland. By the way, these are MASSIVE. If Antartica's ice melted, we're talking about a quarter of the USA being under sea level here. Greenland's ice sheets, which in recent weeks have stunned the world by melting and breaking apart exponentially faster then scientists had modeled, would raise the sea level 16-20ft--enough to submerge significant portions of some low lying coastal states.

But it isn't just the ice. Water like everything else expands when the temperature goes up. Normally imperceptible, but at this scale it's another contributing factor. And again all of this melting and expanding accelerates as the ocean temperature increases in a positive feedback loop. Weather patterns are influenced by the oceans, and while you can not just say that all crazy weather is due to this, it is undeniably a factor and will increasingly be one as this process continues. One reason is due to the way ocean currents develop. As water cools it becomes denser, displacing warmer water below in a grand movement. With the polar extremes of the earth warming up, the differences in temperature that drive this process shrink. Since currents are responsible for distributing much of the heat that hits the equator to Northern and Southern parts of the planet, this can cause changes in weather pattern(climate change) that paradoxically makes some areas of the Earth much more hot and others much more cold. Which in turn....

See where I'm headed? Unintended consequences, a term we should know pretty well from Austrian Economists. Forget 'Global Warming', that's just a term thrown out there to help people understand it. Climate Change, whether or not it is influenced by humans, is real and there is no conceivable way we can stop it. The point most mainstream scientists make is that there are steps we could take to slow the process down so that it isn't so calamitous. And so the question realistically is: Does Man contribute to the problem, how much do we affect it, and if so is there anything we can do to slow it?

Feel free to disagree on any of those points, but please don't let arguments that begin with "It felt colder this winter" be the basis of your understanding of this complex issue.

[acptulsa]

I remember the propaganda that surrounded the emissions controls that cut down on actual toxins belching from all the exhaust pipes back then. They talked about how the particulates that we were spewing into the sky were cutting down on the sunlight, and predicting a new ice age.

Seriously.

Now cars don't produce much in the way of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons or oxides of nitrogen and it's the carbon dioxide (though I think it has more to do with the water, and every man-made lake causes extra evaporation). If we ban coal completely, what then? Won't the greenhouse problem become worse because burning natural gas spews fewer protective particulates?

This is half-assed theoretical science being used by the oil companies to screw the coal companies. Nothing more. I'd feel differently if they knew what they were talking about or what the unintended consequences of their 'cures' would be. They don't.

[bunklocoempire]

Taking climate "pollution" advice from a representative of a government that is 17 (?) trillion $'s in the hole...

Um, no. You figure out how to balance a flippin' check book first and then we'll talk about you "controlling" the weather. Laughable.

[libertyjam]

You might want to go watch it again. They did a very good job of explaining exactly why solar (which existed at the time of discovery of oil) did not take hold. It was the cheapness of and availability of oil over solar at the time and how that led to a boom. Nothing in that episode was wrong or misleading. If anything I think it was one of the best ways I have seen the greenhouse effect explained.

Wow, solar was around in the late 1800's? news to me.

[Ranger29860]

Wow, solar was around in the late 1800's? news to me.

Yep ,
http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/156005/

[2young2vote]

My family's small store already has $2000+ electric bills in the summer. A 30% increase would be horrible for us, but we can probably expect more than that.

This is typical of government - screw over the little people.

[CaptUSA]

This is all politics.

The growth of carbon emissions in China over the last 5 years is more than 5 times the amount that would be reduced under this plan in 16 years.

It may remove a talking point about the US from the EU, but it will severely hurt us without helping the environment one bit. If you think we should dramatically alter our quality of life (which is really one of the only things America has left) in order to have a talking point, then you are already a lost cause.

[jkr]

pardon me, but isnt this SIEGE?

[Lucille]

THE OBAMA DOCTRINE: AT ANY COST
http://www.theburningplatform.com/2014/06/06/the-obama-doctrine-at-any-cost/


“Of course, increasing energy costs drives up the price of literally all goods and services, in addition to destroying jobs, so this only scratches the surface. What we are witnessing is the deliberate lowering of the American standard of living out of ideologically motivated malice by executive fiat.

The highest price of all won’t come in terms of dollars, but will be paid in something more precious still: liberty. Obama and other extremists in the government tried to impose this regulation through legislative means but failed. So Congress was shoved aside; the rules are to be imposed by unelected and unaccountable EPA bureaucrats. The division of powers established by the Constitution is collapsing because Congress evidently does not have the character to defend its domain from usurpation by the executive branch.”
--Dave Blount on Obama’s killing coal directives

How many more times does Obama need to shit on the U.S. Constitution, ignore Congressional and Judicial requirements, and cover-up his administrations crimes before someone with balls will step forward and start impeachment proceedings. Obama is a dangerous sociopathic tyrant who needs to be removed from office before he destroys what remains of this country.

Obama and his extremist sycophant followers do not care about making your life better. They know their rules, regulations, laws, and procedures will not actually do anything to save the planet. They want control over your lives at any cost. Their control freak initiatives are designed to provide government with complete control over every thing you do. Destroying the coal powered plants that currently provide 40% of our electricity, with no legitimate alternative, will have one and only one impact – driving the price of electricity higher. These communists dropped out of economics class in college to take classes in community organizing. The law of supply and demand is inconsequential to ideologues with an agenda of complete control.
[...]
These rules and regulations will add an average of $145 annually to all 117 million household electricity bills in the United States. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) says closing coal plants will drive up natural gas prices by 150% over 2012 levels by 2040, this cost rise will cause electricity prices to jump seven percent by 2025 and 22% by 2040. Obama and his minions are hanging their hats on the shale gas storyline of hundreds of years of natural gas. The entire storyline is a sham. The propaganda is false. Killing coal will drive the price of natural gas sky high and create shortages, blackouts, and misery for the American people.
[...]
Everything Obama supports is designed to take money out of your pocket and put it into the hands of government drones who think they know how to spend your money better than you. While Obama destroys our energy delivery system and further impoverishes senior citizens and the poor, the government grows ever more powerful and infiltrates every crevice of our lives. Our liberties, freedoms, and right to live our own lives is stripped away.

As Obama and his apparatchiks destroy our economy in the name of saving the planet and providing “free” healthcare for the masses, China and India bring 4 coal powered electricity plants online every week.

Global demand for coal is expected to grow to 8.9 billion tons by 2016 from 7.9 billion tons this year. China is expected to add about 160 new coal-fired plants to the 620 operating now, within four years. During that period, India will add more than 46 plants. The U.S. has the largest supply of coal on the planet and we will be shutting plants as China and India build them. How exactly is the planet benefiting from this?

Lastly, do you find it interesting that the regions with the least economic impact from Obama’s regulations are areas controlled by Democrats and those impacted the most are controlled by Republicans? I’m sure it’s just a coincidence. Obama wouldn’t play politics with our energy.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bsS5ukyR2ck/U5EJHiH7wvI/AAAAAAABWTg/xNaUPwJuzTc/s680/140605-carbon-regulation-costs.png

[alucard13mm]

I got a question. Are sulfur compounds produced by coal fire plants an aerosol? I thought sulfur compounds would cool the earth down, similar to what a volvanoe would do.

[oyarde]

My family's small store already has $2000+ electric bills in the summer. A 30% increase would be horrible for us, but we can probably expect more than that.

This is typical of government - screw over the little people.
I had guys who work for me who were at bills equivalent to a weeks pay last winter.