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/2014-0...use-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 , then I , and finally I .

[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 .$#@! 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...

-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...

-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?