Obama kills the coal industry
-
WHITE HOUSE Obama administration unveils controversial emissions cap on power plantsPublished June 02, 20141.1K
March 14, 2014: The coal-fired Jim Bridger Power Plant outside Point of the Rocks, Wyoming.REUTERS
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.
ADVERTISEMENT
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.
They are expected to be allowed to require power plants to make changes such as switching from coal to natural gas or enact other programs to reduce demand for electricity and produce more energy from renewable sources.
They also can set up pollution-trading markets as some states already have done to offer more flexibility in how plants cut emissions.
If a state refuses to create a plan, the EPA can make its own.
Without waiting to see what Obama proposes, governors in Kansas, Kentucky, Virginia and West Virginia have already signed laws directing their environmental agencies to develop their own carbon-emission plans. Similar measures recently passed in Missouri and are pending in the Louisiana and Ohio legislatures.
On Saturday, Obama tried to bolster public support for the new rule by arguing that carbon-dioxide emissions are a national health crisis -- beyond hurting the economy and causing global warming.
“We don’t have to choose between the health of our economy and the health of our children,” Obama said in his weekly address. “As president and as a parent, I refuse to condemn our children to a planet that’s beyond fixing.”
The rule attempts to reduce greenhouse gases that Obama and supporters blame for global warming.
Among the plants that have to comply will be hundreds of coal-burning plants, which has resulted in strong opposition from the energy industry, big business and congressional Democrats and Republicans, who argue Obama’s green-energy agenda is tantamount to a “War on Coal.”
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce argues that the rule will kill jobs and close power plants across the country.
The group is releasing a study that finds the rule will result in the loss of 224,000 jobs every year through 2030 and impose $50 billion in annual costs.
Both sides of the argument appear to agree that the rule change will increase electricity prices, considering the United States relies on coal for 40 percent of its electricity. However, the plants also are the country’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases.
Many of the Democrats who are raising concerns represent coal-producing states and face tough 2014 reelection bids.
Among them is West Virginia Democratic Rep. Nick Rahall, whose state gets 96 percent of its power from coal. Rahall said Thursday that he didn't have specific details about the rule but "from everything we know we can be sure of this: It will be bad for jobs."
Obama is being forced to use the 1970s-era old Clean Air Act, after failing during his first term to get Congress to pass a law.
The law has long been used to regulate pollutants like soot, mercury and lead but has only recently been applied to greenhouse gases.
"There are no national limits to the amount of carbon pollution that existing plants can pump into the air we breathe. None," Obama said Saturday in his weekly radio and Internet address.
"We limit the amount of toxic chemicals like mercury, sulfur, and arsenic that power plants put in our air and water. But they can dump unlimited amounts of carbon pollution into the air. It's not smart, it's not safe, and it doesn't make sense."
The rule also will prescribe technological fixes or equipment to be placed on existing plant and require new ones to capture some of their carbon dioxide and bury it underground.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
-
Coal is not a sustainable energy source anyway. We should be looking reduce dependency on fossil fuels and others that have a limited life cycle - whether you believe in/care about global warming or not. At current rates, we have something like 150 years of coal left in the world, 50 years of gas and 40 years left of oil - this obviously varies by country, and of course are estimates. But the point remains, that we need to be finding ways to wean ourselves off of the unsustainable fuels and on to more sustainable supplies, especially since our production isn't going to be decreasing over the next couple of decades.
-
Well, we get 40 percent of our energy from coal in the USA.
"You planning on having a long relationship with that glass or are you going to drink it? Drink up, man. Maybe we can get another.” - Janis Joplin, 1970. -
Chris hates the Welsh.......
WSS
-
Well, we get 40 percent of our energy from coal in the USA.
Well, we get 40 percent of our energy from coal in the USA.
1) So 60% will be gone within the lifetime of members of this small group of political board regulars? I get that it's not necessarily a problem for the 'wiser' members of the board
but it is for some of us. And your family as well.2) What happens when it runs out? Wouldn't you rather the world (or America if it makes you feel better about it) be in a position to move to a sustainable energy source before the oil and gas runs out before the end of this century? And thus avoid any potential catastrophe that might come about because of it.
-
What do we replace coal with? Nuclear power? I used to think it was a good option, not any more. Not after learning more about Fukushima and the cover up going on there. Solar energy? Energy panel roads? Please, tell me. Not something that will take 100 years to complete, but something that can be done relatively quickly.
"You planning on having a long relationship with that glass or are you going to drink it? Drink up, man. Maybe we can get another.” - Janis Joplin, 1970. -
Pennsylvania Dutch saying: Use it up, wear it out make it do.
WSS
-
What do we replace coal with? Nuclear power? I used to think it was a good option, not any more. Not after learning more about Fukushima and the cover up going on there. Solar energy? Energy panel roads? Please, tell me. Not something that will take 100 years to complete, but something that can be done relatively quickly.
What do we replace coal with? Nuclear power? I used to think it was a good option, not any more. Not after learning more about Fukushima and the cover up going on there. Solar energy? Energy panel roads? Please, tell me. Not something that will take 100 years to complete, but something that can be done relatively quickly.
And the need for something to be done 'relatively quickly' - because we've known about the problem for decades and done basically nothing about it on any great level. I don't know the answers, I'm not that kind of scientist. But just because I don't know, doesn't mean I assume it doesn't (or does) exist. Nuclear power has a relatively more sustainable source, but there's the question of what to do with the waste. Solar and wind energy are probably going to be the way to go, but it needs more investment to get it to a point where it becomes a feasible alternative.
-
Nobody knows when coal and oil will run out.
It's also estimated that the coal resources may be good for 350 years.
You can't force new, affordable tech to explode onto the scene, just because
you try to put the old but good resources out of business.
Sustainable? Nuclear power puts out waste, solar power is fine, but expensive,
and quite frankly, some places don't get that much sun.
Yes, we all want some new special super duper energy source to rely on.
There isn't one. When there is, we'll all flock to it.
In the meantime, the liberals want control over people, and $$$$$$$$$$$ from mmgw, and energy,
and water, ...the list is endless. This inyourface, immediate crisis we have to control get rid of, tax, fine, fee, license
and control stuff is bs.
-
Hey, I'm shocked! Cal disagrees with me. Nobody knows when resources will run out? Technically true; it'll be difficult to pin down an actual day. But we know how much *discovered* fossil fuel there is in the ground still - not to say there won't be more, but there isn't some other giant underground lake spanning a continent or we'd know about it by now, most likely there are pockets as yet undiscovered but that won't change things hugely. We also know the rate we're using the fual at - and have been using over the last 100 years, and we are able to project future usage. So with those two pieces of information we can make an informed guess - ZOMG HE SAID GUESS, IT'S ALL WRONG!!!! - as to when it'll run out.
It may be sooner than we think, it may be later than we think. But we need to be prepared for when it does happen. And hey, if it produces cleaner air, that's only going to be good for my lungs and that pesky little global warming thing those libs are always going on about should go away.
-
It is going to run out. You may not care because you'll be worm food, hell I might be too by then, but you can't keep pushing it off. We need to downplay some of our greed, make a few sacrifices, and actually plan for the future.
I still think nuclear power is the way to go. It is our best option to produce the amount of energy we need. It is "scary" to the public though, and the ignorance of the general public will hold us back.
-
Let's figure that eventually, some century, it runs out.
My beef with the alarmism, is that politically, it's being used
to screw over people now.
And make money in the process.
Otherwise, why put coal companies out of business NOW, before the tech
catches up?
I'll tell ya why. Political power and control. And money. Bush talked about
a hydrogen car one day. Reagan talked about star wars defense systems.
They were both forever ridiculed about it.
But you let Obamao talk about hydrogen cars, and all the little nitwit woodys
will be on board on every forum overnight.
It's politics. And investments. Now. That's why there are lib crises. The "sky is falling" (so vote
for my liberal party's stuff)........the "sky is falling" (so let us tax, fee, fine, all of you so we can get
more money to buy votes from our voting block).
-
It is going to run out. You may not care because you'll be worm food, hell I might be too by then, but you can't keep pushing it off. We need to downplay some of our greed, make a few sacrifices, and actually plan for the future.
I still think nuclear power is the way to go. It is our best option to produce the amount of energy we need. It is "scary" to the public though, and the ignorance of the general public will hold us back.
nuclear natural gas light emitting diodes and wind turbines solve a huge piece of the problem.It is going to run out. You may not care because you'll be worm food, hell I might be too by then, but you can't keep pushing it off. We need to downplay some of our greed, make a few sacrifices, and actually plan for the future.
I still think nuclear power is the way to go. It is our best option to produce the amount of energy we need. It is "scary" to the public though, and the ignorance of the general public will hold us back.
(it won't do anything for worldwide global warming but it'll make energy a lot easier to deal with)
WSS
-
-
Cal, I wasn't around when Reagan was president. I was like 14 when Bush was. Don't do your stupid "all libs do this" speech to refer to me. You're wrong and it makes you look like an idiot.
You use regulations and taxes to help jump start the development for these technologies. You make them financially feasible so companies start working on them. The free market and capitalism aren't perfect. If we left it unregulated no one would do anything other than non renewable resources until it was too late. We'd be screwed. It would make business sense along the way, but it wouldn't be what's best for society as a whole
-
Well for one I wouldn't advocate for building a nuclear powerplant where tsunamis could hit it and I wouldn't advocate for building it on a fault line...
I'd also want the plants to actually be up to date instead of old ass power plants that have been renewed in their operation countless times.
I still believe nuclear power is our best bet to create the energy we need with limited environmental impact. Further research into the subject will lead to better ways to handle the waste. Though treating it as a waste and sealing it up works now, there is a possibility to use this waste as fuel itself, creating more energy. Fusion Reactors are also currently being researched, which could be huge as well.
-
Nuclear power is a waste of time, literally. Poison the earth, the air and everything else.
-
Tell that to France. It seems to be working out pretty well for them.
GreenPeace DieHard over here should stick to facts, not scare tactics.
-
Tell that to France. It seems to be working out pretty well for them.
GreenPeace DieHard over here should stick to facts, not scare tactics.
Tell that to France. It seems to be working out pretty well for them.
GreenPeace DieHard over here should stick to facts, not scare tactics.
Ha, okay kid. Of course you don't have the brains to be a nuclear engineer, do you?
-
Well, we get 40 percent of our energy from coal in the USA.
1) So 60% will be gone within the lifetime of members of this small group of political board regulars? I get that it's not necessarily a problem for the 'wiser' members of the board
but it is for some of us. And your family as well.2) What happens when it runs out? Wouldn't you rather the world (or America if it makes you feel better about it) be in a position to move to a sustainable energy source before the oil and gas runs out before the end of this century? And thus avoid any potential catastrophe that might come about because of it.
1) So 60% will be gone within the lifetime of members of this small group of political board regulars? I get that it's not necessarily a problem for the 'wiser' members of the board
but it is for some of us. And your family as well.2) What happens when it runs out? Wouldn't you rather the world (or America if it makes you feel better about it) be in a position to move to a sustainable energy source before the oil and gas runs out before the end of this century? And thus avoid any potential catastrophe that might come about because of it.
All well and good Chris....that all sounds great, but what are we going to use that is of comprable cost and comprable Btu's?
That's where it falls apart. I mean, if frogs had wings, they could fly.
I mean I am assuming you are against nuclear
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login