It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama administration unveils controversial emissions cap on power plants

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: butcherguy

Why? Why can a trading program not work as well for CO2 as it did with SO2?

It should also be noted that a trading program is only one method of reaching emission goals outlined in the proposal. There are others and there is no requirement that any of them be used.

It is easy to remove high sulfur fuels from the energy supply chain and scrub SOx from flue gases.
Short of not burning the fuels at all, how do you avoid making CO2? You can't scrub it.




posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   
There's no reason why there should be any emissions.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy


It is easy to remove high sulfur fuels from the energy supply chain and scrub SOx from flue gases.
Short of not burning the fuels at all, how do you avoid making CO2? You can't scrub it.


Hmmm...

So the average age of a Coal Power plant in the USA is 42 years.
Of the 983 coal-fired units operating as of December at 523 plants, 63 percent are at least 40 years

The EPA is asking for a maximum 30% reduction in CO2 by 2030.

Honestly, this smells of greed. Not wanting to invest in newer technology simply because it is cheaper to pay lobbyists and let the populace suffer the health and quality of life consequences.

42 years...the average age? that means many are OLDER than that...over 60% of them.

For effs sake...

That 30% reduction would translate to


The EPA estimates that the new rule would cut traditional air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and soot by 25 percent, yielding a public health benefit of between $55 billion to $93 billion when it is fully implemented, with 2,700 to 6600 premature deaths avoided and 140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks a year avoided. The cost, by contrast, would be $7.3 billion to $8.8 billion.

www.washingtonpost.com

The EPA is not a "Liberal org"...Niether are scientists...neither are anyone that gives a sh*& about what our children and grandchildren will have to face.

America is the only country on earth that politicizes climate change and the environment. Everyone else thinks we are batsh*& crazy.

It always amazes me that people eat what is fed to them by propagandists....It's a "Culture war!"....

The left over reaches on nonsense, but for effs sake the right is utter, complete effen denial of reality..just because the Koch brothers and ilk told them so.


edit on 3-6-2014 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on Tue Jun 3 2014 by DontTreadOnMe because: attempt to fix link



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

You already avoided telling us how the worst polluters get to slip by in your world.... Twice.

Want to go for three?



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: xuenchen
Obama (via the EPA) has finally released his master wrecking
-- despite claims the regulation will cost nearly a quarter-million jobs a year and force plants across the country to close.



I see your "claim" of 250,000 jobs and raise you..
13,000 Pre-Mature deaths
10,000 Hospital Admissions
20,000 Heart Attacks
10,000 Cases of Chronic Bronchitis
750,000 Asthma Attacks
And 1,600,000 lost days of work annually
www.rmi.org...

With a monetary cost of over 100 Billion annually...

How about this...The Coal industry pays those real costs and the Gov. doesn't ask them to pollute less?

Because what they are getting right now is a 100 Billion Dollar + annual subsidy...in the form of medical bills and lost work that the average Joe pays for as a result of their unwillingness to move to cleaner technology.

And that is all apart from the fact that it simply sucks to suffer from Bronchitis, Asthma...or simply be slowly poisoned to death.


Yup...and let the Government bill McDonalds for bad health. How about car companies for road damage? Maybe children for stomping on the grass? What else??? Fact is...everything we do has an affect and you deal with it or decide not to do the act. That can be at an individual or citizen level, but should NEVER be at a government level. The government isn't there to make decisions for us...they are there to make sure OUR decisions are acted upon. So where is the vote? I say...the vote is the fact we are still using and working for coal companies.

Sure...explore green energy. And maybe one day it will actually work.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy
This thread is dedicated to the world's second worst polluter...the US. I don't really see how bringing Australia (#1)...or even Canada (#3), into the discussion will change matters much.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Indigo5

You already avoided telling us how the worst polluters get to slip by in your world.... Twice.

Want to go for three?


???

I honestly don't understand the premise of this BS?

Cuz the guy down the street killed his wife, it's ok for you to beat yours? WTF??

Or are you suggesting we invade and occupy Australia??

WTF does that have to do with the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?? Do we need the rest of the world to do something before it's ok for us to do it???

Some hardcore, brainwashed Kochites out there...



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: xuenchen
Obama (via the EPA) has finally released his master wrecking
-- despite claims the regulation will cost nearly a quarter-million jobs a year and force plants across the country to close.



I see your "claim" of 250,000 jobs and raise you..
13,000 Pre-Mature deaths
10,000 Hospital Admissions
20,000 Heart Attacks
10,000 Cases of Chronic Bronchitis
750,000 Asthma Attacks
And 1,600,000 lost days of work annually
www.rmi.org...

With a monetary cost of over 100 Billion annually...

How about this...The Coal industry pays those real costs and the Gov. doesn't ask them to pollute less?

Because what they are getting right now is a 100 Billion Dollar + annual subsidy...in the form of medical bills and lost work that the average Joe pays for as a result of their unwillingness to move to cleaner technology.

And that is all apart from the fact that it simply sucks to suffer from Bronchitis, Asthma...or simply be slowly poisoned to death.


Yup...and let the Government bill McDonalds for bad health. How about car companies for road damage? Maybe children for stomping on the grass? What else??? Fact is...everything we do has an affect and you deal with it or decide not to do the act. That can be at an individual or citizen level, but should NEVER be at a government level. The government isn't there to make decisions for us...they are there to make sure OUR decisions are acted upon. So where is the vote? I say...the vote is the fact we are still using and working for coal companies.

Sure...explore green energy. And maybe one day it will actually work.


That reasoning might be somewhere in the neighborhood of almost logical if people had the ability to choose which air they breathed.

There is a difference between the guy who chooses to eat a Big Mac and the asthmatic child who simply chooses to try and breathe or the baby born with birth defects.

Not much "choice" there.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Flatfish

In you humble opinion,

Do you think these proposals are going to be effective in stopping the climate change ?


Depends on what you mean by "effective."

If you're asking me if I think these proposals will have any effect on climate change, I'd have to say yes. While I do realize that the affects of unilateral actions taken by the U.S. will be small on the global scale, it's a start and it's an example for others to follow.

If you're asking me if I think these proposals will be so effective that we'll see an immediate and total reversal of the global warming trend, then my answer is absolutely not but we have to start somewhere. Rome wasn't built in a day and I fear the problem we're currently facing is much greater than those encountered while building Rome.

You know the old saying, "Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way." Well, seeing how most americans don't think too kindly of the idea that their homeland should be a "follower" nation and they sure as hell won't accept the idea of "getting out of the way" while other nations lead the world, there's only one option left and that's to "lead."

Furthermore, two "wrongs" do not make a "right," therefore we should be the ones setting the example for others to follow, not sitting back waiting for China or India to lead the way.

On top of all that, this is not just a climate change issue. It's also a pollution issue and I see no reason that we should continue to sacrifice clean air for energy when the technology to do better is readily available.


originally posted by: xuenchen
And have you looked over the proposals and how each State has a different set of "goals".

There's something in the page 190-200's range.

opinions?


Actually, I haven't had the time to read through it yet but it's my understanding that certain CO2 reduction goals are being established and the states are being given the flexibility to adopt whatever method suits their fancy so long as they're proving to be successful in reaching the stated goals and I think that's a good idea.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yes I do, I do not believe it works but darn our politician and profiteers idea of a market base approach to control pollution open the doors to scams and waste and abuse.

That is the part that bothers me.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

I am not surprised that you don't understand... Or that you would pretend not to.

I posted about the realities of remediating pollution and you responded to the post with childish taunts and drivel that had nothing to do the post.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

What taxes?



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Did you actually resort to a four year old blog as a source to try to support your skeptic global warming agenda?

If that isn't lazy tinfoiling, I don't know what is.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Flatfish

Perhaps the reason for congress no to waste their time with the Cap and trade is because is nothing more than scam pushed by the profiteers of clima change.


I can see that you're clearly someone who denies the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change and as ignorant as it sounds, it's your right to remain in the dark for as long as you so choose. On the other hand, you should at least admit to the fact that the real "profiteers" in this picture are the ones who hope to keep the world hooked on fossil fuels until they either run out or we cause ourselves to go extinct in the process.


originally posted by: marg6043
It is great to see how the president keep using his mighty pen to by pass congress because to him congress is obsolete and unnecessary.


If Obama does nothing, the GOP/TP cries about how they need him to show some leadership. When he acts, the GOP/TP cries about how he's a constitution ignoring dictator. Which is it?

You can't have your cake and eat it too.
edit on 3-6-2014 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

No, my dear is not about the overwhelming "scientific data" paid by the highest bidder, that I don't trust, what I trust is the earth history and its natural cycles of clima change.

That is the only source I trust, earth will do what earth will do and we humans are nothing to earth but pesky vermin, when earth get tire of us it will kill us all while opening the door to better and more efficient species.




edit on 3-6-2014 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish




The President was more-or-less forced into unilaterally enacting these new CO2 emission guidelines because of the fact that our current Congress doesn't seem to be able to accomplish anything other than endless hearings into fake scandals and occasionally naming a few new post offices.


What's not to like about 'democracy' ?

That is how this country was set up.

Now it's 'not so fast' we don't like that.

PEople actually having a say in things.

We should let the 'emperor' do whatever the hell floats his boat!



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5




So the average age of a Coal Power plant in the USA is 42 years. Of the 983 coal-fired units operating as of December at 523 plants, 63 percent are at least 40 years The EPA is asking for a maximum 30% reduction in CO2 by 2030.


What a joke!

Meanwhile elsewhere in the WORLD:



China, faced with ever-worsening pollution in its major cities—a recent report deemed Beijing "barely suitable for living"—is doing what so many industrializing nations have done before it: banishing its titanic smog spewers to poor or rural areas so everyone else can breathe easier. But China isn't just relegating its dirty coal-fired power plants to the outskirts of society; for years, it's been building 16 unprecedentedly massive, brand new "coal bases" in rural parts of the country. There, they won't stifle China's megacities; they'll churn out enough pollution to help smother the entire world.


motherboard.vice.com...


More than 1,000 new coal plants planned worldwide, figures show

Anyone explain again how the administration LIES is going to 'reduced co2 emissions' ?

1000 GD coal plants WORLDWIDE !

This would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

That NO MATTER what some people buy whatever the admin says hook,line, and sinker.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Do you understand the red tape and regulatory difficulties in updating anything related to energy infrastructure in this country?

There also hasn't been a new refinery built in this country since the '70s, but not for lack of trying.

Kansas has been trying to build one of those new, clean coal plants for years now. Guess what? Between the EPA regs and the environmental lobbyists tying it up in court, they haven't been able to get it done.

You can't update what no one will allow you to update. Sometimes, it's would be easier to simply build new than it is to retrofit. Sometimes, retrofitting isn't possible, and sometimes, even if you can retrofit, the process is so wrapped up in red tape that the time and cost involved are prohibitively expensive.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: nixie_nox
a reply to: xuenchen

What taxes?



Increases in current tax, fees, etc. on your bill plus new ones.

p.105 of the proposals touches on that and other ways. p.533 eludes to a "fee pollutant permit program". They will come up with new names we never heard of before.

not to mention any general rate increase will automatically increase things like sales tax etc.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: nixie_nox
a reply to: xuenchen

What taxes?



The government uses inflation to pay for government programs.

The government sells a bond and the buyer typically prints money to pay for it. That causes inflation.

The dollar has been devalued 60,000% since 1900. A 2014 dollar is worth 600 times less than a 1900 dollar.

The tax rate could be 90% or higher.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join