Obama administration unveils controversial emissions cap on power plants

a reply to: xuenchen

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

Did taxes increase with SO2 cap and trade?

p.105 of the proposals touches on that and other ways. p.533 eludes to a "fee pollutant permit program". T

Think you might need to buy a permit?

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

Maybe a bit. But if the SO2 program is any indication, not much. The actual costs were about half of what was originally estimate and electrical production increased (as a result of improved technology). Granted, reducing CO2 is more difficult but SO2 doesn't cost nothing and there wasn't really much impact on the consumer. That's the point of the cap and trade program I think. Some facilities will be able to reduce emissions more cost effectively than others so it spreads the costs out over a wider base.

In any case, everything costs more, all the time.

Coal pollution kills FAR more people than nuclear energy. Many of the 28,000 UK citizens who lost their lives in 2010 due to air pollution will have died thanks to coal...
www.bbc.co.uk...

If you want to know why young children, and pregnant women, should not each much fish it is not because of radiation from Fukushima but because of expenontially rising levels of mercury in the sea (almost all) of which comes from burning coal. Coal power stations also emit more radiation into the environment than the same sized nuclear plant...
www.scientificamerican.com...

Whilst Mountain Hilltop Removal Mining needs banning.

The only really bad thing about this legislation, is chances are it will encourage more Fracking. That's because gas plants emit less CO2, and less pollution than a comparative coal plant (due to their higher efficiency, plus coal being mostly carbon and gas being mostly hydrogen) however if the gas comes from fracking, then you swap air pollution for virtually permanent and gradually worsening land & water pollution. And even the extraction of gas by fracking spills many dangerous hydrocarbons into the air.

a reply to: Phage

Granted, reducing CO2 is more difficult but SO2 doesn't cost nothing and there wasn't really much impact on the consumer. That's the point of the cap and trade program I think. Some facilities will be able to reduce emissions more cost effectively than others so it spreads the costs out over a wider base.

That's what I am talking about.
I am not a pollution 'fan'.
Our country has made great strides in cleaning up our act as far as pollution goes. I just don't believe that it would be in the best interest of society to go into the Dark Ages again in order to cut CO2 pollution.
I sincerely hope that there is a clean energy breakthrough soon. It would be nice if it brought mankind cheaper energy too. I don't believe that the answer lies in wind power generation. If the answer is in solar generation, there will have to be some radical breakthrough that I honestly don't believe is coming. Maybe fusion? But we have been looking for that 'holy grail' for years.

This is some estimates of how Cap and trade will increase profiteers and government wallet at the expenses of the tax payers and consumers, from 2009, When the bill was first put for review.

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, argues that the bill goes too far in regulating energy prices and would cost an American family an average of $1,500 a year in energy bills. That estimate, however, varies from what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has predicted for similar cap-and-trade plans. Here are a few things to know about Waxman-Markey:

money.usnews.com...

Cap and Trade's Economic Impact

The numbers are staggering. President Barack Obama's recently unveiled cap-and-trade plan would raise $645 billion in revenue from the government-run emissions auctions over eight years. Everyone would feel the pinch. Businesses would compensate for higher production costs and diminished markets by slashing jobs. Consumers would have to pay more for energy and energy intensive goods.

www.cfr.org...

Remember people that in order for the government to profit from Cap and trade the estimated billions of dollars affecting the companies that will be targeted, they will be passing the cost to the tax payers and consumers.

More on the cost.

The questions on everyone's mind are how much the plan will cost and whether it will work. According to the Congressional Budget Office, by 2020, Waxman-Markey compliance will cost about $110 billion a year.

The businesses that are forced to pony up this staggering sum will be left with three options: pass the cost on to consumers; move their operations overseas; or close their doors.

Some estimates show that the bill may cost a family of four $1,870 a year in 2020 and $6,800 a year by 2035. Any way you slice it, the economy will suffer.

So after hundreds of thousands of people have lost their jobs and families are paying excessive costs for energy, what do we get in return? Climate scientist Chip Knappenberger of New Hope Environmental Services has calculated that the bill would reduce the Earth's temperature by a rather anticlimactic 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100.

American families simply cannot afford the Waxman-Markey bill. It would put the United States at a severe disadvantage against countries such as China and India, which have said they will not sacrifice prosperity for energy reform.

calvert.house.gov...

What is Waxman-Markey bill? a bill to kill americans tax payers wallets. This why congress opposed the bill, remember that it was delegations of representatives from differents states in the name of the people opposing the bill

That is why the bill was halted but now with the stroke of a pen Obama executive power will make it a reality and nightmare for the American tax payers in order to benefit the Profeteers.

China Wins Big with Waxman-Markey

www.epw.senate.gov... outs=true

President helped fund profiteers of carbon tax program

www.youhavetoknowthis.com...

Cap and trade is a scam.

Boehner Exposes Waxman-Markey "Bureaucratic Nightmare" On House Floor

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: butcherguy
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.

You seem boldly dishonest?

You posted this...

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?

Where did you elaborate? I just checked your posts in thread?

Because as I read it...You think that because China pollutes...then that means the USA should follow their lead? Geez...why don't we just start bombing our own citizens...hey..Syria does it!

originally posted by: neo96
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:

What desperate toddler logic...

Meanwhile in the world: aborigines in Papua New Guinea still engage in cannibalism! So why can't I eat my neighbor!!

a reply to: Indigo5

Awesome!

Couldn't answer the question.

How does shutting down/capping coal plants in the US cut co2 emissions

WHILE.

Other countries around the world are building new ones.

a reply to: Indigo5

Where did you elaborate?

My post that you responded to was a reply to Phage, dealing with the difference between SOx and CO2 remediation.

Do you understand the differences between the two pollutants?

Did you know that you can scrub SOx with calcium carbonate one of the products is..... CO2?

You think that because China pollutes....then that means the USA should follow their lead?

Would you care to show me where I said that?
You like to put words into peoples mouths, looking for some fight or something. Not sure why you are always so angry, but it will shorten your lifespan. Take some deep breaths and relax.

a reply to: Indigo5

What desperate toddler logic...

See what I mean?
There you go again.

Why not just ask neo if what you are putting in his mouth is what he actually means?
But no, you stoop to calling him a toddler.

My point in calling out the other countries polluting is to show that you are not concerned so much about the well-being of the planet as you are about the politics of the whole thing.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Indigo5

Awesome!

Couldn't answer the question.

How does shutting down/capping coal plants in the US cut co2 emissions

WHILE.

Other countries around the world are building new ones.

Sorry...I didn't realize you were incapable of basic math...Hmm how to say this

If China ate 100 Chesseburgers this year and will eat 120 Chesseburgers next year
And the USA ate 100 Chesseburgers last year

Then combined they ate 200 chesseburgers last year.

Next year...if the USA holds steady...combined they will eat 220 Cheeseburgers
If the USA reduces it's Cheeseburger consumption by 30%...
Then combined they will eat 190 cheeseburgers vs. 220

Can't really help beyond that.

Put another way LESS equal LESS vs. doing nothing...whatever the rest of the world does.

That is apart form the policy impact on the rest of the world who engages in exactly your logic to justify their expansion. If the USA refuses to cut emissions...then why the hell should we.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Indigo5

You think that because China pollutes....then that means the USA should follow their lead?

Would you care to show me where I said that?
You like to put words into peoples mouths, looking for some fight or something. Not sure why you are always so angry, but it will shorten your lifespan. Take some deep breaths and relax.

Here you go..

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?

Who are the worst polluters and how do they slip by? How is it relevant to carbon scrubbing?

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Indigo5


My point in calling out the other countries polluting is to show that you are not concerned so much about the well-being of the planet as you are about the politics of the whole thing.

I don't give a crap about "The Planet"...I don't need to. Nature is a magnificent beast. For effs sake, the planet has endured a trillion times worse catastrophes than humans. The earth will shake us off like a bad cold, but before that happens we will suffer and die slowly, starting with shorter lifespans, draughts, famines, water and resource wars and increased extreme weather and natural disasters. The "Planet" will be just fine...to the earth our presence is just a mild cold.

What I care about is the impact such ignorance and denial will have on my children and their children's future on this rock and there are those who don't think in those terms, but rather only about their immediate profits, conveniences, politics and wealth.

I don't concern myself with China...because I don't vote or live in China...The Chinese can figure out what they want to do about the massive pollution problem they have there. Like all polluters, the people who live in that backyard suffer the most.

a reply to: Indigo5

Still can't answer the question I see.

Devolving to petty insults when all else fails.

The answer was rather self evident.

No matter what we do here doesn't change jacksnip around the globe.

Because the US doesn't control the world.

Capping coal plants, and cutting co2 emissions here DOES NOT CHANGE A DAMN thing.

But makes products, and goods MORE EXPENSIVE, and puts millions out of work.

All to 'save' the planet' while the crowd goes 'wild'.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Indigo5

You think that because China pollutes....then that means the USA should follow their lead?

Would you care to show me where I said that?
You like to put words into peoples mouths, looking for some fight or something. Not sure why you are always so angry, but it will shorten your lifespan. Take some deep breaths and relax.

Here you go..

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?

Who are the worst polluters and how do they slip by? How is it relevant to carbon scrubbing?

First... you fail.
You failed to show where I said that the US should follow the lead of China... that was the part that YOU put in my mouth.
Worst polluters....
Here you go:
Reuters

The point is that you don't care about China polluting.... you avoid addressing it repeatedly by saying that I am saying something that I am not.

a reply to: Indigo5

Haven't you figured it out yet?

Maybe this whole "The U.S. will cut CO2" thing is actually a global mitigation effort.

They will cut here to allow a "break even" effect for increases in China.

It's Agenda21 at work in the shadows.

Maybe it's a "business needs" thing.



The joke's on us.

We pay, they play.

Just like the ongoing BLM conservation mitigation.

Can't do it for free however. Get your checkbook balanced.

a reply to: xuenchen

Haven't you figured it out yet?

I have.

First they say the US is not the 'world policeman'.

Then when it comes to 'global warming'

Yes we are!

The only thing that is missing is when we are going to start bombing the hell out of countries because they are using coal, and oil.

Hell they will prolly create a Gitmo for 'Eco Terrorists'.

a reply to: Indigo5
You need to read up on global warming....

Like all polluters, the people who live in that backyard suffer the most.

If you believe that in regards to greenhouse gases.

AND..... If we were to follow your logic.... I live in Pennsylvania..... why should I care about coal mines in Kentucky? It isn't in my backyard!

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Indigo5

Still can't answer the question I see.

.

I answered it precisely...with math a pre-schooler can understand. Not my bad if that flies over your head.

originally posted by: butcherguy



The point is that you don't care about China polluting.... you avoid addressing it repeatedly by saying that I am saying something that I am not.

I care in as much as I care that political dissidents are executed in Iran.

I don't like it, but I don't live there either.

Now...if our government was executing political dissidents...would I say...Hey - Iran does it too!

It is just crazy that you think China's or any other countries policy about polluting excuses our own.

can't help you past that thinking...sorry

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Indigo5
You need to read up on global warming....

Like all polluters, the people who live in that backyard suffer the most.

If you believe that in regards to greenhouse gases.

AND..... If we were to follow your logic.... I live in Pennsylvania..... why should I care about coal mines in Kentucky? It isn't in my backyard!

When a toilet overflows...first the person standing in the bathroom gets wet...then the apt below them gets a leak from their ceiling.

Yes...Looking at the towns near Mountain Top Removal sites in Kentucky...those people suffer...looking at Beijing...yes those people suffer...LA...yes...but also the atmosphere at large suffers...

Or do you not understand?

Because you guys seem to be pretending you don't understand basic math, logic et al.

Or is that just the required mental state to take the positions you do?