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.

 

Prez signs sweeping energy executive order during RNC circus...

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order

Last Thursday while everyone was discussing Clint Eastwood and the RNC circus in Tampa; President Obama decreed by executive order:" Utilities will generate 50% of power and heat in a specific type of plant ("cogeneration") by the year 2020."

So it was written So it was signed ; So it shall be done. All hail Dear leader.

I'm sure dems are cheering heavy handed (i.e.unconstitutional) direct government force by executive order.
Last time I checked; public utilities were not part of the executive branch of the fed gov. Subject to direct administration from the "oval".


Aug 31 (Reuters Point Carbon) - President Barack Obama issued an executive order on Thursday that would increase the number of cogeneration plants in the U.S. by 50 percent by 2020, a move that would boost U.S. industrial energy efficiency and slash carbon emissions by 150 million tons per year.



"The Federal Government has limited but important authorities to overcome … barriers, and our efforts to support investment in industrial energy efficiency and CHP should involve coordinated engagement with a broad set of stakeholders," the order says.


"barriers" like the uh, legislative branch and the u.s.constitution...


Let that sink in..
"barriers"



BYPASSING GRIDLOCK

The Obama administration has been unable to get Congress to pass comprehensive energy and climate legislation that would set a price on carbon pollution and stimulate investment in renewable energy and CHP.

The administration has focused instead on devising direct regulations through cabinet agencies to help the U.S. meet the president's goal to cut greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.

Thursday's executive order came just two days after the White House finalized a rule - developed with U.S. automakers - that would double fuel efficiency standards for automobiles and light trucks to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.

Comment added:I'm not certain (on the surface anyway) this is such a bad idea.I',m all for higher cafe mileage standards; but again the way its been accomplished leaves me wary.He's obviously pandering to his base who think its okay to shove stuff through.

I wonder how they'd feel if "Pres elect" Romney or Perry or Christie or whoever unilaterally repealed roe vs wade Or taxed Abortion clinics and transgender surgery out of existence??????
Que"rainman voice": ( hmmmm.. yeah, they're"bad"; yeah "bad"...)
But its okay when "your guy" does it.????????

in.reuters.com...
edit on 4-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by 46ACE
 


This is great new OP... I'll give you a flag because this should be seen but no star as I really don't understand your tone with this -- are you trying to say lower carbon emissions and investing in cleaner energy is a bad thing?

It seems that this will force the companies who do not want to invest money into cleaning up their business to actually be motivated to do so. This is similar to the order where the president mandated American car companies start producing more fuel efficient cars by such and such year -- a good thing.

I look at the government as a tool of the people, it should be enacting and enforcing the rules and regulations that should benefit the people, the country and the world. I can't look as clean energy as anything else than a benefit to all three.


Khar



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kharron
reply to post by 46ACE
 


This is great new OP... I'll give you a flag because this should be seen but no star as I really don't understand your tone with this -- are you trying to say lower carbon emissions and investing in cleaner energy is a bad thing?

It seems that this will force the companies who do not want to invest money into cleaning up their business to actually be motivated to do so. This is similar to the order where the president mandated American car companies start producing more fuel efficient cars by such and such year -- a good thing.

I look at the government as a tool of the people, it should be enacting and enforcing the rules and regulations that should benefit the people, the country and the world. I can't look as clean energy as anything else than a benefit to all three.


Khar



When I read posts like this I just say "God helps us" to myself...Sigh. Yeah that is why cars still on average only get 25-35 miles to the gallon The friggen model T got 35 miles to a gallon of gas... So zero progress in 100 year!... Lot of good those orders did...

The OP's point you completely missed is that the President has no authority to "force" private businesses to do anything. Also the government is the main enabler/protector for the energy cartels which is why we're still using 150 year old technology for transportation and burning oil. They stifle real energy progress they are lackeys for the oil cartels which is why our young people are dying in foreign countries to procure their resources ...


edit on 4-9-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Both parties have grossly abused the Executive Order process. What was meant solely as dictates for agencies accountable to the Executive branch has morphed into a mechanism for setting national policy that bypasses the Legislature. Obama has used it horribly and so did Bush. I this issue, I think them equally bad.

I'll never forget Bush's comment that the Constitution is just a "goddamned piece of paper" in a meeting with GOP Congressional leaders. I know there is no documentary evidence he said it, but it was a comment corroborated by several supposedly in attendance.

As for O, I don't need any evidence beyond his signing of the NDAA to know his position on what power the Executive branch should wield.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
...and the nation's energy companies rejoice alongside the tatters of the alternative energy companies Obama "stimulated" at a complete loss for the taxpayers (see: Solyndra).


Moves like this are so blatently obvious. This has NOTHING to do with lowering carbon footprints and reducing emissions. That's simply the scape goat that gets pointed to here. This has everything to do with giving energy corporations a quick excuse for doubling, tripling, possibly quadrupling the per unit cost of energy to the consumer. There will be minimal backlash over it because, as we've all been told, "GLOBAL WARMING!!!!" regardless of the lack of anything other than "Back off, I'm a scientist, man." in terms of actual proof of anthropogenic climate change.

You can have the Kennedy assassination, UFO coverups, 911 conspiracies, and Illuminati... Human caused climate change is the single biggest pile of bullcrap ever sold to the gullible masses and will eventually become the downfall of the world as we know it today. They managed to not only create the globalist panacea of control by inventing this stupid little farce, but also somehow tricked half the planet into going along with it, completely unquestioning and unwavering in their deification of this environmental ponzi scheme.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Kharron
 

I've added a comment to my o.p. hope that clears it up a bit. without further research I cannot judge this as ultimately good or destructive and neither can anybody else.

i.e"Solyndra" what a great investment on our behalf huh? Where'd the money go?

Where's the money coming from for these new plants?
Who will be involved in the permit process?
Who stands to benefit and who stands to lose?

What happens to capacity (i.e.plants currently online) we can't afford to upgrade ?Are they to be shut down in2020 with a loss in total capacity?
edit on 4-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
If you'd like to get to the heart of this topic you can read the EO here.

Here are some important parts:

What does the EO do?

...this order directs certain executive departments and agencies to convene national and regional stakeholders to identify, develop, and encourage the adoption of investment models and State best practice policies for industrial energy efficiency and CHP (combined heat and power); provide technical assistance to States and manufacturers to encourage investment in industrial energy efficiency and CHP; provide public information on the benefits of investment in industrial energy efficiency and CHP; and use existing Federal authorities, programs, and policies to support investment in industrial energy efficiency and CHP.


How will the EO do this?

The Departments of Energy, Commerce, and Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency, in coordination with the National Economic Council, the Domestic Policy Council, the Council on Environmental Quality, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy, shall coordinate policies to encourage investment in industrial efficiency in order to reduce costs for industrial users, improve U.S. competitiveness, create jobs, and reduce harmful air pollution. In doing so, they shall engage States, industrial companies, utility companies, and other stakeholders to accelerate this investment. Specifically, these agencies shall, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law...


Did the president just bypass congress to create a law?

(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
...and the nation's energy companies rejoice alongside the tatters of the alternative energy companies Obama "stimulated" at a complete loss for the taxpayers (see: Solyndra).


Moves like this are so blatently obvious. This has NOTHING to do with lowering carbon footprints and reducing emissions.


Uh, if it achieves the goal, then it will reduce emissions.

I think many of you forget that some progressives actually like the environment with the
upmost sincerity.

Just like some conservatives actually like Oil companies.

cynical



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by links234
 

Thanks: So it just increases the size of govt. adds a bunch of intertwined councils and comittees with no power to influence anything?????????
We needed an "executive order"(passed before a three day weekend) for an inconsequential study?


Not buying it..

I don't care what it SAYS; it'll go as far as the people running the commissions dare push it..
Tothe enviro-nazis "National policy" is as good as "law".

"rueters" is not known for hyperbole.


edit on 4-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)[/editby
edit on 4-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)
extra DIV



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by 46ACE
 


No, it doesn't increase or decrease anything. It's the executive telling a handful of his cabinets, "Hey...you all are going to work together to improve industrial efficiency."

That's really all it boils down to, giving the various departments some direction on something. If you want to see some nefarious plot in it, that's all up to you, you'll see whatever you want to see.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Perfect timing!: I want to plug this new thread as it is related:
www.abovetopsecret.com...&addstar=1&on=14901105#pid14901105



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by 46ACE
 


No, it doesn't increase or decrease anything. It's the executive telling a handful of his cabinets, "Hey...you all are going to work together to improve industrial efficiency."

That's really all it boils down to, giving the various departments some direction on something. If you want to see some nefarious plot in it, that's all up to you, you'll see whatever you want to see.

If the text is Taken at face value:

Fair enough comment;

perhaps I should've let the story stand a bit and solidify before posting hot off the presses.

Historically;however I know how the "dems" get what they want :i.e. "reconciliation" and"We have to pass the bill before we tell you whats in it."

Just Don't like the smell of it...

edit on 4-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by Kharron
reply to post by 46ACE
 


This is great new OP... I'll give you a flag because this should be seen but no star as I really don't understand your tone with this -- are you trying to say lower carbon emissions and investing in cleaner energy is a bad thing?

It seems that this will force the companies who do not want to invest money into cleaning up their business to actually be motivated to do so. This is similar to the order where the president mandated American car companies start producing more fuel efficient cars by such and such year -- a good thing.

I look at the government as a tool of the people, it should be enacting and enforcing the rules and regulations that should benefit the people, the country and the world. I can't look as clean energy as anything else than a benefit to all three.


Khar



When I read posts like this I just say "God helps us" to myself...Sigh. Yeah that is why cars still on average only get 25-35 miles to the gallon The friggen model T got 35 miles to a gallon of gas... So zero progress in 100 year!... Lot of good those orders did...

The OP's point you completely missed is that the President has no authority to "force" private businesses to do anything. Also the government is the main enabler/protector for the energy cartels which is why we're still using 150 year old technology for transportation and burning oil. They stifle real energy progress they are lackeys for the oil cartels which is why our young people are dying in foreign countries to procure their resources ...


edit on 4-9-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)


Listen I know that you guys try to turn everything into a partisan debate but really, leave this one alone. You need to recognize that sometimes it may be a good thing for all of us.

And you don't think the government should tell private businesses what to do? You mean like the government can't tell private businesses not to discriminate based on race? Can't tell ERs to have to take every injured person, even though they'd rather not take them?

I don't like big government, but when it actually performs the function it's intended to perform, for the benefit of us all -- then it makes no difference who is in office.

But whatever, you'll say again that I, of course, don't see the big picture like you do... meh.


Khar
edit on 4-9-2012 by Kharron because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Then Don't you complain if Romney unilaterally closes abortion clinics; after all "It's what's best for us"...
I'm done here.
Somebody is getting "greased"; it's politics. .
g'day.
edit on 4-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by 46ACE
Then Don't you complain if Romney unilaterally closes abortion clinics; after all "It's what's best for us"...
I'm done here.
Somebody is getting "greased"; it's politics. .
g'day.
edit on 4-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)


Let's see, one infringes on human rights and the majority agree it's good for no one and the other tells companies to clean up their energy production over the next 8 years.

Yeah... I'm done too.


But I did flag your thread as, in my opinion, this is good news, so ty.


Khar



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kharron

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by Kharron
reply to post by 46ACE
 


This is great new OP... I'll give you a flag because this should be seen but no star as I really don't understand your tone with this -- are you trying to say lower carbon emissions and investing in cleaner energy is a bad thing?

It seems that this will force the companies who do not want to invest money into cleaning up their business to actually be motivated to do so. This is similar to the order where the president mandated American car companies start producing more fuel efficient cars by such and such year -- a good thing.

I look at the government as a tool of the people, it should be enacting and enforcing the rules and regulations that should benefit the people, the country and the world. I can't look as clean energy as anything else than a benefit to all three.


Khar



When I read posts like this I just say "God helps us" to myself...Sigh. Yeah that is why cars still on average only get 25-35 miles to the gallon The friggen model T got 35 miles to a gallon of gas... So zero progress in 100 year!... Lot of good those orders did...

The OP's point you completely missed is that the President has no authority to "force" private businesses to do anything. Also the government is the main enabler/protector for the energy cartels which is why we're still using 150 year old technology for transportation and burning oil. They stifle real energy progress they are lackeys for the oil cartels which is why our young people are dying in foreign countries to procure their resources ...


edit on 4-9-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)


Listen I know that you guys try to turn everything into a partisan debate but really, leave this one alone. You need to recognize that sometimes it may be a good thing for all of us.

And you don't think the government should tell private businesses what to do? You mean like the government can't tell private businesses not to discriminate based on race? Can't tell ERs to have to take every injured person, even though they'd rather not take them?

I don't like big government, but when it actually performs the function it's intended to perform, for the benefit of us all -- then it makes no difference who is in office.

But whatever, you'll say again that I, of course, don't see the big picture like you do... meh.


Khar
edit on 4-9-2012 by Kharron because: (no reason given)


I definitely don't think you are seeing the big picture.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Kharron
 



It's all good so long as the King issuing decrees is issuing decrees you agree with? Okay, but I will remember this when the boot is on the other foot. You put in a vote in favor of the desecration of our constitution. Do not complain later.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by Kharron
 



It's all good so long as the King issuing decrees is issuing decrees you agree with? Okay, but I will remember this when the boot is on the other foot. You put in a vote in favor of the desecration of our constitution. Do not complain later.

Thankyou...
Somebody gets it.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by 46ACE

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by Kharron
 



It's all good so long as the King issuing decrees is issuing decrees you agree with? Okay, but I will remember this when the boot is on the other foot. You put in a vote in favor of the desecration of our constitution. Do not complain later.

Thankyou...
Somebody gets it.


Yes, and I think most of us remember this throughout the Bush years... Of course that was for spending money on war which is way better than trying to force a healthier planet down our throats. Republicans need to get off their "We care about the constitution ever since 2009" soap box. As far as I'm concerned, only Republicans who were against it then, have any leg to stand on in opposing it now.



new topics

top topics



 
9

log in

join