EPA Obama To Unilaterally Push Cap And Trade On Carbon Emissions

a reply to: Phage

Thank you for providing the link to the proposed rule changes. I skimmed the 68 pages of it and learned three things.

1) Centrifugal compressors are cool. If not cool, they're sure mentioned a lot. Piston lifts aren't as cool. (Although I hear they will be the height of women's fashion next year.)

2) Man, those guys sure have a ton of reporting to do. They must have staffs to keep track of their reporting requirements.

3) This stuff can lead to life or death decisions on the part of the EPA. Oil companies deserve every cent they make. No one here could make heads or tails of this rule, which as I understand is a change to Subpart W. SUBPART W???? Are they crazy?

a reply to: charles1952
The summary makes it easier but yes, the rule changes are about reporting requirements.

And yes, oil companies make a whole lot of cents.

a reply to: Phage

The States will do the cap & trade.

Some already are.

Cap and trade lives on through the states

a reply to: xuenchen

Some already are.

Yes. I know, but I think it's more a carbon credits arrangement. But they have been, and are, free to do so. You have something against homerule?
Your source:

The Northeastern states saw their power plants’ carbon emissions drop more than 40 percent from 2005 to 2012, the trading network told EPA in December — without any of cap-and-trade critics’ apocalyptic expectations for such a system.

www.politico.com...



How will rule changes on emissions reporting affect it?

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Phage

The States will do the cap & trade.

Some already are.

Cap and trade lives on through the states

If states are doing cap and trade why are you blaming Obama and the EPA? Isn't this the definition of disinfo?

a reply to: LDragonFire

If states are doing cap and trade why are you blaming Obama and the EPA? Isn't this the definition of disinfo?

Because it looks like the EPA got frisky under Obama.

EPA website:
IPM Analyses of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)

a reply to: xuenchen
They constructed a computer model?
Frisky indeed. Care to tell us how it applies to your topic? You're not talking about the 1990 SO2 trading deal, are you?

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: LDragonFire

If states are doing cap and trade why are you blaming Obama and the EPA? Isn't this the definition of disinfo?

Because it looks like the EPA got frisky under Obama.

EPA website:
IPM Analyses of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)

What you posted is from 2011, what does this have to do with next month according to your op?

originally posted by: xuenchen
Next month the Obama Administration will successfully by-pass Congress (again for the um-teenth time) when anticipated EPA regulations will be announced.

Hoax? I don't know if its a hoax but its disinformation and the title is wrong.

a reply to: LDragonFire

You really need to read the story.

Keep an open mind.

Your wishes may come true !!

Here's two other sources of "opinions"...

The Obama administration is developing a cap-and-trade program for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. This is an important development for the renewable-energy industry because carbon credits created from the use of biofuels and wind energy will help meet established national goals. It also is of concern for the northern Plains because coal is used extensively for plant heating and electrical generation, so any reduction in emissions will raise user costs.

Obama Administration's Carbon Cap and Trade Program

Broken Promise ? ... (Republicans Fault !!)

"Will set a hard cap on all carbon emissions at a level that scientists say is necessary to curb global warming - an 80% reduction by 2050. To ensure this isn't just talk, I will also commit to interim targets toward this goal in 2020, 2030, and 2040. These reductions will start immediately, and we'll continue to follow the recommendations of top scientists to ensure that our targets are strong enough to meet the challenge we face."

Create cap and trade system with interim goals to reduce global warming

a reply to: xuenchen

Your links are from 2009 and 2010, do you have current relative information?

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: xuenchen

Your links are from 2009 and 2010, do you have current relative information?

Not sure what you are "looking" for.

But what is happening should be easy to "see" I would think.

With failed cap & trade legislation (2009/2010), the Administration EPA rules limiting CO2 output per megawatt will be forcing increased C&P at State levels.


google " obama cap & trade "
Lot's of info in many articles.

one good one is from 2009...

The budget also calls for a $19 million increase for U.S. EPA to use on a greenhouse gas emission inventory. The inventory is expected to identify baseline levels of carbon emissions and set the foundations for a national cap-and-trade program.

Obama's draft budget projects cap-and-trade revenue

^^^^^ recent EPA regulations ?

a reply to: xuenchen

google " obama cap & trade "
Lot's of info in many articles.

Yes. And it didn't fly, did it? See it in the 2015 budget?

With failed cap & trade legislation (2009/2010), the Administration EPA rules limiting CO2 output per megawatt will be forcing increased C&P at State levels.

The rule changes don't seem to address CO2 output.

recent EPA regulations ?

What about them? I posted the rule changes. Any mention of emission inventories?

In any case, the carbon trading plan used in the northeastern states does seem to have been successful, according to your source.

a reply to: xuenchen

With failed cap & trade legislation (2009/2010), the Administration EPA rules limiting CO2 output per megawatt will be forcing increased C&P at State levels.

So, the fed's wouldn't be administering it. It's different from states being required to follow other EPA regulations?

a reply to: charles1952
My father always said, when a black man is "elected" president, the United States is BROKE, its over and done with. White folks that are pseudo rich will suffer right alongside the black disenfranchised middle class, and everybody will be brown dirt poor.

It was worse than he imagined. We got a Kenyan Indonesian National that is a Manchurian Candidate. IJS.

Here's some indication that the new rules will be "announced" June 2nd.

Next Monday, June 2, the Obama administration (perhaps the president personally) will announce an Environmental Protection Agency rule governing carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. A rule on new plants was announced in September. By various accounts, the new rule would grant flexibility to the states, allowing them to employ cap-and-trade systems and expand renewable energy sources of electricity as a means of complying with emissions limits.

Obama has said he wants the existing plant rule in place by the time a new president takes the oath of office in January 2017. After the rule is announced Monday, a one-year comment and review period will begin, after which, perhaps with tweaks, the rule will be implemented. Given the gravity of the climate change situation, that 2017 date might seem to be an unneeded delay. But, actually, given the opposition, it's optimistic.

Both emissions rules have been in the works since the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 2007 that the EPA has a mandate to control greenhouse emissions, including CO2, under the Clean Air Act. In short, the Court ruled that controlling CO2 emissions isn't optional. The act requires action.

If EPA's CO2 emissions rule being announced June 2 can overcome foes, it could make a big difference

Sounds like many legal issues are in play.

And I bet the magic "solution" to the created "problem" will be carbon trading.

"Old" generating plants will stay in business but at a "cost".

What else can they do?

Shut down selective power stations and create rolling black-outs?

a reply to: xuenchen
Doesn't really seem to be a unilateral situation, though, does it? Seems like there is likely to be quite a bit of opposition, according to your source.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: xuenchen
Doesn't really seem to be a unilateral situation, though, does it? Seems like there is likely to be quite a bit of opposition, according to your source.

Seems so.

We will see when the actual language of the "regulations" are published.

This is another long drawn out legal battle.

a reply to: xuenchen
Sixty days.
Or ninety if it's extended.

originally posted by: ArchPlayer
a reply to: charles1952
My father always said, when a black man is "elected" president, the United States is BROKE, its over and done with. White folks that are pseudo rich will suffer right alongside the black disenfranchised middle class, and everybody will be brown dirt poor.

It was worse than he imagined. We got a Kenyan Indonesian National that is a Manchurian Candidate. IJS.

You father sounds like an idiot. This country was broke long before the black man was elected president.