• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

EPA shuts down one of the largest Coal Mines in U.S.

This appears not to be about the permit, but about the Obama admin going after mountain top mining because they don't like it.

So you support the mining company ignoring the EPA to increase profits and then letting taxpayers clean up the mess later?
 
Thats a bunch of BS. It was just a small part of Carters policies. Conservation was the key to his programs. Oil companies profits were starting to suffer due to Carters conservation policies. Reagan came to their rescue and trashed all of Carters policies.

Carter's energy policies were so awesome in their awesomeness, that the market took the ball and ran with it. Oh, wait.

Oil companies profits were starting to suffer due to Carters conservation policies.

Now, explain to us how government intervention in the market, killing profits a good thing?
 
So you support the mining company ignoring the EPA to increase profits and then letting taxpayers clean up the mess later?

We don't really know that that happened.
 
So you support the mining company ignoring the EPA to increase profits and then letting taxpayers clean up the mess later?

I want the EPA shut down personally so I'm biased. However in this case the Obama Admin is going AFTER mountain top mining, thus the over zealous application of regulation.
 
Did you know that Cap and Trade was invented by conservative republicans?
And if Reagan hadn't scrapped Carters energy policies we would be energy independent right now.

Who cares? Cap and trade is a very bad idea.
 
Who cares? Cap and trade is a very bad idea.

It was a great idea when the republicans came out with it. Now that democrats finally agree, it becomes a bad idea.
 
It's your opinion that the regulations are too stringent, but that opinion is certainly not based on common sense.

The billions of dollars spent by taxpayers to clean up pollution by corporatrions shows the EPA is too easy going.
 
It's your opinion that the regulations are too stringent, but that opinion is certainly not based on common sense.

Common sense dictates they should come up with another solution, other than killing jobs in the middle of a depression.

I would buy into the whole, "it's all about the environment", jargin if Obama hadn't promised to put coal companies out of business.

Obama’s promise to bankrupt coal industry to cost 1,000 jobs in upper Midwest « Hot Air

And to make energy prices, shyrocket

Obama: I’ll make energy prices “skyrocket” « Hot Air

This has, "political agenda", written all over it.
 
Who cares? Cap and trade is a very bad idea.

The efficiency of what later was to be called the "cap-and-trade" approach to air pollution abatement was first demonstrated in a series of micro-economic computer simulation studies between 1967 and 1970 for the National Air Pollution Control Administration (predecessor to the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Air and Radiation) by Ellison Burton and William Sanjour. These studies used mathematical models of several cities and their emission sources in order to compare the cost and effectiveness of various control strategies.[12][13][14][15][16] Each abatement strategy was compared with the "least cost solution" produced by a computer optimization program to identify the least costly combination of source reductions in order to achieve a given abatement goal.[17] In each case it was found that the least cost solution was dramatically less costly than the same amount of pollution reduction produced by any conventional abatement strategy.[18] This led to the concept of "cap and trade" as a means of achieving the "least cost solution" for a given level of abatement.
The development of emissions trading over the course of its history can be divided into four phases:[19]
Gestation: Theoretical articulation of the instrument (by Coase,[20] Crocker,[21] Dales,[22] Montgomery[23] etc.) and, independent of the former, tinkering with "flexible regulation" at the US Environmental Protection Agency.
Proof of Principle: First developments towards trading of emission certificates based on the "offset-mechanism" taken up in Clean Air Act in 1977.
Prototype: Launching of a first "cap-and-trade" system as part of the US Acid Rain Program in Title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act, officially announced as a paradigm shift in environmental policy, as prepared by "Project 88", a network-building effort to bring together environmental and industrial interests in the US.
Regime formation: branching out from the US clean air policy to global climate policy, and from there to the European Union, along with the expectation of an emerging global carbon market and the formation of the "carbon industry".
In the United States, the "acid rain"-related emission trading system was principally conceived by C. Boyden Gray, a G.H.W. Bush administration attorney. Gray worked with the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), who worked with the EPA to write the bill that became law as part of the Clean Air Act of 1990. The new emissions cap on NOx and SO2 gases took effect in 1995, and according to Smithsonian Magazine, those acid rain emissions dropped 3 million tons that year.[24]
Emissions trading - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Common sense dictates they should come up with another solution, other than killing jobs in the middle of a depression.

That's not common sense, that's partisan buffoonery. BIG difference.

I would buy into the whole, "it's all about the environment", jargin if Obama hadn't promised to put coal companies out of business.

Proving that I was correct. Your opinion i scertainly not based on common sense. It's a conspiracy theory.


Again, certainly not based on common sense.
 
It seems there is reason to worry about water quality in these areas and with this type of mining:

Water emerges from the base of valley fills containing a variety of solutes toxic or damaging to biota (11). Declines in stream biodiversity have been linked to the level of mining disturbance in WV watersheds (12). Below valley fills in the central Appalachians, streams are characterized by increases in pH, electrical conductivity, and total dissolved solids due to elevated concentrations of sulfate (SO4), calcium, magnesium, and bicarbonate ions (13). The ions are released as coal-generated sulfuric acid weathers carbonate rocks. Stream water SO4 concentrations are closely linked to the extent of mining in these watersheds (11, 14). We found that significant linear increases in the concentrations of metals, as well as decreases in multiple measures of biological health, were associated with increases in stream water SO4 in streams below mined sites (see the chart on page 149). Recovery of biodiversity in mining waste-impacted streams has not been documented, and SO4 pollution is known to persist long after mining ceases (14).

Conductivity, and concentrations of SO4 and other pollutants associated with mine runoff, can directly cause environmental degradation, including disruption of water and ion balance in aquatic biota (12). Elevated SO4 can exacerbate nutrient pollution of downstream rivers and reservoirs by increasing nitrogen and phosphorus availability through internal eutrophication (15, 16). Elevated SO4 can also increase microbial production of hydrogen sulfide, a toxin for many aquatic plants and organisms (17). Mn, Fe, Al, and Se can become further concentrated in stream sediments, and Se bioaccumulates in organisms (11) (figs. S1 and S2).

A survey of 78 MTM/VF streams found that 73 had Se water concentrations greater than the 2.0 µg/liter threshold for toxic bioaccumulation (18). Se levels exceed this in many WV streams (see the chart on page 149). In some freshwater food webs, Se has bioaccumulated to four times the toxic level; this can cause teratogenic deformities in larval fish (fig. S2) (19), leave fish with Se concentrations above the threshold for reproductive failure (4 ppm), and expose birds to reproductive failure when they eat fish with Se >7 ppm (19, 20). Biota may be exposed to concentrations higher than in the water since many feed on streambed algae that can bioconcentrate Se as much as 800 to 2000 times that in water concentrations (21).
Potential for Human Health Impacts

Even after mine-site reclamation (attempts to return a site to premined conditions), groundwater samples from domestic supply wells have higher levels of mine-derived chemical constituents than well water from unmined areas (22). Human health impacts may come from contact with streams or exposure to airborne toxins and dust. State advisories are in effect for excessive human consumption of Se in fish from MTM/VF affected waters. Elevated levels of airborne, hazardous dust have been documented around surface mining operations (23). Adult hospitalizations for chronic pulmonary disorders and hypertension are elevated as a function of county-level coal production, as are rates of mortality; lung cancer; and chronic heart, lung, and kidney disease (24). Health problems are for women and men, so effects are not simply a result of direct occupational exposure of predominantly male coal miners (24).

Science Magazine: Sign In | Science/AAAS
 
The efficiency of what later was to be called the "cap-and-trade" approach to air pollution abatement was first demonstrated in a series of micro-economic computer simulation studies between 1967 and 1970 for the National Air Pollution Control Administration (predecessor to the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Air and Radiation) by Ellison Burton and William Sanjour. These studies used mathematical models of several cities and their emission sources in order to compare the cost and effectiveness of various control strategies.[12][13][14][15][16] Each abatement strategy was compared with the "least cost solution" produced by a computer optimization program to identify the least costly combination of source reductions in order to achieve a given abatement goal.[17] In each case it was found that the least cost solution was dramatically less costly than the same amount of pollution reduction produced by any conventional abatement strategy.[18] This led to the concept of "cap and trade" as a means of achieving the "least cost solution" for a given level of abatement.
The development of emissions trading over the course of its history can be divided into four phases:[19]
Gestation: Theoretical articulation of the instrument (by Coase,[20] Crocker,[21] Dales,[22] Montgomery[23] etc.) and, independent of the former, tinkering with "flexible regulation" at the US Environmental Protection Agency.
Proof of Principle: First developments towards trading of emission certificates based on the "offset-mechanism" taken up in Clean Air Act in 1977.
Prototype: Launching of a first "cap-and-trade" system as part of the US Acid Rain Program in Title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act, officially announced as a paradigm shift in environmental policy, as prepared by "Project 88", a network-building effort to bring together environmental and industrial interests in the US.
Regime formation: branching out from the US clean air policy to global climate policy, and from there to the European Union, along with the expectation of an emerging global carbon market and the formation of the "carbon industry".
In the United States, the "acid rain"-related emission trading system was principally conceived by C. Boyden Gray, a G.H.W. Bush administration attorney. Gray worked with the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), who worked with the EPA to write the bill that became law as part of the Clean Air Act of 1990. The new emissions cap on NOx and SO2 gases took effect in 1995, and according to Smithsonian Magazine, those acid rain emissions dropped 3 million tons that year.[24]

Emissions trading - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I believe the facts speak for themselves
 
I believe the facts speak for themselves
Since Reagan’s staff invented cap-and-trade to deal with acid rain from power plant emissions, there is a Republican basis to use this tool. Rather than the huge costs the utility companies predicted, they spend $3 billion a year and save $122 billion! That is enormous financial success in anyone’s book. It worked so well, the Europeans adopted it for their carbon emissions. We are not explaining a new idea; this history is filled with positive facts to tell the story.
The Reagan White House conceived the first cap-and-trade program to reduce pollution. It was used in the 1980s to phase out lead in gasoline at a lower cost. President Reagan also signed the Montreal Protocol in 1987 to slash the production and use of chemicals that deplete the upper ozone layer essential to screen out cancer-causing ultraviolet rays. His administration established a cap-and-trade system to implement the chemical reductions the protocol required. President George H.W. Bush, Reagan’s successor, was the first president to propose the employment of a cap-and-trade system in an environmental law. The Clean Air Act of 1990 includes his proposed cap-and-trade system to reduce the sulfur pollution from power plants responsible for acid rain. And President George W. Bush also included a cap-and-trade mechanism in his “Clear Skies” bill that would have amended the Clean Air Act.

Cap and trade was created by Reagan staffers and supported by Bush I and Bush II .
 
Last edited:
I just like to stop that lie of the lefties when I can.

What are you in total denial? Reagan was the first to implement Cap and trade.

Did you know that a republican invented Obamacare too? His name was Mitt Romney.
 
Last edited:
What are you in total denial? Reagan was the first to implement Cap and trade.

Did you know that a republican invented Obamacare too? His name was Mitt Romney.

You're not an honest person. I posted the link to the actual origin of cap and trade, yet you persist in lying. Romney is a Mass. "Republican" and the State Legislature created Mass Care, he just signed it. Which is also why he won't get the GOP Nod. Care to waste more space with trivial nonsense?
 
You're not an honest person. I posted the link to the actual origin of cap and trade, yet you persist in lying. Romney is a Mass. "Republican" and the State Legislature created Mass Care, he just signed it. Which is also why he won't get the GOP Nod. Care to waste more space with trivial nonsense?

The first president to use Cap and Trade was Reagan. One of his lawyers presented it to Reagan and it was a huge success. That is a fact. Reagan, Bush I and Bush II all embraced cap and trade.
Romney is a republican. He may be the next GOP candidate for president. He had a huge part in drafting the Romneycare bill. He just didn't sign the it, he wrote much of it.

It really is amazing how some of you are in total denial when it comes to historical record.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/us/politics/17cap.html

A month later, the Bush White House sent Congress a cap-and-trade plan for sulfur dioxide emissions that 18 months later became the linchpin of the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act, considered by many to be the most successful domestic environmental legislation ever enacte

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/21/AR2006072101375.html

The Bush administration's new program to cut harmful pollutants from utilities through a cap-and-trade system will do nearly as much to clean the nation's air as the Clinton administration's effort to make aging power plants install pollution controls when they modernize or expand, a report by an independent scientific panel has

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-08-20/...surance-exchange-public-option?_s=PM:POLITICS
If Washington wants health care reform with bipartisan support, experts say consider what former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney accomplished as governor in Democratic Massachusetts.

"You don't have to have a public option," Romney said. "You don't have to have the government getting into the insurance business to make it work."

Three years after enacting its own version of reform, Massachusetts now has near-universal coverage
 
Last edited:
Let us know when those miners go back to work.

They'd better reinvent themselves. The low cost of natural gas is going to make coal burning obsolete.
 
Three years after enacting its own version of reform, Massachusetts now has near-universal coverage

5 painful health-care lessons from Massachusetts - Jun. 15, 2010
Lesson 1: The Massachusetts plan does not control costs.
Lesson 2: Community rating, guaranteed issue and mandated benefits swell costs.
Lesson 3: Huge subsidies for low-to-medium earners could prove extremely expensive.
Lesson 4: The exchanges reward people for working less and earning less.
Lesson 5: The generous plans and added mandates give employers an incentive to drop health insurance.
 
Back
Top Bottom