• 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!

Obama EPA kills power plant, 3,900 jobs in Texas

Grim17 said:
Nor do I plan to...

There are plenty of sources, including a report from the United States Senate, which confirms the existence of those regulations. Even Democratic Senator Thomas Carper, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, confirmed their existence when he was asked for his comments on Senator Inhofe's report by Marcia Yerman at the Huffington Post and said:


"After decades of delay, last December (2011), the Environmental Protection Agency finally acted to require dirty coal and oil-fired power plants to clean up their mercury and deadly air toxic emissions. By targeting our nation's largest sources of mercury, this regulation requires polluters to reduce mercury emissions by 90 percent -- which will reduce the mercury that contaminates our streams and fish and end up in our children..."​


Let me guess... Even the Democratic senator is lying too, right? Since I know this is just about giving me a hard time and you really aren't that ill informed and out of touch, why don't you just end this nonsense? If you just can't bring yourself to quit this BS and decide you want to continue being an ass by pursuing this, then I'll tell you what I'll do... I will dig up the laws for you, provided you find someone from either the EPA or the Obama administration who denies the existence of the regulations that Senator Inhofe listed in his report?

Your call...
Click to expand...

I find it very telling that you cannot find the regulations you are so sure exist.
 
Grim17 said:
Nor do I plan to...

There are plenty of sources, including a report from the United States Senate, which confirms the existence of those regulations. Even Democratic Senator Thomas Carper, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, confirmed their existence when he was asked for his comments on Senator Inhofe's report by Marcia Yerman at the Huffington Post and said:


"After decades of delay, last December (2011), the Environmental Protection Agency finally acted to require dirty coal and oil-fired power plants to clean up their mercury and deadly air toxic emissions. By targeting our nation's largest sources of mercury, this regulation requires polluters to reduce mercury emissions by 90 percent -- which will reduce the mercury that contaminates our streams and fish and end up in our children..."​


Let me guess... Even the Democratic senator is lying too, right? Since I know this is just about giving me a hard time and you really aren't that ill informed and out of touch, why don't you just end this nonsense? If you just can't bring yourself to quit this BS and decide you want to continue being an ass by pursuing this, then I'll tell you what I'll do... I will dig up the laws for you, provided you find someone from either the EPA or the Obama administration who denies the existence of the regulations that Senator Inhofe listed in his report?

Your call...
Click to expand...

They probably exist. That doesn't mean Inhofe is giving a fair characterization of the regulations or their impacts. The man has a proven history of straight-up lies on environmental subjects, so why, exactly, should I take his word at face value?

For that matter, why are you?

That's the part you're not getting. It's not that Inhofe is lying about their existence. It's that he's quite likely lying, exaggerating, or misleading about their impacts and actual nature. (it wouldn't be the first time) Does that help?
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
They probably exist. That doesn't mean Inhofe is giving a fair characterization of the regulations or their impacts. The man has a proven history of straight-up lies on environmental subjects, so why, exactly, should I take his word at face value?

For that matter, why are you?
Click to expand...

I don't have to take his word for it, because we have the heads of several companies who have made it clear what the impact those regulations are having on their businesses.
 
Grim17 said:
I don't have to take his word for it, because we have the heads of several companies who have made it clear what the impact those regulations are having on their businesses.
Click to expand...

You're taking, at face value, the word of people who have a powerful financial incentive to have you believe this. You're trading one person's word for a different person's word.
 
Rocketman said:
You must have never traveled down south third street and entered voodoo village, or Brooks Rd, Summer, any of this ringing a bell?
Click to expand...

Oh but I have. It's been awhile since I've been to VV, probably 6 years, though.
 
Deuce said:
You're taking, at face value, the word of people who have a powerful financial incentive to have you believe this. You're trading one person's word for a different person's word.
Click to expand...

When you don't know who to believe, the person who is getting something tangible for their position should be doubted the most.

I can believe that there are tougher EPA regulations on release of mercury. I just don't believe that it is impossible to comply with the regulations and still make money in the energy generation business.
 
Last edited:
Hard Truth said:
When you don't know who to believe, the person who is getting something tangible for their position should be doubted the most.

I can believe that there are tougher EPA regulations on release of mercury. I just don't believe that it is impossible to comply with the regulations and still make money in the energy generation business.
Click to expand...

It's not that you can't make money, it's that you can't make as much money.
 
Hard Truth said:
When you don't know who to believe, the person who is getting something tangible for their position should be doubted the most.

I can believe that there are tougher EPA regulations on release of mercury. I just don't believe that it is impossible to comply with the regulations and still make money in the energy generation business.
Click to expand...

Of course you can still make money in the energy generation business, as displayed quite nicely by every other coal plant out there that isn't shutting down.

Or the massive boom in natural gas production, which is the real reason some older, less efficient, dirtier coal plants are struggling. Good riddance, I say.
 
Hard Truth said:
When you don't know who to believe, the person who is getting something tangible for their position should be doubted the most.

I can believe that there are tougher EPA regulations on release of mercury. I just don't believe that it is impossible to comply with the regulations and still make money in the energy generation business.
Click to expand...

It's one thing to say "if these regulations are passed, we will have to shut down plants and lay people off." That could simply be a threat. An attempt to intimidate regulators into not imposing those regs... It's quite another when those regs are put into effect, and plants are actually shutting down and pink slips are issued... That is no longer a threat, but a reality.
 
Captain America said:
So, Texas creates a lot of jobs and has a relatively low unemployment percentage and it's Texas that get's credit. But when they lose a bunch of jobs and it's all Obama's fault. (I mean, since Obama created the EPA and all. <rolls eyes.>) Gotta love Texas.

It's also Obama's fault some people have warts on their ass in Texas. (But that's another thread altogether.)

I do think, however, the EPA should ignore Texas. Having been born and raised there let me testify that, generally speaking, Texans have no problems with piling up old junk cars and old Curtis Mathis television sets in their front yard and no problem having a garbage pile in the back. They would just as soon burn their leaves in the middle of the street in downtown Houston. They find that catching crawfish is open sewer drainage ditches to be very recreational. The pretty colors from the oil slicks are considered to be art.

I say let them pollute their state as much as they want to. Has anyone ever driven through Stinkadena?
Click to expand...

Stinkadena, Texas City and one other town right near there where you can collect your air by the pound. Probably caused by all those beaners eatin' burritos and passin' gas. Tejas is the biggest polluter in the USA and proud of it and the money wants more of it. Corpus Christi is reputed to be similar to Stinkadena, so noone would really notice a few more lumps in their air. I was just North of there a few years back (Matagorda Bay) and had a great time. That air was A-OK.
 
DaveFagan said:
Stinkadena, Texas City and one other town right near there where you can collect your air by the pound. Probably caused by all those beaners eatin' burritos and passin' gas. Tejas is the biggest polluter in the USA and proud of it and the money wants more of it. Corpus Christi is reputed to be similar to Stinkadena, so noone would really notice a few more lumps in their air. I was just North of there a few years back (Matagorda Bay) and had a great time. That air was A-OK.
Click to expand...

When I visited Corpus Christi, I got the impression from the locals that nobody who could leave would ever stay. I took one look at the refineries and thought that must be a major reason why. No way would I live in a town any where near refineries.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Oh but I have. It's been awhile since I've been to VV, probably 6 years, though.
Click to expand...

The last time I was in the area it looked like a Nat Geo special
 
Grim17 said:
It's one thing to say "if these regulations are passed, we will have to shut down plants and lay people off." That could simply be a threat. An attempt to intimidate regulators into not imposing those regs... It's quite another when those regs are put into effect, and plants are actually shutting down and pink slips are issued... That is no longer a threat, but a reality.
Click to expand...

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
 
Hard Truth said:
When you don't know who to believe, the person who is getting something tangible for their position should be doubted the most.

I can believe that there are tougher EPA regulations on release of mercury. I just don't believe that it is impossible to comply with the regulations and still make money in the energy generation business.
Click to expand...

More plants are definitely shutting down and apart from regulations natural gas is also cheap right now.

But looking to the future, with no hydroelectric dams being built, no nuclear energy plants being constructed, little oil exploration and a pass on a major pipeline, it seems that what's left is wind, solar and natural gas. Wind is not viable because of lack of storage and it will take years before it will be, same with solar. (Of course much of the possibility is hyped to encourage crony capitalism with government money).

Therefore, will less genuine competition, natural gas will gradually rise. It looks now like an excellent long term investment.
 
Redress said:
Here, let's look at some facts:

PolitiFact Ohio | Ohio coal industry says Obama promised to bankrupt coal-fired power plant builders



Has Obama declared a "war on coal?" - Political Hotsheet - CBS News



So much for those draconian regulations and new standards...
Click to expand...

1. Politifact and CBS news are NOT unbiased sources, so get over that to begin with.

2. Incoming sources.
EPA's Insanely Ambitious Agenda If Obama Is Reelected - Forbes
Ozone Rule:

As reported in the New York Times last year, President Obama admitted that the “regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty” of tightening the ozone standard would harm jobs and the economy … but he still pointed to the fact that it will be reconsidered in 2013. EPA itself estimated that this would cost $90 billion a year, while other studies have projected that the rule could cost upwards of a trillion dollars and destroy 7.4 million jobs.

By EPA’s own projections, it could put 650 additional counties into the category of “non-attainment,” which is the equivalent of posting a “closed for business” sign on communities. Affected counties will suffer from severe EPA-imposed restrictions on job creation and business expansion, including large numbers of plant closures.

The Times concluded: “The full retreat on the smog standard was the first and most important environmental decision of the presidential campaign season that is now fully underway. An examination of that decision, based on interviews with lobbyists on both sides, former officials and policy makers at the upper reaches of the White House and the E.P.A., illustrates the new calculus on political and policy shifts as the White House sharpens its focus on the president’s re-election.”
Click to expand...

Obama's War on Coal Will Only Get Worse if He Is Re-Elected - On Energy (usnews.com)
•New Source Performance Standards for greenhouse gas emissions from new coal-fired power plants. These regulations ban new coal-fired power plants that do not capture carbon dioxide emissions—and none can. Existing plants don't have to comply right away under the rule, but EPA fixes them with the next regulation, MATS.

•Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS). This regulation, formerly called the Utility MACT rule, mandates a reduction in mercury and other emissions from power plants. According to EPA's own optimistic assumptions, the cost of this regulation is $10 billion a year, but the benefits from reducing mercury and air toxics is only $6 million a year (and that is likely overstating the benefits). Existing plants may be treated as "new plants" if they make these changes, and then be forced to meet the carbon dioxide emissions standards of the previous rule (EPA assures that this isn't the case, however, EPA does not have a strong legal case to make that argument). The combination of the two regulations could mean no coal plants, period.
Click to expand...

Harsher energy regulations seen in Obama's second term | Reuters
Energy producers braced for tighter regulation in President Barack Obama's second term, with coal companies expecting more emissions restrictions and drillers anticipating less access to federal land even as his platform promotes energy independence.

Opponents already believe Obama has waged a "war on coal" through the administration's push for stricter regulation of greenhouse gas emissions by the Environmental Protection Agency.

"Four more years of President Obama translates into additional pressure on the coal industry from the EPA and numerous environmental groups," energy investment bank Simmons & Co said in a note to investors on Wednesday.

Analysts at ClearView Energy Partners in Washington expect Obama to "continue prosecuting energy policy through regulation and administrative action, with only the courts as a check on that agenda."

Miners criticize Obama for not living up to a 2008 promise to develop clean coal technology, arguing that his policies actually preclude the construction of any new coal plants.

Shares of U.S. coal companies plunged on Wednesday. Arch Coal and Alpha Natural Resources ended trade down more than 12 percent, while Peabody Energy closed 9.6 percent lower.

Eric Green, senior managing partner at Penn Capital Management, which owns coal stocks, said the sell-off was "100 percent related to election results."

Alpha Natural Resources Chief Executive Kevin Crutchfield argued that the United States, with the world's largest coal reserves, should use what it has. "We would hope the administration remains true to its campaign promise to support coal as an indispensable part of our nation's energy mix," he said.
Click to expand...

Its not just what regulations are on the books but how they are interpretted and enforced by the head of the EPA. They have some leeway in regulatory changes. It depends on how they will use it.
 
"I don't like your sources, here's some that agree with me."
 
OpportunityCost said:
1. Politifact and CBS news are NOT unbiased sources, so get over that to begin with.

2. Incoming sources.
EPA's Insanely Ambitious Agenda If Obama Is Reelected - Forbes


Obama's War on Coal Will Only Get Worse if He Is Re-Elected - On Energy (usnews.com)


Harsher energy regulations seen in Obama's second term | Reuters


Its not just what regulations are on the books but how they are interpretted and enforced by the head of the EPA. They have some leeway in regulatory changes. It depends on how they will use it.
Click to expand...


Our Friend above gets his programming from the liberal media.

More regs equal higher consumer cost, always have, always will.
 
OpportunityCost said:
1. Politifact and CBS news are NOT unbiased sources, so get over that to begin with.

2. Incoming sources.
EPA's Insanely Ambitious Agenda If Obama Is Reelected - Forbes


Obama's War on Coal Will Only Get Worse if He Is Re-Elected - On Energy (usnews.com)


Harsher energy regulations seen in Obama's second term | Reuters


Its not just what regulations are on the books but how they are interpretted and enforced by the head of the EPA. They have some leeway in regulatory changes. It depends on how they will use it.
Click to expand...

Funny how no one can actually point to the regulations added, and keep having to post editorials, while complaining about biased sources...
 
OpportunityCost said:
Obama's War on Coal Will Only Get Worse if He Is Re-Elected - On Energy (usnews.com)

Its not just what regulations are on the books but how they are interpretted and enforced by the head of the EPA. They have some leeway in regulatory changes. It depends on how they will use it.
Click to expand...

Even if money and jobs are lost by shutting down coal plants, the energy they produced must then be replaced. And that could mean natural gas plants with far higher efficiency and low cost fuel. These will mean jobs gained and money made. On balance, it all works out.
 
Grim17 said:
Maybe you need a translation of the last few words from what you quoted:



Aka... Latest EPA standards, not standards imposed by the state.
Click to expand...

The mayor of Corpus Christi was against it, arguing, amongst other things, that the plant could kill jobs in the long run.

Las Brisas project halted » Corpus Christi Caller-Times

Thanks for parachuting into an issue you do not fully comprehend (and I don't claim to either) and offering one side of the story while feigning outrage. There must be some issue out there you fully understand that would be a better use of your rage.

On your part NOT "NUFF SAID" or "Too much said", take your pick.
 
Redress said:
Funny how no one can actually point to the regulations added, and keep having to post editorials, while complaining about biased sources...
Click to expand...

Funny how you first deny they exist, then when you finally come to the conclusion they do, make posts like this one so you can avoid dealing with the fact they cost jobs and will raise electricity prices.
 
Grim17 said:
Funny how you first deny they exist, then when you finally come to the conclusion they do, make posts like this one so you can avoid dealing with the fact they cost jobs and will raise electricity prices.
Click to expand...

That is how programming works, it starts with denial.
 
Oh, and another thing Redress.

Redress said:
The EPA standards Obama put into place. Come on, every actual factual link posted here says it did not happen.
Click to expand...

In the future, please don't lecture people on what is, and what is not, a "factual" source, since it's now clear that the ones you subscribe to are anything but.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom