• 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!

E.P.A. Finalizes Its Plan to Replace Obama-Era Climate Rules

MTAtech

MTAtech

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
36,634
Reaction score
35,661
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
[h=1]E.P.A. Finalizes Its Plan to Replace Obama-Era Climate Rules[/h]
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Wednesday replaced former President Barack Obama’s effort to reduce planet-warming pollution from coal plants with a new rule that would keep plants open longer and undercut progress on reducing carbon emissions.

The rule represents the Trump administration’s most direct effort to protect the coal industry. It is also another significant step in dismantling measures aimed at combating global warming, including the rollback of tailpipe emissions standards and the planned withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement.
Click to expand...
That's what we need to do, protect coal. Put aside for a minute that it's a bad idea, whatever happened to the idea of government not picking winners and losers? This is what happens when one puts a coal lobbyist in charge of the EPA. You know what you also get? This:

[h=1]Cost of New E.P.A. Coal Rules: Up to 1,400 More Deaths a Year[/h]Glad they're making America great.
 
That's what happens when one plops a coal lobbyist into a cabinet seat at the E.P.A. I imagine a promise to do just that was part of his audition for the position.
 
MTAtech said:
That's what we need to do, protect coal. Put aside for a minute that it's a bad idea, whatever happened to the idea of government not picking winners and losers? This is what happens when one puts a coal lobbyist in charge of the EPA. You know what you also get? This:

[h=1]Cost of New E.P.A. Coal Rules: Up to 1,400 More Deaths a Year[/h]Glad they're making America great.
Click to expand...

What this country needs is a good dose of action from it's citizens. The citizens of America can effect the largest changes by making financial decisions that force corporations to respond.

Consider that recently people all over America made the decision to pay a little more for a wind-energy option from their Utility. Goldman-Sachs invested billions into wind energy, through their subisidiary, Horizon Energy, who has installed more wind power than anybody else.

Also consider that over 3 million homes in the US have installed solar PVs. Some have installed large systems that also power their electric cars.

Your pocketbook, and your associated decisions are very powerful!!! It's also contagious, and readily shows the backwardness of this Administration.
 
MTAtech said:
That's what we need to do, protect coal. Put aside for a minute that it's a bad idea, whatever happened to the idea of government not picking winners and losers? This is what happens when one puts a coal lobbyist in charge of the EPA. You know what you also get? This:

[h=1]Cost of New E.P.A. Coal Rules: Up to 1,400 More Deaths a Year[/h]Glad they're making America great.
Click to expand...

Trump also want to spend billions of dollars on propping up unprofitable coal plants.

Donald Trump hopes to save America’s failing coal-fired power plants - Daily chart
 
Climate change is accelatring.


State of the Climate in 2018 shows accelerating climate change impacts | World Meteorological Organization


There even federal agencies under Donald Trump warns about climate change devasting effects.


"The impacts of climate change are already being felt in communities across the country. More frequent and intense extreme weather and climate-related events, as well as changes in average climate conditions, are expected to continue to damage infrastructure, ecosystems, and social systems that provide essential benefits to communities. Future climate change is expected to further disrupt many areas of life, exacerbating existing challenges to prosperity posed by aging and deteriorating infrastructure, stressed ecosystems, and economic inequality. Impacts within and across regions will not be distributed equally. People who are already vulnerable, including lower-income and other marginalized communities, have lower capacity to prepare for and cope with extreme weather and climate-related events and are expected to experience greater impacts. Prioritizing adaptation actions for the most vulnerable populations would contribute to a more equitable future within and across communities. Global action to significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions can substantially reduce climate-related risks and increase opportunities for these populations in the longer term."

Fourth National Climate Assessment


 
MTAtech said:
That's what we need to do, protect coal. Put aside for a minute that it's a bad idea, whatever happened to the idea of government not picking winners and losers? This is what happens when one puts a coal lobbyist in charge of the EPA. You know what you also get? This:

[h=1]Cost of New E.P.A. Coal Rules: Up to 1,400 More Deaths a Year[/h]Glad they're making America great.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't have expected you to be an advocate for government not picking winners and losers, but good for you.

“If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them,”--Former President of the United State.
 
Media_Truth said:
What this country needs is a good dose of action from it's citizens. The citizens of America can effect the largest changes by making financial decisions that force corporations to respond.

Consider that recently people all over America made the decision to pay a little more for a wind-energy option from their Utility. Goldman-Sachs invested billions into wind energy, through their subisidiary, Horizon Energy, who has installed more wind power than anybody else.

Also consider that over 3 million homes in the US have installed solar PVs. Some have installed large systems that also power their electric cars.

Your pocketbook, and your associated decisions are very powerful!!! It's also contagious, and readily shows the backwardness of this Administration.
Click to expand...
I agree, wHat this country needs is a good dose of action from it's citizens. They should vote out these Republicans who give us these ass-backwards policies. This wouldn’t have happened if HRC was president — but, but her emails.
 
MTAtech said:
That's what we need to do, protect coal. Put aside for a minute that it's a bad idea, whatever happened to the idea of government not picking winners and losers? This is what happens when one puts a coal lobbyist in charge of the EPA. You know what you also get? This:

[h=1]Cost of New E.P.A. Coal Rules: Up to 1,400 More Deaths a Year[/h]Glad they're making America great.
Click to expand...


Well you know how it goes....some are against something until they're not. The more telling aspect of this is that natural gas has been the free market solution, yet now this isn't good so government has to step in.

:doh
 
MTAtech said:
That's what we need to do, protect coal. Put aside for a minute that it's a bad idea, whatever happened to the idea of government not picking winners and losers? This is what happens when one puts a coal lobbyist in charge of the EPA. You know what you also get? This:

[h=1]Cost of New E.P.A. Coal Rules: Up to 1,400 More Deaths a Year[/h]Glad they're making America great.
Click to expand...

Fossil fuels (total) 2,651 63.5%
Natural gas 1,468 35.1%
Coal 1,146 27.4%


there is no plan yet to replace those plant with something else right now
so ensuring that people can still get affordable energy to their homes is important.

so what is your problem with providing cheap and good energy to people?
 
ludin said:
Fossil fuels (total) 2,651 63.5%
Natural gas 1,468 35.1%
Coal 1,146 27.4%


there is no plan yet to replace those plant with something else right now
so ensuring that people can still get affordable energy to their homes is important.

so what is your problem with providing cheap and good energy to people?
Click to expand...
First, that doesn't explain why industry needs to be encouraged by government to use coal, instead of the natural market forces.
Second:
A new report reveals 42% of global coal capacity is currently unprofitable, and the United States could save $78 billion by closing coal-fired power plants in line with the Paris Climate Accord’s climate goals. This industry-disrupting trend comes down to dollars and cents, as the cost of renewable energy dips below fossil fuel generation.
Click to expand...
 
MTAtech said:
First, that doesn't explain why industry needs to be encouraged by government to use coal, instead of the natural market forces.
Second:
Click to expand...

The market forces are deciding. at some point in time coal will no longer but useful.
however right now in the US it is still heavily used.

The key thing is to let those market forces shove it out while building better energy plants.
what it doesn't mean is that you do what obama did and drive up energy cost for people.
and set regulations on thing that there is not even technology for.
 
ludin said:
The market forces are deciding. at some point in time coal will no longer but useful.
however right now in the US it is still heavily used.

The key thing is to let those market forces shove it out while building better energy plants.
what it doesn't mean is that you do what obama did and drive up energy cost for people.
and set regulations on thing that there is not even technology for.
Click to expand...

Take a look at the numbers - before 2008 - very little solar. Thank you Barack Obama!!! And these people aren't paying higher energy costs - some are paying next to nothing for electricity.
Solar_PV_Capacity_US.JPG
 
AliHajiSheik said:
I wouldn't have expected you to be an advocate for government not picking winners and losers, but good for you.

“If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them,”--Former President of the United State.
Click to expand...

Of course, if you change the laws, and let the coal plant kill 1400 people, they might not go bankrupt wasting money on keeping the air clean....so 1400 people don't die.
 
Media_Truth said:
Take a look at the numbers - before 2008 - very little solar. Thank you Barack Obama!!! And these people aren't paying higher energy costs - some are paying next to nothing for electricity.
View attachment 67258507
Click to expand...

Why did it drop so significantly in 2017? Is 2016 incorrect?
 
As long as renewables are unsustainable economically (cost, limitations) and need government "incentives" they'll never take off. Obama's EPA rules were overly burdensome and not going to make a whit of difference to climate, but they were imapcting everyday American's wallets by forcing higher costs on them.
 
Renae said:
As long as renewables are unsustainable economically (cost, limitations) and need government "incentives" they'll never take off. Obama's EPA rules were overly burdensome and not going to make a whit of difference to climate, but they were imapcting everyday American's wallets by forcing higher costs on them.
Click to expand...

Renewables are becoming more and more competitive.

Renewable energy prices have fallen - this is how much | World Economic Forum

Why Republican Leaders Love Renewable Energy

There the goverment support to accomplish the needed economy of scale and technological development is much smaller than the trillions of dollars spent on intervention in the Middle East during the last decades.

Also lot less than the unpaid social and enviromental cost of fossil fuels.

Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies Remain Large: An Update Based on Country-Level Estimates
 
Reading through the above posts, I noted a paucity of data and, for lack of a better term, nuance. Phrases such as 'higher prices' were not indexed to an amount. [Ed.: Put simply, how much higher would the price be?]

Such 'discussions' quickly reach a LCD in which folks quote 'talking points' to each other. Perhaps, just perhaps, mind you, there's something to be said for intellectualism after all.
 
Too much work to put a caption on? Two people in that photo are ex admin.....
 
JustHanging said:
Of course, if you change the laws, and let the coal plant kill 1400 people, they might not go bankrupt wasting money on keeping the air clean....so 1400 people don't die.
Click to expand...

Are you advocating for or against government picking winners and losers?
 
Renae said:
As long as renewables are unsustainable economically (cost, limitations) and need government "incentives" they'll never take off. Obama's EPA rules were overly burdensome and not going to make a whit of difference to climate, but they were imapcting everyday American's wallets by forcing higher costs on them.
Click to expand...

See post #16. Over 3 millions homes in the US have installed solar PV systems. Netmetered Solar PV systems hold down the cost of electricity for all consumers, because, as peak-load producers, they prevent the need to build additional power plants, the primary driver of increased electricity costs.

I got a quote to install a 2nd solar PV system, and gave my provider the OK. He is so busy, he cannot start until late FALL. By the way my background - BS in Electrical Engineering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom