Obama: Power plant rule will shrink power prices

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy: "This is not just about disappearing polar bears or melting ice caps. This is about protecting our health and our homes. This is about protecting local economies and jobs"
Associated Press
Jun 2, 2014

 

In a sweeping initiative to curb pollutants blamed for global warming, the Obama administration unveiled a plan Monday aimed at cutting carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by nearly a third by 2030. But it delays the deadline for some states to begin complying until long after President Barack Obama leaves office.

The 645-page plan, expected to be finalized next year, is a centerpiece of Obama's efforts to deal with climate change and seeks to give the United States more leverage to prod other countries to act when negotiations on a new international treaty resume next year. Under the plan, carbon emissions are to be reduced 30 percent from 2005 levels, in what would amount to one of the most significant U.S. actions on global warming.

Obama, in a conference call hosted by the American Lung Association, said the plan would both shrink electricity prices and protect the health of vulnerable Americans. He scolded critics who he predicted would contend anew that the limits would crush jobs and damage the economy.

"What we've seen every time is that these claims are debunked when you actually give workers and businesses the tools and the incentives they need to innovate," Obama said.

The proposal sets off a complex regulatory process, steeped in politics, in which the 50 states will each determine how to meet customized targets set by the Environmental Protection Agency, then submit those plans for approval.

"This is not just about disappearing polar bears or melting ice caps," said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. "This is about protecting our health and our homes. This is about protecting local economies and jobs."

Some states will be allowed to emit more pollutants and others less, leading to an overall, nationwide reduction of 30 percent.

Many states that rely heavily on coal will be spared from cutting a full 30 percent. West Virginia, for example, must reduce the pollution it puts out per amount of power by 19 percent compared to the rate in 2012. Ohio's target is 28 percent less, while Kentucky and Wyoming will have to find ways to make 18 percent and 19 percent cuts in their electricity generation's efficiency.

On the other extreme, New York has a 44 percent target, EPA figures show. But New York already has joined with other Northeast states to curb carbon dioxide from power plants, reducing the baseline figure from which cuts must be made. States like New York can get credit for actions they've already taken, lest they be punished for taking early action.

Initially, Obama wanted each state to submit its plan by June 2016. But the draft proposal shows states could have until 2017 — and 2018, if they join with other states.

That means even if the rules survive legal and other challenges, the dust won't likely settle on this transformation until well into the next administration, raising the possibility that political dynamics in either Congress or the White House could alter the rule's course.

Although Obama doesn't need a vote in Congress to approve his plans, lawmakers in both the House and Senate have already vowed to try to block them — including Democratic Rep. Nick Rahall, who faces a difficult re-election this year in coal-dependent West Virginia. Scuttling the rules could be easier if Republicans take the Senate in November and then the White House in 2016.

Another potential flash point: The plan relies heavily on governors agreeing to develop plans to meet the federal standard. If Republican governors refuse to go along, as was the case with Obama's expansion of Medicaid, the EPA can create its own plan for a state. But the specifics of how EPA could force a state to comply with that plan remain murky.

S. William Becker, who heads the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, said it was good that the rule will give states more time to develop strategies and will grant credit for previous steps to cut emissions.

"Still, the regulatory and resource challenges that lie ahead are daunting," Becker said.

Power plants are the largest U.S. source of greenhouse gases, accounting for about a third of the annual emissions. EPA data show power plants have already reduced carbon dioxide emissions by nearly 13 percent since 2005, meaning they are about halfway to meeting the administration's goal.

The EPA projected that carrying out the plan will cost up to $8.8 billion annually in 2030, but the actual costs will depend heavily on how states choose to reach their targets. The administration argued that any costs to comply are far outweighed by savings in health expenses that the U.S. will realize thanks to reductions in other pollutants such as soot and smog that will accompany a shift away from dirtier fuels.

Environmental groups hailed the proposal, praising both the climate effects and the public health benefits they said would follow. Former Vice President Al Gore, a prominent environmental advocate, called it "the most important step taken to combat the climate crisis in our country's history."

But energy advocates sounded alarms, warning of economic drag. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., called the proposal "a dagger in the heart of the American middle class."

"If these rules are allowed to go into effect, the administration for all intents and purposes is creating America's next energy crisis," said Mike Duncan of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, which represents the coal industry.

Options for states to meet the targets include making power plants more efficient, reducing the frequency at which coal-fired power plants supply power to the grid, and investing in more renewable, low-carbon sources of energy. States could also enhance programs aimed at reducing demand by making households and businesses more energy-efficient. Each of those categories will have a separate target.

Coal once supplied about half the nation's electricity, but has dropped to 40 percent amid a boom in natural gas and renewable sources such as wind and solar. Although the new emissions cuts will further diminish coal's role, the EPA predicted that it would remain a leading source of electricity in the U.S., providing more than 30 percent of the projected supply.

Obama has already tackled the emissions from the nation's cars and trucks, announcing rules to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by doubling fuel economy. That standard will reduce carbon dioxide by more than 2 billion tons over the lives of vehicles made in model years 2012-25.

Comments

Darwin's choice

" If you like your plan/doctor/life...."

More hot air from the liar-in-charge.

obama/failing....still

JMOP's picture
JMOP

I agree Darwin. Too bad there's so many gullible people out there still.

Truth2u

Obama HIMSELF while interviewed said that energy prices under his plan will "SKYROCKET' He PERSONALLY said this here: http://youtu.be/HlTxGHn4sH4

Contango

Re: "If you like (snip)"

Spot on!

Re: "shrink power prices"

Yea, how many are saving that $2,500.00 annually in health ins. premiums he blathered about?

downthemiddle

More nonspeak...

8ballinthesidepocket

Another worthless,useless, over reaction by Obozo!!! As long as the rest of the world keeps using fossil fuels, ala China and Russia, we are grasping at straws if we think what we do matters. Say goodbye to affordable electric power and the rest of our steel industry. Just another tactic to make more and more people dependent upon the government. This guy is by far, not even close, the worst president ever. PERIOD!!!

downthemiddle

Think of the U.S.A. as a forest of 100 beautiful tall, solid trees.. planted in orderly rows and nourished with the blood of patriots. Each tree is a basic tenet of the Founding Fathers.

Liberals all have chainsaws, axes, knives, broken glass... in the 60's they used to chop at one tree at a time... now they have multiplied and dispersed and are chopping and damaging several trees at once, gleefully cutting into the bark and at least weakening it and rendering it susceptible to the poisons they exhale. Sometimes they are stopped in Congress by Conservatives. Undeterred, they slither back into the forest and start on an new tree in a dark corner.. until they are found out again and exposed.

The idea is to turn the forest into an uninhabitable wasteland that can sustain only the lowest forms of life.

jazzbo

bs

downthemiddle

... Ah... The first inhabitant of the forest has identified itself.

jazzbo

Your fanciful little story IS bs and you are one of the nuts ( right wing variety ) in that forest.

downthemiddle

slugs inhabit decayed trees and are blind, and you are blind to the obvious.

jazzbo

Your little forest specifically depends upon what you are referring to.

Until then, your light is darkness.

The Big Dog's back

The koch brothers spend a lot of money for people like rush to keep you right wingnuts ill-informed.

Darwin's choice

Everything he can throw out there to keep the Benghazi scandal, VA scandal, IRS scandal, obamacare scandal, Solyndra scandal, and the thousands of his other failures out of the headlines!!!

But, you keep polishing away dog! That terd isn't going to shine itself!

downthemiddle

dog... how are things in uaw paradise? There's a dues increase coming... 25% if you haven't heard.

It was the first item of business for the new uaw president and his lackeys.

wasthere

How much do unions spend for clowns like you?

downthemiddle

it used to b 2 hrs/ month... but rates are going 25% up later today.

A bargain at twice the price....

Just keep payin' those dues, boys... just keep payin' those dues.

doglegright

douche

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Headline: Unproved claim of a possible result from a favorable model
Subtitle: Expanding the specific topic to grasp every possible thing that exists
Body: Nothing to support or explain the headline's claim nor to offer counterpoint to it or the subtitle

Context: How many of these Congressional/Presidential claims have come true over the past ten years since they all like to add that as a suffix to things. Isn't it awesome to just be able to say things with no need to support them, elaborate, etc.? Then when it doesn't work the blame just goes to a convenient scapegoat which includes browbeating the general population as being too dumb to understand such advanced, enlightened thought in order to carry through the plans.

Aren't you all tired of basing massive, sweeping laws on infinite "could possibly", "up to", "over the next X years", or unspecified citations of supposed "top economists/scientists/etc."?

"The administration argued that any costs to comply are far outweighed by savings in health expenses that the U.S. will realize thanks to reductions in other pollutants such as soot and smog that will accompany a shift away from dirtier fuels." - What? According to whom? How is this even measured or predicted? Against which constants and using which methodologies? It is also ridiculous to somehow tie the two in a broad aggregate when the prices to/from each aren't related.

What irks me even more is the Republican response. Someone apparently woke up Sen. McConnell who managed to wipe away some drool and burp up idiotic hyperbole instead of addressing the issue thoughtfully and with lucid, factual counterpoints. If ever there were a case for term limits it is he and Sen. Reid.

As long as Republicans continue to support people and standards like that they will lose and I will stand off to the side and watch as the GOP is consumed in its own incendiary nonsense.

http://favim.com/orig/201103/26/...

jazzbo

Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan had something to say about pollution ,global warming , and greenhouse effect tonight on:

Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey
"The World Set Free"

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

That something being what and how does anything that is said on that show affect the breakdown of the story I provided?

In the mean time here's the EPA's own words: “To be clear, ambient concentrations of carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases, whether at current levels or at projected ambient levels under scenarios of high emissions growth over time, do not cause direct adverse health effects such as respiratory or toxic effects.”

https://www.federalregister.gov/...

If you'd like to read an interesting article that invokes this, check it out: http://www.americancommitment.or...

The quote at the end can sum up much of this discussion on climate cooling/warming/change/disruption pretty well: “But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation even among people who should and do know better.” - George Orwell

jazzbo

No,
You misunderstand.
It's not about Co2 being toxic (ie. directly).
Its about Co2 raising the Earth's temperature that causes problems (ie. indirectly).
Co2 is making the climate change.
Read a little bit more of that paragraph.

"To be clear, ambient concentrations of carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases, whether at current levels or at projected ambient levels under scenarios of high emissions growth over time, do not cause direct adverse health effects such as respiratory or toxic effects.
All public health risks and impacts described here as a result of elevated atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases occur via climate change.
The pathway or mechanism occurs through changes in climate, but the end result is an adverse effect on the health of the population. Thus these effects from climate change are appropriately denoted public health effects.-
.........
-The Administrator simply means to recognize, with the scientific community, that concentrations of greenhouse gases endanger public health through a wide range of pathways."

If you'd like to to watch an interesting show that invokes this, check it out: http://www.cosmosontv.com/watch/...
(The World Set Free)

The quote at the end can sum up much of this discussion on climate cooling/warming/change/disruption pretty well:

"There are none so blind as those that will not see.”
-Matthew Henry

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

I appreciate you taking me up on the offer to talk about things and offer resources for me to change my mind/opinion on something. I respect that greatly. That said, and in the interest of continuing the discussion I have a rebuttal for you, submitted respectfully:

I read the link I wrote as quotes are often cherry-picked. Context means a lot to me. But the context here is that even as you expanded upon is that these are just extremely broad extrapolations that conveniently fit whatever someone wants it to fit into. For example if we get one more day of spring earlier in winter due to "warming" we can just say "Oh so if a flower produces X amount of pollen and we get X+1 pollen that equals an aggregate Y amount of pollen. If we divide out Y pollen among Z population then take the percentage of a population that is allergic we get some increased amount of "suffering". We then assign to this the average cost of a Zyrtec as you'll need that extra one for the day (or the like) and come up with a completely reached-for "health cost" of warming.

How is it that the gas we are talking about, carbon dioxide, is a pollutant at all when it is a natural emanation from animals and a gas that is crucially needed for plants to live and our spinning rock in space to host life itself? I'm not advocating for coal plants to pump their smokestacks through orphanages to filter their emissions as they dump raw sewage into the local fishing pond. I'm just wishing that these conversations were more contextually honest and/or forthcoming.

By and far the largest in volume and in impact greenhouse gas is...water vapor. Clouds. Mist. Fog. Rain. Humidity. Water vapor is the largest contributor of greenhouse warming than even CO2 and we're piddling around with a distant second place chemical?

Compound - Formula - Contribution (%)
Water vapor and clouds - H2O - 36–72%
Carbon dioxide - CO2 - 9–26%
Methane - CH4 - 4–9%
Ozone - O3 - 3–7%

I'll also put out there that the phrase is man-made climate change. So what's being done about mankind? We're urinating in the wind if we accept that premise and then do nothing to cull our species. So now not only are we picking at the scraps of a second-place non-pollutant but we are also not even addressing the stated cause of the climate change itself!

That's what frustrates me about how disingenuous all this is. If it weren't enough can you tell me what "normal" climate is, jazzbo? When in the billions-long geological history of our planet have we ever had a normal or static climate? It has never, ever, ever happened. How do we as a species have the hubris to believe we know what the climate is supposed to be then control it to our unfounded whims?

I truly appreciate the discussion and even the quote at the end you provided. But one has to consider if there are those who see but simply have had blinders put on their peripherals to limit what they can see to only what someone else puts in front of them.

jazzbo

You didn't watch the link to Cosmos , did you ?

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

I did. Nothing in it addressed the "blinders" that I put forward about total context of the situation. Venus's proximity to the sun was swept under the rug quickly along with the fact its oceans were "lost to space". The two planets are not alike. Venus has no magnetic poles, something along with the lack of oceans that he would refer to as climate affecting parts of our planet in his walking the dog example. The atmosphere of Venus is about 96% CO2. Earth? .035%.

As for the sun's effects on our own climate being dismissed in a sentence or two? It was said later in the show about how massively important it is! Which is it? Though if we want to incorporate the sun into things we can look at an astrophysicist who writes about this topic extensively.

"In other words, after perhaps billions of dollars invested in climate research over more than three decades, our ability to answer the most important question in climate has not improved a single bit!" - Professor Nir Shaviv, PhD Astrophysics (http://sciencebits.com/about)
http://sciencebits.com/AR5-First...

The show didn't even address water vapor, but it mentioned that man at large is chiefly responsible for the increase in the second-place non-pollutant gas. Ok fine, let's buy that. So...where was the plan to reduce man's population? We can convert to solar all we want but if we are accepting that we are THE cause of climate change, the climate will only continue to change as long as there are more and more of us.

Again, urinating in the wind.

On top of that there's the fact that we can only do so much in two ways:

1. China and India each have about three times our populations making what we do a drop in the bucket.
2. Law of Diminishing Returns. "A concept in economics that if one factor of production (number of workers, for example) is increased while other factors (machines and workspace, for example) are held constant, the output per unit of the variable factor will eventually diminish."

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.co...

There is only so much we can do or spend before any further gains are either negated or so exponentially expensive that they are illogical or unreasonable to pursue.

Please understand, jazzbo, I am not a "denier" and I sure as heck am not making this political. The fact it has been made political is disgusting. But if we're talking the cold hand of science, we need to look at all the data. Simplifying it to "humans and CO2" is disingenuous. Even the way we collect the data isn't consistent either throughout a short amount of time (last 100 years), the location of samples, or the scandals about legit data that was then manipulated to a pre-determined outcome.

For example: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.c...

Let's not even take into consideration the placement of such instruments isn't consistent. What about weather stations placed on poles in parking lots or near exhausts?

http://www.surfacestations.org/o...

I'm not a "climate denier" by any means (not saying you called me one), but I'm a "climate realist" who tries to look at things from many different angles and doesn't support pre-determined outcomes as is the push now. Just because you throw "climate change effects" onto a report I guess you can get more money to research something? But then it becomes a bought study and self-fulfilling prophecy where government agencies give money to people to research things that they will continue to use to a political advantage or point out "where are the studies that say otherwise?" when none are funded, considered, or we have irresponsible people like the President declaring conversations over.

When the hell does that happen in science?!

Climatologist Dr. David Legates tells the U.S. Senate of ‘the silencing of the dissenters’: ‘Young scientists quickly learn to ‘do what is expected of them’ or at least remain quiet, lest they lose their career before it begins’
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public...

Submitted respectfully for your consideration, jazzbo, and the consideration of all others who are following our discussion.

jazzbo

I would love to watch a debate between Neil DeGrasse Tyson and you.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Thank you, these are all points I would bring up. But I doubt he has the time or interest to come to Sandusky for such a thing. What about you though? Refute something I said if you feel it is incorrect. I'm not a perfect person.

jazzbo

Since your rebuttal has refuted Neil DeGrasse Tyson , what chance would I have to try and refute you ?

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

I'll toss out a Bushism for your humor and encourage you to not "misunderestimate" yourself. Just think about it. I have layed out the premise of my thoughts. What is the linchpin to it all?

jazzbo

bs ?

jazzbo

You like to surround yourself with people who agree with you ?

(We all do that - that's why truth is the great equalizer.)

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

If I surrounded myself with people I only agree with I am in the wrong profession let alone the wrong place to comment. I'm knee-deep in diverse opinions here let alone at the shop. In fact I even invited Biz to join us here from another thread (http://www.sanduskyregister.com/...).

We do in fact all do it to some degree or another. I don't know what you read or from where you get your ideas but I've cited my sources and can tell you that I hop over to HuffPo regularly as well as WSJ. But back to being surrounded by like-minds...as it is something found on both sides of the equation it is rather easy to remove from it altogether and focus on what's left.

I accepted the terms that were put forth by both you and (why are we using his full name?) Neil deGrasse Tyson. Hmm is it a "Niel" thing because there's also Niel Patrick Harris? Anyway, my counterpoints so to speak were built upon the very premises that were put out there but we still see that we don't have an answer if looked at from this perspective. The linchpin I referred to was humanity at large. Every argument to which I responded (accepting humans as the problem) still doesn't address humanity. It's apparently the elephant in the room because it is the source of everything yet nobody wants to do anything about it?

If I fall and impale my lung does the doctor give me a new, donor lung but never remove the object? Does he just slide the new lung down what's causing the injury and hope the new lung just kind of heals around it? Or does the doctor remove the problem, patch the lung, and I live with what's left? That's the problem I have with these arguments. We can talk about CO2 until we're blue in the face but that doesn't actually address what will only continue to make more CO2 no matter how many solar panels we put up at any cost. This is what I told Biz earlier:

"Until there are less of us, according to the term "man-made climate change" there is little that can be done despite ways being changed. Man by definition is the problem, the zero patient, the "dioxide Mary". Solar panels and such are a band-aid on a sucking chest wound if it is actually the people of the planet who are causing it through their need to sustain themselves, be productive, and live ever-increasing amounts of time."

"But Hero Zone," you may start to ask instead of calling BS, "are you saying that you want to decimate our species? What kind of breeding program would you select for us to use if you're such a blathering (hat tip Pter) know-it-all?"

That's a great question, jazzbo. I don't advocate any of that. What I do advocate is that the world will always change so we need to let go of the notion that we can control the climate and learn to adapt with it it harmony. Species die out and adapt/thrive every day as they have for countless years. The world cycles in and out repeatedly. We're along for the ride. We can try to make it more comfortable but we're still strapped into it without hope of escape.

On a side note George Carlin had a great bit about this, though it does have some NSFW language so use discretion: http://youtu.be/NL8HP1WzbDk

So for those who think they can offer escape (for example the President saying he can lower the sea level) that is ignorant and deceitful. If you want to actually serve humanity during this "change", they need education, conversation, and context. Not closed minds, false hope, and rhetoric.

Not saying you are purposely spreading the three things above, but I'm throwing it out there for all to consider.

jazzbo

.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

I watched it, the whole thing. Pinky promise. I sat through it and watched it else I'd be wasting both our times by not doing so. If you are alluding to something just say it. Telling me to rewatch something without anything else isn't going to do much to help. What do you think I missed so I can go back and analyze it.

jazzbo

.

jazzbo

"What I do advocate is that the world will always change so we need to let go of the notion that we can control the climate and learn to adapt with it it harmony."

So just keep on doing what we've been doing and everything is gonna be alright ?

jazzbo

sorry im messing this all up

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

You're fine, I appreciate the dialog. Nothing I have said above is advocating for more of the same. You'll notice that I even said I drive a hybrid and use an electric lawn mower. But what I am still attempting to convey is that people who claim to be able to halt or reverse such a massive, natural process are selling climate-flavored snakeoil and making bank on the fears of others who are largely uneducated on the issue.

Their sensationalizing of man made climate change is insulting, quite immoral, and hurts the process more than helps it. It's ironic especially for those who purport to follow no religion and chastise others for theirs but defend such prophecies their own sorcerers conjure from their crystal-ball computers. Religion is a separate topic so I don't want to dwell on it here. We can exchange ideas on that elsewhere. It was only a metaphor here.

But still, we can point fingers to CO2 and humans all we want but nothing is actually being done about it except spend more money telling us the same things we already know. Don't you find it frustrating that even the loudest voices that claim to perpetuate climate truths and squelch the non-believers aren't doing anything to address what it is they shout about?

When we convert every source of energy to wind and solar and we are still killing our planet, what else is left? Where did the money, wisdom, and prevention go when we face what is actually our eventuality if things continue. CO2 is a great smokescreen for being colorless. All kinds of money and political favors pass behind it, unseen despite the transparency of the very substance about which we are whipped up into a froth to abhor (and exhaling profusely as we hurr-durr to "deniers" in the process).

jazzbo

Did you listen to but not hear Neil DeGrasse? Because all your points are, pretty much , addressed by him.

And as for :" Nothing I have said above is advocating for more of the same."

I never implied anything about MORE , I just said if we keep doing what we've been doing ie. maintaining the status quo .
(Is there something wrong about advocating more ?)

But even if we did burn more fossil fuels , it'll be ok , because (according to your hypothesis) we will adapt to it. Right?

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

We'll adapt or die, just as we will if we burn less fossil fuels and the climate will continue to change as it has for billions of years. Just as the whole of the natural world has done since...ever. Adapt or die. Ask any plant or animal in our natural history. The change is happening with or without us. We may very well be accelerating it at some pace, but there is nothing we can actually do about it in the long run.

The mile-high glaciers will come, the ice caps will melt. Fossil records show ocean where there is currently none. The moon will continue to drift away from us. Our sun will go nova and consume the planet extinguishing all life and every trace of humanity from existence itself.

That said, I appreciate storm sewers and dynamite-free fishing today. I appreciate a fine day on my bicycle during this summer. What I don't appreciate are hubris-filled politicians (or those that parrot their words without a question or other thought) that make claims they can literally move the earth and heavens, provide no context for the things they say, declare any such debate over, and just expect to stop a natural force that always has and always occur no matter what they make money off of by legally obligating others to do.

The above is not calling you nor Dr. Tyson as such. There is a great quote that supports this entire conversation we are having. A conversation that I appreciate being civil and informative.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow." - Men in Black, 1997

jazzbo

"What I don't appreciate are hubris-filled politicians (or those that parrot their words without a question or other thought) that make claims they can literally move the earth and heavens, provide no context for the things they say, declare any such debate over, and just expect to stop a natural force that always has and always occur no matter what they make money off of by legally obligating others to do."

-- Why are you lashing out at the politicians? Isn't it the scientists who are making the claims ?
You should be lashing out at the scientists.

If 97% of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities...according to NASA....well, I think something is going on.

To wrap this up , here are a few sites:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientif...
http://theconsensusproject.com/#...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/...
http://ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-ch...

Darwin's choice

" If there were a case for term limits it is he (McConnell) and Sen.Reid."

Amen.

doglegright

If this plan is going to "shrink electricity prices" then what are we waiting for? Why enact this after he leaves office?

The truth is it won't plan and simple. When is this guy going to be gone?

Ralph J.

This is about protecting our health and our homes. This is about protecting local economies and jobs. Really?

dontknowmuch

People like Big Dog lap it up like there's no tomorrow... when in our history have government regulations saved us money? I'll see if Big Dog can come up with five instances.

downthemiddle

dog laps it up alright... just like he laps the boots of the folks over at uaw 913... nice and shiny!

poor dog.... he is the product of the uaw and it's brainwashing of members to vote democrat.... often against their own best personal interests. When someone votes against things they believe in just because some musclehead in a uaw shirt told them to, that's the definition of "brainwashed".

YoMamma

Gas regulation! Well maybe that's not such a good one.

2cents's picture
2cents

I always figured there was a shortage of Oxygen in the DC area. The comments coming out of that region recently have proved this theory : )

Maggdi

“Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket, regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad, because I’m capping greenhouse gases,” Obama said. “Coal power plants, natural gas, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money onto consumers.”........Senator Obama 2008

Contango

Pres. Obama:

"What we've seen every time is that these claims are debunked when you actually give workers and businesses the tools and the incentives they need to innovate,"

Note the word: "Incentives."

I.e., tax subsidies, bribery, smoke and mirrors, govt. largess.

If a U.S. co. uses "incentives" to get a foreign co. or govt. to buy it's product or service it's illegal.

If the govt. uses "incentives" to perform social engineering it's legal.

To the Spender-in-Chief any wild-eyed socialistic scheme is possible if enough taxpayer debt is thrown at it.

FORWARD SOVIET!

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Actually as I took "incentive" it was a recognition that the government makes everything more difficult and expensive so if you want to survive, start a business, or attempt to earn a profit. So, you have been incentivized to innovate, manipulate, find loopholes, or to otherwise circumnavigate the ever-increasing roadblocks that are put before you.

It's interesting when you pay attention to the words used by these people.

Truth2u

Wage the dogs tail to get the press off the real issues and CRIMES of this demonic administration.

SamAdams

Interesting logic being used by Obozo here:

Make sure power generation costs a boatload more money; claim this will LOWER the rates charged by the companies spending the boatloads.

Does anybody need any MORE evidence that the man is an utter economic illiterate?

Really are you ...

"what we've seen every time is that these claims are debunked when you actually give workers and businesses the tools and incentives they need to innovate."

"But energy advocates sounded alarms... call(ing) the proposal 'a dagger in the heart of the American people."

"if these rules are allowed to go into effect, the administration for all intent and purposes is creating America's next energy crisis."

"Obama has already tackled the emissions from the nations cars and trucks... By doubling fuel economy."

Government doesn't care about the so called "global warming." The government wants more money from the middle class in the form of new taxes. Innovate? Workers and businesses given tools to "Innovate." I haven't even been given a pair of shoes for all of the runaround I have been given. What that really means is wait until one of the big companies save the day. Money stays at the top, which is backed by big oil.

A dagger in the heart of the middle class! Exactly! But with what I want to create, the middle class could remove two public utilities and drive a zero recharge electric car. More money to the middle class, and that can't happen, in the eyes of big government.

America's next energy crisis is preventable, but to maintain total control...

Obama's double fuel efficiency, that is just kicking the can. You are still combusting, but it is a good thing though. People have to drive further for employment.

Innovation, SSPEG. Self Sustaining Personal Electric Generator. No external forces needed. People say you can't do that.
And I say you can' t breathe underwater either, but you can with SCUBA gear. Neither are perpetual, and no laws are broke.

Fordman

Done with the Democratic BS. Seems they are hell bent on destroying the middle class. Voting republican, or stop voting all together. Making it harder and harder to live anymore.

Dr. Information

Climate change is now racist. Didn't you guys here.

eriemom

Thank you for the invitation to join this conversation Hero Zone.

"How is it that the gas we are talking about, carbon dioxide, is a pollutant at all when it is a natural emanation from animals and a gas that is crucially needed for plants to live and our spinning rock in space to host life itself? I'm not advocating for coal plants to pump their smokestacks through orphanages to filter their emissions as they dump raw sewage into the local fishing pond. I'm just wishing that these conversations were more contextually honest and/or forthcoming."

Carbon Dioxide does exist in nature. Plants do use it to produce glucose, fructose and starch. The growth of plants does accelerate, with the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Up to a point. Then the increase has no affect. It is this carbon that is returned to the atmosphere in the processes of digestion and cellular respiration.(short-term cycle)

Much of this carbon was trapped early in Earth's history -- fossil fuels(geological cycle; long-term). We are now releasing this carbon. The main contributing cause is, as you have observed, exponential human population growth. Put simply: more humans = more cows + more energy required.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Thanks for the reply, too, eriemom! I'll reply to each of your posts as you broke them out.

As for this one...I can't disagree because I don't. I can only point out that as much as we are clearly and unequivocally pointing the finger at mankind when it comes time to do something about it everyone pointing looks in another direction going, "Um, er, well...CO2, uhhhh, solar flares and...hmmm...oh hey it's time to go do more science, bye! Remember that humans are the cause, too! See ya!"

eriemom

"By and far the largest in volume and in impact greenhouse gas is...water vapor. Clouds. Mist. Fog. Rain. Humidity. Water vapor is the largest contributor of greenhouse warming than even CO2 and we're piddling around with a distant second place chemical?"

Increased water temperature produces more water vapor which condenses to form clouds. The cloud formation can act to reflect some radiant energy back into space. The ocean (even though we name our water world by location) is heating up.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

The clouds can act to reflect sunlight, yes. But it still doesn't go against the fact it is by volume the largest greenhouse gas. Yet it is never talked about or incorporated especially as it is emitted by humans, cars, and power plants as well (alongside carbon dioxide). Even solar boilers would put it into the atmosphere where none would have been before.

If the temperatures are in fact rising then ultimately...so what? What can we actually do about it? Again I'm not playing Devil's advocate for a Captain Planet villain. How are we as a species going to the cool the ocean to what we think it "should be" let alone maintain it as such into perpetuity? This isn't the planet's first warming rodeo and the process of ice caps melting is what could actually end up leading to another ice age as the salinity of the water decreases changing the currents which then recool the poles.

We may as well try to stop the tides, too, since their sloshing around is slowing the Earth's rotation leading to longer and longer days as the moon also drifts further and further from us every year. There are some things that we just have no control over as a species. Yes, we can recycle. I do. We can drive hybrids and use electric lawnmowers, both of which I also do. But we are still going to see man-made effects if there is man to make them.

eriemom

"That's what frustrates me about how disingenuous all this is. If it weren't enough can you tell me what "normal" climate is, jazzbo? When in the billions-long geological history of our planet have we ever had a normal or static climate? It has never, ever, ever happened. How do we as a species have the hubris to believe we know what the climate is supposed to be then control it to our unfounded whims?"

Key to understanding why it is imperative that we act is your own explanation, "geologic history." Climate, and therefore weather, has changed over Earth's history. Slowly. Man is causing an abrupt change.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

This is the third point at which you and I agree, eriemom. I am happy we do so, too, and appreciate you joining in this very important topic!

I suppose it'd be redundant but in response to "Man is causing an abrupt change" I can only ask..."So what are we gonna do about man?". We have apparently nailed down THE cause for climate change. So now what? We caught the cattle rustler but our posse is just standing in a circle looking at each other going "yeah, he's a bad guy, let's do something to him" but nobody is offering a solution.

If you go back and look at the chart I put up from Dr. Shaviv we as a species have spent billions, maybe trillions (globally) over thirty years to make almost no progress whatsoever. Why is that? How much more time and money is going to be wasted sitting on thumbs about how to address the problem that the index finger of the same hand is pointing towards?

eriemom

Lastly, an explanation about why Venus is included in this discussion.

Venus is considered Earth's sister planet because it is similar in mass and distance from the Sun. The planet's mass is great enough so that it should have been able to trap water molecules. It didn't. The water literally burned off and was released into space. You need to picture the atoms reaching escape velocity with an increases heat input.

The sulfur and carbon in its atmosphere causes a greenhouse blanket which traps heat. The temperature surface is much greater than it should be if only the distance from the Sun is considered. Solar output and measured radiant energy are not enough to explain the planet's temperature. The cause is the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

jazzbo

eriemom-

You make sense to me.
The show made sense to me.
But Dr. Hero disagrees.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

I'm not a doctor but you'll notice the only thing I disagree with (partially at that) is how similar Venus is to Earth. Her other points we agree upon and are consistent. What is missing (to me) from her, you, and the show is is follow through. All three point to mankind as THE cause of climate change. Fine, I'll buy that premise as I have this whole time.

As to addressing it? So far there have been no proposals to deal with reducing man. Are we going to keep blaming the bullet and talking about its rifling pattern, caliber, and ballistic physics or are we going to actually address the shooter who according to our calculations will only continue to fire more and bigger bullets?

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Again I cannot go against what you say broadly. But there are still so many variances between the two planets who could well be more like distant cousins than sisters. Venus's atmosphere is 100x thicker than ours. Venus also has a tiny fraction of the magnetism that Earth has. How could that be relevant? Beyond it being an indication of tectonics (that affects climate dramatically) consider this experiment: http://www.exploratorium.edu/sna...

Water reacts to magnetic force. Now imagine the Earth's field on the oceans and the oceans contributing to climate by evaporation, heat storage, currents, etc.

Those points aside, from the fact that CO2 does help trap heat (especially when it is 96% of the atmosphere), it is very awkward to point to Venus as Earth's future as the video alluded to it becoming. I by no means hold a doctorate in a science field but these seem to at least be layman questions in astrophysics that can be brought up for exploration. Articles like this help bridge an understanding to amateurs like myself: http://www.universetoday.com/225...