President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency has devoted an unprecedented number of bureaucrats to finalizing new anti-coal regulations that are set to be released at the end of November, according to a source inside the EPA.
More than 50 EPA staff are now crashing to finish greenhouse gas emission standards that would essentially ban all construction of new coal-fired power plants. Never before have so many EPA resources been devoted to a single regulation. The independent and non-partisan Manhattan Institute estimates that the EPA’s greenhouse gas coal regulation will cost the U.S. economy $700 billion.
President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency has devoted an unprecedented number of bureaucrats to finalizing new anti-coal regulations that are set to be released at the end of November, according to a source inside the EPA.
More than 50 EPA staff are now crashing to finish greenhouse gas emission standards that would essentially ban all construction of new coal-fired power plants. Never before have so many EPA resources been devoted to a single regulation. The independent and non-partisan Manhattan Institute estimates that the EPA’s greenhouse gas coal regulation will cost the U.S. economy $700 billion.
These people really are dumber than rocks.
do you have a link or are we just supposed to take your "unbiased opinions"? I visited the Manhattan Institute website, and it appears that their opinion is quite different than that skewed above. Yes, in order for coal powered plants to become efficient to reduce their pollution, it will require $700 billion, but that is over many many years. That number is the cost to replace every single coal powered facility with newer technology over the next 30 - 50 years. That replacement would have to be done regardless of a single regulation. In fact, according to the Manhattan Institute, the new EPA regs will not cost industries a single additional dollar. Coal powered plants are immensely expensive. For example the single coal powered plant that IREA has "invested" $125 million of member's funds without discussion is just 1/3 of the cost of a single plant. Natural gas has become less expensive to operate and much more efficient than coal and is just as plentiful if not more so.
Further, the "crash course" by the EPA is due to legislation enacted by Congress. The EPA is simply implementing the laws of the land as set forth by Congress and as interpreted by the Supreme Court requiring them to treat the dirty emissions from coal as "pollution" and greenhouse gases.
But hey, why waste a good outrage on facts.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Obama's EPA has already here in Colorado forced Xcel to shutter working coal plants and build new natural gas facilities and passed the costs onto the Colorado consumers. Thanks you Obama's EPA, screw the consumer again. After we have lost household wealth in the last four years, and seen takehome pay decline.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Please? Thank you! I am curious as what these regulations are exactly, because I haven't seen anything that indicates a total ban on coal plants. Implementing stricter emissions standards (that are still too lax, IMO), yes; a total ban, no.
I think the people like Bloomberg jumping on the climate bandwagon just because of one storm are the true idiots, but there is little doubt to the correlation between storm intensity due to warming of the oceans (as seen by the increase in more powerful storms, nor the amount of damage that it can do due to higher sea levels pushing water inland more). To continue on the fossil fuel path as we have is beyond stupid. The story I saw someone else post about small business owners balking at loans (and wanting free handouts) to recover from the damage due to this storm is what I see as just the tip of the iceberg. North America most affected by increase in weather-related natural catastrophes
17 October 2012 | Reinsurance
Press release
A new study by Munich Re shows that North America has been most affected by weather-related extreme events in recent decades. The publication "Severe weather in North America" analyzes all kinds of weather perils and their trends. It reports and shows that the continent has experienced the largest increases in weather-related loss events.
For the period concerned – 1980 to 2011 – the overall loss burden from weather catastrophes was US$ 1,060bn (in 2011 values).The insured losses amounted to US$ 510bn, and some 30,000 people lost their lives due to weather catastrophes in North America during this time frame.
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
FredHayek wrote: Obama's EPA has already here in Colorado forced Xcel to shutter working coal plants and build new natural gas facilities and passed the costs onto the Colorado consumers. Thanks you Obama's EPA, screw the consumer again. After we have lost household wealth in the last four years, and seen takehome pay decline.
which of course is untrue. Xcel phased out two old, outdated coal powered facilities to replace their capacity with higher efficiency cheaper natural gas.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
The larger issue here is that many enviro, financial and healthcare regulations are on hold until after the election. Lots of good stuff coming soon if Obama wins.
"Sources in regular contact with agencies say they've been told that new rules won’t resume until after the election, and many expect an avalanche of new major rules shortly afterward."
While I agree that the OP should have included the link, this certainly isn't the first time, nor will it be the last, that a link is forgotten.
[lmgtfy:1znkhpko]Environmental Protection Agency has devoted an unprecedented number of bureaucrats to finalizing new anti-coal regulations that are set to be released at the end of November, according to a source inside the EPA.[/lmgtfy:1znkhpko]
Experience enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again - Jeanne Pincha-Tulley
Comprehensive is Latin for there is lots of bad stuff in it - Trey Gowdy
Please? Thank you! I am curious as what these regulations are exactly, because I haven't seen anything that indicates a total ban on coal plants. Implementing stricter emissions standards (that are still too lax, IMO), yes; a total ban, no.
