Lisa Jackson's EPA...

[billvon 3,079]

>The company I work for as well as most others have little or no problem reducing what
>you list here

Then you and your company will have little or no problem meeting these regulations.

>It is the lie that coal is so dirty it should never be used

The EPA is not saying that.

If you have to lie to put the correct RushMC spin on things, you might be reaching just a tad too far away from reality. And the reality is that these regulations will reduce air pollution - which is something most people here support.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>The company I work for as well as most others have little or no problem reducing what
>you list here

Then you and your company will have little or no problem meeting these regulations.

>It is the lie that coal is so dirty it should never be used

The EPA is not saying that.

If you have to lie to put the correct RushMC spin on things, you might be reaching just a tad too far away from reality. And the reality is that these regulations will reduce air pollution - which is something most people here support.

Reducing air polution is a good thing
But the lie is the alarmists, not mine

The support comes from being fed a talking point line of bunk

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,079]

>Reducing air polution is a good thing

And the new EPA regulations will indeed reduce air pollution, as they have been doing for the past 40 years.

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

>About a perception that is less than turthful?

Nope. They don't like sulfur dioxides, mercury, arsenic, thorium or uranium in the air they breathe, and support actions that reduce those substances in the air. You can tell them that they're idiots, that you have no problem breathing that stuff - but apparently most of them disagree.

You are right that a lot of the stuff mentioned above are bad. Where the EPA crossed the line though is when they labeled CO2 a green house gas.

CO2 is a necessary part of the circle of life. It's what all life exhales, and it's what trees breath.

Since trees "exhale" oxygen, are we going to label that a green house gas next?

And what about limiting what people exhale? Are we going to implement fines to people who exercise because they produce more CO2? What about an athlete tax?

And don't forget to tax rain forests for producing deadly oxygen. trees and plants give off that deadly substance. If the atmosphere ever exceeded 21% who knows what kind of deadly ramifications it could have on the earth. Has anyone done a study yet? Better get on it. We may have to think about shipping some of the worlds oceans to outer space to ensure these numbers don't get off kilter.....

There is limiting pollution, and then there is sounding false alarms to further an agenda.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[hwt 0]

As President, Ron Paul will lead the fight to:

* Remove restrictions on drilling, so companies can tap into the vast amount of oil we have here at home.

* Repeal the federal tax on gasoline. Eliminating the federal gas tax would result in an 18 cents savings per gallon for American consumers.

* Lift government roadblocks to the use of coal and nuclear power.

* Eliminate the ineffective EPA. Polluters should answer directly to property owners in court for the damages they create – not to Washington.

* Make tax credits available for the purchase and production of alternative fuel technologies.

It’s time for a President that recognizes the free market’s power and innovative spirit by unleashing its full potential to produce affordable, environmentally sound, and reliable energy.

[brenthutch 444]

As evidenced by the last several threads on this subject, we can see that the left is pivoting from global warming to ocean acidification, peak oil, the evils of fracking, etc etc. They can not help themselves, it is a mental illness. They seem to think that one gets an "A" for intentions; without regard to the outcome. They do not have even the most basic understanding of economics (also known as social studies). Their minds live in a utopian would that is filled with "ifs" and "coulds". They are prone to saddling up their unicorns and taking the rainbow bride to fairy world. I agree completely with their goals but their methods are not of this world.

[brenthutch 444]

Utopian world
Rainbow bridge

[billvon 3,079]

>Where the EPA crossed the line though is when they labeled CO2 a green house gas.

None of the new regulations regulate CO2.

>CO2 is a necessary part of the circle of life. It's what all life exhales, and it's what
>trees breath.

Yes. Ozone is also a natural part of our environment, and indeed helps protect us from radiation. But too much will make you sick.

>If the atmosphere ever exceeded 21% who knows what kind of deadly ramifications
>it could have on the earth.

Let's say we did the same thing to oxygen that we did to CO2 and increased its concentration by 50%, to 33% total. Can you think of any drawbacks to such a change?

>There is limiting pollution

Which is what this set of EPA regulations does.

[billvon 3,079]

>They do not have even the most basic understanding of economics (also known as
>social studies).

Lee Iacocca: If the “EPA does not suspend the catalytic converter rule, it will cause Ford to shut down.” (1972)

Chrysler VP: Fuel economy standards might “outlaw a number of engine lines and car models including most full-size sedans and station wagons. It would restrict the industry to producing subcompact size cars—or even smaller ones—within five years.” (1974)

Ford executive: If CAFE becomes law, the move could result “in a Ford product line consisting either of all sub-Pinto sized vehicles…” (late 1970's)

After years of conservative lies, people tend to stop listening to the latest doom-and-gloom "THE EPA IS GOING TO KILL US ALL!" rhetoric. They've cried wolf one too many times.

[brenthutch 444]

"Let's say we did the same thing to oxygen that we did to CO2 and increased its concentration by 50%, to 33% total. Can you think of any drawbacks to such a change?"

Again with the straw man, percentage thing. Either you think that we are so dumb to believe this soft thinking or that you are. Either way it is not good.

[billvon 3,079]

>Again with the straw man, percentage thing.

Did you not understand the question?

[brenthutch 444]

Too much water can kill you, I don't need a government agency to regulate it for me.

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

Every report listed on this thread so far says that the new regulations will cost the Power companies $10.5 to $11 billion.

The only difference is the Pro-regulation agenda spins it as "new jobs" and "economic recovery".

The problem is, do the power companies have $11 billion lying around? I know with the talk of government debt and waste in the trillions, billions just doesn't seem like that much anymore, but let's face it, that is a metric butt ton of money. And when you forcibly take it from the electric companies, what is that going to do to our utilities, which effects the cost of all of our goods?

Bill makes it sound like all companies have all this money coming out of their wazoo. While they are sitting on their cash, I don't think individual companies are sitting on $11 billion.

But one thing is for sure, this article does show why companies are sitting on their cash. They never know what big brother is going to do next to try to run them out of business.

+1

[billeisele 130]

I'm late to the party. As said earlier:

>1 Companies will make a profit or fold
>Agreed.
Another part of this picture is that the profit must reflect a reasonable return on investment commensurate with the risk. Utilities are generally perceived as low risk. This allows them to have lower stock returns and access to cheap capital. Two critical components of low rates.

>2 Companies making a profit have to pass the costs on to the consumer to do so
>Or their shareholders.
Uhhh, no. Costs of doing business are part of the product cost paid by consumers. Yes one can pass some small costs to shareholders. If done regularly or if any appreciable costs are passed on it impacts the stock price (higher risk, lower return) and discourages investors (capital).

Regulated utilities are a strange beast: profits are regulated, have a fixed territory, and high oversight of business practices. They are extremly capital intensive with most equipment depreciated over 40 & 50 years. To make this work to the benefit of the customer they must have access to capital (investors). Investors require a return that is commenserate to risk.

The company credit rating and regulatory actions are 2 of those risks. As risks rise investors require a higher return, his means either lower profit or higher rates. Lower profit means lower credit ratings thus higher risk and investors demand a higher return. So over the long range rate increases are the only option. Managing costs (interest rates and stock returns) is critical to controlling rates.


>3 Companies will comply. They are complying
>Then no problem. Case closed.
We are complying and experiencing historical rate increases. This does not include any pending regulations just current ones.

>4 The regulators are going nuts. They are un-elected burocrats that push their agenda
>on the county through abusive regulation
>Poll results, Feb 2011: 64% of Americans think Congress should let the EPA do its job. 36% think they should interfere.

Most likely true. They want regulation but when power rates rise they complain - don't understand the linkage between the two.

Regulation is needed but it must be reasonable and all economic issues must be considered.

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

>Where the EPA crossed the line though is when they labeled CO2 a green house gas.

None of the new regulations regulate CO2.

Not yet anyway, although they can now. The EPA can regulate "green house gases" and they have just moved CO2 to that list. They are now set to start throwing up regulations.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1946095,00.html

Quote

>CO2 is a necessary part of the circle of life. It's what all life exhales, and it's what
>trees breath.

Yes. Ozone is also a natural part of our environment, and indeed helps protect us from radiation. But too much will make you sick.

Just like CO2. Maybe the EPA should start conducting studies to regulate ozone also...

Quote

>If the atmosphere ever exceeded 21% who knows what kind of deadly ramifications
>it could have on the earth.

Let's say we did the same thing to oxygen that we did to CO2 and increased its concentration by 50%, to 33% total. Can you think of any drawbacks to such a change?

Oxygen is very corrosive to the human body. Prolonged exposure to overly high concentrations causes what is called "Pulmonary O2 toxicity" which will feel like burning on inhalation and causes damage to the lungs. High concentrations for a short term can have healing effects, as used in hyperbarric treatments for burn victims. To much is bad.

It's almost like I'm seeing a trend here. Still do we need to regulate oxygen?

Quote

>There is limiting pollution

Which is what this set of EPA regulations does.

To bad anything, including some of the post here in SC can be labeled as a pollutant....

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[billvon 3,079]

>Too much water can kill you, I don't need a government agency to regulate it for me.

You do if you live under a dam. I bet even someone like yourself might want the dam above your house to be built to safe standards.

[billvon 3,079]

>It's almost like I'm seeing a trend here. Still do we need to regulate oxygen?

If we increased it by 50% by emitting it as a pollutant - we might. Indeed, once it started making people sick and burning down entire cities, any politician who said "what's the problem?" would quickly be voted out of office.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Too much water can kill you, I don't need a government agency to regulate it for me.

Just don't try and claim that it will hydrate you.....

[brenthutch 444]

Apparently according to the "peer reviewed" scientists it can not.

According to (some) science it is more important to be wrong in the right way than right in the wrong way.

[dks13827 3]

The EPA 'thinks' they are helping us.... yet they are destroying us, truly.

They are very stupid. Last I checked, we have clean air and water throughout the country, other than an occasional dust storm ( which they would ban if they could ).
I wonder if they would be happy if we lived in the 1800's again, and I think they would. Course, we would not be allowed to use firewood.

[billvon 3,079]

>The EPA 'thinks' they are helping us.... yet they are destroying us, truly.

Once again:

Lee Iacocca: If the “EPA does not suspend the catalytic converter rule, it will cause Ford to shut down.” (1972)

Chrysler VP: Fuel economy standards might “outlaw a number of engine lines and car models including most full-size sedans and station wagons. It would restrict the industry to producing subcompact size cars—or even smaller ones—within five years.” (1974)

Ford executive: If CAFE becomes law, the move could result “in a Ford product line consisting either of all sub-Pinto sized vehicles…” (late 1970's)

It's been 40 years since the last time people claimed the EPA would destroy us. How'd those predictions turn out?

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

>It's almost like I'm seeing a trend here. Still do we need to regulate oxygen?

If we increased it by 50% by emitting it as a pollutant - we might. Indeed, once it started making people sick and burning down entire cities, any politician who said "what's the problem?" would quickly be voted out of office.

True, but at the same time CO2 hasn't been proven a problem yet, and a lot of companies are already taking measures to limit it's release.

So why is the EPA getting involved again?

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything