Obama administration unveils controversial emissions cap on power plants

[kallend 2,156]

rushmc

***

Still waiting for you to tell us how many MILLIONS of TONS of CO2 your company spews into the atmosphere every year.

'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'

Put down the shovel and back away

So you don't want to tell us.

I wonder why? (Well not really, the Upton Sinclair quote says it all).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

kallend

******

Still waiting for you to tell us how many MILLIONS of TONS of CO2 your company spews into the atmosphere every year.

'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'

Put down the shovel and back away

So you don't want to tell us.

I wonder why? (Well not really, the Upton Sinclair quote says it all).

Cause I dont know
I dont work in generation

"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 3,121]

>Come on Bill, what happens under the same circumstances when a right wing
>president pushes something through w executive order and the Dems hold the
>house and the Rep hold the senate?

If it is enforcement of an existing law I don't like (like the Patriot Act?) Then I would be unhappy but I would not assume the President is "going around Congress." The law exists; Congress passed it. Congress can repeal it if they want to. If they don't want to? That's up to them.

[billvon 3,121]

>And CO2 is not polution

Sorry, the US Supreme Court disagrees with you. They win when it comes to deciding law.

[funjumper101 15]

For those that are massively ignorant of history, the program that Obama has put in place is right out of the Republican playbook.

Cap and Trade is a REPUBLICAN idea, first proposed by Republicans, to put in place a MARKET DRIVEN trading place for the right to pollute. The more a company plans to pollute, the more they pay for the privilege to do so. It is up to the companies to determine if paying for hardware to clean up emissions, or paying for pollutions credits, makes better business sense.

This was a big deal to the Republicans, not so long ago.

As usual, when the socialist black dude in that is now POTUS actually adopts something that the Republicans originally proposed, and the Democrats opposed at the time, the Republicans are all instantly opposed to their own ideas and policies.

How do you explain these facts, Marc?
Any other conservative followers care to take a crack at explaining why ideas and policies that start out from Republican origins magically become evil when the current POTUS comes out in favor of the ideas/policies?

I expect a profound silence, as there is no rational explanation for such behavior.

[billvon 3,121]

>How would you reduce CO2 emissions from these plants?

Several ways.

1) CCS (carbon capture/sequestration.) Several pilot plants that do this are already operating.

2) Cogeneration. Thermal coal plants use coal as a source of heat; the heat then is converted to electrical power via a Carnot cycle plant. Supplement that heat during the day with solar-thermal, use purely coal at night. (Same power generation equipment.) Result - significant reduction in CO2 generated per kwhr.

3) Fuel conversion to natural gas, either partial or full.

[rushmc 23]

funjumper101

For those that are massively ignorant of history, the program that Obama has put in place is right out of the Republican playbook.

Cap and Trade is a REPUBLICAN idea, first proposed by Republicans, to put in place a MARKET DRIVEN trading place for the right to pollute. The more a company plans to pollute, the more they pay for the privilege to do so. It is up to the companies to determine if paying for hardware to clean up emissions, or paying for pollutions credits, makes better business sense.

This was a big deal to the Republicans, not so long ago.

As usual, when the socialist black dude in that is now POTUS actually adopts something that the Republicans originally proposed, and the Democrats opposed at the time, the Republicans are all instantly opposed to their own ideas and policies.

How do you explain these facts, Marc?
Any other conservative followers care to take a crack at explaining why ideas and policies that start out from Republican origins magically become evil when the current POTUS comes out in favor of the ideas/policies?

I expect a profound silence, as there is no rational explanation for such behavior.

In fact it does not matter
Stupid is as stupid does

So much for your silence bs

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

[kallend 2,156]

rushmc

*********

Still waiting for you to tell us how many MILLIONS of TONS of CO2 your company spews into the atmosphere every year.

'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'

Put down the shovel and back away

So you don't want to tell us.

I wonder why? (Well not really, the Upton Sinclair quote says it all).

Cause I dont know
I dont work in generation

Never said you did.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,156]

rushmc

***For those that are massively ignorant of history, the program that Obama has put in place is right out of the Republican playbook.

Cap and Trade is a REPUBLICAN idea, first proposed by Republicans, to put in place a MARKET DRIVEN trading place for the right to pollute. The more a company plans to pollute, the more they pay for the privilege to do so. It is up to the companies to determine if paying for hardware to clean up emissions, or paying for pollutions credits, makes better business sense.

This was a big deal to the Republicans, not so long ago.

As usual, when the socialist black dude in that is now POTUS actually adopts something that the Republicans originally proposed, and the Democrats opposed at the time, the Republicans are all instantly opposed to their own ideas and policies.

How do you explain these facts, Marc?
Any other conservative followers care to take a crack at explaining why ideas and policies that start out from Republican origins magically become evil when the current POTUS comes out in favor of the ideas/policies?

I expect a profound silence, as there is no rational explanation for such behavior.

In fact it does not matter
Stupid is as stupid does

So much for your silence bs

So Marc, why are you unwilling to admit that you work for a large energy company that admits to spewing tens of millions of TONS of CO2 into the atmosphere each year? Why the dodging and weaving and weasel wording to avoid coming out and admitting it?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[weekender 0]

funjumper101

For those that are massively ignorant of history, the program that Obama has put in place is right out of the Republican playbook.

Cap and Trade is a REPUBLICAN idea, first proposed by Republicans, to put in place a MARKET DRIVEN trading place for the right to pollute. The more a company plans to pollute, the more they pay for the privilege to do so. It is up to the companies to determine if paying for hardware to clean up emissions, or paying for pollutions credits, makes better business sense.

This was a big deal to the Republicans, not so long ago.

As usual, when the socialist black dude in that is now POTUS actually adopts something that the Republicans originally proposed, and the Democrats opposed at the time, the Republicans are all instantly opposed to their own ideas and policies.

How do you explain these facts, Marc?
Any other conservative followers care to take a crack at explaining why ideas and policies that start out from Republican origins magically become evil when the current POTUS comes out in favor of the ideas/policies?

I expect a profound silence, as there is no rational explanation for such behavior.

its easily explained by the fact you are wrong. while its true the amendment to the clear air act, that included emissions trading, was passed under Bush. it was a very popular bipartisan bill, fyi. the concept was created by bureaucrats at the Nat'l Air Pollution Control Admin in the 60's. which is the current day EPA. so cap and trade is NOT a Republican idea. as you falsely state as a fact. makes me wonder who really is ignorant of history here.

this is something i have real world experience with, fyi. I was an emissions trader for an investment bank a few years back. i actually created carbon credits and carbon derivatives. both compliance market credits, ie Kyoto Protocols and the verified market credits.

also a reminder, the only party i ever belonged to is the Democratic Party. so you going to have to work extra hard to attack me as an ignorant conservative.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[kallend 2,156]

In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan used a cap and trade system to phase out leaded gasoline, noted MIT economics professor Richard Schmalensee and Harvard Kennedy School government professor Robert Stavins.

In 1989, President George H. W. Bush proposed the use of a cap and trade system to cut by half sulfur dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants and consequent acid rain, they wrote in a Boston Globe op-ed in 2010.

"An initially resistant Democratic Congress overwhelmingly endorsed the proposal," the professors wrote. "The landmark Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 passed the Senate 89 to 10 and the House 401 to 25."

Bush not only accepted the cap, but he sided with environmentalists who wanted a larger cut than his own advisers, according to Smithsonian Magazine, in a report that detailed how the Environmental Defense Fund worked with Bush’s White House to make cap and trade a reality.

"George H. W. Bush does indeed deserve enormous credit for being the champion of the cap and trade program for sulfur dioxide, a major cause of acid rain," Pooley said. "That has led many over the years to refer to it as a Republican idea."

But Pooley said that Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell -- a Democrat -- also deserves credit for leading the legislative charge that ultimately passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority.

"So if pressed, I would call it a bipartisan idea that was championed by a Republican president," he told PolitiFact Florida.

In 2005, the EPA under President George W. Bush issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule, which aimed to achieve "the largest reduction in air pollution in more than a decade" using cap and trade, wrote Stavins and Schmalensee.

They noted the contributions under Reagan and both Bushes to argue that cap and trade should be embraced by Republicans as well as Democrats.

"After all, these policies were innovations developed by conservatives in the Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush administrations (and once strongly condemned by liberals)," they wrote.

In 2003, McCain, an Arizona Republican, and Sen. Joe Lieberman, then a Democrat from Connecticut, introduced the "Climate Stewardship Act," which would have used a similar cap and trade approach to reduce carbon pollution linked to global warming. Versions of the bill were reintroduced in 2005 and 2007.

That was the first time legislation was introduced to use cap and trade for carbon emissions, Pooley told PolitiFact.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

kallend

In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan used a cap and trade system to phase out leaded gasoline, noted MIT economics professor Richard Schmalensee and Harvard Kennedy School government professor Robert Stavins.

In 1989, President George H. W. Bush proposed the use of a cap and trade system to cut by half sulfur dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants and consequent acid rain, they wrote in a Boston Globe op-ed in 2010.

"An initially resistant Democratic Congress overwhelmingly endorsed the proposal," the professors wrote. "The landmark Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 passed the Senate 89 to 10 and the House 401 to 25."

Bush not only accepted the cap, but he sided with environmentalists who wanted a larger cut than his own advisers, according to Smithsonian Magazine, in a report that detailed how the Environmental Defense Fund worked with Bush’s White House to make cap and trade a reality.

"George H. W. Bush does indeed deserve enormous credit for being the champion of the cap and trade program for sulfur dioxide, a major cause of acid rain," Pooley said. "That has led many over the years to refer to it as a Republican idea."

But Pooley said that Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell -- a Democrat -- also deserves credit for leading the legislative charge that ultimately passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority.

"So if pressed, I would call it a bipartisan idea that was championed by a Republican president," he told PolitiFact Florida.

In 2005, the EPA under President George W. Bush issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule, which aimed to achieve "the largest reduction in air pollution in more than a decade" using cap and trade, wrote Stavins and Schmalensee.

They noted the contributions under Reagan and both Bushes to argue that cap and trade should be embraced by Republicans as well as Democrats.

"After all, these policies were innovations developed by conservatives in the Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush administrations (and once strongly condemned by liberals)," they wrote.

In 2003, McCain, an Arizona Republican, and Sen. Joe Lieberman, then a Democrat from Connecticut, introduced the "Climate Stewardship Act," which would have used a similar cap and trade approach to reduce carbon pollution linked to global warming. Versions of the bill were reintroduced in 2005 and 2007.

That was the first time legislation was introduced to use cap and trade for carbon emissions, Pooley told PolitiFact.

These all dealt with a real polutant

CO2 is not a polutant

The claim this it is, is a lie

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

[kallend 2,156]

rushmc

***In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan used a cap and trade system to phase out leaded gasoline, noted MIT economics professor Richard Schmalensee and Harvard Kennedy School government professor Robert Stavins.

In 1989, President George H. W. Bush proposed the use of a cap and trade system to cut by half sulfur dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants and consequent acid rain, they wrote in a Boston Globe op-ed in 2010.

"An initially resistant Democratic Congress overwhelmingly endorsed the proposal," the professors wrote. "The landmark Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 passed the Senate 89 to 10 and the House 401 to 25."

Bush not only accepted the cap, but he sided with environmentalists who wanted a larger cut than his own advisers, according to Smithsonian Magazine, in a report that detailed how the Environmental Defense Fund worked with Bush’s White House to make cap and trade a reality.

"George H. W. Bush does indeed deserve enormous credit for being the champion of the cap and trade program for sulfur dioxide, a major cause of acid rain," Pooley said. "That has led many over the years to refer to it as a Republican idea."

But Pooley said that Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell -- a Democrat -- also deserves credit for leading the legislative charge that ultimately passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority.

"So if pressed, I would call it a bipartisan idea that was championed by a Republican president," he told PolitiFact Florida.

In 2005, the EPA under President George W. Bush issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule, which aimed to achieve "the largest reduction in air pollution in more than a decade" using cap and trade, wrote Stavins and Schmalensee.

They noted the contributions under Reagan and both Bushes to argue that cap and trade should be embraced by Republicans as well as Democrats.

"After all, these policies were innovations developed by conservatives in the Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush administrations (and once strongly condemned by liberals)," they wrote.

In 2003, McCain, an Arizona Republican, and Sen. Joe Lieberman, then a Democrat from Connecticut, introduced the "Climate Stewardship Act," which would have used a similar cap and trade approach to reduce carbon pollution linked to global warming. Versions of the bill were reintroduced in 2005 and 2007.

That was the first time legislation was introduced to use cap and trade for carbon emissions, Pooley told PolitiFact.

These all dealt with a real polutant

CO2 is not a polutant

The claim this it is, is a lie

'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,121]

>These all dealt with a real polutant CO2 is not a polutant

Both physics and the US Supreme Court disagree. (If you doubt this, let's see how you do in a room with only 1% CO2.)

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>These all dealt with a real polutant CO2 is not a polutant

Both physics and the US Supreme Court disagree. (If you doubt this, let's see how you do in a room with only 1% CO2.)

You cant drag the SC into this
They only said the EPA has the power
There was no ruling on CO2

Oh
and you can drown in water too

"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 3,121]

>You cant drag the SC into this
>They only said the EPA has the power
>There was no ruling on CO2

Sorry, they said that greenhouse gases fit within the Clean Air Act's definition of air pollutant. Take it up with them if you disagree. The exact text from their decision: "greenhouse gases fit well within the CAA’s capacious definition of air pollutant."

>and you can drown in water too

I said a tiny amount - 1%. If I put you in a room with 1% water (by weight) you wouldn't drown. (Well, you might if you tried really, really hard.) Now try that with the "safe" gas you are talking about above.

But again, none of that matters. Here's how the US government works:

Congress passes laws
The judicial system decides if they are constitutional
The executive executes them

That's civics 101, and that's what happened here. Sorry if you dislike it.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>You cant drag the SC into this
>They only said the EPA has the power
>There was no ruling on CO2

Sorry, they said that greenhouse gases fit within the Clean Air Act's definition of air pollutant. Take it up with them if you disagree. The exact text from their decision: "greenhouse gases fit well within the CAA’s capacious definition of air pollutant."

>and you can drown in water too

I said a tiny amount - 1%. If I put you in a room with 1% water (by weight) you wouldn't drown. (Well, you might if you tried really, really hard.) Now try that with the "safe" gas you are talking about above.

But again, none of that matters. Here's how the US government works:

Congress passes laws
The judicial system decides if they are constitutional
The executive executes them

That's civics 101, and that's what happened here. Sorry if you dislike it.

and you will dislike it when it gets stopped by congress

"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 3,121]

>and you will dislike it when it gets stopped by congress

Perhaps, but that's the right way to do it - pass a new law, get it signed, have it subject to judicial oversight. Just as this one was.

[weekender 0]

kallend

In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan used a cap and trade system to phase out leaded gasoline, noted MIT economics professor Richard Schmalensee and Harvard Kennedy School government professor Robert Stavins.

In 1989, President George H. W. Bush proposed the use of a cap and trade system to cut by half sulfur dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants and consequent acid rain, they wrote in a Boston Globe op-ed in 2010.

"An initially resistant Democratic Congress overwhelmingly endorsed the proposal," the professors wrote. "The landmark Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 passed the Senate 89 to 10 and the House 401 to 25."

Bush not only accepted the cap, but he sided with environmentalists who wanted a larger cut than his own advisers, according to Smithsonian Magazine, in a report that detailed how the Environmental Defense Fund worked with Bush’s White House to make cap and trade a reality.

"George H. W. Bush does indeed deserve enormous credit for being the champion of the cap and trade program for sulfur dioxide, a major cause of acid rain," Pooley said. "That has led many over the years to refer to it as a Republican idea."

But Pooley said that Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell -- a Democrat -- also deserves credit for leading the legislative charge that ultimately passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority.

"So if pressed, I would call it a bipartisan idea that was championed by a Republican president," he told PolitiFact Florida.

In 2005, the EPA under President George W. Bush issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule, which aimed to achieve "the largest reduction in air pollution in more than a decade" using cap and trade, wrote Stavins and Schmalensee.

They noted the contributions under Reagan and both Bushes to argue that cap and trade should be embraced by Republicans as well as Democrats.

"After all, these policies were innovations developed by conservatives in the Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush administrations (and once strongly condemned by liberals)," they wrote.

In 2003, McCain, an Arizona Republican, and Sen. Joe Lieberman, then a Democrat from Connecticut, introduced the "Climate Stewardship Act," which would have used a similar cap and trade approach to reduce carbon pollution linked to global warming. Versions of the bill were reintroduced in 2005 and 2007.

That was the first time legislation was introduced to use cap and trade for carbon emissions, Pooley told PolitiFact.

nice try, changes nothing. it was not created by the Republicans. It was the idea of gov't bureaucrats. thats not my opinion but what happened.

it also worked amazingly well and would work with CO2 emissions if implemented properly. i dont think that is even debatable.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[kallend 2,156]

weekender

***In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan used a cap and trade system to phase out leaded gasoline, noted MIT economics professor Richard Schmalensee and Harvard Kennedy School government professor Robert Stavins.

In 1989, President George H. W. Bush proposed the use of a cap and trade system to cut by half sulfur dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants and consequent acid rain, they wrote in a Boston Globe op-ed in 2010.

"An initially resistant Democratic Congress overwhelmingly endorsed the proposal," the professors wrote. "The landmark Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 passed the Senate 89 to 10 and the House 401 to 25."

Bush not only accepted the cap, but he sided with environmentalists who wanted a larger cut than his own advisers, according to Smithsonian Magazine, in a report that detailed how the Environmental Defense Fund worked with Bush’s White House to make cap and trade a reality.

"George H. W. Bush does indeed deserve enormous credit for being the champion of the cap and trade program for sulfur dioxide, a major cause of acid rain," Pooley said. "That has led many over the years to refer to it as a Republican idea."

But Pooley said that Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell -- a Democrat -- also deserves credit for leading the legislative charge that ultimately passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority.

"So if pressed, I would call it a bipartisan idea that was championed by a Republican president," he told PolitiFact Florida.

In 2005, the EPA under President George W. Bush issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule, which aimed to achieve "the largest reduction in air pollution in more than a decade" using cap and trade, wrote Stavins and Schmalensee.

They noted the contributions under Reagan and both Bushes to argue that cap and trade should be embraced by Republicans as well as Democrats.

"After all, these policies were innovations developed by conservatives in the Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush administrations (and once strongly condemned by liberals)," they wrote.

In 2003, McCain, an Arizona Republican, and Sen. Joe Lieberman, then a Democrat from Connecticut, introduced the "Climate Stewardship Act," which would have used a similar cap and trade approach to reduce carbon pollution linked to global warming. Versions of the bill were reintroduced in 2005 and 2007.

That was the first time legislation was introduced to use cap and trade for carbon emissions, Pooley told PolitiFact.

nice try, changes nothing. it was not created by the Republicans. It was the idea of gov't bureaucrats. thats not my opinion but what happened.



Agreed. It DOES, however, nicely illustrate the utter hypocrisy of the GOP. They did it with Cap and Trade, and they did it with healthcare Romney style. Both were fine with the Republicans until the brown guy embraced them.

Quote

it also worked amazingly well and would work with CO2 emissions if implemented properly. i dont think that is even debatable.

Yep. However, the anti-science party will ensure that it can't happen.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[weekender 0]

"Agreed. It DOES, however, nicely illustrate the utter hypocrisy of the GOP. They did it with Cap and Trade, and they did it with healthcare Romney style. Both were fine with the Republicans until the brown guy embraced them.

Quote:

it also worked amazingly well and would work with CO2 emissions if implemented properly. i dont think that is even debatable.

Yep. However, the anti-science party will ensure that it can't happen."



i dont agree. it was supported because people believed that acid rain was real and a problem. not because it was a GOP amendment. this is not supported because people do not believe this is real and a problem. it has nothing to do with our President being a black man. thats silly.

i dont agree with your Romney comment either. that was supported because people believed Romney wanted a private solution. Obamacare was fought because people do NOT believe the Dem's want a private solution. they see it as a Trojan horse to gov't run single payer and it scares them.

I do not believe for a moment these people would support cap and trade if it was a GOP bill. they do not believe global warming is a real threat.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[turtlespeed 226]

billvon

>These all dealt with a real polutant CO2 is not a polutant

Both physics and the US Supreme Court disagree. (If you doubt this, let's see how you do in a room with only 1% CO2.)

Do you agree with EVERYTHING that the SC court says is true?

Or . . . are you just cherry picking their decisions?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 3,121]

>Do you agree with EVERYTHING that the SC court says is true?

No. But for the most part they do a good job.

[kallend 2,156]

turtlespeed

***>These all dealt with a real polutant CO2 is not a polutant

Both physics and the US Supreme Court disagree. (If you doubt this, let's see how you do in a room with only 1% CO2.)

Do you agree with EVERYTHING that the SC court says is true?

Or . . . are you just cherry picking their decisions?

I believe the SC gave Chevron Deference to the EPA on this. The EPA has scientists, the SC just has lawyers.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

kallend

******>These all dealt with a real polutant CO2 is not a polutant

Both physics and the US Supreme Court disagree. (If you doubt this, let's see how you do in a room with only 1% CO2.)

Do you agree with EVERYTHING that the SC court says is true?

Or . . . are you just cherry picking their decisions?

I believe the SC gave Chevron Deference to the EPA on this. The EPA has scientists, the SC just has lawyers.

the EPA is full of ideological political hacks
Science is secondary to them
the latest proposed rules prove this

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