Sunday September 15, 2013, 1:25 am
Every day we pump more and more carbon into our atmosphere. The effects are already self-evident and likely to become catastrophic. In response to this, the EPA is changing the regulations for for new coal fired and gas fired utility plants. I support these changes, but they do not go far enough.
Sunday September 15, 2013, 6:02 am
These proposals should of been initiated years ago, is so little so late in the game. We need a major National Policy and this, we don't have time for this game playing. It's the throw the environmentalist out a bone and maybe they will go away.
The Environmental Procrastination Agency no longer functions in the capacity of the charter Americans agreed with full bi-partisan support that was agreed it would. The EPA is to set standards based on the best and most current science and not compromise, not sway to political exigency, but to be Apolitical and protect both the safety and long term health of the many diverse Eco-systems of this country. The EPA has become both the whipping boy and the harlot of the worst polluters in this country. If we had a strong and fully functional EPA, unhampered by either Congress or corporations, I wonder if we would be facing even half the current levels of poison in our air, water and soils. I think not.
Sunday September 15, 2013, 12:34 pm
Everything is a game to those in DC. Their entire life revolves around making sure they keep their cush job with all the benefits, that taxpayers pay for. So, yeah, they have to give "tokens" to the environmentalists every now and then.
Sunday September 15, 2013, 1:45 pm
When it comes to passing a law protecting WORKERS we must "[ensure] that businesses are not overburdened by unnecessary regulations." (Deb Fischer, NE-REPUBLICAN) and we must not "place undue burdens on employers " (Adrian Smith, NE-REPUBLICAN). And Mike Johanns (NE-REPUBLICAN) says, "At every opportunity I have opposed costly and overly burdensome regulations" (including one which would have protected air quality). (Sensing a theme here?) And usually the phrase "jobs-killing" is thrown in for good measure. (Ask the residents of West, Texas how well not passing those pesky "jobs-killing" "burdensome regulations" has worked out.)
And on the lighter side, the Cheezburger people pretty much say it all with this one:
Sunday September 15, 2013, 9:20 pm
We finally got a new head of EPA, now she has her work cut out for her and the President. No keystone XL pipeline going thru America over our bread belt states with the last fresh water aquafar under the land, If we have a disaster there like Arkansas has with tar sands right now it would be unable to be fixed ever....period. no more food, no more fresh water, you can not eat or drink tar sands oil. If Canada wants to produce this junk keep it in Canada and ship it overseas from their ports not ours in Galveston....no ....no never....period. We need better emmissions controls on all coal and nuclear plants, We need better grids, no more fracking either. I could go on and on, we have so much catching up to do because we were without an EPA Head for so long and nobody did anything....but I m running out of time and room to post....period.
Sunday September 15, 2013, 10:04 pm
A coal powered electric facility about 30miles from our house is being shut down because the owners would not spend the money to clean it up. The EPA and Obama are being blamed, of course.
Monday September 16, 2013, 2:09 am
Thanks everyone. I'm in a rush. I agree with most of what's been said here. I don't expect my solution to be implemented, but the next time a Republican squawks about the free market in energy, you can tell him it isn't free until there are no subsidies or tax breaks for fossil fuel and the cost of the damage they do is factored into the price of their product instead of being dumped on their victims.
Monday September 16, 2013, 11:06 pm
Perhaps what governments should do is tie subsidy levels to clean emissions.
The oil, gas and coal industries get big federal subsidies. By tying those subsidies to actual actionable emissions goals, the companies might become better stewards, more innovative, more efficient and more profitable. Isn't that the hallmark of American entrepreneurship?