Obama Keeps Promise to Kill Coal Industry

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Remember when President Obama, shortly before the election, told the San Francisco Chronicle that it was his intention to put the entire coal industry out of business and cause your electricity rates to skyrocket?

Well, he's gonna do it.

This is inexcusable, and should be stopped cold.

From the goofy right wing US News and World Report:

www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/06/08/coal-regs-would-kill-jobs-boost-energy-bills

Two new EPA pollution regulations will slam the coal industry so hard that hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost, and electric rates will skyrocket 11 percent to over 23 percent, according to a new study based on government data.

Overall, the rules aimed at making the air cleaner could cost the coal-fired power plant industry $180 billion, warns a trade group.

“Many of these severe impacts would hit families living in states already facing serious economic challenges,” said Steve Miller, president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. “Because of these impacts, EPA should make major changes to the proposed regulations before they are finalized,” he said.

The EPA, however, tells Whispers that the hit the industry will suffer is worth the health benefits. “EPA has taken a number of sensible steps to protect public health, while also working with industry and other stakeholders to ensure that these important Clean Air Act standards—such as the first ever national Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for coal-fired power plants—are reasonable, common-sense, and achievable,” said spokesman Brendan Gilfillan.

Why should we doubt this when Obama admitted it:

[Deleted]

A politician who keeps his promise? I will never beleive it.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Text:

Let me sort of describe my overall policy.


What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.

The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a (sic) ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.
It's just that it will bankrupt them.

Read more: newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/11/02/hidden-audio-obama-tells-sf-chronicle-he-will-bankrupt-coal-industry#ixzz1OsTTk1LM

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

More jobs lost in Obamaville: American Electric Power is shutting down five power plants-- reducing supply, and spending billions to comply with pending illegal EPA regulations from the Obama regime.

www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9NOJ4703.htm

American Electric Power Co. Inc. warned Thursday that it would have to shut down five plants and reduce operations at six others, at a cost of 600 jobs, to comply with new rules for coal-fired power plants proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Strict regulations being considered by the EPA to limit emissions of mercury, lead and other toxins from coal-fired plants could take effect in 3 1/2 years, a timeline AEP called "unrealistic." In order to meet the rules in time, the company said, it would have to close plants in Ohio, West Virginia and Virginia by the end of 2014 and retire generating units at plants in five states as soon as by the end of 2012.

AEP said that while the need to install new emission-reducing equipment at its remaining plants would create some jobs, the company's compliance plan would mean a net loss of about 600 power plant positions that pay wages totaling some $40 million a year. The EPA proposal also would lead to higher electric rates, including increases of more than 35 percent for some businesses, the company said.

"The sudden increase in electricity rates and impacts on state economies will be significant at a time when people and states are still struggling," said Michael G. Morris, AEP chairman and chief executive officer.

The EPA held public hearings in a few cities last month on the regulations, introduced in March in response to a court-ordered deadline. The agency has said it would cost nearly $11 billion a year for the industry to comply with the new rules.

But it also estimated that its plan would bring up to $140 billion in health benefits by 2016 and save 17,000 lives a year by reducing mercury emissions from power plants by 91 percent and further limiting other pollutants, including microscopic particles that can cause lung and heart problems.

Studies show exposure to mercury increases the risk of birth defects as well as developmental problems in small children. Mercury can become toxic after entering soil and water, and its effects are magnified as it moves up the food chain.

The court order gave the EPA until November to make the rules official. The agency said companies would then have three years to comply, and some could be given an extra year.

AEP said it hoped the EPA would come up with a more "reasonable" schedule.

"With more time and flexibility, we will get to the same level of emission reductions, but it will cost our customers less and will prevent premature job losses, extend the construction job benefits, and ensure the ongoing reliability of the electric system," Morris said in a statement.

[Deleted]

He's just evil. Think of the hundreds of thousands of coal miners, generations, whole cities around the mines.... there is a little mining town in AZ, copper, I think it was, not sure, that played out years ago. My kids used to travel there for All Stars sometimes. It is a ghost town, just about. Everything is boarded up, there is no business left. Hardly any cars, people, extreme poverty mixed with some wealth (older people) from better times... think Obama cares about creating ghost towns in this wretched economy? Hell, no, he doesn't. Get ready, people.

[fairlycrazy23]

So he is at least keeping some of his promises, to bankrupt coal plants and allow electricity prices to skyrocket.

[Deleted]

Yes, crazy, he does do some of the things he promised to do..

[Deleted]

I think it was Spain that Obama used to use as an example when talking about cap and trade. I noticed he doesn't bring up Spain anymore.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 10, 2011 11:42:59 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

I think it was Spain that Obama used to use as an example when talking about cap and trade. I noticed he doesn't bring up Spain anymore.

Though, he's perfectly comfortable with US taxpayers bailing out Greece to support the failed welfare state there. Oh, yes...that's coming...

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

But more to the topic- Spain is the perfect example of the green meltdown. A TOTAL failure of the green agenda...but then there are examples of far left statist failure everywhere. The UK health system is a complete disaster, and a joke-- and yet we have the Obama regime's officials over there praising it as what we need here.

[Deleted]

Worry-- the Bilderbergs are meeting as we speak.. sure they will fix everything all up.....

[zipity]

officials said that just one of the rules to cut sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions will would yield up to $290 billion in annual health and welfare benefits in 2014. They say that amounts to preventing up to 36,000 premature deaths, 26,000 hospital and emergency room visits, and 240,000 cases of aggravated asthma. “This far outweighs the estimated annual costs,” says an official on background.

That bastard, imagine saving $290 billion and saving the lives of 36,000 Americans. What will Obama think of next?

[EVT1]

Wah- cry me a river. Of course trade groups are going to threaten all of this doom and gloom- but since businesses don't give a crap about the externalities society has to pay for, it is up to us to force them to limit their damage if they want to operate.

[Deleted]

Jun 10, 2011 12:50:17 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Wah- cry me a river. Of course trade groups are going to threaten all of this doom and gloom- but since businesses don't give a crap about the externalities society has to pay for, it is up to us to force them to limit their damage if they want to operate.

You talk about "them" as if they are some kind of enemy that needs to be ever more controlled. Yet it is you that is using the electric. Cut that wire going to your house and then get back to me this time next year and let me know what it's been like. The way I see it, it's you, the evil power user, that causes these electric companies to form and pollute.

[Deleted]

I guess Obama will have to up the utility subsidies for the welfare people now..I hear phones are now seen as necessities for the poor.. yeah, like cellphones... wonder if cable TV and Internet are included yet as necessities??

[EVT1]

No one needs electricity, or a power company either. Power users cause electric companies to form, yes, but not form and pollute. The pollution is optional or else there would be no discussion about it.

[floridayankee]

Jun 10, 2011 13:49:15 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

No one needs electricity, or a power company either.

According to who....you? Another lib that feels we're too damned stupd to make our own decisions? I need electric. If you feel you don't then by all means.....go off grid and live like the Amish. I choose a life that needs electricity, thank you.

Power users cause electric companies to form, yes, but not form and pollute. The pollution is optional or else there would be no discussion about it.

There is no way to mass produce energy with zero environmental impact with today's technology. If you know of a way, I'd suggest you patent it and produce it. You'll be rich....quick.

ETA: My guess is that you'll be first in line whining that your electric rates are doubling every year as they phase in these new, burdensome requirements.

[Deleted]

Jun 10, 2011 13:49:15 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

No one needs electricity, or a power company either. Power users cause electric companies to form, yes, but not form and pollute. The pollution is optional or else there would be no discussion about it.

And that takes us to the real discussion, cost versus cleanliness. At what level does cost of production outweigh the cleanliness. And at what level does the cost do more damage to the economy and living standard in the U.S. than the benefits of some perceived health issues. This is what the EPA charter is not equipped to handle. Ultimately it will be you and me and every one else that pays for that ineptness.

[hello fromWarsaw]

Greece's problem is a corrupt oligarchy that bribes their way out of taxes, Spain believed the Pub bundled toxic mortgage plan...You are clueless. This thread is RW garbage, as always.Obamahhhh wants cleaner coal, thank god, not what you say. Thanks for the fear mongering spam from the worst of the coal industry...
Death throes of the misled 20%.

[zipity]

Yet it is you that is using the electric.

...and paying for it. I'd prefer the industry install $180 billion in anti-pollution equipment and give me cleaner product at a higher cost if it saves $290 billion in healthcare costs AND saves 36000 American lives. But that's just me, I was raised Christian and taught to value human life above coal burning power plants.

I need electric.

Another conservative willing to put their personal needs before common sense to prove a point to a liberal. Being a moderate is like watching a tennis match between conservatives and liberals. One side hits the ball of stupidity which is quickly returned by the other, this keeps going until the personal attacks start.

And that takes us to the real discussion, cost versus cleanliness.

Sorry that would be cost vs American lives. This world is made up of people who want to kill Americans and those who want to prevent Americans from dying, which side are you on?

[zipity]

This message has been deleted.

Opps posted it twice.

[Deleted]

Jun 10, 2011 14:23:41 GMT -5 zipity said:

Yet it is you that is using the electric.

...and paying for it. I'd prefer the industry install $180 billion in anti-pollution equipment and give me cleaner product at a higher cost if it saves $290 billion in healthcare costs AND saves 36000 American lives. But that's just me, I was raised Christian and taught to value human life above coal burning power plants.

I need electric.

Another conservative willing to put their personal needs before common sense to prove a point to a liberal. Being a moderate is like watching a tennis match between conservatives and liberals. One side hits the ball of stupidity which is quickly returned by the other, this keeps going until the personal attacks start.

And that takes us to the real discussion, cost versus cleanliness.

Sorry that would be cost vs American lives. This world is made up of people who want to kill Americans and those who want to prevent Americans from dying, which side are you on?

By your reasoning, even more people die per year in car accidents with even higher medical costs. All cars should be outlawed too? Life is risk versus comfort, should be self evident. Asking what side I'm on is irrelevant to the problem.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

...and paying for it. I'd prefer the industry install $180 billion in anti-pollution equipment and give me cleaner product at a higher cost

But they are not, and cannot. Gotta love it.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 10, 2011 14:31:47 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Jun 10, 2011 14:23:41 GMT -5 zipity said:

Yet it is you that is using the electric.

...and paying for it. I'd prefer the industry install $180 billion in anti-pollution equipment and give me cleaner product at a higher cost if it saves $290 billion in healthcare costs AND saves 36000 American lives. But that's just me, I was raised Christian and taught to value human life above coal burning power plants.

I need electric.

Another conservative willing to put their personal needs before common sense to prove a point to a liberal. Being a moderate is like watching a tennis match between conservatives and liberals. One side hits the ball of stupidity which is quickly returned by the other, this keeps going until the personal attacks start.

And that takes us to the real discussion, cost versus cleanliness.

Sorry that would be cost vs American lives. This world is made up of people who want to kill Americans and those who want to prevent Americans from dying, which side are you on?

By your reasoning, even more people die per year in car accidents with even higher medical costs. All cars should be outlawed too? Life is risk versus comfort, should be self evident. Asking what side I'm on is irrelevant to the problem.

140 billion a year to comply with this and by the EPA's own numbers we'd save 17,000 lives. Do the math, and while you're figuring out how much per life saved that is...bear in mind that somewhere between 48,000 and 53,000 people die every year in car accidents- and a lot of those deaths (most in fact) are the result of government mandated fuel economy standards that force people to drive death traps. People may die when they are hit by SUVs, but people IN SUVs do not die.

[EVT1]

The problem with corporations is that human lives are just a cost on a spreadsheet, so I do not trust them to make environmental decisions that will be the best balance.

[skweet]

[So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, bio-diesel and other alternative energy approaches.]
But how can we produce solar panels, windmills and bio-diesel without the factories powered by coal energy. We like to think that we can improve on energy efficiency through creating ever more inefficient power sources, that require 2 kilowatts of fossil fuels to create a kilowatt of non fossil fuel energy. Lunacy. He should issue fart permits, too, to see if that reduces the number of farts, or just adds a new tax on the citizens.

[Deleted]

Jun 10, 2011 14:44:08 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

The problem with corporations is that human lives are just a cost on a spreadsheet, so I do not trust them to make environmental decisions that will be the best balance.

This I will agree on, but I also feel that there are companies out there that do have regards for their actions. Too bad there is no way to know who's who in the responsibility department.

[floridayankee]

Jun 10, 2011 14:23:41 GMT -5 zipity said:

Yet it is you that is using the electric.

...and paying for it. I'd prefer the industry install $180 billion in anti-pollution equipment and give me cleaner product at a higher cost if it saves $290 billion in healthcare costs AND saves 36000 American lives. But that's just me, I was raised Christian and taught to value human life above coal burning power plants.

You can save human lives all by yourself by unplugging from the grid, champ.

I need electric.

Another conservative willing to put their personal needs before common sense to prove a point to a liberal.

Is your computer you're posting this tripe from powered by gerbils hoofing it on the wheel or are you just another liberal willing to put their personal needs before common sense.

That's what I thought. Seems there's a lot of us inconsiderate a-holes on these boards putting their personal needs above common sense. Glad to see I'm not alone.

Troll failed.

[skweet]

Is your computer you're posting this tripe from powered by gerbils hoofing it on the wheel or are you just another liberal willing to put their personal needs before common sense.

Liberals like to do the eco-friendly thing, without doing the math. They like to drive the Toyota Prius (which uses more fossil fuels from the point of creation to obsolescence than a Ford Crown Victoria) because it uses less fossil fuels per mile (while driving). If they did the math, they would drive a 4 cylinder compact or ride a bike. To feel good about responding to you Zipity probably unplugs the laptop, and operates only on battery while typing his posts. That way no fossil fuels are used during that moment of smugness.

[floridayankee]

Jun 10, 2011 15:14:32 GMT -5 skweet said:

Liberals like to do the eco-friendly thing, without doing the math. They like to drive the Toyota Prius (which uses more fossil fuels from the point of creation to obsolescence than a Ford Crown Victoria) because it uses less fossil fuels per mile (while driving). If they did the math, they would drive a 4 cylinder compact or ride a bike. To feel good about responding to you Zipity probably unplugs the laptop, and operates only on battery while typing his posts. That way no fossil fuels are used during that moment of smugness.

So, do you think zippy is plugged in to his prius to charge his battery?