100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: Obama to close all coal fired power plants | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Electric rates will soar now that Obama's EPA has crushed coal-fired power plants
By Phil Kerpen Published March 29, 2012 With the country focused on this week’s high drama at the Supreme Court, President Obama’s EPA quietly released long-delayed regulations to apply global warming rules never authorized by Congress to new coal-fired power plants. That Obama’s EPA would release a rule to destroy coal-fired electricity while the president gives stump speeches about an “all of the above” energy policy is an insult to the American people. Related Stories EPA proposes first-ever limits on new power plants' carbon pollution This rule will effectively block any new coal-fired power plants from being built in America, and a second round of related rules – expected after the election, of course – will shut down existing coal-fired power plants. The result will be steeply higher electricity prices, lost jobs, and lower standards of living. Remarkably, this is all done in the name of global warming, but even EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson admits it will have no discernible impact on global temperatures. Obama’s EPA is crippling the U.S. economy not to accomplish anything, but just to enjoy a nice, warm, green feeling of self-satisfaction. Four years ago, then-candidate Barack Obama explained his anti-coal energy policy in an editorial board meeting with the San Francisco Chronicle. Obama said: “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad.” He went on to explain: “So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them.” Indeed Obama attempted to make good on his campaign promise to bankrupt the coal industry and make electricity prices skyrocket the legitimate way – by proposing cap-and-trade legislation in Congress. It was jammed through the House but crashed and burned in the Senate, where many Democrats understood such an energy rationing plan to be political suicide. They were right. The American people decisively rejected energy taxes and rationing in the 2010 election, with dozens of Democrats losing because of their support for cap-and-trade. West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin survived and won his Senate seat by literally shooting a bullet through in the bill in a television ad. But the day after the 2010 election President Obama said: “Cap-and-trade was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way. It was a means, not an end. And I’m going to be looking for other means to address this problem.” With Tuesday’s EPA action to bankrupt coal, he found his “other means” to address the “problem” of affordable electricity. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/29/electric-rates-will-soar-now-that-obamas-epa-has-crushed-coal-fired-power/#ixzz1qWqht2pn I think the interesting point to be made here is not the actions themselves but how they are occurring. Since the house and senate are now deadlocked, Obama is free to do most anything he wants because no act of congress can stop him. He is changing the way the US operates in major ways and controlling industries never before controlled knowing that even if the congress and senate could act sufficiently together to stop him, they could not at this time act sufficiently together of override a veto. Big changes are happening in the US government. See how much you hear about "coal fired power plants" in the news. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
guess he will have them burn his much touted Algae!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i don't completely disagree with this... coal plants are a big pollutant, and making them less pollutant would just raise prices anyway. Hydro-electric is the best way, along with nukes, are less expensive and pollute less.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the biggest causes of Air Pollution are fossil fuel-burning power plants.
Anybody supporting these operations have no regard for future life. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i don't completely disagree with this... coal plants are a big pollutant, and making them less pollutant would just raise prices anyway. Hydro-electric is the best way, along with nukes, are less expensive and pollute less. Coal is dirty and destructive. I am a strong supporter for nukes for electricity. However, Obama is taking advantage of the split in the congress to just do whatever he wants. It think that is the bigger issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
save the earth with electric cars
what ever happened to electric cars? where are all the electric cars? the green economy is a scam to ruin the real economy there is grass you can burn instead of coal bp put $500 million into it where did it go? bp put a commercial on about how they have been experimenting with algae for 35 years 35 years and nothing really to show yet we had electric trollys when i was a kid the oil companys bought them and destroyed them all electric trollys are only in museums just like how their destroying our food supply now they are working with our government shut down oil and everything shuts down no food no products everything collapses thats their plan and most everybody is helping them accomplish it  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i don't completely disagree with this... coal plants are a big pollutant, and making them less pollutant would just raise prices anyway. Hydro-electric is the best way, along with nukes, are less expensive and pollute less. Coal is dirty and destructive. I am a strong supporter for nukes for electricity. However, Obama is taking advantage of the split in the congress to just do whatever he wants. It think that is the bigger issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
save the earth with electric cars what ever happened to electric cars? where are all the electric cars? the green economy is a scam to ruin the real economy there is grass you can burn instead of coal bp put $500 million into it where did it go? bp put a commercial on about how they have been experimenting with algae for 35 years 35 years and nothing really to show yet we had electric trollys when i was a kid the oil companys bought them and destroyed them all electric trollys are only in museums just like how their destroying our food supply now they are working with our government shut down oil and everything shuts down no food no products everything collapses thats their plan and most everybody is helping them accomplish it Where did the energy come from to run those electric trollies? Where will the energy come from to charge the batteries of the electric cars? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
save the earth with electric cars what ever happened to electric cars? where are all the electric cars? the green economy is a scam to ruin the real economy there is grass you can burn instead of coal bp put $500 million into it where did it go? bp put a commercial on about how they have been experimenting with algae for 35 years 35 years and nothing really to show yet we had electric trollys when i was a kid the oil companys bought them and destroyed them all electric trollys are only in museums just like how their destroying our food supply now they are working with our government shut down oil and everything shuts down no food no products everything collapses thats their plan and most everybody is helping them accomplish it You have a strange combination of facts and non-facts here. GM's CEO says that his decision of crushing the EV1 electric car program was GM's dumbest in history. People are buying electric cars now and there will be many more sold in the future. As soon as the "battery problem" is solved, the gas hog will go the way of the dinosaur. There are some notable exceptions* to that prediction. GM and Firestone bought up the trolleys, not the oil companies. And they did it to sell buses and buss tires. Oil companies have been buying up tech for decades. It is not so much to prevent it from being used, but to make sure whatever we use is controlled by them and it's release doesn't interfere with their profits. After oil is gone, they will still be selling energy. What they are doing is not illegal. It is immoral and repugnant to many people. The food issue is with companies like Monsanto who have convinced the Supreme Court of the United Stated that is is "OK" to own lifeforms including ones who have been on Earth before mankind. *Synthetic Biology will change all of the above. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
volant7
on
Thu 03/29/12 03:38 PM
|
|
if you watch who killed the electric car
they cut out the part where better batteries worked but were hidden they even gave them defective batteries to begin with like now with the bad charger look at cell phones 25 years ago till now a little better lol look at electric cars 25 years ago worse now you think we are still using lead acid batteries today no one in the past 100 years can figure out anything better when growing up in tech school our teachers warned us a couple of times saying watch what you do these people disappeared what about hho gas we could run cars on it now and cut gas usage alot where is it? where does the electricity come from? geothermal electric heavy water reactors solar stirling solar collectors on garages and houses burning grass electric burning garbage bio algae diesel im sure there are others too it wasnt just the ev 1 rav 4 and ford ranger were electric they were told to pull the plug lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coal is nineteenth century technology.
Nukes are twentieth century technology that we will be paying the price for in the centuries to come. We are now in the twenty-first century. It's time we started using twenty-first century technology. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coal is nineteenth century technology. Nukes are twentieth century technology that we will be paying the price for in the centuries to come. We are now in the twenty-first century. It's time we started using twenty-first century technology. It's called synthetic biology. However, in the meantime, we need to keep using more twentieth and less nineteenth century methods. They have been a lot of improvements in nukes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coal is nineteenth century technology. Nukes are twentieth century technology that we will be paying the price for in the centuries to come. We are now in the twenty-first century. It's time we started using twenty-first century technology. It's called synthetic biology. However, in the meantime, we need to keep using more twentieth and less nineteenth century methods. They have been a lot of improvements in nukes. Tell that to the folks in Japan. Also we have not even come close to solving the waste issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coal is nineteenth century technology. Nukes are twentieth century technology that we will be paying the price for in the centuries to come. We are now in the twenty-first century. It's time we started using twenty-first century technology. It's called synthetic biology. However, in the meantime, we need to keep using more twentieth and less nineteenth century methods. They have been a lot of improvements in nukes. Tell that to the folks in Japan. Also we have not even come close to solving the waste issue. Japan built 60's tech reactors next to the largest earthquake fault in the world. How dumb was that? We have solved the waste problem. We just aren't using it because the anti nuke forces want to make it an issue. Therefore we just store the stuff in a cave in the desert. |
|
|
|
|
