EPA Rushing Regulation To Block Coal Costing $700B

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by pspr, Nov 4, 2012.

  1. pspr

    pspr

    President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency has devoted an unprecedented number of bureaucrats to finalizing new anti-coal regulations that are set to be released at the end of November, according to a source inside the EPA.

    More than 50 EPA staff are now crashing to finish greenhouse gas emission standards that would essentially ban all construction of new coal-fired power plants. Never before have so many EPA resources been devoted to a single regulation. The independent and non-partisan Manhattan Institute estimates that the EPA’s greenhouse gas coal regulation will cost the U.S. economy $700 billion.

    The rush is a major sign of panic by environmentalists inside the Obama administration. If Obama wins, the EPA would have another four full years to implement their anti-fossil fuel agenda. But if Romney wins, regulators will have a very narrow window to enact a select few costly regulations that would then be very hard for a President Romney to undo.


    http://washingtonexaminer.com/novem...-coal-regulation/article/2512538#.UJbkMoW1-AI
     
  2. Excellent. Less CO2, particulate pollution, mercury and sulfur dioxide, all pollutants that kill people and impact ecosystems. The coal should stay in the ground until it can really be burned cleanly. I fully support this sensible legislation.
     
  3. Economic harms of coal-fired power far outweigh its economic benefits. In fact, coal has the worst cost benefit ratio of polluting industries like solid waste combustion, sewage treatment, and stone quarrying (which also create more economic harms than benefits).
     
  4. As someone who lives in an area of North Carolina that is ringed with coal fired power plants, the majority (80%+) of the people in our region support regulations to stop the building of additional coal power plants and require that scrubbers be installed on existing plants.

    At this point natural gas is cheaper fuel source for newly constructed plants. The people in our state would rather see construction of new gas powered plants, nuclear plants, and wind / solar initiatives (for 5% of our energy) than any new coal construction.

    It is interesting to note that both the major electricity utility companies (Duke & Progress ... now merged) in our state support a cap on coal plants and this set of regulations.
     
  5. pspr

    pspr

    I would like to see your source for data regarding your statement. I can't see people saying they would like nuclear plants built in their area instead of coal with modern cleaning tech.