Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, June 02, 2014

The battle over the Obama administration's new environmental regulations begins in earnest today and will be a dominating topic throughout the 2014 elections. This morning, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy will speak on the administration's proposal that existing power plants will have to cut their carbon emissions by 30% from 2005 levels by 2030. President Barack Obama previewed this announcement in his weekly address. "In just the first year that these standards go into effect, up to 100,000 asthma attacks and 2,100 heart attacks will be avoided -- and those numbers will go up from there," he said.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

lee_the_agent

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

we have cleaner energy souces in abundance.

#5 | Posted by danni

Such as what?

New studies are coming to light that seem to demonstrate that using natural gas as an alternative for the transition to green energy, may be far worse for the climate than continuing to use coal.

The debate over the natural gas industry's climate change effects has raged for several years, ever since researchers from Cornell University stunned policy-makers and environmentalists by warning that if enough methane seeps out between the gas well and the burner, relying on natural gas could be even more dangerous for the climate than burning coal.

Natural gas is mostly comprised of methane, an extraordinarily powerful greenhouse gas, which traps heat 86 times more effectively than carbon dioxide during the two decades after it enters the atmosphere, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, so even small leaks can have major climate impacts.


#1 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-06-02 12:17 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#6 Methane bleeds out of the atmosphere in 12 years or so.

It takes over 1000 years for CO2 to bleed out.

#2 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-02 12:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

We have some of the largest deposits of coal in the world. Coal is what made this country great to begin with. We don't have to frack for it. Wind power and solar energy development and instrumentation is years behind. We should use what we have now, not cut it off at the knees.

If global warming is your issue, China, India and Russia will continue burning coal, so your point is moot. This action is a detriment to our manufacturing and utilities base.

#3 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2014-06-02 01:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

make no mistake..this isn't just a war on energy. it's war on states like TEXAS who see through the lies and deception and do not support obama or the liberal agenda.

the energy capitol goes down, so does the number one job producing state in the country...after that comes welfare explosions, criminals from Mexico and a blue state filled with slaves to washington.

#4 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-06-02 01:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

#7

So, if methane bleeds out in 12 years, but it's trapping heat 86 times more effectively, what's the effect of the substantially increased trapping effect? What's the added effect if they don't stop the leakage, but in fact continue to add even more leaking infrastructure?

#5 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-06-02 01:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Our overly political co-worker is at it on this subject, annoying anyone and everyone who has to endure this creep during working hours.

He is ranting and raving about how energy "might" cost him "more", (as if clean air and water has less value).

I told him if it actually does cost more, he is "free" to use less ----- followed by a "God Bless America".

Needless to say he stomped off in a huff while others in the office giggled at his expense.

#6 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2014-06-02 01:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Clean energy = bull#$%.

No such thing.

This used to be called 'lame duck posturing'.

A more modern definition being 'campaigning'.

#7 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-06-02 04:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

lol. Funniest thing I've read in a while is the idea that Texas "Sees through" anything other than the sights of a long gun.

#8 | Posted by midiman at 2014-06-02 04:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

We have to compete.

No problem. Let's just bring back the jobs we outsourced to China and they won't need as many coal burning power plants.

#9 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2014-06-02 04:36 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Coal is what made this country great to begin with."

I thought it was guns that did that.

#10 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-06-02 04:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why doesn't Obama decrease his carbon footprint! I bet his is the largest individuals carbon footprint in the World!

#11 | Posted by parjosg2 at 2014-06-02 04:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

These new regulations are going to make the cost of electricity go WAY WAY up. I don't think that's a good thing for America right now.

#12 | Posted by _2112_ at 2014-06-02 04:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Coal is what made this country great to begin with."
I thought it was guns that did that.
#15 | Posted by REDIAL

And all this time I thought it was slave labor.
Oh well, at least I got the color right.

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-02 05:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Coal is what made this country great to begin with."

I thought it was guns that did that.

#15 | POSTED BY REDIAL

I thought it was Thomas Jefferson.

#14 | Posted by goatman at 2014-06-02 08:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

"We don't have to frack for it. "

Yeah, we can just cut the tops off of mountains and pollute every waterway that flows down it which, in turn, pollutes major waterways down river.

#15 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-02 08:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why would Obama act on his own to declare war on coal when India and China are stepping up production? Why tie our hands? I understand the environmental impact, but we're not staying competitive. We can't afford to lose ground economically to them. The USA isn't Sweden. We have to compete.

#2 | Posted by lee_the_agent

He might be trying to flush this country down the toilet. He has a good start on it.

#16 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-06-02 10:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

We don't need to compete using coal when we have cleaner energy souces in abundance.

#5 | Posted by danni

You just keep whiping that dead horse. What do we have in abundance that will cost us less than $0.15 per KWH?

#17 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-06-02 10:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

So, if methane bleeds out in 12 years, but it's trapping heat 86 times more effectively, what's the effect of the substantially increased trapping effect? What's the added effect if they don't stop the leakage, but in fact continue to add even more leaking infrastructure?

#10 | Posted by Whatsleft

The temp has NOT gone up this century.

#18 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-06-02 10:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Increased electrical energy cost and reduced economic output (i.e. GDP) that ought to be great for the middle class.

#19 | Posted by danv at 2014-06-02 11:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Even better for the lower class. We have got to make heating your home and driving your car very expensive so only the rich libs can afford it.

#20 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-06-03 09:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

This regulation will have a very minimal effect on the climate, but it will make some well connected cronies very wealthy.

#21 | Posted by visitor_ at 2014-06-03 11:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'd like to see the Golfer-in-Chief cut his own carbon footprint (and Moochele's carbon butt print).

#22 | Posted by JROD at 2014-06-03 02:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

No solutions, just more tribute for Caesar Disgustus

#23 | Posted by wisgod at 2014-06-03 02:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why not burn natural gas? It's dirt cheap due to oversupply anyway.

#4 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014

because as I said...a LARGE portion of this is to make TEXAS BLUE...and best way to do that is to destroy the energy and oil business that keeps us in the forefront of capitalism..

#24 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-06-03 02:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Every time pollutions standards have been changed to make for a cleaner environment we hear the exact same predictions of economic doom, increased unemployment and blah, blah, blah. None of it ever materializes though and we have been through this drill many, many times since the 1960's.

#25 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-03 04:09 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

What has happened to the price of a car due to all the government regs ddan?

#26 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-06-03 04:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

I know you won't look it up.

www.heritage.org

UC Davis has a study also.

#27 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-06-03 04:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

None of it ever materializes though and we have been through this drill many, many times since the 1960's.

#30 | Posted by danni

I'm sure that gives the middle class great comfort.

#28 | Posted by wisgod at 2014-06-03 04:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

What has happened to the price of a car due to all the government regs ddan?

#31 | Posted by Sniper

What is wrong with you people?

Can you tell us how many lives have been saved from those regs?

How much is a life worth to you?

Also how much oil has been saved by mandating more fuel efficient cars.

Now translate that to dollars.

If the cost increases by $2,800 (estimated cost increase due to fuel efficiency standards by 2025).

Is that bad?

Not if the net savings from the requirements will be $3,500 to $5,000 (because people will spend less on gas).

#29 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-06-03 04:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Every time pollutions standards have been changed to make for a cleaner environment we hear the exact same predictions of economic doom, increased unemployment and blah, blah, blah. None of it ever materializes though and we have been through this drill many, many times since the 1960's.

#30 | Posted by danni

Maddow did an excellent piece last night called "New pollution rules bring chicken littles" where she played clips that "reviews the long history of new pollution control regulations to address problems like acid rain and ozone depletion, and the freak-outs and dire warnings by industry advocates about economic disasters that never came to pass."

#30 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-06-03 05:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Danni's premise falls apart when she categorizes CO2 as a pollutant.

#31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-03 05:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

#34 | Posted by donnerboy

You can't prove even one word of that post.

#32 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-06-03 08:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

#35 | Posted by donnerboy

Everyone of thoes regulations has a huge price tag.

We still have that hole in the ozone donnie. I haven seen anyone fly out of it yet. Just exactly was going to happen?

Anyone that would watch madcow on a regular basis would fart in their own bath water just to watch the bubbles.

#33 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-06-03 08:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Seems to me like installing pollution controls on power plants create jobs.

Danni's premise falls apart when she categorizes CO2 as a pollutant.
#36 | Posted by JeffJ

Go breathe in 1% CO2 and get back to us.

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-04 01:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

We still have that hole in the ozone donnie. I haven seen anyone fly out of it yet. Just exactly was going to happen?

Wow...the ignorance is strong in this one.

In case you weren't aware(and was there any doubt?), the scientific consensus is that the Montreal Protocols have worked. WE humans are actually saving the ozone layer (from ourselves). It is an accomplishment which we all should be proud of.

But, I guess you first need to be aware of it before you can be proud of it.

"Millions of lives saved. Hundreds of millions of cancers averted. Agricultural disaster avoided. These are big achievements."

"If we stick with it, scientists expect the Antarctic ozone hole to close up for good later this century."

--David Doniger...policy director and senior attorney for NRDC's climate and clean air program in Washington, D.C.

switchboard.nrdc.org

"I didn't think that the Montreal Protocol would work as well as it has, but I was pretty naive about the politics," Stolarski added. "The Montreal Protocol is a remarkable international agreement that should be studied by those involved with global warming and the attempts to reach international agreement on that topic."

--Richard Stolarski, Goddard scientist

earthobservatory.nasa.gov

Anyone that would watch madcow on a regular basis would fart in their own bath water just to watch the bubbles.

Typical -------...you would deem to deny an old man the simple pleasures in life like being proud of how big his fart bubbles are.

The Party of No strikes again.

Next you will be making fun of my rubber ducky, too. Then what will I be able to sink with my massive gas bombs?

#35 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-06-04 02:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

#34 | Posted by donnerboy

You can't prove even one word of that post.

#37 | Posted by Sniper

You cannot disprove one word of it.

#36 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-06-04 02:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

Go breathe in 1% CO2 and get back to us.

#39 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Go eliminate 100% of CO2 from our atmosphere and see how that affects life on this planet.

You'll have to get back to us spiritually.

CO2 is not soot. It's not CO. It's not harmful to life. Life on this planet would cease to exist without it so quit pretending that it's just like smog.

#37 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-04 02:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's not harmful to life
Go breathe 1% CO2 and get back to us.

Go eliminate 100% of CO2 from our atmosphere and see how that affects life on this planet.
That would require eliminating every life form that performs aerobic respiration.

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-04 02:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Life on this planet would cease to exist without it so quit pretending that it's just like smog.

The one who's "pretending that it's just like smog" is you, for purposes of your iffy argument.

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-04 02:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Seems to me like installing pollution controls on power plants create jobs.

Short-term jobs doing work that provides no value to anybody but DOES result in increased energy prices which hurt the poor and middle class the hardest.

Huge cost and no benefit and ignorant people cheer this on.

#40 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-04 02:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Danni's premise falls apart when she categorizes CO2 as a pollutant."

I didn't categorize it, the EPA classified it, when to heavily concentrated, as a pollutant.

#41 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-04 02:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Short-term jobs doing work that provides no value to anybody but DOES result in increased energy prices which hurt the poor and middle class the hardest."

Just the healthcare costs attributable to pollution alone make installing pollution controls on power plants worthwhile and valuable.

#42 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-04 02:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Short-term jobs doing work that provides no value to anybody

Reducing CO2 output has value to everybody. But mostly the world's poor who live in low-lying coastal areas.

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-04 02:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

www.youtube.com

In Obama's own words. Fast forward to the 35 second mark.

I didn't categorize it, the EPA classified it, when to heavily concentrated, as a pollutant.

A bogus characterization carried out by an out of control bureaucracy that is regulating to an extent that its creators never intended.

If Congress wants to pass Cap and Trade and the president wants to sign it into law and then use the EPA as its enforcement mechanism...Fine. Elections have consequences.

But that isn't what is happening here. The president is imposing his will by fiat. You're cool with it because you favor the actions he's taking. What you seem to fail to grasp is that future presidents can follow the same precedent and take actions that you profoundly disagree with and will have no check against that power.

For the life of me I can't understand why you feel that the process doesn't matter; that the ends justify the means. What I really don't understand how you can't seem to fathom the inherent problems with unchecked power.

#44 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-04 02:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Just the healthcare costs attributable to pollution alone make installing pollution controls on power plants worthwhile and valuable."

It's also a much better way to sell the requirements.

#45 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-04 02:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You're cool with it because you favor the actions he's taking."

More because I live in S. Florida and rising seas will eventually flood the entire place if we don't stop global warming.

#46 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-04 02:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

Just the healthcare costs attributable to pollution alone make installing pollution controls on power plants worthwhile and valuable.

#47 | POSTED BY DANNI

CO2 is NOT smog!!!!

The quantity of CO2 being produced is in no way impacting people's ability to breathe. These plants already have scrubbers that filter out truly harmful pollutants, and that's a good thing. To 'necessarily skyrocket' energy costs in a stupid attempt to reduce the output of a harmless, critical-to-life gas is pure folly. It could even be described as evil.

Reducing CO2 output has value to everybody. But mostly the world's poor who live in low-lying coastal areas.

#48 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

These measures won't slow the rate of warming at all. Not one bit. So how are these measures a value to anybody? Raising energy costs to satisfy one man's vanity does terrible harm to the poor, even those living in low-lying coastal areas.

#47 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-04 02:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

Contrary to his soaring rhetoric, Obama does not have the ability to slow the rise of the oceans.

#48 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-04 02:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

"For the life of me I can't understand why you feel that the process doesn't matter; that the ends justify the means."

Because it is a worldwide crisis that is happening whether or not conservatives want to admit it and if we don't act soon it will be too late to do anything about it. We can no more afford the delays brought about by conservative obstructionists than we could afford their obstructionism in a war.

#49 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-04 02:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

You can't stop global warming, Danni.

These measures won't do a damn thing about the current warming trend.

#50 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-04 02:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Because it is a worldwide crisis that is happening whether or not conservatives want to admit it and if we don't act soon it will be too late to do anything about it. We can no more afford the delays brought about by conservative obstructionists than we could afford their obstructionism in a war.

#54 | POSTED BY DANNI

So, to hell with the rule of law and the separation of powers because you believe that liberals are smarter than everybody else and these actions are for our own good?

Do you not see how easy that could be to turn back around at you with different people in power and no means of checking their power?

#51 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-04 02:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Raising energy costs to satisfy one man's vanity does terrible harm to the poor, even those living in low-lying coastal areas."

Whose vanity are the Chinese trying to satisfy?

"According to Reuters, He Jiankun, a university professor and deputy chairman of China's Advisory Committee on Climate Change, told a conference in Beijing on Tuesday that China will use a carbon cap when it forms and implements its next five-year plan that would guide government policies. It would also continue to use a metric known as carbon intensity, which measures the amount of emissions per unit of economic output.

"The government will use two ways to control CO2 emissions in the next five-year plan, by intensity and an absolute cap," Professor He said, according to Reuters."

mashable.com

#52 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-04 02:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

These measures won't do a damn thing about the current warming trend.
#55 | Posted by JeffJ

There's a current warming trend?
Do tell.

#53 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-04 02:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

"So, to hell with the rule of law "

The Supreme Court has ruled that the EPA has the power to regulate CO2 so how is it now within the rule of law?

#54 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-04 02:39 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

A hundred years ago JeffJ would be saying that radioactive material isn't pollution.

#55 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-04 02:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

There's a current warming trend?
Do tell.

#58 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

It started at the end of the last mini ice age.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the EPA has the power to regulate CO2 so how is it now within the rule of law?

#59 | POSTED BY DANNI

If memory serves, the suit was whether or not the Clean Air Act gave the EPA the authority to characterize CO2 as a pollutant. It does. I think the plaintiff went after the wrong issue. The issue should have been that the Clean Air Act vested unconstitutional powers into the EPA effectively enabling a bureaucracy the ability to create legislation without oversight.

A hundred years ago JeffJ would be saying that radioactive material isn't pollution.

#60 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Right. Because standing next to radioactive material has the exact same negative affect on the body as standing next to someone who just exhaled.

#56 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-04 03:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Under President George W. Bush, the agency argued that Congress never intended to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, so it lacked authority to do so. In 2007, the Supreme Court disagreed, ruling in
Massachusetts v. EPA that the law was "unambiguous" and that emissions came under its broad definition of "air pollutant." It ordered the agency to determine whether greenhouse-gas emissions endanger public health or the environment. The EPA issued an "endangerment finding" in December 2009 that laid the groundwork for the power-plant rule it proposed Monday."

www.washingtonpost.com

#57 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-04 04:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

A hundred years ago JeffJ would be saying that radioactive material isn't pollution.
#60 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Right. Because standing next to radioactive material has the exact same negative affect on the body as standing next to someone who just exhaled.
#61 | Posted by JeffJ

Right. Because the CO2 source that's being regulated is humans breathing.

Go stick your face in a tailpipe and get back to us.

#58 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-04 05:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort