Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, October 10, 2017

The Trump administration announced on Monday that it would take formal steps to repeal President Barack Obama's signature policy to curb greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, setting up a bitter fight over the future of America's efforts to tackle global warming. At an event in eastern Kentucky, Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, said that his predecessors had departed from regulatory norms in crafting the Clean Power Plan, which was finalized in 2015 and would have pushed states to move away from coal in favor of sources of electricity that produce fewer carbon emissions. "The war on coal is over," Pruitt said. "Tomorrow in Washington, D.C., I will be signing a proposed rule to roll back the Clean Power Plan. No better place to make that announcement than Hazard, Ky."

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Coal- and natural-gas-fired power plants are responsible for about one-third of America's carbon dioxide emissions. When the Clean Power Plan was unveiled in 2015, it was expected to cut power sector emissions 32 percent by 2030, relative to 2005.

Environmental groups and several states plan to challenge the repeal proposal in federal courts, arguing against ruitt's move on both scientific and economic grounds.

Industry groups cheered the announcement, but have also indicated that they would prefer that Pruitt replace the Clean Power Plan with a new, more modest regulation on power plants in order to blunt any court challenges.

The E.P.A. is still required to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions because of a 2009 legal opinion known as the endangerment finding.

Comments

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

The Obama plan was an unconstitutional power grab.

Want to regulate coal out of business? Pass a damn law.

#1 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-10 09:15 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

" "The war on coal is over," Pruitt said."

Hilarious! The war on coal isn't being waged by government, it's being waged by natural gas. Pruitt knows that, this was just a PR opportunity to appeal to the stupid Trump base who don't know much of anything.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2017-10-10 09:22 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

"The Obama plan was an unconstitutional power grab"

Just read that there is a law in Texas restricting you to owning no more than six ------.

"Pass a damn law" is about "right"

#3 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-10-10 09:39 AM | Reply

The Obama plan was an unconstitutional power grab.
Want to regulate coal out of business? Pass a damn law.

#1 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

You haven't a clue how regulations work, do you? Please, don't post such ignorant garbage here. It ruins any possible debate.

#4 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-10 10:13 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Want to regulate coal out of business? Pass a damn law.

#1 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Yeah. How's that working out?

Congress couldn't pass a law if our lives depended on it. See "repeal and replace".

The Clean Air Act is Constitutional and it required the EPA to regulate GHG as pollutants.

#5 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-10-10 10:23 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

You haven't a clue how regulations work, do you?

The Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act don't give the EPA limitless regulatory powers.

Had the Trump administration left this alone this massive, sweeping regulation would have been killed in the courts.

#6 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-10 10:28 AM | Reply

"The Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act don't give the EPA limitless regulatory powers. "

Regulating carbon emissions as GHG as pollutants is not giving "EPA limitless powers".

Making up nonsense doesn't help your argument.

As you may have noticed Trump's actions tend to get killed in the courts. This will also be decided in the courts. But the courts should not be deciding whether we should be passing laws that save American lives. It should be common sense and Congress should be doing its job. Which it obviously is incapable of.

#7 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-10-10 10:45 AM | Reply

"Had the Trump administration left this alone"

clean water is clearly overrated
and lead is good for you

Sincerely

someone who has never not had unregulated anything

#8 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-10-10 10:47 AM | Reply

Jeffj is an expert in regulatory statutes the same way he is a master of economic policy
In other words, he will spew utter -------- until it becomes embarrassing, then pretend to have never said anything

#9 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-10-10 10:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

We have to make Dumb T to work in coal mines for day or 2, so he knows the pain. Just sitting in gold plated bowls, does not feel the change in climate.

#10 | Posted by material07310 at 2017-10-10 10:51 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

This will also be decided in the courts.

#7 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

I doubt it.

What is being undone is a regulation. If the EPA has the statutory power to issue regulations it has the power to undo said regulations.

#11 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-10 10:57 AM | Reply

The Obama plan was an unconstitutional power grab.

Want to regulate coal out of business? Pass a damn law.

#1 | Posted by JeffJ

Yeah that would be a great plan if coal billionaires weren't legally allowed to buy and bribe the entire republican party.

Otherwise we could solve problems with democracy.

Until then we have to find workarounds to save our lives.

#12 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-10 11:17 AM | Reply

fake headline.

#13 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-10-10 11:18 AM | Reply

Very dumb headline but there's no way to back Trump on this. I agree we had no reason to be in the VERY unfair Paris climate accord and that Obama just liked to write some policies for the sake of the idea (yeah, reduced emissions is great but so is not allowing the Federal government tell me what allowed to use my money for). However, where's the contingency plan? It's stupid for Trump to derail plans that has an honorable goal without having something to try to reach that goal in other ways. I know it won't matter to the opposing party who will immediately ignore the plan like opposing parties always do, but at least the decision can be defended. Not this one.

#14 | Posted by humtake at 2017-10-10 12:08 PM | Reply

^
fake poster

#15 | Posted by squinch at 2017-10-10 12:09 PM | Reply

See #13

#16 | Posted by squinch at 2017-10-10 12:09 PM | Reply

"Want to regulate coal out of business? Pass a damn law."

Actually that is exactly what is killing coal, a law. The law of supply and demand.

"Yeah that would be a great plan if coal billionaires weren't legally allowed to buy and bribe the entire republican party."

That's true but even those billionaires aren't going to revive the coal industry, natural gas is replacing coal.

#17 | Posted by danni at 2017-10-10 12:30 PM | Reply

The Obama plan was an unconstitutional power grab.

Want to regulate coal out of business? Pass a damn law.

#1 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-10 09:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

Your ignorance of the subject matter is astounding. The EPA doesn't nee to go to congress to act. You just hate Obama that's all.

#18 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-10-10 12:34 PM | Reply

"Had the Trump administration left this alone this massive, sweeping regulation would have been killed in the courts.
#6 | POSTED BY JEFFJ"

You are at your most amusing when playing Amateur Constitutional Lawyer.

#19 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2017-10-10 12:45 PM | Reply

The Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act don't give the EPA limitless regulatory powers.

Had the Trump administration left this alone this massive, sweeping regulation would have been killed in the courts.

#6 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-10 10:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

Your ignorance of the subject matter isn't surprising Jeff.

www.washingtonpost.com

#20 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-10-10 12:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#1 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

It's like you actually don't remember 2010-2016....

#21 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-10-10 12:56 PM | Reply

According to jeffy j, OBAMA's "abuse" of power drove Stone Age Technology out of bussiness

#22 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-10-10 12:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Want to regulate coal out of business? Pass a damn law."

Actually that is exactly what is killing coal, a law. The law of supply and demand.

#17 | Posted by danni

WOW!!!! dumb answer.

#23 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-10-10 01:28 PM | Reply

The 'war on coal' is over, just after numerous coal companies have either gone out of business or changed their names to become 'energy' companies focused on cheaper products easier to produce with less bloodshed. Meanwhile, industry (read: electric utilities) long ago read the writing on the wall and switched to natural gas to drive their electric turbines.

If Trump, et alia won the 'war on coal', let's wager on the rise of coal consumption and coal mining jobs in this country in 2020, compared to today. I'll bet the number will be static. Anyone want to take the position that this country will be burning more coal and employing more coal miners in three years? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

#24 | Posted by catdog at 2017-10-10 01:35 PM | Reply

WOW!!!! dumb answer.

#23 | Posted by Sniper

Then you could refute it.

#25 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-10 01:48 PM | Reply

Now sniper and his crew can finally have at that sack of delicious coal that OBAMA stole.

#26 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-10-10 05:51 PM | Reply

If the EPA has the statutory power to issue regulations it has the power to undo said regulations.

#11 | Posted by JeffJ

Actually you are wrong (surprise!)

The EPA was forced to regulate GHG by a court order.

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), is a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court case in which twelve states and several cities of the United States brought suit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to force that federal agency to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) ...

www.nytimes.com

Supreme Court Orders EPA To Regulate Greenhouse Gases Under Clean Air Act

www.hollandhart.com

Appeals court blocks Trump's attempt to roll back methane rules

www.pri.org

#27 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-10-10 06:00 PM | Reply

fake headline.

#13 | Posted by Sniper a Russian bot (or useful idiot)

#28 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-10-10 06:02 PM | Reply

Actually that is exactly what is killing coal, a law. The law of supply and demand.

Exactly. Coal has no chance to compete with dirt cheap natural gas, and the world is awash in NG these days.

Combine that with the fact you can put NG in a pipe and send it anywhere, coal loses bigly.

#29 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-10-10 07:40 PM | Reply

Hey!

What happened to Jeffy?

And we were just making some progress toward the truth.

He must be wearing out the google hamster trying to find a site that agrees with him but is not called breitbart.

#30 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-10-10 07:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

1) Gas is cheap
2) Onsite storage space of fuel is not needed
3) Delivery costs are minimal.
4) Onsite storage of waste is not needed
5) Don't have to pay someone to move fuel from storage to the plant. Just turn a valve and its done
6) Gas plants are smaller and less expensive to build.

That is why coal is dead.

The cost of emission controls is negligible compared to any one of the 6 items above.

#31 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-10-11 10:16 AM | Reply

Seems like people are forgetting that air and water are not contained by lines on a map.

Some of the regulations can be a bit overkill, but not the ones that prevent a ---- hole state from polluting surrounding states.

#32 | Posted by Lohocla at 2017-10-11 11:51 AM | Reply

"Just read that there is a law in Texas restricting you to owning no more than six ------." - #3 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-10-10 09:39 AM

One (and a spare) for each major orifice.

And does a double one count as one or two?

#33 | Posted by Hans at 2017-10-11 12:35 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

And does a double one count as one or two?

#33 | Posted by Hans

That would depend on how you use it.

#34 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-10-11 05:00 PM | Reply

You guys were mean to JJ. Lol

#35 | Posted by fresno500 at 2017-10-12 12:28 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort