• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

November surprise: EPA planning major post-election anti-coal regulation

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Is it really any surprise that the EPA wants to shut down coal, the fuel that generates 42% of America's electricity?

The bigger question is, what are all of the other Obama regulatory agencies doing in anticipation of a Romney/Ryan victory tomorrow?

November surprise: EPA planning major post-election anti-coal regulation

November 4, 2012 | 11:44 am

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.

Environmentalists at the EPA pulled this trick before in 2000 when the Clinton administration rushed out a finding that Mercury emissions from power plants were a growing public health threat pursuant to the Clean Air Act. That finding did not regulate power plants itself, but it did force the Bush administration to begin a lengthy regulatory process. The Obama EPA has estimated that this regulation alone will cost the U.S. economy $10.9 billion a year.

Reached for comment, Romney spokesman Ryan Williams said:

President Obama won’t tell the voters of the Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania the truth about his plans to shut down the coal industry. Even after he loses on Tuesday, it appears that the President will still try to continue his efforts to kill their jobs and drive up their energy prices. Mitt Romney is committed to reversing the damage caused by the Obama Administration’s disastrous liberal agenda as soon as he takes office.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,563
3
0
Great idea. With so much natural gas that producers are capping wells off in the US its time to start shutting coal plants and switch to far cleaner natural gas.

I bet the coal companies are thinking if only we had not fought so hard against pollution controls that our plants wouldn't be sho toxic and maybe we wouldn't have this backlash.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
105,804
20,668
136
The biggest question is, why does OP think R&R will win tomorrow?

Why are your tea leaves better than the hundreds of polls that say otherwise?
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
The biggest question is, why does OP think R&R will win tomorrow?

Why are your tea leaves better than the hundreds of polls that say otherwise?
I'm generally a contrarian investor. I see Obama as being over bought and it is time for a correction, maybe even a "crash and burn" scenario.

:awe:
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
Great idea. With so much natural gas that producers are capping wells off in the US its time to start shutting coal plants and switch to far cleaner natural gas.

I bet the coal companies are thinking if only we had not fought so hard against pollution controls that our plants wouldn't be sho toxic and maybe we wouldn't have this backlash.
Great, cheering for coal plants to shut down and PEOPLE LOSE JOBS.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,182
3,872
126
I don't know all of the story but I just took a shit and when I flushed I said, bu bye, Romney. Yesterday Obama was at 85% and today it's 86% so I would guess not much is being done in preparation for a loss, but what is happening inside of conservative's nuts. I think the shrinking and shrieking has begun. But I'm not a person who likes to gloat and I never really count chickens. I personally can't lose. I won a long time ago.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,305
753
126
Great, cheering for coal plants to shut down and PEOPLE LOSE JOBS.
That would be replaced by new jobs.

You can't get around replacing coal with other alternatives. In this case it would be natural gas. Lost coal jobs would not only be recovered with natural gas jobs, but there would be even more jobs created because there would be a need for new natural gas plants, new natural gas pipelines, etc.

Switching from coal to natural gas would create more jobs than lost. It would also create a cleaner environment. Energy prices wouldn't be that much different either.

The US should only be building out natural gas, nuclear, and alternative energy. There is no need to build new coal plants. Considering the US has enough natural gas to be energy independent, there really is no need for any coal power plants(once more natural gas plants come online).
 
Last edited:
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
That would be replaced by new jobs.

You can't get around replacing coal with other alternatives. In this case it would be natural gas. Lost coal jobs would not only be recovered with natural gas jobs, but there would be even more jobs created because there would be a need for new natural gas plants, new natural gas pipelines, etc.

Switching from coal to natural gas would create more jobs than lost. It would also create a cleaner environment. Energy prices wouldn't be that much different either.

Considering the US has enough natural gas to be energy independent, there really is no need for coal power plants anymore.
I am talking about those employees specifically, The government shouldn't be shutting down businesses because of ideology, let the coal plants stay
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
61,854
14,987
136
So is this the EPA that has dragged its feet for 40+ years on implementing the Clean Air Act that PJ is getting his uddies in a knot over? The agency that has been sued and lost over and over for its refusal to regulate coal power plants as required by law? That EPA? About f%^$in' time EPA followed the law.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
61,854
14,987
136
I am talking about those employees specifically, The government shouldn't be shutting down businesses because of ideology, let the coal plants stay
Hmm, I thought it was the tons of illegal emissions, not ideology that is the issue. Either you believe in the rule of law or you don't.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,054
3,600
126
Coal is interesting because of natural gas. It may now be possible to attack the industry and not cripple American energy supplies.

Though prices may sharply rise if they force the transition too soon, before major infrastructure is in place to match our demand.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
Hmm, I thought it was the tons of illegal emissions, not ideology that is the issue. Either you believe in the rule of law or you don't.
Its that as well, obama is subsidizing green energy though because he favors it over the "dirty" energy
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
So is this the EPA that has dragged its feet for 40+ years on implementing the Clean Air Act that PJ is getting his uddies in a knot over? The agency that has been sued and lost over and over for its refusal to regulate coal power plants as required by law? That EPA? About f%^$in' time EPA followed the law.
Hmm, I thought it was the tons of illegal emissions, not ideology that is the issue. Either you believe in the rule of law or you don't.
So you are arguing that a law passed 40+ years ago was intended to limit greenhouse gases?
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
61,854
14,987
136
So you are arguing that a law passed 40+ years ago was intended to limit greenhouse gases?

Yes, however in this case I was referring to EPA's ongoing refusal to implement the Clean Air Act wrt to sulfur and particulates from coal plants.

CAA Sec 302(h) All language referring to effects on welfare includes, but is not limited to, effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man-made materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility, and climate, damage to and deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation, as well as effects on economic values and on personal comfort and well-being, whether caused by transformation, conversion, or combination with other air pollutants.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Natural gas is already bigger than coal AFAIK. Could be wrong about that, but basically nobody should give a shit about coal moving forward. That's old, dirty energy with little future.
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
I'm generally a contrarian investor. I see Obama as being over bought and it is time for a correction, maybe even a "crash and burn" scenario.

:awe:
If you invest like you predict election results, it wouldn't surprise me if your broke.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
460
126
Natural gas is already bigger than coal AFAIK. Could be wrong about that, but basically nobody should give a shit about coal moving forward. That's old, dirty energy with little future.
Agreed. The energy source of America's future is proper tire inflation.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY