Cap and trade DOA but not the EPA.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Maple, Aug 29, 2011.

  1. Maple
    Offline

    Maple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,674
    Thanks Received:
    568
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +568
    You knew this was coming folks, with Cap and Trade DOA, they will do it through the EPA, notice that this would lay off app 60,000 coal miners and it WOULD increase the consumers, our, cost for energy. Obama reeking havoc with another major part of our economy.


    http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/8700-epa-regulati


    The underlying problem is that 45 percent of U.S. power comes from coal, and plant shutdowns would mean fewer jobs, more blackouts, and higher electric bills. But even assuming that not a single plant would shut down, energy prices would still rise, because older plants would need upgrades to continue operations - which, in turn, would also raise prices. It's a simple economic equation: An increase in the costs of a plant's production equals an increase in the consumer's electric bill. Unfortunately for the Republicans in Congress, they will find no help from the executive branch in fighting these measures, as President Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle in a January 2008 interview: I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system,which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that marketand the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year. So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.

    I got news for the President we don't have any new technologies that will make up for the loss of 45% of the coal mining industry, it's just not there.
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2011
  2. Moonglow
    Offline

    Moonglow Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    82,038
    Thanks Received:
    8,039
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    sw mizzouri
    Ratings:
    +29,655
    nice link
     
  3. Maple
    Offline

    Maple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,674
    Thanks Received:
    568
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +568
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2011
  4. Mr. H.
    Offline

    Mr. H. Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    44,127
    Thanks Received:
    9,267
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    A warm place with no memory.
    Ratings:
    +15,419
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2011
  5. Maple
    Offline

    Maple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,674
    Thanks Received:
    568
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +568
    I guess we will have to go back over 100 years and start burning wood to heat our homes, no wait we won't be able to do that, that's considered pollution too. I guess we will just freeze.
     

Share This Page