How The EPA Could Cut Carbon Emissions Even More Than We Thought By 2020

[Luddly Neddite]

Except it will not happen. Too many vested interests fighting doing anything at all. And they will win until there is a catastrophe large enough to get everyones attention.

This sculpture by Issac Cordal in Berlin is called "Politicians discussing global warming."

 

[Old Rocks]

Commies?

Of course commies. Ol' Staph is stuck in the early '50's.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-QAhuL-tPs]John Birch Society Song.flv - YouTube[/ame]

 

[ScienceRocks]

I will vote straight ticket democrat If you're going to abolish science in this country.

 

[Stephanie]

I will vote straight ticket democrat If you're going to abolish science in this country.

are we suppose to care?
the EPA is filled with a bunch of environmental radical who is now out to hurt us, our country and our LIVELIHOODS..

Go bow to the Democrat party..it fits you anyway
spend taxpayers MONIES at your every whim and wish is your motto too

 

[Abraham3]

You're really into that bowing aren't you.

Why would the EPA want to hurt you, your livelihood or your country? What possible reason could they have for such an aim?

 

[Spiderman]

You're really into that bowing aren't you.

Why would the EPA want to hurt you, your livelihood or your country? What possible reason could they have for such an aim?

It's a government agency and all government agencies care about is increasing their budget every year.

Fines fees and taxes are their only concern.

 

[Abraham3]

You're really into that bowing aren't you.

Why would the EPA want to hurt you, your livelihood or your country? What possible reason could they have for such an aim?

It's a government agency and all government agencies care about is increasing their budget every year.

Fines fees and taxes are their only concern.

That is really, really dumb. Fines and fees are considered income for the agency. Increasing those would likely get their budget reduced. And no one at the agency benefits PERSONALLY from fines. And - big secret here - they are not involved in taxation at all. That is nothing but ignorant paranoia.

 

[Stephanie]

I posted this earlier in a separate thread..it's fitting for here








Separation of Church and State Disappears with Global Warming. 52427.jpeg

Science has become the new religion of power mongers. The reduction of science to religion deprives rational persons of objective science and imposes religion onto the public through government.

These concerns are relative and could have been argued a century ago. But they increased exponentially over recent decades. It is now impossible to produce objective science, while the values of power mongers are forced onto everyone through science as religion.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...sappears-with-global-warming.html#post8823793

 

[Spiderman]

You're really into that bowing aren't you.

Why would the EPA want to hurt you, your livelihood or your country? What possible reason could they have for such an aim?

It's a government agency and all government agencies care about is increasing their budget every year.

Fines fees and taxes are their only concern.

That is really, really dumb. Fines and fees are considered income for the agency. Increasing those would likely get their budget reduced. And no one at the agency benefits PERSONALLY from fines. And - big secret here - they are not involved in taxation at all. That is nothing but ignorant paranoia.

Budgets never get reduced al that happens is the increases aren't as big.

Do not think for one NY minute that any government agency gives a shit about you, your life, your family or your livelihood.

Doing so is naivete to the point of mental retardation.

All we are to the government are walking talking ATMs

 

[Politico]

I just burned some tires this morning. Doing my part.

I will vote straight ticket democrat If you're going to abolish science in this country.

Will lol. You never have done anything else.

 

[Stephanie]

I just burned some tires this morning. Doing my part.

 

[peach174]

You're really into that bowing aren't you.

Why would the EPA want to hurt you, your livelihood or your country? What possible reason could they have for such an aim?

It isn't like they are trying to hurt intentionally. It's the way that things are set up there in Washington D.C. and deals that are made with the Department.
We have a better coal filter (it's cheaper and catches the coal omissions better than theirs) for our power plant here in Cochise County.
The EPA listened to us, but then closed down the conversation and ruled that they would use their filter, which costs more and is much less efficient. They did a back room deal with the people who make that particular filter and they refused to even consider ours that we have. No matter how much better it is.
Our Rep. Ron Barber recently had the talks opened up again. What good this will do, I don't think that it will matter.
The EPA is bound and determined to use their filter because of the deal they have made with a particular manufacturer.
It tells me they really don't believe in the CO2 Bologna any more than the fast majority of the people around the globe do.
This is all about getting rid of oil, coal and gas & using backroom deals. Not about having a clean environment.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

There will be no catastrophe of the sort that would drive such action. Storms will get worse, seas will rise, storm surges will cause more flooding, but there will always be plausible deniability. Nothing dramatic will occur with a smoking gun tying it to atmospheric CO2. Besides, it's already too late. If we stopped every molecule of CO2 this instant, temperatures would continue to rise for another century or more. And we not only haven't cut GHG emissions, we haven't even been able to slow the emission rate's acceleration. If you really wanted to see their faces when they're proven wrong, you only need wait. It's guaranteed.

 

[driveby]

How The EPA Could Cut Carbon Emissions Even More Than We Thought By 2020

The Environmental Protection Agency’s upcoming carbon rules for existing power plants could cut even more emissions than previously thought, according to a new analysis.

Back in 2013, a long legal battle over the Clean Air Act culminated with EPA releasing rules that will cut carbon dioxide emissions from new coal and natural gas plants. In June of this year, the agency will release similar draft rules for already existing power plants, and then finalize them by June 2015.

But the legal language of the Clean Air Act gives EPA different scopes of power for new versus existing plants. The agency can regulate the former pretty directly, but must partner with the states to regulate the latter. Essentially, EPA sets up the broad system, and then each state must submit its compliance plan by July 2016.

To that end, the agency has been taking public comments on how to best design that system. And arguably one of the best plans was submitted by the Natural Resources Defense Council.

How The EPA Could Cut Carbon Emissions Even More Than We Thought By 2020 | ThinkProgress

Reallly good news!

At what point do you assholes ride your unicorns to China and India to force them to reduce theirs?..........

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How The EPA Could Cut Carbon Emissions Even More Than We Thought By 2020


By laying off their employees.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I will vote straight ticket democrat If you're going to abolish science in this country.

The democrats are good at abolishing science.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're really into that bowing aren't you.

Why would the EPA want to hurt you, your livelihood or your country? What possible reason could they have for such an aim?

Power.

 

[skookerasbil]

Matthew.....dang.......for a smart guy, you are so fucking naïve. I expect that of 19 or 20 year olds in the academic world where one is getting exposed to all kinds of ideologically based thinking......God, I was there too at that age, reading my NY Times every day and taking everything as gospel. Thought Marx's "The German Ideology" was the most profound thing Id ever read in my life.......until I got another perspective and realized this bozo Marx never wrote about how the economics would work in his utopian model.......the "synthesis". Bought that shit hook, line and sinker.......until I realized the guy was nothing more than just a philosopher with no solutions.

In the early 1980's, ended up reading a lot on how bureaucracies really work no matter what party or what president is on power.......a concept known as bureaucratic inertia.......people are so mislead about how government agencies really operate once they are established. Its a mega-business funded by public monies.....each agency with one mission: grow. Government agencies, for anybody out in the real world who has seen them operate, like I have, see very clearly that they are ALWAYS in the process of inventing and re-inventing themselves. Of course, they must legitimatize their existence and hence their organizational essence.......which will always be presented as crucial.

I just see a lot of naïve going on in these pages......just a total lack of perspective.......a lack of comprehensive information and/or life experience. The result? A blind trust in government thinking automatically that anything they do is beneficial for society........simpleton thinking.


Todd gets it right above........not just the EPA but all large governmental agencies are power hungry and always will be power hungry.

 

[flacaltenn]

From the OP cite:

And arguably one of the best plans was submitted by the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Oh OF COURSE --- National energy policy written by ThinkProgress and the NRDC.. A bunch of teddy bear selling, lobster eating lawyers.. THAT's the technical expertise that will save America... .

 

[Abraham3]

From the OP cite:

And arguably one of the best plans was submitted by the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Oh OF COURSE --- National energy policy written by ThinkProgress and the NRDC.. A bunch of teddy bear selling, lobster eating lawyers.. THAT's the technical expertise that will save America... .

I don't see "ThinkProgress" mentioned in the quoted line. And do you really see that ad hominem attack as a valid argument? "Lobster eating lawyers"??? Is THAT supposed to represent the technical expertise that YOU think will save America? Are there any other classes of people you'd like to blame?