Obama Job Killing Regulations

Well, you're say-so certainly is convincing evidence. You're obviously qualified to judge the health issues related to the emissions from coal fired power plants.

NOT!

I'm working in Milwaukee at the moment, and there is a giant coal fired plant right in the middle of downtown. I used to live in Denver, and there are coal fired power plants there right smack in the middle residential areas. No one has ever shown that coal fired power plants are a health concern, especially not the EPA. All they do is extrapolate from highly dubious studies about the health effects of high levels of Mercury. These studies are authored by organizations that receive money from the EPA.

The whole thing is a scam to increase the power of the EPA and impose an agenda on the public that it would emphatically reject if it had all the facts.

Uh-huh. :eusa_hand:

Translation: You have been owned.

And you're an hysterical nitwit. Anyone that doesn't believe that there are harmful by-products from the burning of coal must have fallen out of the Stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down.
 

Translation: You have been owned.

And you're an hysterical nitwit. Anyone that doesn't believe that there are harmful by-products from the burning of coal must have fallen out of the Stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down.

you're the one yelling "the sky is falling," but I'm hysterical?

All industrial processes produce toxic by-products. The question is are they expelled into the environment in sufficient quantities to cause harm. The case against coal fired power plants is almost nonexistent. For one thing, the overwhelming bulk of mercury in the environmental comes from natural sources. Thermal vents at the bottom of the ocean spew millions of tons into the environment every year. No even thinks about eating a can of tuna fish as dangerous, but it probably contains more mercury than anyone living near a coal fire power plant is likely to inhale in the course of a year.

People have been living next to coal fired plants for decades with no reported ill effects. The EPA has never published a study showing health problems related to living near a coal fired plant. That's because there are no effects. None.
 
Translation: You have been owned.

And you're an hysterical nitwit. Anyone that doesn't believe that there are harmful by-products from the burning of coal must have fallen out of the Stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down.

you're the one yelling "the sky is falling," but I'm hysterical?

All industrial processes produce toxic by-products. The question is are they expelled into the environment in sufficient quantities to cause harm. The case against coal fired power plants is almost nonexistent. For one thing, the overwhelming bulk of mercury in the environmental comes from natural sources. Thermal vents at the bottom of the ocean spew millions of tons into the environment every year. No even thinks about eating a can of tuna fish as dangerous, but it probably contains more mercury than anyone living near a coal fire power plant is likely to inhale in the course of a year.

People have been living next to coal fired plants for decades with no reported ill effects. The EPA has never published a study showing health problems related to living near a coal fired plant. That's because there are no effects. None.

"This announcement has been brought to you by your friendly local power producer".

"Trust us. We would NEVER put our profits over your safety".
 
And you're an hysterical nitwit. Anyone that doesn't believe that there are harmful by-products from the burning of coal must have fallen out of the Stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down.

you're the one yelling "the sky is falling," but I'm hysterical?

All industrial processes produce toxic by-products. The question is are they expelled into the environment in sufficient quantities to cause harm. The case against coal fired power plants is almost nonexistent. For one thing, the overwhelming bulk of mercury in the environmental comes from natural sources. Thermal vents at the bottom of the ocean spew millions of tons into the environment every year. No even thinks about eating a can of tuna fish as dangerous, but it probably contains more mercury than anyone living near a coal fire power plant is likely to inhale in the course of a year.

People have been living next to coal fired plants for decades with no reported ill effects. The EPA has never published a study showing health problems related to living near a coal fired plant. That's because there are no effects. None.

"This announcement has been brought to you by your friendly local power producer".

"Trust us. We would NEVER put our profits over your safety".

I don't work for any power producer, nitwit. However, I do consume power, and I don't want the cost to triple in the next few years. Only a complete imbecile wants the cost of the things he consumes to increase for no good reason.
 
If you're going to completely copy and paste a story from Fox News, you really should provide a link for your source.

Don't be stupid. With fewer than 15 posts, the poster can't provide links; C&P a few lines into google and you can find out for yourself.

Relative to the subject of the thread, my home state of Indiana has twenty two coal fired plants and recent EPA regs are forcing the closure of seven or cutting local capacity by a third. That could force rate increases of fifty percent.

Not only does this haveto force rate increases but will mean the closure of some of our coal mines, a large part of the industrial base of Indiana.

Why does Obama so heartlessly destroy so many jobs?
Indiana went for Obama in 08, but he has already written the white working class off.
 
Translation: You have been owned.

And you're an hysterical nitwit. Anyone that doesn't believe that there are harmful by-products from the burning of coal must have fallen out of the Stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down.

you're the one yelling "the sky is falling," but I'm hysterical?

All industrial processes produce toxic by-products. The question is are they expelled into the environment in sufficient quantities to cause harm. The case against coal fired power plants is almost nonexistent. For one thing, the overwhelming bulk of mercury in the environmental comes from natural sources. Thermal vents at the bottom of the ocean spew millions of tons into the environment every year. No even thinks about eating a can of tuna fish as dangerous, but it probably contains more mercury than anyone living near a coal fire power plant is likely to inhale in the course of a year.

People have been living next to coal fired plants for decades with no reported ill effects. The EPA has never published a study showing health problems related to living near a coal fired plant. That's because there are no effects. None.

Most if not all have scrubbers to reduce toxic by-products.
 
If you're going to completely copy and paste a story from Fox News, you really should provide a link for your source.

Don't be stupid. With fewer than 15 posts, the poster can't provide links; C&P a few lines into google and you can find out for yourself.

Relative to the subject of the thread, my home state of Indiana has twenty two coal fired plants and recent EPA regs are forcing the closure of seven or cutting local capacity by a third. That could force rate increases of fifty percent.

Not only does this haveto force rate increases but will mean the closure of some of our coal mines, a large part of the industrial base of Indiana.

Why does Obama so heartlessly destroy so many jobs?
Indiana went for Obama in 08, but he has already written the white working class off.

Even if the OP could not post a link, he could have said he read this on Fox News or he could have quoted the material in some way. He didn't. He didn't even try. He instead presented it as if he wrote it. Not cool.

As to the topic, again, I have yet to see anywhere, in any of the various versions off this article, where it states that this is an Obama regulation. In fact, the articles typically talk about how they saw these closing coming for years, which makes me think it is a Bush regulation or even an old Clinton one.

Unlike many here, I don't instantly blame Obama for everything. I need proof.
 
Last edited:
Conservative: Obama's regulations are costing jobs.

Leftist: No, they're not!

C: Yes, they are. Look at the OP.

L: *sputter sputter* Well, those coal plants are killing kids! Why do you hate kids?!

C: So, nothing to say about the jobs lost?

L: Why should I be upset about kid-killers being put out of work?!

C: ...

Here let me answer:
C: So liberal you'd rather kids starve and people freeze while Obama rides his little blke in Hawaii?
This president is nothing more than a fucking puppet. The right has him licking their boots. The latest act was his cave on the keystone pipeline. He has caved soooooo many times it is obvious the entire government is bought and they are just putting on a freakin show. We as Americans are being conned. Few look at the data to see what the hell is really going on. The keystone pipeline FACTS according to the creators Canada is, this pipeline will dodge regulations and use a much thinner pipe at higher pressure and cross over an area that has had seismic activity of 4.1 as recent as 2002. If a major oil spill occurs it could contaminate water for 2 million people and destroy the agricultural area costing about 54 billion dollars a year. Independent study conducted by the Cornell ILR Global Labor Institute which found that the Keystone XL would result in 2,500 to 4,650 temporary construction jobs so all the big numbers are bullshit.
Maybe when all our children are freezing, maybe just maybe we will put our differences aside and march to D.C and drag those bastards out of office and replace them with patriots who are concerned about the people not the party or their jobs or the wealthy masters they all serve. Pissed not at Rep. or Dems. or any one faction but all of Washington and am ready to do what is necessary to take my country back. It is a fucking shame when soldiers are ready to lay down their lives for a foreign country and we are lambs when it comes to defending the Constitution here at home.
 
Wonder how many tons of polluction comes from Airforce one when the president heads out on vacation?:lol::lol:
 
you're the one yelling "the sky is falling," but I'm hysterical?

All industrial processes produce toxic by-products. The question is are they expelled into the environment in sufficient quantities to cause harm. The case against coal fired power plants is almost nonexistent. For one thing, the overwhelming bulk of mercury in the environmental comes from natural sources. Thermal vents at the bottom of the ocean spew millions of tons into the environment every year. No even thinks about eating a can of tuna fish as dangerous, but it probably contains more mercury than anyone living near a coal fire power plant is likely to inhale in the course of a year.

People have been living next to coal fired plants for decades with no reported ill effects. The EPA has never published a study showing health problems related to living near a coal fired plant. That's because there are no effects. None.

"This announcement has been brought to you by your friendly local power producer".

"Trust us. We would NEVER put our profits over your safety".

I don't work for any power producer, nitwit. However, I do consume power, and I don't want the cost to triple in the next few years. Only a complete imbecile wants the cost of the things he consumes to increase for no good reason.

Can you prove your energy bills will triple in the next few years?

China, the world's largest user of coal is making moves to go green. China is moving forward because of the human and financial cost of air pollution. Estimates of those dying due to pollution in China are at over 700,000!

Greening China
How to Reduce Air Pollution in China | Harvard Magazine Sep-Oct 2008
 
Conservative: Obama's regulations are costing jobs.

Leftist: No, they're not!

C: Yes, they are. Look at the OP.

L: *sputter sputter* Well, those coal plants are killing kids! Why do you hate kids?!

C: So, nothing to say about the jobs lost?

L: Why should I be upset about kid-killers being put out of work?!

C: ...

Here let me answer:
C: So liberal you'd rather kids starve and people freeze while Obama rides his little blke in Hawaii?
Well played!
 
For more than 90 years, the coal-fired power plant in Glen Lyn, Va., has been churning out electricity and contributing to local prosperity. Of late, it has generated nearly a quarter of the revenue for the $1 million budget of the town.

Yet when the plant ultimately shuts down to comply with new federal air pollution regulations by the end of 2014, says Town Manager Howard Spencer, so too might the community of 200.

"If the town lost all of that revenue," he says, "we would struggle to even continue to be incorporated."

An Associated Press analysis has found that more than 32 mostly coal-fired power plants in a dozen states will be forced to close because of the new, more stringent regulations. Another 36 plants are at risk of closing.No lights will go dark. But the Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that 14.7 gigawatts — enough power for more than 11 million households — will be retired from the power grid in the 2014-15 period when the rules take effect. One rule curbs air pollution in states downwind from dirty power plants. Another sets first standards for mercury and other toxic pollutants from smokestacks.

The effect is greatest in the Midwest and in coal belt states such as Virginia and West Virginia, where dozens of units are likely to shut down.

Take Giles County, where American Electric Power's Glen Lyn plant is located, and where 44 jobs are on the line.

County Administrator Chris McKlarney worries about the $600,000 tax-revenue hit his $40 million budget will take. But that's just one concern involving a plant and workers whose community contribution is "hard to quantify."

"They've done so much donation-wise for local causes ... And they're really good people working there," he said. "They're coaches in Little League sports, involved in the Parent-Teacher Organization — you lose those kind of people, it's tough."



And they're good jobs — stable, well-paying positions with good benefits in places where such things can be hard to find.

The closures, though, have long been anticipated. The average age of the plants that could be sacrificed is 51 years.

Hope and Change ?

Hmmmm.....I work in the coal fired power plant industry and I can tell you that you sure as hell wouldn't want to live near one, especially a big one like I work in that spews out tons of mercury. It's so bad that our state health officials are saying that people should not eat the fish in nearby lakes and streams.

http://www.ifishillinois.org/pdf/09consumption.pdf

We are in the process of installing mercury controls that should greatly reduce the levels of mercury that we put out.

It only makes good sense to me.

Maybe you can power your home with Solyndra solar panels.

Oh, wait...
 
Of course regulations prevent certain jobs from being economical. That's the point. When someone sells a product (such as energy) in a way that imposes a substantial cost on society (such as coal pollution) society has a right to force the producer to bear those costs. If it is not economical for them to sell their product when they can't make society pay a substantial amount of their costs then they shouldn't sell their product.

And the notion that our national energy policy should be informed by who participates in Little League is absurd.
Yes, our national energy policy should be informed by people who don't know the difference between a kilowatt and a kumquat, and think solar and wind can replace the half of the electricity produced by coal in this nation in just a couple of years.
 
There are some cons that would sell out their own mothers if it meant a job for them.

Why don't you use your brains and create your own jobs, stop relying on your corporate masters to provide you with a barely above minimum wage existence that you'll do anything to protect including giving up your own tax cuts so that your owners can get a bigger piece of the pie.
Shut up and fix me a grande caramel macchiato, kid.
 
There are some cons that would sell out their own mothers if it meant a job for them.

Why don't you use your brains and create your own jobs, stop relying on your corporate masters to provide you with a barely above minimum wage existence that you'll do anything to protect including giving up your own tax cuts so that your owners can get a bigger piece of the pie.
Shut up and fix me a grande caramel macchiato, kid.

Make sure you super-size my fries gramps.
 
Don't be stupid. With fewer than 15 posts, the poster can't provide links; C&P a few lines into google and you can find out for yourself.

Relative to the subject of the thread, my home state of Indiana has twenty two coal fired plants and recent EPA regs are forcing the closure of seven or cutting local capacity by a third. That could force rate increases of fifty percent.

Not only does this haveto force rate increases but will mean the closure of some of our coal mines, a large part of the industrial base of Indiana.

Why does Obama so heartlessly destroy so many jobs?
Indiana went for Obama in 08, but he has already written the white working class off.
.
Even if the OP could not post a link, he could have said he read this on Fox News or he could have quoted the material in some way. He didn't. He didn't even try. He instead presented it as if he wrote it. Not cool.

As to the topic, again, I have yet to see anywhere, in any of the various versions off this article, where it states that this is an Obama regulation. In fact, the articles typically talk about how they saw these closing coming for years, which makes me think it is a Bush regulation or even an old Clinton one.

Unlike many here, I don't instantly blame Obama for everything. I need proof.

it's Obama's EPA doing his bidding, doing with regulations what he can't do democratically with legislation (carbon legislation) by working with congress. It was Obama who said, and you must have heard him say it on the YouTube video, that he favored making the cost of operating coal fired plants prohibitive, that they could build them if they wanted to, but that it would necessarily bankrupt them. EPA policy is that very Obama policy being implemented extra constitutionally.

That's not from Fox, that is public information, and it takes a lemming or a partisan ideologue to willingly ignore it.
 
Last edited:
For more than 90 years, the coal-fired power plant in Glen Lyn, Va., has been churning out electricity and contributing to local prosperity. Of late, it has generated nearly a quarter of the revenue for the $1 million budget of the town.

Yet when the plant ultimately shuts down to comply with new federal air pollution regulations by the end of 2014, says Town Manager Howard Spencer, so too might the community of 200.

"If the town lost all of that revenue," he says, "we would struggle to even continue to be incorporated."

An Associated Press analysis has found that more than 32 mostly coal-fired power plants in a dozen states will be forced to close because of the new, more stringent regulations. Another 36 plants are at risk of closing.No lights will go dark. But the Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that 14.7 gigawatts — enough power for more than 11 million households — will be retired from the power grid in the 2014-15 period when the rules take effect. One rule curbs air pollution in states downwind from dirty power plants. Another sets first standards for mercury and other toxic pollutants from smokestacks.

The effect is greatest in the Midwest and in coal belt states such as Virginia and West Virginia, where dozens of units are likely to shut down.

Take Giles County, where American Electric Power's Glen Lyn plant is located, and where 44 jobs are on the line.

County Administrator Chris McKlarney worries about the $600,000 tax-revenue hit his $40 million budget will take. But that's just one concern involving a plant and workers whose community contribution is "hard to quantify."

"They've done so much donation-wise for local causes ... And they're really good people working there," he said. "They're coaches in Little League sports, involved in the Parent-Teacher Organization — you lose those kind of people, it's tough."



And they're good jobs — stable, well-paying positions with good benefits in places where such things can be hard to find.

The closures, though, have long been anticipated. The average age of the plants that could be sacrificed is 51 years.

Hope and Change ?

Hmmmm.....I work in the coal fired power plant industry and I can tell you that you sure as hell wouldn't want to live near one, especially a big one like I work in that spews out tons of mercury. It's so bad that our state health officials are saying that people should not eat the fish in nearby lakes and streams.

http://www.ifishillinois.org/pdf/09consumption.pdf

We are in the process of installing mercury controls that should greatly reduce the levels of mercury that we put out.

It only makes good sense to me.

Maybe you can power your home with Solyndra solar panels.

Oh, wait...

C'mon over and let me fry you up some fish. Oh, wait.....

http://www.ifishillinois.org/pdf/09consumption.pdf
 
it's Obama's EPA doing his bidding, doing with regulations what he can't do democratically with legislation (carbon legislation) by working with congress. It was Obama who said, and you must have heard him say it on the YouTube video, that he favored making the cost of operating coal fired plants prohibitive, that they could build them if they wanted to, but that it would necessarily bankrupt them. EPA policy is that very Obama policy being implemented extra constitutionally.

That's not from Fox, that is public information, and it takes a lemming or a partisan ideologue to willingly ignore it.

Yup. Saw it and agreed with it and I am sure Obama is very happy about these closings. And yes, it is his EPA doing his bidding. You're absolutely right.

But that still doesn't show us the new regulations Obama passed that are forcing these plants to close. If the EPA is enforcing old regulations, then, well, that's their job! And they're finally doing their job. And that's good. But if that's the case, then people are hating Obama and the EPA for enforcing regulations that Bush should have been enforcing as well. Or maybe even passed.

Too many "conservatives" see something happen and immediately blame Obama without any proof connecting the two. Is it too much to ask for a little proof every now and then?
 

Forum List

Back
Top