http://news.yahoo.com/obama-unveil-final-power-plant-emissions-limits-monday-041509480--politics.html
The actual price won't be clear until states decide how they'll reach their targets, but the administration has projected the rule would raise electricity prices about 4.9 percent by 2020 and prompt coal-fired power plants to close
Originally posted by whodeyRemind us who will lose a chunk of their wealth if coal fired power stations close and who will benefit from the environmental improvements resulting from the removal of such a filthy fuel from the supply chain. Remind us why the employment and economic gains from the manufacture and maintenance of alternative power sources would be of less benefit to the US economy and why the sectional interests of the filthy fuel lobbies ought to have priority over the general best interests of the people of the USA and their environment. Remind us why the fossil fuel industry needs and enjoys subsidies totalling some $135bn in the USA and why that should be allowed to persist, stifling the emergence of alternative energy provision which enjoys vastly less support and is indeed in decline (crazily) in the USA, (I gave sources for these clams in another thread only a day or two back and you cannot have forgotten them, though you persist in promoting the propaganda from the fossil fuel lobbies as though it was honest information.)
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-unveil-final-power-plant-emissions-limits-monday-041509480--politics.html
The actual price won't be clear until states decide how they'll reach their targets, but the administration has projected the rule would raise electricity prices about 4.9 percent by 2020 and prompt coal-fired power plants to close
02 Aug 15
1 edit
Originally posted by finneganAre you saying that the article is biased?
Remind us who will lose a chunk of their wealth if coal fired power stations close and who will benefit from the environmental improvements resulting from the removal of such a filthy fuel from the supply chain. Remind us why the employment and economic gains from the manufacture and maintenance of alternative power sources would be of less benefit to the ...[text shortened]... t in promoting the propaganda from the fossil fuel lobbies as though it was honest information.)
It comes from yahoo news, or is that a right winged conspiracy news source now? 🙄
All I posted was the bit about rates going up. Do you really deny that Obama wishes to raise energy costs? He admitted it with his own mouth.
Can this be sold to the American people? Does it even need to be sold to them? Should it even be sold to them? Should we just assume that Obama has the best interest of the general "good" and leave it go at that and to hell with greedy people who don't wish to pay more for energy costs?
02 Aug 15
Originally posted by whodeyMight I suggest simply giving in to the greedy people and make energy even cheaper by removing all anti-pollution legislation. You may not know this but anti-pollution legislation has existed for a very long time and has always resulted in a higher cost of energy (here I am talking about direct cost, not overall societal cost).
Should we just assume that Obama has the best interest of the general "good" and leave it go at that and to hell with greedy people who don't wish to pay more for energy costs?
02 Aug 15
Originally posted by whodeyIrrelevant. No. Yes. No.
Can this be sold to the American people? Does it even need to be sold to them? Should it even be sold to them? Should we just assume that Obama has the best interest of the general "good" and leave it go at that and to hell with greedy people who don't wish to pay more for energy costs?
Originally posted by whodeySo....as a result of this horrible legislation, by 2020 we'll have:
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-unveil-final-power-plant-emissions-limits-monday-041509480--politics.html
The actual price won't be clear until states decide how they'll reach their targets, but the administration has projected the rule would raise electricity prices about 4.9 percent by 2020 and prompt coal-fired power plants to close
1. Less air pollution
2. More solar and wind power in the grid providing clean, renewable energy
3. Less dirty coal powered plants
4. Cleaner air
5. Energy costs rising as less than the cost of living
This is unacceptable. We need dirtier energy sources that will eventually will run out. It's the American way. How dare that socialist President put us on the path to cleaner, renewable energy. Next thing you know he'll be accusing America's fine Oil, Gas, and Coal institutions for not putting their profits above public health. What a monster he is!ðŸ˜
02 Aug 15
Originally posted by bill718Yeah, only the rich should be allowed to pollute. The rich are such a small number of people that if we let them use energy while others have to live without it the environment will prosper.
So....as a result of this horrible legislation, by 2020 we'll have:
1. Less air pollution
2. More solar and wind power in the grid providing clean, renewable energy
3. Less dirty coal powered plants
4. Cleaner air
5. Energy costs rising as less than the cost of living
This is unacceptable. We need dirtier energy sources that will eventually will ru ...[text shortened]... and Coal institutions for not putting their profits above public health. What a monster he is!ðŸ˜
02 Aug 15
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarAssuming what they are doing is best for humanity, should they worry about public opinion?
Yeah, only the rich should be allowed to pollute. The rich are such a small number of people that if we let them use energy while others have to live without it the environment will prosper.
Considering that those in Congress only have a 10% approval rating and continue to get elected anyway, does public opinion really even matter in a "democracy" anymore?
Speaking of which, Congress has washed their hands of such issues as global warming. They have essentially handed all matters over to the Executive Branch and the EPA. That way there is no needless debate and voting over issues that have already been decided. All that is left are nutters who dare question any aspect of their conclusions.
You could then say that the only issue then becomes controlling the Executive Branch to decide such matters.
Originally posted by EladarYou almost sound like you mean that. Sadly you are not consistent. As with abortion, where you do not argue in favour of policies that produce fewer abortions, only policies that attack women, so with fossil fuels, you keep ending up on the side of the fossil fuel industry which, from its record, has no desire whatever to benefit consumers with lower prices:
Yeah, only the rich should be allowed to pollute. The rich are such a small number of people that if we let them use energy while others have to live without it the environment will prosper.
Furthermore, these attacks on pro-clean energy policies are not about "creating free markets" as opponents of clean energy policies, like the State Policy Network (SPN) and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), claim. It's about manipulating markets to benefit their allies (and financiers) in the fossil fuel business.http://www.energyandpolicy.org/renewable-energy-state-policy-attacks-report
In a majority of states in the U.S., there is no free market for electricity; individuals cannot choose from which company to buy their electricity or from what source their electricity comes. In many locales, Public Utilities Commissions regulate monopoly utility companies in a closed marketplace.
If you wanted lower prices and you cared about ordinary consumers rather than corporate greed, you would support policies to promote rivals to these filthy fuel monopolies.