Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

EPA: Cut Coal Plant Carbon by 30 Percent

New rule aimed at curbing air pollution by 2030

June 2, 2014

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration today will roll out a plan to cut pollution from power plants by 30 percent by 2030, setting in motion one of the most significant actions to address greenhouse......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(57)

Thebudman

Jun-05-14 9:11 AM

Meanwhile, Mothernature can not be controlled by the obama EPA:

(Reuters) - An Alaska volcano that has been spewing ash and lava for years began erupting with new intensity this week, pushing a plume of smoke and ash as high as 24,000 feet (7,315 meters) and prompting scientists to issue their highest volcanic alert in five years, authorities said on Tuesday.

But the intense action at the Pavlof Volcano, located in an uninhabited region nearly 600 miles (966 km) southwest of Anchorage, has so far not disrupted any regional air traffic, thanks to favorable weather that has made it easier for flights to navigate around the affected area.

Still, the eruption was intense enough for Alaska Volcano Observatory scientists to issue their first red alert warning since 2009, when the state's Mount Redoubt had a series of eruptions that spewed ash 50,000 feet (15,240 meters).

"This means it can erupt for weeks or even months," observatory research geologist

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Jun-05-14 7:34 AM

Poor Slumdog cannot come to grips with the fact that GOD is a better planet designer than Al Gore can fathom in his wildest dreams!

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Jun-05-14 7:00 AM

30% for now. More later. 100% eventually. You don't really think Barry "Bankrupt Them" Obamboozler and Joe "No Coal" Biden are stopping at 30%, do you? LOL

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BigMike

Jun-04-14 1:54 PM

If the situation is so dire, then why are we replacing coal with wind & solar (both of them are an ineffective solution)? Nuclear is the only available and reliable carbon free baseload power source. It suggests that CO2 reduction is not being taken seriously, that it is merely a political payoff to a well funded constituency.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BigMike

Jun-04-14 1:32 PM

Trollslayer: Now that you mention it, I've noticed those characteristics in several of the eco-libtard commenters here and elsewhere.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Jun-04-14 1:14 PM

Presidential candidates? I thought you were talking about swingdoggie... LOL

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BigMike

Jun-04-14 12:56 PM

Should a psychiatric evaluation be required of Presidential candidates?

Just askin..

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BigMike

Jun-04-14 12:40 PM

(2) In order for a person to be diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) they must meet five or more of the following symptoms:

Lacks empathy, e.g., is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her Regularly shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BigMike

Jun-04-14 12:38 PM

(1) In order for a person to be diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) they must meet five or more of the following symptoms:

Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements) Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions) Requires excessive admiration Has a very strong sense of entitlement, e.g., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations Is exploitative of others, e.g., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Jun-04-14 8:36 AM

Notice how swingdog's argument switches between "all 'real' scientists believe in AGW" and "all 'enlightened' politicians believe in AGW" and "we will all die in he11 if you don't believe in AGW," but those arguments NEVER includes any ACTUAL PHYSICAL PROOF of AGW.

When the Warmers have no REAL evidence to support their religion, what can they use to convert the masses? Arguments like "how could the AGW priesthood be wrong." And "everyone else is joining the AGW church." And "You will bring fire and brimstone if you don't repent."

With no real evidence of their AGW "facts," the evangelists of the Holy AGW Church pull all the tricks in Al Jazeera Gore's holy polar bear book. LOL

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SMART1

Jun-04-14 7:32 AM

If you voted for Obama....Once...Twice... Here comes your Hope & Change!!! Lots of good jobs in the Valley going down!! Midterm elections are coming this fall!! Tell ole BO and the Democrats how you feel!! I'm going straight Republican!!!

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Jun-04-14 7:08 AM

PhoneyDawg, it is NOT real and the fact that you cannot argue ANY of my points simple proves you don't have the education to babble the nonsense of the POLITICAL SCIENTISTS who promote this drivel.

Why didn't the earth simple REMAIN FROZEN when CO2 levels were very LOW OR BURN UP when levels were Greater than 2000 PPM????

The only evidence we have shows that CO2 increases AFTER temperatures rise and that more CO2 means more plant growth and crop production to feed an INCREASING WORLD POPULATION.

Why is that a BAD THING?

Narcissistic baby boomer like yourself have no knowledge of science or respect for the power of Planet.

There are 600,000,000,000,000,000,000 gallons of water in the Pacific Ocean alone. Melting glaciers are the same as one dawgy lifting its leg and pizzing in it!

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

swingdog

Jun-03-14 11:55 PM

Troll, its real. But, hey, as I said before, you have won! It is almost certainly too late to avoid some very difficult impacts over the coming couple of decades. The CO2, methane and other ghg's already released into the atmosphere have already pushed us over the edge insofar as self-reinforced global warming is concerned. The next shoe to drop will likely be large-scale thawing of permafrost in northern regions releasing large volumes of methane and other ghg's into the atmosphere. Another is the possibility of methane hydrate ice in the deep oceans becoming unstable. The future ain't what it used to be.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Jun-03-14 10:27 PM

And Doggie, even if EVERY SINGLE Republican politician on the planet decided today that anthropogenic global warming were a fact, that would STILL not prove it’s a fact. But your pathetic attempt to use such a fallacious argument DOES prove how OUT OF ARGUMENTS you are. Which I find only TOO entertaining. LOL

Next you need to tell me how your “consensus of scientists” proves anthropogenic global warming is a fact. Because a similar argument was proved wrong by an Italian sailor in 1492. LOL

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Jun-03-14 10:19 PM

swingdog “Now they are crying that efforts to reduce CO2 buildup "will hurt the economy" rather than claim it is all smoke and mirrors.”

Wrong as always, doggie. Republicans know the Warmer Church anti-coal agenda will hurt the economy AND ALSO is all smoke and mirrors. False premise.

swingdog “When they say "the economy" they are not talking about the average middle class citizen.”

Wrong again, doggie. When Republicans say “the economy” of course they mean the average middle class citizen, too. Another false premise.

Do you have any valid arguments, or are red herrings all you Holy Warmer Church evangelists have? LOL

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Jun-03-14 10:02 PM

So now that swingdoggie's unfalsifiable argument is proved false, the doggie's best argument for anthropogenic global warming is that some Republican politicians are no longer arguing against it.

You're right, doggie. It only gets better. I suppose since you STILL have no reliable scientific evidence, that even more ridiculous "evidence" will have to do. LOL

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

swingdog

Jun-03-14 10:00 PM

" a growing number of Republican members of Congress are backing away from claims that global warming is real and is influenced by human actions"

Opps, change that to "are backing away from claims that global warming is not real and not influenced by human actions." Sorry.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

swingdog

Jun-03-14 9:57 PM

"That's an unfalsifiable argument," troll.

It only gets better! Are you sure it isn't a falsified unfalsifiable argument?? How about a false falsified argument? Bottom line, a growing number of Republican members of Congress are backing away from claims that global warming is real and is influenced by human actions. They are finally beginning to realize that the denial position is patently ridiculous and undermines their own credibility. Now they are shifting the argument to claim that we cannot afford to affirmatively deal with global warming, because it will "hurt the economy." That makes them sound even more ridiculous!

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Jun-03-14 9:19 PM

swingdog "Folks, don't you imagine that the political opposition to the new EPA standards would run out their big scientific guns to attack the president's program to reduce CO2 emissions if they truly believe that humans play no role in climate change."

That's an unfalsifiable argument, doggie. Presenting pseudo-scientific arguments on the basis of NO RELIABLE DATA is YOUR Party's business. No surprise you can't understand why we wouldn't be presenting arguments based on NO RELIABLE DATA, also. LOL

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

swingdog

Jun-03-14 7:47 PM

"Slumdawg, "NO" is the correct answer but for the wrong reasons," dah!

dah, you do serve a purpose! That last one gave me another good laugh! I am so very sorry that I did not give you what YOU consider to be the "right" answer - even though it is correct. You are really a strange case! Do you ever find yourself arguing with yourself? Again, thanks for the laugh.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Jun-03-14 7:16 PM

More Doggie-do Climate "Science"!!

NYT: A new report blames global warming for rising rates of infidelity, especially bad news for couples in Miami, where rising tides and raging hurricanes remind us all how much extracurricular sex we could be having on a daily basis.

Victoria Milan, a dating website for people looking to cheat on their significant other, surveyed 5,000 of its members, both men and women. A shocking 72 percent of them responded that yes, their own Al Gore-esque stress about unpredictable weather is the cause of their extramarital dalliances.

Guess the fact of their existing committed relationships was just an inconvenient truth.

Survey respondents also reported they're more likely to sneak a little on the side in hot weather than in cold. That makes sense -- after all, which would you say is sexier, a steamy Miami day or a polar vortex?

BWHAHAHAAH! Insanity!

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Jun-03-14 7:08 PM

Further reality is that history shows earth's temperature RISES FIRST, then about 800 years later, the CO2 levels rise.

Warming Ocean water gives off more CO2, not man.

CO2 is the RESULT of heating, not the CAUSE of heating.

NO science to your argument, which is WHY the vast majority of scientists do NOT support the AGW fraud.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Jun-03-14 7:05 PM

Slumdawg, "NO" is the correct answer but for the wrong reasons.

150 ppm is the THRESHOLD that PLANTS need to survive. No Plants no food for animals or man, so the answer would is WE ALL DIE!!!

But since you ADMIT there was an ICE AGE, what CAUSED the temperatures to rise??? NO MAN, virtually no animals, a PRISTINE, perfectly clean EARTH.

YET the temperature ROSE with CO2 levels at 150 ppm???

Your simple minded theory says that with higher levels of CO2, the earth will overheat and life is destroyed.

Then the corollary to that is falling CO2 levels cause COOLING and the EARTH becomes a permanently FROZEN planet like Jupiter.

The REALITY is the Earth hit 2000 PPM and the temperature did NOT continue to increase, and the earth hit less than 200 PPM and did not permanently freeze.

Clearly the AGW theory is WRONG!

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

swingdog

Jun-03-14 5:01 PM

Folks, don't you imagine that the political opposition to the new EPA standards would run out their big scientific guns to attack the president's program to reduce CO2 emissions if they truly believe that humans play no role in climate change. Listen carefully to the debate. The Republican Party is not claiming that human influenced global warming is a hoax or that the earth is really not experiencing appreciable long-term warming. Those claims have long since been shown to be ridiculous. Now they are crying that efforts to reduce CO2 buildup "will hurt the economy" rather than claim it is all smoke and mirrors. When they say "the economy" they are not talking about the average middle class citizen.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Jun-03-14 12:50 PM

The other problem with swingdog's argument is that he assumes the temperature rise is caused by the rise in CO2 concentration, and not the other way around as the data show and Henry's Law predicts.

But the biggest problem with swingdog's argument is he plagiarized it from a small sample size of propaganda pieces written by so-called "scientists," who cherry pick their so-called "data" from another small data set they won't release, and who get paid by politicos with a financial interest in finding and publishing evidence of anthropogenic global warming, and who get paid when they produce and publish evidence of anthropogenic global warming, but get shunned and cast out of the Warmer Church when they find or publish otherwise.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 57 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

EZToUse.com

I am looking for: