Posted on 06/09/2014 3:30:22 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
A lot of attention was generated by last week's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announcement of a proposed regulation to cut carbon emissions from existing coal-fired power plants by 30 percent from 2005 levels — all by 2030. Aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the effort is being billed as flexible, far-reaching and even a money-saver for American citizens. The policy is a homerun for the Obama administration, improving everything from our skies to our pocketbooks, right? Not so fast. To truly understand the implications of the EPA's announcement, it's worth sifting through the hype and asking a few clarifying questions.
(Excerpt) Read more at m.hartfordbusiness.com ...
“...sapping households by $1,200 per year...”
Hey, with the $2,500 we’re saving with obamacare we’re still up by $1,300!
Obama? Is he still in charge?
As in ObamaCARE, the Tyrant will make some
immune from the Law, like anyone in Congress,
their Staff or their families, or contributors.
Good one-word summary.
Energy policy by the technically ignorant and innumerate is a really, really terrible idea.
Maintaining a vibrant, growing economy is not “sustainable”. To become “sustainable” we must “de-grow” the economy.
That’s the plan Stan.
“Obama’s emissions”
Pretty much bad, intrinsically so.
“Hey, with the $2,500 we’re saving with obamacare we’re still up by $1,300!”
Are you the head of the Math Dept @ Common Core? /s
The EPA initiative is far-reaching, alright. It just seems to be reaching in all the wrong directions.
Nope. It’s going exactly according to the Agenda 21/Sustainable Development Plan to degrow the economy.
http://blogs.worldwatch.org/sustainableprosperity/resources/clubfordegrowth/
EVERYTHING O does is bad for business!
“Hey, with the $2,500 we’re saving with obamacare we’re still up by $1,300!”
Should be funny...but, somehow, not very.
“The thing is, the imagined health benefits that EPA refers to relate to reducing traditional air pollutants that are already closely tracked — and on the decline — under existing clean air regulations.”
I have taken more to heart the “social cost” of doing business. And can see the reason and need for the laws enacted in the 70’s to clean up our air and water. Less pollutants does mean less health costs to those downwind. I would guess that Lake Erie(?) having fish again accounts for millions of dollars of boating and tourism and perhaps commercial fishing. (Yet what are the social costs for turning acres and acres of land from wheat, soy beans, etc. into ethanol corn which takes a HUGE amount of water and fertilizer?)
But when it is under the guise of “Global Warming” it is a failure. I suppose if one could prove that that there is a 50/50 chance that we MIGHT be causing global warming, then hedging our bets might be prudent. But the AGW theories are wrong, can be shown to be wrong based on science, and have been proven wrong by the historical record of the last 15+ years.
So what are the social costs of chasing at windmills and missing the real hazards that are out there? (Asteroids, earthquakes, lack of water, etc.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.