Making environmentalism divisive

The Pittsburgh Tribune ^ | August 1, 2015 | Salena Zito

[2ndDivisionVet]

ST. CLAIRSVILLE, Ohio - In May, Murray Energy, which sits along the old National Pike here in eastern Ohio, told nearly 1,500 workers at five of its West Virginia mines that their jobs were eliminated.

In Ohio, 249 Murray jobs were gone; nearly 170 employees were out of work in Illinois.

The announcement wasn't an isolated one. Mines are being boarded up and thousands of coal jobs are vanishing across America, in part because of competition from abundant natural gas but in larger part because of new federal regulations limiting carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants.

One month later, Murray filed two lawsuits against the U.S. EPA to halt its rewriting and expanding of the definition of “waters of the United States.”

The energy company said the change is unconstitutional and not only reflects an unprecedented expansion of federal regulatory authority but also is one of the largest federal land grabs in history.

According to the Obama administration's EPA, any area that is wet, or has the potential to be wet, would be subject to the Clean Water Act.

When Congress adopted the Clean Water Act in 1972, it never intended to allow room for regulatory creep. Certainly the act was not put in place to divide the country politically; in fact, it was supported by congressional Democrats and Republicans alike.

Caring about the environment was an American thing back in the 1960s and '70s, when pollution clogged our rivers and streams and litter piled up on our highways and streets; you felt patriotic about it....

[PROCON]

These poor Americans lost their jobs because of a lie.

[Morpheus2009]

I don’t get the natural gas part. How is CO2, H2O, and small amounts of noble gas a problem?

[buwaya]

Natural gas is an alternative fuel for many applications that would otherwise use coal. The big one is electric power generation. Natural gas generating plants are pretty cheap to build and operate. If the price of gas is low, it can undercut generating costs for coal. Pre cracking nat gas was usually fairly expensive, but its changed of course.
From an environment view nat gas is much less troublesome - no dust and ash, no trace metals or sulfur.
And from a CO2 point of view, nat gas is a much more hydrogen-heavy fuel than coal - much less CO2 per BTU, more H2O.

[SES1066]

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is a government bureaucracy who’s mandate is explicitly unlimited - “Protect the Environment” with the sotto voice of (from mankind). At the time of its establishment we had horrible pollution and a ready task for it to flex its muscles on.

Now we have far less pollution, a much bigger and more powerful EPA than at any other time in its life and so what happens - it finds more to do. Defining Carbon Dioxide as a pollutant, makes every living animal a polluter.

What happens first then, will it cease operation with the death of the last living animal or the last regulator?

[Awgie]

Oh where is a strong conservative congress we were promised, that would provide push back on Obama and stand up for traditional American pride and values? Hello...

[TXnMA]

...but in larger part because of new federal regulations limiting "carbon pollution" (FALSELY so-labeled by 0bozo and his Marxist Gorebull Waruhmist minions) from coal-fired power plants."

Necessary clarification...