Obama to impose carbon pollution cap on power plants

In his most sweeping effort to date to reduce carbon emissions and combat climate change, the Obama administration will unveil a new rule from the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday limiting the amount of carbon pollution from coal power plants.

The rule will impose a cap on the level of emissions existing power plants are permitted and it will provide each state a flexible series of options to implement that cap. Among other options, power plants will be allowed to increase the energy they derive from renewable sources like wind and solar power, adopt new technology to increase energy efficiency, and join or create a statewide cap-and-trade system to effectively tax the excess carbon emissions.

The total effect of those options could cut the amount of carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants by up to 20 percent.

President Obama explained the importance of the new rules in his weekly address on Saturday.

"Today, about 40 percent of America's carbon pollution comes from power plants. But right now, there are no national limits to the amount of carbon pollution that existing plants can pump into the air we breathe -- none," he said. "We limit the amount of toxic chemicals like mercury, sulfur, and arsenic that power plants put in our air and water. But they can dump unlimited amounts of carbon pollution into the air. It's not smart, it's not safe, and it doesn't make sense."

"That's why, a year ago, I directed the Environmental Protection Agency to build on the efforts of many states, cities, and companies, and come up with commonsense guidelines for reducing dangerous carbon pollution from our power plants," the president continued. "This week, we're unveiling these proposed guidelines,

My only interest is to destroy the liberal republicans. I would prefer to do that at the primary, but I'm ok with knocking them out of the general election.

Running as a liberal republican has to become a political kiss of death. I intend to see that happen.

It will be much easier to clean the liberals out of the republican party than the democrat party. There are a few less in the republican party. I hope...

/johnny

Im all for scorched earth if that’s what it takes. But I doubt there is a significant difference in the actual numbers of libs in the two parties. I can literally think of about 5 that I marginally trust and that is only marginally.

I am adopting the Joker’s mentality with this mess. I am at the point where I could just sit back and watch it burn...then rebuild without all the libs F’ing it up.

Purist and absolutist are both memes out there for liberals. Absolutist seems to be the newest one.

Wear it with pride. Both the terms "Christian" and 'Puritan" were initially derogatory and insulting terms, intended to shame. They became the very monikers to depict the very principles by which they lived and became known by.

Wear the intended badge of shame with pride in your principles. They are being flung by those without, or whose principles are limited to whatever is politically expedient.

Oh I do! I also take immense pleasure in seeing the situational ethicists work themselves into a screaming fit of frustrated anger when they cannot reply honestly without gutting their own argument to questions like:

“Since the opposite of purity is corruption, how is it that I who wants more purity am the problem? For that to be true, ‘corruption’ would have to be good/desirable and purity bad/wrong. So are you arguing that we should work toward corruption in order to win? What do you win by electing a more corrupt politician that by nature you cannot trust? How does that square with any known conservative value or position? Why do you complain about Republicans siding with and acting like liberal democrats when you advocate electing exactly the Republicans with track records of siding with and acting like Democrats?”

Because ultimately any of these abject morons arguing for lesser evils and “No matter what” voting for GOP candidates is in fact saying that we have to move away from the conservative good in order to win. And that is exactly the position taken by any liberal that tries to restrict or eliminate religion, free speech, gun rights, tries to mainstream abortion, homosexuality ect.

They scream bloody murder denying it but it is a simple fact that one does not move right by moving left.

Ultimately what we have on the right is a bunch of closet case moderates at best that demand to sit at the table of conservatism while believing little to none of it. Why? Good question. I imagine some have a very ‘do as I say” mentality which is shown in their childlike fits when things go against them. The tantrums and such. For others I think it’s just a case of wanting their cake and eating it too. Regardless of their actual age, they have a participation trophy that leads them to believe that reality shifts to accommodate their ego/wants/desires. Then of course there are the shills/plants and anyone that thinks every right wing website out there isn’t filled with them isn’t paying attention. Such people have been used by political parties since political parties came into existence. The internet is just the modern version of the local park, pub or women’s social circle.

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.