EPA to Seek A 30% Cut In Emissions [by 2030]

Wall Street Journal Online ^ | 01 June 2014 | Amy Harder

[NormsRevenge]

That’s grabbing a bull by his uhhhh,, tender end ,,

He is fearless, driven to transform us,

And half the SCotUS is dumb enough to believe him.

[nascarnation]

This is Cap & Tax via regulation that they couldn’t get via legislation.

Even when the Dems controlled the House and Senate for two years they wouldn’t vote it in.

[upcountryhorseman]

This is all total BS: this administration should consider
encouraging China, India and other third world countries to
cut back on their pollution.

[lightman]

Euthanizing the oldest 30% of the population through Øbamacare will take care of that...less exhaling, less CO2

[riri]

See “ immigration reform”. The plan to ensure that never happens.

[CARTOUCHE]

I foresee a 90% cut in the EPA by 2020.It would be one of the heartwarming events of my life.

[Captain7seas]

1st qtr, 2014 U.S. economic growth was at .01% indicating that the economic goal of “Sustainable Development/Agenda 21” as adopted by the U.S. has largely been met.This also fulfills the machevellian wish of Maurice Strong, UN Chairman of UNCED aka The Rio Earth Summit where in 1992 he articulated the veiled intentions of the “Plan for the 21st Century- Sustainable Development/Agenda 21” by saying this in regard to our “unsustainable” high consumption of natural resources which is, according to them destroying the Earth; “...isen’t it our responsibility to bring about the collapse of the industrialized countries?” Now, to become truly as “Sustainable” as Bangladesh is, more vital work is quickly needed to further collapse and “Degrow” the economy. This will be accomplished by more draconian restrictions on business and energy use which will be mandated by arbitrary regulations spawned by the bogus hype to save the planet from the dread effects of antropogenic Global Warming aka Climate Change aka Climate Disruption.

http://blogs.worldwatch.org/sustainableprosperity/resources/clubfordegrowth/

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

EPA to Seek A 30% Cut In Emissions [by 2030]

I can cut EPA emissions by 100%.

[matt04]

Would the last manufacturing operation in the US turn out the lights, er, uh, never mind. The rolling blackouts will do that for them.

[G Larry]

Well...yes...but, I’d like the person (Ted Cruz?) announcing the cuts to able to explain it this way...

“We’ve cut the agency by 90% in hopes they will learn to focus on actual clean air and clean water policies, rather than inventing problems, where none exist, for the sole purpose of justifying their existence.”

[Huskrrrr]

I see your point.

[TurboZamboni]

“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.” — Candidate Barack Obama,
San Francisco Chronicle interview,
January 17, 2008

“Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” — Candidate Barack Obama,
Same interview as above

“We’re going to have to cap the emission of greenhouse gasses. That means that power plants are going to have to adjust how they generate power … but a lot of us who can afford it are going to have to pay more per unit of electricity, and that means we’re going to have to change our light bulbs, we’re going to have to shut the lights off in our houses.” — Candidate Barack Obama,
Iowa PBS interview, November 9, 2007

So much for President Obama’s claims to be for an ‘all-of-the-above’ approach — these regulations are designed specifically to kill coal in American electricity generation, which will significantly raise energy prices on American families. This plan is the most devastating installment of the Obama administration’s war on affordable energy: it achieves their cap-and-trade agenda through regulation instead of legislation.

A study released in September 2011 by National Economic Research Associates, Inc. (NERA) paints a picture of the impact of the EPA rules on existing coal plants. The study concluded:

Over the period from 2012 to 2020, about 183,000 jobs per year are predicted to be lost on net.... The cumulative effects mean that over the period from 2012 to 2020, about 1.65 million job-years of employment would be lost. U.S. GDP would be reduced by $29 billion each year on average over this period, with a cumulative loss from 2012 to 2020 of $190 billion (2010$). U.S. disposable personal income would be reduced by $34 billion each year on average over this period, with a cumulative loss from 2012 to 2020 of $222 billion (2010$).

And those are conservative estimates; the NERA economists note that they do not consider several other variables that would likely drive the total costs and losses higher.

Those figures also do not include the costs that the EPA’s CO2 rules will impose on future energy production.

[Hoodat]

EPA to Seek A 30% Cut In Emissions GDP [by 2030]

There, fixed it.