Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 06/06/2025 12:03:27 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
LEOPOLD, Ind. — On the ceiling of Abbie Brockman’s middle school English classroom in Perry County, the fluorescent lights are covered with images of a bright blue sky, a few clouds floating by.
Outside, the real sky isn’t always blue. Sometimes it’s hazy, with pollution drifting from coal-fired power plants in this part of southwest Indiana. Knowing exactly how much, and what it may be doing to the people who live there, is why Brockman got involved with a local environmental organization that’s installing air and water quality monitors in her community.
“Industry and government is very, very, very powerful. It’s more powerful than me. I’m just an English teacher,” Brockman said. But she wants to feel she can make a difference.
In a way, Brockman’s monitoring echoes the reporting that the Environmental Protection Agency began requiring from large polluters more than a decade ago. Emissions from four coal-fired plants in southwest Indiana have dropped 60% since 2010, when the rule took effect.
That rule is now on the chopping block, one of many that President Trump’s EPA argues is costly and burdensome for industry.
But experts say dropping the requirement risks a big increase in emissions if companies are no longer publicly accountable for what they put in the air. And they say losing the data — at the same time the EPA is cutting air quality monitoring elsewhere — would make it tougher to fight climate change.
Rule required big polluters to say how much they are emitting
At stake is the Greenhouse Gas Reporting program, a 2009 rule from President Obama’s administration that affects large carbon polluters like refineries, power plants, wells and landfills. In the years since, they’ve collectively reported a 20% drop in emissions, mostly driven by the closure of coal plants.
And what happens at these big emitters makes a difference...
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
“Planet-warming” ?
HAHAHAHA!
These weenies will do anything to avoid ever saying (writing) the phrase “global warming” again
The Worm Seth Borenstein is involved with this piece of propaganda...
What a load of hogwash. The article talks about hazy skies and blames the nearby power plants. But the Clean Air Act greatly reduced the REAL pollutants: sulfur, nitrogen and particulate. Those emissions did indeed cause hazy skies. But the article then focuses on “carbon pollution.” That’s the clear, odorless gas that cannot be discerned in plant stacks or in hazy air. Cutting carbon emissions does nothing to clean the air. Then the article says that “carbon pollution” is down because coal plants shut down. No more cheap, plentiful, and reliable power. No more jobs.
Get back to me when the Chinese have to report to the EPA.
Get back to me when the Canadians stop having wild fires every year
Why hold back? Let’s call them “Galaxy Warming”.
Get back to me when the Canadians AND Californians stop having wild fires every year.
“At stake is the Greenhouse Gas Reporting program, a 2009 rule from President Obama’s administration that affects large carbon polluters like refineries, power plants, wells and landfills. In the years since, they’ve collectively reported a 20% drop in emissions, mostly driven by the closure of coal plants.”
First question, Is this rule made in response to direct legislation or did EPA just come up with it all by its lonesome?
Second question, If the burden of reporting the emissions is lifted why assume the emissions will increase? The article assumes a cause and effect not in evidence. I am sure there are multiple other reasons why emissions dropped (the article even mentions one of those).
Third question, Would those coal plants have closed anyway?
We Californians have to make way for the new Section 8 housing where the rich folks live. Wildfires can get rid of a lot of their houses quickly and cheaply. If that means a bit of global pollution, so be it. Don’t you have any sense of vision for the future??
I am sure they reported 100% accurate numbers.
Lost Angeles Times?
Gimme a break.
I want mature, educated writers.
Get back to me when the Canadians AND Californians stop having wild fires every year.
~~~
True!
Not only are those lots of lovely trees being destroyed, but those are hydrocarbon sources being dumped into the atmosphere.
Why is it that these liberal bastions that both go by the “CA” abbreviation so happy to enable such polution???
(we all know the answer why. They just want to attack western [human] civilization. Natural or or non-western sources of pollution don’t serve the agenda)
Never give up the con.
“COAL FIRED PLANTS”
ARE THEY REFERRING TO POWER PLANTS?
IF SO——WHAT WILL RUN THEIR 84” TV’s? VIDEO GAMES? WASHER & DRYER? CHARGER FOR THEIR ELECTRIC VEHICLE?
SOME PEOPLE NEVER LEARNED TO CONNECT THE DOTS.
“DROPPED FROM WHAT LEVELS”?
What records exist?
Now ain’t that weird, I never thought too much about climate change until them three-legged chickens starting showing up here at the farm. I reckon all the ice melted down in Antarctica and they flew up here. I like drumsticks, but I ain’t never caught one, darn birds must be able to run 50 miles an hour.
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.