The evil NPR makes a casual observation:
The more carbon that gets released into the atmosphere, the higher the average temperature rises.
That’s a scientific fact.
Human activities, such as driving, flying, building and even turning on the lights, are the biggest contributor to the release of carbon.
That too, is a fact.
And yet the majority of Republicans running for House and Senate seats this year disagree.
That too, is a fact. In fact, all the Republicans running for Senate deny that humans are contributing to climate change. Every single one of them denies it, now that Mike Castle has lost his primary to a former witch and current lunatic. Tell your friends what’s going on.
I’m unmoved by this observation, because it is a also a fact that the Democrats, even if they believe in anthropogenic climate change, are unwilling to do anything to improve the situation. I’m sure there are issues where a Republican sweep will make a difference. This isn’t one of them.
You should be moved by this observation because we need to keep the EPA’s power intact. If Republicans win, there could be enough of them to strip that power from them.
And trust me. Once the EPA kicks up the heat, dirty energy will be begging for cap and trade or a carbon tax. One third or so coal plants are going to be shut down outright.
Sooner or later, the industry will realize that the funding it can get from cap-and-trade, to support carbon capture and sequestration, is its only path to survival. Robert Byrd understood this.
I don’t know what authority EPA has to shut down the coal plants. They don’t have that authority under the Clean Air Act, since the coal plants that you are referring to were grandfathered in (since nobody expected them to be around for much longer).
Also, realistically, the government (regardless of who is in charge) isn’t going to do anything for the environment that deprives people of electricity, and it sounds like a massive closing of coal plants would do exactly that.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=F1B639C8-18FE-70B2-A89C2F41D57146D4
Doran understood it, too. Too bad they’re both gone.
Are you a troll? The Dems have started billions on dollars worth of alternative energy research and development. This is a crisis where only long-term answers are sufficient. If you think an end to all energy regulation, the demise of the EPA and all the rest of the energy bureaucracy won’t make a difference, you must be living on some other planet.
Far as I’m concerned the Dems are the best of a very bad lot, but another bout of Republican hegemony may well mark the end of human prospects for near-term survival (To which part of me wants to say, good riddance). I’d call that a pretty significant difference.
These people do not get it or do not care. I gave more money this year then in my whole life to the Democrats. The Republicans are out of their freaking minds. I don’t want to be a fear monger but I’m scared to death they will get control of our country. We will suffer horribly for their stupidity, anger and hate.
I don’t think Kirk has explicitly denied climate change. What he does is even worse: he knows it’s happening, yet signs up with the plutocrats to promise no cap-and-trade. Cap-and-trade being the Republicans’ “compromise” intended to ward off more draconian and effective measures.
Kirk knows climate change is real, but finds it more important to pander to the most ignorant, self-obsessed segment of the US population and damn the consequences. I swear I’d rather have O’Donnell or the like as my senator that the slimy opportunist Kirk. Let’s hear no more about Republican “moderates” around here, OK, Boo?
So how is Kirk any different from Feingold on this issue?
It sounds exactly the same. Sure, the science is there, but it might hurt some businesses if we enact cap-and-trade, so I’m opposed to it. Isn’t that what they are bot saying?
Kirk is running against Alexi Giannoulias in Illinois and the difference is clear. While Kirk once vote for a climate bill but has now disowned that vote, Alexi clearly states on his campaign site that he supports legislation that would put a price on carbon.
http://www.alexiforillinois.com/issues/energy-climate-change
If you want climate change addressed, vote for Democrats who are working to do so, rather than Republicans who deny that climate change is even occurring.
Feingold didn’t sign any preemptive pledge to defeat climate change legislation. Kirk did. Big difference.
JLG – While I am disappointed that the Democrats did not get a cap-and-trade bill passed over historically unprecedented Republican opposition, there are a plethora of reasons why anyone who cares about climate change would want the Democrats to keep their majorities on November 2. In particular,
Each of these policies either have already been enacted by a Democratic Congress and President, or are far more likely to be enacted with a Democratic Congress and President. Progress on this issue is a hard, long struggle, but let’s not shoot ourselves in the foot by pretending it makes no difference if the party that entirely denies climate change is even occurring is put into power.
OK, I concede these points. But I still don’t get how EPA can put coal plants out of commission when the Clean Air Act explicitly exempts those plants from the regulatory standards. Was there some recent legislation that I’m not aware of?
JLG – the Clean Air Act requires the setting of Maximum Achievable Control Technology (“MACT”) standards for hazardous air pollutants (“HAPs”) from all major sources (regardless of when they were built) of such pollutants, which is defined as any source that emits more than 25tpy of all HAPs or 10tpy of any single HAP. While US EPA has dragged its feet on issuing MACT regulations for coal plants for a decade, the agency is expected to issue such standards next year. They will require the installation of scrubbers and other pollution controls on virtually every coal plant in the country and utilities would likely shut many of those existing plants down rather than installing the controls.
Other regulations that apply to all plants, not just those built after a certain year, including the Clean Air Transport Rule (which requires reductions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions), Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (which regulates water intakes), and coal combustion waste disposal rules. On each of these, US EPA is expected to issue regulations that would require large investments in aging coal plants that utilities, in many cases, will instead decide to retire and spend the money on other energy sources. That is, unless Congress steps in and eliminates or weakens those provisions. I’d certainly much rather have a Democratic Congress overseeing this process than a Republican one.
I personally don’t believe in politics, some of them are honest i don’t thing so they pay there 100% attention on public resources or anything else, but there duties are to protect people, take care of there community and nation…thanks for sharing you guys are really cooperative.
http://remote-pc-access-software.us