Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

villager

(26,001 posts)
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 12:58 PM Jun 2014

That was a quick cave-in: "EPA Head Says Significant Changes Possible in Carbon Plan "

<snip>

Gina McCarthy, administrator of the agency that wrote the proposal issued yesterday, said she expects “significant” revisions in the state emission goals before a final rule is issued next year.

“I put out a proposal that I believe will allow everybody to get at a table and roll their sleeves up,” McCarthy told Bloomberg reporters and editors today in Washington. The agency anticipates “a lot of give and take with the states.”

In the boldest single effort by the U.S. to tackle climate change, President Barack Obama’s administration proposed state-by-state targets to be achieved by 2030 that would reduce emissions by an average 17 percent from current levels.

McCarthy said the agency made changes when developing its rules on mercury pollution in 2012 after utilities complained, and, “I wouldn’t be surprised if we made significant” revisions to the carbon proposal.

Once the standards are finalized next June, the individual states must come up with plans for how to make those cuts. They can do so by mixing and matching policies such as running more natural gas instead of coal or pursuing energy efficiency.

<snip>

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-03/epa-head-says-significant-changes-possible-in-carbon-plan.html

19 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
That was a quick cave-in: "EPA Head Says Significant Changes Possible in Carbon Plan " (Original Post) villager Jun 2014 OP
So, always assume the worst. Got it. tridim Jun 2014 #1
Amazing, isn't it... SidDithers Jun 2014 #5
That was a quick "Obama betrayed us" reactive whine. nt geek tragedy Jun 2014 #2
Please proceed... villager Jun 2014 #3
Please specify what areas of progress and good policy geek tragedy Jun 2014 #4
" 'significant' revisions in the state emission goals before a final rule is issued next year. villager Jun 2014 #6
did you miss the word 'specify?' geek tragedy Jun 2014 #7
" she regretted that 30 percent was highlighted as a target, saying it’s not a goal of the plan.." villager Jun 2014 #9
that's a pretty pitiful reason to gnash one's teeth nt geek tragedy Jun 2014 #11
“There’s been some confusion about 30 percent,” she said. “It’s a summary conclusion, not a goal.” villager Jun 2014 #12
Do you understand how federal regulations work? jberryhill Jun 2014 #10
Do you understand how bully pulpits work? villager Jun 2014 #13
What are the precise and specific changes made only due to "immediate backpedaling" LanternWaste Jun 2014 #15
You're not a "reader of posts" before replying I guess... villager Jun 2014 #16
If you go to the EPA site nadinbrzezinski Jun 2014 #8
This is standard for proposed regulations. It is messy but it is required by law. yellowcanine Jun 2014 #14
That would seem dubious, if they're already insisting, publicly, that 30% was a misunderstood villager Jun 2014 #17
Yada yada yada. How many times have we been through this? Chill for once and see how it plays out yellowcanine Jun 2014 #18
"yada yada?" Your panties are far more wadded than mine, my friend... villager Jun 2014 #19
 

villager

(26,001 posts)
9. " she regretted that 30 percent was highlighted as a target, saying it’s not a goal of the plan.."
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:19 PM
Jun 2014

Etc.

 

villager

(26,001 posts)
12. “There’s been some confusion about 30 percent,” she said. “It’s a summary conclusion, not a goal.”
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:45 PM
Jun 2014

Etc.

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
10. Do you understand how federal regulations work?
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:35 PM
Jun 2014

An agency will publish a draft rule pursuant to the statute.

Then, the agency will engage in notice and comment - i.e. collect information from the public and hold hearings on the proposed regulations and how they might be altered, improved, bug-fixed, and so on - then, the agency will publish a final rule for a shorter round of comments.

Through the process, yes, the proposed rules change.

What country have you been living in?
 

villager

(26,001 posts)
13. Do you understand how bully pulpits work?
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:46 PM
Jun 2014

They are best served when the backpedaling doesn't begin immediately.

What country have you been living in?

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
15. What are the precise and specific changes made only due to "immediate backpedaling"
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:17 PM
Jun 2014

What are the precise and specific changes (made only due to "immediate backpedaling&quot in this particular case? Other than vague prophecies, that is... :shrug"

 

villager

(26,001 posts)
16. You're not a "reader of posts" before replying I guess...
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:29 PM
Jun 2014

But there is now steady backpedaling -- as noted throughout the thread -- from yesterday's "goal" of a 30% reduction...

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
8. If you go to the EPA site
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:17 PM
Jun 2014

You will quickly notice the comments link. It was there yesterday. It is not new. Comments by stake holders is like standard. Oh and you too can file a comment.

yellowcanine

(35,692 posts)
14. This is standard for proposed regulations. It is messy but it is required by law.
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 01:57 PM
Jun 2014

I don't have any problem with the EPA following the law requiring a public comment period for proposed regulations. This is neither new nor unexpected. Making it so is to not understand the process of crafting new regulations.

Example: When the USDA proposed organic standards, GMOs were allowed for USDA certified organic. After the comment period, GMOs were not allowed as certified organic.

The fact that there is a comment period for the new EPA carbon regulations does not mean they will be altered in favor of industry. The final regulations could be tougher on industry.

 

villager

(26,001 posts)
17. That would seem dubious, if they're already insisting, publicly, that 30% was a misunderstood
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:32 PM
Jun 2014

"goal," and not the actual goal at all...

yellowcanine

(35,692 posts)
18. Yada yada yada. How many times have we been through this? Chill for once and see how it plays out
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:37 PM
Jun 2014

before panties in a wad time, okay?

 

villager

(26,001 posts)
19. "yada yada?" Your panties are far more wadded than mine, my friend...
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 02:48 PM
Jun 2014

...as evinced by your pronounced inability to even sustain a conversation...

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»That was a quick cave-in:...