Environment & Energy

wtmusic

(39,166 posts) Thu Jun 20, 2013, 01:42 PM Jun 2013

Forget About Impending Keystone Approval, Obama Readying Emissions Limits on Power Plants

[div style="float: left; padding-right: 12px;"]WASHINGTON — President Obama is preparing regulations limiting carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants, senior officials said Wednesday. The move would be the most consequential climate policy step he could take and one likely to provoke legal challenges from Republicans and some industries.

Electric power plants are the largest single source of global warming pollution in the country, responsible for nearly 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. With sweeping climate legislation effectively dead in Congress, the decision on existing power plants — which a 2007 Supreme Court decision gave to the executive branch — has been among the most closely watched of Mr. Obama’s second term.

The administration has already begun steps to restrict climate-altering emissions from any newly built power plants, but imposing carbon standards on the existing utility fleet would be vastly more costly and contentious."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/science/earth/obama-preparing-big-effort-to-curb-climate-change.html?hpw&_r=0

11 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Forget About Impending Keystone Approval, Obama Readying Emissions Limits on Power Plants (Original Post) wtmusic Jun 2013 OP

If you had to choose between Keystone XL and emission standards, which would you choose? Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #1

I would choose real emission standards in a heartbeat wtmusic Jun 2013 #2

Ok, well let's put the crystal ball aside for a moment. Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #3

Emission standards accomplish nothing. wtmusic Jun 2013 #4

Emission standards cleaned up the air in California, Chicago, Cleveland... Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #5

They can be effective at cleaning up the air locally wtmusic Jun 2013 #6

I'm not sure that will work, wtmusic. There is so much profit in fossil fuels. Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #7

I'm down for that wtmusic Jun 2013 #8

Despite our minor differences in execution, ... Buzz Clik Jun 2013 #9

Likewise, my friend. wtmusic Jun 2013 #10

Just dump it in the ocean? RobertEarl Jun 2013 #11

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)

1. If you had to choose between Keystone XL and emission standards, which would you choose?

Reply to wtmusic (Original post)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 01:43 PM

Jun 2013

wtmusic

(39,166 posts)

2. I would choose real emission standards in a heartbeat

Reply to Buzz Clik (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 01:45 PM

Jun 2013

The ones which will result will be announced as "tough" and "unprecedented" and will have enough loopholes to drive a truck through.

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)

3. Ok, well let's put the crystal ball aside for a moment.

Reply to wtmusic (Reply #2)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 01:49 PM

Jun 2013

The tar sands will be extracted. The disgusting crap the sands yield will be refined somewhere.

If we do not pass carbon emission standards, we're screwed. Period.

The choice is a no brainer.

(We are similarly distracted on fracking...)

wtmusic

(39,166 posts)

4. Emission standards accomplish nothing.

Reply to Buzz Clik (Reply #3)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 01:56 PM

Jun 2013

U.S. coal exports set monthly record

The tar sands will be extracted and refined somewhere, and U.S. coal will be burned somewhere.

We can't force Canada to stop tar sands production. But if Obama was serious about climate change, he would tax carbon at the mine or wellhead.

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)

5. Emission standards cleaned up the air in California, Chicago, Cleveland...

Reply to wtmusic (Reply #4)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 02:02 PM

Jun 2013

They can work for CO₂.

Taxing carbon seems pointless to me. The problem is not a flow of tax dollars but the carbon in the air.

wtmusic

(39,166 posts)

6. They can be effective at cleaning up the air locally

Reply to Buzz Clik (Reply #5)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 02:06 PM

Jun 2013

but we're not dealing with a local problem.

Making fossil fuels more expensive is the only way to keep it from coming out of the ground. We can lead on climate change, or we can point fingers at India and China as we all go over the edge.

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)

7. I'm not sure that will work, wtmusic. There is so much profit in fossil fuels.

Reply to wtmusic (Reply #6)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 02:11 PM

Jun 2013

Maybe a combination of the two?

wtmusic

(39,166 posts)

8. I'm down for that

Reply to Buzz Clik (Reply #7)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 02:17 PM

Jun 2013

Fee and dividend is the approach recommended by Hansen:

http://citizensclimatelobby.org/node/398

It's working in British Columbia:

B.C.’s carbon tax is driving down emissions

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/bc2035/carbon+driving+down+emissions/8473417/story.html

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)

9. Despite our minor differences in execution, ...

Reply to wtmusic (Reply #8)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 02:19 PM

Jun 2013

... I am pleased to see another DUer who is pushing for a pragmatic approach to solving this problem. We are few.

wtmusic

(39,166 posts)

10. Likewise, my friend.

Reply to Buzz Clik (Reply #9)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 02:32 PM

Jun 2013

Debatable whether solving a problem of this magnitude pragmatically is even possible.

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)

11. Just dump it in the ocean?

Reply to wtmusic (Reply #10)

Thu Jun 20, 2013, 02:48 PM

Jun 2013

It will all go away. The ocean is already polluted, a little more won't matter.

So you said in this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112747182#post10

Quote:
"The point is when it enters seawater it will be diluted within moments by a factor of millions - well below atmospheric Sr-90 levels."

The people who polluted our air with coal burning used the same idiotic reasoning as you do with nuclear waste.

Reply to this discussion