PeterS

The first EPA regulation to be rolled by house republicans was a regulation that banned the dumping of coal ash into streams and rivers. It seems this was a burdensome regulation on the coal industry that forced them to clean up after themselves--no business should have to clean up after itself you know--and is sure to put the profits back into one of the dirtiest industries that we have. Way to go Repugs, way to go...

http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/02/01/house-republicans-just-v**ed-allow-dumping-coal-waste-rivers/

Mr Bombastic

F**E NEWS.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Your source is questionable, at best Pete.

Our local coal fired power plant sells their residue to road building companies, and some individuals. I have put about 3" of the stuff on my driveway. It is now rock hard.
Maybe you should look a little deeper into this before making an asset out of yourself, as you seem to be doing lately.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

"occupydemocrats" is a l*****t hack propaganda site, right in there with addictinginfo and alternet. Yeah, I'd say it is a questionable source.

Nutter Loc: Fly Over Zone

The EPA "accidentally" spilled 3 million gallons of toxic sludge into the Animas River.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/28/epa-slammed-after-refusing-cover-colorado-countys-/

PeterS

Really.....

http://fortune.com/2017/02/02/stream-protection-rule-repeal/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/business/energy-environment/senate-coal-regulations.html?_r=0
https://thinkprogress.org/congress-is-set-to-overturn-the-stream-protection-rule-1829c522f388#.3trv1yoac
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/politics/stream-protection-rule/

PeterS

Ooooh, questionable source eh Blade.

heres the AP: http://www.apnewsarchive.com/2017/The-GOP-controlled-Congress-is-moving-swiftly-to-repeal-Obama-administration-regulations-aimed-at-better-protecting-streams-from-coal-mining-debris/id-4a5654c52c494c6da6ebad408f9bd76c

Here's the NY Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/business/energy-environment/senate-coal-regulations.html?_r=0

Here's CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/politics/stream-protection-rule/

Here's fortune: http://fortune.com/2017/02/02/stream-protection-rule-repeal/

Here's The Hill: http://thehill.com/regulation/energy-environment/317193-house-to-repeal-obama-coal-rule-wednesday

Here's Coal Age: http://www.coalage.com/news/latest/5516-house-v**es-to-overturn-stream-protection-rule.html#.WJPnejsrKM8

And if you can't believe a Coal publication Blade just who can you believe...

The problem with living your life in a fallacy Blade is that by doing so you hide yourself from the t***h. It's the story that's important Blade not who says it...

PeterS

And now the coal companies can doe it legally. How fun...

PeterS

Which is it Archie, f**e news or coal ash is safe? Tell you what. If you really think coal ash is safe then mix some into a glass of water and give it to your grand kids to drink. If it has no effect on them then I will retract my story with my most humble apologies...

Looks yummy huh...

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Well Peter, my grandkids go outside, play in the dirt, and mess around with all kinds of junk that you would probably consider unsafe, and call the authorities on their parents for. I'm not worried about it.

plainlogic

Oho, it's the Obama Islamabad two step. Sweet... how 10 trillion seemed to disappear so fast in 8 yrs. And now, Trump has got to try and clean the outhouse out that Obama's have manage to turn the WH into.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Yeah, who's hiding from the t***h, Pete?

Obama Opens A New Front In His Ongoing War On Coal By Unveiling Job-K*****g Regulations On New Coal Plants

TODAY, THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCED NEW REGULATIONS ON NEW COAL PLANTS

The Associated Press Headline: "Obama Takes On Coal With First-Ever Carbon Limits." ( Dina Cappiello, "Obama Takes On Coal With First-Ever Carbon Limits," The Associated Press, 9/20/13)

Today, The Obama Administration Announced The "First Federal Carbon Limits On The Nation's Power Companies." "The Obama administration on Friday announced that it was not backing down from a confrontation with the coal industry and would press ahead with enacting the first federal carbon limits on the nation's power companies." (Michael Shear, "Administration To Press Ahead With Carbon Limits," The New York Times, 9/20/13)

The Regulations Are "An Aggressive Move By Mr. Obama" That Will "Bypass Congress." "The proposed regulations, announced at the National Press Club by Gina McCarthy, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, are an aggressive move by Mr. Obama to bypass Congress on c*****e c****e with executive actions he promised in his inaugural address this year." (Michael Shear, "Administration To Press Ahead With Carbon Limits," The New York Times, 9/20/13)

THE NEW REGULATIONS "PUT THE SQUEEZE" ON OUR NATION'S COAL INDUSTRY

"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Long-Awaited Guidelines Are Expected To Make It More Difficult For New Coal-Fired Power Plants To Be Built." (Valerie Volcovici, "U.S. EPA Sets First-Ever Curbs On Power Plant Pollution," Reuters, 9/20/13)

"EPA's Proposal Would Put The Squeeze On Coal." "While it won't affect existing plants, EPA's proposal would put the squeeze on coal: Any coal-burning power plant built in the future would be limited to 1,100 pounds per megawatt hour of CO2 emissions, according to McCarthy's planned speech." (Erica Martinson, "Coal In President Obama's Climate Crosshairs," Politico, 9/19/13)

"The Rule Packs The Same Punch As One Announced Last Year." "Despite some tweaks, the rule packs the same punch as one announced last year, which was widely criticized by industry and by Republicans as effectively banning any new coal-fired power plants." (Dina Cappiello, "Obama Takes On Coal With First-Ever Carbon Limits," The Associated Press, 9/20/13)

The New Regulations Will Force The Coal-Fired Plants To Rely On "A Technology That's Still Unproven." "The limits on future coal plants are stringent enough that utilities will likely only be able to new coal-fired facilities if the plants can capture their carbon emissions and bury them underground, a technology that's still unproven.* In theory, this could mean a moratorium on all new coal plants for decades to come." (Brad Plumer, "Will Coal Survive The EPA's New Carbon Rules?" The Washington Post, 9/20/13)

New Coal Plants Would Have To Install "Expensive Technology" But No Coal-Fired Plants Have Done That "In Large Part Because Of The Cost." "That's because to meet the standard, new coal-fired power plants would need to install expensive technology to capture carbon dioxide and bury it underground. No coal-fired power plant has done that yet, in large part because of the cost." (Dina Cappiello, "Obama Takes On Coal With First-Ever Carbon Limits," The Associated Press, 9/20/13)
"A State-Of-The-Art Coal Plant Would Have To Employ Expensive And Thus-Far Uncommonly Used Technologies To Capture Around 40 Percent Of Its Carbon Emissions." "That means a state-of-the-art coal plant would have to employ expensive and thus-far uncommonly used technologies to capture around 40 percent of its carbon emissions." (Erica Martinson, "Coal In President Obama's Climate Crosshairs," Politico, 9/19/13)

THE REGULATIONS WILL BE DEVASTATING FOR COAL-PRODUCING STATES

The Regulations "Are Expected To Have Far-Reaching Implications For Coal States Such As Kentucky." "Together, they are expected to have far-reaching implications for coal states such as Kentucky, which ranks third nationally in coal production and uses coal to generate more than 90 percent of the state's electricity." (James Bruggers, "EPA Unveils Tougher Pollution Limits For New Power Plants," The [Louisville, KY] Courier-Journal, 9/20/13)

The New Regulations Will Put "More Pressure On Kentucky's Reeling Coal Industry." "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Friday unveiled a reworked set of regulations aimed at slashing pollution levels from new power plants - simultaneously putting more pressure on Kentucky's reeling coal industry." (James Bruggers, "EPA Unveils Tougher Pollution Limits For New Power Plants," The [Louisville, KY] Courier-Journal, 9/20/13)

"Indiana Could Also Be Greatly Affected." "Indiana could also be greatly affected. It relies on coal for about 80 percent of its electricity and, according to the National Mining Association, ranks eighth in coal production." (James Bruggers, "EPA Unveils Tougher Pollution Limits For New Power Plants," The [Louisville, KY] Courier-Journal, 9/20/13)

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV): "Today's Announcement ... Is Direct Evidence That This Administration Is Trying To Hold The Coal Industry To Impossible Standards." "'Today's announcement ... is direct evidence that this Administration is trying to hold the coal industry to impossible standards,' said Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat from the coal producing state of West Virginia." (Valerie Volcovici, "U.S. EPA Sets First-Ever Curbs On Power Plant Pollution," Reuters, 9/20/13)

Manchin: The New Regulations "Will Have Devastating Impacts To The Coal Industry And Our Economy." "'Never before has the federal government forced an industry to do something that is technologically impossible,' said Senator Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat. 'Forcing coal to meet the same emissions standards as gas when experts know that the required technology is not operational on a commercial scale makes absolutely no sense and will have devastating impacts to the coal industry and our economy.'" (Mark Drajem, "New Coal Plants Must Limit Carbon Pollution Under Epa Regulation," Bloomberg Businessweek, 9/20/13)

OBAMA AND BIDEN ARE FINALLY GETTING THE WAR ON COAL THEY HAVE PUSHED FOR SINCE 2008

While Campaigning For President In 2008, Obama Said That His Cap-And-Trade Program Would Bankrupt New Coal-Powered Plants. OBAMA: "So, if somebody wants to build a coal 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." (Sen. Barack Obama, Interview With The San Francisco Chronicle's Editorial Board, 1/17/08)

Vice President Biden In 2008: "No Coal Plants Here In America." (Joe Biden, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Maumee, OH, 9/16/08)

Biden: "We're Not Supporting Clean Coal." (Joe Biden, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Maumee, OH, 9/16/08)

Harvard University's Daniel P. Schrag, One Of Obama's Advisers On C*****e C****e, Said "A War On Coal Is Exactly What's Needed." "Daniel P. Schrag, a geochemist who is the head of Harvard University's Center for the Environment and a member of a p**********l science panel that has helped advise the White House on c*****e c****e, said he hoped the p**********l speech would mark a turning point in the national debate on c*****e c****e. 'Everybody is waiting for action,' he said. 'The one thing the president really needs to do now is to begin the process of shutting down the conventional coal plants. Politically, the White House is hesitant to say they're having a war on coal. On the other hand, a war on coal is exactly what's needed.'" (John M Broder, "Obama To Outline Ambitious Plan To Cut Greenhouse Gases,"The New York Times, 6/25/13)

Schrag: "The One Thing The President Really Needs To Do Now Is To Being The Process Of Shutting Down The Conventional Coal Plants." (John M Broder, "Obama To Outline Ambitious Plan To Cut Greenhouse Gases,"The New York Times, 6/25/13)

AND JUST WAIT FOR NEXT YEAR - THE EPA PLANS TO ANNOUNCE "MORE COSTLY" REGULATIONS ON EXISTING PLANTS

Next Year, The EPA Plans To Announce Regulations On Existing Coal Plants, "A Far More Costly And Controversial Step." "Ms. McCarthy also announced a yearlong schedule for an environmental listening tour - a series of meetings across the country with the public, the industry and environmental groups as the agency works to establish emissions limits on existing power plants - a far more costly and controversial step. Mr. Obama has told officials he wants to see greenhouse gas limits on existing and new power plants by the time he leaves office in 2017." (Michael Shear, "Administration To Press Ahead With Carbon Limits," The New York Times, 9/20/13)

The Restrictions On Existing Power Plants Will Be Proposed By June 2014. "In his June climate action plan, Mr. Obama ordered the E.P.A. to propose new greenhouse-gas rules covering existing plants by next June, and to issue final standards by June 2015." (Michael Wines, "E.P.A. Is Expected To Set Limits On Greenhouse Gas Emissions By New Power Plants,"

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

OBAMA UNVEILED HIS LATEST JOB-K*****G REGULATIONS IN HIS ONGOING WAR ON COAL

Yesterday, Obama Proposed New Job-K*****g Regulations On New And Existing Power Plants. " President Barack Obama launched a new plan to tackle c*****e c****e on Tuesday with a call to limit carbon pollution from all U.S. power plants and a signal that he would block a proposed pipeline from Canada if it boosted greenhouse gas emissions. Obama's long-awaited plan, detailed in a speech at Georgetown University, drew sharp criticism from the coal industry, which would be hit hard by carbon limits, and Republicans, who accused the Democratic president of advancing policies that harm the economy." (Jeff Mason And Roberta Rampton, "Obama Takes On Power Plants, Keystone As Part Of Climate Plan," Reuters, 6/25/13)

A Study By The American Action Forum Found That Obama's Climate Plan "Will Affect More Than 37,000 Employees And Regulate A Variety Of Industries." "Today, President Obama will call for greenhouse gas (GHG) limits on existing stationary sources. Examining the largest sources in the U.S., the American Action Forum (AAF) estimates such a proposal will affect more than 37,000 employees and regulate a variety of industries." (" Implications Of Regulating Existing Greenhouse Gas Sources ," American Action Forum 6/24/13)

AAF Study: "With More Than 37,000 Employees At These Facilities Across The Nation, A Significant Regulatory Action Could Result In Displaced Workers." "With more than 37,000 employees at these facilities across the nation, a significant regulatory action could result in displaced workers. Since it is unlikely EPA would promulgate a rule that shuts down a major refinery or steel mill, coal plants are once again under the regulatory microscope." (" Implications Of Regulating Existing Greenhouse Gas Sources ," American Action Forum 6/24/13)

Obama's New Regulations On Existing Power Plants Will "Raise Consumers' Electricity Prices." "But the move to impose greenhouse gas limits on existing plants - which account for a third of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions and 40 percent of its carbon emissions - will raise consumers' electricity prices in the short term as utilities are forced to shutter aging coal plants to comply with stricter pollution limits." (Juliet Eilperin, "Obama To Take Sweeping Action On Climate," The Washington Post , 6/22/13)
Even Obama's Own Adviser Is Calling The New Plan Part Of A Needed "War On Coal"

Harvard University's Daniel P. Schrag, One Of Obama's Advisers On C*****e C****e, Said "A War On Coal Is Exactly What's Needed." "Daniel P. Schrag, a geochemist who is the head of Harvard University's Center for the Environment and a member of a p**********l science panel that has helped advise the White House on c*****e c****e, said he hoped the p**********l speech would mark a turning point in the national debate on c*****e c****e. 'Everybody is waiting for action,' he said. 'The one thing the president really needs to do now is to begin the process of shutting down the conventional coal plants. Politically, the White House is hesitant to say they're having a war on coal. On the other hand, a war on coal is exactly what's needed.'" (John M Broder, "Obama To Outline Ambitious Plan To Cut Greenhouse Gases,"The New York Times, 6/25/13)

Schrag: "The One Thing The President Really Needs To Do Now Is To Being The Process Of Shutting Down The Conventional Coal Plants." (John M Broder, "Obama To Outline Ambitious Plan To Cut Greenhouse Gases,"The New York Times, 6/25/13)

OBAMA'S NEW CLIMATE PLAN PLACES COAL-COUNTRY AND VULNERABLE DEMOCRATS IN A BIND
Some Democrats Are Already Concerned About Obama's Proposed Regulations

Democrats In "Energy-Rich States Could Make Themselves Politically Vulnerable" By Supporting Obama's Climate Plan. "Beyond the hurdle posed by Republican opposition, Democrats in GOP-leaning, energy-rich states could make themselves politically vulnerable by supporting a legislative push, or even by voicing unqualified support for the president's new plan." (Jennifer Epstein, "Obama Urges Action On Climate," Politico, 6/25/13)

"Some Democrats, Including Those Hawkish About Climate Action, Also Worry That Tough New Standards On Power Plants Could Slow Job Growth And Raise Energy Costs…" "Some Democrats, including those hawkish about climate action, also worry that tough new standards on power plants could slow job growth and raise energy costs, particularly in places like the industrial Midwest that depend on cheap power from coal. But administration officials signaled that Mr. Obama had decided the risks from c*****e c****e outweighed the potential economic and political costs from taking steps to address it." (John M. Broder, "Obama Readying Emissions Limits On Power Plants," The New York Times , 6/19/13)

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) Blasted Obama's Regulations As Unfairly Targeting Coal. "Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) blasted President Obama's proposals to address c*****e c****e, saying new regulations on power plants would unfairly burden the coal industry. 'The regulations the President wants to force on coal are not feasible. And if it's not feasible, it's not reasonable,' Manchin said in a statement." (Justin Sink, "Manchin: Obama Declared 'War On Coal'," The Hill, 6/25/13)

Manchin, On Obama's Climate Plan: "It Is Just So Irresponsible. … They're Declaring War Truly On Jobs, On American Jobs." MANCHIN: "It is just so irresponsible. We're looking for an all-in energy policy that basically secures our nation, makes us less dependent on foreign oil or foreign energy. And we can do that, but we've got to use everything we have, in balance with the environment and economy. That's all we ever said. … They're declaring war truly on jobs, on American jobs." (Fox News' " Special Report," 6/25/13)

Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), On Obama's Climate Plan: "Several Of The Initiatives … Amplify The Administration's Continuing War On Coal And Coal-Fired Power." HEITKAMP: "However, several of the initiatives introduced today by the President, while not new, amplify the Administration's continuing war on coal and coal-fired power. While the President claims to believe in an all-of-the-above energy policy, he consistently fails to step-forward and truly commit to such a policy." (Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, "Heitkamp Reaction To President Remarks On C*****e C****e," Press Release, 6/25/13)

Heitkamp: "The Administration Continues Developing Regulations That Do Nothing More Than Choke Off Good-Paying American Jobs…" HEITKAMP: "Instead the Administration continues developing regulations that do nothing more than choke off good-paying American jobs, and threatening millions of Americans with the loss of a reliable and affordable energy source." (Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, "Heitkamp Reaction To President Remarks On C*****e C****e," Press Release, 6/25/13)

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV): "I'm Deeply Concerned That, In Its Current Form, There's Not Enough Emphasis In The President's Plan On The People Who Are The Backbone Of Our Economy And The Fabric Of Our Nation." ROCKEFELLER: "I'm deeply concerned that, in its current form, there's not enough emphasis in the President's plan on the people who are the backbone of our economy and the fabric of our nation. And, any roadmap to deal with our future energy needs must include the promise of clean coal. Our demand for energy can't be met without it." (Sen. Jay Rockefeller, "Rockefeller Releases Statement On President's C*****e C****e Speech," Press Release, 6/25/13)
But Other Democrats Facing E******ns In 2013 And 2014 Will Have To Run From Their Past Support For Job-K*****g Regulations

Gubernatorial Candidate Terry McAuliffe (D-VA)

In 2009, Terry McAuliffe Attacked Coal, Saying "We Have Got To Move Past Coal. As Governor, I Never Want Another Coal Plant Built." (Terry McAuliffe, Democratic Gubernatorial Primary Debate, B****sburg, VA, 4/29/09)

The Coal Industry Directly And Indirectly Supports 45,210 Jobs In Virginia. (Coal In Virginia, National Mining Association)

Coal Mining Employed 5,261 Virginians In 2011. ("Annual Coal Report," U.S. Energy Information Administration, 11/8/12, Table 18. Average Number Of Employees By State And Mine Type)

Coal Jobs Contributed $3.4 Billion In Wages To Virginia Workers In 2011. (Coal In Virginia, National Mining Association)

Annual Average Wage In The Coal Industry In Southwest Virginia Is More Than Twice The Average For All Industries. "[T]he coal industry paid an annual average wage of $84,978 in the region compared to the $34,757 for all industries in 2010 (the latest full year of data). Consequently, the coal industry directly accounted for 12.8% of total wages and salaries in Southwest Virginia." ("The Economic Impact Of The Coal Industry In Virginia," Chmura Economics & Analytics, 1/18/12)

Coal Exports Contributed $2.5 Billion To Virginia's Economy In 2011. ("U.S. Coal Exports: National and State Economic Contributions," Ernst & Young, 5/13, Table 6)

The Coal Industry Produced 18.7% Of The Total Economic Output In Southwest Virginia In 2010. "Based on direct, indirect, and induced impacts, the coal industry produced 18.7% of the total economic output in Southwest Virginia and supported 8.9% of the regional employment in 2010." ("The Economic Impact Of The Coal Industry In Virginia," Chmura Economics & Analytics, 1/18/12)

Coal-Fired Power Plants Produced 1,066,000 Mega Watt Hours Of Electricity In Virginia In April Of 2013. (Electric Power Monthly, April 2013, U.S. Energy Information Administration, 6/21/13, Table 1.7.A. Net Generation From Coal)

Coal Accounted For 20% Of The 5,199,000 Mega Watt Hours Of Electricity Generated In Virginia In April Of 2013. (Electric Power Monthly: April 2013, U.S. Energy Information Administration, 6/21/13, Table 1.6.A. Net Generation)

Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK)

Begich Enabled Obama's New Regulations By V****g Against Stripping The EPA Of Its Authority To Regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions. (S.Amdt. 183 to S.493, Roll Call #54, Rejected 50-50: R 46-1; D 49-4, 4/6/11, Begich V**ed Nay)

Begich V**ed In Favor Of Establishing A Carbon Tax. "Whitehouse, D-R.I., amendment no. 646 that would establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to allow for legislation that would provide for a fee on carbon pollution and use revenues collected to reduce the deficit." (S. Con. Res. 8, CQ V**e #58: Rejected 41-58: R 0-45; D 39-13; I 2-0, 3/22/13, Begich V**ed Yea)

A Carbon Tax Could Cost Up To 21,000 Jobs In Alaska. "This tax would deal a blow to employment in Alaska, with a loss of worker income equivalent to 7,000 to 21,000 jobs in 2013 and 9,000 to 12,000 by 2013." (National Association Of Manufacturers, "Adverse Economic Impacts Of A Carbon Tax In Alaska," www.nam.org, Accessed 4/16/13)

A Carbon Tax Could Increase The Price Of Gas In Alaska By More Than 20 Cents Per Gallon. "Prices at the pump would jump by more than 20 cents a gallon in 2013." (National Association Of Manufacturers, "Adverse Economic Impacts Of A Carbon Tax In Alaska," www.nam.org, Accessed 4/16/13)

A Carbon Tax Could Increase The Cost Of Electricity For Alaskans By 12 Percent. "Households in Alaska would see a significant increase in their electrify rates, with an average increase of 12 percent in 2013." (National Association Of Manufacturers, "Adverse Economic Impacts Of A Carbon Tax In Alaska," www.nam.org, Accessed 4/16/13)
A Carbon Tax Could Increase The Cost Of Natural Gas By More Than 40 Percent. "The cost of using natural gas would increase by more than 40 percent in 2013, the first year of the carbon tax study, adding to household energy bills and increasing operation costs for many Alaska businesses." (National Association Of Manufacturers, "Adverse Economic Impacts Of A Carbon Tax In Alaska," www.nam.org, Accessed 4/16/13)

Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC)

Hagan Enabled Obama's New Regulations By V****g Against Stripping The EPA Of Its Authority To Regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions. (S.Amdt. 183 to S.493, Roll Call #54, Rejected 50-50: R 46-1; D 49-4, 4/6/11, Hagan V**ed Nay)

During The 2008 Campaign, Hagan's Spokeswoman Said She Would Have Supported The Climate Security Act, A Bill That "At Its Heart . . . Is A Basic Cap-And-Trade System." "The bill, known as the Climate Security Act, includes provisions for a variety of special interests, from job-training funds for renewable energy workers to funding for green buildings. At its heart, though, the bill is a basic cap-and-trade system for energy companies that emit greenhouse gases… state Sen. Kay Hagan of Greensboro, supports the bill, which her spokeswoman said fit Hagan's energy plan offered this spring." (Barbara Barrett, "Climate Bill Has Unlikely Ally," Charlotte Observer, 6/6/08)

According To The EPA, The Bill Would Have Cut GDP By $1 To $2.8 Trillion By 2050. "Under S.2191, GDP is modeled to be between 0.9% ($238 billion) and 3.8% ($983 billion) lower in 2030 and between 2.4% ($1,012 billion) and 6.9% ($2,856 billion) lower in 2050 than in the Reference Scenario. ("EPA Analysis Of The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act Of 2008," Environmental Protection Agency, 3/14/08)
Electricity Prices Would Have Spiked 44% By 2030 And 26% By 2050. "Electricity prices are projected to increase 44% in 2030 and 26% in 2050, assuming the cost of allowances can partially be passed on to consumers (as is the case in a full auction). ("EPA Analysis Of The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act Of 2008," Environmental Protection Agency, 3/14/08)

The Coal Industry Directly And Indirectly Supports 1,510 Jobs In North Carolina. ("U.S. Coal Exports: National And State Economic Contributions," Ernst & Young, 5/13, Table 4)

Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR)

Pryor V**ed In Favor Of Establishing A Carbon Cap-And-Trade System. (S.Amdt. 4825 To S. 3036, Roll Call #145, Rejected 48-36: R 6-32; D 42-4; 6/6/08, Pryor V**ed Yea)

According To The EPA, The 2008 Bill Would Have Cut GDP By $1 To $2.8 Trillion By 2050. "Under S.2191, GDP is modeled to be between 0.9% ($238 billion) and 3.8% ($983 billion) lower in 2030 and between 2.4% ($1,012 billion) and 6.9% ($2,856 billion) lower in 2050 than in the Reference Scenario. ("EPA Analysis Of The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act Of 2008," Environmental Protection Agency, 3/14/08)
Electricity Prices Would Have Spiked 44% By 2030 And 26% By 2050. "Electricity prices are projected to increase 44% in 2030 and 26% in 2050, assuming the cost of allowances can partially be passed on to consumers (as is the case in a full auction). ("EPA Analysis Of The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act Of 2008," Environmental Protection Agency, 3/14/08)

son of witless

Obama crap as usual. Obama the not so great, reclassified coal ash as hazardous waste in order to k**l the coal industry for his green Kommunist masters. I can tell you do not work in an industry targeted for destruction by the Kommunist Green i***ts.

If you wanted to save the environment and $ Billions of tax dollars you'd k**l the California bullet train Obama boondoggle.

peter11937 Loc: NYS

Here's another one, gets you to the casinos fast and smooth... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California%E2%80%93Nevada_Interstate_Maglev