Executive order, This is getting out of hand.

[eohrnberger]

Yep ..probably 100% of them.

I suggest the coal plants continue to convert and tell Barry to **** off.

A Slew of Coal Plants Get New Lease on Life—With Gas

Of course we'll need to be fracking to feed those plants with domestic clean burning LPG.
Guess what the next thing the ecomentalists want to ban. *sigh*

If they want to live without affordable electricity, then they can go off and live in the the woods without it, as far as I'm concerned.

If your local government bans fracking, well, then, I say you just got yourself unplugged from the gas mains, and we'll wait till winter comes. :raz:

That, unlike taxes, would actually work. Given that human industrialization is the cause.

Thanks but no thanks. I don't want to go back 200 years, to what the liberal / progressives / ecomentalists would call 'progress'.

 

[polgara]

Of course we'll need to be fracking to feed those plants with domestic clean burning LPG.
Guess what the next thing the ecomentalists want to ban. *sigh*

If they want to live without affordable electricity, then they can go off and live in the the woods without it, as far as I'm concerned.

If your local government bans fracking, well, then, I say you just got yourself unplugged from the gas mains, and we'll wait till winter comes. :raz:



Thanks but no thanks. I don't want to go back 200 years, to what the liberal / progressives / ecomentalists would call 'progress'.

Greetings, Erik. :2wave:

BHO seemed to skip over the natural gas alternative, which although it will be probably be costly for the power plants to convert, would solve the problem the greenies are focusing on. They would simply pass the costs on to us. It's not going to help that China is building scores of coal powered plants, though, since we'll be still be breathing the same air they do as it circles the globe.

 

[eohrnberger]

Greetings, Erik. :2wave:

BHO seemed to skip over the natural gas alternative, which although it will be probably be costly for the power plants to convert, would solve the problem the greenies are focusing on. They would simply pass the costs on to us. It's not going to help that China is building scores of coal powered plants, though, since we'll be still be breathing the same air they do as it circles the globe.

Greetings, Polgara. :2wave:

Actually, I think converting from coal to LPG rather affordable, in relative terms of course, and when compared to other proposed solutions such as scrubbers and the like.

 

[sangha]

No until a right you care about is violated, good luck with that.

Wrong again. There are a number of SCOTUS decisions I think are misguided but that hasn't caused me to deny the legitimacy of their authority which comes straight from the constitution itself.

 

[polgara]

Greetings, Polgara. :2wave:

Actually, I think converting from coal to LPG rather affordable, in relative terms of course, and when compared to other proposed solutions such as scrubbers and the like.

There was a very interesting article written a while back from an engineer at a coal fired plant. He talked about his company struggling to meet ever-increasing EPA standards, and how when they do, the EPA just comes up with new restrictions. The air is now clean and clear when it comes out of the smoke stacks, but now the EPA wants instruments installed to measure percentages! I'll see if I can locate that article, because the writer was concerned that the plant might just shut down and lots of hard-working people would lose their jobs, and it would become a ghost town. It was sad to read, Erik, because the plant is trying to comply with onerous rules..

 

[eohrnberger]

There was a very interesting article written a while back from an engineer at a coal fired plant. He talked about his company struggling to meet ever-increasing EPA standards, and how when they do, the EPA just comes up with new restrictions. The air is now clean and clear when it comes out of the smoke stacks, but now the EPA wants instruments installed to measure percentages! I'll see if I can locate that article, because the writer was concerned that the plant might just shut down and lots of hard-working people would lose their jobs, and it would become a ghost town. It was sad to read, Erik, because the plant is trying to comply with onerous rules..

Granted, that the burning of coal isn't going to become a 'clean' process by the standards that the EPA are continually revising. Burning fracking extracted LPG, which is inherently a much cleaner burning fuel, is probably the better way to go, if you take nuclear off the table (which it seems to have been). Yes, most certainly onerous standards.

 

[polgara]

Greetings, Polgara. :2wave:

Actually, I think converting from coal to LPG rather affordable, in relative terms of course, and when compared to other proposed solutions such as scrubbers and the like.

From what I understand, most have already installed scrubbers, at the EPA's orders, and then the EPA finds new things they want changed. It does sound suspiciously like an assault on business, since the government cannot give anything to anybody that they do not first take from someone else.

And when did the subject change from too much CO2, which has been the mantra for years, to mercury? What's next on the agenda?

 

[eohrnberger]

From what I understand, most have already installed scrubbers, at the EPA's orders, and then the EPA finds new things they want changed. It does sound suspiciously like an assault on business, since the government cannot give anything to anybody that they do not first take from someone else.

And when did the subject change from too much CO2, which has been the mantra for years, to mercury? What's next on the agenda?

Constantly moving goal posts. How about leaving thing (regulations) as they are for awhile?

 

[WCH]

I did not call his source into question, I merely pointed out the differences between my claim/studies (97% of climatologists support the theory) and his claim/study (80% of scientists and climatologists support the theory). It is a big difference I know, but I'm going to get upset at folks who want to put the consensus at 80% instead of 97%.

It's all about the way the questions are posed. [and who's paying you to answer them]

 

[WCH]

Yes! To realistically fight climate change we must go back to a primitive time!

Yep Obama's plan to de-industrialize American. Pretty damn delusional.

 

[MrT]

It's all about the way the questions are posed. [and who's paying you to answer them]

So you would agree that at least 80% of scientists and climatologists agree that the current Global Warming theory is real and that humans are playing a significant role?

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Yep Obama's plan to de-industrialize American. Pretty damn delusional.

That was Reagan bud. But yea, keep on living in the delusional world of 12 second video clips...

 

[fmw]

I think Obama's term of office will end before they shut down any coal fired electric plants. The lawyers will get injunctions and eventually kill it. The country didn't want cap and trade before and I don't think they want it now. It is just noise.

 

[WCH]

So you would agree that at least 80% of scientists and climatologists agree that the current Global Warming theory is real and that humans are playing a significant role?

No..nor do I believe we can change much short of exploding all the bombs at once.

 

[WCH]

That was Reagan bud. But yea, keep on living in the delusional world of 12 second video clips...

Always living.in the past, blaming dead people and retirees....typical.

Your boy hates this country and will leave a legacy of destruction.

 

[MrT]

No..nor do I believe we can change much short of exploding all the bombs at once.

...but that's what your source claimed.

If you want to dismiss your study and go back to my four studies that claim the number of climatologists that support global warming is roughly 97%, then I am fine with that one.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Always living.in the past, blaming dead people and retirees....typical.

Your boy hates this country and will leave a legacy of destruction.

:lamo :lamo
Beep boop bop Obama bad Obama evil... Disregard all facts and rely on misleading and false video clips. Beep boop bop.

 

[MrT]

Always living.in the past, blaming dead people and retirees....typical.

Your boy hates this country and will leave a legacy of destruction.

Best unemployment in seven years. Best housing market in seven years. Record lows to uninsured. Record highs to the stock market. Records of consecutive private sector job growth. First to reform the health markets in 40 years. First to significantly push for global warming initiatives.

Worst. Destroyer. Ever.

 

[reinoe]

 

[WCH]

...but that's what your source claimed.

If you want to dismiss your study and go back to my four studies that claim the number of climatologists that support global warming is roughly 97%, then I am fine with that one.

Well if that helps you justify your partisan rhetoric......

Better buy some really warm clothes for coming winters

 

[matchlight]

Looks like it's time to go back to the SCOTUS and get him overturned... again.

I wouldn't count on the Supreme Court. I think that is probably the weakest, least reliable strategy for resisting this president's lawlessness. And it is too slow to be very useful in any case.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I wouldn't count on the Supreme Court. I think that is probably the weakest, least reliable strategy for resisting this president's lawlessness. And it is too slow to be very useful in any case.

So far, the SCOTUS has been pretty solid about rejecting Obama's power grabs through Executive Orders, most of which have been knocked down by large majority rulings, or outright 9-0 bitch slaps.

I agree it may be too slow, however, there are procedures that could get it heard quickly and ruled upon just as quickly.

 

[Beaudreaux]

View attachment 67188102

Way to go, propagate that ignorance and let it flow freely. The truth is, it isn't the number of EO's that's the problem (and no one other than the left has even said so), but rather their content and effect.

Executive Orders are not to be used to override legislation or to bypass the legislative process - you know, that pesky separation of powers that (his Highness) Obama doesn't like. And, the Supreme Court agrees and has handed Obama his hat a number of times by knocking down his overreaching power grabs by 9-0 rulings. You really have to screw up on an apocalyptic scale to get this SCOTUS to rule against you 9-0.

 

[sangha]

Way to go, propagate that ignorance and let it flow freely. The truth is, it isn't the number of EO's that's the problem (and no one other than the left has even said so), but rather their content and effect.

Executive Orders are not to be used to override legislation or to bypass the legislative process - you know, that pesky separation of powers that (his Highness) Obama doesn't like. And, the Supreme Court agrees and has handed Obama his hat a number of times by knocking down his overreaching power grabs by 9-0 rulings. You really have to screw up on an apocalyptic scale to get this SCOTUS to rule against you 9-0.

What legislation does this EO (which hasn't even been issued yet) override?

 

[keymanjim]

What legislation does this EO (which hasn't even been issued yet) override?

It creates legislation by bypassing the legislative process.