- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,990
- Reaction score
- 60,557
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
A liberal playing games to avoid the issue... How strange and unusual.
<sarcasm off>
Redress knows damned well that those regulations exist. This is just one of those subjects that doesn't work well ideologically, so playing games to avoid the reality of how those regulations will negatively effect the economy, became a more attractive strategy for Redress.
What trying to distract from the issue. You claimed that the plant failed because of Obama and EPA regulations. You should then be able to tell us what ones. The fact that you can't reveals your lack of knowledge on the issue.
Reality does not play ideological games. What you have not been able to do is look at the reality, which would be what regulations has Obama and the EPA implemented that caused this company to fail.
Reality doesnt but you sure do. You have responses from three other posters. Maybe you should set your hatred of Grim aside and address the topic, there are responses to which regulations. Why dont we start with those.
Reality does not play ideological games. What you have not been able to do is look at the reality, which would be what regulations has Obama and the EPA implemented that caused this company to fail.
Utility MACT will undermine job creation in the United States in several different ways. It will result in retirement of a significant number of power plants and either fail to replace that capacity or replace it with less labor-intensive forms of generation. It will increase the cost of power, undermining the international competitiveness of almost two dozen manufacturing industries, and it will reduce employment upstream in the mining sectors. All told, it is anticipated that the rule will result in the loss of some 1.44 million jobs by 2020. While some jobs are created by complying with the new rule, the number and quality of those jobs is far less than those destroyed. We estimate that for every one temporary job created, four higher-paying permanent jobs are lost. The bottom line: this rule is the most expensive air rule that EPA has ever proposed in terms of direct costs. It is certainly the most extensive intervention into the power market and job market that EPA has ever attempted to implement.
None of those are EPA regulations which are currently in place that had any effect on the failure of the company making the plant.
Obama's EPA is the entity that is playing ideological games. He's using the EPA to regulate the coal industry into oblivion, putting more than a million jobs at risk. They pass ridiculous regulations that force these companies to waste billions of capital trying to stay compliant.
Regulatory Actions | Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for Power Plants | US EPA
Q&A with Scott Segal on New Mercury MACT Rule | ERCC
Here's another one
Air Transport | US EPA
The cost to businesses that have to retrofit in order to comply? 800 billion. That = lost jobs. Obama's EPA isn't running analysis in regards to how their regulations will affect existing jobs and future job growth. They are supposed to, but instead are ramming in regulations from a pure ideological standpoint. Not grounded in economic day to day reality. Jobs and the economy be damned.
EPA Regulations have increased costs to some businesses as much as 33%
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Baker 10252011.pdf
This is the problem with centralized planning. Nobody holds the EPA accountable when their regulations produce unintended consequences that cost jobs and hurt the economy. They don't have to worry about costs like private businesses do. Hell, they don't even have to take responsibility.
Reality doesnt but you sure do. You have responses from three other posters. Maybe you should set your hatred of Grim aside and address the topic, there are responses to which regulations. Why dont we start with those.
I'm sure glad that it's obvious to others as well...
I hope this thread has opened everyone's eyes around here, instead of just a select few.
Obama's EPA is the entity that is playing ideological games. He's using the EPA to regulate the coal industry into oblivion, putting more than a million jobs at risk. They pass ridiculous regulations that force these companies to waste billions of capital trying to stay compliant.
Regulatory Actions | Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for Power Plants | US EPA
Q&A with Scott Segal on New Mercury MACT Rule | ERCC
Here's another one
Air Transport | US EPA
The cost to businesses that have to retrofit in order to comply? 800 billion. That = lost jobs. Obama's EPA isn't running analysis in regards to how their regulations will affect existing jobs and future job growth. They are supposed to, but instead are ramming in regulations from a pure ideological standpoint. Not grounded in economic day to day reality. Jobs and the economy be damned.
EPA Regulations have increased costs to some businesses as much as 33%
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Baker 10252011.pdf
This is the problem with centralized planning. Nobody holds the EPA accountable when their regulations produce unintended consequences that cost jobs and hurt the economy. They don't have to worry about costs like private businesses do. Hell, they don't even have to take responsibility.
Someone could show you a direct citation to a regulation cited by the CEO of the company as a reason that they were not able to make their bottom line, and you would merely respond "lies! The company just sucks!" so what's the point. You're gonna claim absolute innocence for Obama's policy and the EPA no matter what anyone says, and you will do so on the basis of "you can't prove anything". That's weak sauce and, frankly, shockingly childish for an adult debate forum.
I'm sure glad that it's obvious to others as well...
I hope this thread has opened everyone's eyes around here, instead of just a select few.
Not real sure I'd take what any CEO say's as 100% true. The best I can find is that this has been in the works since 02 and put into effect in Jan 04.
The first link is to a proposed rule that has not been implemented yet. It says that it will
"...update emission limits for new power plants under the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS). The updates would only apply to future power plants; would not change the types of state-of-the-art pollution controls that they are expected to install; and would not significantly change costs or public health benefits of the rule...."
Perhaps that is why no public hearing was requested during the public comment period.
The second link features the opinions of a representative of an indu$try trade group.
Re. the third link:
"This rule, known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), requires states to significantly improve air quality by reducing power plant emissions that contribute to ozone and/or fine particle pollution in other states. In a separate, but related, regulatory action, EPA finalized a supplemental rulemaking on December 15, 2011 to require five states - Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin - to make summertime NOX reductions under the CSAPR ozone season control program. CSAPR requires a total of 28 states to reduce annual SO2 emissions, annual NOX emissions and/or ozone season NOX emissions to assist in attaining the 1997 ozone and fine particle and 2006 fine particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)." EPA
How much is the difference in the NOX and SO2 levels you believe should be allowed compared to the new EPA (2006) standards? How many extra asthma and emphysema cases would the old levels create?
The fourth link is to the uncorroborated testimony of the CEO of a Ready-Mix and Building Material$ company.
Re. the third link:
"This rule, known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), requires states to significantly improve air quality by reducing power plant emissions that contribute to ozone and/or fine particle pollution in other states. In a separate, but related, regulatory action, EPA finalized a supplemental rulemaking on December 15, 2011 to require five states - Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin - to make summertime NOX reductions under the CSAPR ozone season control program. CSAPR requires a total of 28 states to reduce annual SO2 emissions, annual NOX emissions and/or ozone season NOX emissions to assist in attaining the 1997 ozone and fine particle and 2006 fine particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)." EPA
It would be very easy to show you're right. Simply link to the Regulation from the EPA website that you see as causing this company going out of business. You keep saying it's there so you must have read it.
As I said to Redress... Just show me where a member of the Administration or someone from the EPA denies the existence of the regulations that were stated in the senate report, then I will be glad to dig them up... Without such, there is no controversy over their existence and I will not facilitate partisan efforts to steer this thread into a direction that some around here deem to be more ideologically pleasing.
Obama's EPA is the entity that is playing ideological games. He's using the EPA to regulate the coal industry into oblivion, putting more than a million jobs at risk. They pass ridiculous regulations that force these companies to waste billions of capital trying to stay compliant.
Regulatory Actions | Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for Power Plants | US EPA
Q&A with Scott Segal on New Mercury MACT Rule | ERCC
Here's another one
Air Transport | US EPA
The cost to businesses that have to retrofit in order to comply? 800 billion. That = lost jobs. Obama's EPA isn't running analysis in regards to how their regulations will affect existing jobs and future job growth. They are supposed to, but instead are ramming in regulations from a pure ideological standpoint. Not grounded in economic day to day reality. Jobs and the economy be damned.
EPA Regulations have increased costs to some businesses as much as 33%
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Baker 10252011.pdf
This is the problem with centralized planning. Nobody holds the EPA accountable when their regulations produce unintended consequences that cost jobs and hurt the economy. They don't have to worry about costs like private businesses do. Hell, they don't even have to take responsibility.
Should we trade air quality and peoples health for jobs?
I agree with not taking the CEO at his word, but if he cited the reg, and showed exactly how it affected the building of the plant, on their accounting books and in their planning schedule, and how those regs made it impossible for the company to move forward at this time, and we investigated and discovered that the company had made no errors in its development or accounting...
Redress would still claim "THERE IS NO PROOF! THE COMPANY SUCKS!" and we'd be back to []1. That's my point.
As I said to Redress... Just show me where a member of the Administration or someone from the EPA denies the existence of the regulations that were stated in the senate report, then I will be glad to dig them up... Without such, there is no controversy over their existence and I will not facilitate partisan efforts to steer this thread into a direction that some around here deem to be more ideologically pleasing.
Should we trade air quality and peoples health for jobs?
Oh please....Scare tactics? Is that all you got? I guess using your logic we should all go back to horse and buggy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?