“EPA seeks 30% cut in power plant carbon emissions by 2030”
Who’s ready for some “fuck you, come and take it”-action? — regardless of the happy, “historic” pro-environment spin being put on this by, for instance, USA Today:
Taking a historic step to fight climate change, the Environmental Protection Agency today proposed a plan that aims to slash carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants 30% by 2030 and could accelerate the nation’s shift away from coal.
“By leveraging cleaner energy sources and cutting energy waste, this plan will clean the air we breathe while helping slow climate change so we can leave a safe and healthy future for our kids,” said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, adding it will spur innovation and create jobs. She said the plan will give states flexibility to lower power plant emissions, setting goals tailored to their circumstances.
– Either that, or it will cause the price of electricity to “necessarily skyrocket,” as Obama long-ago promised, while simultaneously providing subsidies for environmental cronies, so we can have combustible electric cars, rolling brown outs, and solar farms that fry our birds for us with the alacrity of Colonel Sanders. Potato/potahto.
Yet the controversial proposal, a major part of President Obama’s climate initiative, will set a national target of lowering these heat-trapping CO² emissions — from 2005 levels — of 30% by 2030. The EPA says that reduction amount is equal to the emissions from powering more than half of U.S. homes for one year.
Thwarted by Congress’ inability to pass a bill to lower carbon emissions, Obama is pushing his own approach. Last June, he asked the EPA to use its authority under the Clean Air Act to limit power plant emissions, which account for the largest share — nearly 40% — of total U.S. emissions. Coal-fired facilities will be hardest hit, because they emit more carbon than other power plants.
The rule, expected to trigger legal challenges, will not take effect for at least two more years. Obama has asked the EPA to finalize it in June 2015, after which the states will have at least a year to craft their plans. If states balk at submitting them, the EPA could step in with its own version.
Because under the Constitution, if Congress refuses to act, and then the states refuse to act, an unelected set of bureaucrats given dubious authority over the emission of human exhalation can step in and put paid to the charade of a federalist country built around representative republicanism. A-yup!
Opponents are already lining up against the proposal. Today, Rep. Nick J. Rahall, D- W.V., said he will work with his state’s GOP colleague, Rep. David McKinley, to introduce legislation to stop both the new rule for existing power plants as well as one proposed last year for future plants.
“This new regulation threatens our economy and does so with an apparent disregard for the livelihoods of our coal miners and thousands of families throughout West Virginia,” Rahall said.
McCarthy said critics have “time after time … cried wolf to protect their own agenda.” She said their dire predictions about the economic costs of reducing urban smog in the 1960s and acid rain in the 1990s have been proven wrong.
“We can innovate our way to a better future,” McCarthy said. “From the light bulb to the locomotive; from photovoltaic cells to cellphones, America has always turned small steps into giant leaps.”
Obama said Saturday that the proposal will reduce air pollution, improve health and spur a clean energy economy that can be “an engine of growth.” He spoke from the Children’s National Medical Center in Washington, D.C., after visiting with kids being treated for asthma and other breathing problems that he said are aggravated by dirty air.
The administration says its proposal will save more than $90 billion in climate and health benefits and will avoid up to 100,000 asthma attacks and 2,100 heart attacks annually.
The EPA says it expects coal, which now provides 37% of the nation’s electricity — down from 52% in 2000 — will still provide 30% of U.S. power by 2030. It says the increasing retirements of coal-fired plants, which now average 42 years, are because of economics such as the plunging price of natural gas — not its proposal.
Coal-fired power plants have already been closing. DOE data indicate the number has fallen from 633 in 2002 to 557 in 2012 and it expects 60 gigawatts of coal-fired power — one-fifth of total U.S. coal capacity in 2012 — will retire by 2020.
In contrast, natural gas has seen its share of U.S. electricity generation nearly double, from 16% in 2000 to 30% in 2012. McCarthy said U.S. wind energy has tripled and solar has grown ten-fold since 2009 — two sources that she says can help states meet carbon emissions cuts.
“This rule would accelerate that shift” away from coal, says Kyle Aarons, a senior fellow at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, a non-profit group.
Which explains why the Obama Administration, through the State Department, has been so very keen on building the Keystone pipeline!
This is part of a de-growth, densification effort — a new road to serfdom and a road to the return to the natural order envisioned by “progressives”: they rule, you obey.
So once again the question becomes, do you surrender or do you not? Because wind farms of the kind the Kennedy clan doesn’t like mucking up their water views and that the Brits have discovered are useless eyesores — along with solar farms that are allowed to kill desert tortoises and all sort of birds where cattlemen fear to tread — aren’t going to cut it, and everyone who is serious about clean energy points to nuclear and clean coal. So this is not about the environment.
It’s about de-growth, densification, and control.
A convention of the states could produce Constitutional amendments that block this kind of overreach by telling both the federal government and the courts to sod off — albeit in elegant legalese. Short of that, I think it’s time citizens of those states who will be most adversely impacted demanded their state governments refuse to consent, and that people who will be forced to pay higher utilities and see their standard of living diminish, regardless of the state they live in — that would be the middle class, by the way, whose potential for upward mobility has always pissed off the elites, and are the target of progressives — get ready to resist their unnecessary subjugation.
Either way, the left gets what it wants. Killing off 30% of the population will do the trick of killing of 30% of the CO2 emissions, too — and I’m beginning to get the feeling that this could be a fallback plan for the environmental extremists and their totalitarian cohort in government.
What they shouldn’t bank on, though, is which 30% goes the way of the German Jew.