Lisa Jackson: EPA isn’t to blame for coal industry’s problems

posted at 2:01 pm on June 11, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

Is this some sort of inept, tasteless joke? Try to read around the relentless environmental bias and feel-good blather of this glowing profile of EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson from the Guardian, and you’ll recognize the same sort of economic-language usage employed by the wider Obama administration to try and disguise their many endeavors at central planning.

The president talks about “all of the above” energy, and I think we don’t realize enough how important that is. There are those who would like us to drop everything and say, time for another, a second fossil fuel boom, and the president is saying, but the future for our country is around clean energy, renewables, and getting that technology perfected and ready at a commercial scale here so we can sell it abroad. That will make our country stronger and create jobs as well. We should not put all our eggs in any one basket. And we should not, just because we have it, assume that means we should use fuels as though we have it — because energy independence requires a certain reduced demand. …

And then coal has another pollution problem, and that’s carbon pollution: it’s the most carbon-intense fossil fuel. And the president invested in carbon capture and sequestration technology as part of the Recovery Act. He said all along, I’m from a coal state, so I believe that if there’s going to be a future for coal it has to be one that deals with carbon pollution, with climate change. So in my opinion the problem for coal right now is entirely economic. The natural gas that this country has and is continuing to develop is cheaper right now on average. And so people who are making investment decisions are not unmindful of that — how could you expect them to be? It just happens that at the same time, these rules are coming in place that make it clear that you cannot continue to operate a 30-, 40-, or 50-year old plant and not control the pollution that comes with it.

Really? The problem for coal right now is “entirely economic”?

It’s absolutely true that the energy industry has been going gaga over the possibilities of natural gas, and that this new, plentiful, inexpensive, relatively cleaner source of energy is giving coal a run for its money on the investment scene. But please don’t insult our intelligence and act like the EPA isn’t actively trying to force this process along. One of their latest proposed rules under the Clean Air Act would make it virtually impossible for any new coal-fired power plants to be built, ever.

If natural gas really is all its cracked up to be, let it do its own thing and phase out coal at the productive pace laid out by the free market. Coal still accounts for practically half of the United States’ electricity needs, and letting the growth of a potential substitute run its own economic race can accomplish the same goal as actively persecuting coal, but on a timeline that doesn’t lead to massive disruptions in energy prices or jobs.

Whatever grandiose claims of environmental nobility they may have to justify their regulatory infringement, the federal government is always ill-positioned to pick winners and losers in the marketplace: things can change too quickly, and then you’ve got entrenched laws continuing bad policies. A few decades back, for instance, the federal government was encouraging coal production — Robert Bryce has more.

There’s no small amount of irony in the fact that the EPA — which is pushing a phalanx of new regulations on air quality, coal-ash disposal, and other measures — is now trying to shut down some of the very same coal-fired power plants that were built in the 1970s and 1980s as a direct result of the congressional ban on natural-gas-fired electricity production.

In 1987, Congress reversed course and repealed the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act. Although the law was in effect for less than a decade, it distorted the power sector for years to come. In 1978, natural gas was generating 13.8 percent of U.S. electricity. By 1988 — a decade after the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act was passed — natural gas’s share of the U.S. electricity business had fallen to a modern low of just 9.3 percent. By contrast, between 1978 and 1988, coal’s share of the U.S. electricity generation market soared, going from 44.2 percent to 56.9 percent, the highest level of the modern era.

Congress’s misbegotten effort to ban the use of natural gas for electricity production sounds a lot like the EPA’s proposal to prohibit the construction of new coal-fired plants for generating electricity. The difference, according to the EPA, is that we are now facing a new crisis: climate change. The agency claims the ban on coal plants is needed because greenhouse gases “endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

0bama hates the coal, too…

OmahaConservative on June 11, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Is th

is some sort of inept, tasteless joke?

No. Repeat a lie often enough, and it becomes fact with Democrats.

TX-96 on June 11, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Electric rates will soar now that Obama’s EPA has crushed coal-fired power plants

That Obama’s EPA would release a rule to destroy coal-fired electricity while the president gives stump speeches about an “all of the above” energy policy is an insult to the American people.

This rule will effectively block any new coal-fired power plants from being built in America, and a second round of related rules – expected after the election, of course – will shut down existing coal-fired power plants.

The result will be steeply higher electricity prices, lost jobs, and lower standards of living. Remarkably, this is all done in the name of global warming, but even EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson admits it will have no discernible impact on global temperatures. Obama’s EPA is crippling the U.S. economy not to accomplish anything, but just to enjoy a nice, warm, green feeling of self-satisfaction.

Four years ago, then-candidate Barack Obama explained his anti-coal energy policy in an editorial board meeting with the San Francisco Chronicle. Obama said: “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad.” He went on to explain: “So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them.

Akzed on June 11, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Says the woman who’s boss campaigned on bankrupting new coal power plants.

cozmo on June 11, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Does the Obama “administration” do anything other than spin lies?

I mean, geez. Nothing their flacks or appointees say, remotely resembles anything close to the truth about anything.

They really do think we’re all complete idiots.

NoDonkey on June 11, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Every week to 10 days, another coal-fired power plant opens somewhere in China (NYT; and this is from 2006).

You could shutter every coal plant in North America tomorrow and it would do a gnat’s worth of difference to AGW projections, even if they were real (they are not).

This isn’t about coal, it isn’t about AGW, it is about power, and not electrical power but political power.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on June 11, 2012 at 2:08 PM

A tune crying out to be reworked into the Lisa Jackson-EPA theme song:

See if you guess before you click

Resist We Much on June 11, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Too bad the coal industry just doesn’t pull the plug right now. Let’s see Barry’s economy function without them.

We’ll be just like Spain in one week.

GarandFan on June 11, 2012 at 2:10 PM

“I’m from the government…

… and I’m here to help!”

Seven Percent Solution on June 11, 2012 at 2:10 PM

The EPA has been very busy harassing, intimidating and bankrupting American citizens and businesses, while subverting our Constitution. It needs to be at the top of a long list of agencies for elimination.

Axion on June 11, 2012 at 2:10 PM

It’s the Holder defense!

IrishEyes on June 11, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Hang the EPA.

listens2glenn on June 11, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Jazz Shaw had a great post on this Saturday that points to a Congressman who is fed up with the EPAs ham-handed methods of dealing with energy production industries. Can I suggest linking it in your post, Erika?

ted c on June 11, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Mama says, every time a coal plant goes dead, a liberal gets their wings…..

/

ted c on June 11, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Lisa Jackson: EPA isn’t to blame for coal industry’s problems

EPA’s Lisa Jackson is a LIAR and she is lying right in your face!!

Obama’s EPA would rather hamstring and destroy the “Clean Coal Industry”, than to help it even further improve it’s production and power delivery of cheap electricity to millions of American homes.

The Obama EPA WANTS you TO PAY MORE, and force you to downsize your life-style. Obama wants America cut down to size and be a Third World country…..It’s only FAIR …donchaknow…:(

BigSven on June 11, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Hey, stupid! We are going to blame you for Higher utility costs. The EPA is one department that I hope every single person working loses their job. I really mean this because they are soooo destructive.

jjnco73 on June 11, 2012 at 2:12 PM

OMG, WHAT IS wrong with all the d gals in dc? Are they on something, the water is tainted, or just so dang stupid they have NO clue about anything on what they are saying?

lisa, you are SO outta touch as to what the epa is doing to stop many many things going on here in the US to crater our nation!

I just pray to goodness that citizens in coal states realize what the epa is doing to crater their jobs come voting time! I should add any state the epa is shutting down industries for job loss!
L

letget on June 11, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Lisa Jackson is a liar.

The EPA and Obamacare are the point of the spear for Obama’s Regulatory Socialism.

Those who complain that Obama isn’t really a Socialist have a point. Classic Socialism is defined by State ownership of the means of production. But when Socialism was first conceived, there were no institutions comparable to massive modern regulatory bureaucracies.

What Obama and the New Party/ACORN Socialists are doing is to exert control without nationalizing the means of production. The government doesn’t need to own the means of production, if it can control the means of production through regulatory fiat.

Between Obamacare and the EPA, the government has the regulatory means to control the means of production and the economy. It is Socialism by regulation instead of nationalization. From the standpoint of the governed, the difference is virtually meaningless.

novaculus on June 11, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Every week to 10 days, another coal-fired power plant opens somewhere in China (NYT; and this is from 2006).

You could shutter every coal plant in North America tomorrow and it would do a gnat’s worth of difference to AGW projections, even if they were real (they are not).

This isn’t about coal, it isn’t about AGW, it is about power, and not electrical power but political power.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on June 11, 2012 at 2:08 PM

I wish they’d include this information every time the media talks about AGW.

The Rogue Tomato on June 11, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Lisa Jackson is some sort of inept, tasteless joke

John the Libertarian on June 11, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Do not forget that this woman was appointed by John Corzine to run the NJDEP and later promoted to her current job by the big O.

jes8698 on June 11, 2012 at 2:15 PM

If over-regulating the industry and making the use of coal difficult and expensive while carrying out Obutthead’s edict to bankrupt the coal industry isn’t the doing of the EPA then the EPA isn’t doing anything–certainly not doing anything good for this country. Keep the coal, make the useless, destructive liars go away.

stukinIL4now on June 11, 2012 at 2:15 PM

If Romney is elected will he stop this nonsense?Has he said anything about this on the trail?

docflash on June 11, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Last week PJM Interconnection, the company that operates the electric grid for 13 states (Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia) held its 2015 capacity auction. These are the first real, market prices that take Obama’s most recent anti-coal regulations into account, and they prove that he is keeping his 2008 campaign promise to make electricity prices “necessarily skyrocket.”

The market-clearing price for new 2015 capacity – almost all natural gas – was $136 per megawatt. That’s eight times higher than the price for 2012, which was just $16 per megawatt. In the mid-Atlantic area covering New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and DC the new price is $167 per megawatt. For the northern Ohio territory served by FirstEnergy, the price is a shocking $357 per megawatt.

Why the massive price increases? Andy Ott from PJM stated the obvious: “Capacity prices were higher than last year’s because of retirements of existing coal-fired generation resulting largely from environmental regulations which go into effect in 2015.” Northern Ohio is suffering from more forced coal-plant retirements than the rest of the region, hence the even higher price.

steebo77 on June 11, 2012 at 2:16 PM

because energy independence requires a certain reduced demand.

Living on solar and wind power does exactly that. It should be the choice of the individual to reorder their lifestyles not for government to force it upon us. When I see you hypocrites living off the grid for 5 – 10 years to understand what it is like then get back with me about how good it is.

chemman on June 11, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Maybe they could appoint an obozo donor to investigate. Possibly someone from a wind farm or solar company.

Flange on June 11, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Jazz Shaw had a great post on this Saturday that points to a Congressman who is fed up with the EPAs ham-handed methods of dealing with energy production industries. Can I suggest linking it in your post, Erika?

ted c on June 11, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Here is the link to the letter from the congressman. He absolutely skewers Jackson with the facts.

iurockhead on June 11, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Lisa Jackson should be thrown out of government work. From the EPA’s own bio on her, it states (without any shame):

Jackson is the first African-American to serve as EPA Administrator. She has made it a priority to focus on vulnerable groups including children, the elderly, and low-income communities that are particularly susceptible to environmental and health threats. In addressing these and other issues, she has promised all stakeholders a place at the decision-making table.

This isn’t too far from NASA’s now critical mission of making muzzies feel better about themselves than their lack of contributions (and in fact destructive nature) to society should allow. Another precedent as head of that agency, too. Kind of amazing – if one looks at raw numbers and probabilities.

This is national suicide writ large … and the EPA is proud to boast about it. If Congress had any b@lls, this bio, by itself, would be enough to impeach Jackson and throw her sorry azz out of government. This is beyond pathetic.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 11, 2012 at 2:20 PM

We need a strong majority in the House and a veto-proof majority in the Senate to kill the EPA in spite of Romney or Obama, whichever wins. Shoot it with a silver bullet, drive a stake through its heart, expose it to sunlight, stuff its mouth full of garlic — whatever it takes to make sure it never, ever, ever comes back to life.

catsandbooks on June 11, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Mineralists!!!

Scrappy on June 11, 2012 at 2:20 PM

For a long time now, I have used the saying, “Control your environment, or someone else will.”

People like this, specifically.

Christien on June 11, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Lisa Jackson has six months to create as much crap as she can…then we need to focus on the EPA itself.

d1carter on June 11, 2012 at 2:22 PM

The private sector is fine, dammit!

dczombie on June 11, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Isn’t it bad enough that Democrat women are so ugly?

Do they have to be stupid and dishonest too?

UltimateBob on June 11, 2012 at 2:23 PM

and that’s carbon pollution

Carbon is an element that comes in several allotropes. Carbon Dioxide is a compound that has entirely different physical and chemical properties than carbon. If you can’t get the basic science right on the differences between carbon and carbon dioxide then why would I trust you to have gotten the science right in any thing else.

chemman on June 11, 2012 at 2:23 PM

……..
Between Obamacare and the EPA, the government has the regulatory means to control the means of production and the economy. It is Socialism by regulation instead of nationalization. From the standpoint of the governed, the difference is virtually meaningless.

novaculus on June 11, 2012 at 2:13 PM

That is what is also known as “Fascism”

iurockhead on June 11, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Under Obama, DoE is setting environmental policy, and EPA is setting energy policy. If America is going to have these agencies, then they need to stick to their respective fields of expertise, for starters.

Christien on June 11, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Clearly the problems faced by the coal industry are due to the fact that small cities aren’t hiring enough librarians.

kbTexan on June 11, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Even when the left purposely tries to destroy an industry they still deny it.

The EPA will have more flexibility if Obama gets a 2nd term.

Wigglesworth on June 11, 2012 at 2:26 PM

The agency claims the ban on coal plants is needed because greenhouse gases “endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.”

Post normal science and the Precautionary Principle at it’s best. Neither have anything to do with real research based science.

chemman on June 11, 2012 at 2:27 PM

To Lisa Jackson:

LIAR LIAR
PANTS ON FIRE

There…I guess I teached her…..

timberline on June 11, 2012 at 2:30 PM

…YOU LIE…!!!

KOOLAID2 on June 11, 2012 at 2:30 PM

and that’s carbon pollution

Carbon is an element that comes in several allotropes. Carbon Dioxide is a compound that has entirely different physical and chemical properties than carbon. If you can’t get the basic science right on the differences between carbon and carbon dioxide then why would I trust you to have gotten the science right in any thing else.

chemman on June 11, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Jackson is looking to control the diamond market.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 11, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on June 11, 2012 at 2:08 PM

I’ve gotten more cynical in my old age. I think this is about the radical environmentalists dreams of reducing the world population to under a billion for their vision of sustainability.

chemman on June 11, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Every single member of this administration is corrupt and a bald faced liar. This is the most corrupt bunch of thugs, goons and idiots I have seen in my lifetime.

dogsoldier on June 11, 2012 at 2:33 PM

“It’s not my fault that I’m a liar.” – Lisa Jackson

Pork-Chop on June 11, 2012 at 2:34 PM

In looking over the comments on this topic, it appears to me that coal is going to be used to generate cheap energy for private and industrial use – the only question is by whom, heavily regulated, safe, environmentally-friendly US producers or filthy, unregulated, environment-raper developing-world producers? Therefore, everything the EPA does that drives coal-fired energy plants overseas, as well as harming the US economy, actually makes the (global) environment worse.

Knott Buyinit on June 11, 2012 at 2:34 PM

What we are witnessing is the environmental lawyers defending their very lucrative racket from evolving into pro-business, market-based approaches to environmental conservation and natural resource management. They are terrified that kind of paradigm shift will retard their ability to live high on the hog.

Christien on June 11, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Time to invest in coal – just before the Romney landslide.

so-notbuyingit on June 11, 2012 at 2:36 PM

This irresponsible, job killing, nation killing lunatic must be removed from office.

pat on June 11, 2012 at 2:36 PM

I’ve gotten more cynical in my old age. I think this is about the radical environmentalists dreams of reducing the world population to under a billion for their vision of sustainability.

chemman on June 11, 2012 at 2:32 PM

If you think they want to leave anything even close to a billion people around mucking up Mother Earth then you aren’t nearly cynical enough.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 11, 2012 at 2:36 PM

OBAMA 2008: What I’ve said is that we, uh, would put a cap-and-trade system in place that is more — that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anybody else’s out there. So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that, duh, greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

This is word-for-word from Obozo on the campaign trail in 2008. Looks like he is getting his way.

neyney on June 11, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Knott Buyinit on June 11, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Yep, they are pushing for more clouds of mercury, notably from Indian and Chinese coal-fired plants.

Christien on June 11, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Weren’t you listening to Obama at his last presser, “Coal is doing fine.”

maubman on June 11, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Batguano crazy woman.

jake49 on June 11, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Ok kiddies, pay close attention to the bolded sections.

The PJM auction established capacity prices for 2015-2016, the first year electric generators will be required to comply with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s costly Utility Maximum Achievable Control Technology (also known as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS)) rule. “The results of the auction confirmed the predictions of Republican lawmakers who warned that EPA’s new power rules would drive up electricity costs for American consumers,” said a May 18 statement from the Republican majority in the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

The auction set capacity prices at $136/MW across the PJM footprint, which includes the Mid-Atlantic region and parts of the Midwest, the committee noted. This price is eight times higher than the $16/MW price that was set for 2012-2013, it added.

“Electricity customers in parts of Ohio will be hit the hardest, with the auction setting the price for capacity resources in northern Ohio at $357 per MW, nearly triple the 2014-2015 price set last year,” said the committee statement. “As explained by PJM, the ‘auction was impacted by an unprecedented amount of planned generation retirements (more than 14,000 MW) driven largely by environmental regulations, which drove prices higher than last year’s auction.’”

“Under my plan, electricity costs will necessarily skyrocket.”

Obama makes good on a promise.

What this means to you and me is simple…if you live the Mid-Atlantic region and your electric bill for July 2012 is $200, in 2015 your bill will be $1,600 for the same amount of electricity.

BobMbx on June 11, 2012 at 2:38 PM

@NoDonkey … unfortunately, they are counting on the fact that 50.1% of us actually are idiots!

mel23059 on June 11, 2012 at 2:40 PM

What this means to you and me is simple…if you live the Mid-Atlantic region and your electric bill for July 2012 is $200, in 2015 your bill will be $1,600 for the same amount of electricity.

BobMbx on June 11, 2012 at 2:38 PM

“At some point you’ve had enough electricity.” — King Barky, Canine Connoisseur

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 11, 2012 at 2:40 PM

I’ve gotten more cynical in my old age. I think this is about the radical environmentalists dreams of reducing the world population to under a billion for their vision of sustainability.

chemman on June 11, 2012 at 2:32 PM

If you’ve ever tried to survive a Texas summer without air conditioning you would believe in population control. For the Dems it’s a win-win. They get to reduce the population in the reddest of red states.

neyney on June 11, 2012 at 2:40 PM

“but the future for our country is around clean energy, renewables, and getting that technology perfected and ready at a commercial scale here so we can sell it abroad.”

Sorry Lisa, Spain already won that race to the bottom. Maybe they can build an economy on whale oil and kerosene to go with all those wonderful windmills.

stout77 on June 11, 2012 at 2:41 PM

If these duds aren’t responsible for anything then it follows that they have done nothing . . . so why are we still paying them. This entire administration is as phony as a $3 bill, and just as worthless.

rplat on June 11, 2012 at 2:41 PM

The agency claims the ban on coal plants is needed because greenhouse gases “endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.”

I’m concerned that Guam may tip over due to the rising CO and CO2 levels.

BobMbx on June 11, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Hating coal is raacist!

djtnt on June 11, 2012 at 2:45 PM

steebo77 on June 11, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Note to self: Read all comments before posting.

But good call, steeb.

BobMbx on June 11, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Time to invest in coal – just before the Romney landslide.

so-notbuyingit on June 11, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Not a bad idea.

I invested in gold and other precious metals before TFFPP* took office, and it has done quite well.

*TFFPP = The First Fudge Packer President (Hat tip to Bishop).

UltimateBob on June 11, 2012 at 2:47 PM

The clean energy renewables do not exist yet.
There is nowhere in the world that does not run mainly on fossil fuel.
Obama and Lisa Jackson think that somebody will invent it faster if they make all the other fuels too painful too use.
It’s like trying to teach a child to swim by throwing him in a pool.

NeoKong on June 11, 2012 at 2:47 PM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 11, 2012 at 2:36 PM

You are correct. My first thought was less than a 100 million but I changed my mind. Still haven’t learned my lesson about changing answers. :)

chemman on June 11, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Jackson is the first African-American to serve as EPA Administrator. She has made it a priority to focus on vulnerable groups including children, the elderly, and low-income communities that are particularly susceptible to environmental and health threats.

These are the first groups who will not be able to pay their electric bills. But they’ll probably breathe easier or something.

BobMbx on June 11, 2012 at 2:48 PM

What this means to you and me is simple…if you live the Mid-Atlantic region and your electric bill for July 2012 is $200, in 2015 your bill will be $1,600 for the same amount of electricity.

BobMbx on June 11, 2012 at 2:38 PM

I think there’s some offset coming from new natural gas capacity, but nowhere near enough to make up for the shrinking coal power supply. Electric bills might not increase 800%, but they definitely are poised to “necessarily skyrocket.”

steebo77 on June 11, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Well, she’s only lying if you don’t get that to the progs, regulation of winners and losers IS their economic stragedy.

Freelancer on June 11, 2012 at 2:49 PM

“Under my plan, electricity costs will necessarily skyrocket.”

BobMbx on June 11, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Just put that on the bumper-stickers and have done. What else is there to say?

Except maybe an alternate sticker:

“It’s almost over. Thanks, God.”

Lime in the Coconut on June 11, 2012 at 2:50 PM

“blame economy” is Liberal Code for “blame Bush” which is total irrationality

mathewsjw on June 11, 2012 at 2:52 PM

steebo77 on June 11, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Read the article at my link. The new gas plant generation is factored into that 8x price as supply committments.

The suppliers and distributors sign these agreements way ahead of time so they can petition the local utility commissions for rate increases.

BobMbx on June 11, 2012 at 2:53 PM

BobMbx on June 11, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Yep, CO2 is on bad arse compound it causes nothing but grief in all areas is comes into contact with. At least that is the view of the Post Normal Scientists and those who are so over educated that there brains have atrophied.

chemman on June 11, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Seriously, aren’t we all getting tired of the Won just driving around the inner cities of America and handpicking his cabinet members from those waiting in line for food stamps. Do any of these people in his cabinet have a freakin’ clue about anything other than deciding what’s fair for the rest of us slaves? Do any of these people have a high school degree at least?

jaimo on June 11, 2012 at 2:57 PM

because energy independence requires a certain reduced demand.

Living on solar and wind power does exactly that. It should be the choice of the individual to reorder their lifestyles not for government to force it upon us. When I see you hypocrites living off the grid for 5 – 10 years to understand what it is like then get back with me about how good it is.

chemman on June 11, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Can you just see Mrs. O line drying clothes? Fanning herself during a DC summer heatwave? Reading by candlelight or oil lantern? No? Me neither.

txhsmom on June 11, 2012 at 2:59 PM

This is what happens when America-hating radicals are in charge

SouthernGent on June 11, 2012 at 2:59 PM

B I T C H

Bubba Redneck on June 11, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Yep, CO2 is on bad arse compound it causes nothing but grief in all areas is comes into contact with. At least that is the view of the Post Normal Scientists and those who are so over educated that there brains have atrophied.

chemman on June 11, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Carbon emissions wreak havoc on the environment by providing more CO2 for photosynthesis.

steebo77 on June 11, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Water is not wet. Fire is not hot. The world is not round…..

mouell on June 11, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Mr. Romney:

Please consider nominating Sarah Palin as the last (as in final) Secretary of Energy and Administrator of the EPA.

Give her a flame thrower and tell her not to come back until people start comparing her swath of destruction to Sherman’s March to the Sea.

Seriously, these people need to go. It is beyond the pale that this Jackson idiot has a job when there are so many Americans that are desperately in need of work.

Simply removing the artificial barriers to commerce erected by the environazis would cause the GDP to jump.

turfmann on June 11, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Lawmakers are working to block an unprecedented power grab by the Environmental Protection Agency to use the Clean Water Act (CWA) and control land alongside ditches, gullies and other ephemeral spots by claiming the sources are part of navigable waterways.

These temporary water sources are often created by rain or snowmelt, and would make it harder for private property owners to build in their own backyards, grow crops, raise livestock and conduct other activities on their own land, lawmakers say.

“Never in the history of the CWA has federal regulation defined ditches and other upland features as ‘waters of the United States,’” said Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.), the ranking committee member, and Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio), chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.

“This is without a doubt an expansion of federal jurisdiction,” the lawmakers said in a May 31 letter to House colleagues.

The unusual alliance of the powerful House Republicans and Democrat to jointly sponsor legislation to overturn the new guidelines signals a willingness on Capitol Hill to rein in the formidable agency.

“The Obama administration is doing everything in its power to increase costs and regulatory burdens for American businesses, farmers and individual property owners,” Mica said in a statement to Human Events. “This federal jurisdiction grab has been opposed by Congress for years, and now the administration and its agencies are ignoring law and rulemaking procedures in order to tighten their regulatory grip over every water body in the country.”

J_Crater on June 11, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Except maybe an alternate sticker:

“It’s almost over. Thanks, God.”

Lime in the Coconut on June 11, 2012 at 2:50 PM

LOL! Is Lime in the Coconut a reference to the marketing gimmick that is our President?

stout77 on June 11, 2012 at 3:07 PM

And we should not, just because we have it, assume that means we should use fuels as though we have it — because energy independence requires a certain reduced demand. …

Why should we not use fuels that we have? Energy independence requires supply greater than demand, so why can’t we increase supply?

Steve Z on June 11, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Carbon emissions wreak havoc on the environment by providing more CO2 for photosynthesis.

steebo77 on June 11, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Which in turn leads to larger plants, then to larger crop yields which then feed and sustain those regions on the planet where food doesn’t grow well, producing more and healthier humans who live longer.

Thats the conservative view.

BobMbx on June 11, 2012 at 3:10 PM

The natural gas that this country has and is continuing to develop is cheaper right now on average. And so people who are making investment decisions are not unmindful of that — how could you expect them to be?

Most of the “new” natural gas comes from “fracking”, so why is the EPA trying to prevent development of fracking?

Steve Z on June 11, 2012 at 3:11 PM

And then coal has another pollution problem, and that’s carbon pollution: it’s the most carbon-intense fossil fuel.

“Carbon pollution”? Are you kidding me? She doesn’t even know what she’s talking about. There’s a huge difference between “carbon” and “carbon dioxide”. If there were such a thing as “carbon pollution”, then coal is it, and by burning it we’re getting rid of the pollution and releasing plant food and water as a byproduct.

And fossil fuels are almost by definition “carbon-intense”. They work by burning (oxidizing) carbon compounds (mostly hydrocarbons) to make carbon dioxide, water, and energy.

taznar on June 11, 2012 at 3:12 PM

At this moment Mrs. Redneck is using a vacuum cleaner while her Mac is on on the kitchen table and her iPad is recharging. Bubba Jr. just put down his iPad and now wants to watch the Wiggles on the television. Several lights are on and I’m on the BubbaMac looking out at my SUV and my Accord. Later I plan on a nice long, hot shower. I LOVE my BIG carbon footprint.

The next time some Libturd starts ranting on about energy conservation and carbon footprint and whatnot tell them to go live with Survivor Man for a few weeks and shove their cellphone down their throat.

Bubba Redneck on June 11, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Deflection, deflection, deflection…while we ponder the damage to our nation.

Don L on June 11, 2012 at 3:14 PM

And then coal has another pollution problem, and that’s carbon pollution: it’s the most carbon-intense fossil fuel. And the president invested in carbon capture and sequestration technology as part of the Recovery Act. He said all along, I’m from a coal state, so I believe that if there’s going to be a future for coal it has to be one that deals with carbon pollution, with climate change.

Earth to Lisa Jackson: CARBON DIOXIDE IS NOT POLLUTION!!! It forms the bubbles in our soda and beer, and no one was ever harmed by that! It is required food for the plants that nourish every animal and human being on earth. You and I and Lisa Jackson exhale it every few seconds, so maybe Lisa Jackson could do the world a favor and stop breathing!

Steve Z on June 11, 2012 at 3:15 PM

It’s one thing to lie to illiterate Russian peasants and expect to get away with it, but this is just stupid.

vityas on June 11, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Does anyone think Oromney will ever be this bold in eradication the destruction these anti-American socialists wrought upon us? Will he do what he ought, or will he pander to the middle where it’s politically safe?

Don L on June 11, 2012 at 3:18 PM

It just happens that at the same time, these rules are coming in place that make it clear that you cannot continue to operate a 30-, 40-, or 50-year old plant and not control the pollution that comes with it.

Here’s a novel idea…let’s build some new plants that meet SOME of your requirements, look how much better they would be, and how much more energy we could produce.

Jobs, manufacturing, taxes, lower energy costs…we get it all.

This could rival the Silicon Valley revolution, the problem is—it will be middle America, and they don’t vote democrat.

right2bright on June 11, 2012 at 3:19 PM

CARBON DIOXIDE IS NOT POLLUTION!!! It forms the bubbles in our soda and beer, and no one was ever harmed by that!

Unless taken from containers larger than 16oz.

BobMbx on June 11, 2012 at 3:20 PM

How about a big Carbon tax on the cold Northern states? Save the Planet, Get Out of Vermont

slickwillie2001 on June 11, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Will the EPA try to ban Dihydrogen Monoxide next?

It would not surprise me at all if these government “rocket scientists” tried to do exactly that.

UltimateBob on June 11, 2012 at 3:22 PM

If Romney is elected will he stop this nonsense?Has he said anything about this on the trail?

docflash on June 11, 2012 at 2:16 PM

He’s been forced to back away from pro-AGW positions and cap & trade.

I find it very, very unlikely though that he (or Congressional Republicans) will take any steps to shut down the EPA (or the TSA for that matter), though hopefully they won’t pass laws to make things worse at least.

Time to invest in coal – just before the Romney landslide.

so-notbuyingit on June 11, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Romney is not really pro-sanity on energy policy. Folks who think he’s going to clean up the mess of our current energy policy are setting themselves up for a disappointment. We are voting for the guy because he is “Not Obama,” end of story.

Doomberg on June 11, 2012 at 3:24 PM

She’s doing exactly what Mark Levin hsa been pointing out – attack the industry through the use of regulations to damage it and drive prices up. When this occurs, then demagogue the industry as fleecing the consumer or being inept and uncompetitive, requiring more regulations and investments in ‘alternates’.

They did it with the oil companies by shutting down drilling in the gulf. They did it with the banks and with the health insurance and healthcare industries.

blindside on June 11, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Lisa Jackson is a liar.

The EPA and Obamacare are the point of the spear for Obama’s Regulatory Socialism.

Those who complain that Obama isn’t really a Socialist have a point. Classic Socialism is defined by State ownership of the means of production. But when Socialism was first conceived, there were no institutions comparable to massive modern regulatory bureaucracies.

What Obama and the New Party/ACORN Socialists are doing is to exert control without nationalizing the means of production. The government doesn’t need to own the means of production, if it can control the means of production through regulatory fiat.

Between Obamacare and the EPA, the government has the regulatory means to control the means of production and the economy. It is Socialism by regulation instead of nationalization. From the standpoint of the governed, the difference is virtually meaningless.

novaculus on June 11, 2012 at 2:13 PM

There’s actually a word for it:

fascism
1. the tenets of a centralized totalitarian and nationalistic government that strictly controls finance, industry, and commerce, practices rigid censorship and racism, and eliminates opposition through secret police.

I’m guessing the secret police would be “…a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

affenhauer on June 11, 2012 at 3:26 PM

At this moment Mrs. Redneck is using a vacuum cleaner while her Mac is on on the kitchen table and her iPad is recharging. Bubba Jr. just put down his iPad and now wants to watch the Wiggles on the television. Several lights are on and I’m on the BubbaMac looking out at my SUV and my Accord. Later I plan on a nice long, hot shower. I LOVE my BIG carbon footprint.

The next time some Libturd starts ranting on about energy conservation and carbon footprint and whatnot tell them to go live with Survivor Man for a few weeks and shove their cellphone down their throat.

Bubba Redneck on June 11, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Was that a commentary on your ridiculous notion of poverty or an awful attempt to make fun of people who don’t think Spain is a good idea?

stout77 on June 11, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Comment pages: 1 2