Damn confederates , 1st it was states assuming the power to defy the Feds on marijuana laws . Then they boldly defied the Feds on immigration laws and sanctuary cities . Then states pooled together in an attempt to weaken the Electoral College.

Now ,according to the Slimes ,the states will take the lead in defying the Trump administration on climate policy . Wow ! Welcome to Federalism !!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/26/op...smtyp=cur&_r=0

It works so well on the right, why wouldn't the left embrace the rights they still have?

Soon you'll be touting the benefits of the 10th amendment .

Here's the deal. Most of the emperor's environmental actions have come by way of executive orders . They can be reversed easily . What may be more difficult to change are the ones taken by bureaucrats in the various Federal Agencies where lifers have embedded deep into the organization and have been furiously writing interpretation, compliance and enforcement codes into law .

Care to elaborate? The real deal is who and what benefits any changes make. I will readily concede that many clean air, water, and safety regulations are EXPENSIVE, but NECESSARY for the health of human life, and consumer protections, and economic growth in general.

All we get from the right wing and repubs are regulations are bad because they hurt profits! Really? You know as well as I do what any unregulated industry will do, dump as much poison into the environment and the sweep it under the rug.

To date NO industry has identified any regulation that they can PROVE is bad, just UNPROFITABLE.

The problem is that you think any rule that has a title like 'clean air ' 'clean water ' 'clean energy 'is a good thing only because of the title and what it restricts . Therefore you think the EPA's 'Clean Power Plan ' ,allowing the agency unprecedented authority to centrally plan the electric system as a whole: generation, transmission, distribution, and consumption is a good thing . Gone is any local say at all. The only concern would be carbon emissions ;all other facts would be subordinate It will allow the Federal government to restructure state electricity markets, revise state electricity policies,establish statewide caps for CO2. There is no proven health or environmental benefits to the plan .It is pure power grab by the Federal Government .

You know what I'm saying is true . Even the emperor's OMB is boasting of $22 billion in savings from roll backs of unnecessary regulations . The Feds are real good at finding new burdens on the people and the businesses of the nation. They are not so good at identifying and eliminating useless ,redundant and unnecessary ones .It's folks like you who say that they are 'EXPENSIVE, but NECESSARY' .BS most of them are expensive and unnecessary .

Just ask the Chinese about the health benefits of capping emissions,

Extreme pollution forces China to shut down hundreds of coal, steel operations | MINING.com

As to the first part of this quoted comment could you be more specific about those restructuring regulation like SPECIFICALLY which ones hurt the industry or influence negatively the states own policies?

Yeah, you know I am ready to POUNCE!

Mostly it depends on which State your talking about. Here is one example where it could cause an entire State to colapse.

http://instituteforenergyresearch.or.../Tennessee.pdf


The libs dont count hydro electric as being a clean energy alternative.

I can always count on the strawman arguments . Really Tal ;comparing our air standards to China (which btw is a state controlled top down industry .... no private profits and greed etc all your talking points exposed ) . Let's put it this way ....the emperor made an agreement with China to cut US emissions 26 percent to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 .Do you think China will come even close to a reciprocal reduction ? The US is already a carbon sink ,absorbing more carbon than we emit . So even a 100% reduction would not make a difference in global warming.

The 'Clean Power Plan ' is aimed at reducing carbon emissions based on the dubious connection between carbon emissions and AGW . It is in court now where 27 states and a coalition of labor unions ,utilities , miners ,business groups have all challenged it . The whole plan is based on the faulty premise by SCOTUS that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. That gave the emperor the opening he needed to destroy some energy sectors and promote others . It also gave the EPA unprecedented powers under the Clean Air Act to requlate them ;with the goal of driving some of them out of business.

I'll go with your premise that all the industry bosses are greedy bass turds who only care about profits . What does that mean ? The costs of these regulations will be passed onto the consumer;not only in higher utility bills ,but also indirectly through almost all of the goods and services they buy, because energy is a necessary component of production and service. . So who will be the most negatively impacted ? Yes ;the poor and middle class ,and the fixed income seniors you claim to champion, will be the biggest losers .Also losing is energy workers .Maybe some of those miners will find jobs building windmills . The rest will be the next generation of government dependants . Families, individuals, and businesses will incur higher costs with little benefit in return . The double whammy is that the Feds have also wasted $billions of taxpayer money on subsidies to rewable energy initiatives .

So you have finally realised the truth, 100% reduction will not make any difference because it is too late to undo whatever effect human activities are making, we are beyond the tipping point, and the planet will remove this virus that is causing the problem. So Tom time to assume that ostrich posture and party, party, party, don't waste your hard earned money, burn baby burn

Don't be a clown Clete .It's beneath you. Do you think that anything we do will trigger global action like our current EPA boss does ? It is pie in the sky utopian thinking . She knows that China and India emit more C02 and get far less production out of it . We already lead by example ! What you and the lefties are arguing for is for the US to spend $10s of billions of economy busting dollars for very little change. If there is a threat to climate change it isn't coming from the US . We've already made reductions while increasing productivity because it was mostly left to the private sector . Consumers demanded it and they listened . How would the emperor's policies stop Germany (who now burns dirty coal instead of nuclear power ) ,China and India from burning dirty coal ? It won't . It is designed to punish America without effecting changes anywhere else. And mind you ....the real danger from dirty coal is not C02 .It is all the other harmful emissions. Those are the poisons in the air in Bejing that Tal was referring to. America has already taken the lead in converting from dirty to clean coal plants ;and converting plants to clean natural gas . But if the emperor had his way ,he would shut down natural gas production in this country too,even though it is one of the few industries that have actually helped the economy during his watch.
There is absolutely no doubt that regulations that come from the 'Clean Air ' and Clean Water ' Acts need to be reviewed and streamlined . But folks like Tal believe that regulation is good for regulation sake whether it is necessary or not and efficient or not . That is enviro-wacko thinking .

How Carbon Dioxide Became a 'Pollutant' - WSJ

I know Tom, science and the human condition take a back seat to PROFITS so you may as well join Clete and Tennessee in burying your head in the coal pile. Yes the costs are passed on like they are with any product in the 21st century. That's the business model after all.

calling C02 a pollutant is playing an intentionally misleading semantics game to reenforce an agenda. When the emperor introduced the 'Clean Power Plan' he used the term carbon pollution a number of times . For it to be toxic ,humans would have to breath concentrations of tens of thousands of parts per million (ppm). The current atmosperic levels are around 400 ppm ;and a worse case of human emissions would bring the levels up to 800 ppm.

That would benefit plant life . Greenhouses normally pump in 1000 ppm to enhance plant growth .

The emperor's use of the term carbon pollution is misleading in another way . C02 has two molecules of oxygen and one of carbon. It is safe and clear. There is a form of carbon pollution however . In layman's terms it's called soot. It is dirty and harmful for humans . It is also already heavily regulated .

Hello tom:

Nahhh.. How could it? I mean, it's the atmosphere. It's YOOGE, amirit?

excon

I am amazed we are still having this conversation, just because some dill thinks a naturally occurring gas is pollution doesn't make it so, where is the concern about methane? Another naturally occurring gas, it doesn't get a mention because it would embarrass the oil industry.

We are a carbon based life form, most life on the planet is, therefore by definition our very presence is pollution. In order to combat the problem we must immediately cut down all trees, emitters of CO2 at certain points in their cycle, put gas catchers on all humans and animals and crawl into some dark cave to sequestrate our emissions. When will this insanity end?

Clete ,you got it backwards . Plants breathe C02 and emit O2 . We want to manage forestation ,not cut down forests like a 3rd world backwater . The reason the US is a carbon sink is because of reforestation efforts .That is due to agri-efficiency ;but that is another topic. It enables us to use less land for crops .

Methane is also naturally occurring ;and a very valuable energy resource if the egg heads would get their heads out of their arse .

Tom without going over the detail you need to turn your sarcasm meter on, plants do emit carbon dioxide as part of their cycle as I said, so do humans, methane may be an energy source but it is also a greenhouse gas , far more "dangerous" than CO2 but no one is dealing with methane. Everything isn't about energy otherwise there would be no objection to coal. Plants decay and release CO2 so logically we must stop this cycle and nature did it long ago by locking up the carbon. The solution is to eliminate the carbon emitters, we don't blame ourselves so we must find a scapegoat, animals, plants