"Green" energy in Europe, a disastrous failure

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    "Green" energy in Europe, a disastrous failure

    http://www.businessinsider.com/europes-soaring-energy-prices-2013-11

    The Great American Shale Boom has helped U.S. homeowners and manufacturers alike lower their electricity bills.

    Across the pond lies a parallel universe.

    In the last four years, European electricity costs have spiked 17% for homeowners and 21% for industry, according to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.

    The situation is most acute in the U.K., where one in six households was spending more than 10% of its income to "maintain adequate warmth" in 2011, according government statistics cited by Reuters' John Kemp.

    What went wrong?

    Reuters' Karolin Schaps and Barbara Lewis write that much of the increase is related to the cost of complying with the continent's ambitious carbon emissions targets. The European Union is supposed to cut emissions to 20% below 1990 levels.

    That's not coming cheap.

    For instance, German utilities just increased the surcharge levied on consumers to fund more renewables by 18% to 6.24 euro-cents per kilowatt-hour. German households now have the third-highest power bills in Europe.

    European power suppliers are saying the drive to renewables has caused them to mothball 51 Gigawatts-worth of cheaper fossil fuel-based power sources, or the equivalent of the combined capacity of Belgium, the Czech Republic and Portugal.

    Some countries have already turned back to coal, the price of which has fallen because of the continent's struggling economy and the rise of natural gas in the U.S., which has boosted coal exports. European coal generation increased 6% in 2011 YOY and 2% in 2012 YOY.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re:

    A country like Germany is not one of the leading world economies because they are following someone elses policies.  There is a strong determination there to move forward with renewable energy and they understand you need to crack a few eggs to make an omelet.

    What Germany is doing with renewable energy is nothing short of revolutionary.  Their engineering in this field will be a gift to the world and to the future of mankind. 

    And they have a conservative government.  Imagine....A conservative party capable of reacting rationally to the future, rather than yearning for the past.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re:

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    A country like Germany is not one of the leading world economies because they are following someone elses policies.  There is a strong determination there to move forward with renewable energy and they understand you need to crack a few eggs to make an omelet.

    What Germany is doing with renewable energy is nothing short of revolutionary.  Their engineering in this field will be a gift to the world and to the future of mankind. 

    And they have a conservative government.  Imagine....A conservative party capable of reacting rationally to the future, rather than yearning for the past.

    [/QUOTE]

    "crack a few eggs to make an omelet"

    That is the attitude of statists who dont care about cracking open the wallets of the people to fund their failed green energy policies...the winners are the crony capitalist "green energy" thieves.

    'Green' energy has been an utter failure. Green energy is yearning for the past , the past of failed top-down government picking winners and losers...that itself is a loser.

    The private sector can find the best way forward for energy needs. Natural gas use in the  US from fracking, opposed by the treehuggers, has lowered carbon emissions more than the failed solar panels and windmills of the Solyndras funded by Obama zealots.

     

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    A country like Germany is not one of the leading world economies because they are following someone elses policies.  There is a strong determination there to move forward with renewable energy and they understand you need to crack a few eggs to make an omelet.

    What Germany is doing with renewable energy is nothing short of revolutionary.  Their engineering in this field will be a gift to the world and to the future of mankind. 

    And they have a conservative government.  Imagine....A conservative party capable of reacting rationally to the future, rather than yearning for the past.

    [/QUOTE]

    "crack a few eggs to make an omelet"

    That is the attitude of statists who dont care about cracking open the wallets of the people to fund their failed green energy policies...the winners are the crony capitalist "green energy" thieves.

    'Green' energy has been an utter failure. Green energy is yearning for the past , the past of failed top-down government picking winners and losers...that itself is a loser.

    The private sector can find the best way forward for energy needs. Natural gas use in the  US from fracking, opposed by the treehuggers, has lowered carbon emissions more than the failed solar panels and windmills of the Solyndras funded by Obama zealots.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Global warming is just not real for Republicans. It is a giant hoax to them. Waiting for private sector to develop new technologies before a market exists will not work when they can instead speculate on the stock market with their excess cash.

    Without government incentives to invest in new, but vital technologies which are not (yet) profitable, the "free market" would continue to focus on short term profits until the very day we run out of fossil fuels or choke to death on CO2.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re:

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    A country like Germany is not one of the leading world economies because they are following someone elses policies.  There is a strong determination there to move forward with renewable energy and they understand you need to crack a few eggs to make an omelet.

    What Germany is doing with renewable energy is nothing short of revolutionary.  Their engineering in this field will be a gift to the world and to the future of mankind. 

    And they have a conservative government.  Imagine....A conservative party capable of reacting rationally to the future, rather than yearning for the past.

    [/QUOTE]

    "crack a few eggs to make an omelet"

    That is the attitude of statists who dont care about cracking open the wallets of the people to fund their failed green energy policies...the winners are the crony capitalist "green energy" thieves.

    'Green' energy has been an utter failure. Green energy is yearning for the past , the past of failed top-down government picking winners and losers...that itself is a loser.

    The private sector can find the best way forward for energy needs. Natural gas use in the  US from fracking, opposed by the treehuggers, has lowered carbon emissions more than the failed solar panels and windmills of the Solyndras funded by Obama zealots.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Global warming is just not real for Republicans. It is a giant hoax to them. Waiting for private sector to develop new technologies before a market exists will not work when they can instead speculate on the stock market with their excess cash.

    Without government incentives to invest in new, but vital technologies which are not (yet) profitable, the "free market" would continue to focus on short term profits until the very day we run out of fossil fuels or choke to death on CO2.

    [/QUOTE]
    "until the very day we run out of fossil fuels"
    Environmentalists predicted as far back as the 1960s that we would son run out of fossil fuel. Wrong as usual.  With new fracking technologies, it wont happen for at least a hundred years. Of course, private sector innovation will no doubt extend that, if we need it. Unless Government takes over, then all bets are off.

    "choke to death on CO2". The usual hyperbole. As mentioned , the must-derided fracking revolution  has lessened carbon emissions more than failed Big Government green energy scams..

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re:

    wash times:

    Climate campaigners are using claims of “dangerous man-made climate change” to justify global government, treaties in lieu of legislation, anti-hydrocarbon policies, renewable energy schemes, wealth redistribution, and more taxpayer money for perpetual U.N. studies and programs.

    In 2000, then-French President Jacques Chirac called the Kyoto treaty “the first component of authentic global governance.” Just months ago, President Obama said, if Congress fails to act, he will “redouble” efforts to “reach a new global agreement to reduce carbon pollution” — and continue using the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to close coal mines, eliminate coal-fired power plants and regulate U.S. energy use.

    Despite actual weather and climate observations, as documented by both the nongovernmental panel and the U.N. panel, alarmists insist that we face imminent cataclysm. Some echo former U.S. Sen. Tim Wirth, Colorado Democrat, and European Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard, who contend that even if we are “wrong on global warming,” opposing fossil fuels and promoting renewables are “the correct policies, even if they lead to higher prices.”

    The U.N. panel’s Working Group III co-chairman Ottmar Edenhofer has been just as blunt. “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy,” he said. It is about “how we redistribute the world’s wealth.”

    Island nations and poor countries support climate agreements, because they expect “compensation,” “adaptation” and “mitigation” money to pay for “damages” from rising seas and more frequent, more intense storms and droughts, which they blame on industrialized nations.



    Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/10/rothbard-pressing-ahead-on-climate-salvation/#ixzz2kMe9xdwx
    Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    A country like Germany is not one of the leading world economies because they are following someone elses policies.  There is a strong determination there to move forward with renewable energy and they understand you need to crack a few eggs to make an omelet.

    What Germany is doing with renewable energy is nothing short of revolutionary.  Their engineering in this field will be a gift to the world and to the future of mankind. 

    And they have a conservative government.  Imagine....A conservative party capable of reacting rationally to the future, rather than yearning for the past.

    [/QUOTE]

    "crack a few eggs to make an omelet"

    That is the attitude of statists who dont care about cracking open the wallets of the people to fund their failed green energy policies...the winners are the crony capitalist "green energy" thieves.

    'Green' energy has been an utter failure. Green energy is yearning for the past , the past of failed top-down government picking winners and losers...that itself is a loser.

    The private sector can find the best way forward for energy needs. Natural gas use in the  US from fracking, opposed by the treehuggers, has lowered carbon emissions more than the failed solar panels and windmills of the Solyndras funded by Obama zealots.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Global warming is just not real for Republicans. It is a giant hoax to them. Waiting for private sector to develop new technologies before a market exists will not work when they can instead speculate on the stock market with their excess cash.

    Without government incentives to invest in new, but vital technologies which are not (yet) profitable, the "free market" would continue to focus on short term profits until the very day we run out of fossil fuels or choke to death on CO2.

    [/QUOTE]
    "until the very day we run out of fossil fuels"
    Environmentalists predicted as far back as the 1960s that we would son run out of fossil fuel. Wrong as usual.  With new fracking technologies, it wont happen for at least a hundred years. Of course, private sector innovation will no doubt extend that, if we need it. Unless Government takes over, then all bets are off.

    "choke to death on CO2". The usual hyperbole. As mentioned , the must-derided fracking revolution  has lessened carbon emissions more than failed Big Government green energy scams..

    [/QUOTE]


    So we've got enough natural gas for ~ 100 years....fantastic.  We've got enough wind, biofuels, and solar to power the country- well - forever!

    The problem for so many "conservatives" is that if they don't see a benefit to it in their lifetime (and can't make a buck on it today), then why do anything.

    A responsible government plans for the future, further out than the average conservative can see. Let's hope the Republicans and their masters can be pushed aside long enough to get some real renewable companies going, or this country will be importing renewable energy too someday.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re:

    Nothing like painting the entire European Union with the same anti-renewable broad brush. Any knowledgeable observer knows that utilities in europe vary greatly among nations - from large adopters in scandanavia to eastern europe former blocs.  

    There is NO one-size-fits-all solution to the continent's energy policies, but renewables have the most options and highest upside for both conservation and reducing emissions.  Long-term savings far eclipse short-term investment costs by wide margins.

     

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re:

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    A country like Germany is not one of the leading world economies because they are following someone elses policies.  There is a strong determination there to move forward with renewable energy and they understand you need to crack a few eggs to make an omelet.

    What Germany is doing with renewable energy is nothing short of revolutionary.  Their engineering in this field will be a gift to the world and to the future of mankind. 

    And they have a conservative government.  Imagine....A conservative party capable of reacting rationally to the future, rather than yearning for the past.

    [/QUOTE]

    "crack a few eggs to make an omelet"

    That is the attitude of statists who dont care about cracking open the wallets of the people to fund their failed green energy policies...the winners are the crony capitalist "green energy" thieves.

    'Green' energy has been an utter failure. Green energy is yearning for the past , the past of failed top-down government picking winners and losers...that itself is a loser.

    The private sector can find the best way forward for energy needs. Natural gas use in the  US from fracking, opposed by the treehuggers, has lowered carbon emissions more than the failed solar panels and windmills of the Solyndras funded by Obama zealots.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Global warming is just not real for Republicans. It is a giant hoax to them. Waiting for private sector to develop new technologies before a market exists will not work when they can instead speculate on the stock market with their excess cash.

    Without government incentives to invest in new, but vital technologies which are not (yet) profitable, the "free market" would continue to focus on short term profits until the very day we run out of fossil fuels or choke to death on CO2.

    [/QUOTE]

    The private sector is already working on solutions. But most any energy initiative involves government to some extent. Like anything, some of the involvement is a good thing some is not.

    This very second if you want your electricity demand to come from renewable energy, you can get it in 5 minutes. If you are like most environmentalists you are better on talk, not action. I have found they prefer to preach and lecture on what we should or should not be doing while they themselves don't do squat.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re:


    “European consumers have subsidized renewable energy investors by a staggering 600 billion euros [$776 billion] since 2004. Germany’s green transition alone may cost energy consumers up to a trillion euros by 2020.” The investors Peiser referenced represent the very big businesses so hated by progressives that live off the government largesse. Termed rent-seeking, they got fat off the taxpayers’ sweat. “This is the biggest wealth transfer in the history of modern Europe,” Peiser says, “from the poor to the rich.”
    Our current administration and progressives in both political parties seem immune from the harsh lessons learned in Europe, and that should cause all Americans great concern.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re:

    Europeans have resoundingly decided that producing their own renewable energy is far more desirable than importing it from other countries - some with dubious motives.  The environmental and energy goals vary widely depending on GDP of the member nations.  They have determined that the intrinsic economic (health, ecology, durability, load, etc.) benefits of developing renewable sources outweigh capital costs to build plants and update the energy grid/infrastructure.

     

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re:

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Shhhh, don't tell the neo-cons.... but they do love their subsidies, while attacking others.

    typical neo-con hypocrits.

    The first and largest subsidy for bio-fuels was the Energy Policy Act passed by the neo-con Congress in 2005. It was the first mandate for bio-fuels in general and ethanol in particular.

     

    Neo-cons have this deep-seated aversion to facts.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    How interesting....coming from the biggest liar here.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re:

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Shhhh, don't tell the neo-cons.... but they do love their subsidies, while attacking others.

    typical neo-con hypocrits.

    The first and largest subsidy for bio-fuels was the Energy Policy Act passed by the neo-con Congress in 2005. It was the first mandate for bio-fuels in general and ethanol in particular.

     

    Neo-cons have this deep-seated aversion to facts.

     [/QUOTE]

    You are right, ethanol subsdies are a disgrace, thankfully most Republicans are coming around to get rid of this stupidity and crony capitalism.

    The Party of Government, by contrast, learns nothing from failure and  has doubled down on crony capitalist green energy boondoggles.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Europeans have resoundingly decided that producing their own renewable energy is far more desirable than importing it from other countries - some with dubious motives.  The environmental and energy goals vary widely depending on GDP of the member nations.  They have determined that the intrinsic economic (health, ecology, durability, load, etc.) benefits of developing renewable sources outweigh capital costs to build plants and update the energy grid/infrastructure.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The Government elites decided to go all in for the "green energy" boondoggles. 

    The results are in: failure.

    The US can learn from this disaster...but the Obama Administration is too busy doubling down on its corruption and Solyndra failures.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re:

     

    My problem with fracking is that they have numerous exemptions from federal law, including - unbelievably - exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act.

    The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates regulation of underground injection activities in order to protect groundwater resources.

    But in the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which arose out of Vice President Cheney’s Energy Task Force, the GOP Congress amended the definition of "underground injection" under the SDWA to specifically exclude "the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities."

    This is also known as the 'Halliburton Loophole'.  (Thank you, Dick Cheney, for all you've done.)

    Under this exemption, oil and gas companies can now inject anything they want (other than diesel) in association with fracking operations without having to comply with SDWA provisions intended to protect our nation’s precious water supplies.

    The Clean Water Act was enacted to protect and improve water quality in the nation’s rivers, streams, creeks, and wetlands.

    The 2005 Energy Act exempts oil and gas drilling and production activities from the normal Clean Water Act permitting requirement.

     

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re:

    In response to UserName9's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    A country like Germany is not one of the leading world economies because they are following someone elses policies.  There is a strong determination there to move forward with renewable energy and they understand you need to crack a few eggs to make an omelet.

    What Germany is doing with renewable energy is nothing short of revolutionary.  Their engineering in this field will be a gift to the world and to the future of mankind. 

    And they have a conservative government.  Imagine....A conservative party capable of reacting rationally to the future, rather than yearning for the past.



    "crack a few eggs to make an omelet"

    That is the attitude of statists who dont care about cracking open the wallets of the people to fund their failed green energy policies...the winners are the crony capitalist "green energy" thieves.

    'Green' energy has been an utter failure. Green energy is yearning for the past , the past of failed top-down government picking winners and losers...that itself is a loser.

    The private sector can find the best way forward for energy needs. Natural gas use in the  US from fracking, opposed by the treehuggers, has lowered carbon emissions more than the failed solar panels and windmills of the Solyndras funded by Obama zealots.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Global warming is just not real for Republicans. It is a giant hoax to them. Waiting for private sector to develop new technologies before a market exists will not work when they can instead speculate on the stock market with their excess cash.

    Without government incentives to invest in new, but vital technologies which are not (yet) profitable, the "free market" would continue to focus on short term profits until the very day we run out of fossil fuels or choke to death on CO2.

    [/QUOTE]

    You didn't happen to notice that co2 emissions are up in Germany because of their green energy efforts?

    I have nothing against green energy.  What I do have is something against statist thugs who think that I should pay more, be regulated, and be beholden to government for my energy.  Heck, I can get $10 led lighbulbs at Kmart, and government didn't have to do anything.  Stop think government is the solution for everything.

    Fracking works.  Energy costs are down.  Celebrate, don't be mad because green energy is still 100 or so years in the future.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re:

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Shhhh, don't tell the neo-cons.... but they do love their subsidies, while attacking others.

    typical neo-con hypocrits.

    The first and largest subsidy for bio-fuels was the Energy Policy Act passed by the neo-con Congress in 2005. It was the first mandate for bio-fuels in general and ethanol in particular.

     

    Neo-cons have this deep-seated aversion to facts.

     [/QUOTE]

    You are right, ethanol subsdies are a disgrace, thankfully most Republicans are coming around to get rid of this stupidity and crony capitalism.

    The Party of Government, by contrast, learns nothing from failure and  has doubled down on crony capitalist green energy boondoggles.

    [/QUOTE]


    Ummm, don't look now but the neo-cons just extended the vast majority of those subsidies that you say they hate.

    Funny that....

    [/QUOTE]

    What's your point?

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re:

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    My problem with fracking is that they have numerous exemptions from federal law, including - unbelievably - exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act.

    The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates regulation of underground injection activities in order to protect groundwater resources.

    But in the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which arose out of Vice President Cheney’s Energy Task Force, the GOP Congress amended the definition of "underground injection" under the SDWA to specifically exclude "the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities."

    This is also known as the 'Halliburton Loophole'.  (Thank you, Dick Cheney, for all you've done.)

    Under this exemption, oil and gas companies can now inject anything they want (other than diesel) in association with fracking operations without having to comply with SDWA provisions intended to protect our nation’s precious water supplies.

    The Clean Water Act was enacted to protect and improve water quality in the nation’s rivers, streams, creeks, and wetlands.

    The 2005 Energy Act exempts oil and gas drilling and production activities from the normal Clean Water Act permitting requirement.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I do not question your claim here, but if it is true, why hasn't the almighty Barry done anything about it after 5 years?

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re:

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Shhhh, don't tell the neo-cons.... but they do love their subsidies, while attacking others.

    typical neo-con hypocrits.

    The first and largest subsidy for bio-fuels was the Energy Policy Act passed by the neo-con Congress in 2005. It was the first mandate for bio-fuels in general and ethanol in particular.

     

    Neo-cons have this deep-seated aversion to facts.

     



    You are right, ethanol subsdies are a disgrace, thankfully most Republicans are coming around to get rid of this stupidity and crony capitalism.

    The Party of Government, by contrast, learns nothing from failure and  has doubled down on crony capitalist green energy boondoggles.

    [/QUOTE]


    Ummm, don't look now but the neo-cons just extended the vast majority of those subsidies that you say they hate.

    Funny that....

    [/QUOTE]

    Try to keep up.

    Nov 1: 169 Congressmen agree to cut ethanol mandate

    The House Energy and Commerce Committee is currently working on bipartisan legislation to reform the ethanol mandate, but no bill has come out of the committee yet. On the Senate side, however, Wyoming Republican Sen. John Barrasso introduced a bill to repeal the ethanol mandate.

    Also, California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn are working on a bipartisan bill to cut the amount of conventional ethanol that refiners will be required to blend, though the legislation has not yet been introduced, reports Politico.

    Of course, as long as one Republican pol gets a highway paid for by the Federal Government, this will allow Concerned citizen to preen as usual about "neocon hypocrites" ..and the endless looting of the Treasury by the Dems can continue unabated.



    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/01/169-congressmen-want-to-lower-the-ethanol-mandate/#ixzz2kOe7GUGb

     

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re:

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    My problem with fracking is that they have numerous exemptions from federal law, including - unbelievably - exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act.

    The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates regulation of underground injection activities in order to protect groundwater resources.

    But in the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which arose out of Vice President Cheney’s Energy Task Force, the GOP Congress amended the definition of "underground injection" under the SDWA to specifically exclude "the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities."

    This is also known as the 'Halliburton Loophole'.  (Thank you, Dick Cheney, for all you've done.)

    Under this exemption, oil and gas companies can now inject anything they want (other than diesel) in association with fracking operations without having to comply with SDWA provisions intended to protect our nation’s precious water supplies.

    The Clean Water Act was enacted to protect and improve water quality in the nation’s rivers, streams, creeks, and wetlands.

    The 2005 Energy Act exempts oil and gas drilling and production activities from the normal Clean Water Act permitting requirement.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I do not question your claim here, but if it is true, why hasn't the almighty Barry done anything about it after 5 years?

    [/QUOTE]


    Ummm, hey spanky, in case you haven't noticed Congress writes legislation.

    You really should study that Constitution thingy....

    [/QUOTE]

    ...and Obama negates a lot of it through executive orders.

    You should really check into that.  Executive orders are being used to negate legislation. that is unconsittutional.

    So, go study that constitutional thingy...

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re:

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    My problem with fracking is that they have numerous exemptions from federal law, including - unbelievably - exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act.

    The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates regulation of underground injection activities in order to protect groundwater resources.

    But in the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which arose out of Vice President Cheney’s Energy Task Force, the GOP Congress amended the definition of "underground injection" under the SDWA to specifically exclude "the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities."

    This is also known as the 'Halliburton Loophole'.  (Thank you, Dick Cheney, for all you've done.)

    Under this exemption, oil and gas companies can now inject anything they want (other than diesel) in association with fracking operations without having to comply with SDWA provisions intended to protect our nation’s precious water supplies.

    The Clean Water Act was enacted to protect and improve water quality in the nation’s rivers, streams, creeks, and wetlands.

    The 2005 Energy Act exempts oil and gas drilling and production activities from the normal Clean Water Act permitting requirement.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I do not question your claim here, but if it is true, why hasn't the almighty Barry done anything about it after 5 years?

    [/QUOTE]


    Ummm, hey spanky, in case you haven't noticed Congress writes legislation.

    You really should study that Constitution thingy....

    [/QUOTE]

    Sparky, you are so lame. The executive branch can submit a bill, a Demcorat Senator or Rep can submit a bill. The President seems to like executive orders, eapecially when dealing with the environment. I think even you coudl submit a bill through your Rep.

    They have done nothing. Why? Corn. Iowa. Iowa cockuses

    Obama could be caught naked in bed in the middle of sexual acts with underage chidren and sheep and you would find some excuse like the sheep was a plant by Republicans.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share