Re: 'Secret dealing'? Emails show cozy relationship between EPA, environmental groups
posted at 1/24/2014 3:19 PM EST
In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
The zealots at the EPA are destroying the coal industry, with no such mandate from Congress!!!
And yet the only thing you offer in support of that claim are that GOPers say that they want to stop the EPA and passed a bill in the house.
Republicans saying things about the EPA isn't evidence that the EPA is doing anything.
"Vice President Joe Biden made it clear during the 2008 campaign when he said the Obama policy was “No coal plants here in America.” Similarly, candidate Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle that he would ensure that building a coal plant would “bankrupt” the operator because of the cost of complying with new carbon-dioxide emission regulations. Deliberate government efforts to end an industry are not part of normal competitive
pressures and bad for the U.S. economy for three reasons. First, virtually all our coal production goes directly to generate electricity. Changing that is costly: our electric grid was designed based on generation patterns dominated by multiple coal plants. Eliminating coal requires both costly new generation facilities and expensive grid modifications. Moreover, while the rapid development of domestic natural gas is cutting generation costs today, it is not guaranteed to continue indefinitely. If anti-fracking activists — who often are anti-coal activists — succeed in their campaign to restrict natural gas production and pipeline construction, natural gas costs will rise. Second, diversity in sources enhances our
security by minimizing the chance that politics or wars in unstable and unfriendly countries will disrupt our
supplies. America is called the “Saudi Arabia of coal” because it has more than a quarter of world coal reserves.
security is vital because
is embedded in most goods and services. Almost half of our
use is indirect and so invisible to consumers. Among the most
intensive sectors of our economy are
and food; we risk much more than higher utility bills if we remain vulnerable to unfriendly and unstable
suppliers. Third, the coal industry is a significant source of jobs. The typical coal miner earns $73,000 a year, says the National Mining Association, which represents the mining industry in Washington.
An estimated 60,000 Americans work in coal-fired power plants
. These are high-productivity jobs because the
work with large amounts of capital.
by coal takes just 0.18
per megawatt of plant capacity. Coal-fired power plant jobs pay high wages because their
are skilled. Yet new EPA regulations are estimated to cut total coal employment by 1.4 million job-years between 2011 and 2020.
Sen James Inhofe, R-Okla., said the EPA's actions show a double standard by the Obama administration on climate change.
"On the one hand, the president says we don't have time to delay action on global warming," Inhofe said. "But on the other hand, his actions show it is OK to wait to finalize rules that will harm the economy until after the elections so they won't have an impact on vulnerable Senate Democrats who face voters this fall" in coal-producing states.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said the agency submitted the rules for publication last fall and "tried very hard" to get them published in the Federal Register.
"As soon as that proposal was released, we had submitted it to the Federal Register office. The delay was solely the backup in the Federal Register office," McCarthy told the committee at a hearing this week.
Meanwhile, Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning announced this week that his office is suing the EPA over the power plant standards, arguing the rules overstep the agency's authority and will hurt Nebraska businesses.
“The impossible standards imposed by the EPA will ensure no new power plants are built
in Nebraska,” Bruning said in a statement. "This federal agency continues to overstep its authority at the detriment of Nebraska businesses."