Political Discussion

[msm859]

Yes, he does want higher gas prices...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M1WlV7vafk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4yFsaxw6L8&feature=related

And here is how he feels about coal (this is a long one, but watch the whole thing, I was shocked to hear him actually admit it so openly):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpTIhyMa-Nw&feature=related

Just pass it on to consumers, we love to pay more for everything...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRuXr...eature=related

What is the price of not dealing with climate change? How many billion dollar storms are we going to have each year? Coal is bad, bad, bad. I would actually be in favor of a higher gas tax cut if it was used solely for making us more energy independent and efficient.

[jacko]

When you compare the gas price to the rate of inflation, gas is still cheaper than other commodities. The gas price hasn't stop people from purchasing vehicles, subscribing to $100 plus monthly smartphone, cable etc.. This nonsense of high gas price is a red herring. Gas in Germany is like $8 plus per gallon, and their economy and way of life has not collapsed but thrived.

[GoingDown]

Yes, he does want higher gas prices...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M1WlV7vafk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4yFsaxw6L8&feature=related

And here is how he feels about coal (this is a long one, but watch the whole thing, I was shocked to hear him actually admit it so openly):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpTIhyMa-Nw&feature=related

Just pass it on to consumers, we love to pay more for everything...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRuXrbjlrRg&feature=related

[GoingDown]

Barack Obama: "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." (January 2008)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4

Those are his own words, in his own voice!


I am not making this up!


Watch the YouTube Video above, if you don't believe me.


Everything is going to cost more.



Much of Southern Arizona’s water supply comes via the Central Arizona Project (CAP) which takes water from the Colorado River at Lake Havasu, and distributes it over 300 miles of canal and 3,000 feet up in elevation to Tucson (see map below). Electricity for the 14 pumping stations comes from the coal-fired Navajo Generating Station (NGS) near Page, Arizona. That station supplies 2,250 megawatts from three 750-MW units. The coal comes from the Kayenta mine on the Navajo Reservation 78 miles southeast of the station. (eco-friendly-- doesn't have to be transported a long distance, but no, that's not good enough for eco nuts!). The mine is operated by Peabody Western Coal Company. The electric plant is under fire from the EPA, for among other things, air quality in the Grand Canyon. The plant may fall victim to the EPA’s war on coal

According to a report from KSL.com, “Owners of the Navajo Generating Station say an Environmental Protection Agency proposal to clear the air in the region’s national parks may push the plant into an unacceptable financial situation. They’ve indicated it could force a shutdown as early as 2017.” “A shutdown of the plant would put nearly 1,000 people out of work on the Navajo Indian Reservation that is already deeply mired in unemployment and poverty.” (Ultimately, the environmentalist movement is an elitist movement, they do not care about the average person, nor the poor. Ultimately, they feel there are too many humans on the earth, and the surplus population should be killed off.) “The owners insist they cannot spend more than $1 billion on environmental improvements without a guarantee they’ll be allowed to operate beyond 2019. The owners are several public agencies and utilities, including the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Tucson Electric Power and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.”

Critics allege that emissions from the plant contribute to regional haze. However, even if the plant builds the required upgrades, there is no guarantee that the change in haze would be noticeable.

According to information from the Salt River Project, one of the owners of the plant, “NGS complies with all federal air quality standards and emission limitations. Electrostatic precipitators capture 99% of the fly ash, which is recycled for use in concrete, cement and other construction materials. Limestone scrubbers remove over 90% of SO2 emissions. Installation of low NOx burners and separated overfire air technology reduces NOx emissions by approximately 40%.”

The new “haze” rule from EPA could cause NGS to shut down, eliminating a major contributor to the economy of the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, the city of Page, Coconino County, and the state of Arizona. And, a shutdown would stop the pumps supplying water to Southern Arizona. The EPA ‘haze” rule will cause three of five generators at the coal-fired Four Corners Power Plant in northwest New Mexico to shut down also.

Remember, during the 2008 presidential campaign candidate Obama said, “that under his cap-and-trade plan, “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 greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.” (CNN) Also during the 2008 campaign Joe Biden said the Obama policy was “no coal plants here in America.” (Arizona Daily Star).

In contrast to Obama policy, Germany is building 23 new coal-fire plants. Although Germany is a leader in solar energy installation, they need the coal plants because they found that solar energy is unreliable and too expensive.

Maybe the war on coal is a plan to create jobs. Obama could hire thousands of people to form bucket brigades to move water along the CAP canal.

Other nations have already gone down this road and determined that green energy really is not reliable nor cost effective. Remember? Canada pulled out of Kyoto because it was too expensive, and they realized that it was just a political farce-- as long as China and India get to do whatever they want in terms of burning coal, it would do no good for Canada to lower its standard of living unilaterally. Spain tried green energy and found it to be a complete failure. And yet, we can't seem to learn from the bad experiences of other nations.


The Arizona Public Service Co. could decommission three generating units at the coal-fired Four Corners Power Plant near Farmington by the end of the year – a measure expected to improve air quality throughout the region.

The closure of the units – the oldest at the plant – is contingent on the company completing a new coal contract with Navajo Mine located on the Navajo Nation Indian Reservation, which supplies the plant.

Closing the three units would reduce nitrogen-oxide emissions by 36 percent, mercury by 61 percent, particulates by 43 percent, carbon monoxide by 30 percent and sulfur dioxide by 24 percent, according to news release from Arizona Public Service Co.

The power plant employs 549 workers, 74 percent of whom are Navajo Nation tribal members. The company said there will be no layoffs, but the closure could have a substantial economic impact on the tribe.

The closure is at minimum a year sooner than Navajo Nation officials were anticipating. That forced the tribe to reduce its revenue projections for 2013 by $10 million, said Erny Zah, spokesman for the Office of the President of the Navajo Nation.

“It’s going to be a challenging time for Navajo Nation when it comes to the closure of those three units,” Zah said. “It’s going to affect the taxes and revenue we get from the plant itself, and secondly going to affect revenue from the coal mine.”

The plant will require personnel through the decommissioning, but it has not determined how many employees will be needed after the process is complete, said APS spokesman Damon Gross.

The company plans to attain that number through normal attrition, he said. Several employees are either at or approaching retirement eligibility, and there are other employment opportunities in the company.

“These are important jobs in the community, and we want to do all we can to preserve that source of employment,” he said.

Arizona Public Service would need to install selective catalytic-reduction equipment at the three units to meet recent Environmental Protection Agency requirements. The upgrade would cost more than $568 million, Gross said.

Instead of upgrading the three units, the company is purchasing Southern California Edison’s 48 percent ownership in Units 4 and 5 at the plant for $249 million.

APS currently owns 15 percent of the two units. Other owners include Public Service of New Mexico, Salt River Project, El Paso Electric and Tucson Electric Power.

California state law requires Southern California Edison to ends its participation in the plant by 2016.

“The better course of action would be to purchase new, cleaner and more efficient units,” Gross said.

Environmental advocates say they are not sure what the environmental impact of Units 4 and 5 will be.

The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement is currently working on an Environmental Impact Statement of the two units and Navajo Mine, said Mike Eisenfeld, the New Mexico energy coordinator for the San Juan Citizen Alliance.

“We think that (the statement) is going to raise a lot of questions,” Eisenfeld said. “That’s what we’re looking for in the impact statement. What will happen with the facility, the indirect and direct impact and what the past impacts have been.”

The power plant’s capacity would be reduced by 560 megawatts, from 2,100 to 1,540 megawatts. But Gross said acquiring additional ownership of the Units 4 and 5 is a net gain for APS customers.

[GoingDown]

I am all in favor of shutting down coal plants. We have more than enough natural gas that is price competitive and has 1/3 the pollution.





.

No, coal is significantly cheaper than natural gas. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. We have enough to last for hundreds of years. Coal is only good for one thing-- generating electricity. But natural gas can be used for many things.

I think we should use coal and nuclear to generate electricity.

Natural gas should be saved back to use as a source of fuel for our cars, for cooking, and heating our homes, and fueling our hot water heaters, etc. And it is used for industrial purposes as well.

One of my relatives runs his trucks on natural but compressed natural gas, and according to him, he gets great mileage with natural gas, and his engine is extremely clean and needs far fewer repairs than engines ran on gasoline.

But here is an important point to keep in mind... you are an anomaly.

Most environmentalists see natural gas as an evil fuel that releases deadly CO2 into the atmosphere and will kill us all, so it must be gotten rid of, too. First they will get rid of coal, then they will get rid of natural gas.

And there is nothing to jump to.

Solar and wind energy are pipe dreams. They'll never produce the amount of energy we need to run this economy.

Ultimately, it will make the cost of everything skyrocket, and ultimately, only the elite will be able to afford to travel from state to state, and live a high standard of living. The rest of us will be serfs. And I think that's really what they want.

The average foot soldier in the environmentalist movement thinks they are doing good, but in reality they are just "useful idiots" for a movement that will eventually take away our standard of living and reduce our freedom of movement and our freedoms in general.

.....

[jacko]

Dirty coal is on its last leg out. There is no turning back despite Romney's etch sketch speak. Utilities are switching to natural gas.

[QUOTE=GoingDown;586680]"The impact of new EPA coal power plant emission reduction requirements (Re. “Fact Sheet Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for Power Plants”, http://www.epa.gov/mats/pdfs/20111221MATSsummaryfs.pdf) not only will prematurely shutdown existing coal power plants, but also will become a major barrier to future new construction. Another concern with these new EPA coal power regulations is that current power grids’ reliabilities could also be put a risk to increased brown- and black-outs (Re. “Potential Impacts of Future Environmental Regulations”, http://www.nerc.com/files/EPA%20Section.pdf). The EPA has removed potential power grid reliability concerns and considerations during their recent rules-making process.

[jacko]

Are you saying that electricity and gas are not flowing now?

But Romney could just act like Obama and use the EPA and executive orders to further his own agenda rather than going through the normal route of Congress. In this case, Romney could help keep electricity and gas flowing to consumers and businesses. Just the opposite of Obama's agenda.

[msm859]

"The impact of new EPA coal power plant emission reduction requirements (Re. “Fact Sheet Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for Power Plants”, http://www.epa.gov/mats/pdfs/20111221MATSsummaryfs.pdf) not only will prematurely shutdown existing coal power plants, but also will become a major barrier to future new construction. Another concern with these new EPA coal power regulations is that current power grids’ reliabilities could also be put a risk to increased brown- and black-outs (Re. “Potential Impacts of Future Environmental Regulations”, http://www.nerc.com/files/EPA%20Section.pdf). The EPA has removed potential power grid reliability concerns and considerations during their recent rules-making process.
I am all in favor of shutting down coal plants. We have more than enough natural gas that is price competitive and has 1/3 the pollution
Possible and likely very significant changes to this part of the Obama “all-of-the-above” energy plan appear to be deferred until after the election. What has not been covered in the latest Obama energy plan is the EPA’s undeclared war on coal. Despite the general reference to supporting (more expensive) ‘clean coal’, the EPA is actively developing many additional new regulations that will make future coal development and its viability much less feasible. Near future EPA regulations include: coal ash restrictions, increasingly strict power plant MACT/NSR (maximum available controls technology /new source reviews that will significantly reduced SOX, NOX, PM, etc.), substantial reduced CO2 emissions, cooling water discharge restrictions, etc.

It’s time for voters to make a choice for the next President. Do you choose the current Administration’s energy plan of significant doublespeak in support of fossil fuels, and clearly higher priority on Government mandated and (added deficit spending) support for renewable energy development? Or, do you choose a new Administration whose plan is empowering the Free Markets to develop the most economic, environmentally responsible,You seriously think Romney or his colleagues are not going to put profit before environment? and secure energy sources to help facilitate a more rapid U.S. economy recovery and better position average consumers to afford higher cost renewable energy? Addressing the next priorities such as climate change should be done by a truly bipartisan process between all parties in Congress and led by a President with the greatest demonstrated ability to work with both parties on issues critical to the future of our country."Again, SERIOUSLY? The Republicans from day 1 openly admitted their most important goal was to make sure Obama was a 1 term president. The Senate essentially did a filibuster on EVERYTHING. The Republicans do NOT believe in climate change how are you going to get a bipartisan solution? They want to get rid of the EPA.

President Obama claims he’s overseen the creation fewer regulations than his predecessors. But his administration has actually issued far more expensive and economically costly regulations, adding billions of dollars in compliance costs for businesses and job creators. The red tape is documented in a new report by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Next week the House takes up the Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act, which includes seven measures that would ease the government’s growing burden on businesses and the economy.
The report cites a Gallup poll from earlier this year that found 46 percent of small business owners are not hiring because they are worried about new government regulationsNot True. Business owners hire people when the demand for the goods or services they are selling warrant it. It is not because they are worried about some unknown regulation - or health care costs., and 48 percent say they are worried about the potential costs of health care.
Homeowners are also being affected by new regulations. In 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency removed an opt-out provision for its Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule. The rule requires that renovations to homes built before 1978 be supervised by an EPA-certified renovator and performed by an EPA-certified firm.
.............
In total, The Heritage FoundationNow this is funny. You want to cite the Heritage Foundation - you know they were the ones who first pushed the idea of what is now called "Obamacare" and the individual mandate - back when the Republicans believed in personal responsibility. has calculated that the Obama administration adopted 106 major regulations in its first three years. That’s nearly four times the 28 major regulations adopted in the first three years of the Bush administration. Those regulations came at a cost of $8.1 billion, compared to the $46 billion imposed under Obama by the same point in his presidency.
Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) said the report explains why job creators are struggling to put Americans back to work under an increasing regulatory burden.
“Our government can create the environment for the private sector to grow jobs. But under this administration, it won’t. Small businesses, and not the government, are the primary driver of job creation in this country,” Issa said. “This report explains why job creators say they are struggling to put Americans back to work under an ever increasing regulatory burden.”

Romney has throughout his life only cared about himself and a few close friends. You talk about double speak yet Romney has taken both sides of virtually every issue. You believe he can cut taxes 20%, increase military spending and balance the budget? That is fantasy land. Why don't you research how many jobs will actually be created by pushing a green economy.

[GoingDown]

Seriously? What SPECIFIC action has Obama done to lead you to the believe his agenda is to HURT "electricity and gas flowing to consumers and businesses"?

"The impact of new EPA coal power plant emission reduction requirements (Re. “Fact Sheet Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for Power Plants”, http://www.epa.gov/mats/pdfs/20111221MATSsummaryfs.pdf) not only will prematurely shutdown existing coal power plants, but also will become a major barrier to future new construction. Another concern with these new EPA coal power regulations is that current power grids’ reliabilities could also be put a risk to increased brown- and black-outs (Re. “Potential Impacts of Future Environmental Regulations”, http://www.nerc.com/files/EPA%20Section.pdf). The EPA has removed potential power grid reliability concerns and considerations during their recent rules-making process.

Possible and likely very significant changes to this part of the Obama “all-of-the-above” energy plan appear to be deferred until after the election. What has not been covered in the latest Obama energy plan is the EPA’s undeclared war on coal. Despite the general reference to supporting (more expensive) ‘clean coal’, the EPA is actively developing many additional new regulations that will make future coal development and its viability much less feasible. Near future EPA regulations include: coal ash restrictions, increasingly strict power plant MACT/NSR (maximum available controls technology /new source reviews that will significantly reduced SOX, NOX, PM, etc.), substantial reduced CO2 emissions, cooling water discharge restrictions, etc.

It’s time for voters to make a choice for the next President. Do you choose the current Administration’s energy plan of significant doublespeak in support of fossil fuels, and clearly higher priority on Government mandated and (added deficit spending) support for renewable energy development? Or, do you choose a new Administration whose plan is empowering the Free Markets to develop the most economic, environmentally responsible, and secure energy sources to help facilitate a more rapid U.S. economy recovery and better position average consumers to afford higher cost renewable energy? Addressing the next priorities such as climate change should be done by a truly bipartisan process between all parties in Congress and led by a President with the greatest demonstrated ability to work with both parties on issues critical to the future of our country."

President Obama claims he’s overseen the creation fewer regulations than his predecessors. But his administration has actually issued far more expensive and economically costly regulations, adding billions of dollars in compliance costs for businesses and job creators. The red tape is documented in a new report by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Next week the House takes up the Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act, which includes seven measures that would ease the government’s growing burden on businesses and the economy.
The report cites a Gallup poll from earlier this year that found 46 percent of small business owners are not hiring because they are worried about new government regulations, and 48 percent say they are worried about the potential costs of health care.
Homeowners are also being affected by new regulations. In 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency removed an opt-out provision for its Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule. The rule requires that renovations to homes built before 1978 be supervised by an EPA-certified renovator and performed by an EPA-certified firm.
According to the report, the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) says the elimination of the opt-out has led homeowners to explore underground contractors that do not comply with EPA regulations at all, and that the opt-out had saved the industry approximately $500 million in compliance costs.
In addition to current regulations, the report found that proposed regulations continue to generate uncertainty and could result in significant additional costs to the economy.
The EPA is proposing to redefine “solid waste,” removing specific recycling exclusions from current hazardous waste regulations. As a result, the regulations would even apply to in-house recycling intended for internal use, such as scrap metal yards recycling scrap metal. The Business Roundtable estimates the rule will cost more than $100 million annually in documentation and analysis costs, making it more expensive for businesses to recycle.
According to the NFIB, the EPA is also proposing to expand the definition of “navigable waters” to include depressions and farm ponds that don’t impede the flow of rivers, giving the agency greatly expanded regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act.
Other proposed regulations would advance the administration’s pro-union agenda while ignoring union political activity.
Last year, the National Labor Relations Board issued a final rule requiring employers subject to the National Labor Relations Act to post a notice of employee rights under the law. The notice focuses on employee rights to unionize and collectively bargain, but doesn’t include rights to object to the use of union dues to support political causes. According to the NLRB’s own estimates, the rule could cost 6 million employers an estimated $386.4 million. Much of the rule has been blocked by courts, but business organizations remain concerned about the implications that could result if it is allowed to move forward.
In total, The Heritage Foundation has calculated that the Obama administration adopted 106 major regulations in its first three years. That’s nearly four times the 28 major regulations adopted in the first three years of the Bush administration. Those regulations came at a cost of $8.1 billion, compared to the $46 billion imposed under Obama by the same point in his presidency.
Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) said the report explains why job creators are struggling to put Americans back to work under an increasing regulatory burden.
“Our government can create the environment for the private sector to grow jobs. But under this administration, it won’t. Small businesses, and not the government, are the primary driver of job creation in this country,” Issa said. “This report explains why job creators say they are struggling to put Americans back to work under an ever increasing regulatory burden.”

[msm859]

But Romney could just act like Obama and use the EPA and executive orders to further his own agenda rather than going through the normal route of Congress. In this case, Romney could help keep electricity and gas flowing to consumers and businesses. Just the opposite of Obama's agenda.

Seriously? What SPECIFIC action has Obama done to lead you to the believe his agenda is to HURT "electricity and gas flowing to consumers and businesses"?

[GoingDown]

He is no match for Harry Reid. Reid would just shut the Senate down.

But Romney could just act like Obama and use the EPA and executive orders to further his own agenda rather than going through the normal route of Congress. In this case, Romney could help keep electricity and gas flowing to consumers and businesses. Just the opposite of Obama's agenda.

[jacko]

Romney is your classic country club Rockefeller Republican who tend to be more liberal than Joe Lieberman. If he wins, I expect another etch sketch shake. He will ignore the foreigners(bible thumping conservative base) and cut deals with Reid and the moderates in the House. The conservatives will be sidelined.

Thanks for the laugh.

[jacko]

Has gas really risen out of control? When you factor in inflation, gas has remained constant compared to other commodity products. Not to long ago, corn was 99 cents per bushel, now it is $7 plus. Are we going to end corn futures speculation and demand that farmers go back to 99 cents? As a shareholder of ConocoPhilips and Chevron, I expect/demand that management price what the market will bare to maximize earnings, which leads to higher dividends for the owners.

I agree with you @ 97%. The thing the POTUS could do is push hard for a bill that stops Wall Street speculation on oil for all but end users. That is artificially driving up prices. As to the rest you are correct, this is a global issue. The United Stated has already been producing more and using less, but with countries like China and India's use going up there is little the POTUS could do to effect world prices - although he also moved in the right direction requiring higher CAFE.

[jacko]

He is no match for Harry Reid. Reid would just shut the Senate down.

No, Romney would never be more liberal then Obama. Power plants though will be there and reliable regardless who wins. However, if Romney did win and was able to get what he wants - making Bush tax cuts permanent, 20% additional tax cuts across the board, eliminate inheritance tax it will be an unmitigated disaster for 98% of the country.

[helpmeout]

I wouldn't count on it.. Romney could end up being more liberal than POTUS. Plus POTUS doesn't control gas prices.

Thanks for the laugh.