Obama to declare CO2 Dangerous polutant. - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

aceventura3 · 10-20-2008, 01:09 PM

According to Jason Grumet an adviser to Obama on energy/environmental issues he is going to immediately classify carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant. To many of you, this will be a good thing - at least until you start realizing the costs.

Quote:

Barack Obama will classify carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant that can be regulated should he win the presidential election on Nov. 4, opening the way for new rules on greenhouse gas emissions.

The Democratic senator from Illinois will tell the Environmental Protection Agency that it may use the 1990 Clean Air Act to set emissions limits on power plants and manufacturers, his energy adviser, Jason Grumet, said in an interview. President George W. Bush declined to curb CO2 emissions under the law even after the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the government may do so.

If elected, Obama would be the first president to group emissions blamed for global warming into a category of pollutants that includes lead and carbon monoxide. Obama's rival in the presidential race, Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona, has not said how he would treat CO2 under the act.

Obama ``would initiate those rulemakings,'' Grumet said in an Oct. 6 interview in Boston. ``He's not going to insert political judgments to interrupt the recommendations of the scientific efforts.''

Bloomberg.com: News

Here is the kicker. (from the same article)

Quote:

Placing heat-trapping pollutants in the same category as ozone may lead to caps on power-plant emissions and force utilities to use the most expensive systems to curb pollution. The move may halt construction plans on as many as half of the 130 proposed new U.S. coal plants.

Quote:

Burning coal to generate electricity produces more than a third of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions and half the U.S. power supply, according to the Energy Department.

Given the uncertainties of man being the cause of global warming and not knowing the impact reducing CO2 will have, I am not interested in experimenting with what may turnout to be very costly. In addition given Obama's position on nuclear power, I am not sure how he plans on addressing our energy needs. Does anyone?

P.S. - Not interested in your opinions of me, my sources, my views on global warming, Bush's views on global warming, ignoring or cherry picking "science", Palin's IQ or bra size - just want to know if Obama has thought this through or not. I don't think he has.

Derwood · 10-20-2008, 01:15 PM

there is always cost to stopping pollution. there was a big cost when the government said you can't billow black smoke into the air 24/7 and the economy survived

Jinn · 10-20-2008, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Given the uncertainties of man being the cause of global warming and not knowing the impact reducing CO2 will have...

This is only uncertain to you, I think.

Both campaigns believe it is man-made. Both campaigns believe reducing CO2 will help.

Quote:

"John McCain,” an announcer says, “stood up to the president and sounded the alarm on global warming five years ago. Today, he has a realistic plan that will curb greenhouse gas emissions, a plan that will help grow our economy and protect our environment.” In a radio spot that ran in New Hampshire last year, McCain says, “In every town hall, I heard from you that climate change was real and was a serious threat to our environment and national security. I think the time is past when we argue about whether climate change is real or not.”

He’s even incorporated the human role in causing global warming as a plank in the Republican platform.

"The same human activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere," the document reads. "Increased atmospheric carbon has a warming effect on the Earth. While the scope and long-term consequences of this warming effect are the subject of ongoing research, we believe the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today.”

Maybe they have a different definition of "measured" and "reasonable", but both sides agree that it's a problem that we helped create. John "Maverick" McCain is well known for his disagreement with more than 70% of the GOP base in not only acknowledging that global warming exists, but also noting that it is at least partially man-made.

dc_dux · 10-20-2008, 01:21 PM

As I understand it, Obama has indicated that he would likely enforce the CO2 emission standards for power plants that are in the Clean Air Act, particularly since many states have sued the federal government for not enforcing the standards.

The Supreme Court took the Bush administration to task for its run around of the Clean Air Act in a ruling last year.

aceventura3 · 10-20-2008, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

there is always cost to stopping pollution. there was a big cost when the government said you can't billow black smoke into the air 24/7 and the economy survived

Don't dispute that there are costs. The question is more along the lines of understanding the trade-offs. We could shut down all coal power plants today, but do we want too? As Obama constantly talks about "taxing the rich", isn't this going to be a "tax" on every American - a regressive "tax"? I guess he can socialize the system and make sure every American has a certain portion of energy at no costs - except for the "rich" of course.

dc_dux · 10-20-2008, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Don't dispute that there are costs. The question is more along the lines of understanding the trade-offs. We could shut down all coal power plants today, but do we want too? As Obama constantly talks about "taxing the rich", isn't this going to be a "tax" on every American - a regressive "tax"? I guess he can socialize the system and make sure every American has a certain portion of energy at no costs - except for the "rich" of course.

I tnink Obama wants to enforce the law (rather than skirt the law) which requires reducing emissions in a reasonable and measured manner by most accounts.

First time I ever heard it referred to as "socializing the sytem" but I guess thats the buzzword of the day.

aceventura3 · 10-20-2008, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

As I understand it, Obama has indicated that he would likely enforce the CO2 emission standards for power plants that are in the Clean Air Act, particularly since many states have sued the federal government for not enforcing the standards.

The Supreme Court took the Bush administration to task for its run around of the Clean Air Act in a ruling last year.

The Supreme Court ruled that the government has the right to regulate CO2 emissions, not the obligation to under the law. Also, Obama could allow Congress to pass comprehensive legislation. Something Congress has not been willing to do under Republican or Democratic control - do you want to tell us why? If Obama has control of Congress he can certainly have them address the issue if he wanted, why is he going to act unilaterally?
-----Added 20/10/2008 at 05 : 28 : 54-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinn

This is only uncertain to you, I think.

Of course. I am the last one. Kinda sad isn't it.

dc_dux · 10-20-2008, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The Supreme Court ruled that the government has the right to regulate CO2 emissions, not the obligation to under the law. Also, Obama could allow Congress to pass comprehensive legislation. Something Congress has not been willing to do under Republican or Democratic control - do you want to tell us why? If Obama has control of Congress he can certainly have them address the issue if he wanted, why is he going to act unilaterally?

ace....comprehensive legislation is not necessary.

All that is required is enforcement of the existing Clean Air Act which is what the Executive branch is supposed to do!

Tully Mars · 10-20-2008, 01:32 PM

What does Obama's position on nuclear power have to do with this issue?

Quote:

• Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy. Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our noncarbon
generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we
eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power is
considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste
storage, and proliferation. Barack Obama introduced legislation in the U.S. Senate to establish
guidelines for tracking, controlling and accounting for spent fuel at nuclear power plants. To
prevent international nuclear material from falling into terrorist hands abroad, Obama worked
closely with Sen. Dick Lugar (R‐IN) to strengthen international efforts to identify and stop the
smuggling of weapons of mass destruction. As president, Obama will make safeguarding nuclear
material both abroad and in the U.S. a top anti‐terrorism priority. In terms of waste storage,
Barack Obama and Joe Biden do not believe that Yucca Mountain is a suitable site. They will lead
federal efforts to look for safe, long‐term disposal solutions based on objective, scientific analysis.
In the meantime, they will develop requirements to ensure that the waste stored at current
reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry‐cask storage technology available.

aceventura3 · 10-20-2008, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I tnink Obama wants to enforce the law (rather than skirt the law) which requires reducing emissions in a reasonable and measured manner by most accounts.

"Reasonable" and "measured" are vague terms. If you know what they mean in this context, please help me understand.

Quote:

First time I ever heard it referred to as "socializing the sytem" but I guess thats the buzzword of the day.

You know me - I can't resist an opportunity to make an unfair attack. I see that you are starting not to take these jabs serious - I think I will need to intensify my attacks to get the desired affect - I love when liberals go all ballistic.

Willravel · 10-20-2008, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Given the uncertainties of man being the cause of global warming and not knowing the impact reducing CO2 will have...

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

...Not interested in your ... ignoring or cherry picking "science"

Uh huh.

If I were in Obama's place I'd do the exact same thing. Global climate isn't an economic issue.

dc_dux · 10-20-2008, 01:36 PM

BTW, Jason Grumet is the staff director of the National Comission on Energy Policy, a work group within the Bipartisan Policy Center. The work group is tasked with proposing moderate and achievable policy solutions to energy/enivornment issues.

I dont think he is a policy advisor to Obama.

aceventura3 · 10-20-2008, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace....comprehensive legislation is not necessary.

All that is required is enforcement of the existing Clean Air Act which is what the Executive branch is supposed to do!

This is a joke right?

You can't be suggesting that our democracy need not be involved in what many consider the most important issue facing the human race.

You can't be suggesting that 1990 legislation is current enough to address our nations energy/environmental issues for the next 100 years or so.
-----Added 20/10/2008 at 05 : 39 : 09-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Uh huh.

If I were in Obama's place I'd do the exact same thing. Global climate isn't an economic issue.

How can it not be an economic issue? Environment was an economic issue when beavers would build a damn, affecting primitive man thousands of years ago. Life is an economic issue.

dc_dux · 10-20-2008, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

This is a joke right?

You can't be suggesting that our democracy need not be involved in what many consider the most important issue facing the human race.

You can't be suggesting that 1990 legislation is current enough to address our nations energy/environmental issues for the next 100 years or so.

ace.....I just dont understand what is so dramatic about enforcing the current law as the first step to a broader energy/environmental policy that is economically sustainable.

aceventura3 · 10-20-2008, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

BTW, Jason Grumet is the staff director of the National Comission on Energy Policy, a work group within the Bipartisan Policy Center. The work group is tasked with proposing moderate and achievable policy solutions to energy/enivornment issues.

I dont think he is a policy advisor to Obama.

Of course not. In the words of that German guy on the Laugh In show form the 70's- "I know nothing, I hear nothing, I see nothing" - and if someone says something that raises a question, I don't know them.

-----Added 20/10/2008 at 05 : 43 : 28-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace.....I just dont understand what is so dramatic about enforcing the current law as the first step to a broader energy/environmental policy that is economically sustainable.

O.k., I can agree with "first step", but that is not what I understood your point to be at first.

Frosstbyte · 10-20-2008, 01:44 PM

Honestly, we should have spent the $500B we just threw at a bunk of corrupt, incompetent bankers on converting the entire country to alternate energy sources. What a great concept that would have been. Oh right, we were too busy throwing it at pigs with lipstick.

My generally libertarian leanings aside, gotta go with will on this one. Climate change isn't an economic issue and the amount of pollution we're using (and the associated resources we're burning doing it) has got to be dealt with sooner rather than later. I think it'd be sheer folly to ignore it for another 4 or 8 years like we have been.

Going cold turkey on the whole affair might be a little more dramatic than necessary, but I'd rather he start bold and come back to reasonable than start reasonable and back down to ineffective.

dc_dux · 10-20-2008, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Of course not. In the words of that German guy on the Laugh In show form the 70's- "I know nothing, I hear nothing, I see nothing" - and if someone says something that raises a question, I don't know them.

O.k., I can agree with "first step", but that is not what I understood your point to be at first.

ace.....at least 15 states have sued the Bush EPA to enforce the CAA emission standards.

In a debate between the candidates' surrogates, Grumet did represent Obama and evidently said Obama will enforce the law w/o political interference (how refreshing would that be!) as part of a broad discussion on energy/climate change solutions.....I detect a bit of cherry picking on the part of Bloomberg and the WSJ editorial

Grumet is also the exec director of the bi-partisan National Commission on Energy Policy which is tasked with providing Congress with a "consensus" proposal.

The report of the National Commission on Energy Policy that has been sitting for several years could very well serve as a discussion doc for deliberations by the next Congress...or perhaps it wont, who knows?

And no, I havent read it.
-----Added 20/10/2008 at 06 : 12 : 12-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frosstbyte

My generally libertarian leanings aside, gotta go with will on this one. Climate change isn't an economic issue and the amount of pollution we're using (and the associated resources we're burning doing it) has got to be dealt with sooner rather than later. I think it'd be sheer folly to ignore it for another 4 or 8 years like we have been.

No energy/environmental policy can ignore potential economic outcomes or consequences or it will never garner wide spread support.

Which is why a bi-partisan group of experts, like the National Commission on Energy Policy, was created....to recommend comprehensive solutions that could achieve consensus....

...to counteract the "screamers" who demagogue the issue with statements like "Obama will declare CO2 a dangerous pollutant" as opposed to "Obama will enforce the Clean Air Act as part of a more comprehensive and economically sustainable solution."

Willravel · 10-20-2008, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

How can it not be an economic issue?

It's a meteorological issue. It's a climatological issue. It's not an economic issue until the economists get their heads out of things they don't understand. The economists can start coming to economic conclusions when they start trusting the results coming from climatologists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Life is an economic issue.

Economics is one tool in a huge toolbox. It's not a universal tool. It has uses, but it can't be used on everything. Sometimes you need a hammer and sometimes you need a wrench.

Frosstbyte · 10-20-2008, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

No energy/environmental policy can ignore potential economic outcomes or consequences or it will never garner wide spread support.

Which is why a bi-partisan group of experts, like the National Commission on Energy Policy, was created....to recommend comprehensive solutions that could achieve consensus....

...to counteract the "screamers" who demagogue the issue with statements like "Obama will declare CO2 a dangerous pollutant" as opposed to "Obama will enforce the Clean Air Act as part of a more comprehensive and economically sustainable solution."

Well, the last part of my post basically indicated by support for this aspect of it, too, but what I meant was that it's beyond the scope of pure economy. We're experiencing different economic effects due to CO2 emissions already, though people might not be thinking about it. I agree with you DC, so I apologize if my short statement of support mischaracterized the issue from your perspective.

smooth · 10-20-2008, 06:46 PM

if you want to know what Obama is proposing to do about our energy needs, what he said during the debates was that he intends to fund research for and retooling factories to produce energy efficient engines, hydrothermal energy, wind energy, and solar panels.

so assuming the rest of the world wants to buy those types of things, and outlook is positive they will, we should be able to reduce our oil consumption, keep the middle of the country employed, and sustain our economy for a good long while. he stated for the next century, and that seems about right to me.

Thelonius · 10-20-2008, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Given the uncertainties of man being the cause of global warming and not knowing the impact reducing CO2 will have, I am not interested in experimenting with what may turnout to be very costly.

Given your uncertainties of man being the cause of global warming, I am not surprised that you would be concerned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

You can't be suggesting that our democracy need not be involved in what many consider the most important issue facing the human race.

Our democracy is involved - in electing Obama as a representation of our goals. I suspect most people that are going to vote for Obama would support CO2 reduction policies, given that they likely do not share your hesitancy in accepting what the large majority of geo-scientists have told us (an even larger majority when you weed out those funded by various entities within the oil and gas industry).

Your viewpoint, that the costs are too high or excessively risky, is certainly one viewpoint. Another viewpoint would be that not taking action has even greater risk (both environmentally as well as economically) vs. potential short term economic factors. Of course, one aspect that you appear to assume is that whatever action is taken will be drastic enough as to be definitively detrimental to short term economics. Why is that necessarily so? Perhaps intelligence will be applied to the implementation so as to limit risk, limit costs, yet ultimately reach a specific goal. There are many steps between doing nothing at all and shutting down all coal plants at once.

shakran · 10-21-2008, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Don't dispute that there are costs. The question is more along the lines of understanding the trade-offs. We could shut down all coal power plants today, but do we want too? As Obama constantly talks about "taxing the rich", isn't this going to be a "tax" on every American - a regressive "tax"? I guess he can socialize the system and make sure every American has a certain portion of energy at no costs - except for the "rich" of course.

1) just. . .stop. . with the socialism crap. No one who's party just approved 850 billion dollars in socialism for Wall Street can whine about whether or not the other candidate has socialist programs. Especially when their party blasted Pelosi for being somehow personally responsible for the failure of the first, cheaper, socialism program that all those wishy washy republicans voted against after listening to her speech.

2) There seems to be a prevailing attitude in this country that we want pollution to go away, but we don't want to change anything about our lifestyle to do it. That's the sort of attitude I'm pretty used to hearing from six year olds. I expect better from adults.

I understand the tradeoffs. We have fucked up the environment for over 100 years. Now it's getting ready to bite us in the ass. Current studies say that if we don't drastically slash pollution in 5 to 7 years, the climate change will be irreversible. So let's see. . . $20 more per month on my electric bill, or catastrophic global environmental collapse. Not a real tough choice, really, unless you're gambling that you'll be dead before that happens, and don't give a shit about future generations. What's it gonna be?

Speaking of being dead before bad things happen. . . Let's remember that pretty much any long-reaching effects McCain's policies have are going to happen after he's dead. And Palin believes that the rapture (the end of the world) will come during her lifetime, and therefore she, too, does not have to worry about whether or not her decisions are good in the long term because according to her there IS no long term. (We know she believes this because it is a fundamental belief of her church, and anyone who wishes to oppose the idea that she believes what her church believes had best disavow this crap about Obama and the Reverend Wright, right now. I'll point out, btw, that Wright is Obama's former pastor, whom he has publicly disavowed, and Palin's church is her current church, and she has never denied its teachings.)

Do you really want two people who don't care what their decisions will cause because they won't be here to see it, in charge of this country?

Obama thinks the world will still be here in 20 years. Unlike his opponents, he knows that what he does will have an effect on things that far out, and beyond. I'm gonna side with him on matters of the environment because unlike his opponent, he actually thinks what he decides regarding it, will matter.

aceventura3 · 10-21-2008, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

1) just. . .stop. . with the socialism crap. No one who's party just approved 850 billion dollars in socialism for Wall Street can whine about whether or not the other candidate has socialist programs. Especially when their party blasted Pelosi for being somehow personally responsible for the failure of the first, cheaper, socialism program that all those wishy washy republicans voted against after listening to her speech.

Sorry, I did not support the bail out plan. I think we should let some of the failing institutions fail. Then on the other hand I think the government is actually investing in assets that have value and assets that can actually generate a positive return on investment. This is different than "spreading the wealth around".

Quote:

2) There seems to be a prevailing attitude in this country that we want pollution to go away, but we don't want to change anything about our lifestyle to do it.

Perhaps you should speak for yourself. I know that some of the things I do will produce "pollutants", I am comfortable with taking steps to reduce pollutants but I don't pretend to think that in my life time that I will live in a manner that creates no "pollutants". And I think the impact of the "pollutants" I cause are greatly exaggerated. This is what I believe and I act according to what I believe. What do you believe and how do you act? I am guessing your beliefs are different than mine but your lifestyle and amount of "pollutants" you create are about the same as me.

Quote:

That's the sort of attitude I'm pretty used to hearing from six year olds. I expect better from adults.

I expect adults to understand the consequences of their actions. What are the costs of Obama's environmental plans? You don't know do you? Do you think Obama knows? Do you think he will tell us?

Quote:

I understand the tradeoffs. We have fucked up the environment for over 100 years.

Our environment is not "fucked up". Our environment is cleaner today than it was 40 years ago. How do you define "fucked up"?

Quote:

Now it's getting ready to bite us in the ass. Current studies say that if we don't drastically slash pollution in 5 to 7 years, the climate change will be irreversible.

Irreversible? I wonder if the scientist you did that study put into perspective the entire history of this planet? We are nowhere near the climate extremes this planet has existed through.

Quote:

So let's see. . . $20 more per month on my electric bill, or catastrophic global environmental collapse. Not a real tough choice, really, unless you're gambling that you'll be dead before that happens, and don't give a shit about future generations. What's it gonna be?

Is $20 the cost per month to save the planet?

Consider my questions rhetorical, I get the points being made here by you and others.

shakran · 10-21-2008, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Sorry, I did not support the bail out plan. I think we should let some of the failing institutions fail. Then on the other hand I think the government is actually investing in assets that have value and assets that can actually generate a positive return on investment. This is different than "spreading the wealth around".

Yes. "Spreading the wealth around" removes the 99% of the money in the hands of 1% of the population concentration that, historically, has always led to the downfall of civilizations. Considering that a great deal of that wealth was sucked out of the rest of the country through tax loopholes and shady business practices, I have no problem with it.

Quote:

I am guessing your beliefs are different than mine but your lifestyle and amount of "pollutants" you create are about the same as me.

Without knowing how many pollutants you create, I can't know. I will say that none of my cars gets less than 29mpg, and my home's electricity is supplemented with solar. I'd have wind, too, but the dumbshit neighbors won't sign off on it because they think a wind turbine will give them cancer. Literally.

Quote:

I expect adults to understand the consequences of their actions. What are the costs of Obama's environmental plans? You don't know do you? Do you think Obama knows? Do you think he will tell us?

The economic costs are that factories and power plants and other CO2 emitters will have to reduce their emissions (by 2050, I might add - it's not like they'll be stymied by February). This means they'll have to find new and, yes, probably expensive (at first) solutions to keep doing what they want to do, without destroying the environment.

The same hysterical "oh my god it'll ruin EVERYTHING" crap happened when the government mandated a switch from tetra ethyl lead-infused gasoline and.. . hey, look, we're still here, and not spewing millions of tons of neurotoxins into the air from our tailpipes every year.

Quote:

Our environment is not "fucked up". Our environment is cleaner today than it was 40 years ago. How do you define "fucked up"?

Global. Warming.

Quote:

Irreversible? I wonder if the scientist you did that study put into perspective the entire history of this planet? We are nowhere near the climate extremes this planet has existed through.

And during those climate extremes, humans weren't around. And if they had been, they'd have been killed off. I have no fear or doubt that the earth can survive without us, but the reverse is not true.

Willravel · 10-21-2008, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

I'd have wind, too, but the dumbshit neighbors won't sign off on it because they think a wind turbine will give them cancer. Literally.

Like... cancer cancer? Is it an EM thing (like the wifi people), or do they think they attract space aliens or something?

shakran · 10-21-2008, 08:24 AM

They're unable to explain the science behind it, probably because there is none, but they seem to think something about the spinning blades generates cancer waves or something. Hope none of them have a ceiling fan

Bear Cub · 10-21-2008, 09:16 AM

I'm not going to go into great detail in this, because I'm not going to get all worked up about it. I work in construction engineering for a company that gets contracted to do a lot of fossil power work, and is the forerunner for the upcoming nuclear work.

A LOT of fossil jobs are in the planning/procurement stages. CO2 emissions restrictions, should they make these plants not feasible, will cost energy companies MILLIONS.

If restrictions are added to plants currently under construction, it will cost energy companies BILLIONS.

Retrofitting existing plants with scrubbers will cost MILLIONS. If scrubbers are not enough to meet requirements and major redesigns are required, it will cost these companies BILLIONS.

Anything nuclear in the United States has already cost these companies billions in planning.

I can assure you that these costs will carry over directly to the consumer. People can throw hissy fits about clean coal all they want. The US is only a TINY fraction of the world's power plant operations. Europe, China, and oodles and oodles of nations don't have ANY reserve about clean coal plant construction, or nuclear. Hell, we've got 4 nuke jobs in China right now alone.

So if the US wants to get their panties in a bunch, that's fine. They can blow billions and billions of dollars developing inefficient alternatives, while the rest of the world uses the technology thats in place to keep on "destroying our planet" at significantly cheaper costs, and at a steadily increasing rate. My job's not going anywhere either way.

Tully Mars · 10-21-2008, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Cub

So if the US wants to get their panties in a bunch, that's fine. They can blow billions and billions of dollars developing inefficient alternatives, while the rest of the world uses the technology thats in place to keep on "destroying our planet" at significantly cheaper costs, and at a steadily increasing rate. My job's not going anywhere either way.

And we know these alternatives being developed will be inefficient why?

The tech world is changing and evolving almost daily. 40 years ago the PC wasn't even a concept. 100 years ago the internal combustion engine was crude at best and the automobile was rare. I remember talking to my grand mother one day while watching a space shuttle launch. She was telling me how crazy it was that when she was a child everyone was using horses and cows to get around now they're sending people (she found it amazing there were women on the shuttle as well) to space on a regular basis.

smooth · 10-21-2008, 09:38 AM

I'm not sure what Bear Cub is on about, because I thought this move was to bring us more in line with what those other countries were already doing in respect to emissions. I understand most of his post, it's the last part where he concludes the US position is to not use coal or nuclear power...I don't think that's the case, anyway.

aceventura3 · 10-21-2008, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

I'm not sure what Bear Cub is on about... .

He is about pointing out information not commonly known.

It is about understanding the consequences. I think we should be asking questions to get a better understanding. Summarily dismissing those who ask the questions is a problem, in addition to the problem that not too many people are even willing to ask the questions that need to be asked.

dc_dux · 10-21-2008, 09:55 AM

The fact is that both candidates are on record for significantly reducing CO2 emissions...Obama has a goal of 80% of 1990 emissions by 2050, McCain's goal is 60% of 1990 standards by 2050.

And they both want to do it in a manner that is economically sustainable. The biggest difference is that McCain is now backing away from his own goals and his own climate change legislation w/Lieberman (Obama supports a different bill).

No one is ignoring economic impacts, but to suggest that tough enforceable regulatory standards over time would be catastrophic to the economy, an economic doomsday, is just the reverse scare tactic of the other extreme.

Tully Mars · 10-21-2008, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

I'm not sure what Bear Cub is on about, because I thought this move was to bring us more in line with what those other countries were already doing in respect to emissions. I understand most of his post, it's the last part where he concludes the US position is to not use coal or nuclear power...I don't think that's the case, anyway.

I'm lost. I've read both McCain's and Obama's energy plans. I have yet to hear anyone say let's stop doing this or that tomorrow. All I've heard is let's try to make what we're doing as clean as possible while we try to develop alternatives. The US has historically been on par or above any other country when it comes to developing new technologies. If we can develop a clean renewable energy source wouldn't that benefit us not only ecologically but financially as well? I think we should be putting as much resources as possible into developing an alternative to the internal combustion engine. Hell spend 10% of what we're currently spending on the military and put that into an "X" type challenge to develop a new source of energy. If we could free ourselves off foreign oil we would be more secure and wouldn't need a huge military, IMO.

aceventura3 · 10-21-2008, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

The fact is that both candidates are on record for significantly reducing CO2 emissions...Obama has a goal of 80% of 1990 emissions by 2050, McCain's goal is 60% of 1990 standards by 2050.

Based on the assumption that Obama will win and will have a Democratic Congress, how is he going to achieve the goal?

Is the question off limits?

Quote:

No one is ignoring economic impacts, but to suggest that tough enforceable regulatory standards over time would be catastrophic to the economy, an economic doomsday, is just the reverse scare tactic of the other extreme.

Who used words like "catastrophic", "economic doomsday"? I did not. I simply ask questions. I don't know enough about Obama's plan to draw the conclusions you suggest. Do you?
-----Added 21/10/2008 at 02 : 12 : 05-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

I'm lost. I've read both McCain's and Obama's energy plans. I have yet to hear anyone say let's stop doing this or that tomorrow. All I've heard is let's try to make what we're doing as clean as possible while we try to develop alternatives. The US has historically been on par or above any other country when it comes to developing new technologies. If we can develop a clean renewable energy source wouldn't that benefit us not only ecologically but financially as well? I think we should be putting as much resources as possible into developing an alternative to the internal combustion engine. Hell spend 10% of what we're currently spending on the military and put that into an "X" type challenge to develop a new source of energy. If we could free ourselves off foreign oil we would be more secure and wouldn't need a huge military, IMO.

One difference is in the OP. Whatever the guy is to Obama, he said Obama would put CO2 on the dangerous polutant list. What are the consequences of such an action going to be? Why do it before Congress addresses the issue in a comprehensive manner? Aren't these fair questions?

Tully Mars · 10-21-2008, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

One difference is in the OP. Whatever the guy is to Obama, he said Obama would put CO2 on the dangerous polutant list. What are the consequences of such an action going to be? Why do it before Congress addresses the issue in a comprehensive manner? Aren't these fair questions?

I don't know exactly what connection Jason Grumet has with the Obama campaign. Does he speak for Obama?

Is that a fair question?

smooth · 10-21-2008, 12:50 PM

The immediate consequences to putting O2 on the pollutants' list is to allow the EPA to regulate emissions of it.
Indirect consequences are that operating costs of energy plants will increase.

I was expressing confusion over the point of Bear Cub's post because our country is lagging behind the rest of the industrialized world in addressing harmful emissions from power plants. I don't dispute that stricter regulations will cost us millions or billions of dollars and those costs will likely be passed to consumers, the only thing I can say with certainty is that in the future, upgrading power plants will cost even more money than doing it now.

I've been fighting with my car and California's smog laws for the past couple months because something is not working in my emission's system. I remember when aerosol cans were a topic of debate due to ozone damaging chemicals. Did the EPA have anything to do with moving away from leaded gasoline, leaded paints, and other harmful chemicals used in production?

I place a high premium on my health. I pay a lot more than average for food and water I feel is healthy, I don't game the emissions standards in order to maintain the health of the air I breath. Maybe I'm just weird, but when we have the ability to clean our emissions I think it's best to utilize them.

Decades ago the water treatment plants were promised grants to upgrade their facilities to tertiary systems. One plant that my uncle was the manager of did not upgrade after successfully fighting the mandate. Now the grant money is gone, political winds have shifted, and they had to upgrade anyway at many times the cost they would have spent years ago...and it came straight out of the local community's pocket because the grant money was gone.

The domestic auto industry has fought regulations on higher MPGs and cleaner emissions for a very long time. Now that public opinion has swayed, our domestic auto makers are suffering major buyer backlash compared to foreign imports who wisely invested in the technology to make their vehicles more appealing to consumers. Between budget and environmental concerns, numbers are dwindling who want to buy from our Big Three.

This argument of cost effectiveness by ignoring emissions standards just doesn't seem to pan out when looking across industries.

Bear Cub · 10-21-2008, 03:35 PM

smooth: Sure, foreign automakers are pushing efficient vehicles. But that's not an apples to apples comparison here. What would you think if the government said "your cars all put out emissions that are too high by our new standards, even though they met the standards established when they were built. It is not the automaker's responsibility to recall and retrofit all of these old vehicles with new technology at their own cost." That's a pretty damn huge cost to the automakers, and you can bet the R&D guys developing the concept cars are going to be the first ones getting laid off.

While other countries may be "ahead of us" in green efforts, the fact is that the populated areas come back to using "dirty" American technology. That is why the Fluors, Bechtels, Shaws, and Foster Wheelers of the world are building coal, nuke, and natural gas plants overseas while its going out of style (and nuclear is an incredibly clean, safe power supply, so don't even get me started on the nuclear waste bullshit).

Tully: there is more to efficiency than factoring in the output of solar and wind energy. We're not talking generation efficiency, we're talking efficiency of the entire process. We're sitting on enough dirt cheap coal to last us decades and decades into the future. We've had unparalleled nuclear technology available to us for years that we haven't used in 30 years because the power plants of the 70's left a bad taste in our mouth. We have the technology to build these plants NOW, the companies have the money to build these plants NOW, and we need something that will meet our growing energy needs NOW.

EPC companies are also the ones that build these alternative-energy prototype plants. Just about anything that has been thought of has been tried at least once overseas. Energy companies stateside haven't jumped on-board, because nothing has shown enough promise to meet output needs based on the kind of money they have to spend, and in the time-frame they need to have it up and running by, in order to meet current growth requirements.

By capping CO2 emissions, energy and EPC companies are going to put their time and resources towards retrofitting existing plants and updating current design requirements. This is going to take millions of dollars per power station, and based on the time it takes to currently do a scrubber job, 4-6 years a piece. If this doesn't come from our federal tax dollars, its going to come at cost to consumers of your favorite energy provider.

Wouldn't you rather just leave current emissions requirements in place which are SIGNIFICANTLY improved over the previous generation plants, and put those resources towards alternative energy projects?

The fact is, you're going to spend a few years getting the legislation to go through, a few years of planning, and 4-6 years of construction. Figure 10 years before these plants get their retrofits from concept to project turnover. That's 10 years worth of time and money wasted by energy companies that they would have been more apt to put towards alternative energy.

If politicians lead people to believe that it's just a gradual process to have these plants cut back emissions by 2050, then they're full of shit, and the energy companies know it. If legislation doesn't establish a hard deadline for the immediate future on something like this, energy companies will let the plants operate at full scale, ride it out until repairs to the boilers and boiler piping cost more than they're worth, and decommission the plant before 2050 rolls around anyways (average lifespan of a power plant is 30-40 years).

OK, I'm officially done with this discussion before my blood pressure goes too high. I'm not going and digging up hard sources on this either. I build these plants, I talk with clients, I see what comes in for bid and what doesn't, I see where the money for technology is being invested. Major energy companies aren't high and mighty on alternative energy right now, and if they're forced to sink their money updating past/current facilities just for CO2 emissions, they'll all but drop alternative energy projects for quite some time. They've already diverted a ton of resources just to meet the sulfur dioxide, mercury, and NOx emissions requirements.

I'd just like to reiterate that I could care less how this pans out. I get paid to build these plants regardless of what their generation source is. But it irritates me to no end when politicians and Greenpeace nuts think that their immediate interests trump the natural progression of engineering.

Tully Mars · 10-21-2008, 04:00 PM

I'm not that opposed to nuke energy, though I'd like to do that with as clean and safe as possible.

And no I "wouldn't you rather just leave current emissions requirements in place." I'd like to constantly be trying to make improvements on what we're doing.

As far as-

Quote:

and we need something that will meet our growing energy needs NOW.

Perhaps instead of focusing all our energy on meeting our growing "NEEDS" maybe we should start focusing at least part of our energy on reducing our "NEEDS." We consume a shit load of the worlds energy supply. Everyone has to drive every where. There are entire regions of our country that have no mass transit system in place. The amount of wasted power is obscene. I'm not suggesting we can reduce enough waste to solve what is an obvious problem. I think there can be a balanced approach and I believe conservation is a key in that balance.

filtherton · 10-21-2008, 04:43 PM

I know of at least one power generation company that can read the writing on the wall. They're investing in wind, and they've already converted one coal plant to natural gas, with another on the way. Not everyone in the power industry is clinging so dramatically to coal. Even then, there are other ways to reduce CO2 production, including consumer side efficiency incentives and new grid technology.

Even if the costs of recommissioning plants are in the hundreds of millions, and that cost is passed directly on to customers, that isn't necessarily a lot of money when spread out over several years and over the customer base of the average energy provider.

ASU2003 · 10-21-2008, 08:32 PM

I would be fine with him doing that. I already pay a little extra for alternative power. It isn't going to break the bank to pay $3-$10 more a month.

And we will have cleaner air and it will give lots of people jobs constructing these new power generators and researching about how to make them better,

Don't be afraid to change.

10-20-2008, 01:21 PM	#4 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	As I understand it, Obama has indicated that he would likely enforce the CO2 emission standards for power plants that are in the Clean Air Act, particularly since many states have sued the federal government for not enforcing the standards. The Supreme Court took the Bush administration to task for its run around of the Clean Air Act in a ruling last year. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

10-20-2008, 01:36 PM	#12 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	BTW, Jason Grumet is the staff director of the National Comission on Energy Policy, a work group within the Bipartisan Policy Center. The work group is tasked with proposing moderate and achievable policy solutions to energy/enivornment issues. I dont think he is a policy advisor to Obama. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

10-20-2008, 06:46 PM	#20 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	if you want to know what Obama is proposing to do about our energy needs, what he said during the debates was that he intends to fund research for and retooling factories to produce energy efficient engines, hydrothermal energy, wind energy, and solar panels. so assuming the rest of the world wants to buy those types of things, and outlook is positive they will, we should be able to reduce our oil consumption, keep the middle of the country employed, and sustain our economy for a good long while. he stated for the next century, and that seems about right to me. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

10-21-2008, 09:16 AM	#27 (permalink)
Bear Cub The Reverend Side Boob Location: Nofe Curolina	I'm not going to go into great detail in this, because I'm not going to get all worked up about it. I work in construction engineering for a company that gets contracted to do a lot of fossil power work, and is the forerunner for the upcoming nuclear work. A LOT of fossil jobs are in the planning/procurement stages. CO2 emissions restrictions, should they make these plants not feasible, will cost energy companies MILLIONS. If restrictions are added to plants currently under construction, it will cost energy companies BILLIONS. Retrofitting existing plants with scrubbers will cost MILLIONS. If scrubbers are not enough to meet requirements and major redesigns are required, it will cost these companies BILLIONS. Anything nuclear in the United States has already cost these companies billions in planning. I can assure you that these costs will carry over directly to the consumer. People can throw hissy fits about clean coal all they want. The US is only a TINY fraction of the world's power plant operations. Europe, China, and oodles and oodles of nations don't have ANY reserve about clean coal plant construction, or nuclear. Hell, we've got 4 nuke jobs in China right now alone. So if the US wants to get their panties in a bunch, that's fine. They can blow billions and billions of dollars developing inefficient alternatives, while the rest of the world uses the technology thats in place to keep on "destroying our planet" at significantly cheaper costs, and at a steadily increasing rate. My job's not going anywhere either way. __________________ Living in the United Socialist States of America.

10-21-2008, 09:38 AM	#29 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	I'm not sure what Bear Cub is on about, because I thought this move was to bring us more in line with what those other countries were already doing in respect to emissions. I understand most of his post, it's the last part where he concludes the US position is to not use coal or nuclear power...I don't think that's the case, anyway. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

10-20-2008, 01:15 PM	#2 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	there is always cost to stopping pollution. there was a big cost when the government said you can't billow black smoke into the air 24/7 and the economy survived

10-20-2008, 01:44 PM	#16 (permalink)
Frosstbyte Winter is Coming Location: The North	Honestly, we should have spent the $500B we just threw at a bunk of corrupt, incompetent bankers on converting the entire country to alternate energy sources. What a great concept that would have been. Oh right, we were too busy throwing it at pigs with lipstick. My generally libertarian leanings aside, gotta go with will on this one. Climate change isn't an economic issue and the amount of pollution we're using (and the associated resources we're burning doing it) has got to be dealt with sooner rather than later. I think it'd be sheer folly to ignore it for another 4 or 8 years like we have been. Going cold turkey on the whole affair might be a little more dramatic than necessary, but I'd rather he start bold and come back to reasonable than start reasonable and back down to ineffective.

10-21-2008, 08:24 AM	#26 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	They're unable to explain the science behind it, probably because there is none, but they seem to think something about the spinning blades generates cancer waves or something. Hope none of them have a ceiling fan

10-21-2008, 09:55 AM	#31 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	The fact is that both candidates are on record for significantly reducing CO2 emissions...Obama has a goal of 80% of 1990 emissions by 2050, McCain's goal is 60% of 1990 standards by 2050. And they both want to do it in a manner that is economically sustainable. The biggest difference is that McCain is now backing away from his own goals and his own climate change legislation w/Lieberman (Obama supports a different bill). No one is ignoring economic impacts, but to suggest that tough enforceable regulatory standards over time would be catastrophic to the economy, an economic doomsday, is just the reverse scare tactic of the other extreme. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-21-2008 at 09:58 AM..

10-21-2008, 12:50 PM	#35 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	The immediate consequences to putting O2 on the pollutants' list is to allow the EPA to regulate emissions of it. Indirect consequences are that operating costs of energy plants will increase. I was expressing confusion over the point of Bear Cub's post because our country is lagging behind the rest of the industrialized world in addressing harmful emissions from power plants. I don't dispute that stricter regulations will cost us millions or billions of dollars and those costs will likely be passed to consumers, the only thing I can say with certainty is that in the future, upgrading power plants will cost even more money than doing it now. I've been fighting with my car and California's smog laws for the past couple months because something is not working in my emission's system. I remember when aerosol cans were a topic of debate due to ozone damaging chemicals. Did the EPA have anything to do with moving away from leaded gasoline, leaded paints, and other harmful chemicals used in production? I place a high premium on my health. I pay a lot more than average for food and water I feel is healthy, I don't game the emissions standards in order to maintain the health of the air I breath. Maybe I'm just weird, but when we have the ability to clean our emissions I think it's best to utilize them. Decades ago the water treatment plants were promised grants to upgrade their facilities to tertiary systems. One plant that my uncle was the manager of did not upgrade after successfully fighting the mandate. Now the grant money is gone, political winds have shifted, and they had to upgrade anyway at many times the cost they would have spent years ago...and it came straight out of the local community's pocket because the grant money was gone. The domestic auto industry has fought regulations on higher MPGs and cleaner emissions for a very long time. Now that public opinion has swayed, our domestic auto makers are suffering major buyer backlash compared to foreign imports who wisely invested in the technology to make their vehicles more appealing to consumers. Between budget and environmental concerns, numbers are dwindling who want to buy from our Big Three. This argument of cost effectiveness by ignoring emissions standards just doesn't seem to pan out when looking across industries. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

10-21-2008, 03:35 PM	#36 (permalink)
Bear Cub The Reverend Side Boob Location: Nofe Curolina	smooth: Sure, foreign automakers are pushing efficient vehicles. But that's not an apples to apples comparison here. What would you think if the government said "your cars all put out emissions that are too high by our new standards, even though they met the standards established when they were built. It is not the automaker's responsibility to recall and retrofit all of these old vehicles with new technology at their own cost." That's a pretty damn huge cost to the automakers, and you can bet the R&D guys developing the concept cars are going to be the first ones getting laid off. While other countries may be "ahead of us" in green efforts, the fact is that the populated areas come back to using "dirty" American technology. That is why the Fluors, Bechtels, Shaws, and Foster Wheelers of the world are building coal, nuke, and natural gas plants overseas while its going out of style (and nuclear is an incredibly clean, safe power supply, so don't even get me started on the nuclear waste bullshit). Tully: there is more to efficiency than factoring in the output of solar and wind energy. We're not talking generation efficiency, we're talking efficiency of the entire process. We're sitting on enough dirt cheap coal to last us decades and decades into the future. We've had unparalleled nuclear technology available to us for years that we haven't used in 30 years because the power plants of the 70's left a bad taste in our mouth. We have the technology to build these plants NOW, the companies have the money to build these plants NOW, and we need something that will meet our growing energy needs NOW. EPC companies are also the ones that build these alternative-energy prototype plants. Just about anything that has been thought of has been tried at least once overseas. Energy companies stateside haven't jumped on-board, because nothing has shown enough promise to meet output needs based on the kind of money they have to spend, and in the time-frame they need to have it up and running by, in order to meet current growth requirements. By capping CO2 emissions, energy and EPC companies are going to put their time and resources towards retrofitting existing plants and updating current design requirements. This is going to take millions of dollars per power station, and based on the time it takes to currently do a scrubber job, 4-6 years a piece. If this doesn't come from our federal tax dollars, its going to come at cost to consumers of your favorite energy provider. Wouldn't you rather just leave current emissions requirements in place which are SIGNIFICANTLY improved over the previous generation plants, and put those resources towards alternative energy projects? The fact is, you're going to spend a few years getting the legislation to go through, a few years of planning, and 4-6 years of construction. Figure 10 years before these plants get their retrofits from concept to project turnover. That's 10 years worth of time and money wasted by energy companies that they would have been more apt to put towards alternative energy. If politicians lead people to believe that it's just a gradual process to have these plants cut back emissions by 2050, then they're full of shit, and the energy companies know it. If legislation doesn't establish a hard deadline for the immediate future on something like this, energy companies will let the plants operate at full scale, ride it out until repairs to the boilers and boiler piping cost more than they're worth, and decommission the plant before 2050 rolls around anyways (average lifespan of a power plant is 30-40 years). OK, I'm officially done with this discussion before my blood pressure goes too high. I'm not going and digging up hard sources on this either. I build these plants, I talk with clients, I see what comes in for bid and what doesn't, I see where the money for technology is being invested. Major energy companies aren't high and mighty on alternative energy right now, and if they're forced to sink their money updating past/current facilities just for CO2 emissions, they'll all but drop alternative energy projects for quite some time. They've already diverted a ton of resources just to meet the sulfur dioxide, mercury, and NOx emissions requirements. I'd just like to reiterate that I could care less how this pans out. I get paid to build these plants regardless of what their generation source is. But it irritates me to no end when politicians and Greenpeace nuts think that their immediate interests trump the natural progression of engineering. __________________ Living in the United Socialist States of America.

10-21-2008, 04:43 PM	#38 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I know of at least one power generation company that can read the writing on the wall. They're investing in wind, and they've already converted one coal plant to natural gas, with another on the way. Not everyone in the power industry is clinging so dramatically to coal. Even then, there are other ways to reduce CO2 production, including consumer side efficiency incentives and new grid technology. Even if the costs of recommissioning plants are in the hundreds of millions, and that cost is passed directly on to customers, that isn't necessarily a lot of money when spread out over several years and over the customer base of the average energy provider.

10-21-2008, 08:32 PM	#39 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	I would be fine with him doing that. I already pay a little extra for alternative power. It isn't going to break the bank to pay $3-$10 more a month. And we will have cleaner air and it will give lots of people jobs constructing these new power generators and researching about how to make them better, Don't be afraid to change.