Obama to regulate carbon from power plants

Dec 23, 2010
Heavy smoke billows from the chimney at a paper plant. US President Barack Obama's administration said Thursday it will regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, after legislation on climate change died in Congress.

US President Barack Obama's administration said Thursday it will regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, after legislation on climate change died in Congress.

The (EPA) said it would regulate fossil fuel and petroleum refineries -- which together emit nearly 40 percent of US greenhouse gases -- starting in 2012.

"We are following through on our commitment to proceed in a measured and careful way to reduce greenhouse gas pollution that threatens the health and welfare of Americans and contributes to ," EPA chief Lisa Jackson said in a statement.

"These standards will help American companies attract private investment to the clean energy upgrades that make our companies more competitive and create good jobs here at home," she said.

The initiative is likely to set up a clash with lawmakers of the rival Republican Party, who will assume control of the House of Representatives next month.

The upcoming rules could also set up a battle between the federal government and oil-producing Texas, which emits far more greenhouse gases than any other state and has adamantly opposed restrictions from Washington.

The last House of Representatives, whose session ended Wednesday, approved the first nationwide US plan to restrict . But the bill died in the Senate, where Republicans argued it would be too costly.

The EPA did not immediately set a standard, saying it would propose figures in 2011 and finalize them in 2012 after a period of public comment.

The agency said it supported a "modest pace" and "flexibility" in the new standards and would let companies and states find their own ways to meet them.

Obama last year said the United States would curb emissions by 17 percent by 2020 compared with 2005 levels -- a goal presented at UN-led talks on a new climate treaty.

The goal is modest compared to the actions of other developed economies, particularly the European Union.

Most scientists say the world is far off track at meeting a goal -- codified at a UN climate conference in Mexico this month -- of keeping temperatures from rising more than two degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels.

Explore further: Food shortages could be most critical world issue by mid-century

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

EPA finds greenhouse gases pose a danger to health

Apr 17, 2009

(AP) -- The Environmental Protection Agency concluded Friday that greenhouse gases linked to climate change "endanger public health and welfare," setting the stage for regulating them under federal clean air laws.

EPA moves to regulate smokestack greenhouse gases

Oct 01, 2009

(AP) -- Proposed regulations would require power plants, factories and refineries to reduce greenhouse gases by installing the best available technology and improving energy efficiency whenever a facility ...

EPA says greenhouse gases endanger human health

Dec 07, 2009

(AP) -- The Environmental Protection Agency took a major step Monday toward regulating greenhouses gases, concluding that climate changing pollution threatens the public health and the environment.

Obama drops plan to limit global warming gases

Nov 04, 2010

(AP) -- Environmental groups and industry seem headed for another battle over regulation of greenhouse gases, as President Barack Obama said he will look for ways to control global warming pollution other ...

Obama's greenhouse gas rules survive Senate vote

Jun 11, 2010

(AP) -- In a boost for the president on global warming, the Senate on Thursday rejected a challenge to Obama administration rules aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and other big ...

Recommended for you

More, bigger wildfires burning western US, study shows

14 hours ago

Wildfires across the western United States have been getting bigger and more frequent over the last 30 years – a trend that could continue as climate change causes temperatures to rise and drought to become ...

User comments : 81

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Quantum_Conundrum
2.5 / 5 (22) Dec 23, 2010
I wonder how many people would be put out of work, and how many businesses totally destroyed, if they actually do manage to pass a carbon tax.

Every truck company and every business that relies on them would go broke in a matter of months.

From what I last understood about the carbon tax legislation, every ton of carbon was supposed to be taxed $30, which would have increased the price of coal by at least 50%, and would amount to about another 10.5 cents per gallon of deisel or gasoline.

This would make everyone's electricity bill go up by about 50%, not to mention the cost of their commute to work going up.

I guess half the people in the country would just have to disconnect electricity, and sell their cars and walk to work.
Skepticus_Rex
2.4 / 5 (22) Dec 23, 2010
Way to go! Tank the economy further while we are at it...

Seriously, though, a few years will not make that much of a difference as we gradually phase in other energy sources. And, if we cut emissions completely we can be out of danger--if a danger there is--by halving atmospheric CO2 in about 15 years and go back to preindustrial levels in just over 30.

Hype aside, we absolutely have time without outright killing the economy and further collapsing the job market. The IPCC has proven wrong on several of the issues they once hyped-up as grounds for radical changes in the short term (such as the glacier claim being off by over 300 years, and so forth).
Ratfish
2.8 / 5 (16) Dec 23, 2010
I don't buy into any of the breathless global warming scare tactics, but a nice side-effect of this sort of thing is a reduction in air pollution, which we all must accept is a problem nearly everywhere.
alec123456789
2.4 / 5 (14) Dec 23, 2010
I'll pass on the climate-change-doubt bait...
The economy need not be wrecked by carbon emission regulations, and won't be. Laws that would suddenly crush the economy would, realisticly, never be passed. There is no need for hopeless, resentful hyperbole.

If companies are given fair warning ahead of time they can adjust their business such as to be minimally effected.

If I was tasked with laying down the long term "carbon austerity" plan, I would do it be establishing a progressive schedule based on maximum grams-fossil-carbon/kwh. It would start in 5 years at the current capabilities of modern coal power plants and decease to some tiny number over the next three decades. That way companies will be able to look ahead and see exactly when they will have to improve efficiency, begin mixing biomass into the fuel mix and in what quantities, and, ultimately, when their power plant's technology will no longer be viable. Some fossil fuels will be driven out of business before others.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.7 / 5 (13) Dec 23, 2010
alec123456789:

Do you realize that at the moment there really is no alternative in place, at all?

The liberals don't want nuclear, so that's off the table.

Then that leaves wind and solar.

There's just one problem, I once calculated that with existing manufacturing technologies, it would take around 50 trillion dollars to convert all of the fossil fuels consumption to solar power. Then much of this needs to be reinvested back to maintenance, repair, and replace solar every 25 to 30 years, or roughly 2 trillion per year every year indefinitely.

At this rate, the only way mass producing solar power is going to become viable is through self-replicating nano-assemblers.
alec123456789
3.6 / 5 (10) Dec 23, 2010
QC, no one is suggesting it's going to be cheap.

Currently, we generate about half of our electricity from coal and oil. Only half. Dropping them is viable.

Support for nuclear is growing (or maybe I should say opposition is shrinking). Even Obama is pushing for another generation of nuclear plants. Solar is becoming cheaper every day. There are a whole host of other technologies nearing maturity. And if it comes to it, we can go ape shit with natural gas (still emits CO2, but not nearly as much).

The point of my proposal is that I acknowledge that it will take decades. It can't happen in 10 years; it won't happen in 10 years. But this problem NEEDS to be addressed sometime. I'm suggesting a system to discourage reinvestment in coal and oil so that money will flow in other directions.

They'll figure it out. The "current numbers" about alternatives are irrelevant.
toddao
2.8 / 5 (18) Dec 23, 2010
the only thing that really needs to be addressed is the fact that the CO2 based global warming scare is a total outright scam
Skepticus_Rex
2.1 / 5 (15) Dec 23, 2010
True, specific injurious laws might not be passed. But, that is why Obama has sworn to use the EPA to do his bidding so far as emissions control is concerned. The EPA virtually can do anything they want so long as they are given the leeway to do it. Guaranteed, Obama will grant considerable leeway unless the new Congress specifically addressed the EPA.
ormondotvos
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2010
This progressive thinks modular throium and uranium nuclear is the ONLY viable way to decrease co2, by replacing old coal generators as fast as they can be built. Aboout the time they wear out, we can have enough solar and wind and hydro.

Ostrich thinking will give dodo results.
Skepticus_Rex
3.1 / 5 (11) Dec 23, 2010
In my personal opinion, nuclear is the best option we have. With current and emerging technologies there it will become more efficient and safer with less waste.

Solar technology at present will not be sustainable. Not only that, it is more dangerous and potentially more damaging to the planet over the long term.

Various gases used in their production have many thousands of times the radiative forcing of CO2, and the gases have been leaking into the atmosphere since 1978. In addition, another phase of their production uses some of the most toxic substances known to man. Even small amounts of these are severely toxic to wildlife and humans alike should they make their way into the environment.

And this is to say nothing about the bird-whackers with which the environmentally over-conscious want to fill the landscape and the fact that windmill farms are dependent upon fossil fuel backup generators to make them commercially viable.

Nuclear is the best option under current tech.
alec123456789
4.3 / 5 (3) Dec 23, 2010
...nuclear is the best option we have.


I enthusiasticly agree.
Justsayin
2.5 / 5 (11) Dec 23, 2010
Wow, another end run around the public. If they can't legislate it then go through the EPA. They refuse to solve these problems with public support, instead just cram it down their throats the back door way. I agree with some comments earlier about Nuclear/Thorium reactors to replace coal fired power plants. Why won't the politicians sport common sense like that to solve problems instead of telling us what is best for us and treating us like children.
lexington
3.7 / 5 (12) Dec 23, 2010
Why won't the politicians sport common sense like that to solve problems instead of telling us what is best for us and treating us like children.


Because the public is full of incredibly stupid, childish people and because most of them don't vote anyway (especially the ones that go online and rant about politics).
ekim
3.3 / 5 (9) Dec 24, 2010
Do you realize that at the moment there really is no alternative in place, at all?

http://www.scient...-dioxide
This solution would promote jobs and growth.
Skepticus_Rex
2.3 / 5 (8) Dec 24, 2010
Ummm, I perceive that there is a serious problem. Ca and Mg are among the most important elements that make the pH in the ocean alkaline. Remove the Ca and the Mg and you end up removing the very substances from the ocean that help raise the pH in the ocean over time, as well as removing them from the water in areas whence the corals draw them for their skeletal structures.

Aren't people trying to prevent or reverse further perceived ocean acidification and trying to avoid harming corals and other sea life? So, we remove CO2 from the air but we also remove the very chemicals that make the ocean alkaline and help to buffer acidification in the process?

It might promote jobs and growth but at the expense of what else? Someone was not thinking of the long term. This is like those who wanted to geoengineer the ocean with iron-based chemicals to increase plankton blooms to remove CO2. Like that thinking, it could end up being a very, very bad idea in the long term.
tpb
3.8 / 5 (5) Dec 24, 2010
"The goal is modest compared to the actions of other developed economies, particularly the European Union."
Nonsense, the European Union may have loftier goals, but as far as actions go, it hasn't met any stated goals either and never will.
apex01
2.3 / 5 (9) Dec 24, 2010
Awesome, the regime can't control us through Cap and Tax legislation/demcocracy and so they will resort to tyrannical dictation through the EPA. Just awesome...
GSwift7
4.2 / 5 (6) Dec 24, 2010
@ alec:

Do you realize that the law is already passed? You can go read all about the plan here:

http://www.eenews...w_03.pdf

Phase 1 goes live on January 2nd, and only effects people who already have to report on Clean Air Act standards. Phase 2 goes live on July 1st, and adds a bunch more people to the list.

It's only a +500 page document. I've read a good chunk of it. Before you get carried away with nonsense comments about whether this is a good thing or not, you should at least take a look at the Rules.

I am currently laughing my ass off, after reading section V, titled "What are the economic impacts of the final rule?" (p446).

I may comment more after I do a bit more reading, unless I die laughing first. Feel free to offer comments if you actually know anything about what you're talking about.

Thanks.
lengould100
5 / 5 (7) Dec 24, 2010
and would amount to about another 10.5 cents per gallon of deisel or gasoline.

Unbelievable. THAT would destroy the US economy?? Somebody's fibbing. In Canada, gasoline is at $1.14 / litre ( = $4.00 / gal ) and the economy hums along better than the US.

BTW, the picture of the "smoke" stack at a paper mill shows little if any pollution. What you see coming from the stack is the water evaporated from the pulp dryers and the paper machines. It is sent up the stack to control humidity at the dryers, and goes up at fairly low temperature so condenses to visible water droplets as soon as it contacts outdoor air.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (7) Dec 24, 2010
The liberals don't want nuclear, so that's off the table.
That would be why the liberal President is to sign executive orders loosening the NRC regulations and providing permits to an additional 4% infrastructure over the next 3 years.

4% may seem like a small amount, however, 4% infrastructure in nuclear is 15% energy production based on location. It's also predicted to reduce required coal infrastructure by 20% in the southern east coast.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 24, 2010
and would amount to about another 10.5 cents per gallon of deisel or gasoline.

Unbelievable. THAT would destroy the US economy??


If everyone's electric bill is 50% more, and it costs even more to transport and commute, then manufacturing costs are higher, storage of food is higher, etc, it's not just a linear effect. It's not just individual's electric bill, imagine if winn dixie an wal mart's bill was 50% higher, and the bill for the plastic company that makes all the plastic food containers would also be 50% higher. So a gallon of milk would end up costing you some ridiculous amount like 8 or 10 dollars by the time you compound increased price of the container, the milk, the energy to feed and house the cows, the energy to refrigerate it, the energy to pasteurize it, the energy to transport it, etc.

If they passed the absurd legislation they were talking about, it would have completely cripped almost every level of our economy.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 24, 2010
If everyone's electric bill is 50% more, and it costs even more to transport and commute, then manufacturing costs are higher, storage of food is higher, etc, it's not just a linear effect.
That won't happen at 10.5 cents a gallon. It is a linear effect, but it declines in potency the more legs of supply you add in response to small and perishable goods. Most are shipped at a fuel ration of 0.01%.

The goods that would be most drastically affected are physically large purchases, however, those are typically of an expense level that would result in at most a hiccup in prices to consumers.

Did you not just live through 5 years of the highest gas prices ever seen? Consumer goods actually got cheaper in order to encourage consumption.
GSwift7
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 24, 2010
The agency said it supported a "modest pace" and "flexibility" in the new standards


The only part that they are taking slowly is the part about who falls under the jurisdiction of this law. The actual fines and penalties don't change at all over time. They are the full maximum penalties under existing Clean Air Act laws, which can be +25,000 $/day/offense for a first offense, and +50,000 $/day/offense for second offense. Prison sentences of many years can also happen. And all that starts on day one of the new rules, January 2nd, if you are a company that meets the requirements. This also opens the door for civil suits by people like The Open Space Institute, Open Space Conservancy Inc., the Audubon Society and Greenpeace. (and a million other enviro-nuts).
Quantum_Conundrum
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 24, 2010
Did you not just live through 5 years of the highest gas prices ever seen? Consumer goods actually got cheaper in order to encourage consumption.


That's only on some products, and only because prices were previously marked up by hundreds of percents because the business owneers were rippig people off. Th en when people weren't buying anything they had to come off their rip off prices to try to sell something.

The price of making something didn't magically go down 100 or 200% just because "demand" went down.

That's why I'm for complete transparency of enteprise. I think companies should be required to publish their expenses in an itemized fashion for every stage of the production of their products, so they can no longer rob people by charging 5 or 10 times what something is worth.

Also, do you know how much fuel farmers and fisherman use? A LOT. It takes thousands of dollars a day to operate a SMALL commercial fishing boat, and half to two thirds is fuel costs.
GSwift7
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 24, 2010
P.S. The estimate of 10 cents per gallon is a complete "pull a number out of my ass" calculation. As with the estimate from the government of what it would cost companies to comply with the original Clean Air Act, the final figure was way more. Even the official EPA estimat of the cost of the CAA up to this day is flawed, since it doesn't include a lot of the actual costs like legal fees when the crazies sue companies over nonsense based on the CAA.

If you believe the numbers they are throwing at you, then you probably believed that Obamacare would lower your insurance bill.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (7) Dec 24, 2010
Also, do you know how much fuel farmers and fisherman use? A LOT. It takes thousands of dollars a day to operate a SMALL commercial fishing boat, and half to two thirds is fuel costs.
Yes, very true, but the majority of food stocks fishing can easily come from aquaculture at a far cheaper prices with a net benefit of creating a phosphorus sink to offset global phosphorus supplies running down.

Farm usage can come from our excess cornstocks in the form of bioethanol or we could utilize the typically wasted vegetable oil for VSO. lower efficiency but cheaper manufacture costs. Oil isn't necessary any longer beyond power generation and manufacture.

This reduces our military involvement in the Middle east as we no longer have to maintain stake in oil production. This generates jobs, another market for wealth generation, and domestic self reliance which will reduce the debt, and adjust trade to a net positive.
GSwift7
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 24, 2010
Here's a good example of how good the EPA is at accounting:

http://www.gao.go...5252.pdf

GSwift7
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 24, 2010
Here's a good summary of the legal battles already under way to block this move:

http://www.eenews...w_01.pdf

thermodynamics
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 24, 2010
What everyone seems to be ignoring is the use of carbon capture and storage (CCS). This technology is being demonstrated in Germany and Australia and will be demonstrated in Illinois over the next few years.

http://www.vatten...rage.htm

Anyone who thinks they are going to replace all of the coal fired power plant in existence over the next 30 years is out of their minds. However, the plants can be modified at a fraction of their cost and can capture and store all of the combustion products.

Nuclear makes sense but the plants can only be constructed safely in a relatively slow manner. CCS has the potential to be much faster and have a much smaller impact on the cost of electricity.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.4 / 5 (8) Dec 24, 2010
"Every truck company and every business that relies on them would go broke in a matter of months." - Chicken Little.

Ya. The economic sky would fall.

If AmeriTards ever had to pay the same amount for Gas as the Europeans do they would starve to death just as the Europeans do.

Oh wait....

Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (8) Dec 24, 2010
"What everyone seems to be ignoring is the use of carbon capture and storage (CCS)." - Flatch

And for good reason.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.1 / 5 (9) Dec 24, 2010
"Even the official EPA estimat of the cost of the CAA up to this day is flawed" - ConservaTard

The ConservaTard is right. Americans don't deserve clean air or clean water.

Americans deserve to eat and drink and breathe all of the dirt that the Corporate entities that run their nation say they should eat, drink and breathe.

Defund the EPA now.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.1 / 5 (9) Dec 24, 2010
"If everyone's electric bill is 50% more, and it costs even more to transport and commute, then manufacturing costs are higher, storage of food is higher, etc, it's not just a linear effect."

Can you prove it isn't?

Provide the equations please.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (8) Dec 24, 2010
"So a gallon of milk would end up costing you some ridiculous amount like 8 or 10 dollars by the time you compound increased price of the container, the milk, the energy to feed and house the cows, the energy to refrigerate it, the energy to pasteurize it, the energy to transport it, etc."

Why are you assuming a compounding when you don't have any equations that prove compounding?

And why isn't milk in Canada $8,00 a gallon when their gasoline taxes are higher?

You sound like a Chicken Little ConservaTard to me.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (8) Dec 24, 2010
"Awesome, the regime can't control us through Cap and Tax legislation/demcocracy and so they will resort to tyrannical dictation through the EPA" - ConservaTard

Since you refuse to act rationally by choice, you will now be compelled to act rationally by law.

Refuse and die.

I will happily provide all the rope the state needs to execute as many Conservative Vermin as may be needed.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (8) Dec 24, 2010
"I guess half the people in the country would just have to disconnect electricity, and sell their cars and walk to work." - ConservaTard

When a ConservaTard opens it's mouth, it never fails to impress the world with it's profound idiocy.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (8) Dec 24, 2010
"Nuclear is the best option under current tech." - Flopsie

Iran is doing it's best.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.1 / 5 (7) Dec 24, 2010
"The EPA virtually can do anything they want so long as they are given the leeway to do it." - TardBall

It is doubtful that the EPA could ever do anything that would significantly damage the environment since it is charged with protecting the environment and since it's actions are legally required to be driven by science rather than politics.

And that is why ConservaTards universally hate the EPA. Because it is a largely scientific body that is not easily corrupted by ConservaCrap.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 24, 2010
"I once calculated that with existing manufacturing technologies, it would take around 50 trillion dollars to convert all of the fossil fuels consumption to solar power" - Flatch Flapjack

Ya, and I've seen ConservaDopes estimate that all of the worlds population could "comfortably live in Texas".

Back in the early 80's before the Montreal protocol, Conervative Tards were estimating that the ban on CFC's would kill 2/3rd of the worlds population and cost 100 trillion dollars.

I have never encountered a Republican who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 24, 2010
"I don't buy into any of the breathless global warming scare tactics" - Worthless Sam

No one cares what a Worthless Republican Tard thinks.

You are all traitors, not only to your own nation, but also to mankind. Execution is the proper and final solution to the RepubliTard problem.

Skepticus_Rex
2.3 / 5 (8) Dec 25, 2010
However, the plants can be modified at a fraction of their cost and can capture and store all of the combustion products.


This, of course, will depend upon the amount of funds available for such retrofits in the face of the additional new taxation and fine system that will be imposed by the EPA. The various commissions will likely not allow increases to be passed on to comsumers right away so that money will be sucked directly out of the pockets of the companies for the time being. Depending upon how high these reach, there may not be funds enough available to retrofit the present systems.

We also could well face shortages when power companies elect to shut down entire generation systems in order either to avoid the new taxation and fine system or to recoup losses as a result of said EPA/Obama blunder. Time will tell for sure.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.6 / 5 (9) Dec 25, 2010
"We also could well face shortages when power companies elect to shut down entire generation systems in order either to avoid the new taxation and fine system or to recoup losses as a result of said EPA/Obama blunder" - American Retard

You have refused to act rationally by choice. Now you will be compelled to act rationally by force of law.

Your rights stop where my right to a sustainable biosphere begin, and I authorize government to use any reasonable means - including execution - to force compliance with the rational scientific imperatives.

Denialists need to take a collective dirt nap.
ekim
4.8 / 5 (6) Dec 25, 2010
Ummm, I perceive that there is a serious problem. Ca and Mg are among the most important elements that make the pH in the ocean alkaline. Remove the Ca and the Mg and you end up removing the very substances from the ocean that help raise the pH in the ocean over time, as well as removing them from the water in areas whence the corals draw them for their skeletal structures.

I don't think you understand how large the oceans are.
Skepticus_Rex
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 25, 2010
I don't think you understand how large the oceans are.


I understand perfectly how large the oceans are. Surely you are not one of those who think that we have little impact on these large bodies of water, are you?

In all seriousness, there are entire sections of ocean that have been affected negatively by mankind, including things like the pH of Puget Sound and the connected North Pacific region.

Mankind's chemical wastes and acids from the paper and logging industries have significantly impacted that region and that influence is spreading as the water currents circulate over time.

Any lowering of pH is not a good thing in such regions and removal of Ca and Mg from the sea will impact these areas further over time.

And, can you guess where such plants and retrofits will be located? You may or may not have guessed it. By the seashores where we already have impacted the pH and other factors with our chemical wastes is where they would be placed.
Skepticus_Rex
1.6 / 5 (8) Dec 25, 2010
"The EPA virtually can do anything they want so long as they are given the leeway to do it." - TardBall

It is doubtful that the EPA could ever do anything that would significantly damage the environment since it is charged with protecting the environment and since it's actions are legally required to be driven by science rather than politics.

And that is why ConservaTards universally hate the EPA. Because it is a largely scientific body that is not easily corrupted by ConservaCrap.


Proof that you cannot read... I never said anything about the environment being harmed by the EPA. See what being an uberliberal wiener has done to people like you so far as education goes?

Is that you in another sockpuppet, MikeyK?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.6 / 5 (7) Dec 25, 2010
"I never said anything about the environment being harmed by the EPA." - TardBall

In other words the EPA can't do anything it wants, contrary to your earlier claim that it could.

Are we to conclude that you seldom mean what you say?

ekim
3.8 / 5 (4) Dec 25, 2010
I understand perfectly how large the oceans are. Surely you are not one of those who think that we have little impact on these large bodies of water, are you?

Why would you assume we would be dumping something back in to the ocean? After removing the co2 and producing cement the water would be hot. Perfect for desalination. Also brine aquifers could be used.
Skepticus_Rex
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 25, 2010
Are we to conclude that you seldom mean what you say?


No, we can conclude that you tend to omit the context that determines the meaning of the words in question, which hampers your ability to read with comprehension. I strongly suggest that you sue the school whence you obtained your education. Someone needs to hold them accountable.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (6) Dec 25, 2010
I understand perfectly how large the oceans are. Surely you are not one of those who think that we have little impact on these large bodies of water, are you?

Why would you assume we would be dumping something back in to the ocean? After removing the co2 and producing cement the water would be hot. Perfect for desalination. Also brine aquifers could be used.


In other words, you are talking extra costs in infrastructure. That is assuming that none of it is put back into the ocean notwithstanding the authors of the text themselves stated that such was a likely scenario, seeing that they explicitly state that such would be safe to do.

Of course, removing the water and even not returning it to the ocean still affects the pH because the elements needed to buffer against acidification still will be removed from the waters. If this is done on the large-scale, it will hurt the environment and impact the seas additionally to that which is now believed to affect them.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 25, 2010
"No, we can conclude that you tend to omit the context that determines the meaning of the words in question" - Tard

Your Tard Claim was that the EPA can do anything it wants. When challenged you claimed to not have meant what you said.

It's hard to see how the phrase "the EPA can do pretty much whatever it wants" could mean anything other than what it says, no matter how much you whine about not having said it.

ekim
4.8 / 5 (4) Dec 25, 2010
In other words, you are talking extra costs in infrastructure.

Cement can be sold for money. That pays for infrastructure. The ocean is 300 million trillion gallons. It would take a lot to change the PH of 300 million trillion gallons.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2010
answers dot come gives it as 343 million trillion.

this comes to 50 billion gallons of ocean water per person on earth, which is 0.19 cubic kilometers per person.

This is not counting fresh water, glaciers, ground water, and mineralized forms of water in rock formations.
Skepticus_Rex
2 / 5 (7) Dec 26, 2010
"No, we can conclude that you tend to omit the context that determines the meaning of the words in question" - Tard

Your Tard Claim was that the EPA can do anything it wants. When challenged you claimed to not have meant what you said.

It's hard to see how the phrase "the EPA can do pretty much whatever it wants" could mean anything other than what it says, no matter how much you whine about not having said it.



Continuing to omit the context and continuing obstinately to excuse your inability to read the context of a remark with comprehension, I see. That's so MikeyK...
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2010
In other words, you are talking extra costs in infrastructure.

Cement can be sold for money. That pays for infrastructure. The ocean is 300 million trillion gallons. It would take a lot to change the PH of 300 million trillion gallons.


It could pay for infrastructure--provided that the moneys are available for such and not being used to pay high EPA fines and taxes.

As to the "lot to change pH of so much water" argument, consider carefully what you say. I mean, if what you say is true then why bother taking CO2 out of the atmosphere at all? Why not leave it all there if it would be so difficult to change the pH of all that water via what we do?

So, are you really saying that nothing that we do can impact the pH of all that water? That seems to be what you are saying. Please clarify, if not, because you seem to be going counter to everything that a number of climate scientists have been saying for the last decade. :)
Jimee
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2010
Thank God for Obama and the Liberals!
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (4) Dec 26, 2010
Thank God for Obama and the Liberals!


'God' had exactly zero to do with it... Rather, it is peoples' propensity to work to prove the Tories right...
ekim
4.5 / 5 (4) Dec 26, 2010
So, are you really saying that nothing that we do can impact the pH of all that water? That seems to be what you are saying. Please clarify, if not, because you seem to be going counter to everything that a number of climate scientists have been saying for the last decade. :)

What is being proposed isn't anything new. CO2 is absorbed by the oceans and does change the PH. Evidence shows this. What is being proposed is using this same method to produce a useful product which can be sold, Cement and drinkable water. This happens in nature all the time. Rather than allowing CO2 and excess heat to be wasted, by dumping it into the atmosphere, we produce usable products. In the atmosphere CO2 contributes to climate change, next it is absorbed by the oceans where it causes acidification and finally it is absorbed by organisms who put it to a useful purpose. Don't tell me your being outsmarted by unicellular organisms.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (5) Dec 27, 2010
CO2 is then converted to bicarbonates and are then used by organisms to form their shells, in conjunction with calcium. Start ripping large amounts of calcium from the waters and what do you suppose will happen? The difference between what life does with the calcium and what the above plan will do with it is that life puts it back and the above process won't.

Climate scientists have been stating for a while now that CO2 acidifies the oceans, meaning that it lowers the pH of the oceans. These are very large bodies of water.

Now, what happens when we begin removing large amounts of calcium and magnesium from the waters? There will be less of these elements to buffer against acification.

These two are the primary elements that buffer the pH of the oceans and they also are of primary importance for the balance of life in the oceans. Fish secrete calcium into the water. Overfishing has removed some of that buffering.

What have we been seeing of late regarding pH in the oceans?
ekim
4.8 / 5 (6) Dec 27, 2010
The difference between what life does with the calcium and what the above plan will do with it is that life puts it back and the above process won't.

These unicellular organisms produce limestone. This removes calcium and stores it underground. Whats wrong with humans doing the exact same thing and making a buck in the process? Carbon dioxide is going to still be produced, it's better if humans find a use for it rather than some other organism. Waste not want not.
GSwift7
1.3 / 5 (3) Dec 27, 2010
There are really two questions I have in regard to this move by the EPA:

1) Should they be allowed to do what they are doing, which ammounts to expanding their range of power without a Congressional order.

2) Are EPA fines a good way to meet energy goals?

@ Vendicar: You know that if the price of food grown in the US goes up 10% or even 1%, it's not going to be Americans who will starve; it will be the people who buy american food exports and already can't afford it at the current price who will starve. Really this EPA move will be even better for the environment than you think, because killing off all those people in the poor countries of the world will have a huge effect on greenhouse gasses. It's really a win-win. Additionally, if they aren't eating all our food, then we'll have more of it to make ethanol with. BONUS!
GSwift7
3.8 / 5 (5) Dec 27, 2010
Oh, one more good thing about this EPA regulation: Since this does essentially the same thing as the proposed cap and trade scheme, there will never be any need for us to pay the Carbon Exchange brokers a percentage to help us trade the carbon credits. This should essentially kill cap and trade in the US forever, and that's a good thing. I'm not being sarcastic about that part. I really do think this is a better option than a carbon credit market. I see no benefit in middle-men taking billions out of the system in the trading market. That would just be a zero gain expense for all of us, and certain rich people would get even richer.
GSwift7
2 / 5 (4) Dec 27, 2010
Really though, I have a better option than EPA fines. Couldn't we achieve the same thing by doing another round of stimulus, and using the money to help power companies upgrade equipment and build cleaner plants, in stead of fining the crap out of them? EPA fines force them to increase rates for consumers in order to pay for upgrades. The poor people pay for it as much as the wealthy. A stimulus would use tax money, which eliminates the burden on the poor people (since poor people like me pay very little tax). I think that would be a better way.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (4) Dec 27, 2010
The difference between what life does with the calcium and what the above plan will do with it is that life puts it back and the above process won't.

These unicellular organisms produce limestone. This removes calcium and stores it underground. Whats wrong with humans doing the exact same thing and making a buck in the process? Carbon dioxide is going to still be produced, it's better if humans find a use for it rather than some other organism. Waste not want not.


You are forgetting that it is not just calcium that will be taken in the process. Taking both calcium and magnesium is a bad idea. The process discussed in your link takes both.
ekim
4.5 / 5 (2) Dec 27, 2010
You are forgetting that it is not just calcium that will be taken in the process. Taking both calcium and magnesium is a bad idea. The process discussed in your link takes both.

Magnesium also sequestered through natural processes. This process reproduces a natural phenomena. Why do you think that this would be bad for the environment?
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (4) Dec 27, 2010
The manmade process removes and does not replace.

As far as the ocean is concerned in nature, much of it all is returned to the sea either by death or by reabsorption and secretion.

It is bad because we remove substances from the sea that normally are available for the use of undersea life. Take that away and there is less for them, upsetting the delicate balance of the sea.

Do I really have to explain the whole "circle of life" thing to you?
ekim
4.5 / 5 (2) Dec 28, 2010
Do I really have to explain the whole "circle of life" thing to you?

No just the production of limestone. That is what coral produces in vast quantities. How is it different if man produces it rather than coral?
Skepticus_Rex
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 28, 2010
Formation of limestone does not have only one path. In addition, most of today's corals are primarily formed of aragonite.

Although a lot of limestone has its origin in the remains of the shells of mollusks, you seem to think that all limestone is formed of fossils or seashells. I suggest a good text on geology.

The difference as to whether corals make use of it or we take it is that corals produce aragonite as part of their structure as living entities. If we take it there is less available for the corals.

In addition, if the pH falls as a result of taking Ca and Mg from the ocean's aragonite cycle, there will be less available for buffering and for keeping the pH relatively stable. If the pH becomes low enough, Ca begins to be dissolved from the shells of various forms of life when precipates are not as available.

You also need to keep in mind that the oceans are not all of the same pH at all depths. There is stratification and often the strata differ in pH.
GSwift7
2.7 / 5 (3) Dec 28, 2010
upsetting the delicate balance of the sea


That's meaningless, emotional gobledy-gook. Just kidding, kinda. I would actually call that your subjective opinion. I could just as easily say that in my opinion the sea is vast, powerfull, and has changed only in small degrees over billions of years. Despite cataclysmic events throughout history, the ocean still thrives with an abundance of life. Such statements would be equally as subjective as yours though, so I would never say such things. :)
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Dec 28, 2010
I have a better option than EPA fines. Couldn't we achieve the same thing by doing another round of stimulus, and using the money to help power companies upgrade equipment and build cleaner plants, in stead of fining the crap out of them? EPA fines force them to increase rates for consumers in order to pay for upgrades.
Power companies already receive tax benefit for upgading their infrastructure. They have since the 70's. Very few of them have actually done anything substantial. The carrot didn't work so out comes the stick so to speak.
Arkaleus
1.5 / 5 (4) Dec 28, 2010
It's easy to get caught up in the sensational science of climate crisis, but a wise mind will understand the true nature of this business.

In response to the formation of a global oligarchy, a vast segment of mediocre and unremarkable "scientists" and fraudulent banksters sees opportunity in becoming the "green priesthood" of the new order.

They know enough about history to see how well off priest classes fared in previous eras, and now that our political systems have degenerated into primitive forms of tyranny they seek to establish themselves and their financial futures in the new power structure.

I admire their pragmatism, but their attempted coup of the world's legacies of reason-based law is more unsustainable than anything the middle classes could ever afford.

After all, once you steal everything there is, how will you continue to afford your voracious consumptions? It is the masters who are the greatest consumers, after all.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) Dec 28, 2010
Power companies already receive tax benefit for upgading their infrastructure. They have since the 70's. Very few of them have actually done anything substantial. The carrot didn't work so out comes the stick so to speak.


Obviously it wasn't a very good carrot. The mineral wool plant my dad ran for more than a decade is a good example of why neither the tax incentives or the fines are a good idea. The scrubbing equipment they would have needed at that plant have an ongoing cost, not just an initial cost to install. The maintenance cost of the equipment would have been so high that they could not compete with foreign companies. So, rather than go out of business, they just paid the EPA fines under the old CAA. The scrubbing equipment they could have afforded to install and maintain would not meet EPA requirements, so the fines would be the same either way. So it was a waste to do that. Under the new rules, they will close and a foreign plant with max pollution will take over.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Dec 28, 2010
Under the new rules, they will close and a foreign plant with max pollution will take over.
Which is why our trade policies need to be tailored in conjunction with other consumer nations to stem the tide of exploitation manufacturing.
GSwift7
4 / 5 (4) Dec 28, 2010
too late. it's already happening and they didn't change the trade laws.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 28, 2010
too late. it's already happening and they didn't change the trade laws.

And that's the core American problem. Our regulation and legislation is absolutely halfass. This leaves all sorts of loopholes and special interests so that the legal system can be used to screw the little guys like us.
Caliban
4 / 5 (5) Dec 28, 2010
Given that GATT, NAFTA, et al were signed into law to universal Corporacrat acclaim, and specifically as a means to circumvent wage and environmental regulation, to complain now about the burden of compliance causing business to be non-competitive is the most exquisite of ironies, even if it is a painful one.

GATT, NAFTA, and the WTO could have been a way to advance humankind all together, by providing good paying jobs to the poorest of countries, and put the money in circulation to boost local economies and bring about increasing development/decreased environmental harm over time.

Unfortunately, this would have meant decreased profitability over the short term, a concept universally loathed and reviled by Corporacrats, their Bought Men, and their hangers-on.

In the mean time, American Corporations certainly haven't lacked for(often record) profitability, and almost entirely at the expense of the public's and environment's health.

Now the bill comes due. Fuck Em.
contd
Caliban
3.4 / 5 (7) Dec 28, 2010
contd

If corporations/Corporocrats can't or won't get the job done, then others will rise and take their place. It could take a while, and it could impose (even severe) hardship upon many for some time, but it will happen, and it will be an improvement over what passes for responsible business now.

Unfettered business is not the best way to achieve the Greatest Good, and it is now way past time to understand and act upon this premise.

Profit is a great motivator for many people, but becomes a disease when decoupled from any sense of responsibility for, and obligation to Humanity in general and the Earth as a whole.

Compliance will be steep, and non-compliance even steeper, but finally, after the cost is averaged out from implementation and through maintenance, it will cause only a small increase in utility bills, while yielding a massive return in terms of reduced costs to Human and Environmental health, to say nothing of possible profitable tech and job creation.

ekim
5 / 5 (1) Dec 28, 2010
The difference as to whether corals make use of it or we take it is that corals produce aragonite as part of their structure as living entities. If we take it there is less available for the corals.

I never said all limestone was formed from fossils.
Humans are living entities that also produce structures. As far as changing PH, that seems to be happening already due to rising CO2 levels. Creating cement out of this CO2 would help alleviate this change create jobs and produce profit. Not all water and minerals required would need to come from seawater some could come from underground.
3432682
1 / 5 (6) Dec 29, 2010
The "progressive" (socialist) energy policy is to shut down 80% of fossil fuels, which are 2/3 of all our energy. The conservative solution is to vote all socialists out of office.
danlgarmstrong
5 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2010
The conservative solution is to maintain the status quo. The progressive solution is to find ways to go to new and better sources of energy than petroleum. I don't understand why conservatives are against policies that would result in more money being invested in America rather than being sent overseas to other countries - many of whom oppose our values. By creating policies that will increase investment in new alternatives to petroleum, that create infrastructure and jobs here in America, even if they don't solve 'global warming' we are still making life better for Americans arent we?
wwqq
5 / 5 (1) Jan 02, 2011
I wonder how many people would be put out of work, and how many businesses totally destroyed, if they actually do manage to pass a carbon tax.


If internalizing a small part of the external costs you burden everyone else with makes your business fail, then you were not really producing wealth, you were a wealth-consuming parasite.

The costs are still there, even if no tax is applied and no damages paid. You are pocketing the profit and shoving the costs off on everyone else.

Coal should be made to pay the lions share of the ~30 000/year particulate pollution deaths from powerplants(lung cancer, heart and vascular disease), which is mostly from coal.

Oil should be made to pay for a significant chunk of the US military which is used to secure it.

The government doesn't need to get any bigger; just slash VAT and other taxes until it nets out.
wwqq
5 / 5 (1) Jan 02, 2011
The "progressive" (socialist) energy policy is to shut down 80% of fossil fuels, which are 2/3 of all our energy. The conservative solution is to vote all socialists out of office.


The conservative(socialism for the rich) solution is to socialize the cost of the filthy dirt-burners and privatize the gains.
Caliban
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2011
The "progressive" (socialist) energy policy is to shut down 80% of fossil fuels, which are 2/3 of all our energy. The conservative solution is to vote all socialists out of office.


The conservative(socialism for the rich) solution is to socialize the cost of the filthy dirt-burners and privatize the gains.


Bravo, wwqq -well and succinctly stated.

More news stories

Six Nepalese dead, six missing in Everest avalanche

At least six Nepalese climbing guides have been killed and six others are missing after an avalanche struck Mount Everest early Friday in one of the deadliest accidents on the world's highest peak, officials ...

China says massive area of its soil polluted

A huge area of China's soil covering more than twice the size of Spain is estimated to be polluted, the government said Thursday, announcing findings of a survey previously kept secret.

There's something ancient in the icebox

Glaciers are commonly thought to work like a belt sander. As they move over the land they scrape off everything—vegetation, soil, and even the top layer of bedrock. So scientists were greatly surprised ...

Clean air: Fewer sources for self-cleaning

Up to now, HONO, also known as nitrous acid, was considered one of the most important sources of hydroxyl radicals (OH), which are regarded as the detergent of the atmosphere, allowing the air to clean itself. ...

Leeches help save woman's ear after pit bull mauling

(HealthDay)—A pit bull attack in July 2013 left a 19-year-old woman with her left ear ripped from her head, leaving an open wound. After preserving the ear, the surgical team started with a reconnection ...

Venture investments jump to $9.5B in 1Q

Funding for U.S. startup companies soared 57 percent in the first quarter to a level not seen since 2001, as venture capitalists piled more money into an increasing number of deals, according to a report due out Friday.