[URL]http://mic.com/articles/123305/obama-just-unveiled-his-clean-power-plan[/URL]
[QUOTE]The Clean Power Plan does something unprecedented. While the United States already regulates the release of traditional pollutants like soot into the environment, the energy sector has not yet faced any limits on carbon emissions. Fossil fuel-fired power plants, which are [URL="http://www2.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/learn-about-carbon-pollution-power-plants"]the largest source[/URL] of carbon emissions in the nation, could until now release as much carbon as they wanted to. That's no longer the case.
The new rules impose strict standards on the eventual winding down of carbon emissions, but it also offers states flexibility on how they choose to go about pursuing that goal. States are expected to submit preliminary agendas by 2016 and final versions of them by 2018, according to the [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/obama-to-unveil-tougher-climate-plan-with-his-legacy-in-mind.html"]New York Times[/URL]. States will be expected to begin compliance with the federal regulations by 2022, and then phase in additional measures to hit the 2030 reduction target.
The new regulations will dramatically reshape the country's energy sector and could establish policies that would ultimately halt the construction of coal-fired power plants and shut many of them down.
While previously proposed versions of the rules suggested that natural gas — which leaves a much smaller carbon footprint than coal — could serve as a stepping stone away from coal-fired plants, Monday's plan emphasizes renewable energy. It establishes incentives for states to invest in renewables like wind and solar energy and aims to have renewable energy to account for 28% of electric generating capacity by 2030.
In his speech, the president defended the strict rules as a necessary measure for dealing with an issue already afflicting the country's health and weather, saying "there is such a thing is being too late when it comes to climate change."
[/QUOTE]
Republicans are going to hate this. I can smell congressional lock coming up again for the next few years.
I foresee some major edits before it if actually put through
Haven't read the full article, but this seems nice. Fourteen years seems like a reasonable amount of time to upgrade to 28% renewable energy. Ideally it would be faster, but alas, bureaucracy.
Unfortunately, I'm sure energy providers will have their way with this plan. They always find a way to defame renewables. :v:
first thing he's done that i completely agree with. climate change is set in stone now, it's too late to "stop" it, but we are waaaaaaaaaay behind other modern countries in our energy efficiency.
Even putting climate change aside, I can't see this as anything other than a positive step. We've known for a long time that our energy infrastructure needs an overhaul, and if it means less pollution then I'm all for it.
[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;48366613]Even putting climate change aside, I can't see this as anything other than a positive step. We've known for a long time that our energy infrastructure needs an overhaul, and if it means less pollution then I'm all for it.[/QUOTE]
Republicans are gonna do everything they can to bury it because they're in the pockets of big oil corporations.
It's well intended, but the entire fossil fuel lobby is going to strong-arm congress over this, guaranteed. As long as the public remains apathetic toward climate change, the corporations will continue to ruin the future of our environment.
Companies with co2 emissions should pay for their portion of emissions based on an estimate of how much harm it does, rather than just adding a hard limit. Something like this would add the financial incentive these companies need to move away from fossil fuels on their own, and its not as if it's arbitrary and unfair towards the companies, they are just paying their own cleanup costs. But, lobbying. Why have we been convinced to use the term lobbying rather than bribery anyway.
Shame Obama doesn't try using Nuclear power as part of the program, since it's fairly darn clean and is a better power generation method than solar, wind, geothermal, or hydro.
JUST USE NUCLEAR POWER, IT WILL HELP EVERYTHING.
sorry with the caps, but the whole world is going to benefit from having nuclear power.
Each year driving out to Colorado I notice ~100 new wind turbines along I-70 in Kansas, and this has been going on for about 5 years now
Hopefully we can coat the horizon in them since my state is windy as FUCK and has shitloads of open land
[QUOTE=Mattk50;48366693]Companies with co2 emissions should pay for their portion of emissions based on an estimate of how much harm it does, rather than just adding a hard limit. Something like this would add the financial incentive these companies need to move away from fossil fuels on their own, and its not as if it's arbitrary and unfair towards the companies, they are just paying their own cleanup costs. But, lobbying. Why have we been convinced to use the term lobbying rather than bribery anyway.[/QUOTE]
Depends on the company. I disagree with doing this to electrical energy companies. Then it just becomes another tax on the people. Its not like fines put on the company take it out of the CEO's pocket. It simply raises the cost of the product. Which is electricity. Which most companies have a monopoly on in areas. If it cost them more to make power. The cost is just placed on everyone. There's no incentive to be competitive, since there is no competition. If you have a certain company for power. You either deal with them or give up the grid.
Hopefully this means more nuclear power and Solar Concentration Plants. There's no way photovoltaic cells and wind turbines are going to be able to pick up the slack by themselves.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;48366693]Companies with co2 emissions should pay for their portion of emissions based on an estimate of how much harm it does, rather than just adding a hard limit. Something like this would add the financial incentive these companies need to move away from fossil fuels on their own, and its not as if it's arbitrary and unfair towards the companies, they are just paying their own cleanup costs. But, lobbying. Why have we been convinced to use the term lobbying rather than bribery anyway.[/QUOTE]
We tried this with a carbon tax. However there are more-economical ways to go about it, such as emissions trading schemes, and the carbon tax itself led to those costs being passed on to customers which had to be offset by tripling the amount of income people earn before they pay tax.
[QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;48367073]JUST USE NUCLEAR POWER, IT WILL HELP EVERYTHING.
[/QUOTE]
Except for the crowds of people who don't understand how nuclear reactors work or how safe modern reactors are, so would rather insist on panicking every time the "n-word" is brought up.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.