Big power-plant pollution cuts are ordered
http://www.wral.com/epa-seeks-to-cut-power-plant-carbon-by-30-percent/13692926/
In a sweeping initiative to curb pollutants blamed for global warming, the Obama administration unveiled a plan Monday aimed at cutting carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by nearly a third by 2030. But it delays the deadline for some states to begin complying until long after President Barack Obama leaves office.
The 645-page plan, expected to be finalized next year, is a centerpiece of Obama's efforts to deal with climate change and seeks to give the United States more leverage to prod other countries to act when negotiations on a new international treaty resume next year. Under the plan, carbon emissions are to be reduced 30 percent by 2030, compared to 2005 levels, in what would amount to one of the most significant U.S. actions on global warming.
The proposal sets off a complex regulatory process, steeped in politics, in which the 50 states will each determine how to meet customized targets set by the Environmental Protection Agency, then submit those plans for approval.
(Much more at above url)
First let provide some background about coal power plants in North Carolina. The Triangle area of North Carolina is surrounded by coal-fired power plants that lead to high pollution levels of hard particles. Duke and Progress Energy (now merged) have strongly resisted putting scrubber equipment on their power plants to eliminate hard-particle pollution that causes health problems for many residents of central North Carolina (see the current pictures of China or old pictures of East Germany for examples of bad coal pollution).
Due to this, I support this initiative from the Obama administration. The proposed regulations include the requirement to reduce hard particle pollution as well as the CO2 reduction.
I will admit that I don't really care about the CO2 reduction - I have seen no reasonable evidence that CO2 generated by man causes global warming. This leads to the two problems I have with the Obama administration band-wagon:
1) The focus should have been solely on hard-particle pollution. The CO2 reduction which will be a costly attempt to solve a problem that does not exist and will be considered a world-wide false science joke by 2040.
2) The proposed complex regulatory process will nearly be impossible to implement in any reasonable fashion. This is an executive plan that could have been prescribed in 10 pages rather than hundreds of pages.
http://www.wral.com/epa-seeks-to-cut-power-plant-carbon-by-30-percent/13692926/
In a sweeping initiative to curb pollutants blamed for global warming, the Obama administration unveiled a plan Monday aimed at cutting carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by nearly a third by 2030. But it delays the deadline for some states to begin complying until long after President Barack Obama leaves office.
The 645-page plan, expected to be finalized next year, is a centerpiece of Obama's efforts to deal with climate change and seeks to give the United States more leverage to prod other countries to act when negotiations on a new international treaty resume next year. Under the plan, carbon emissions are to be reduced 30 percent by 2030, compared to 2005 levels, in what would amount to one of the most significant U.S. actions on global warming.
The proposal sets off a complex regulatory process, steeped in politics, in which the 50 states will each determine how to meet customized targets set by the Environmental Protection Agency, then submit those plans for approval.
(Much more at above url)
First let provide some background about coal power plants in North Carolina. The Triangle area of North Carolina is surrounded by coal-fired power plants that lead to high pollution levels of hard particles. Duke and Progress Energy (now merged) have strongly resisted putting scrubber equipment on their power plants to eliminate hard-particle pollution that causes health problems for many residents of central North Carolina (see the current pictures of China or old pictures of East Germany for examples of bad coal pollution).
Due to this, I support this initiative from the Obama administration. The proposed regulations include the requirement to reduce hard particle pollution as well as the CO2 reduction.
I will admit that I don't really care about the CO2 reduction - I have seen no reasonable evidence that CO2 generated by man causes global warming. This leads to the two problems I have with the Obama administration band-wagon:
1) The focus should have been solely on hard-particle pollution. The CO2 reduction which will be a costly attempt to solve a problem that does not exist and will be considered a world-wide false science joke by 2040.
2) The proposed complex regulatory process will nearly be impossible to implement in any reasonable fashion. This is an executive plan that could have been prescribed in 10 pages rather than hundreds of pages.
