|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 05 2015 09:42 zlefin wrote:
no, you're not clarifying my point, not at all. From my PoV you're just being a jerk by misrepresenting what I say and continuing to needle on your pedantic and incorrect point. So you're simply being very rude, repeatedly so.
voting is not a system designed to screen out unsound argumentation.
Actually, you're the only one that's sounded like a jerk in that back-and-forth of yours.
|
The Obama administration's hotly debated plan to reduce heat-trapping carbon dioxide from the nation's power plants will save about 3,500 lives a year by cutting back on other types of pollution as well, a new study concludes.
A study from Harvard and Syracuse University calculates the decline in heart attacks and lung disease when soot and smog are reduced — an anticipated byproduct of the president's proposed power plant rule, which aims to fight global warming by limiting carbon dioxide emissions.
Past studies have found that between 20,000 and 30,000 Americans die each year because of health problems from power plant air pollution, study authors and outside experts say. The study was published Monday in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Climate Change.
The proposed EPA rule, which is not yet finalized, is complex and tailored to different states. It aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. Study authors said their research, while not hewing to the Obama plan exactly, is quite close and comparable. The study also finds about the same number of deaths prevented by reducing soot and smog that the administration claimed when the plan was rolled out more than a year ago.
Some in Congress have been trying to block the regulation from going into effect, calling the plan a job-killer and an example of government overreach.
Source
|
On May 05 2015 11:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The Obama administration's hotly debated plan to reduce heat-trapping carbon dioxide from the nation's power plants will save about 3,500 lives a year by cutting back on other types of pollution as well, a new study concludes.
A study from Harvard and Syracuse University calculates the decline in heart attacks and lung disease when soot and smog are reduced — an anticipated byproduct of the president's proposed power plant rule, which aims to fight global warming by limiting carbon dioxide emissions.
Past studies have found that between 20,000 and 30,000 Americans die each year because of health problems from power plant air pollution, study authors and outside experts say. The study was published Monday in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Climate Change.
The proposed EPA rule, which is not yet finalized, is complex and tailored to different states. It aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. Study authors said their research, while not hewing to the Obama plan exactly, is quite close and comparable. The study also finds about the same number of deaths prevented by reducing soot and smog that the administration claimed when the plan was rolled out more than a year ago.
Some in Congress have been trying to block the regulation from going into effect, calling the plan a job-killer and an example of government overreach. Source
Why is it "hotly debated"? Seems like a pretty straightforward initiative to me.
Or more specifically, is it hotly debated on factual and data-driven merits, or just because some politicians' jobs are apparently to reject anything Obama says? Just wondering if it's legitimate dissension or political bullshit.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
anything to make coal plants cleaner should not be hotly debated.
|
On May 05 2015 11:42 oneofthem wrote:
anything to make coal plants cleaner should not be hotly debated.
Well if we keep talking instead of acting, everything will be hotly debated.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On May 05 2015 11:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2015 11:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The Obama administration's hotly debated plan to reduce heat-trapping carbon dioxide from the nation's power plants will save about 3,500 lives a year by cutting back on other types of pollution as well, a new study concludes.
A study from Harvard and Syracuse University calculates the decline in heart attacks and lung disease when soot and smog are reduced — an anticipated byproduct of the president's proposed power plant rule, which aims to fight global warming by limiting carbon dioxide emissions.
Past studies have found that between 20,000 and 30,000 Americans die each year because of health problems from power plant air pollution, study authors and outside experts say. The study was published Monday in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Climate Change.
The proposed EPA rule, which is not yet finalized, is complex and tailored to different states. It aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. Study authors said their research, while not hewing to the Obama plan exactly, is quite close and comparable. The study also finds about the same number of deaths prevented by reducing soot and smog that the administration claimed when the plan was rolled out more than a year ago.
Some in Congress have been trying to block the regulation from going into effect, calling the plan a job-killer and an example of government overreach. Source Why is it "hotly debated"? Seems like a pretty straightforward initiative to me. Or more specifically, is it hotly debated on factual and data-driven merits, or just because some politicians' jobs are apparently to reject anything Obama says? Just wondering if it's legitimate dissension or political bullshit.
Its hotly debated because its an end-around Congress in an attempt to control CO2 emissions. What the EPA did was use a moderate amount of reduction in Mercury (estimated benefit $6million/year in reduced pollution), which would cost the industry ~ 9 Billion per year. However, once using the Mercury to decide to list the plants they then added in the "controversial" benefits of reduced CO2 into the cost/benefit analysis of whether the regulations were appropriate. Also its already been argued at the Supreme Court. http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/03/argument-preview-epa-on-the-defensive-again/ Which may be the reason its called controversial.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
well 6m is obviously the industry figure. idk why this is so hard, decades old coal plants are severely bad. they shouldn't even be regulated just shut down altogether.
|
On May 05 2015 12:18 oneofthem wrote:
well 6m is obviously the industry figure. idk why this is so hard, decades old coal plants are severely bad. they shouldn't even be regulated just shut down altogether.
No, its the agreed figure. You can read the case summary. I linked it. Almost all of the claimed benefits are due to global warming estimations. Its 100% about regulating CO2 and ignoring that congress has never passed a law concerning its regulation.
|
On May 05 2015 12:07 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2015 11:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 05 2015 11:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The Obama administration's hotly debated plan to reduce heat-trapping carbon dioxide from the nation's power plants will save about 3,500 lives a year by cutting back on other types of pollution as well, a new study concludes.
A study from Harvard and Syracuse University calculates the decline in heart attacks and lung disease when soot and smog are reduced — an anticipated byproduct of the president's proposed power plant rule, which aims to fight global warming by limiting carbon dioxide emissions.
Past studies have found that between 20,000 and 30,000 Americans die each year because of health problems from power plant air pollution, study authors and outside experts say. The study was published Monday in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Climate Change.
The proposed EPA rule, which is not yet finalized, is complex and tailored to different states. It aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. Study authors said their research, while not hewing to the Obama plan exactly, is quite close and comparable. The study also finds about the same number of deaths prevented by reducing soot and smog that the administration claimed when the plan was rolled out more than a year ago.
Some in Congress have been trying to block the regulation from going into effect, calling the plan a job-killer and an example of government overreach. Source Why is it "hotly debated"? Seems like a pretty straightforward initiative to me. Or more specifically, is it hotly debated on factual and data-driven merits, or just because some politicians' jobs are apparently to reject anything Obama says? Just wondering if it's legitimate dissension or political bullshit. Its hotly debated because its an end-around Congress in an attempt to control CO2 emissions. What the EPA did was use a moderate amount of reduction in Mercury (estimated benefit $6million/year in reduced pollution), which would cost the industry ~ 9 Billion per year. However, once using the Mercury to decide to list the plants they then added in the "controversial" benefits of reduced CO2 into the cost/benefit analysis of whether the regulations were appropriate. Also its already been argued at the Supreme Court. http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/03/argument-preview-epa-on-the-defensive-again/ Which may be the reason its called controversial.
Gotcha, thanks! 
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i've read it and it says epa's estimate is in the tens of billions range from mercury
The EPA rule that is directly at issue before the Justices will cost the industry, it has said, some $9.6 billion a year, which, the companies contend, will buy very little public health benefit — $4 million to $6 million, at most. EPA has conceded the annual cost for the companies, but it estimates that this will yield — in dollar terms — benefits between $37 billion and $90 billion annually. - See more at: http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/03/argument-preview-epa-on-the-defensive-again/#sthash.fVfrDGsy.dpuf
seems rather wild to claim that the epa would agree to a 6m figure for non-co2 pollutants. there's nothing in that link about the amount from carbon you gotta come up withs omething else
|
On May 05 2015 12:22 oneofthem wrote:i've read it and it says epa's estimate is in the tens of billions range from mercury The EPA rule that is directly at issue before the Justices will cost the industry, it has said, some $9.6 billion a year, which, the companies contend, will buy very little public health benefit — $4 million to $6 million, at most. EPA has conceded the annual cost for the companies, but it estimates that this will yield — in dollar terms — benefits between $37 billion and $90 billion annually. - See more at: http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/03/argument-preview-epa-on-the-defensive-again/#sthash.fVfrDGsy.dpuf
Yes, that is not due to the mercury reductions of the proposed rule, but co-benefits from the regulation. Here is the government brief http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/BriefsV5/14-46_fed_resp.authcheckdam.pdf
But considering
such co-benefits is an accepted practice in cost-benefit
analysis, the whole purpose of which is to measure the
net impact that a regulation will have on social welfare.
18 Considering the co-benefits is also consistent
with petitioners’ basic theory of this case, which is
that “when deciding whether it is appropriate to impose
regulation, a reasonable person would consider
both the pros and cons—in other words, the benefits
and costs—of regulation.”
Also in the case is a threshold question of whether Congress wanted Power Plants to be regulated using the Title of the Act that EPA has applied.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's still not co2. i dont see co2 mentioned in that brief or any other coverage.
EPA explained that the “great majority” of the quantifiable benefits identified in the RIA are “attributable to co-benefits from reductions in PM2.5-related mortality.”
so it's really about smog and acid rain, seems perfectly sensible.
|
On May 05 2015 11:42 oneofthem wrote:
anything to make coal plants cleaner should not be hotly debated.
There's a limit to how clean coal can get. Nuclear power, though, produces no carbon emissions. And modern designs, not these 50 year old ones we have now, don't produce much waste. And what little is produced is not radioactive for millions of years. Breeder reactors are great, and we have the tech to make them now.
Even better are Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors. No danger of melt-downs, because the reaction requires outside power input to continue. The fuel is liquid, so actinide levels can be monitored and dealt with much easier. There's no insane pressures to deal with, since the coolant is not water. Most waste in normal reactors is simply fuel that could not be burned, since it's solid and the fuel rods become damaged through use. LFTR's use liquid fuel, and so can burn upwards of 90% of their fuel. There's no danger of LFTR's being used for nuclear proliferation, because thorium has several gamma emitters in it's decay chain. This means any stolen material is easily tracked by any geiger counter, and any bomb made from that material is likely to fail due to the gamma rays frying the sensitive electronics.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On May 05 2015 12:38 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2015 11:42 oneofthem wrote:
anything to make coal plants cleaner should not be hotly debated. There's a limit to how clean coal can get.
which is why the regulation should be harsh enough to phase out the old coal plants at least.
i guess the old style plants have their own lobby or states of interest, so they are moving against all plants and thus not being fair?
|
Carly Fiorina is running for president, this is even more of a joke than the others I daresay
|
On May 05 2015 12:22 oneofthem wrote:i've read it and it says epa's estimate is in the tens of billions range from mercury The EPA rule that is directly at issue before the Justices will cost the industry, it has said, some $9.6 billion a year, which, the companies contend, will buy very little public health benefit — $4 million to $6 million, at most. EPA has conceded the annual cost for the companies, but it estimates that this will yield — in dollar terms — benefits between $37 billion and $90 billion annually. - See more at: http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/03/argument-preview-epa-on-the-defensive-again/#sthash.fVfrDGsy.dpufseems rather wild to claim that the epa would agree to a 6m figure for non-co2 pollutants. there's nothing in that link about the amount from carbon you gotta come up withs omething else
Not saying that's the case here, but the EPA does put out benefit estimates that are, to be kind, speculative.
|
On May 05 2015 12:40 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2015 12:38 Millitron wrote:On May 05 2015 11:42 oneofthem wrote:
anything to make coal plants cleaner should not be hotly debated. There's a limit to how clean coal can get. which is why the regulation should be harsh enough to phase out the old coal plants at least. i guess the old style plants have their own lobby or states of interest, so they are moving against all plants and thus not being fair?
The way they are regulated always hits old plants hardest because of the 10% rule.
The real reason this case SHOULD be controversial is because if EPA is correct, the CAA is unconstitutionally overbroad and lacking of an intelligible principle under even the laughably weak Mistretta test.
But no one even argues that anymore, because SCOTUS abdicated that responsibility with Mistretta.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
well this particular piece of regulation is pretty specific and reasonably about coal plants producing smog and acid rain pollution. stuff that kids learn in middle school as bad for the air. i don't see the wildness here.
edit: seems like your issue is with the general existence of the modern administrative state. good luck with that.
|
On May 05 2015 12:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2015 12:22 oneofthem wrote:i've read it and it says epa's estimate is in the tens of billions range from mercury The EPA rule that is directly at issue before the Justices will cost the industry, it has said, some $9.6 billion a year, which, the companies contend, will buy very little public health benefit — $4 million to $6 million, at most. EPA has conceded the annual cost for the companies, but it estimates that this will yield — in dollar terms — benefits between $37 billion and $90 billion annually. - See more at: http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/03/argument-preview-epa-on-the-defensive-again/#sthash.fVfrDGsy.dpufseems rather wild to claim that the epa would agree to a 6m figure for non-co2 pollutants. there's nothing in that link about the amount from carbon you gotta come up withs omething else Not saying that's the case here, but the EPA does put out benefit estimates that are, to be kind, speculative.
The EPA's mandate is human health, finances don't play any role in it IIRC? Whitman vs American Trucking.
|
Repubs should counter play coal regs with a carbon tax. It would be similar to how they dealt with acid rain in the 90's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
