United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: This is why the economy is not recovering
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa ... d-kill-jobs-boost-energy-bills
Published: Jun 9, 2011
Author: Paul Bedard
Post Date: 2011-06-09 14:58:06 by no gnu taxes
Keywords: None
Views: 18632
Comments: 43
Two new EPA pollution regulations will slam the coal industry so hard that hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost, and electric rates will skyrocket 11 percent to over 23 percent, according to a new study based on government data. Overall, the rules aimed at making the air cleaner could cost the coal-fired power plant industry $180 billion, warns a trade group. [Check out a roundup of political cartoons on energy policy.] “Many of these severe impacts would hit families living in states already facing serious economic challenges,” said Steve Miller, president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. “Because of these impacts, EPA should make major changes to the proposed regulations before they are finalized,” he said. The EPA, however, tells Whispers that the hit the industry will suffer is worth the health benefits. “EPA has taken a number of sensible steps to protect public health, while also working with industry and other stakeholders to ensure that these important Clean Air Act standards—such as the first ever national Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for coal-fired power plants—are reasonable, common-sense, and achievable,” said spokesman Brendan Gilfillan. [Read Rep. Darrell Issa: Obama's Bad Policy, Harmful Regulations Add to Gas Prices.] What’s more, officials said that just one of the rules to cut sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions will would yield up to $290 billion in annual health and welfare benefits in 2014. They say that amounts to preventing up to 36,000 premature deaths, 26,000 hospital and emergency room visits, and 240,000 cases of aggravated asthma. “This far outweighs the estimated annual costs,” says an official on background. [Check out political cartoons on the economy.] Still, the EPA did note that the two new antipollution rules are “pending” and that the agency has “accepted and are considering feedback” from the industry. The industry says the costs and potential to lose four jobs for every new clean energy job created isn’t worth the rules, especially in a job-starved economy. [See a slide show of the best cities to find a job.] Referring to the analysis of the EPA regulations from National Economic Research Associates, Miller said they would be the most expensive rules ever imposed on power plants. Coal-fired energy plants currently fuel about half of the nation’s energy supply.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 40.
#1. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
(Edited)
Fuckers want to be able to breathe? And the economy has recovered from the Bush Reecession even though the GOP is working hard to stop it...
Air quality is better than it has just about ever been? Bush Reecession Oh the one that tax cuts caused? When unemployment was less than every single month under Kenyanesian economics.
You put credibility in some envirowhacko website that makes bullshit statements like that? The Air is Getting Cleaner: But the Media are Nowhere to be Seen On Wednesday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) quietly released their annual report on air quality trends. You would never know it from picking up a newspaper or reading news websites, but the report contains great news. Air quality in the United States has dramatically improved and, according to all indicators, it will continue to improve. The report can be summed up with this graphic from EPA: GDP, vehicle miles traveled, population, and energy consumption have all increased since 1990. But despite the fact that more people are using more energy to produce more goods and services, air pollution emissions have decreased. EPA reports that air quality has improved for the six main air pollutants: Since 1990, nationwide air quality has improved significantly for the six common air pollutants. These six pollutants are ground-level ozone, particle pollution (PM2.5 and PM10), lead, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Nationally, air pollution was lower in 2008 than in 1990 for: * 8-hour ozone, by 14 percent * annual PM2.5 (since 2000), by 19 percent * PM10 , by 31 percent * Lead, by 78 percent * NO2 , by 35 percent * 8-hour CO, by 68 percent * annual SO2 , by 59 percent The below graphic, from EPA’s website, (but not in the actual air trends report) shows air quality trends since 1970. These trends are even more dramatic than the 1990 to 2008 numbers. The Bad News: the Press Does Not Seem Interested in Telling the American People Our Air Quality has Dramatically Increased This is good news that air quality continues to improve and even more so because the American people do not know it. According to a 2004 poll from the Foundation for Clean Air Progress, only 29 percent of people thought that “America’s air quality is better than . . . it was in 1970.” One reason that the American people do not know this is because the press does not report on it. So far not one major newspaper has written a story about the good news in this air trends report—there’s nothing from the Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, or any of the other major news outlets. The only story we could find is from E&E News (a subscription-based environment and energy news service) and even then it was the 12th story in their afternoon publication. It’s tough for the American people to lean to the truth about air quality when the media does not report the good news. Our Air is Getting Cleaner Today we can breathe easier knowing that our air is much cleaner than in the past. Even though the media is not reporting this good news to the American people, our air quality has substantially improved and will continue to improve. The data shows the truth.
Strawman, Everyone knows that the air quality HAS gotten better. Everyone also knows that what has been done has been over the objections of people like you. And nothing you posted refutes what I posted.
You posted unsubstantiated junk from a whacko site with an obvious bias against the US. Everyone knows that the air quality HAS gotten better. Then what are you arguing about? Comparing the level of industry and transportation to air quality, I'd say we have the best air quality in the world, and it is overall quite healthy. Destroying the energy industry isn't going yo accomplish a damn thing except worsen the Obana depression. It is insane wackos who are calling for this
You've laid no foundation for that claim. I'd say we have the best air quality in the world, and it is overall quite healthy. And I'd say that you're out of your fucking mind. And we both know that out of the two of us, I'm correct and you're not.
There was no foundation for your website's claim other than "wave your hand" claims based on vague criteria. What is the average level of SO2 in Switzerland? CO? PM? Ozone? Compare that to the US overall. I'd say we have the best air quality in the world, and it is overall quite healthy. And I'd say that you're out of your fucking mind. I work in the industry, dumbass, on the regulatory side. You have not made the first case for you position here.
There is a link to the study and methodology at the bottom of the page.
Really? Won't you explain it? Because the only link to the bottom of the page I get is a Reuters link with results of "page not found." And tell me in your own words how yow know it's true. The United States, dragged down by poor scores on greenhouse gas emissions and the impact of air pollution on ecosystems Can't you see what you are looking at? Find me the criticisms of Mexico or China? Probably there, but token.
I'm not going to teach you how to use the internet, dickweed. If you can't click links it's not my problem. What you should do, if you believe this site to be in error, is to post some contrary information instead of promoting, of all things, YOUR career as an "industry regulator". You should get on your knees and blow Boofer every day, Paddy. Without him, YOU are the biggest joke on the world wide web.
What you should do, if you believe this site to be in error, is to post some contrary information instead of promoting, of all things, YOUR career as an "industry regulator". There is no link. It's certainly not showing on my screen at the site. What you should do, if you believe this site to be in error, is to post some contrary information instead of promoting, of all things, YOUR career as an "industry regulator". There is nothing to refute. It's just vague bogus criteria weighted towards climate climate change. It's just stuff they made up. You should get on your knees and blow Boofer every day, Paddy. Without him, YOU are the biggest joke on the world wide web. Vile invective? That's all you've got? Biggest joke? Projecting, are you?
Concluding that regional air quality is "unacceptably poor," the Heinz Endowment has released a detailed report that says smokestack and vehicle emissions continue to cause environmental damage, illness and death. "Harmful concentrations of pollutants measured in the region persist," according to the Heinz Endowment report prepared by the Clean Air Task Force of Boston. "People in the region may be dying prematurely from exposure to harmful levels of air pollution." The 32-page report, "Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone Air Quality in Western Pennsylvania in the 2000s," released today along with a summary document, "Understanding Western Pennsylvania's Air Pollution Problem," states that "Pittsburgh's air pollution problem is among the most serious in the country." Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11068/1130807-100.stm#ixzz1OsOJMgcr
Do you realize how good air quality is if you are in attainment of current standards? That's the point -- they then just arbitrarily state the air is still bad and move the goal posts again. It's bureaucratic job security.
The 2011 State of the Air report says 53.3% of the U.S. population - more than 165 million people - suffer pollution levels that the report describes as " too often dangerous to breathe.” Janice Nolen, an assistant vice president at the American Lung Association, says the nation's air pollution has many sources.
When It Comes To ‘Pollution,’ Most Of It Is In the Media’s Mind When it comes to environmental topics, the biggest failing of the lazy, old media is not what they tell you, but what they leave unsaid. Yesterday’s release of the American Lung Association’s State of the Air 2010 report provides textbook examples of how mainstream journalists can’t, or won’t, take the time to do their jobs. Most MSM stories covering the ALA report read like slightly modified versions of an ALA press release, which, one suspects, was probably the case. Consider this talking point that the ALA kindly provided: The report finds that unhealthy air posed a threat to the lives and health of more than 175 million people—roughly 58 percent of the population. Forbes’ Tim Kiladze dutifully regurgitated this misleading talking point back to readers: The ALA found that over 175 million Americans, or 58% of the population, live in counties with unhealthy levels of either ozone or particle pollution. That sounds pretty authoritative, doesn’t it? Downright scary too. Fifty-eight per cent of the population is at risk? But, having been trained in the sciences rather than journalism, when I read something like that, I can’t help but wonder: why aren’t people dropping in the streets if things are so bad? Or, put another way, what does a subjective term like “unhealthy air” actually mean? Predictably, CNN added its voice to the chorus of doom, saying: Despite some gains, more than half of the United States’ population lives in cities where pollution levels make the air unhealthy to breathe, an annual report says. There’s that troubling word again: “unhealthy.” With a little bit of research, one can find the ALA’s State of the Air 2008 report pretty easily. A nice point of comparison, no? According the 2008 report: Two of every five people—42 percent—in the U.S. live in counties that have unhealthful levels of either ozone or particle pollution. Ergo, according to ALA, the number of Americans breathing unhealthy air increased by sixteen per cent over a two year period, from 42% to 58%. This suggests two things: a) air pollution emissions over that two year period must have increased, and b) the concentrations of air pollutants in the atmosphere must have gone up as well. The only problem is that neither of those things actually happened. During the two year period covered in the two ALA reports, air pollution emissions decreased and the concentrations of air pollutants in the atmosphere dropped as well. Specifically, if we look at the two air pollutants that ALA specifically calls out, nationwide ozone (aka: smog) concentrations dropped by over five per cent in those two years and fine particulate concentrations were reduced by almost eight per cent, according to USEPA data. Having done this research (which took me all of fifteen minutes) I wonder why an enterprising reporter might not smell a rat in the ALA’s claim that the number of Americans breathing “unhealthy air” increased by almost 50 million people over a two year period, when the amount of actual pollution in the air decreased substantially in the same time frame? The answer leads us back to that troubling word: “unhealthy.” For ALA, other environmental groups and their cheerleaders in the MSM, what denotes “healthy” involves a constantly moving and conveniently ever-shrinking target. Whenever we are close to meeting a particular goal, the Agency creates a new, more stringent standard. This is known within the environmental industry as “job security.” The air didn’t get any dirtier over the two years covered by the ALA reports. It was rather the definition of dirty – excuse me, “unhealthy” – that changed; USEPA created tighter air quality goals once again. ALA, the Sierra Club and the other environmentalist groups understand this is how the game is played of course, but they’re hardly going to point such uncomfortable facts out to MSM journalists who swallow whole everything they have to say. If we compared the air today to the standards that EPA said defined “healthy air” in 2005 (or in 1996, depending on your take with regard to a complex – and ultimately pointless – regulatory fine point) nobody in America would, by that definition, be breathing “unhealthy air” today, not one single, solitary soul. On the other hand, if USEPA Administrator Lisa Jackson gets her way and the EPA cranks down even further to create an insane, new and virtually unachievable definition of what makes “clean air,” practically everybody in the United States will be breathing “unhealthy air” very soon. When that happens, the air won’t have changed a bit – history tells us it will only continue to get cleaner – but ALA and their allies will have been handed an invaluable marketing tool with which to sell their tales of gloom, and the lazy old media will happily play their part by refusing to question any bit of the prevailing narrative. When people criticize my contrarian stance on air pollution, because they just know that air pollution is a bigger problem than ever, I like to point them to the following graph. It shows air pollution trends over the last thirty eight years and it clearly demonstrates that America has been spectacularly successful in reducing air pollution while accommodating both economic growth and increased travel. It’s not something an industry group came up with. This graph comes from the USEPA itself: Ah, but it’s always that way when it comes to the environment. The old media can’t be bothered to investigate ecological issues if doing so involves anything more than reading the self-serving press releases generated by environmental groups. Some people wonder why there is such a backlash when it comes to MSM coverage of the “global warming” debate. For those of us who have been paying attention to environmental issues of any kind over the years, the only wonder is that somebody would lend any credence to the old media’s take at all.
You posted a Breitbart "story" in rebuttal? I posted three surveys. You posted, in rebuttal, that you're a bureaucrat and "know better" and an article from a Political Operative's website. And I'm to take you seriously exactly why again?
And the ALA is a joke -- you are just too ignorant or biased to realize it. And as was pointed out, the MSM is a joke for parroting the talking points of far left groups. In the earlier article as was shown only 29% of the American public believe air quality is better now than it was in 1970 even though it has vastly improved. Evidently you are one of the sheeple who can still be conned into beleiving there is "bad air" in the US. Even places like Los Angeles and Houston do not have truly bad air. These far left groups just arbitrarily define unhealthy air
The issue is "air quality" - that stuff occupying the area between your right and left ears - Paddy and not the media.
There are no replies to Comment # 40. End Trace Mode for Comment # 40.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: war (#1)
Fuckers want to be able to breathe?
#4. To: no gnu taxes (#2)
Air quality is better than it has just about ever been?
#5. To: war (#4)
The United States, dragged down by poor scores on greenhouse gas emissions and the impact of air pollution on ecosystems
#10. To: no gnu taxes (#5)
#15. To: war (#10)
And nothing you posted refutes what I posted.
#17. To: no gnu taxes (#15)
You posted unsubstantiated junk from a whacko site with an obvious bias against the US.
#18. To: war (#17)
You've laid no foundation for that claim.
#20. To: no gnu taxes (#18)
(Edited)
There was no foundation for your website's claim other than "wave your hand" claims based on vague criteria.
#23. To: war (#20)
(Edited)
Thwere is a link to the study and methodology at the bottom of the page.
#24. To: no gnu taxes (#23)
(Edited)
#28. To: war (#24)
If you can't click links it's not my problem.
#31. To: no gnu taxes (#28)
#33. To: war (#31)
And while many communities are "in attainment" of federal air-quality standards for now, the entire region will fail to meet tighter standards expected from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on March 16 that will be needed to better protect human health.
#34. To: no gnu taxes (#33)
More than half the people in the United States are breathing air that could be threatening their health, according to the American Lung Association. The private health group has just released (April 27) its 12th annual State of the Air report, which ranks the quality of the air in U.S. cities and counties in terms of the most common types of air pollution.
#36. To: war (#34)
#38. To: no gnu taxes (#36)
#39. To: war (#38)
(Edited)
#40. To: no gnu taxes (#39)
Replies to Comment # 40.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]