Obama Takes On Coal: First President to implement strict carbon limits

[Cali_Democrat]

The Koch heads will definitely not be happy about this.

And that's a good thing!

Obama Takes On Coal With First-Ever Carbon Limits
By DINA CAPPIELLO

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will press ahead Friday with tough requirements for new coal-fired power plants, moving to impose for the first time strict limits on the pollution blamed for global warming.

The proposal would help reshape where Americans get electricity, away from a coal-dependent past into a future fired by cleaner sources of energy. It's also a key step in President Barack Obama's global warming plans, because it would help end what he called "the limitless dumping of carbon pollution" from power plants.

Although the proposed rule won't immediately affect plants already operating, it eventually would force the government to limit emissions from the existing power plant fleet, which accounts for a third of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Obama has given the Environmental Protection Agency until next summer to propose those regulations.

The EPA provided The Associated Press with details of the proposal prior to the official announcement, which was expected Friday morning. The public will have a chance to comment on the rule before it becomes final.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/19/obama-carbon-limits_n_3958693.html

[Cali_Democrat]

1. Thoughts?

[Jesus Malverde]

4. The oil industry says thanks, the people on fixed incomes say oh shit, the UMW says WTF?, GE says

we'll get some nuclear plant business out of this.....

China says snicker..

Goldman sacs and the other carbon credit piggies says moar..oink oink

The mountain tops say whew.

[Cali_Democrat]

5. So Obama imposing carbon limits is actually a bad thing?

[Jesus Malverde]

6. From the perspective of the mountain tops it's looking good.

Restricting one of our most abundant natural energy resources will:

Increase the profits of the oil industry as we burn more natural gas.

Increase the cost of energy overall taking a larger share of the already strapped budgets of those on fixed incomes.

Increase the unemployment of those belonging to the United Mine Workers union

Increase the likelihood of GE foisting more of their nuclear power plants on the now choice-less public.

Increase the probability of more businesses moving their manufacturing to china where they will find cheaper energy.

Serves to stoke the meme of a public private partnership of carbon management that will enrich those in the financial sector that will manage it.

I'd say from a plus/minus perspective it's a loser, cause it makes all the wrong players winners.

[Cali_Democrat]

2. Anyone?

[Cali_Democrat]

3. Bueller?