Is Trump going to next propose that we build “big, beautiful walls” around the borders of each state, walls that extend upwards, all the way through the exosphere? Because that’s the only way you can even begin to contain air pollution within the legal boundaries of any given state. And how about coal effluent in state waterways? I suppose we could build dams to prevent polluted water from one state flowing into another state. Lots of “big, beautiful dams.” Or we could admit that Trump’s plan to leave coal regulations up to individual coal-producing states is utterly absurd.
5
Shameful bought and paid for hacks - Trump and his EPA are no better, actually worst, than tobacco lawyers from the past. “Tobacco doesn’t cause cancer” while they lined their pockets and watched millions of Americans die horrible deaths.
This is worst because you don’t “choose” to find yourself and your family drinking polluted public water and breathing toxic air so that Trump and and a hand full of his immoral cronies can punch their meal tickets.
Wake up America you and your family’s futures are being sold down the river.
Pardon the pun :-/
4
"Under the Clean Power Plan, the Obama administration had sought to reduce the country’s greenhouse gas emissions from power plants 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030."
"The United States has already achieved much of the reductions sought under the Clean Power Plan..."
Some greater specificity or citations would have been appreciated.
Since the rules were passed in 2015, but blocked in 2016, where did these reductions come from?
I'd guess the reductions had nothing to do with the Clean Power Plan, and more to the low cost of natural gas in competition with coal, and the retiring of old coal plants (made reference to in the next paragraph).
But, according to this article: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/10/us/politics/supreme-court-blocks-obam...
that statement is not true. A graph in that article shows over 50% reductions in emissions up to 2025 if the rules were enforced. While the trend for past few years show reductions in line with the rules, without the rules there will be twice as much emissions in 7 years as opposed to with the rules.
As someone who grew up in New Hampshire, I saw first-hand the devastating effects of acid rain caused by coal-burning plants in the Rust Belt. It devastated our forests and acidified lakes, killing fish, and it has taken decades for them to recover. But Trump and the GOP don't care. They foolishly want this short-term payoff to their idiot supporters that will have horrific long-term costs that go beyond the borders of those states that choose to pollute.
5
I have an electric car and solar panels. You cannot force me to buy your black death Mr. Oil. You cannot force me to buy your black death Mr. Coal.
1
Yes, State's don't have an impact on the environment of neighboring states. I'm being sarcastic, because I don't believe in alternative facts or alternative reality, or whatever it is Trump bases his decisions on.
Trump is a crackpot who should be immediately impeached. I'm not being sarcastic. Every step he has taken to deflect from the Mueller Investigation has shown he is a crackpot of the highest degree.
When will congress curtail this unintelligent, unstable person's reach?
1
States rights again?!? Oh no ...
Question is, does that mean only red states. I say this because anytime a small democratic government wants to do something , the GOP at the state and federal level stop them (eg: the bag ban).
States can regulate their own emissions when they agree to build a wall tall enough to keep their emissions out of my state's airspace.
1
The states most impacted by the nation's shift from oil/coal energy sources to natural gas, electric, and base renewables will make the necessary changes to insure their economic future. They will be a much better place to do so than those inside the Beltway.
If I was a citizen of one of the states directly impacted, I would demand it of my representative.
Is there not ONE Republican in Congress who recognizes the threat of environmental pollution and climate change to public health, economic stability and world peace? Some are educated people with degrees in science or engineering. Why is licking DJT’s boots more important to them than protecting their constituents’ health, safety, and long-term prospects? Many Republicans represent districts or states far from coal mines.
All who care about the environment MUST vote Democratic in November. Left, center, right, PC or non-PC, majority or minority, we must fight to save our country, our planet and our children’s future.
It really is that serious this time.
7
Air and water don't stay within state boundaries. Federal regulations are needed. This is a critical time for our environment. Please Congress do something.
10
It's a good thing that the environmental damage caused by the mining and combustion of coal will strictly respect the geographic boundaries of the states that promulgate their respective and unique regulations.
Another brilliant brain coup from the Oval Office!
16
Another great victory for Jill Stein and the so-called Green Party.
14
Jill Stein comes back to haunt America.
And for their Trumpist allies.
"Coherence in contradiction expresses the force of a desire."
We are going to see states suing one another. A financial nuisance for a large rich state, a terrible burden for small rural states. I purpose of the federal government is regulations that prevent these potential interstate feuds.
5
Found another excellent comment about the commercial realities of renewables vs. coal, this from a conservative energy higher-up:
"“Without incentives, wind is going to be a $0.02 or $0.03 product early in the next decade. Battery storage will be $0.01 on top of that. And when you look at (...) coal and nuclear, today, operating costs are around $0.03. New wind and new solar, without incentives and combined with storage, are going to be cheaper than the operating cost of coal and nuclear in the next decade. That is going to totally transform this industry."
— James Robo, 06/22/2017 CEO of NextEra Energy
It's a superb article by the fine Jeremy Grantham: https://www.gmo.com/docs/default-source/research-and-commentary/strategi... (it's not about GMOs, fwiw)
10
More quote: https://www.gmo.com/docs/default-source/research-and-commentary/strategi...
"The necessary investment in decarbonizing the economy will be epic and is already well of $300 billion a year. That’s the amount of money the world is spending annually to build out renewable energy. To put that in a very relevant perspective, ***$300 billion is less than the amount of losses in the US alone from weather and climate disasters in … 2017: Harvey, Maria, wildfires … all exacerbated by climate change.***"
3
How much does it cost to have an uninhabitable planet?
Does that mean we need to set up giant fans along the border of blue states to blow the air pollution back to the states it comes from? Unfortunately, it’s not that simple.
14
This is disgusting and greedy with no thought to quality of life now or in the future. Does no one in the government have critical thinking abilities? One would think that no one would wish climate change and pollution on at least their own children. Despicable.
11
Deja vous?
Hasn’t this already been tried in the 70’s ???
Acid rain anyone remember why we started with EPA ...yeah let’s make America polluted again!
13
Clean coal or Trump genius. Which is the greater oxymoron?
6
So the polluters’ outside corporate lawyer from the firm Hunton & Williams, William L. Wehrum, is now in charge of poisoning the air. This is the swamp, my uneducated and unaware trump friends. These law and lobbying firms need to be named and shamed. What rarified air do you think your high achiever kids in private DC schools breathe? Did you get sufficient $ to poison the rest of us. #Shame
10
I find it so ironic that while Trump is saying he wants to give states the right to decide environmental regulations on their own, his administration has threatened California for insisting on tougher emission standards for automakers.
Basically what Trump really means is he wants to give states the right to pollute but God help the states who want cleaner air and water. Then that’s a federal issue.
The GOP behaves this way with every issue. They whine about the federal government and champion states rights while telling the people of Oregon and WA who voted multiple times for the right to die as they wish and to legalize pot that those issues are federal. The AG has said he doesn’t believe the many states who’ve legalized pot have that right. When individual states legalized gay marriage the Republicans sued and said that was a federal issue. But when red states began closing abortion clinics by making regulations they knew they couldn’t meet, well that was just fine, even though the law of the land says abortion is legal.
Funny how the Republicans care so deeply about who you choose to marry, or how you choose to die, what bathroom you use if you’re a transgender woman or man, or that you prefer a joint to their martini but hands off anything that truly does affect all of us—our air, water, roads, food safety etc.
25
Well, heavens! Another problem of the commons!
4
I'll be on board with this as soon as they come up with a way to make the air over each state stay there.
8
Yeah that’ll work cause air doesn’t travel between states. Hope you like our Cali smoke on the east coast
7
What a fool Trump is. Even his own grandchildren will be damaged by coal fumes: asthma even cancer.
9
He clearly doesn't care. He just does not care.
6
Good. Because even the states know that not protecting the environment is foolish!
2
If I were part of the government of a country working hard and making sacrifices to lower green house gas emissions I would propose a law that said “any good or service imported from a country not doing the same will be taxed at 100 percent” Wonder if this would get a Republicans attention, when they screamed I would say it is for national security.
8
Oh, great. California will keep working hard to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and meantime fossil-fuel-loving states will be working hard to cancel out our efforts.
13
Some of us really admire your state!
When any one state's actions affect any other state(s)then is it the duty of the federal government to step in and regulate that one state's action or policy for the general good of that state itself as well as other states. Isn't that the was it is supposed to work. Remember the smog in places like Gary IN, Scranton PA and Pittsburg PA choking those cities and cities in other states as the pollution sashayed East. Let's not make smog great again.
8
How is this going to work? One state, say West Virginia, makes the emission standard very low, since the people of West Virginia don't mind breathing dirty air or polluted rivers. But people in Virginia wants clean air and water down the stream and have higher standard for emission. Is not like air and water would just stop at the state border. Perhaps, W Virginia would pay for a wall as high as the sky to keep the polluted air out? What a joke.
23
Energy is a global business, the firms that produce it must consistently show profits and pay dividends. Pressures from the EU, California, China and shareholders themselves will bring more green initiatives to life. Just look Apple’s ongoing efforts to mitigate the damage their production and devices cause. Many other firms strive to be as successful, mirroring Apple. The Federal Government is only abdicating responsibility. People will remain concerned about mercury pouring from coal power plant stacks into their family’s lungs.
5
Donald is clearly captain chaos, reminds me of Maxwell Smart. Sad to see a man of such limited intelligent or regard for the USA making believe he has any compassion for the people in our country. I feel very sorry for those that believe him. He lies to feed his ego.
14
Once again Trump shrugs off facing and dealing with the facts of a dying and deadly industry. Why isn’t there talk of a fund for coal mine laborers that will pay them what they were earning in the mines and puts them on Medicare immediately until they reach retirement age or find other employment? The only provision would be that they accept job training for other work and accept it if available with the fund making up any differences in pay. Why no talk of economic development & training programs so life in the mines is not the only choice?
On the other hand, if you are a coal miner willing to sell out to an authoritarian incompetent, couldn’t you at least get one that will give you a better life? Going back into the coal mines is the best you can wish for? You want to return to work in an occupation fraught with deadly accidents and occupational illness (black lung disease), not to mention the resulting environmental pollution affecting many others? Trump’s campaign promise to bring back coal mining again reveals more about his disdain for working people than his earnest concern for their welfare … if you’re not in the 1%, you’re just a pawn of one sort or another to Trump.
9
I have to say it again: There is no such thing as clean coal.
15
@GMabrey, you’re correct. Whether it’s before or after it’s burned, someone’s lungs are going to be poisoned.
So Trump will stand at the podium and blah blah blah for 15 minutes about coal and how it is better than solar or wind or other forms of environmentally better forms of energy. He knows squat about greenhouse gases. He couldn't care less about the environment. He has stocks or dividends or some other investment in the coal industry and is lining his pockets.
10
I’m all for state’s rights but the air in West Virginia doesn’t just stay there.
13
Trumps plan about this coal emissions sounds great and after all the place needs more safety regulations such as pollution and maybe other poisoning things that are lurking in that very air. It would make it a very clean power plant and it would be very life changing that other people do not realize this. Trump administration wants to get rid of the Obama-era rule as so they call it. there is also a decision that I do not really get which is to freeze the Obama-era fuel efficiency standards that were aimed to reducing the greenhouse gas emissions which I do not really get at all. I believe that this is good because science is being more futuristicly better and clearer so that also means that coming up with better ideas using science is much more easier and smarter to do because they have all the materials they need to figure out what problems that have in the coal emission and how they can get rid of the problem. I now understand that ex president Mr. Obama made some complications to the coal emission because Michelle Bloodworth which is the president of American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity blames Mr. Obama for "that mix of market conditions and what she called stringent". It is very weird to think about all the polution in the air and that is the reason why it must be regulated by the federal government and could affect health and I think that their effort should be appreciated because until now i have never noticed all the problems that the coal emissions have had.
@Tamara I live within 2 miles of a coal fired kiln cement plant. It's windy up here in the Southern Sierra/Tehachapi Mountains and the coal dumped on piles rise up into the air polluting the atmosphere. So does the asbestos laden quarry. Until the requirement to install mercury capturing equipment in the mercury laden coal that is emitted during heating of the kiln to "cook" the cement mercury was emitted right into the atmosphere. For years Lehigh Cement plant poor mouthed and threaten to close the plant and put the people out of work. When I researched their parent company Heidelberg Corporation the company has 3000 plants not just one mom and pop plant. When the rule went into effect, they proudly installed the equipment and take great pride in doing so.
Never mind that our small town had children growing up with life long autism, brain and speech disconnects and major burdens on the families that endured the health costs. Thank God for the Obama administration and may Trump and the entire administration endure the same suffering as the innocent people of our small town. They should have toxic material dumped in their backyards as far as I see it.
14
@Tamara, China is the closest coal-burning state upwind of California.
If only the pollution from such plants would stay within each state. But since it doesnt, this must be regulated by the federal government.
12
@M.
Pollution doesn't stay within the U.S. either. It's shared with everyone around the world.That's why there must be international cooperation on this, such as the Paris Agreement.
19
Back in the mid-80's I read "The Last Stand", a book by Ralph Nader discussing the acidification of the air in the Northeast based upon the emissions of large coal plants in the mid-west. As a fitter/welder I worked on some of those coal plants and in one I climbed to the very top of the enormously high stack (chimney) to look out over the flat lands. It was built so high to ensure the garbage wouldn't land on the local area. This in '77. In the late 80's I worked across the New England States and while in VT in the spring I would carry litmus paper to check the Ph of the run-off. Yes, it was acidic and you could tell by the condition of the mtn tops with dead trees, etc. This was caused by the emissions of the tall stack I had climbed. "We don't care where it lands, as long as it doesn't land on us.", said those mid-western states. Only through sensible action has this problem been lessened. Turn it back to the States and let the game begin!
5
Sorry folks, the Supreme Court has already ruled, some time ago, the the pollution streams cross state lines and are in the legitimate purview of the EPA. This latest chum to your base is is the usual "all show and no go". It is not bankruptcy court any more "the like, I'm smart, a stable genius" "D" student from Penn, it remains rule of law.
17
Devolving this kind of power to the states is a major aspect of the Koch Conspirary, ALEC and the Federalists' attempt to wrest power from the government in Washington and put it into the hands of those whose are more easily influenced by dark money, and who are better able to avoid scrutiny than senators and congressmen in DC. They have worked to suppress participation in elections at state level, and to elect governors and pack legislatures with those amenable to their cause of individual financial liberty over collective democracy, because they value their money more than they do their fellow man. The assault on the environment is but one aspect of their sweeping agenda. Read Democracy in Chains by Nancy MacLean for a comprehensive account.
14
Global warming is the challenge for all over the world. Not only EU countries but also China are making efforts to reduce emissions of greenhouse gas. If the U.S. government does not cooperate with them in this international challenge, it will lose the trust of the world.
7
Virginia has the brain power to regulate itself.
2
it's not brains. it's money. seems no US government, not state nor federal, will resist the siren call of bribery.
2
@Haig Ferguson
Doesn't take any "brain power" at all to drag an entire state back 50 years in environmental protection for the sake of a few hundred coal mining jobs. Fox Fakenews and Trump might as well try bringing back ice wagons.
10
"Some men just want to burn everything to the ground. "
Life, imitating art.
8
If CO2 stayed in the states where it is emitted then this idea might make some sense, but of course it doesn't.
And so this is on par with "we'll let drug pushers regulate how much drugs they sell."
13
So, I get to pay more for the same existential necessities, and still have to subsidize those states whose citizens can’t grasp that science is a much more reliable indicator than their horrifically mistranslated version of the Pentateuch?
This might be the first time that I’ve ever felt happy to be aware what the implications of “Old Testament” actually are.
5
China has a detailed plan for being the renewable energy leader by 2035. We're betting the ranch on a 19th Century fuel. I just can't wait to get my hands on the 2022 model of the coal car. After all, climate change is just a hoax conjured up by the Chinese.
12
The first comment to appear is the same one that I had. Donald is cherry picking what will be decided via States Rights, right up until a State legislator no longer wants to play along...then what is he and Rick Perry going to do. How much money are they going to burn up to reinvest in starting up new coal mines now that most power plants are converting to gas powered plants.
5
Isn't it ironic that Trump wants to allow states to power plant emissions, but wants to take away the rights of states to regulate automobile emissions? If he were a rational person, I'd ask him how he can reconcile those two positions.
18
It’s not hard. Unlike power plants, cars need to be built uniform for a single market. Chevy can’t have different models in each state. Power plants can be designed for each state.
Positions reconciled.
@Barry Short What Trump wants is to take away any say you have, or any legal resource any citizen might want, either way. He wants to reduce discerning consumers to helpless addicts.
3
@DRS. Chevrolet sells cars in 50 states and 100 countries. They can figure it out. VW and Fiat, etc have.
As far as the argument that 40% percent of all coal fired power plants have been retired or scheduled to be retired, that is because these plants were old and were costing too much to maintain, or in the case of the oldest ones, to have the air pollution control equipment installed for them to finally be in compliance with the 1970 Clean Air Act. (These plants had been grandfathered in under the act because they were all supposed to have exceeded their usable life within 20 years). Considering the fact that the cost of installing such equipment can run from 15% to 25% the cost of a new plant, it was not cost effective to install this equipment to allow the plant to run another 10 to 20 years. And for the plants that already had the needed air pollution control equipment, the daily operating and maintenance (O&E) cost of this equipment can run up to 50% the O&E costs for the entire plant. With low cost of natural gas, it was fair more cost effective to build a new natural gas plant, which is far more responsive to rapid changes in the demand for electricity and which can recover up to 60% or better of the energy of the gas versus 25% - 30% of the energy of the coal, than it was to continue operating a 40 year old (or older) coal based power plant.
9
Apparently, this administration still believes that the air pollution that a coal fired power plant magically stops at the state line. Somehow, the state border is able to stop the wind from blowing across it carrying pollution into the next state. Anyone who has worked in the air permitting industry for more than year knows that air pollution is a regional issue where states such as New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York are impacted by emissions from coal fired power plants as far away as Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois. When you talk about greenhouse gas emissions, the impacts are nationwide and larger.
17
@Thomas H. Pritchett Nothing about the data or the facts or the effects of this will stop what Trump wants to do. It's a repudiation of the very idea of responsibility by the government. The objective is to smash the public's entitlement to know, and thereafter to make sure they don't ever ask.
6
So states will be suing other states, how trumpian!
Finally! Thank you Mr. President.
when it come down to it - since the human race is working so hard at self-extinction - it should be rewarded for the effort.
1
More proof that Trump's not a builder but a destroyer.
The man has NO vision.
3
Let’s see, build the cheapest, biggest, dirtiest coal plant, put it on your Eastern border so that the prevailing West wind blows that pollution out of your state and into the next state.
Like back when “America was great” and you could barely breathe the air.
5
I'd really try and get over the notion that Trump's carefully planning this or anything else. All this is, is a couple wacko staffers and a boatload of coal industry lobbyists chatted Trump up, he heard the magic word, "deregulation," he figured that this'd help him with the suckers, and that's about it.
Don't even bother trying to oppose this clown with the science, concern for our environmental future, actual economic facts, or any such thing.
Man doesn't care. Probably can't even understand your argument, any more than he can understand that Russia and Iran are gonna move in to Syria now that he's pulling the rebuilding aid.
You might as well argue with an ivy plant about climbing up your garage; he hasn't got thoughts, he's got tropisms.
20
Don't like it? Vote Democrat this November. Nothing else will make the slightest difference.
18
Typical "progressive" reaction, nothing really changes - Obama's oppressive regulations never went into effect - yet our "progressives" are screaming like it's the end of the world.
1
an apt comparison
I'm still waiting for some minion to acknowledge that they scream like this because the Kochs have them by.
I’m good with this as long as they keep the dirty air and runoff on their side of the border.
Wait. What?
6
Trump believes it is okay to pollute with dirty coal for profit as long as you don't kneel on a football field because that is hurting everyone.
1
If you're wondering how Trump and republicans get away with this sort of thievery, look no further than people who're still chanting their lines about Al Gore and jets, or the natural radioactivity of nuclear power, or suing living creatures because they exhale CO2, or how the temp sensors are crooked, or how the warming reports are only guesswork, or how the planet warmed up more in the past because sunspots, or how radical environmentalists burn SUVs, or the LIA and anyway they used to predict an ice age, or how the weather just changes, or how great it'd be to grow wheat in Siberia, or here's a snowball so you are all commies.
I'm only surprised nobody's sworn up and down that anthracosis is a hoax, or a little coal slurry in a creek makes the trout bigger, or so what if there are a thousand rickety earth dams holding millions of gallons of polluted runoff.
Oh, by the way? Plants don't exhale, and they don't emit CO2.
3
Basically, this is ridiculous. I'm referring to a lot: POTUS's tweeting, POTUS's speeches, POTUS's threats, POTUS's ignorance, POTUS's lies, POTUS's law bending (if not breaking). But it goes beyond POTUS. And that's worth noting. It goes beyond His Big-Boss-Ness, and includes: 1) the trashing of law; 2) indifference to how the 'rule of law' needs to works (lessons it took centuries to learn); 3) sexual predators and their enablers; 4) people whose entire consciousness is focused only on ends (not means); the complete absence of time-honored principle (except 'me, me, me'). And it's not unintentional, but is the predictable result of deliberate, calculated maneuvering and deception. And not by some or other 'deep state.' It's completely on the surface. Example: the idea that Social Security is an "entitlement." A complete perversion of the word. Only in the sense that each of us is "entitled" to our own money is Social Security an entitlement. Is private property an "entitlement"? Creeps in government are trying to legitimize their squandering--and theft--of our money. And Trump is their instrument. That's how creepy things are. He's an instrument of a few billionaire's limitless greed. Here the question: Is Trump the POTUS we deserve?
3
Trump wants to turn the clock back in America and revert back to the Industrial age before checks on regulation and pollution, backwards thinking.
1
We are all, unfortunately, "Under the Dome".
2
Mr. Schneider said. “This is to put the thumb on the scales and bring coal back.”
Typical illogic by a disciple of the Church of Global Warming.
No, Mr. Schneider this is not putting the thumb on the scales, actually just the opposite. Please just try and argue honestly.
1
This is like upgrading the buggy whip factory as Ford Model T's roll off the assembly line- get over it, people-there's only 50,000 people emplyed in the coal industry in the US, there are more people employed by Arby's......
2
If only someone had been around to drain the coal forming swamps millions of years ago. And now the swam monsters are back and they are in the White House.
2
Trump has not only stained the office of the president,he's intent in endangering the health and welfare of hundreds of millions of U.S. citizens! Trump and his entire cabinet ,as well as most of the republican congress are eminent an threat to the United States of America! The news media, instead of focusing on Russia,should be covering all the deregulation of our air and water purity standards, which endangers everyone!
1
I hope someone takes video of the state of West Virginia before the Capitalists have their way.
1
"..and Allison D. Wood, a partner at the law firm Hunton Andrews Kurth who represents several electric utilities, said she believed the new proposal would provide utilities with certainty while still allowing emissions to dip".
But of course it will provide no such thing because when this administration is booted out of office, a Democratic president will re-institute the Obama plan, or something very similar.
Coal is dirty and polluting both to mine and burn. It harms our air and contributes to global warming Nothing can change those fundamental facts, and whilst Trump and Republicans may delay the demise of coal, their boneheaded stupidity will not alter its inevitable end as an energy source.
8
I can see that the only people to benefit from this act of idiocy will be the lawyers. States downwind from coal using states will sue, coal producing states will counter sue and the taxpayers will get stiffed with the bill. Coal has had its day, time to move on and be able to breathe the air and drink the water. As for job losses, I have deep admiration for anyone who could work in a coal mine but it’s a filthy, dangerous, unhealthy job with owners like Don Blankenship who don’t give a toss about their workers.
1
I can't wait for all the states that are adjacent to states that pollute the air with coal dust to sued those states that are polluting and winning big time .
Trump allowing states to pollute abutting states air by not restricting emissions, would not be surprising
Bob Dylan changing his lyric to:
You don't need a stable genius
To know which way the wind blows
now that would be surprising.
1
Under these changes, could states ban the burning of coal? It may provide a significant opportunity. We could become a nation of clean states and dirty states.
5
@Jim Parks
But as others note, a "dirty" state's air doesn't stop at the state line, and "clean" downwind states can't stop that dirty air with a wall or a tariff. Although maybe this administration would be receptive to a tariff remedy of sorts, allowing states that regulate emissions to to get financial relief from the Feds (like tariff-hurt soybean farmers) for the costs of increased carbon dioxide in their air.
2
Trump is essentially a nihilist. As he is pressured by events, his anger is increasing and he will do more destructive things. In other words, he could care less if we all choke to death.
2
I have no problem at all with the states regulating their coal mines, provided they erect walls confining the pollution they produce to their own citizens, and not innocent citizens of other states. Apparently these states care very little for their own citizenry, but don't ask me and others to put up with this pollution.
2
Sadly, until the Republicans are defeated in November, and later in 2020, there will be no stopping Trump and his goons.
8
It is beyond human understanding why believing or not believing in climate change should any impact on regulations governing pollution. Why would you ever tolerate anything that jeopardizes the health of the planet?
Clean water, clean air, healthy forests, healthful food, safe drugs, everything that sustains the planet and its inhabitants should be paramount.
Automobile workers and coalminers may have jobs, but they are not the ones getting rich, and it is their descendants who will pay the price for rampant exploitation of the environment.
6
Tell how well that worked for civil rights, women's right, and education? No, this is just another way to claim state rights in a different time.
5
Is it the money he gets from the coal producers, the adulation from his base, or is it his sickening desire to erase everything good that Obama accomplished that drives him? Whatever his motivation, it is abundantly clear that he is an extremely vindictive little man, undoubtedly the worst president in history.
11
If these are his great ideas, then I’d hate to see his average or below average great ones.
3
@JG,
You just made me laugh out loud with your comment! Thanks for the laugh.
Trump will also soon announce plans to build a wall around each state so the air and water each state pollutes won’t affect their neighbors.
Wait ... a wall won’t work?
5
If States could keep the consequences within their own States, maybe ...
But, the fact remains that isn’t the case. What recourse do States the care about the environment have?
Fossil fuel use (or any use of combustible hydrocarbons really) is killing the planet.
This is a total loser thing to do.
Coal is not coming back. Period, no matter how much corp.welfare you throw to the sector, no matter many external costs (asthma; lung cancer) are shoved onto unwitting citizens. Wind and solar are the future. Duh.
Invest in clean energy and give coal states some incentives to grow jobs with a future.
(In the meantime, go visit a pediatric asthma ward.)
2
Ignore the environment, destroy the economy and the nation’s social fabric, and let the people with close ties to the person in power swoop in and pick up the pieces at fire sale prices. Sounds like a recipe for Russia.
3
I’m all in favor of the federal government clamping down on carbon dioxide emissions. Trump, tell California to put all those forest fires out, and I mean now! Tree huggers, my foot.
@John Doe,
Are you serious with your comment? Your Tree Huggers jab suggests you either ignorant to what is going on here or just don't care. Do you think CA wants these fires? Almost every day a fireman dies fighting these fires. People have lost their homes from these fires. There is nothing glorious about them and CA is doing what they can to stop them. If you're so concerned about clamping down on CO2 emissions, feel free to grab a hose and shovel and come help the brave firemen who are risking their lives to put out these human-caused fires. Otherwise, go troll at a Trump Rally.
2
John's still upset by the Flood, which--like all Trumpists--he has never heard of.
The states in the northeast will sue the coal states for dumping acid rain on their forests and affecting the health of their people and thus the economic viability of their states. The northeast states will win. This is precisely the reason the federal government is involved with emissions control. So as to mitigate the financial risks to the coal states. The soot breathers need to be punished economically. But hey, it's Appalachia, we should have sympathy on those ignorant people. Isn't that correct bleeding hearts? They're not really cruel, they just don't understand. Perhaps we should send them federal funds to help them climb out of their self imposed poverty. If they finally understand they will change and not be cruel and not vote for evil politicians, and unicorns will populate the earth.
2
Emissions would rise in PA for sure where fracking already owns the government.
1
With each new presidential directive, I feel that he is sticking his thump in the eye of those of us who opposed him. He has no regard for and no sense of history when NYC air was enveloped in smog and smoke from apartment house incinerators that burned their trash. Building owners rebelled at the cost of installing trash compactors in their buildings. Today, auto exhaust and other effluents continue to pollute the air. I now live west of Boston and the air is cleaner. I can usually see the Blue Hill TV. transmitters about 10 miles away from my windows and miles of tree from a natural preserve nearby. I'm a native NY'er but fortunate to live in a cleaner environment now.
2
This administration's approach to governing, including its stance on environmental issues, reminds me of the Batman film with a corrupt administration running Gotham City. It's like we're all starring in a Gotham City nightmare that gets worse by the week, and that we just can't wake up from....
3
Lung disease: WINNING!
5
Add in that West Virginia's republican controlled state legislature is impeaching all it's Supreme Court Justices to allow any and everything.
Adjacent states will sue WV over problems created by their lack of regulation. Who wants their air and water poisoned?
You will hear from Maryland and Virginia before the end of next week.
If you are down wind or down river from a coal state contact your state AG office today.
1
Well, if that is his philosophy as it relates to things that are harmful, then please allow states to regulate firearms too.
4
@Tom Q
States do regulate firearms and concealed carry permits.
It's not just about pollution but also about whether we humans will be able to live on Earth in just a few generations! If you care about your grandchildren's world, VOTE!
1
The deleterious effects of fossil fuels - and especially coal - have been established transparently for about 30-40 years.
More apropos to this current Trump assault on our quality of life and viability of our Blue Marble is the established fact of border-ignoring deleterious pollutant distribution. Rigorous studies definitively show this and common sense aligns with the facts. To wit it is obvious.
Trump gets a two banger for this - whipping up base support by feeding their false assumptions and dreams, and sticking a finger in the eyes of the "too Blue" North East.
The Trump and his minions are a bane. But the GOP that encourages and allows our Nation's destruction in so many ways is a real and present danger.
Remember it was President Bush the First in 1989 that proposed sweeping revisions to the Clean Air Act building on Congressional proposals advanced during the 1980s. Title IV of the Clean Air Act proudly bears his efforts.
His son also has notable positive environmental accomplishments.
We are better off by all scientific measures for theirs and others who had the courage to do the right thing.
Rather Trump/Pence is a prime example that this GOP is not worthy to lick the boots of an Eisenhower or a Bush I or a Dirksen let alone a Lincoln.
The GOP of today is a disgrace - wake up America.
4
As I was searching the web for information regarding emissions, I came across this astonishing article that indicates Robert Phalen, a Trump appointee to the EPA's Scientific Advisory Board, thinks that the air is too clean, and children need more particulates to toughen up and build resistance.
"[Mr..] Phalen, an air pollution researcher at the Irvine campus of the University of California, said in 2012 that children need to breathe irritants so that their bodies learn how to ward them off."
https://www.newsweek.com/robert-phalen-epa-air-too-clean-700143
Phalen must be ecstatic about these proposed coal regulations. We've truly entered an era of the absurd.
31
@T Norris, your side is supposed to believe in science. There is considerable scientific evidence that a certain level of exposure to pathogens and irritants helps children develop healthy immune systems.
@Mr Darcy that is absolutely true, but the argument that we are short on pathogens and irritants, and need to introduce more for our own good, is absurd. Where in the U.S. is that the case?
@T Norris
Maybe his children or grandchildren should be require to live adjacent to the coal plants to they can toughen up. He would want to provide them that advantage, right?
As a pediatrician with expertise in infectious disease, I can assure you that chemical irritants ata young age do not toughen up your body and you DO NOT have a mechanism that will build up a resistance. It can trigger asthma that carries into adulthood. It’s clear to many in the health community that air quality matter to health particularly for the young and old. Too bad there aren’t real scientist giving input but then these rules would remain.
1
Same issue, same stupidity by this administration. Air pollution crosses state lines and downwind states suffer at the hands of upwind states. That is the reason we have federal regulations for many things that travel interstate. Now if the state which creates pollution was forced to keep it within their own borders, they can poison their own voters, not other states.
3
well, as long as the coal burning States don't require tall smoke stack to send that clean coal flue gas into the non-coal burning Staates. just keep all the clean coal flue gases in the clean coal States so they breathe clean coal air.
4
While I'm in favor of greater federalism and the checks and balances benefits it supplies, certain areas need federal regulation. Air pollution is one of those areas, as is CO2 emission. I would like to see more emphasis on nuclear power, hydroelectric power (especially in the West), and other carbon and air-quality friendly technologies that are more reliable than wind and solar. Coal doesn't seem like it has much of a future.
@Chris-zzz: Over the course of US history, the meaning of the word "federalism" has flipped back and forth between support for a strong central government, and suppression of the central government in favor of semi-autonomous states. Which interpretation do you support?
@Steve Bolger. Federalism from a U.S. Constitutional point of view has always meant that power is shared between the state and fed govts, with the fed govt's power limited to areas enumerated in the Constitution. This does not imply "supression of the central govt" but rather that there is both a division and a sharing of responsibilities and powers. Federalism is a key aspect of the Constitution's system of checks and balances.
This is a continuation of this President's and republicans' efforts to erase all that President Obama and Democrats achieved. - especially in the area of conservation and reducing the effects of climate change.
Jobs within the coal industry are not going to come back, nor should they anymore than black lung disease. Automation, as well as market forces pushing for cleaner power are the factors that are eliminating coal sector jobs. This is nothing more than pandering and a continuation of the above.
What is really required is a massive overhaul of the power grid, making it more reliable and efficient. - you know, like infrastructure, which this President promised to do again and again. That was nixed for tax theft (trillions) for the rich and corporations, along with crushing new taxes/tariffs implemented.
Got to carry those 5 electoral votes for West Virginia.
6
..., “Make America Grey Again”!
If this is the best that “I know the best people” people, can come up with then good luck with that.
It’s unfathomable that there’s still debate about the (measurable) effects (and consequences) of greenhouse gas emissions. Really?!
Climate change, whether we like it or not, is real and so are the challenges in terms of adapting both for the sake of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and for the sake of preparing to live and thrive with the impacts.
This challenge, which the specialists term the greatest challenge humankind has ever faced, requires a concerted and sustained effort, not piecemeal and potentially suboptimal and conflicting tactics.
Respectfully, America because of its size and share of the contributing greenhouse gas emissions has an leadership responsibility. It quite staggering to see America missing in action.
Brave new world ...
@Kristian Thyregod, One gets a pretty good idea how Trump must handle his own taxes going by his glowing endorsement of Paul Manafort" as a "Good man".
3
Auto emissions to be federally regulated, and states forced to comply. Coal emissions to be regulated by states, and neighboring states that suffer forced to accept it.
What does the Republican party stand for anymore, except personal profiteering?
4
Oh well. Just one more reason for the rest of the world to finish eliminating use of coal, and then conclude an agreement on the environmental tariff that will apply to all goods and services produced in those states that still use it.
@On Therideau Many hundreds of large coal plants recently built are expected to remain in operation for 50 years.
Do you think this might have something to do with the senate seat in West Virginia? If clean air could get Trump and the republicans that senate seat, they would raise a ballyhoo about shutting down coal-fired plants. Trump's overhaul will allow states to set their own emission standards for coal but not automobiles. Do you think this is about money? Too bad we can't genetically alter ourselves to breath money.
States controlling their own emissions works for me as long as they contain those emissions in the atmosphere directly above their state boundaries. Then a person could move from a state with bad air to a state with good air. Unfortunately, that's not how the atmosphere works. There is no state air, no national air and no continental air. There is only world air. Breath deep America. The air you breath today may be the best air you get to breath for the rest of your life.
8
Excellent points. That last sentence is so right and chilling.
2
@richard wiesner, With Trump, everything he does is intended to "get even" with somebody.
1
Make America Breathe Clean Air Again
No question that the trend toward renewables will take a hit. But I should think that left to the market, generators would fuel with natural gas over coal. Even if states like WV gutted emission requirements, gas is cheaper than coal and, given the inevitable shifting political winds, is a more reliable choice in the longer run. Moreover, gas is produced in the coal-extraction states, and coal companies have already started to replace coal operations with gas, and with that, coal extraction infrastructure investment is way down, no doubt reducing capacity. So one might view Trump’s decision as a canny political maneuver intended to drive liberals crazy, but the real effect won’t be as grim as he’d like us to believe.
2
@MWR, Coal contains lots of natural gas too. That is what makes it so dangerous to mine, the possibility of explosions as well as collapses.
As I remember, a few years back some states sued neighboring states whose coal emissions blew with prevailing winds across their borders. Will those lawsuits still be permitted?
13
@Antoine, more to the point: What will a judiciary peopled with state's rights "Federalist Society" judges do to curb the metastatic state eat state cancer of the US?
Isn't this the very federal/state position for which California is litigating? California advocates letting the states define rules governing auto fuel efficiency and emissions. Trump apparently advocates letting the states define power station fuel consumption and emission rules. What's the problem?
3
@BD California would regulate and use this as a way to raise tax income unlike fracking in PA where the industry pays zero taxes and the public will pay for any environmental cleanup disaster. It all depends on the politicians in charge of each state as to whether this is good for it's citizens or bad.
@BD The problem is CA's auto emissions standards don't pollute WVa. If WVa could keep its coal emissions in-state, I'm sure the other states wouldn't object to it.
3
@BD -- The problem is that coal-fired plant emissions from West Virginia end up killing fish in Adirondack lakes. If they can figure out a way to keep all of their emissions in-state, then that would be hunky dory. Until then, we've got an issue.
4
Trump is not the problem. The problem is the 65 million Americans who believe Trump is doing a fantastic job. Democrats are counting on a November "Blue Wave" to right all the wrongs- Now I'm not so sure.
15
@Aaron,
Yeah, I agree with you about the blind-loyalty Trumpers. They are going to come out in full force in November and in 2020. The Democrats need to do more than "count on" voters going to the polls. They need to come up with a viable opponent who stands a chance of actually defeating Trump. Right now, they have nobody.
1
This is a brilliant move by the President. This is equivalent to an abandonment of a policy position, or an embrace of a “No-policy” position yielding the right to tweak it to individual states. If the fossil fuel industry were to suffer, he would blame the states; otherwise, he would collect the accolades.
It is a win-win non-zerosum game for the President. For the society, though, it is a loss of both time and momentum to control the environment. Secondly, the President knows the states are going to do whatever they can from their side to control the ecology. In that case, why not position oneself to take the reward either way? If weather turns hotter, blame the states.
3
Thanks for this article. This is the latest in a long history of harmful policies by Republicans. I have documented many that I witnessed in my 50 years working in Washington to protect the public's health and safety. See
https://www.legalreader.com/50-years-of-legal-climate-change/
11
@Louis V. Lombardo
Thanks Lou !
Air and water do not respect artificial boundaries such as as state lines. That's why this is a terrible idea.
I lived in Chicago in 1970, where one could see a "smog" line over Lake Michigan. Let's not go back to those days.
Instead, government needs to be looking forward to clean energy like wind and solar.
This is simply a carrot for coal country. Odd that Mr. Trump pays his political debts when he is so well known for ignoring monetary debts.
17
If you think national politics has attracted some dim bulbs, take some time and look at a few state houses. Regrettably, we are at a point in this country where decent people are wanting less and less to get involved with political office. This clears the way for the nitwits and they have been happy to fill the void. If you think this sounds elitist, do some research. Remember, Mike Pence was a governor. Rick Perry was a governor. George W. Bush was a governor. Not a lot of brainpower among them, but here we are. So letting the states figure out what to do about clean power will be anything but a clean process.
8
No vision, no plans, just pushing decisions off on others, blaming others for anything and everything. I read an interview with one of his supporters who regretted his vote for him, saying that he was such a deeply flawed human being, that he was shocked and embarrassed by him and there wasn't a day that went by that he didn't wake up now and say, oh, how he wished Hillary was our President. Having missed Trump's flaws during the campaign was quite a feat -- he was deeply flawed and a pathological/mean liar throughout, so his comments might be a little disingenuous, but for I pray that all of his supporters can really look and not be embarrassed and help get this man out of office as quickly as possible. He's a menace and that's putting it mildly.
18
Trump gets everything backwards. He interferes in the Russian collusion/obstruction investigation and then goes hands-off on letting coal states regulate emissions. That's putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop.
3
Let W. Virginia continue to suffer economically and fiscally if they want to. Thank God I live in California (and Silicon Valley, Capitol of Green Tech).
BTW, Calf. accounts for 40% of the USA's entire budget while Virginia takes from the national budget.
This will all change again once we are done w our narcissistic dictator in 2020.
11
Wouldn't it be truer to Republican logic to let coal companies "self-regulate"?
4
This is wonderful news for an energy-independent America.
1
Can someone name a single decision that Donald Trump has made if office that wasn't driven by self-serving corruption?
27
Letting coal states set their own emissions standards is like letting the tobacco industry hire its own PR department.
5
People need to stop trying to deduce some kind of overall strategy or grand plan by this administration for the appalling actions it is taking other than the very obvious one: if former President Obama was for it, this criminal cabal is against it. That is the sole “plan.” It’s essentially public policy dictated by a toddler, namely the one currently squatting in the Oval Office. This immature baby once had his precious feelings hurt by our former (and legitimately elected) president, and now anything he did must be erased, regardless of facts, science, logic or anything else. This latest proposal is typically ridiculous, and this is no way to run a country.
7
This is great news! If states are allowed to regulate themselves, I'm guessing that California will also be allowed to set its own fuel efficiency standards for cars?
4
And will the polluted air not find its way over Trump Tower,
Mar-A-Lago and all the other Trump branded properties?
5
@Beth Allen Not rally. He'd be the first to complain if it did.
American states exist for only one reason: to deny equal protection of the law. Woe to all who live downwind or downhill from toxic waste dump states in this trickle down of pollution nation.
8
How about letting each state have its own air traffic control system?
6
I pledge allegiance to the flag
Of the United States of America
And to the republic for which it stands one nation
One nation under crony capitalism
With catastrophic economic free-riding
That always seems to benefit the very few.
9
Careful Bob, now our esteemed President will have no choice but to tweet you an insulting message at 3:00 AM telling you to get out of the Country if you don't respect the flag and our Armed Forces (which of course, also has nothing to do with the point you were trying to make).
1
Neighboring states should be able to sue those nearby who are polluting our shared air. We need to make sure there’s a steep price tag for the destruction of our air quality.
10
This plan is nothing but government welfare for the coal industry. Coal is dying a natural free-market death as cheaper, cleaner power plants (including wind and solar) replace coal-fired electricity. New government rules befitting coal won't change the economic trends. What ever happened to Republican belief in free markets?
13
Let us all not forget what it says about Puppet Trump that he would consider something like this knowing his own children will have to live in the same world as the rest of us.
Eco-tourism and clean energy employ literally hundreds of thousands more people than the coal industry and at, generally, significantly higher wages. For those of you who may read this who live in coal states, there really is a better way!
7
Now, let's see: According to the Trump administration, it's okay for states to regulate coal as they see fit; but it's not okay for states to regulate auto emissions.
I'm sure there will be court challenges to these positions, and let's hope that they can delay these lax rules long enough for a change in political climate--and administration--in Washington.
At a time when the climate is clearly heading in dangerous directions, Mr. Trump's policies are truly reckless.
16
@T Norris The auto emission regulation changes are to punish California.
1
I care deeply about the environment and I am not waiting for the government to tell me how much I am allowed to pollute the air or microenvironment or how much coal emission is allowed. I drive a small fuel efficient car, I don't smoke and I don't eat anything that is cooked on a coal fired grill. If everyone on our planet takes their own responsibility seriously to minimally pollute our air, there would be minimal climate change.
Coal states should be held responsible for ensuring that coal emission standards should not exceed the national coal emission standards and if there is anything like clean coal then use it to ensure that coal emissions meet the current national emission standards or those that were established in this century before Trump took office.
The current climate change according to Nobel laureate Albert Gore has not occurred in the past 2 years but from several decades before that. So this should be a non issue for the 2018 midterm elections.
2
Mike Pence is from WV, and they have 50-something of these coal plants there. That's why.
4
Coal is a vestige of the 19th (not even the 20th) energy system. Now that we know that global warming is real as in the fires consuming California and intense super-hurricanes like Harvey and Maria, it's time for states like California and New York and hopefully others to act to ban coal from their energy systems. There is no such thing as "clean coal," it kills miners with black lung disease and it kills thousands of others with its greenhouse gas pollution and cancerous particulate matter. It should be banned both as a public health hazard as well as a threat to global warming and our very survival. We need to look forward, not backward, to save ourselves and those who risk their lives mining coal. They need healthy, safe, good-paying jobs. It's time for a new version of TVA called the Appalachian Energy Authority that would guarantee every mine worker in eastern Kentucky and West Virginia a job in producing green energy manufacturing wind turbines and solar panels. We can save them for continued poverty and ill-health, and save ourselves from climate change, but time is running out.
9
He is truly one of the most destructive forces on our planet. Vote, get out of the vote, and campaign and/or donate to every Democratic candidate there is.
23
@J.
"He is truly one of the most destructive forces on our planet."
I totally and emphatically agree. He's a one man wrecking crew.
I have a stream flowing past my house. I see no reason why I should have to pay the 'big government' to connect to their water and sewage systems, since I can get my water as it enters my property, and 'do my business' in the stream as it exits my property. And if I found coal on my property, I should be able to burn it for power if I want. This is about property rights, which we hold above all other rights, such as your right to clean air, clean drinking water, and a stable climate.
@Phil:
And other people won't have clean air and clean water if we permit ourselves to do whatever we want, whenever we want, in whichever manner we choose.
Also, property are rights held "above all other rights"? Where are property rights mentioned in the FIRST Amendment?
Good lord. Find an island and knock yourself out with that ridiculous and juvenile libertariansim.
8
@Phil When what you do on your property leaves your property, by air or stream, you have now trespassed onto the public and private property of others. Unlike the anti-contraception crowd, most would agree that what you do that stays on your property is your personal business. If you pollute my air or water, it's an actionable trespass, irrespective of where that action began.
8
States' rights for all pollution. Let a handful of states pollute the air for the rest of the country. Just watch the GOP jump on this opportunity. Remember the Senate majority leader is from a coal state.
11
And the states will have to build really high fences so that the emissions stay within each state.
28
At a time in history when certain people can't remember, by the end of a sentence, what they said at the beginning of that same sentence, it's not surprising that nobody can remember the reason that the federal government regulated power plant emissions in the first place. Let me remind you that states with power plants have absolutely no incentive to take into consideration the needs of states downwind from those plants. in fact, the incentive is to burn the cheapest fuels as cheaply as possible, i.e. with no pollution controls, as none of the resulting pollutants will affect the residents of the state producing those pollutants. However, in the next state,....
20
@Scottilla: As far as I can see, the net result of preserving "sovereign" US states is only a race to the bottom.
5
In other words, the proposal is to reward coal companies for decades of use of obsolete, decrepit, polluting equipment. And as the closing statements say, to ignore market forces that are driving coal out of the energy market.
Figures. After all, there are white folks to pander to.
By the way, it does again clarify what Trump's generally doing. Mortgaging the future, sell off the seed corn, spending now and getting well down the road before the bills show up.
As always, one wonders why the people who yell about debts and deficits and balanced budgets manage to ignore the environmental bills they're running up. You know...the ones their kids will have to pay.
9
@Robert, Possibly as much as $6 trillion to contain its nuclear messes alone.
What a shame that America's "progressive" environmentalists all but killed clean, nonpolluting, greenhouse gas-free nuclear energy. The chickens, again, have come home to roost. And please, before anyone responds that radiation, which occurs naturally in rocks and minerals, is a pollutant, think twice.
3
@Ed L. Nuclear fusion was supposed to be the answer, but it is vastly more difficult to do in a controlled way than simply making huge explosions initiated by a fission bomb. We bet the whole world that nuclear fusion would be practical by now back around 1950.
2
What else this does not do: make coal cheaper than natural gas and the latest solar/wind power sources. Not only does propping up coal cost the environment, it has a direct and measurable cost to your wallet.
It’s the same thing with the ridiculous proposal to cut gas mileage in cars. Again, not only does the environment get damaged, you’ll also pay more in dollars at the gas pump.
I don’t know why more Democrats aren’t making this simple economic argument. Even Republic die-hards who love Trump can’t deny they’d love to see smaller electric bills.
7
The Trump Administration plan for oversight is to leave the Fox in charge of the Hen House, in every situation.
7
This Trump decision is designed purely to win votes and keep cash flowing from coal Barons into the right pockets.
But in the end it a danger that could turn the air we must breathe into a Chinese killer smog.
Coal is a necessarily dying industry if we want to live. It is toxic to our children and to the miners who continue to die of black lung disease.
Clean air is a must but coal Is NOT!
16
Don't listen to his words, observe his actions. Who did he assign to run the EPA? The Dept. Of Energy? Those whose 'values' are antithetical to those departments' true missions.
Trump's avarice cannot be sated.
Ruminate on this absurdity; States will be able to regulate their own coal emissions, yet the White House is machinating to rescind California's policy of cleaner air standards for automobiles?
We need more checks because since January 2017, we have no balance.
4
Allowing states to set their own rules, might make some sense in some matters. This is integral to the conservative philosophy, better decisions are made by those most affected by a rule. BUT, it is stupid and totally unfair to allow states to set their own rules in matters that affect us all, slavery comes to mind, it took a civil war to settle that issue, which had been put off because our founders could only agree to a form of government, a Republic, that permitted the Federal government to act in matters of the common defense and other matters of the common welfare, and common economic interests. In the 20th Century a good example is the Interstate Highway System, which caused President Eisenhower and his advisors to fall back on the common defense rationale and the concept was introduced as the Defense Highway Act. We also acted in the common welfare, in the matter of acid rain. Clearly, the commons concept applies to the emissions from fossil fuel combustion, so this proposal is not in the common interests. It is unwise.
“For that which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it. Every one thinks chiefly of his own, hardly at all of the common interest; and only when he is himself concerned as an individual. For besides other considerations, everybody is more inclined to neglect the duty which he expects another to fulfill; as in families many attendants are often less useful than a few.”
Aristotle, Politics, Book II, Chapter III
5
Trump's action which will encourage the burning of coal puts climate change where it belongs: On the front page. Climate change is the #1 problem facing humans. It should be the #1 issue for all voters. Democrats must put together a short, clear plan for conversion to alternative energy and run on it. Set the agenda. Show leadership. Just keep repeating: "Renewable Energy Now"
7
I'm all for this, so long as coal-adjacent states can sue coal emissions states when their coal plants destroy the environment, worse air quality, and so on
1
If the actions of a president or administration deny me of clean air to breathe (or keep me from breathing) and clean water to drink, isn't this denying me my right to life and also stopping the promotion of the general welfare? Is this not a crime against the Constitution?
We need regulations in place as there are obviously people who would poison us all to make money. (Do they have secret bunkers where they can live?)
6
Doomsday shelters are a growth industry. Mitt Romney built one permitted as a parking garage.
1
What does West Virginia care about coal emissions - as long as the wind blows the soot to Pennsylvania? It's true.
15
Corporate shill - this issue of cleaning coal plant emissions has been a challenge since the early days of EPA - and has been a major lobbying point and legal issue since that time. The coal industry has consistently claimed that they can't scrub the pollutants, then it was too expensive, then it is simply "let's just buy the politicians and regulators, and simply not do it at all". The worst example of extractive industrial robber barons - take the coal and profits, return none to the state or people (under whose land this mostly is found), do nothing to clean up the messes made or prevent the pollution created. Leave fouled water and stripped lands, industrial waste behind - certainly the taxpayers will take care of this mess ….. Then run the offspring of the coal barons on the ill gotten gains for office and repeat the cycle.
3
As long as we can build big fans to blow the smoke right back at them. Don't like the second hand smoke.
8
Hard to take "climate change" seriously when the representatives to the Paris accord flew from all over to the globe to Paris instead of having a teleconference.
2
Sigh... and because of them flying to a meeting we can totally ignore what they say about climate change.
And when you are not living in a cabin without electricity and car, you are not allowed to have an opinion about environment and climate.
5
@Reader In Wash, DC, don’t forget that then they flew home. Adding insult to injury. Sigh. Don’t we realize as well that all this talk about it only releases more?
@Reader In Wash, DC Straw man argument. Deflection. Distraction. The worlds militaries have polluted the earth far more than a bunch of world leaders and leading smart people (intellectuals) getting together to maybe come up with ideas that keep predatory capitalists at bay and help keep the Earth habitable for people like you and me.
1
All respiring things expel CO2 which accumulates in the environment. It therefore should be my right to sue any living thing around me for threatening mine.
1
@John Doe If your neighbor eats coal-coal puffs for breakfast and drinks oil, I agree with your right to sue him. If he doesn't, I agree with my right to sue you (for helping to kill this planet and me with it).
3
@Phil, then sue me. I eat Cheerios. We’re all victims, we’re all culprits. It’s the perfect balance.
so he wants the Feds to set mpg standards because he doesn't like wht the states wont to do, but with coal he wants opposite because he doesnt like what the FEd is doing.
Sorry, 'a' key not working properly
7
Since the atmosphere doesn't allow for borders, it would be foolish to treat coal emissions as anything but a federal issue.
6
@Rick Gage, Since we all regularly cross multiple state borders frequently, they are really superfluous to everything, with respect to equal protection of the law.
2
Remember how Wall Street was supposed to be self-regulating? ....And, how do that go?
9
That would be fine if the pollution could be confined to those states where they like it.
11
For all those people (The Greens) who couldn't stomach a vote for Hillary, look what you have wrought. Our climate will never recover. Think seriously about not voting because you have "principles". The other guy is always worse.
5
Seems like former coal lobbyist and new EPA director Andrew Wheeler paid quick dividends for his old bosses, eh?
4
So long as these states contain the pollution and its effects entirely within their borders, this sounds fine to me . . .
2
Why is it that when states like California want to develop their own policies to combat climate change, this administration fights the state?
But when it comes to coal emissions, states can do their own thing.
Don't bother with an answer, we already know why.
12
@Joe S.
Like every issue, when the GOP likes something, it's fine for 'states rights' ... but when a state does something the GOP disagrees with, clearly it must be attacked by fiat, executive order, lawsuit, or litigation.
The GOP's interpretation of 'freedom' and 'tolerance' pretty much can be summed up as "whatever WE want to do is totally fine."
3
Lordy, do these people think? The impact of air and water pollution goes across state lines. This is a Federal regulatory issue.
20
Having recently finished they well-researched and well-written book, The Water Will Come (by Jeff Goodell), we must act in concert to address the tremendous challenges that will almost certainly arise as a result of continuing climate change. There really is no time to even temporarily roll back or loosen regulations regarding the use of fossil fuels.
12
Air pollution has no state boundary and who will be settling squabble between states?
9
The Democrats are right on coal.
The Republicans are right about taxes.
Wish we had a responsible President who could balance both worlds. President Bloomberg perhaps?
1
@Jerome
The Republic Tax Cuts went 80% to the very top TOP of American Income Earners. How is that “right” ?
8
@Jerome
The Republicans are right on taxes if you are among the top 10%. The $600/yr tax cut for ordinary taxpayers will end in 2027. The permanent, and much larger tax cuts for corporations and the very rich will never end until repealed by an honest Congress. In the meantime, we can rely on States to maintain a Federal inter-State highway system? We can rely on States to maintain safe airports, dams, decent funding for good public schools? There might be reasons for Federal regulations, just a guess.
1
The only way that works is if you built a dome over each state & forced residents to breath only the air over their state, consumed their own coal-fired acid rain & mercury.
Industrial pollutants, of course, know no borders, midwest coal plants poisoned all the ponds & lakes in the Adirondacks. The increased mercury in fish should already have been enough to cut back on coal.
If states decide to indulge in increased emissions, or increase extraction of emission-causing materials, then other states should sue the polluter states for those emissions which cross state lines.
14
The Science - impaired president (uh, the logic, science, empathy, general information-impaired, but really, that is pretty long) has forgotten or perhaps doesn't remember that prevailing winds brought the old PA ill winds to Connecticut and New England. Remember Canada suing us for acid rain?
Yeah, every man for himself seems to work really well for the big boys. Us citizens,er, peasants, not so much.
10
Ok. Let us start from the top. Every time Donald uses the Marine One and Air Force One, a carbon tax for each trip. These machines have huge carbon footprint. Power grids buying coal should be carbon taxed as well. Then maybe, vehicles coming from these coal producing states passing through NJ Toll Plaza and the Hudson River crossings pay triple the regular toll fees.
13
Supposedly the University of Pennsylvania is a halfway decent school. Do they not have a requirement that their students take at least one introductory science class to graduate?
15
@Cowboy Marine
ALL universities have "core" curricula so the answer to your question is yes.
@matty
Students with rich parents can pay bright individuals to attend classes and to take exams. This was not unknown at UC Berkeley when I attended ages ago. A problem arose in the third year when classes were reduced to max 30 in required major courses, easier to be identified. I had a friend who took classes and exams for a rich foreign student; have no idea how he got away with it, unless the majors were in different venues.
@Cowboy Marine
I think we can infer that Trump has a long history of less than mediocre academic performance, particularly in subjects not directly related to marketing or money.
I would think that the SCOTUS decision in Massachusetts v. EPA would also affect this deregulatory agenda. The Clean Power Rule didn't come out of nowhere; it was one outcome of the earlier SCOTUS decision. Of course the fact that Gorsuch; (whose mother was ousted as EPA head under Reagan) is now a SCOTUS justice may tip the scales in the other direction.
10
Coal states that support(ed) Trump should be allowed to have their own regulations regarding coal including relaxing pollution regulations.
But states like California which did not support Trump should not be allowed to have their own regulations regarding automobile pollution.
Anyone else see a pattern?
41
This is among many challenges we now face that point to the systemic problem that we no longer have a representative government. The less populous states are setting the agenda for the majority of US citizens. It's time for a major overhaul to the Senate and the Electoral College to create fair representation among the people of the United States. There's no sound justification that states with as few people as WY, VT and ND have two Senators while DC and PR have none. The founding fathers did not intend the Constitution to be a dead static document.
50
@Barbara -Agree with your point about representation but very concerned about the actual outcome of a constitutional convention. A well funded effort to revise the constitution to require a balanced budget and greatly reduce the role of federal government has been growing for several years now.
To any Republicans reading this, when did "conservation" split from "conservatism"? Don't you wish to conserve what's good? In the Nixon administration, we saw the creation of the EPA and NOAA, the National Environmental Policy Act, the President's Council on Environmental Quality, both the Clean Air and Clean Water acts, and the Endangered Species Act. Now our current President and his Republican colleagues deny the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, wish to dismantle all their predecessors's work, and simply give industry free reign, all under the banner of the free market. The International Criminal Court prosecutes war crimes; the future will hold these individuals guilty of environmental crimes.
33
Here you go:
"Cost of Coal: Electric Bills Skyrocket in Appalachia as Region’s Economy Collapses: As natural gas and renewables get cheaper elsewhere, residents in Appalachia are stuck paying for coal-fired power plants that no longer make economic sense."
So it doesn't even make economic sense. Coal workers and neighbors are sickening and they die younger, while owners refuse health care and call death, illness, and poisoned watersheds "fake news". Sad
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/14082018/coal-energy-prices-appalachi...
"experts say it hasn't helped that utilities in eastern Kentucky and West Virginia have continued to invest in burning coal"
25
Control of coal plants will reside in the individual state, but not the pollution. I suggest the neighboring states sue the polluters. We have sufficient information and data to show the real costs of coal combustion in medical and historical records to ascertain the injury to others downwind.
39
@George Kamburoff
Has anyone here actually read the article? Here's the pertinent section:
"That rule, crafted as the United States prepared to enter into the 2015 Paris Agreement on global warming, was the first federal carbon-pollution restriction for power plants. In 2016, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked the regulation from taking effect while a federal court heard arguments from a coalition of coal states that sued to block the rule. It remains suspended."
It remains suspended. In other words, this life-saving Obama-era rule NEVER WENT INTO EFFECT. The Trump plan merely returns coal regulations to where they were before 2015. Three years ago. You know, when Americans were dying by the millions from "acid rain" and global warming . The hysterical, anti-science illiteracy in this forum is breathtaking.
4
“According to environmentalists...”
Please stop calling us environmentalists, it makes us sound like single issue crusaders. Almost without exception we are not. While while we are certainly concerned about the environment we are rational, educated citizens who trust science, scientists, established facts and reason, not just in matters of the environment,but in all things.
130
On the one hand, the Trump Administration plans to allow individual states to set regulations for air pollution from power plants; on the other hand, the administration is threatening to block California and a number of other states from setting their own standards for automobile fuel efficiency (and accompanying CO2 emissions).
Clearly, a well thought through, consistent strategy
47
@ikelucy
Wait until Trump's incompetent Administration bumps into the political activism on both Coasts; you know, where all the money and voting power is concentrated.
@ikelucy
Not a consistent strategy, but a well-thought out one. It's all about punishing the blue states that did not vote for Trump.
An interesting report from the West Virginia Public Service Commission discusses power demand, supply and responses to EPA regulation. It's a projection for demand from 2017-2026.
http://www.psc.state.wv.us/electric/ElectricSupplyDemandForecast.pdf
A lot of this power, 9 GW and more, seems to be consumed locally to the WV area, but there is the PJM grid that ships power to Michigan, Ohio and elsewhere. The notion is that these local power companies are making money from producing power for their customers, the pollution from which travels to other states that do not use their power. A future might possibly include further reduction in the reliance on coal-fired power in retaliation for the reduced air quality, but it's a complex market.
Of course, as in the past with acid rain, a delicate relationship existed with these states over global pollution. It's not clear what trump's directives will do, other than to relax pollution regulations.
The report mentions law suits to EPA regulations by 27 states. I assume that these suits might be dropped given trump's pro pollution stance. The complexity of the report shows that trump's manipulation of regulations is naive, but it buys him support from the coal region.
8
What do you expect from an Administration run by an over aged spoiled brat?
Personally, I don't have any issue with this, PROVIDED that those states who vote to pollute will restrict their pollution 100% to their territory. Any sign that pollutants are spilling into any outside territory, in any way, shape and fashion should be grounds to require an unconditional cease and desist. Any action by a pollution loving state to resist confining its polluting to its borders and to its pollution loving population should be taken as an act of aggression and be treated as such.
I don't care if a state pollutes its population if they support deregulation. Let 'em grow six fingers and webbed feet, say I, if that's what they want.
Just don't spread your disease elsewhere.
18
@Jesse Silver How does a state only pollute into its air? Air flows and wind drive it all over the world.
2
Trump to foxes: here's the keys to the henhouse.
22
Trump's GOP represents a clear and present danger not just to America, but to the world. November will be here soon. Make your plans to vote now, and encourage everyone you know to do the same. VOTE (while you still can)!
25
I've just informed my dog that he is now responsible for cleaning up the messes he leaves in the backyard. He is ecstatic.
29
Like so many of President Trump's plans, the idea of letting states set coal plant rules is an amalgam of bad policy, bad politics and self-contradiction. From a policy perspective, it fails on several levels. Coal plant emissions are dirty and a health and environmental threat. Allowing states to set separate rules ensures the proverbial race to the bottom, which is bad enough for states that enact lax standards. And the emissions from those states will adversely impact neighbors. The politics also fail; no manner of legal manuvering will bring coal back. It is a tiny industry that is being left behind by developments in energy production. Bad laws won't change that, but they reinforce the GOP's position as the party against science. Finally, the Trump administration is acting to preclude California from enforcing its own auto emission standards on the grounds that we need nationally uniform rules. The incoherence just makes me weep
26
When the acid rain returns to do its damage and ruin our lives we need to call it what it really is: Trump's Rain.
22
We won't do anything about global warming till catastrophe is staring us in the face, and by then it'll likely be too late.
17
So who will run the numbers on the massive future costs of adaptation and eventual abandonment of major costal regions?
Look at what the Dutch have spent to protect a relatively puny land mass.
5
Isn’t catastrophe already staring us in the face with so many extreme weather events occurring all over our Earth?
This is great. I just hope that the pollution also stays in these states. If not, I hope the surrounding states with higher standards will sue them.
16
Not if Kavanaugh has any say in the matter.
Does this mean that states can also tax imports from irresponsible polluting states? Frankly, since the federal government won't defend them, the reality-based states need to take any and all states to drive down emissions elsewhere, starting with sanctions and embargoes to crush the economies of these coal states to reduce the amount these weapons of mass destruction coal plants need to be run.
9
As far as polluting green house gases and other emissions influence the commercial viability of business across state lines, the Federal government MUST NOT abdicate its responsibility under the Interstate Commerce Clause . Doing so would be a dereliction of the sworn duties of the executive branch, of which Trump is the chief.
8
The coal industry already owns Wyoming. Lock, stock, and barrel. They totally control the state legislature through campaign contributions (most from out of state) and lobbying (intimidation). Even though the state has vast areas of nothingness with almost constant wind begging to be developed, the state legislature at the behest of the coal industry has done almost nothing to encourage wind or solar energy. They even placed a tax on wind power to discourage its development.
Trump's proposal will allow the country's least populated and biggest Trump supporting state to further contribute to the destruction of our environment.
31
Yet one more delay for doing something about global warming: Trump will have all environmental policies tied up in courts while he and his allies in the fossil fuel industry reap the remaining profits before their revenue is cut off in order to save the planet.
6
Yeah, let states regulate them. And then let neighboring states file lawsuits to stop the pollution affecting them from their neighbors. The Republicans haven't had a new idea in 50 years. We need to overturn Citizens United and make lobbying a felony.
10
I wouldn't care if the polluted air stayed over the coal states, but it doesn't! Imperative to remove the Repubs in Nov and trump in 2020 if not before through legal actions.
5
@washingtonmink
'...through legal actions."
History would add "if time and circumstance permit."
1
We all share air, water, interstates and security among other things. These are only as strong as their weakest link...
7
Emissions blow from one state to another, due to this sad thing called wind, that is apparently the Liberals’ fault. Letting a state regulate its own polluters denies neighboring stakeholders a voice. And putting environmental regulations solely in a single state’s hands disrespects our Constitution, which empowers the federal government to regulate interstate commerce when one state negatively impacts another state. The Supreme Court specifically blessed the Clean Air Act as such fifty years ago.
12
I absolutely love it! Especially the part where emissions cannot enter another state without a permit.
31
We are living Stephen King’s The Dome.
3
As a psychopath, President Trump is naturally motivated to do the most harm to the most people in the most noticeable way. Since he has always been a psychopath, he sees his behavior as normal and certainly something that is highly valued by the American people who elected him and will follow him to the gates of doom. The powerless wee people are understandably disturbed by the rampant attack on our values, the destruction of our environment and the sadistic cruelty unleashed across the land. But let us also remember that other nations have endured these afflictions and that our idealized form of government has never succeeded anywhere for long. By all means, let's vote and try to restore sanity to our nation, but we may have to face the possibility that our government is no longer subject to our control or even our influence, that a more corrupt nation has co-opted ours and calls the shots from Moscow.
23
So, help me understand something. Republican coal producing states can essentially choose how they want to regulate coal fired power plants but Democratic states are banned from regulating tailpipe emissions? Yet one more instance of Trump governing for his base at the nation's peril.
23
This isn't really a Republican or Democrat issue; it is an environmental issue. Do we want air to be clean and healthy for ourselves and future generations? This question is beyond party lines, and even national lines as the whole earth shares the same blanket of air to protect us and to help us thrive.
I hope people of both parties will oppose this terrible policy change. We don't want acid rain in our lakes, killing the fish, or on the ground, killing our trees. Tell your power authorities to avoid coal, which they will since natural gas is so much cheaper and cleaner.
Any corporation greedy enough to switch on the coal fires better consider the cost of shutting them down, as soon as the voters can act to fix this problem if our Congress and White House fail to act correctly on this issue.
6
Trump never made a plan for anything in his entire life. He just takes credit when things go well and blames others when they go badly. He's all image/brand, completely without substance.
38
Has anyone in the Trump administration noticed that weather systems and rivers and cloud formations are notorious for not observing state lines, or international borders, for that matter. This morning, we in Wisconsin are seeing rather grey skies, and we don't have any clouds. What we have is smoke from forest fires in Canada. So if Minnesota was to loosen up their standards, we would reap the fruits of their "progress".
Environmental standards need to be global, or at least national. Anything less is foolish.
8
Sure, the buck stops with Trump, so he's responsible for this, but don't think for a minute he came up with this. This is a Koch-based Republican plan. This is what 1 of 2 major political parties stands for.
As Socrates would say here, vote D for life, R for death.
10
State’s rights, from the people that only a few weeks ago vowed to block California from having their own emission standards.
I would expect nothing less from modern Republicans.
14
We HAD a plan where states did what they want. The result was Acid Rain, where emissions from coal plants created widespread destruction of plant life and damage to just about everything downwind including the lining of peoples lungs.
The Republican Party has no other other belief except in money. "Profit before People" is their mantra.
15
Let him first offer a proof-of-concept program in which he lets prospective owners, tenants and members of his many golf clubs "self-regulate": Let them (anonymously, of course) set their own property price, rent, membership fees, dues, and so on.
8
This is a ridiculous path as it's not just the coal states that suffer the air quality problem. Neighboring states will surely sue for the junk blowing across state lines. It's both a national and international problem and DC needs to lead on protecting our air and water for future generations. Allergy and asthma is a growing problem in the US that is ruining our quality of life and costing us billions a year in treatment.
13
I honestly don't think Trump cares about coal one way or the other. I think he just really, really enjoys annoying the people who oppose him. He is the eternal 5 years old.
17
@Sparky I agree. Trump doesn't want to govern...leave everything to the states. Pass the bucks his way.
1
Trump plays golf while the planet burns. Comparisons to Nero abound. There is no longer any real debate. Yesterday is gone The environmental actions the we take or fail to take, starting today, are all that's left between a mere global catastrophe and the end of a viably habital planet in an fastly approaching future. In light of this ever more certain truth, our man-child president's complete lack of a moral compass and the fantasy world he lives in is a perfect description of criminal insanity.
I believe we are done for.
15
Did not the U.S. Taxpayer bail out the auto industry? Why can't Chevy-Ford*- Chrysler do the right thing and start producing these cars today? Why does a common sense solution need to be mandated and regulated by government?
*Ford did not accept bail out money.
4
Everyday on all TV stations in the State of Florida at the bottom right hand corner of all news shows there will be roofs with solar panels being mounted on them and identifications via longitude, latitude, and County of Florida. This will cause, I declare it, a great emergence in all residents of Florida a sense of purpose, a sense of community, and sense of love, a sense of devotion to high ideals and principals and from these wells of life will come a great and powerful push to make the whole state of Florida possessed of sustainable, advanced, and optimist Energy. From this wonderment the other states of America will find inspiration, other countries too, and thus
the world in four years time will become a sustained planet.
3
Where to begin. I'm going to post a list and continue in subcomments, since the toxic products of coal to earth, air, and water are extensive. Don't forget, coal emits more radiation than nuclear. Fact! The below is material I knew about, but Wikipedia provides a decent summary:
"Coal and coal waste products (including fly ash, bottom ash and boiler slag) release approximately 20 toxic-release chemicals, including arsenic, lead, mercury, nickel, vanadium, beryllium, cadmium, barium, chromium, copper, molybdenum, zinc, selenium and radium .... enough coal is burned that significant amounts of these substances are released.[24]
"carbon dioxide (CO2), oxides of sulfur (mainly sulfur dioxide, SO2), and various oxides of nitrogen (NOx). .... hydrogen cyanide (HCN), sulfur nitrate (SNO3) and other toxic substances.
"SO2 and nitrogen oxide react in the atmosphere to form fine particles and ground-level ozone and are transported long distances, making it difficult for other states to achieve healthy levels of pollution control."
"drift and fog ... Respirable suspended particulate matter. In case of cooling towers with sea water makeup, sodium salts are deposited on nearby lands which would convert the land into alkali soil, reducing the fertility of vegetative lands and also cause corrosion"
'fire risk is increased. Weathered coal can also increase ground temperatures... Spontaneous combustion .... air pollution from emission of smoke and noxious fumes into the atmosphere."
13
More: "Sulfur Dioxide is oxidized to gaseous H2SO2 which scatters solar radiation, hence their increase in the atmosphere exerts a cooling effect on climate that masks some of the warming caused by increased greenhouse gases. Release of SO2 also contributes to the widespread acidification of ecosystems."
""Power plants... are responsible for half of... the mercury emissions in the United States.""
"Mercury is concentrated up the food chain, as it is converted into methylmercury, a toxic compound which harms both wildlife and people who consume freshwater fish."
"coal particulates pollution cause approximately one million deaths annually across the world"
"Pollutants emitted by burning coal include fine particulates (PM2.5) and ground level ozone. Every year, the burning of coal without the use of available pollution control technology causes thousands of preventable deaths in the United States."
"The cost of producing electricity from coal would double over its present value, if external costs were taken into account. These external costs include damage to the environment and to human health from airborne particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, chromium VI and arsenic emissions produced by coal. ... amount up to 1–2% of the EU’s ... GDP, with coal being the main fossil fuel accountable ... before the external cost of global warming"
"the energy sources of the lowest external costs being nuclear power and wind power"
"High rates of motherboard failures in China and India"
8
Part 3 (end):
"Build-ups of a hazardous gas are known as damps:
- Black damp: a miture of carbon dioxide and nitrogen in a mine can cause suffocation. The anoxic condition results of depletion of oxygen in enclosed spaces, e.g. by corrosion.
- After damp: similar to black damp, after damp consists of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and nitrogen and forms after a mine explosion.
- Fire damp: consists of mostly methane, a highly flammable gas that explodes between 5% and 15% – at 25% it causes asphyxiation.
- Stink damp: so named for the rotten egg smell of the hydrogen sulphide gas, stink damp can explode and is also very toxic.
- White damp: air containing carbon monoxide which is toxic, even at low concentrations"
"Firedamp explosions can trigger the much more dangerous coal dust explosions, which can engulf an entire pit."
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_coal_industry
[It was necessary to cut out a lot of the detail to fit this in. There is no question that coal is dangerous to children and other living things.
John Oliver does a good one on Trump and the coal kleptocracy he loves so much (he'd complain if he was at risk or had to breathe the air or drink the toxic regional water of the regions that coal has destroyed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw6RsUhw1Q8
3
@Susan Anderson While no question to the question as to the toxicity of coal, as a prior employee of TVA(lots of coal power back in the day), billions spent on emissions control. I've literally walked the Cumberland Power Plant near Nashville(the largest units in the world at the time) and 90% of the emissions were steam, only a hint of dust. But smaller utilities, smaller utilities have been given permission by the federal government not spend any of this mitigation equipment on the grounds of economy and private enterprise. But as long as we have private utilities trump the greater good, there will never be a long term systemic reduction in fossil fuels consumption. Coal may indeed be needed but the long term decline in our reliance on coal is unlikely when power(literally and figuratively) is provincial within a market based system.
I live in New England, where decades ago forests and lakes were devastated by acid rain. The sulfur and nitrogen that caused that acid rain came from coal fired power plants in the midwest. After federal environmental regulations were passed in the early 1990s, acid precipitation has virtually disappeared here, and the lakes and forests are recovering.
Let’s treat emissions from coal fired plants the way we treat immigrants. Coal states can pollute to their heart’s content, but they have to build, and pay for, a wall that keeps the carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and sulfur dioxide on their side of the border, away from those of us who live downstream. Build the (pollution) wall!
19
@John Ranta
It's called a Carbon Tax. And we better start practicing a real simple pitch for it:
Pay for what you get. If you don't pay, someone else is paying. That's not efficient, and that's not moral. Dumping waste without paying for it is getting something for nothing. Who thinks they should get something for nothing? Thieves.
Pay for what you get. Carbon tax.
7
@John Ranta
The same thing happened here in Ontario (Canada). There are approximately 250,000 lakes and over 100,000 kilometres (62,000 mi) of rivers in the province.
Some of the acid rain that fell here was local, the vast majority of it originated in the United States and carried by the normal flow of wind.
Pollution doesn't stop at borders.
6
@John Ranta Worse they deliberately built tall smokestack to ensure the pollution did not become a local problem. Forget air pollution what happens when excessive runoff make the drinking water of cities and states downriver undrinkable. Do the states declare war on one another.
One of the reason for the federal government is to regulate so states are not at each others throats. An example of Trump Carnage.
So if states can set their own regulations, California can set its own auto emissions standards?
Or is that a different states rights?
States Rights for Red States, not Blue States.
38
If Trump is going to crank up the pollution producing coal burners, he is going to have to address the downwind consequences.
On these pages I have read that Kavanaugh’s record indicates he supports the rights of upwind polluters to pollute the air of downwind neighbors.
The big undoing continues... stupidly and ignorance reign supreme.
24
@Al At some point, the down wind intelligent states are going to get tired of being dumped on and attacked by the United States and want to leave so they can defend their own national interests. It is long past time for the blue states to leave.
My father, who died at 85 in 2011, spent the latter half of his career installing pollution control scrubbers on coal fired power plants in the effort to end the devastation of acid rain.
I am appalled that Trump's Environmental Destruction Agency wants to give the coal producing states carte blanche to ignore the national emissions regulations that forced power companies to clean up their act.
They want to recreate a problem we solved a few decades ago, which is patently insane. We know it will cause considerable harm to people and to the environment.
So sorry about this sad state of affairs, Pop.
27
It's worth remembering that not so long ago, Republicans also wished to protect the environment. In the Nixon administration, we got the creation of the EPA and NOAA, the National Environmental Policy Act, the creation of the President's Council on Environmental Quality, both the Clean Air and Clean Water acts, and the Endangered Species Act. These were the days when at least some Republicans remembered the "conservation" in their "conservatism."
Now our current President and his Republicans colleagues wish to dismantle all their predecessors's work, and give industry free reign, all under the banner of the free market, economic freedom, and states rights. The International Criminal Court prosecutes war crimes; the future will hold these individuals guilty of environmental crimes.
18
Did anyone tell the president that the air doesn't honor state boundaries and therefore must be regulated t the federal, national level?
If not, they should. It's why we have an EPA.
17
Often, when greater good conflicts with private financial interests, the Republican Party consistently opts out of the issue under the mantra, "let the States decide". It then becomes a pocket book issue of provincial jobs, business moving to the state with most relaxed laws that fits their interests. This comports with the glib assumption that there is little need for centralized government administration, notwithstanding the clear benefits, that government works best that is more decentralized. It worked well for slavery.
9
This plan would be fine if each state had its own air, but there's this phenomenon with which Republicans may not be familiar, because it's of a scientific nature: wind.
9
Seems to me they are all too well acquainted with wind.
1
I agree with most posters, air pollution doesn't stop at a state's boundary and so federal regulation makes sense. Evidently, conservative majority states can have states' rights, but liberal states, such as California, can't be trusted with making environmental and regulatory responsibility (car emissions regulation, medical/recreational use of marijuana). Neither of those issues float across the borders with the air current.
That said, doesn't the article say that the Clean Power Plan remains suspended? If so, then this whole exercise is for show only. Secondly, utilities have been switching to natural gas, wind and solar power because of market forces - coal is considerably more expensive than natural gas. In fact, coal mines have been closing down because it makes little economic sense to dig it up. Coal has been replaced in the market place by cheap natural gas, not regulation.
This is all theater for the Trump masses and evidently for liberals as well.
13
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA sets minimum standards for emissions, and the States are allowed to set more stringent standards. There is no authority for EPA to abdicate the standard setting responsibility. Yet another Trump proposal that will be blocked by the courts.
20
Allowing states to individually regulate emissions is like allowing someone along a river to dump poisons into the water that other people below have to use as a water supply. It won't fly. Of course, anything is possible under a Trump Supreme Court.
12
@Robert McConnell I could sweat I heard Trump tell America the carnage stops now during his inaugural address. His first on his many lies as president.
The current AQI (Air Quality Index) for Southern Oregon is 500 Hazardous due to smoke and fires. NASA released some photos taken from space of that air pollution -- that is moving up into Canada with Dangerous or Hazardous readings around Calgary. There are one or two other areas in the US that have Dangerous or Hazardous levels of air pollution. Thankfully, only a few... today.
Washington state and parts of the US West coast get a share of coal-fired power plant pollution from China, because, well, the wind blows.
Even with China's efforts to reduce the use of coal, areas around Taiyuan (Shanxi) and Chengdu (Sichuan) have regular Hazardous levels of air pollution. Lung and breathing disorders are common as is an elevated rate of cancer.
In China, it's common practice for parents, teachers, and the general public to check the AQI daily to determine if the children should go outside, if the elderly should take precautions, and who is allowed to drive their cars.
But hey, the market for personal masks, home air purifiers, personal air purifiers, and medications for people suffering from chronic shortness of breath and asthma is booming.
Is that really what we want?
I'd much rather be able to go out for a walk in my neighborhood without having to put on a face mask, worry about walking too fast, making sure I have throat lozenges, and ... not being able to breathe.
27
@News Matters
Medical masks do not keep out small particulants; home air purifiers work up to a point, again small particulants are sucked in. Children in China are now restricted to "good days" when they are allowed outside to play. I saw a lot bicycle riders in China, many carrying commercial goods; they will be impacted by increased air pollution. Now any individuals who wish to leave China will not be allowed to take any assets out, together with other restrictions. The powerful Central Government can impose these things; however, people always find a way out of bad situations.
Carbon emissions seem to be going down country wide and the environmental rules and regulations over the years appear to have played a major role in doing so. But to reintroduce coal fired plants on a state by state ruling, which will no doubt increase carbon emissions, while other sectors of utility companies lower their carbon rates, and call it a good and equal playing field for the coal business, is disingenuous at best. Not only increases in their state, but also those others who's winds are in their way.
6
Typical of the contradictions of Trump policy. The EPA wants to claim that states can self-regulate coal emissions but not auto emissions.
The Obama era Clean Power Plan and the Waters of the United States rule were built on science based costs and benefits. Trump's reversals are based on lobbying dollars. Good luck with that in court.
Other countries have to wonder how the US can swerve from Reagan to Clinton to W Bush to Obama to Trump and their radically different political agendas. Other countries experience political change but nothing like this.
So much for our leadership role in the world. Hey, let's have a military parade.
60
Well, if it's OK for one state to ship its poisons to another with no federal regulation, this will be a boon to California Pot farmers, who now should be able to ship their products to other states where the price is higher without fear of breaking the law.
Sorry, I was mistaken - I forgot we are only dealing with poisons here. In that case, we can probably thank Mike Pence for this legislation, as it will now allow Indiana, the #1 Meth producing state in the nation (all, BTW, are red states), to send its meth to West Virginia in exchange for coal emissions.
11
I am not surprised that the morally bankrupt President and his followers will roll back rules aimed at saving lives and in the long term the planet. Growing up in WV, I understand the economics of coal. Traveling through western states this summer I saw hundreds of train cars filled with coal. State governments have had more than 50 years to adjust their economies and help business transition form fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. Most states chose not to do so! The power companies have had many years to convert from coal fired plants to solar, wind, and nuclear energy sources. They chose not to change, why? Large scale conversion projects have significant upfront costs which in the short term reduce profits. In the long term the alternate means of generating power will reduce human suffering and environmental degradation.
RIP Mother Earth!
22
Many people don’t realize that nuclear power is actually a million times more energy-dense than solar and wind, which are heavily subsidized, though intermittent and unreliable.
Carbon-free nuclear power isn’t a ‘devil’s bargain’, either, as it is statistically the safest energy source worldwide in terms of lowest fatalities, even when compared with solar, wind and hydroelectric generation from dams. Those “green” sources also have a larger, though less-discussed environmental footprint.
The curative analogy for an ailing Mother Earth would be her choice of treatment: expensive, though more dependable intervention, or largely hopeful alternative solutions.
1
As part of this brilliant plan, I assume that each state will also stop emissions at their borders.
25
@T Smull - All we have to do is build a big, beautiful wall.
2
Just spit out my morning coffee after reading this. Just when you think it can't get any crazier our President comes up with another devastating idea that will further hasten our environmental crisis. Maybe we can build a wall around the White House, cut off the electricity and lock him in inside until 2020? I hear he likes walls. Seriously, we need to get this crazy man out of office before it's too late.
17
@Tony Everyday I wake up wondering what carnage Trump created while asleep. I will say one thing. Donny doesn't disappoint.
This should work as well as state regulations of guns--see Pence's Indiana guns in Chicago--which is to say, not at all.
9
It was obvious for a long time, to anyone watching Trump over the decades, as I was (being an observant NY'er, and burned-in never, ever Trumper for even dog-catcher, decades ago!) - that his ideas about commerce and industrial growth were all based on out dated notions, hinging on being a disruptive force, with no desire or plans to rebuild.
Plus, he's pandering to a specific demographic among the Trumplodites. People in declining (as they are out dated like whaling!) and quickly automating industries that will never hire-up to meet their past glories. They are down and out (in need of help) but the help Trump offers is in the "show", in the dazzle, not in meaningful impacts. He's offering these peoples to wear the Kings Clothes. Nothing but cheap costumery. Which the rest of us see as such
Thankfully the tech and sciences will be leaving his old, ignorant ideas in their dust. He can try and under fund modern growth technologies, and de-regulate these declining ones...but the "markets" will leave his moves by the side of the road. As will the more sensible and pragmatic state gov'ts. While the rest do the damages for short-term gains, that will eventually end in their self-inflicted demise.
Which is key. Some States will do the wrong things, and as such inflict their party and power base to the many cuts that will eventually bleed them out.
All we need do is push-back and weather the destruction he causes mostly in the short-term, then fix the longer-term damages.
4
I'm ashamed I voted for him. I will not vote for him again. While I don't agree with all of the positions of either party, Trump's positions on everything connected to climate change are outright attacks on the environment. I wonder how the man sleeps at night.
24
He will sleep well. Trump, like most Americans, has little understanding of or appreciation of physics.
@Charlie
Follow the money: Saudi Arabia and his "business interests", and the Koch Bros., major oil interests and big Trump donors.
@Charlie. When all is said and done, more is said than done. I for one am waiting to see you walk the walk and not just talk the talk. See you at the pols in Nov. Regards. RDM
Trump just has to erase anything that Obama touched regardless of the consequences to America and the world. Technology is changing energy generation the world over and Trump and his supporters want to move backwards. Obama did not kill coal capitalism did as natural gas become available to generate electricity more efficiently and cheaply. Now wind and solar are pressuring coal also. Please tell me one successful society that has moved backwards instead of forwards.
13
These policies are outdated and dangerous for our health and for the health of our planet. Vote in Nov for a Democratic congress so oversight on these regressive and harmful actions can begin.
9
I guess rich people don't breathe the same air as we do. Or maybe they're all signed up for Elon Musk's Mars One expedition and plan to take their wealth with them when they've finished trashing our planet.
6
The US is fast becoming a rogue state led by a deranged man who - between nuclear threats and enacting policies accelerating GHG emissions - is literally threatening the future of humanity. What will it take for conservative Americans to wake up to the disaster that is unfolding in Washington? California is on fire and parts of Florida and Louisiana will be underwater in a couple of decades. Canada and Sweden are burning and whole countries in the Pacific ocean are at risk of disappearing. But the Koch brothers might open their wallets again so no doubt this disastrous move this will have GOP support.
13
See this as what it is. States rights. If a state wants slavery to be revived, it’s their right to do so. Deny the vote to women, if the state wants that. Small steps by a small man that was put in office by a minority, giant steps backward for Mankind. We need a 1789 here, and no, that’s not a play in football.
13
Let coal companies dump their waste in nearby rivers. Sorry, but this effort to push away his complicity in polluting our drinking water, and the environment, will not save him from the consequences, and the historical "legacy." I'm counting on local judges, and the state civil legal system, to rule against these polluters.
3
People, including the Republican Enablers, are forgetting that children are absorbing and being influenced by what they cannot avoid seeing & hearing coming out of this White House.
We all grew up with tremendous awe for the significance and character of presidents, where Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln were typical models.
Using a little subterfuge, I think that in this light alone, the current Enablers are selfish at best and complicit in the main.
6
@Feldman
I remember JFK, the first young President for those of us who were also young; we loved him. He came to UC Berkeley to speak with Gov. Brown; he walked out into the stadium on a windy day, no hat; he had us at hello. Then he was gone; then MLK was gone; then Bobby. I remember when we marched against the Vietnam War and for Civil Rights. The Parkland Kids are who we were then; bless them all.
Mr. Trump doesn't understand natural systems very well, or he is so greedy that he doesn't mind polluting the air that others to the east will have to suffer with. He apparently doesn't remember ACID RAIN and how it poisoned lakes, killed off animals and plants in the Adirondacks. I hope the Attorney Generals of New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts will tie this up in court until we can get a smart President elected. In the meantime, every voter in those states can state their objections at the polls this November.
11
@Joe Barnett
Thank you, Joe. I remember acid rain; it was a terrible thing; much discussion and decisions to never let it happen again. Now, here we are with another notch in Trump's WWW belt.
Sure, let the states’ adults demolish their environment. What would they care about their children and grandchildren? And hey, Trump would never have to be held accountable or responsible!
Mission accomplished! Making America Great! Again?
6
Trump’s right. Let West Virginia decide how much coal is emitted into their atmosphere and the neighboring states can just put up big fans to keep the pollution out of theirs. Global warming is a farce and he knows it. Presidential timber indeed.
3
We finally have a competent President who both understands the constitution and federalism by allowing the states to make more of their own decisions, and recognizing the fallacy of human caused CLIMATE CHANGE.
1
@bob
Bob, a moral person pays for what they get. You know that. If you don't pay for something, someone else pays.
Dumping waste without paying for disposal is immoral and inefficient. A carbon tax would provide a means for people who dispose of the waste of fossil fuels to pay for that. If you impliment a carbon tax, we can get rid of all subsidies for "green" energy, and let the market determine which fuels to use.
Pay for what you get. No more, no less.
2
@bob
Absolutely agree; I have a yard full of plants who are learning to drive.
As much as I delight in denigrating number 45, I'd like to know who is pulling the strings. Trump in in no way bright enough to come up with these harmful ideas.
6
The most dangerous group in the history of the world: the Republican party of the US. They are pushing greenhouse gasses, pulling out of agreed upon treaties, and flirting and brinksmanship with nuclear war, the two things that can crash civilization. Of course, there are other problems. Today, August 18, 2018, there are 1,000 more barrels of oil burned than yesterday, and every yesterday, for a decade or more. We do something, or perish.
14
You should pay for what you get. If you want to dump waste, you should pay for that. Fossil fuel use dumps waste without the user paying for it.
Pay for what you get. Carbon tax. This isn’t complicated.
5
uhh--I think everyone has to breathe that air--there are no walls between s'ttates. Everyone will suffer more extreme weather patterns from global warming. Just because some folks pretend global warming isn't happening doesn't make it so.
This isn't about idealogies--this is about our survival on this planet.
3
Trump, the master of contradictions. He will take away from the few states that regulate auto emissions the right to set their own standards like that pesky California while granting states that burn coal the right to set their own standards. Interesting logic.
5
Another loss for our country, another win for Putin. Promote discourse in our country and pollute our air at the same time. This is just another reason to ignore Brett Stephens essay today about America being great.
6
While WVA enjoys black lung and dirty air/water the rest of us who can afford to should head as far away from that state as possible. BTW, if a coal miner in WVA gets black lung does it mean he should have known better and brought it on himself -- hence, no reimbursement under any R plan for medical tx.
13
So when will Trump take us back to the "horse and buggy" days? Actually that would be an excellent idea. We won't have to worry about auto emissions.
2
In a country where healthcare costs are born by individuals, the health implications of coal fired plant emissions don’t concern the government. Let lung disease and respiratory problems soar! It sure is sad when China is becoming more progressive on this issue than the USA
8
This is so idiotic I don't know where to begin. This isn't climate change denial. It's climate sabotage.
The damage from CO2 emissions is so great, that we would be way ahead to just pay all the coal industry workers $50,000/yr to just stay home.
Since Trump wants to give the states the right to ruin the world for the rest of us, how about they sign off on rejecting federal aid to cover the damage they suffer from climate change. If they cause the droughts, floods, and severe storms that occur within their borders, then they don't need federal dollars to bail them out.
Why not? These people claim that climate change is all a hoax. So be it. Then live with it and pay for it yourselves.
16
Coal is great stuff ... for the mine owners and for the railroads and trucking firms.
I grew up in coal country. Our home was heated with a coal furnace. I experienced way too much childhood respiratory illness. I saw the retired miners sitting around the public square. They were coughing and gasping; they looked to be ancient, but they were mostly in their fifties.
The profits from coal seem have gone elsewhere. While in high school, I read about the Molly Maguires; this was not part of our regular curriculum. The coal was pulled from the ground, and the towns deteriorated. Mine accidents were regular features of the local news. After the Knox Mine Disaster (you can look it up) strip mining grew. The landscape was then covered with strip mines, some very close to the cities.
I remember walking through land over subterranean mine fires.
The Centralia underground fire is still burning.
Coal? Really? A visit to sad towns like Shamokin, Pottsville, Wilkes-Barre reveals the legacy of our dependence on coal.
13
When a state has the choice of pollution levels they create in the air and rivers that cross state lines to those having no voice in the matter, it becomes a Federal jurisdiction. The plan to give the States the authority and not the Federal will be ruled out by the courts.
6
I remember the bad old days when the coal electric plants in the Ohio valley had 1000 foot smoke stacks. Electricity was cheap for Ohio and Western Pennsylvania. The acid rain from those plants mostly affected Vermont, New Hampshire and upstate New York where forests died.
Letting states decide their own emission standards will bring those days back.
It's a bad policy.
13
The best way to decrease coal production in this country is to offer the people who reside in coal country and work the mines an alternative option for earning a living wage. One that doesn't cause debilitating diseases would be good. When billionaire coal barons can no longer make their fortunes by exploiting poor people they will move on to other industry.
6
I bet it would be cheaper to just pay the coal miners and transporters and forget about the coal itself, considering the staggering cost of the consequences of burning the stuff.
so, who would suffer? coal barons and their investors, eg, money people who frequent Mar-a-Lago. the ones Trump runs the country for.
4
@Vickie
Robert F Kennedy, Jr. did just that (provide an alternative option) in his documentary The Last Mountain. Wind power is an alternative for West Virginians. But not for the trump administration which prefers dirty industries like coal production over clean energy technologies.
3
For an Administration that excels in stupid ideas, this is certainly in the top five. A 5th grader could see the flaw in their argument, in that winds bearing pollutants, don't stop at state borders. Particles from the fires in California have been found in the East Coast. So what's to stop pollutants from coal fired electrical plants in North Carolina finding their way to Pennsylvania. Nothing. This is a plan for disaster. What we will see in the future are states with higher standards suing states with no standards as the pollutants from the other states invade the states that care about their environment. Just like the old Articles of Confederation which failed for the very same reasons, this plan is nothing short than a disaster. It will not reduce emissions, and it will not accomplish any of its stated purposes. Of course, this Administration wants states to be able to exercise their rights with regard to coal-fired electrical plants, but let California try to control pollution by imposing standards on automobile, and this Administration will fight them tooth and nail. This is just a naked ploy to win votes and nothing more. Shame on the Trump Administration and the rest of their enablers.
310
@Kjensen And once again, he will be able to claim NO responsibility when it doesn't work!
3
@Kjensen
I lived in CT when children were afflicted with asthma from pollutants blowing in from mid-West factories without scrubbers. We sued and won; scrubbers were purchased from Denmark and installed. Now scrubbers are standard issue. The key is when people's children are affected; adults will live with a lot nonsense; however, they will not peacefully watch their children sicken due to causes which can be corrected.
1
@Kjensen It will not be until the miserable people who voted this madman into our highest office come into direct contact with the results of his rather maniacal antics that we can resume the slow, semi-methodical process of moving life forward (instead of dangerously backward).
1
Donald Trump -- partly to continue his war on the beneficial legacy of Barak Obama, partly to curry favor from his donors in the fossil-fuel extraction industry and partly to win a few votes in the midterm elections to protect him against the Mueller investigation -- intends to strike another blow in the world’s struggle against global warming and pollution.
Trump may succeed because a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts puts Republican partisanship ahead of judicial responsibility.
In considering an attack on President Obama’s “Clean Power Plan” by power and coal industry companies, the extremely conservative majority of the Roberts Supreme Court made judicial history in early 2016. They stopped the Clean Power Plan in its tracks.
The Supreme Court had never before blocked a regulation from going into effect while litigation decisions in lower courts were being appealed by the polluters.
The civilized world must think the United States is crazy, not realizing the full measure of the irresponsible greed which drives our Republican leaders.
14
What a wonderful idea. As an Ohioian, I can say that my state has a long history of exporting our toxic coal emissions to other states. I am confident that our professionally gerrymandered, bought-and-paid-for-by-Murray-Energy Republican state government will proudly carry out their instructions to the letter as well as to the detriment of the environment and the enrichment of Robert Murray. Next up, the Trump Buggywhip Mandate.
20
@D. Smith Vermont and western MA will not be happy Acid rains caused by Ohio coal generation was a significant source of pollution that damaged the mountain forest of New England. It was mitigated by federal regulation on sulfur admission.
4
Remember acid rain? My state didn't produce it but the environment suffered for it. It's pretty simple. If it travels on the wind it needs to be controlled by the federal government. I am so sick of this
28
@Debbie Adams
If a pollutant crosses State lines, it comes under the Inter-State Commerce Clause. That is how the East Coast States fought the mid-West polluting factories.
Wait, I thought the Trump administration was against states like California regulating car emissions? Now, the administration wants states to regulate coal energy plants. Just restate the rule as maximizing pollution to benefit corporate profits to avoid these contradictions.
56
Them conservatives luv state’s rights when discriminating and polluting, but .....
raise hands if you remember acid rain, air pollution and particulates blowing across state lines, a federal case, and I believe a precedent that would make the Trump state free-for-all a nonstarter when the lawsuits fly.
also, I think the Trump grifters know this but it doesn't matter as long as he can ballyhoo his proposals before cheering throngs of redcaps in mining states before the midterms.
the games people play.
plus, it's always reassuring to know you favor money over the continued existence of life on Earth.
47
Maine is at the "tailpipe" of air pollution in the US. Any increase in coal emissions will make our air less healthy and increase the occurrences of asthma and other ailments here.
16
This latest federal proposal is like Weight Watchers allowing you to set the amount of food you eat. Just another way to try and dismantle environmental regulation under the guise of 'states rights'. When if comes to entering into a binding agreement with other countries on climate change, how exactly would be done if the federal government no longer represents or can enforce regulations on states that prefer more lax regulation?
9
13,000 Americans die premature deaths every year, mostly in the Southeast, from breathing coal emissions. Besides CO2, the emissions include arsenic, the usual assortment of carcinogenic hydrocarbons, and 50 tons of mercury.
Then there’s radioactivity. Uranium and thorium, released in fly ash from a coal plant, introduce 100x more environmental radiation than a nuclear plant generating the same amount of electricity.
Imagine the panic and hysteria if nuclear electricity was responsible for 13,000 deaths every year (or one), and you will have an idea of the irrational - and irresponsible - bias pro-nuclear activists face while promoting the best carbon-free alternative to coal we have for fighting climate change.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-...
8
@BobMeinetz The Clean Air Act covers hazardous pollutants like mercury. Trump can’t waive the Clean Air Act.
1
@BobMeinetz
Nuclear power has it's problems as well. Fukushima? Three Mile Island? Chernobyl? And what do you do with the waste?
West Virginia in particular could switch to wind power and provide it's residents, workers and the residents of states around it with a clean energy model.
stevenjv, nuclear is - by far - the safest method of generating dispatchable grid electricity. Not one person has died as a result of Fukushima, Three Mile Island, or contact with spent nuclear fuel.
The World Health Organization estimates 4,000 will ultimately die as a result of the worst nuclear accident in history, Chernobyl. It was the Hindenburg of nuclear energy - an unsafe, cheap design, one unused for two decades. Compare that with 13,000 annual deaths from coal in the U.S. alone.
No, West Virginia couldn’t switch to wind power - unless West Virginians didn’t mind the lights going out every time the wind dies down. Residents are currently getting most of their clean electricity from Watts Bar Nuclear Plant in Tennessee. Unit 2 went online in 2016, and is now generating more clean electricity than all solar east of the Mississippi combined.
If there was a better example of the fox guarding the chicken coop, I cannot think of it.
Beyond tax cuts and strong arming judicial confirmations, is there anything constructive the Republicans want to do? Since the 1860s, when the GOP engineered the passage of the Reconstruction amendments, this party has built precious little. More recently, or at least during the Trump era, their objective is to undo whatever President Obama created, the ACA being the primary target. Now I suppose one could rationalize such apparent deconstruction as an interest in freeing the markets from the shackles of government regulation. But under Trump, the GOP has become a party devoid any ideas.
13
The wife and I have been searching all over for a new coal fired stove. We found one in an old Sears Roebuck catalog, but the store is closed. I also heard GE is coming out with a new coal fired locomotive in 2019. This will be used on the commuter run between New York and Washington!
6
If they can figure out how to burn coal cleanly, like they did with diesel, why not use coal?
Don't argue with me that it can't be done. Nothing can be done until it's done.
1
@MIKEinNYC This isn’t about clean. It’s about CO2. Diesels have reduced particulate emission but not CO2.
8
MIKEinNYC.....perhaps the Filthy Coal industry and their filthy frontmen can use the Volkswagen model of 'clean diesel' for their 'clean coal' technology.
Of course that turned out to be one of the biggest corporate frauds and lies in human history.
http://fortune.com/2018/02/06/volkswagen-vw-emissions-scandal-penalties/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal
Cleaner, greener, cheaper fuels are available right now.
Get a grip on reality.
12
@Douglas Lowenthal
My concept of clean includes the reduction or elimination of co2 emissions. Please note that I did not cite any exceptions.
If these states and businesses want to burn coal they are going to have to figure this out.
Farm states should regulate their own tariffs too.
12
Very interesting development. I suppose that Trump will also propose a way to keep the smog and foul air from coal fired plants in the states that have opted to disregard the air quality standards. Trump and Zinke need to take an extended trip to Beijing.
What this administration cannot seem to grasp is that we have virtually no time left to save this planet. We cannot save coal. Those who live in coal states need help to be retrained for jobs that are not in the coal industry. Maybe Foxconn should build in West Virginia.
12
Since Lincoln, the role of the Federal Government has been to keep the States from going to war with each other. With the Trump plan, States that have lower pollution standards will now allow polluted air and water into those States that have higher standards. That means war, first in the courts, but also in terms of relationship, for those States that do not want polluted air and water crossing their borders will have to sue for damages.
What Trump has done is opened up a new War Between the States, for instead of the States seceding, as South Carolina did, the Federal Government is dissolving its purpose and abandoning them. Next, Trump will reissue the Confederate dollars and the Thirteenth Amendment will be a matter for the States to decide.
16
@Max & Max
What you describe is truly frightening - our century's 1984. A nation's fabric torn apart at the very seams of our society with a Federal Government abdicating its role to the states the same way the GOP has abdicated its role to trump. These things disturb my sleep every night.
5
Ahhh, yes. The good ol days when the rain was acid and the rivers caught on fire.
Remember those times?
Remeber when the downwind, downstream states had to sue the coal burning states to get them to reduce emissions?
And don’t forget the toxic ash left over from burning coal has to go somewhere...which state wants that?
If only the coal states could keep all the pollution of air, water and ground In their own state and leave the states moving towards green energy alone.
75
In North Carolina they put the coal ash in our rivers thanks to Duke/Dominion Power and their revolving door, bought and paid for politicians. Kinda like the Hunton & Williams lawyer at EPA. #PollutionProfiteers
Enjoy the 'beautiful clean coal' in your Christmas stockings and at your early funerals, Trump Nation.
The Party of Death makes yet another in a series of 'Drop Dead, America !" homicidal public policy proposals.
"Planetary-Assisted Suicide For A Brighter, Whiter Tomorrow !"
Greed Over Planet 2018
Nice GOPeople
140
@Socrates
I no longer recognize the GOP as a political Party; it is simply a collection of extremely rich and powerful plutocrats. Plutocracies do not survive long term, for very good reasons. The GOP will either die for lack of new entrants, or it will become part of the 21st C and enact intelligent policies. Right now it is stagnant with old cronies, bad policies, and very few young people joining its ranks.
1
Those orange sunsets in Washington, DC are the result of forest fires out west. Do DC residents also have to suffer the more proximate effects of coal burning in West Virginia?
Even with Medicare Advantage and federal health benefits, my asthma meds cost $85/month. Why must I subsidize dirty air?
24
if you invest the $85 in coal futures contracts rather than wasting it on medicine, after only a few decades you could be as rich as Wilbur Ross, even though you'd be dead. do the math.
2
This is really where Trump mendacity and the Republican leadership meet. Like the tax cuts and the Supreme Court appointments, McConnell, Ryan and the rest will put up with anything from the White House in order to have these disastrous short- and long-term policies and appointments enacted for the sake of their enablers and contributors and for a vision of the country in which only top ten per cent enjoy anything like a true democratic and humanistic society.
As November approaches it becomes more and more crucial that the makeup of the House and Senate change and change drastically. Space Force indeed.
27
Does this really matter if the larger economics continue to close coal fired electricity year after year? I suppose it could slow down the closure of some facilities.
BlueskyOregon - does it really matter if the so-called President of the United States is hellbent on bringing back 18th century pollution and technology ??
Yes, it's yet another evidentiary piece of his immorality, amorality, corruption, ignorance and disregard for American citizens' health and futures.
Yet another sign that Donald Trump is the enemy of the people and the planet.
Yes, it matters that Donald Trump is unfit for his office...and for any office outside of a psychiatric prison cell for award-winning sociopaths.
25
@BlueskyOregon
It matters because Trump's purpose is to sow chaos, and here's some more. Throw everything topsy turvy and make people expend their energies trying to cope. Throw sand in the gears. Suddenly the plans of utilities and businesses are up in the air, maybe because of tariffs on imported automobiles or maybe because they know Trump's de-regulation won't last and they have to prepare for the real future of climate change. This is not helpful -- to the contrary, it introduces uncertainty, and that's what business really doesn't like.
7
Fortunately for us here on the West Coast coal fired plants are a rarity. May the trump administration choke on the pollutants from coal fired plants.
21
My spouse and I are in our late 60s and are not in good health. We have no children, and we don't live in a coal-mining state. This decision, if it goes ahead, will have little effect on us; we aren't going to be around long enough to suffer from its effects.
However... those of you who have young children, or are thinking of having children, urgently need to think about what kind of world your children and grandchildren will live in. Or even if there will still be a livable world for them to live in. And for your children and grandchildren's sake, remember those thoughts when next you cast your vote. Don't allow these evil people to decide their fate. This may be the only hope your descendents have. Don't fail them.
177
@gmgwat
Well said. I am in may early 80s, have three, obviously grown, children and 6 grand children. I am also very worried about the kind of world they will live in if this present administration isn't stopped from ruining our country and the world.
Your are so right when you said "don't allow these evil people decide their fate."
A great start would be to vote as many GOP cowards in both the House and the Senate out this November.
2
The GOP is now the pro-corporation, anti-environment party. It is also the party that wants to erode state autonomy in favor of a new, overreaching and authoritarian federal government.
I only hope the American people will recognize that the Trump administration does not represent the people and vote accordingly in November.
40
@ghulse now? They have been for at least 40 years.
1
Trump's plan makes sense. Everyone knows that CO2 emissions stay directly over the state from which they are released and only effect that state. Trump's science adviser said so.
As you will recall, Trump has not yet nominated a potential science adviser. Golf, as you know, takes many hours to play. This does not mean that the job is vacant. It is now held by "Michael Kratsios, the deputy assistant in the Office of Science and Technology Policy . . . Kratsios graduated from Princeton in 2008 with a political science degree and a focus on Hellenic studies." Hellenic studies seems to be most appropriate, since under Trump, that appears to be where the country is headed.
179
@Reasoned And Rational. You made me laugh out loud, but, sadly, it's not funny at all.
2
@Sparky -- It wasn't meant to be funny. It was meant to identify the administration's general policy of making uninformed decisions and that those have a lasting effect on all of us. Just because the word "science" appears in Trump's top science adviser's degree in political "science," that doesn't mean he's qualified to give scientific advice. Similarly, while my dentist has a DDS, that doesn't mean she is qualified to perform neurosurgery.
This is an awful idea.
Pollution does not obey borders, and some state governments -- like Scott Walker's Wisconsin -- are not only terrible stewards of the earth, but have been scaling back both environmental standards and the departments designed to enforce them, making it harder for future governments to enact any safeguards.
17
Unlike the Clean Air Act, which regulates hazardous pollutants, the Congress didn’t pass the Clean Power Plan, which limits CO2 emissions. CFPPs still must control emissions of heavy metals and SO2.If you want to regulate CO2 emissions, it’s going to take getting rid of Trump and Republicans who either don’t believe in man made global warming or who believe it but don’t want to do anything about it.
36
Of course, since acquifers, rivers, wind and rain are contained by ink boundaries on a map it makes total sense for individual states to make decisions affecting the country.
I'm concerned that the White House wasn't willing to explain its proposal -- and that the entire proposal hasn't been released for public review.
24
There are approximately 175,000 people employed in coal mining and cola power production combined. That number drops every year.
Solar power employs 375,000. That number is going up exponentially.
So obviously it is Trump's policy to MAGA through polluting support for the smaller industry in terminal decline.
45
@NormBC
Yup. Because those folks are Trumplodites.He knows they are a nice sized part of his fan base.
His strategy to pander to them and others like him got him in office, but the bigger losses by most of the population will run him out. His "plan" is based on propping-up declining and also quickly automating industries to the expense of more modern and forward looking industries - that will employ more and generate more revenues inthe future.
Thankfully the Market's need to expand, compounded by the sciences and technology industries inherent growth needs will leave his POV in their dust.
7
@NormBC
Reagan did the same thing. He tore off the solar panels on top of the White House as soon as he entered the office. We've been suffering the effects of these backwards anti earth and anti science policies since the 80's .
7
@Winston Smith
Reagan also closed very good mental health hospitals in CA; he then refused to fund the Community Health Centers we established in their place. He proceeded to Washington where he refused to fund mental health programs; he did, however, fund the illegal sale of weapons to Iran under Ollie North's supervision; he did interfere in elections in Panama and Chile; he supported Thatcher's war in the Falklands. Finally, he returned home in an advanced state of Alzheimers; those of us who lived in D.C. during his Presidency knew that Nancy ran the WH and the government; she was known as the "clothes hanger". Taxpayers supported the Berlin Airlifts; Reagan used his Hollywood experience to make fatuous statements: "Tear down this Wall." He was a terrible Governor, a worse President, nothing more than a salesman for Borax, and a man who betrayed his fellow actors when President of the Screen Actors Guild. It is pathetic that the GOP still trots him out as some kind of political icon, as compared to FDR who gave us Social Security, Truman who gave us Medicare, LBJ who got the Voting Rights Act passed, or Obama who finally got a form of affordable care started. Eisenhower was the last Republican President who served with honor.
Trump has proven to be consistent in his approach to governing: he has no plan except to destroy whatever was in place when he took office and to reward his base with short-term "gifts".
His actions vis a vis coal are a vivid example of this. The plan as proposed dismantles the Clean Power Plan while not even acknowledging climate change.
Any advantages accruing to the coal producing states will be minimal and illusory. Coal mining is no longer a labor intensive activity so there will be few if any additional jobs for miners. Moreover mining is very damaging to the environment leaving a scarred earth and acidic streams and ground water. Coal-based power generation is inherently less efficient than gas. It is also more polluting due to contained sulfur and of course a vastly greater source of Carbon Dioxide than renewable sources and even gas.
Meanwhile his cavalier change of direction will saddle America's efforts to combat climate change by requiring a giant step backward.
Unfortunately this move parallels Trumpian efforts in foreign policy:NATO,European relations,Korea,Mid-East Peace Plan,Russian coddling,Trade wars etc. and other Domestic areas:Immigration,Family separation, race relations, Healthcare,Infrastructure improvements etc.
It is easy to destroy and dismantle. It it will prove much harder to undo all of the damage done by Trump.
79
Very well said Brian. I guess Make America Great Again meant Take America Back to the Forties - in energy production, race relations, and a host of other ills Trump will visit upon us.
And you’re right, he is lazy and stupid, has no coherent policy on any subject, and punts everything to the states. I’m all for states rights, but not when what one state does affects other states. Climate change affects all of us.
Air and water do not stop at state lines, therefore, national standards are necessary to protect all of our air and water system from lax state pollution standards.
The coal and fossil fuel industries want to have the ability to eliminate environmental protection laws to maximize their short-term profits. They do not care about the long-term impact on our ecosystem. They measure success by quarterly profits not the long term interests for local, state, national, and the world. They view the world through narrow self-interest.
Our current administration cares only for the certain businesses and their quarterly profits. They cut taxes for these same businesses while keeping their boutique tax breaks and loopholes. Eliminating environmental protections is about their profits not job creation. They rely on the misinformed voters whose prejudices blind them from the reality that anti-regulations means pro-pollution of our air, soil, and water to pad the pockets of a very small number of individuals.
18
Really a bad idea giving States the right to govern coal plant emissions. But not necessarily because they’re not qualified or they’ll be inconsistencies in the enforcement by different States. That will happen, but.
Consider the Midwest States, IL, IA, OH, etc. And further west, MT, WY, etc. They all have significant numbers of coal fired plants, and each spews the toxic gases upwards into the high atmosphere and those gases catch the jet stream and prevailing easterly winds. All that toxicity has to drop out of the atmosphere sometime and where does much of it land. Well, start with MD, NJ, NY, CT, MA, RI, ME, NH, and VT.
This Administration has more bad thinking at every level, starting at the top than any other in my lifetime.
76
@cherrylog754 and Utah whose air quality during the winter months is one of the worsts in our nation! We’ve got to get the vote out and flip the House and Senate.
4
Well, why not?
And while we're at it, why not let the states decide their own border control? And why not let passengers fly the planes? And why not let the geniuses who poisoned the Flynt water supply set water quality policy for the whole state? And why not let big pharma sell drugs that have skipped testing and regulation? And on and on...
What could possibly go wrong?
112
@Terry
Right, let the markets rule! When enough people have become sick or died then pressure will start to build on industry to do it better (or to mount anti-fact disinformation campaigns). [Cue sound of the invisible hand slapping the U.S. in the face.]
6
Trump does understand that air pollution crosses state lines, doesn't he? No? Oh, my.
29
@Joe
Trump understands one thing and one thing only: how incredibly important Trump is. That is the limit of his understanding of anything.
7
"States rights !" - the clarion call for Robber Barons, racists and retrogrades who understand that the best way to corrupt life is to do on the 'local level' without that pesky federal government that leads the way on real environmental protection, civil rights protection, worker rights protection, voting rights protection, consumer protection and protection of the common man from the vulture-capitalist sociopathic instincts of greedy men.
My questions are for Republican voters:
Do you think championing filthy polluting coal is really okay in the year 2018 when cheaper, greener energy is plentiful ?
Do you simply deny the scientific fact that fossil fuels cook the climate and lead to increasingly catastrophic weather events ?
Do you care about the impact of manmade global warming catastrophe on yourselves, your children, your grandchildren and the billions of human and other species it will impact ?
Do you care that the ocean is being cooked and that the marine food chain is being slowly killed ?
Do you care about things beside cheap energy and cash and yourselves ?
Do you have a conscience ?
How can you support a Republican Administration, Republican Congress and Gas Oil Pollution party that recklessly rapes Mother Earth for a the joy of cash ?
Have you no decency ?
The current Administration and the Republican Party is trying to kill the planet and its residents.
Stop supporting your assassins, Republican voters.
340
@Socrates
And the answers are: Yes, Yes, No, No, No, No, Easy, No.
The next question is: Does everyone else care enough to energize, mobilize, and VOTE these troglodytes out of power?
We'll find out that answer on November 6th.
9
@Socrates Very well said. Unfortunately, the answer to your questions on GOP supporters having consciences or decency have already been answered. When tribalism becomes your guiding principle and value, there is no longer need of niceties like social conscience nor decency. All that matters is that you are accepted by the tribe and that the tribe cares for its own. Nothing else is admissible and can be easily dispelled by aid of the tribal narrative, anticipating and rejecting any challenge to its agenda.
I just returned from a week in Stockholm, my first visit, and this coincided with the greatest heatwave in recorded history. Generally summer days there may reach 20C. That week it was 32C or close everyday. During the week the countries tallest mountain became the second tallest due the loss of its ice cap. I stayed in a grand hotel in the city centre, great, but filled with monied, elderly Trumpist Americans. They complained constantly about the heat and lack of air conditioning. At the slightest mention of Climate Change, they were triggered and immediately barked, "Fake News!" The California fires, worst on record, they attributed to environmentalist arsonists.
It has become clear to me that these otherwise intelligent and capable people, intellectual integrity long since sold out to their tribal narrative, are now quite unreachable by rational discourse.
3
And of course, once a woman's uterus, an immigrant's children, or a poor man's public assistance are involved, "states' rights!" is suddenly thrown right under the bus.
2
State regulation of the environment existed long before the EPA. But it doesn't work because air and water pollution from one state travels easily to other states. Unless we put domes over each state. Fifty Great Walls won't help. Then again, we could let the EPA do its job. But that runs counter to Trump's desire to abolish federal regulation. His policies will impact future generations in ways that cannot be ameliorated.
33
The problem is pollution is a global issue. It effects the entire world and states down wind. Coal use in the USA is declining for economic reasons. Even China is cutting back on coal.
8
@HP6 China is increasing its use of coal. US coal plants have significant environmental technologies to reduce real pollution. As for CO2 being pollution, it is NOT.
1
@bob
For your information, the US Supreme Court has indeed decided, based on sound scientific evidence, that CO2 is a pollutant (MA, CT, ME, NY.... vs EPA) if added indiscriminately to the environment. (so would be salt if dumped into a pond or waterway). Of course, you may disagree, but that does not make you being right.
It is correct that China is increasing its coal use to satisfy its demand for electricity. But it is ramping up more rapidly its renewable energy production. According to Wikipedia, China is the world's leading country in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over double the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States. With Trump, we are going in the opposite direction.
@bob let’s put some contest around your statement.
Coal consumption increased for the first time after 3-yr fall. However, as a portion of total energy consumption, coal usage fell 1.6 percentage points to 60.4 percent last year, while clean energy, including natural gas and renewables, rose 1.3 percentage points to 20.8 percent from 2016, the communique showed.
That indicates the country remains on track to fulfil its promise to decarbonise its economy and reduce air pollution, as it vowed to cut the coal portion to below 58 percent of total energy consumed.
That would be fine for states which do not allow air to flow in or out across their borders.
28
The fat cats and the connected need to get richer - no matter what the cost to you.
20
Hm, have they realized that winds rarely stay in one place? Hence, the need for Federal intervention.
15
This is foolish. Coal burning also puts other pollutants into the air, and air pollution does not respect state boundaries. It must be regulated at the federal level. And states do not have the resources to do the research needed to create wise environmental policy.
21
So now, who’s picking winners and losers in energy production? Also, pollution drifts across state lines! Air pollution from any power production source is a national, not a local, problem.
18
Getting rid of Pruitt doesn't seem to have helped. His replacement is worse than he was and we will suffer from these new acts.
16
When this country was founded, their founders vision of slavery as the future backbone of their new empire loomed as the greatest danger to human dignity the World ever faced. Fortunately, those intentions didn't materialize. Today, this country looms as the gravest danger to the continued existence of human civilization - something far worse than Jefferson's vision of an American future based on the degradation of a race.
8
@Richard Monckton
Slavery has been around for 1000s of years. A billion Chinese and a billion Indians are a bigger threat to the ecology than a relatively few Americans.
1
And with no health care to depend upon, these folks in these states will continue to support the very person who is destroying their health, their kids’, their planet’s..all of us. This mad dictator-in-waiting, with his doomed soul, is dooming America.
37
It's obvious that Trump and his allies in the pollution industries are willing to poison our air, land, and water for short-term profits.
State legislators and other officials are notorious for selling out to these industries.
We all share the same atmosphere, so when a state bought off by the coal industry allows more pollution, the entire biosphere suffers.
When we battle Trump and his earth-killing allies, it is an epic battle for the future of life on earth.
205
All rules are subject to court review and approval.
When pollution learns to honor state lines, this will be a credible proposal.
Until that happens, however, I don't think the courts will have much trouble in vetoing the proposed changes
95
@Paul '52
Are you referring to the courts that Trump has been busy stacking?
@Paul '52 We can hope, but somehow this whole thing makes me nervous.
1
@Paul '52: Which court? The Bush/Bush/Trump Court? The Roberts/Thomas/Alito/Gorsuch/Kavanaugh Court?
Don't bet on it .... but do contact your senators and demand that they oppose Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation! Your grandchildren's ability to breathe freely depends on the outcome.
5
And let the fox guard the chicken coop.
119