The lie begins with the name, "Affordable Clean Energy Act," which is now misapplied to this sop to coal mine owners. Trump disgraces himself and us again. Of course we need affordable clean energy, but this stupid action is 180° in opposition to it.
"Help!" cried Mother Earth as she choked to death on pollutants....
6
“I don’t know who is going to invest in a new coal fired power plant, but we’re leveling the playing field to allow that investment to occur,”
That is the equivalent of saying: "I don't know which school is going to be shot up next but we're leveling the gun control effort to allow the killing to continue."
America used to be about moving forward to make things better. Under Trump it is all about moving backward based on the biggest of all Trump lies...that he is making America Great Again.
The America he is referring to is a figment of a a willingly ignorent imagination about a time that never really was. It is about the time of no seat belts, Tylenol poisonings, lead in paint, legalized segregation, lynchings, back-ally abortions...all those good things too many of us, especially us privilaged white guys (myself included) conveniently forget.
However, this time its about an equal opportunity killer that, denying it or not, ignoring the science and turning the clock back on environmental protections will kill our grandkids, no matter what Trump and his minions so stupidly choose to believe.
November 2020 cannot come soon enough for a hundred different despicable reasons ranging from the criminal and impeachable to the odious, ignorant and self enrichment ones behind everything he does.
9
Having participated in developing the Air Pollution Control act of the early 1970's, I frequently bumped into the two opponents...one for the coal industry and the other for environmental interests.....who generally won policy and allocation arguments.
Time goes on and billions(?) are poured in stack emissions control technology. Eventually, the technology was so successful it became a major, yet hidden export to China and other countries dependent on coal-fired power plants. Were it not for this technology, air quality could have been a lot worse.
The emotional debates, like 'coal war' images, continue in the hysterical media depictions. The reality is that the plants are being replaced at a fairly rapid rate by smaller regional generators fired by natural gas, which btw. is quietly making major inroads into powering vehicles, including buses and even railroad engines and ocean lines. Coal mining and exports have dropped considerably since the 70's; yet the media 'war on coal'continues since the readers must have the original imagery refreshed continuously.
@Cali Sol - the coal industry's "war on people" continues. The industry fought off necessary emissions controls for decades under a loophole for existing power plants, where they greatly expanded plant capacity without adopting the new emissions controls.
Wind power is now outcompeting coal just as effectively as natural gas for power generation, and wind or solar plus storage and demand management is starting to kill off the gas peaker plants, and will eventually end most combined cycle plants as well.
Natural gas in buses is much better than diesel, but will eventually lose out to electrification - China has more electric buses now - but as the market adoption keeps driving prices down, they'll spread everywhere. There are some near me in Chicago and it's great not having to deal with the smell of the diesel buses - and they're quieter than the natural gas ones, too.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-15/in-shift-to-electric-bus-it-s-china-ahead-of-u-s-421-000-to-300
Natural gas for ships would be nice - recent rules to end use of bunker oil will put pressure globally on diesel, so switching away from both will be nice.
There's even work begun on aircraft powered by a hybrid natural gas/electric system.
We need our imagery of coal refreshed because it's being artificially prolonged to everyone (but the owner's) harm. We'll be remediating sites of power plants, mines and ash ponds for decades after the last plant closes.
4
It is disheartening and downright frightening to come to the realization that the fate of our planet is in the hands of people who have substantial monetary incentives to do absolutely nothing.
81
"The Trump administration on Wednesday replaced former PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA’S EFFORT TO REDUCE PLANET-WARMING POLLUTION from coal plants with a new rule that would keep plants open longer and undercut progress on reducing carbon emissions."
Therein lies the problem. trumph is so jealous of Obama and everything good he has done he will do whatever he can to negate Obama's advances in cleaning up our air and water.
So he does just the opposite and we will continue to suffer the consequences.
I wonder if he and his minions don't realize they, also, will suffer from dirty air and water? Do they think their children will not suffer from asthma and other problems because of what they are doing? Evidently not.
MAGA, DUMP TRUMP!
6
How am I supposed to be a proud American when I read stuff like this? Only the truly unintelligent would think that this some how makes America great. So very, very sad.
2
Those of us who have no children and in the past have worked to reduce our carbon footprint are the dumb ones. Why should we care if this planet is on its way to another major reduction in life as it is known. We will be gone when the climate warming related catastrophe strikes, and it will.
1
"Phil Smith, a spokesman for the United Mine Workers of America, said the Trump administration plan would save jobs in coal country."
Union leaders are often corrupt, but not usually as short-sighted as this boob.
You can't save coal jobs. It's important to retrain coal miners for other work before the coal industry goes under.
Smith is thinking of jobs today and, just like the idiots in the administration, taking no account of how his members will be affected by the coming climate change.
4
Criminal administration and president - plain and simple. Shameful disregard of facts. The US deserves whatever it has coming and every single Trump voter - YOU are a culprit in this! No excuses.
5
Maybe those states should secede until they choose to live in the 21st century
The GOP is the Party of Death. In their being drunk on greed and power, they will be destroying our planet. They already have shown they don't care about our lives in taking NRA money and making reckless gun laws that are literally killing us. Their anti-abortion rulings will be killing women. Trump's hate rhetoric has increased crime and violence. Anyone who votes Republican, votes against life and sheer human decency.
6
“Its Congress’ role to draft statutes, not the regulatory agencies.” -- Andrew Wheeler, Administrator, EPA
So, Congress, where are the environmental statutes Mr. Wheeler mentioned? Oh, the House says it wrote them and they're parked on Mitch McConnell's Senate desk, never to see the light of day?
The EPA is a Federal Agency that is supposed to write and enforce regulations based on laws Congress passes, according to its mission in 2017. Here's the link to their pro-active mission statement: https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/aboutepa/our-mission-and-what-we-do_.html
Today, they still have the same positive mission, including protecting the planet, humans and the environment, but their actions do not mirror their stated mission.
Shirking Federal responsibility and letting States create their own environmental regulations, according to their dependence on polluting industries, allows states to kill people with pollution, to keep their economy going.
Both the Trump administration and the pro-environment NRDC calculated that the new EPA plan would lead to increased premature deaths and hospitalizations -- up to 5,200 per year.
Ironically, the pro-life, red states, who say they will save so many babies by forbidding abortion, will kill the same number of babies by permitting pollution. Politicizing choice has always been about control and money.
The EPA now comes nowhere near its stated mission of "Environmental Protection".
5
Wish there was a way to raise the sea at Mar a Largo first. Losing more money is the only wake-up call Trump will inquire about.
2
Outraged virtue. It's certainly signalling through the commentariat. But other than the general Trump derangement disorder that the Time's commentariat suffers from -- if Trump does something, it is automatically evil and wrong -- and the generalized, we must save mommy earth that regularly resonates in these comments (10 more years and we are all dead, YEA!!!) I fail to see what is so horrifying. You're giving control to local authorities over the best way to meet targets. And while solar and wind are nice toys, they won't replace the electric grid anytime soon. I have no problem with them as supplementary sources and recognize that we will eventually run out of fossil fuels. But, let's maintain the stability and reliability of our grid.
If we could replace coal with nukes, I'd go for that. And I don't have a problem with solar panels on roofs, but solar and wind warms are ugly. A blight on the pristine landscape.
The Affordable clean Energy rule will reduce emissions. But in terms of our overall emissions there are a whole lot of things that determine that, population size, consumerism, efficiencies, etc. And ultimately even if the US continues to lower both our total and per capita emissions (we're pretty much flat with 1990 emission levels now with a population that is much larger) it won't stop emerging economies from continuing to increase emissions. We are only 5% of the globe and there is no reason to wreck our economy to show how virtuous we are.
The world-wide fight against climate change requires the urgency of a world war, for that is what it is. The world's most effective defense, so far, is the reduction of carbon emissions. But this relaxation of regulations allows states to decide how much reduction is right for them. Imagine, during WWII, allowing each state to decide how many of its citizens would be drafted. We would have lost that war. And we'll lose this one if we don't mobilize.
2
It is true that Trump poses a major impediment to making any kind of progress to address climate change. But we are also the problem. When I go to Los Angeles, and it is the same in every major city across the country, I see the city laced with freeways that are almost always packed with 3-4 lanes of traffic. We are continually burning huge quantities of gas and putting pollutants into the atmosphere. In 2018, about 142.86 billion gallons (or about 3.40 billion barrels) a daily average of about 391.40 million gallons. According to the EPA, motor vehicles collectively cause 75 percent of carbon monoxide pollution in the U.S. Trump's EPA is reducing tail pipe emission and fuel consumption standards standards, compounding this problem. Most of the cars on the freeways have one person per car, and the auto industry is responding to a call for larger vehicles, more gas consumption. For our transportation infrastructure to remain viable we need to convert to pollution free electric cars. We also need to change our behaviors and demonstrate that we are serious about addressing climate change in our own lives,
1
Look at the charts. The 1985 one shows the result of market forces on pollution. The latter show the result of regulation: cleaner air. Yes, some people make more money if they can plunder instead of managing resources, and leave the bills for their mismanagement to be paid by others. So what?
Big coal is dead and should be given a respectful burial. If it is resuscitated, the jobs will soon be done by robots anyway (no black lung claims if the workers don’t have lungs).
What’s next in Trump’s agenda of retro greatness? Bringing back cigarette smoking because it would stimulate the tobacco industry and provide even more jobs in the healthcare industry? Funny how Trump feels the President’s power is unchecked, yet regulators have immutable Constitutional constraints.
1
A good start would be for us to invest in solar energy in Puerto Rico to replace its catastrophic failure of a fossil fuel electric power plant. Shipping in fossil fuel, made even more expensive by the Jones act, limiting where ships originate, burns fuel twice, once in the generator and once in the ship. If we try to restore fossil fuel power to Puerto Rico, it will almost certainly fail again and cost us double, with another bailout and more global warming.
1
Ugh. There are some mornings I just want to put the pillow over my head and go back to bed. Once again this backwards looking administration is cynically putting politics and profits ahead of the welfare of human beings.
And of course anything good and decent President Obama did must be erased.
3
The Trump administration's vision of our future does not extend beyond their business supporter's pocketbooks.
3
Do I misse something? I thought that the job of the EPA was to protect the environment, not the coal industry.
3
Trump and his supporters are destroyers. Don the Con destroys all that he touches...businesses, subcontractors who lost everything because of Trump's 6 bankruptcies, our government with his corruption and now our efforts over the decades to join the rest of the world in environmental management for a healthy future for all on this planet.
We have less carbon today BECAUSE of the controls. Rule changes that will only increase carbon in the atmosphere will make the air we all breath worse. The most moronic part of it all is the 30-year decline in coal use, our vast natural gas resources that have been replacing coal use and the significantly expanding job market in the renewable resource industry.
Trump is incompetent. HIs third rate appointees are incompetent or corrupt. The GOP faces an existential choice...follow a destroyer or do the right thing for the country. However, it is clear that their interests are aligned and that interest has nothing to do with a better future for the general population.
The level of proven incompetence requires impeachment.
6
Any estimates on many coal jobs are saved and how many renewable energy jobs are lost as a result of this proposal? I suspect it’s a large net loss for the country. It’s a point, along with the 5,200 premature deaths, that needs to be highlighted by the media and the Democratic contenders.
3
Build a giant granite Wall of Shame and etch into it the names of every single person who forced global warming on us, including all who are reversing Obama era rules right now. Let their children and grandchildren know who forced us to endure the coming insufferable heat, floods, and water shortages,
3
If you want to pollute your own state, be my guest - but keep your greenhouse gases, acid rain, and polluted water out of mine.
3
Trump's supporters will mostly die from respiratory problems due to this change. Yet in Manhattan where he will return to live after he's booted from the White House the air will be clean around Trump Tower. We used to have incinerators burning garbage around the city. Even where I live I remember the firemen came to put out a fire from the incinerator in my building. Long gone are those days. We no longer burn garbage. The air is much cleaner. But in states that support Trump the air will be dirtier and will most likely contain heavy metals containing mercury that will cause permanent neurological diseases. And their water might no longer be potable.
2
Considering all the EPA’s “accomplishments” since this disastrous administration has been in charge may I suggest a name change? The Environmental Destruction Agency seems much more appropriate to me.
4
It's unfortunate, but Canada and the U.S. could go back to the stone age and produce zero man-made carbon emissions and it wouldn't make a bit of difference unless China and India did the same.
1
It certainly is NOT an AFFORDABLE energy act. Count the health cost, the exploding cost of disaster relief, the panicky fixes we'll have no choice but implement in a few decades...
This is a recipe for bankrupting our system.
3
"Mr. Wheeler has said the Trump administration’s plan is legally sound, will not damage the economy and will still go a long way toward reducing carbon." quote from article.
To anyone who believes this, I've got a coal plant to sell you.
7
If individual states are permitted to control the amount of dangerous and noxious gases/chemicals into the atmosphere do citizens of neighboring states and other states have the right to sue for damages?
9
The pure greed and ignorance of Trump and the Republican Party with the deregulation of critical environmental rules and the foreclosure of American leadership on climate change now means that the United States of America will get everything it deserves in the upcoming environmental and refugee catastrophes. It's a plan of profit and power before all other considerations, of viscous greed and the rape of nature. It's not believing that Florida will be under water. It's not believing that the world will turn against America, knowing that climate change is very real, immediate and that it requires co-operation and courage to make the drastic changes necessary to save us all.
It's not believing that if they think they have a border problem now, they ain't seen nothin' yet. It's a bleak, dark future because it could have been different, there was a chance to turn it, there was hope; but the coming of Trump was at the most critical time in the planet's history of humans. The decisions made and the complicity of the Republican Party have all added to the horror of what Trump represents.
We will all pay for what America has done by creating a system of governance that allowed Trump to get elected in the first place. America will never be trusted again, a pariah of failed commercialism... above all other considerations. A country that squandered some the greatest achievements in human history all in the name of money.
Power at it's worst. Greed at it's worst. Disaster.
8
I’m so tired of the hypocrisy of liberals. I’m a vegan who opposes the breeding and keeping of dogs as pets. The amount of damage being done to our planet by eating meat, consuming animal products, and breeding and feeding and keeping dogs is far worse than all the carbon emissions produced by automobiles. I’m not a liberal or a conservative. I’m a centrist, rational person. I realize that low cost electricity and transportation is necessary for our economy to remain the strongest in the world. But, it’s not necessary for us to eat meat or own dogs. Yet, so many of the liberals who criticize Trump are dog owning meat eaters.
Taking a lead from Trump tactics, I'll suggest when Trump and the right-wing Republicans are no longer in the White House, the Democrats will throw out Trump's EPA rules and install their own. Round-and-round we'll go ignoring what is best for the planet, the country, and future generations and instead install what's desired by the dominant political party.
4
When it comes to fossil fuel emissions and air pollution, we talk a lot about renewables as the solution. The problem with renewables as a solution to air pollution and climate change is that these new projects alone are not replacing fossil fuels nearly fast enough. Non-CO2-emitting, non-polluting, and aging nuclear power plants are being shuttered across the country- and the energy demand is being replaced by fossil fuel natural gas and coal plants.
If America wants to eliminate our dependence on methane-leaking natural gas and air-polluting coal, Nuclear Power must be revisited and be a part of the discussion. Going forward, I’d like to hear more about the 2020 candidate’s opinion on nuclear as part of the climate solution.
4
The current EPA should be renamed Environmental Pollution Administration.
3
Trump followers children and grandchildren, will suffer as much as those who voted against him. Why would anyone do this to their own?
2
Wheeler correctly claims that "rather than Washington telling Americans what type of energy they can use how they can travel or what they can eat" which means he, along with trump, Koch, Republicans, private industry and private interests should be the one's to tell us what power to use, how to travel and indeed, what to food eat too (genetically modified corn syrup, pesticide antibiotic laden industrialized foods). Indeed, they want the government of the people to play no role other than what the oligarchs like the Kochs, Adelsons, Mercers, et al tell the government to tell us what to do.
If you hate government, it's because it is being run by Republicans for private interests.
Mar de Locos should have a coal smoke stack and dried coal ash and sludge upwind. See how they like it.
7
"Former coal lobbyist heading EPA tries giving kiss of life to a corpse" is a better headline for what Wheeler's doing for his former employers.
From Energy Manager Today - 12/21/18 article titled:
Coal-Fired Power Plant Retirements Picked Up in 2018
"“Utilities are making decisions by looking at what ratepayers want, what shareholders are seeking and what their largest customers are seeking and positioning themselves to respond,” Dan Scripps, senior advisor with the Michigan Energy Innovation Business Council, told Midwest Energy News at the time.
Duke Energy, which provides electricity to 7.6 million retail customers in six states, reported in May that their renewable energy capacity grew by almost 20% last year. In 2005, 58% of the power Duke Energy produced came from coal. By 2017 that was down to 33%. The utility’s 2030 goal is to have coal account for no more than 20% of power produced."
https://www.energymanagertoday.com/coal-fired-plant-retirements-0180624/
And from Bloomberg New Energy Finance 2019 energy review:
"Coal collapses everywhere in the world, except in Asia, and peaks globally in 2026. Growth in China, India and Southeast Asia fails to offset rapid decline in Europe and the U.S. Carbon pricing and mandated phase-out plans in Europe and cheap natural gas in the U.S. force coal out of the mix.
By 2032, there is more wind and solar electricity in the world than coal-fired electricity."
https://bnef.turtl.co/story/neo2019
2
Remember when out of common sense H.W. Bush supported "green" policies?
There's nothing *conservative* about watching one's house burn while fretting over who'll pay the restoration tab.
4
This administration will be responsible for deaths, dirty air, and polluted ground water as they move toward paying off their dirty contributors. May their offspring realize who the responsible party was.
4
The sad truth is most American't won't hear about this change or won't care. Judging by the low number of comments to this article I am afraid I am right.
3
We could make a step toward clean air by putting a cork in either end of Trump's alimentary canal, and repeating that action with each of the folks in his crime syndicate.
1
It's a dark era for America and consequently planet Earth when the EPA chief administrator is indifferent do the impending threat of climate change. His pandering to Trump and his plan shows he clearly values his job more than the future of his children and this planet.
4
When describing the "Obama Era Rules," it is important to note that the Clean Power Plan was never put into use because it violates the Clean Air Act. It would have been impossible for Trump to have reinstated it as written by the Obama EPA. The regulations being rolled out reduce CO2 production, so they actually improve on Obama's era.
There is a limit to how much CO2 reduction can be squeezed out of the Clean Air Act, which was never intended by Congress to address global warming.
Had Obama wanted to reduce greenhouse gases, he should have used his bully pulpit to encourage Congress to pass appropriate laws. He couldn't even persuade a 60 Democrat Senate to pass any environmental law. Not one. And yet attempted to illegally impose regulations that violate the law.
Trump is moving forward with regulations that conform to the law in response to the fact that Congress hasn't written new law.
@ebmem - you are incorrect. Several Supreme Court decisions have upheld the EPA's legal responsibility to regulate greenhouse emissions from vehicles, power plants, etc. based on the Supreme-Court-validated Endangerment Finding that EPA established in 2009.
This link documents the history of the various decisions establishing the legality of EPA regulating greenhouse gases as pollutants:
https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2014/supreme-court-upholds-epa-s-authority-to-limit-carbon-pollution
And the Supreme Court didn't find the Clean Power Plan illegal - they stayed its implementation while waiting for a Circuit Court review - according to an NY Times article, it was the first time the Supreme Court acted that way (activist conservative judges).
There never was a complete review by the lower court - instead we had a new President whose hired lobbyists tossed out science that showed the plan would save money AND lives, and here we are today.
http://columbiaclimatelaw.com/resources/climate-deregulation-tracker/database/clean-power-plan/
The current Administration is trading lives for a slightly longer profit cycle for some big donors....
5
Trump has sold our children's future and our planet to the oil interests. The 21st century Axis powers are Saudi Arabia, the GOP southern oil oligarchs, and big money center banks who recycle Saudi petrodollars. Trump's first visit after becoming president was to Saudi Arabia, followed by a withdrawal from the Paris Accords and the JCPOA.
He has tethered our planets and our descendants future to his personal financial interests in Saudi Arabia.
4
This isn't an action opening a new golden era for coal, but merely closing the barn door after the horse has left. Tere will be no new coals and retrofitting older plants will be very difficult. These are highly risking ventures and people don't invest in electric utilities for risk. Electric utilities in the US are mostly looking for off-ramps from coal that allow recovery of clean up and embedded costs.
The real challenge at this time is not coal or electricity but the transportation sector. Lots of work needs to be done to move away from oil.
4
We are being led by an administration that is completely untethered to ethics, morality, reason or science. I was always a middle of the road guy. I voted for a few Republicans, like Tommy Thompson, in my day. I would just ask my conservative, fellow citizens to please help us stop this absolutely corrupt, ridiculousness. As someone who hunted and fished for many years, was even a member of the NRA before it went nuts and I knew better, this just goes against any sensible, conservation ethic. I just hope my Republican friends will come to their senses and stop the environmental degradation and the destruction of our environment and public lands before it’s too late.
7
Should I be glad I'll be dead in a few years? I'm old enough to remember filthy air and disgusting water. Why are we going backwards? What kind of INSANITY is in charge of our nation? I guess my fellow Americans really don't care! Make America disgusting again!
12
Putting American lives in danger is unacceptable. Impeach the Oil and Gas Mafia-Don, so we can continue the progress we've made. Creating the conditions for more asthma, cancer, and other diseases that are created as a result of pollution, is unacceptable!
5
The greatest idiocy of these new rules stems from the ridiculous notion that "States" have their own discrete "climate" and somehow won't export pollutants to other "Staes" and furthermore, to the rest of the planet.
The fact that Andrew Wheeler is a former energy lobbyist, and apparently a corrupt hack, makes perfectly clear that these rule changes are designed to benefit that sector of the economy, the fate of the world be damned.
10
@gary - aw, you're just being suspicious. Next I suppose you'd think it's corruption or something if a coal company owner donated bigly to some President's beautiful, beautiful inauguration, then wrote up a list of rules to tear out and sent it to the new Vice President.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/09/climate/coal-murray-trump-memo.html
But of course, that couldn't happen - the President said he was a wealthy man who didn't need money from any pressure groups. Well, until he started accepting donations during the campaign. And, of course, big checks for that inauguration. Then, immediately, funding for a 2020 run.......
3
Thank you China.
1
@Mkm, the US is responsible by far for the largest chunk of cumulative CO2 emissions since 1750.
2
What is needed is for someone to specify the positive results the Obama-era rules have had on the climate. This would convince skeptics.
1
The right wing has no ideas. It has no sense of a future much less any plans for it. They know two things: a mythical utopian past, and how to break things. I'm not sure how far they will turn back the clock - to 1943, 1743, or 1243, each of which period has its attractions for them - but it is certain that the public good has no place in their time warp.
4
There is no evidence what ever that the free market protects the environment or anything else.
7
@Vince
Capitalism doesn't care about people. We have seen this through out history. It also doesn't care about individual liberty either. We have also seen this through out history.
Didn't some smart American say something about the dangers of having large sums of wealth or small groups of people controlling all the wealth? What danger does it pose to liberty and justice for all? I wonder....
2
The solution is a carbon tax. And there will many such taxes. Sooner or later we are going to have to pay to mitigate the damages of climate change. Do you really think Florida is going to redesign Miami to compensate for flooding and not turn to federal dollars? And guess how that will be paid for. ThTs right. Taxes.
7
There is only one reason to reverse the Obama era environmental rules and that is because they were put in place by president Obama, a black person.
10
Time to update this running list of how President Trump is changing environmental policy:
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/03/how-trump-is-changing-science-environment/
3
Here in southern Wisconsin we long for a day over 70 degrees.
Another day of 54 degree cold.
"The data available for the period since 1990 raise concerns that the climate system, in particular sea level, may be responding more quickly to climate change than our current generation of models indicates."
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/316/5825/709
2
Affordable for the Koch Brothers. Expensive for everyone else.
2
Words cannot describe several things:
The level of unmitigated evil of donald and his family.
The fact that there are not literally millions of Americans rioting in the streets every day.
The absolute power of propaganda.
If this pig gets reelected there will be a rush for the "gates" the likes of which this country has never seen.
2
The skies here in Northern New Mexico are very often clouded with wood smoke in the winter, and blowing dust plus smoke from forest fires in the summer. Yet to look at these maps one would think our air was pure.
2
From a 2012 TED Talk by NASA’s former lead climate scientist:
“the longer we wait, the more difficult and expensive it becomes. If we had started in 2005, it would have required emission reductions of three percent per year to restore planetary energy balance and stabilize climate this century.
If we start next year, it is six percent per year. If we wait 10 years, it is 15 percent per year -- extremely difficult and expensive, perhaps impossible. But we aren't even starting.”
https://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate_change/transcript?language=en
3
This is simple. It's called investment in the future. We built the interstate highway system over decades, back when tax rates on the rich were up around 50%. I'm not happy with the result; cars, highways, sprawl ... that's beside the point. We could also invest in mass transit; it's not too late.
Society invests, knowing that it will cost now to benefit the future. To those 'freedom loving' types who shriek at the idea of 'subsidy' the oil and coal industry were subsidized over decades by every means including war.
It's simple; we invest in clean energy, the technology and the day to day operation. Along with a cleaner environment, this creates entire new careers.
Oh, and do all those 'freedom loving' types want to subsidize the hospitals which will care for people with breathing problems from mild asthma to lung cancer which will result from us shuffling back to the 50's?
'Vision' means we look at the next century, not the next quarterly report. This is what a thriving, growing society does. Happy to 'get along and go along' is what a complacent, aging, tired society does.
America, it's time to choose.
3
Sadly I think it is too late already. The gov. is looking for beaches for rotting whales. Don't want the vacationing beach goers to see what is happening. Coral reefs are dying. It goes on and on. No one seems to be looking at the big picture. We have polluted the seas to the point of no return.
3
Let's see. By my count we have shelved the Paris Climate Accord, the Iran Treaty, the Arms Control Treaty, trashed the EPA, State Dept., hushed climate research reports, and pumped up coal, oil, and global prospects for war, including nuclear war. Nice work Trump and Co.
9
@PT
There's also been a spike in hate crimes.
2
I wonder if the Trump Administration has factored this into promise of a great new healthcare plan coming "in the next couple months" (per Trump last week). It seems to me that this decision will result in sicker people in more states which in turn will drive up health care costs. And, if the states get to decide how much pollution is too much pollution while concurrently opting out of ObamaCare (undoubtedly the same flexibility will occur if/when TrumpCare ever emerges), it seems prudent for people in the states with low air quality to plan to relocate soon.
3
I wonder if science deniers realize that global warming is a slow motion version of a giant asteroid, with the ability to destroy most life on earth, heading for our planet.
Global warming will not destroy our plant, only most species, including humans.
Would we be more likely to try to divert the asteroid, then we are of trying to avoid global warming?
2
So, the Trump Administration not only is ramping up the path to war but also holding back efforts to limit greenhouse emissions. What in the world hath we wrought?
3
We should now be building a lot more wind, Solar, and nuclear power plants, and the thousands of miles of transmission lines needed to tie everything together much more widely and robustly than is now the case.
When there are mass famines, natural disasters, pandemics, and general strife among people the religious right-wing will justify it as the wrath of god against a populace that dared support (insert progressive agenda item here).
When climates changes brings about apocalyptic events, these people will say we deserve God's wrath. I may agree, but for different reasons.
1
One wonders if Mr Wheeler has any children.
3
Surely any future president can claim a national emergency to justify any action just as Trump has done.
2
The party of "Now"...is a threat to the future of your children & the planet, period.
1
I am appalled looking at the map. When I moved to Denver the air was filthy and it looked like one needed to wear a gas mask on a regular basis. Clean air regulations brought about a much healthier city to live in. It is unconscionable that these regulations are being rolled back.
Thanks Republicans - another win for the big guys and all of us little people are dismissed. Cory Gardner - why aren't you fighting against this?????
4
These despicable, corporate welfare queens scream about abortion of a fetus as murder, but they have no problem increasing pollution in the air, water and soil, knowing it will kill thousands of vulnerable children every year. This is mass murder by intent. For what? Sickening.
7
“If upheld in court, it could tie the hands of future presidents”. This is the one area where the current idiots in charge of the executive branch may seal the fate of the human race as we have known it. There is no time remaining to delay action on climate change. Any serious scientist...any serious person who looks at the data...knows this. If we choose cheap fossil fuels over protecting the planet...we will reap what we sow. The poorest countries will be hardest hit, but the oligarchs will watch their Manhattan condominiums sink into the ocean. The human capacity for selfish greed is incomprehensible
1
Until someone can stop China and India from polluting on a large scale, our efforts will be fruitless.
1
@Duane Mathias - no, that argument doesn't hold water.
Besides, India's been cancelling planned coal plants in favor of solar, because solar is cheaper, because it helps stop over a million deaths a year from air pollution.
China installs more renewables than we do right now, and is actively promoting electric vehicles - again, because they are looking at the fact that electric cars are cheaper, and because it will help them avoid the over million deaths a year they also have now from fossil fuel use.
Yet our Administration is bravely marching the wrong way.
More Americans will be sickened or die, utilities will STILL be shutting down coal plants because they're now costlier than the alternatives, but there will be some happy millionaires tonight.
The same ones who took their coal companies into bankruptcy, dumped their pension and healthcare obligations onto the public's dime, and inserted their lobbyist in as new head of EPA.
8
The damage that Trump, his coal lobbyist Wheeler, and the oligarch Koch brothers are foisting on the American people is criminal.
The foxes are running rampant in the EPA henhouse! These climate change deniers are being abetted by McConnell and other science ignorant Republicans.
1
Mr. Wheeler says they're addressing climate change. "An early Trump administration analysis of its own plan also found that it would lead to hundreds more premature deaths and hospitalizations because of that increased air pollution."
So fewer humans means less pollution, right? The Administration eased off on mine safety rules, too. So fewer miners is part of the plan?
BLS figures show that total employment, from CEOs to people underground, was just 50,750 in May 2018. The US population is about 329,000,000 - so even if you include the secretaries, coal mining employs 0.015% of the population.
"Leaders" in some coal states pretend they're caring for their general public by trying to cling to these jobs, but seriously, it's an occupation to be ended. Coal employment peaked in the 1980s, and natural gas fraccing, combined with owners automating or switching to mountaintop removal from underground digging were principal killers of coal jobs. Now it's cheaper to build wind or solar than run existing coal-fired plants.
If the GOP and EPA cared about miners, they'd be all for closing the mines. Black lung has been increasing in recent years. Mountaintop removal and dumping rock has endangered water supplies in Appalachia, and leaky ash pits endanger water supplies nationwide.
Mines and power plants are brownfield sites that are costly to restore for general use. Employ the workers in shutting the mines, closing coal plants and installing solar on the sites.
1
Regardless of what the EPA does, coal plants in the US will be a thing of the past within 10 years. This will occur not because of any concerns regarding pollution or CO2 emissions, but because other power sources are much more economical. Natural gas and land-based wind are already significantly cheaper sources of electricity than coal, and solar (PV) is only slightly more expensive than coal. Furthermore, both wind and solar are still rapidly decreasing in cost unlike coal and natural gas.
Gas is a wonderful interim technology until we convert entirely to renewables and, hopefully, nuclear. (Ideally, nuclear will be combined with breeder technology and spent fuel reprocessing such that nuclear also effectively becomes a renewable technology.)
1
If upheld in court, future presidents can just call an emergency and ignore the court.
How many divisions does the court have anyway?
I know it must be nearly impossible for people with normal healthy egos to grasp this, but Trump's sole intent is to undo anything that Obama wrought. That's it. Period. If Obama has a treaty with Iran, Trump undoes it, to the world's peril. If Obama bravely opens up new portals of openness with Cuba, Trump undermines it. Same here. Obama made our climate safer, so Trump undoes it -- not because he believes his policies on the environment make the slightest bit of sense, but because of his spite and enmity for Obama and his stellar accomplishments.
12
We could build a biosphere for those who do not want to take action on climate change. We can replicate what a world will look like with no regulations for clean water & air, unfettered burning of fossil fuels and fracking.
That way they can literally live with their own decisions. (And the rest of us can get on with starting the clean up.)
4
Government Over Profits. EPA acronym is now officially changed to Environmental Pollution Agency!
6
I am reading the prescient book The Uninhabitable
Earth about the existential threat to life and mankind’s survival from global warming.
Of course the abysmal and reactionary Trump Administration wants
to turn back the clock and deny the reality of climate change. They will just accelerate the ominous process and lead to the end of the world as we know it .
It is easy to avoid the truth when the consequences are dire. With Trump and his reactionary and thoughtless administration evasion, lies and dishonesty are the norm. The earth will become more Uninhabitable sooner than ever because of what he and his minions represent! And it won’t be affordable either!
Video streaming by internet rejects globally as much CO2 as the whole world airplane transportation. = 2 % of total CO2.
10 mn of video watching releases 1 g of CO2 .
1
And this from a guy who becomes hysterical when one person coughs. How many will be coughing when the coal plants are fired up again, thousands, millions?
4
There's a widespread failure to understand how much of a threat global warming poses to humanity. Consider that a population of a few million human hunter gatherers was apparently beyond the carrying capacity of the planet because many places where we showed up the megafauna disapppeared.
What enabled us to double our population many times into the billions was agriculture, which developed in the relatively stable Holocene period which we are watching recede rapidly in our rear view mirrors.
If we wreck agriculture (1) our population will likely return to at best a few million and the reduction will not be a pretty sight.
1. Link to IPCC projections for precipitation this century in western N America, probably the most terrifying graph I've ever seen.
http://icons.wxug.com/hurricane/2013/drought-western-us-1900-2100.png
2
@Erik Frederiksen If you believe those projections, I have a bridge to sell you. All of the models used are fatally flawed as they are unable to deal with and predict with any certainty the impacts of increased atmospheric water vapor that will occur due to CO2-induced global warming. Indeed, since global warming will increase total global precipitation, the best prediction at any one location is that there will be more precipitation.
@Rob-Chemist - the predictions (and the observations that are starting to verify the underlying physics) is that the total precipitation in a particular area might not increase, but would be falling in fewer, more intense events. That's "flooding" weather for people who care about infrastructure and agriculture.
And in areas that tend to aridity, the increased heating will intensify droughts, as well. Warmer means soil dries faster, which then warms the soil more, and so on.
And remember, if we reach a global average increase of 2°C includes the ocean surface, which warms more slowly and is most of the map. Land, particularly inland, will warm a good deal more in most places. So while the global rate of warming over the last sixty years is +1.52°C per century, over just the North American continent, the rate has been +2.77°C per century. That's just about 5°F per century here.
2
@Rob-Chemist
From NASA's former lead climate scientist:
Within a few decades of continued global warming "increasing intensity of droughts and floods will severely impact breadbaskets of the world, causing massive famines and economic decline."
https://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate_change/transcript?language=en
2
Sadly coal is not an affordable clean energy alternative. It is cheaper only if you factor out the environmental damage it causes. Sad to see the EPA turn into a useless stooge of fossil fuel industry. This will change in 2020 Americans will hold the fossil fuel industry responsible. Trump executive actions will be swept away with the modest signature of a Responsible Democratic President. One who puts the environment above profit. in 2021 there will be the flushing of the EPA the last GOP contribution to Trump Washington Cesspit.
1
@GUANNA Actually, coal is already more expensive than using natural gas or land-based wind for electricity in the absence of any adjustments for pollution. Coal is dying and nothing the Trump administration can do will bring it back. Economics is a cruel master.
Congress should write new laws obliging the EPA to clean our air and water. Coal warms the planet and pollutes the air. It’s killing us. We should use only solar, wind, and nuclear power.
3
@Kevin Cahill - The US Supreme Court upheld the EPA analysis that concluded that greenhouse gases are dangerous pollutants that must be regulated for the welfare of the public. Just recently, a group of scientists reviewed a couple hundred science papers published since that finding was established and show that more information now shows the risks are even greater than was clear then.
"Strengthened scientific support for the Endangerment Finding for atmospheric greenhouse gases
The case for endangerment
In 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the so-called “Endangerment Finding.” This defined a suite of six long-lived greenhouse gases as “air pollution.” Such air pollution was anticipated to represent a danger to the health and welfare of current and future generations. Thus, the EPA has the authority to regulate these gases under the rules of the U.S. Clean Air Act. Duffy et al. provide a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence gathered in the years since then. These findings further support and strengthen the basis of the Endangerment Finding. Thus, a compelling case has been made even more compelling with an enormous body of additional data."
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6427/eaat5982.full
Our Administration is a textbook case of regulatory capture.
1
we delegate decision making to a class of people that typically struggle with basic math (lawyers=judges)...we're not going to survive climate change without rectifying this mistake...
2
More evidence, as if any more were needed, that the trump regime is a clear and present danger to the country … and the world. Putting financial expediency ahead of public safety is not only irresponsible, it's criminal.
3
GOP = Morally and ethically bankrupt. Look no further than this action today by Trump EPA.
3
Coal is clean, windmills (wind turbines) cause cancer, good grief this administration will be the death of us.
3
I only have one question, how much are the fossil fuel companies paying Trump?
Don't the Republicans have children, grandchildren, nieces or nephews? Don't they ever think about the toxic world they're leaving them?
1
It is critical that the US go all out to end coal burning. Half of the world's coal burning occurs in China and the US taking action to end coal burning would send a strong message to China that we are serious about reducing emissions. The main purpose of Obama's Clean Power Plan was to get China as well as India to join the Paris climate agreement by demonstrating our seriousness about reducing emissions. Trump's policies on coal are sending the wrong around the world. The survival of the US is dependent on large countries like China and India reducing their emissions. Trump is leading the way to destruction and his supporters are applauding every step toward the eventual demise of the United States due to climate change as if the bad guys were climate scientists and Trump was riding in on a white horse to defeat them. It is irrational craziness.
If only the government ( Mitch McConnell) subsidized green technology like they do fossil fuels ( Climate Change drivers) we might not have to fight and kill each other for clean water and food.
How is that a country that had the intelligence to put men on the moon was capable of electing Donald J. Trump to be the President of the United States???
3
“The Affordable Clean Energy rule"? Naming it that is extremely offensive. It's not affordable or clean.
What a terrible mean attack on the US populace, Obama's legacy, green energy companies, our young and the planet. It's a tremendous lie in just a name. A sick joke.
1
This is a perfect example of the absolute hypocrisy of the morally bankrupt GOP and their Evangelical supporters, who, if they really and truly cared about the their pregnant wives and daughters and the unborn, they would be doing everything in their power to combat the already clear and visible impact of climate change.
1
Despite what President Donald J. Trump said last night in Orlando, America's air and water is NOT clean.
Trump and his incompetents might as well change the name of the agency because it ain't protecting anything. So what if climate change isn't real, I still don't want to pollute the earth. Just ask the far superior people that were here in this land before the Europeans destroyed it.
In the link below, the ice sheet modeler Rob DeConto was talking about his 2016 paper which was widely reported to have doubled the potential rate of coming sea level rise.
He said to his colleague Dave Pollard, "okay let's be conservative Dave because these are going to be big numbers let's cut it in half and we won't let this marine ice sheet instability even reach half of the rate of ice loss in front of Jakobshavn Glacier".
Even with that significant brake on their model it produced several meters of sea level rise over the next 100 years.
I go into more detail here: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/12/the-guardian-view-on-net-zero-emissions-better-late-than-never#comment-130125606
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqVPlBf4ydo&feature=youtu.be&t=3381
1
Once again, words are used to put lipstick on a pig: calling it ‘Affordable Clean Energy’ instead of ‘Dirtier Energy’, when we the people can ill afford it to have an even dirtier environment as we head towards environmental catastrophe.
The Trump administration is the most reactionary one in this country’s history.
Goya ~ The sleep of reason produces monsters.
I really miss the term global warming, because it reminds us that local remedies are useless if they just shift pollution to another region. Leaving it up to states will just create a race to the bottom and plenty of states (especially those that rely on manufacturing) will be happy with doing nothing, or, as in the case of Ohio, with debating a subsidy for coal plants.
On the flip side, there may not be much of a case for racing to retire existing coal plants that can keep working. If electric cars and building heat become popular soon, our power demand will increase more than conservation and efficiency can decrease it. It is worth noting that our coal plants are old, and it seems no one would build a new one today given the available alternatives and the political risk. Forcing existing coal plants to make heroic changes, as the article points out, also means letting them operate a lot longer. The best if un-Tweet-worthy policy may be to let them operate as is until they fade away as market forces and the age of their equipment would dictate.
Climate change is a national (and world) problem that requires uniform and thoughtfully-designed standards to have much effect. This mandate, however, does not sanction taking a wrecking ball to local economies to achieve a slogan-inspired but dubious goal.
The flaw in a state controlled emission law is that a state that does the pollution has no control on where that pollution goes so therefore should not be allowed the freedom to chose to pollute others. The whole concept is a joke to take the federal government out of the decision making process. Air/carbon pollution is clearly a US and worldwide problem that must be addressed at that level.
1
Does leaving it up to the states mean that Ca or other states could tax electricity from coal or nuclear to oblivion or just prohibit it outright?
1
@Tibby Elgato
California gets virtually no electricity from coal and only has one nuclear plant left and it is slated for closure.
1
"At issue is whether the Environmental Protection Agency has authority to set national restrictions on carbon emissions and force states to move away from coal,"
I'll reframe the issue: Do states have the right to decide carbon emission levels regardless of the damage these levels could do to other states?
2
The Earth's atmosphere, climate and water supply are not divided into separate units according to political boundaries, be those boundaries state or national. This Trump administration is reversing whatever progress has been made to improve our environment. They are killing the future for our children. Fossil fuels belong in the ground as fossils. The future requires that we make use of clean energy that derives from solar radiation. Anything else will be deadly for all. Trump administration officials will be gone, when their children suffer the consequences.
2
Trump keeps trying to turn back the calendar. Coal is dying in the US and the industry can’t sustain itself on exports. He’s toying with coal miners’ hopes in pretending otherwise. These good people have been taken advantage of far too long already.
3
We need to stop waiting for the government to do something, especially if republicans stay in power. There is so much that we as individuals can do to help the Climate Crisis.
1
Wrong way Don does it again and again and you guessed it again.
It does not take much energy to figure out fossil fuels are backwards. Solar PV is getting less expensive every year. In power purchase agreements all over the world solar prices are lower than fossil fuel. Some of the largest solar installations are happening in oil and gas producing countries. Why? Its cheaper and they can sell the oil and gas to other countries that are going backwards.
Coal was good for steam locomotives and coal fired boilers. Do we really want high tech from 100+ years ago? Or should we go forward? I think high tech energy production is the future.
Storage costs for electricity is coming down rapidly. The more we buy batteries from home/office sizes to grid sized battery storage the more rapidly the prices drop.
For all the gas guzzler lovers in the US, say thank you to all the EV drivers and hybrid drivers. If we all drove gas guzzlers the price of gas and diesel would most likely be double. So every hybrid and EV saves money, for them and for gas guzzlers as well.
It is now possible to put solar panels under wind turbines and over agriculture. Think of that, wind energy, solar energy and crops or grazing all on the same land. Triple income from the same piece of land.
Now think of the destruction of good land when coal mining. How long before that land is useful again. Can you farm on mine tailings ?? Would you want to eat anything from that farm??
4
The best presentation I have ever seen on renewable power and the challenges faced in migrating to very high rates of usage is the following by a Stanford professor. It is 51 minutes long, so requires a good investment of time. But it is well worth it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LAuDTNW5dw
1
Andrew Wheeler says, “We’re on the right side of history.” Apparently, this man hasn't heard the most recent statistics about solar and wind energy being more affordable sources of energy than coal and about all of the health hazards associated with the coal industry. Coal is history-meaning it's done. It makes no sense to harm people and our planet with this outdated source of energy. Solar, wind and other renewable energy sources are our future because they will protect our children and future generations. Thankfully, last Friday, "Pope Francis declared that climate change is an emergency." Worldwide people KNOW who is on the right side of history. People, businesses, scientists, environmental organizations, the thinkers and doers are generating positive solutions to save creation! And that includes the 21 youth who filed a lawsuit in 2015 against the US government for NOT protecting their rights to life, property and their pursuit of happiness.
7
Coal's effects on the environment in no way stop at CO2 production (which it makes a lot of). In taking the stuff out of the ground over the last 200 years there are 1000's of miles of poisoned streams in PA that will take centuries to recover on their own. And nothing tops 'mountain top removal' for wholesale permanent destruction of the landscape, with 100's of mountains leveled in coal mining states like Kentucky and West Virginia (and the blast material dumped into adjacent valleys).
This administration needs to get serious and provide an honest economic alternative for people in these states, and stop bending over backwards propping up a dying industry. Both Appalachia and the world's environment need that.
4
Justice Douglas thought rivers, oceans, and mountains should be able to sue the government for environmental harm. He was ahead of his time.
7
"We are addressing climate change,” Mr. Wheeler said, adding, “We take climate change seriously and we are implementing the laws that Congress has given us.”
Good grief - their words are as hollow as their actions.
5
The Republicans are focused on narrow policies that benefit their constituencies. Their constituencies see climate change as either an inconvenience or a direct threat to their livelihood.
Those who didn’t vote, pouted or voted their “conscience” was with Jill Stein are directly responsible for all the EPA rollbacks. Trumps policies are their policies. That includes Stein and Baraka themselves.
They owe the world an apology too.
2020 is the time to amend all of the atrocious policies of this greedy, short term thinking administration. Democrats need to do whatever it legally takes to win this election.
3
"Those who didn’t vote, pouted or voted their “conscience” was with Jill Stein are directly responsible for all the EPA rollbacks."
Really? I voted for a third-party candidate because I was confident that HRC would win my state, which she did. Third-party votes had no bearing whatsoever on the outcome. It's the Electoral College you should be concerned with.
Even before the Trump administration took the reins, limited data on federal fossil fuel resources and production was publicly available, and until the USGS (United States Geological Survey) report, there was no systematic effort to track or disclose the carbon consequences of energy leasing on public lands.
However under Trump, the situation has been exacerbated as land management agencies have been directed to ignore commonsense guidance for estimating carbon emissions and climate impacts for energy leases.
How much has been offered for leasing so far?
As of September 2018, President Trump had offered 13,667,241 acres of publicly-owned land to oil and gas companies. That is more than the size of Maryland and New Jersey combined.
Most of the lands offered for leasing in the lower 48 states are in the top 25 percent of wildest places in the contiguous U.S. and the top 25 percent most important areas for wildlife connectivity.
Off the US coasts, President Trump has offered 81,324,267 acres of publicly-owned waters to oil and gas companies.
Americans oppose indiscriminate drilling and want climate action.
Polling is pretty clear on what Americans want from their public lands.
Americans do not support unneeded, unwise, and indiscriminate oil and gas drilling on federal land and are increasingly frustrated with the administration’s inaction.
Source: https://www.wilderness.org/articles/media-resources/trump-charges-forward-december-fossil-fuel-leasing-public-lands
5
So, the wealth of a few powerful people is much more important than the health of a planet... and the billions of people who live on it.
Further proof that Trump and the Republicans are the party of greed, not need.
9
Ironic that the EPA will be the one to usher back in a new era of acid rain.
5
Clean coal will power America's railways, when we replace those horrible diesel-electric locomotives with steam locomotives, brought back from museums and tourist railways everywhere!
1
The permafrost in the Arctic is melting and you're all arguing about coal fired electricity... it is very hard to stay optimistic
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/18/arctic-permafrost-canada-science-climate-crisis
1
Cough, cough, hey I like that affordable part!, cough, cough, cough.
4
Please, someone assure us that these awful trump rollbacks can be "rollbacked" when these awful people are jettisoned from power.
4
This definitely sets the stage for an encore of acid rain. I thought we as a country left that behind with my adolescent years.
3
I wake up to this nightmare every day and say, "it can't get worse".....
and it does.
NOT my president
8
These people have blood on their hands. Our children and our children’s children will live shorter, less healthy lives, thanks to these monsters. Have they no souls?
4
Sure. Roll back those rules!! Because everyone enjoys breathing in dirty smoggy air that causes health problems and increases in medical expenses.
Think, no worries, I don't live near there... pollution doesn't respect boundaries or boarders. It travels. Broadly. All around the world. Fine particles you are breathing in, where ever you may be. Even Antarctica!
Oh. And in case you missed it. Earth is largely a closed system. Essentially, we are just living in garbage dump.
1
One clueless, narcissistic president whose main goal in life seems to be reversing the accomplishments of his predecessor. One amoral, self-serving Senate majority leader who failed to make Barack Obama a single term president and who now faces re-election in a coal-producing state. Together, they are wreaking havoc on our country and our planet.
2
Greed and disdain for Obama rule.
This cannot end soon enough.
Please.... God help us.
3
Narcissistic self-centered living and total neglect for future generations is this incumbent along with the fossil fuel owned memebrs of the GOP. The weather from climate change is devastating. The impact from fossil fuels on health is too. This is greed coupled with mindless end-time religion to justify godless contempt for humanity. The GOP needs to be placed on the ash heap of history, Time for a green new deal.
4
Donald
I hope our next President has a hay day restoring everything you’ve maliciously torn down, and further more, I hope you’re still alive to watch it being done.
The only thing you’ve done well is to hate, demean, cheat and lie.
3
it's unjust that they get to push this despite popular concerns about the environment.
Our children do not want this and do not deserve this.
They talk to the kids at school about global warming and are making it their problem and adding to the children's anxiety, while they go ahead and destroy the EPA.
6
@a Shhhhh! Don't mention that they talk about global warming to the kids in school. If this administration finds out, they'll make it illegal!
2
Andrew Wheeler is a former coal industry lobbyist, so no surprise that he is trying to preserve and enable coal power. Coal power should be history. Why are we working to preserve 20th century coal jobs and the coal industry at our peril, the damage of accelerating climate change and health when we should be investing into the coal communities to refurbish, educate and grow a 21st century economy with 21st century jobs. And reduce carbon emissions too.
4
There's a few lessons we've failed to learn from the graph below of the last 400,000 years of global temperature, CO2 and sea level which was painstaking derived by scientists from ice cores.
1. Only about 4 °C separates preindustrial temperature from the glaciations when mile thick ice sheets carved out places like Yosemite Valley and Cape Cod.
2. The carbon cycle was doing 180-280ppm atmospheric CO2 over 10,000 years and we've done more change than that in 100 years.
3. When CO2 went from 180-280ppm sea level rose about 130 meters and global temperature rose 5-6 °C.
4. Current CO2 has blown off the top of the graph. It takes time for sea level and temperature to equilibrate with our current forcing and we could blow much further off that graph.
5. Missing from the graph are things like ecosystem collapse and shifting climatic zones; when people try to follow the rains now there are borders to cross and people with guns on the other side who may not like those being forced to move because they can't grow food or it's too hot or both.
http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/images/impacts/slr-co2-temp-400000yrs.jpg
4
@Erik Frederiksen better dump that ocean front property... like... they city of Philadelphia...
www.floodmap.net input 130 meters and see what you get...
All is not lost with Trumps attempts to promote coal.
I am lucky to live in a state were I received my power from a regulated utility that happens to be the greenest utility in the country. FPL the regulated arm of Nextera Energy. In the last 3 years they have shut down two coal fired power plants (the last one a power purchase agreement that terminates in January of 2020). FPL will then only have partial ownership of one 634MW coal unit with Southern Company in Georgia still in service for summer peak loads. They currently have 855 MW of solar in generation with hopes of bringing an additional 7000 MW on line by the end of 2028 with their 30 million panels by 2030 solar initiative. Their generation mix is driven by cost and profits not by their desire to kill coal. There is so little demand for coal that they can not find buyers for their leased and owned coal rail cars.
Capitalism and their customer base will make the US greener, more energy efficient and the air cleaner to the benefit of the American Public. Nextera Energy Resources is even bringing these benefits to the Republican Red states because it’s cost effective and efficient.
The Orange Cheeto in the Whitehouse can’t stop progress. This is capitalism at work.
3
@Sailorgirl ... it wasn't capitalism it was cheap natural gas, it doesn't count as green...
The accompanying article showing maps and statistical trends says that PMs are contributed by several factors including "car exhaust". It would be more accurate to say "diesel engine exhaust", as gasoline powered vehicles have no measurable nor regulated PMs (and Nitrous Oxides), diesels do. Since diesels are a negligible portion of the U.S. automotive market, cars are not a PM contributor here, but Commercial Trucks are. Different story in the EU, where they mistakenly encouraged 50% of the car market to have diesels through 30% lower fuel tax. Significant incentive when $7 of that market's $8/gallon for gasoline is tax.
1
Why is trump so dead-set on making so many Americans unhealthy and miserable? I can only think of how much money fossil fuel interests are pouring into his campaign and business. But ultimately I think he just likes inflicting suffering on people for the sake of it. He evidently takes great delight in doing so. Truly a psychopath.
11
Make America gasp again!
6
Thank a “Green” Party voter!
3
Anyone know a good Shrink that specializes in climate change therapy?
2
The only good thing is, this idiocy’ll be tied up in court at least until we’ve had a chance to take a real good electoral hack at this moron in 2020.
Oh, and coal’s closing down anyway, the auto companies are furious about the rollbacks, and we’re shifting to natgas because of the market.
Less hilariously, it’s still a contribution to warming the planet dangerously, and drags us further behind other dountries in developing cleaner technology.
Oh well. If you can pander to your donors, butter up your political base, and stick it to the two-thirds of the country that knows you’re a moron, who cares? As you already said, hey, you’ll be gone by the time the bills come due.
6
Republican here, and I think that coal-fired plants are a dumb idea.
224
@Ryan - Hoping leaders in your party realize sinking ships are not a good thing to ride. There are more and more rural areas benefiting from wind revenue - helpful to farmers with all the uncertainty they face from weather and now from the current trade "strategy".
20
@Ryan
Democrat here, and thank you for realizing and admitting just how dumb of an idea coal-fired plants truly are.
17
@Ryan Can you explain that to your fellow Republicans? They seem to embrace a lot of dumb ideas, mainly because their need to identify with their political party overcomes their intelligence. Perhaps if one of their own said it was OK to believe scientists, maybe there's a chance for some sanity coming back into the GOP.
22
hard to believe these incredibly stupid people are in positions of power.
11
@reid
Not stupid. EVIL
How stupid do you have to be to know that this is idiotic? Drive the national debt into the stratosphere and pollute the stratosphere while you're at it. Make it stop. We're killing our children.
13
I was in Beijing four years ago for the first time. When I woke up the first morning, I opened up the shades and could not see the street. When I finally did the people were on their way to work all wearing surgical masks. Black smoke permeated the air, I was shocked and told my wife that I wanted to leave the city. We wound up staying for four nights to see the sights.
Every republican should visit to experience what I did this where we’re heading. The president has grand children. Obviously he doesn’t love them. Has he thought about them? Probably not.
11
@scott k. - I had a business client that was traveling with a group on a same day business trip on the freeways of China, in the Beijing region, and one April evening (still very cold in that region) drove into a fog bank that stalled traffic. They were stuck for evening as the freeway was backed up for miles. He was wearing a light jacket as he expected to be back in Beijing that evening. They had no food, and just about succumb to exposure that night. In the morning, word was out, and it was obvious, that this was a thick, giant smog bank, and not fog. They were forced to spend an additional night stuck on the side of this freeway. The smog was so thick that visibility was only a couple of feet. They had to form human chains by holding hands when someone had to relieve themselves, so no one would lose their group. When he arrived back in the U.S., he was seriously ill with respiratory ailments and took nearly a month to recouperate. Such things are currently “out of sight, out of mind” to Americans. Because of the radical right’s position that the U.S. should not be beholden to policies of strict environmental regulations because it puts us in an unfairnplaying field with China, India and the developing world, instead of being a leader for change in the climate change - environmental debate, we are simply following China’s lead in destroying the earth for the sake of economic position.
7
Why does Trump want to make our air dirty again? I guess to make sure obsolete coal companies can make a few more dollars, and, of course, make sure some of those dollars make their way into Trump's pocket. Nothing else makes sense.
BTW, how do his supporters feel about Trump making their health worse, not better?
13
Mr.s Trump, McConnell, Wheeler, Holmstead and Smith amongst other contributors (including the Supreme's if they uphold it) should be proud of this retrenchment as they will definitely be remembered in human history ... key architects of American genocide en route to the next mass species extinction.
It is amazing what scientifically and ethically challenged individuals will do for cash from Coal/Petroleum industry lobbyists. How much blood and environmental destruction on their hands is too much?
11
This is clearly a regulatory rollback which will lead to more poor air quality. The rollback ignores the increased signs of climate change, and prolongs the market demise of coal as a source of energy. Rationalizations are no substitute for positive action to reduce emissions from the coal industry. Now that renewable energy sources are established as an option, there is no point in prolonging the life of dirty coal plants. As they say here in Texas, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. Let us move forward with the best advice from climate scientists rather than suffer with rationalizations from special interests.
6
Impossible that people are dying from the continues pollution of our skies in the U.S.
President Trump said we have the clearest air and cleanest water of any country in the world!
And you know what a fanatic he is account clean, not wanting to touch other people.
1
This is what happens when you put an ultra right wing coal company hack into a position of national authority. Complete obfuscation of the law, which may be upheld by the new super majority in the fanatically ultra right wing Supreme Court. The American People will pay for this thru their health and deaths for generations to come.
4
Trump is like the Vandals, but without the scruples or table manners.
4
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
— George Orwell, 1984
Wait, wait, I think I'm hearing an echo:
“The Affordable Clean Energy rule gives states the regulatory certainty they need to continue to reduce emissions and provide affordable energy to all Americans.”
--Andrew Wheeler,
8
It is a crime.
3
Thank you Jill Stein/Green Party voters.
10
As neither a US citizen nor a US resident I would refrain from commenting on US domestic issues such as health care, immigration or guns.
However air flows both ways across the border (water too),so if regulations in place seem to be resulting in cleaner air for everyone, why fool with it.
Interestingly we recently had a similar issue in this country when the Federal Government imposed a nation wide carbon consumption tax over the objection of certain provinces.
The courts decided in the Federal Government's favour.
Carbon reduction being in the national interest.
3
I have said this before and will say it again: if you did not vote for Hillary Clinton ( an admittedly flawed candidate and somewhat unlikable character) in 2016, you bear responsibility for this serious policy change by the Trump administration which will make an already challenging problem even harder to address in time. Elections have consequences and they should not be merely popularity contests. And for all those that say the two parties are the same this is the thousandth exhibit of how wrong that comment is.
14
I've never bothered to reply to one of these articles before. But staring at my 1 1/2 yr old son I realize that I have no choice any more. I would protect him at all cost like any good parent would do and do things that I'm not comfortable with. My wife and I are expecting another child soon and by choosing to have kids we're saying we have hope for humanity, planet Earth and all life on this planet.
But the time to act is NOW! Stop talking about it and start doing something. Inspire your friends, family, neighbors, community, etc... by your actions. People are more likely to change their behaviors/habits by your actions not your words.
My house hold invested in Solar Panels a 1 1/2yrs ago and we're about to add a geothermal system to the house. These systems are expensive and we are not wealthy by any means but in CT you currently can qualify for a 30% tax credit which made it easier for us to put in these systems. We've made small changes in our eating habits and are growing some of our own food. Hopefully by our actions we will inspire other to do the same!
292
@James Good job James! If more people would take steps to help this terrible situation that would be a big step in the right direction.
8
@James
Geothermal energy has great potential, yet it is practical today. Most of the electricity where I live is produced from geothermal sources. BTW, we pay 15% less than PGE rates.
Our local utility will be 100% renewable next year. We would be 100% now but we traded some of our pollution credits to other utilities and that capital has funded additional solar, renewable and electric vehicle infrastructure.
7
@James
Having kids today is truly a leap of faith. I don't know that I could do it. My own two are saying no, but I promise that even if I never have grandchildren I will look out for yours and embrace any changes necessary. They deserve a beautiful clean planet.
23
As we negotiate with other countries regarding our national emissions, the Federal Government needs the ability to set a national standard. Moving to an anything goes standard, as long as the local state approves it, does not work.
4
If the unborn matter so much to the right wing, why is it demanding that pregnant women and girls deeply inhale cancer-causing pollutants?
Good grief. The right's love affair with all things "free market" is so overrated as to be not only absurd but also downright deadly.
Enough nonsense, already. It's time for the country to wake up and let Richard Nixon's EPA - ironic, isn't it? - do what it is supposed to do.
351
@Annie Laurie
Richard Nixon's EPA is a 2-way street. It also launched the era of outsourcing of our polluting industries overseas to make our own air cleaner - so air pollution has not gone away, just moved away. We see the horrible conditions in Asian cities as the expression of production of goods for US consumption. We should be proud of that?
6
@Food Guy:
No, of course we shouldn't "be proud of that."
Don't be daft, especially on one part of a very large picture.
Besides, I question just how much pollution has moved away from here - the point being that it's about to return.
And that's what the article is about.
7
@Food Guy Give it time--the East is still playing catch up. BTW--China is investing billions in renewable energy because they know it is the way to world dominance in the future. China will be number 1--just watch.
8
Humans aren't evolved to process and understand how their behavior can have detrimental effects on a macro scale over a long term scale. Add to that the inherent greed and selfishness of humanity (especially those of power and wealth), and the resulting recipe is pain for humanity that is inevitable and likely unavoidable.
The oligarchs of the U.S. will dictate how far climate change policy goes, and they will fight tooth and nail against any legislation that will reduce their wealth and power. At the current moment, the oligarchs have politicians in charge of the Executive Branch and the Senate to deny science, declare executive orders and pass legislation designed to impede any progress intended to reduce the human footprint behind climate change. If Democrats ever regain any real power outside the House, those oligarchs will double-down on their efforts to impede any climate change legislation.
189
@James
Listen carefully to @James. He speaks the truth.
5
@James
What you say is true. I think we humans are simply incapable of wisely managing this planet. Our large brains and amazing cleverness notwithstanding, we are too selfish, greedy, and foolish, too lacking in wisdom, to run "space ship earth" anywhere but into the ground. The more of us there are, the worse off the planet is; and the human population has doubled just since 1970! Our species is Hell-bent on suicide, and taking all life on the planet with us. And with the very worst of us, namely Trump and his gang of merry oligarchs, running things in America, our speed toward extinction has been increased four fold.
6
@James I'm not sure that humanity in general is fundamentally greedy and selfish. I think many if not most people try to choose a path that is beneficial to other people and future generations. The biggest questions there are how broad or narrow one defines the group of other people worth helping, and which problems need solving. This is why so much time, effort and money is invested in efforts to convince us which problems we should be concerned about, which things are less important, which things should be left alone, which people we should be concerned about helping, and which people "don't deserve it."
Greed and selfishness is indeed a problem, but that is because our current economic system tends to reward those who are the most greedy and selfish with wealth and power. Without adequate regulation, those who choose ethics, goals beneficial to society, and/or sustainability over short-term profits have a disadvantage over those who don't, and very little can really be regulated through the marketplace by individuals when the balance of power is so unequal.
1
I think it's great that we give states the right to determine how much carbon they emit into the air, and how much their own industry pollutes the air. This will allow the states to keep their own air and not take on the air of other states. I think we should also enforce state control of weather. Too many times in the past, states have allowed weather systems, like hurricanes and tornadoes to move through their state into neighboring states.
413
@david
Not sure I understand your rationale. I thought we were
United States of America for the betterment of all.
Never heard of preventing hurricanes and tornadoes
from moving into other states (by what method???).
This is apparently a new way to segregate people?
3
@BlueBird:
It's called sarcasm, BlueBird. Sheesh.
Well done, david.
68
David-
I laughed, but I wonder how effective irony is in an era of brazen and cynical lying.
49
I'm 47 and I don't know if I would want to be any younger since I'm not how much longer Earth will be inhabitable. I don't expect humans will solve this crisis since I don't see any systemic changes being made or even planned. We're doomed.
268
@James
Your answer is written with confidence, yet I must ask what evidence you have that humanity will survive the current and future climate disruption triggered by human combustion of fossil fuels.
I have no bias regarding whether humans will or will not survive in the centuries ahead, only that we don't know the final outcome. We DO know that humans are altering our climate in significant ways that will be difficult if not impossible to reverse in the near term (decades), so dramatic changes are at this point "baked in" to the climate future.
36
@Joe
We're pulling blocks out of the Jenga tower year by year. It's beginning to teeter. We've likely got about 10 "good" years left, with relative environmental stability and abundance. After that things will break down pretty fast.
So, a person in their mid-40s is definitely going to experience hardship. My advice to all is stop have kids. It's just too cruel.
67
@Richard I believe evolution has demonstrated that humanity will survive the effects of climate change. Humanity won't be thriving on a global scale as it does now, but it will be a presence on Earth in some capacity. We are a hearty and adaptable species after all!
3
Returning rights to the states is a big deal? CA and NY can do what they want, as can any other state in the Union. The Obama administration, besides ignoring our democratic principles and simply mandating, tried to put in place environmental rules that are simply not possible, but apparently supporters prefer words over reality. Makes 'em feel good all over.
2
@DJOHN Last time I checked, air pollution didn't respect state boundaries. I'm all for state's rights. But until states can figure out a way to keep the air over their borders, well, over their borders, and prevent it from increasing pollution in neighboring states, infringing on the rights of those neighboring states...maybe we should just agree that air pollution is a federal issue....kinda like interstate commerce.
42
@DJOHN please explain how the agreement was not possibly achievable? Furthermore, pollution generated in one state does not conveniently stay located in that state - it effects everyone and negates efforts made elsewhere. Hence the purpose of a plan on a national scale. Issues that effect the country as a whole are addressed by (surprise!) the Federal Government.
It would be like leaving the military defence of the US up to individual states. An existential threat is bearing down on our nation. It should not be left to individual states to determine whether they choose to contribute to our collective defence or not.
Meanwhile, the loss of jobs in coal related industries - which I can only assume is your main concern - can be more than replaced with proper investment, subsidies and tax breaks in renewable energy (as well as a coherent policy that doesn't change every 2-4 years).
10
@DJOHN - I live in Pennsylvania. We, the citizens of Pennsylvania, can take steps to continue cutting air pollution and continue making progress. However, if states farther west think it's just fine to keep on burning coal for power generation, under this Trump plan there's nothing we can do to stop the pollutants generated elsewhere from reaching here. There is no such thing as "states rights" when it comes to natural resources. The air and water do not respect human boundaries. We are all in this together, not just in this country but in the world as a whole.
6
This is from the "pro-life" Republican Party. And why? To save an already dying industry?
The result will be further environmental degradation, more illness and death and the furthering of devastating climate change storms, fires, sea level rise and even food migration.
The irony here is that much of the damage will be done in red states. It's impossible to underestimate the intelligence of the trumputin supporter.
8
When was this passed or authorized by President Obama? Was it one of those after last election aggressive steps to stymie the new administration with last minute policy jammed through when congress was recessed? Likely, as the timing was conveniently left out of the article.
You could easily look up the answers to your questions on the internet before commenting. That might move our conversation forward more than your current strategy of uninformed doubting and generalized suspicion.
5
If you live in states that care about emissions and the health of their citizens this will not make much of a difference, for example California will eliminate electricity generated by coal by 2024.
The major issue will be emissions from states that burn coal and kill citizens of neighboring states with poor air quality.
Will the Supreme Court accept science?
3
Affordable Clean Energy does not come from coal plants. It's expensive, it's far dirtier than all the alternatives. Utilities are fleeing from coal.
Of course, Wheeler's actions aren't because he was a coal lobbyist just a year or two ago, or because coal companies donated lavishly to Trump's inauguration, and then the head of one company handed over a list of laws to scrap - which was then acted on by the Administration.
No, the Republicans told us during the Obama administration that they were against picking winners (while Obama's programs were funding research everywhere from wind to solar to carbon dioxide capture from coal-powered plants).
So it's quite by happenstance that the Administration is trying so hard to back a loser.
EIA: Gas, Renewables Outpacing Coal for Power Generation
05/10/2019
"The percentage of coal-fired generation in the U.S. electricity mix will continue to decline, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) said May 9, with gas-fired generation accounting for at least 40% of the nation’s power this summer and output from renewables continuing to rise.
EIA’s latest Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO) said coal-fired units will produce only about 25% of the nation’s electricity this summer, as renewables including solar, wind, and hydropower take more market share. EIA said renewables will supply nearly a quarter of the power needed in Western states this summer."
https://www.powermag.com/eia-gas-renewables-outpacing-coal-for-power-generation
1
You say Obama Era like it was a hundred years ago. Basically, it's just a bunch of billionaire industrialists who have grabbed control of our government and want to run rough-shod over the world unabated and unregulated.
6
"The Affordable Clean Energy rule" Ever notice that when these guys need to misuse the U.S. military to protect the oil lanes, the word 'Affordable' is nowhere in sight?
1
The only way I’ll read anything in the New York Times about the climate or the EPA is only if the names Obama and Trump have been redacted. Otherwise it’s just a vehicle for a political hit in a perpetual game of political tug of war. Both have been problems for a long time before either of them and it’s a very tiresome game.
Mr. Doe — It’s nice to see some constructive thinking in these comments for once. Your ingenious plan will both save you time and increase the quality of the comment section for the rest of us.
2
We hear nothing from the Democratic presidential candidates about this and other destruction of regulations affecting our environment and social safety issues from this administration. They should talk about this every time they get in front of a camera. Constantly beat them over the head.
Is this march backwards ever going to end?
I just can't wrap my head around as to how the public can allow these greedy GOP's to get away with destroying our health and future. I've never in my 60 years been so dismayed, depressed and pessimistic about the future of this country, and this planet.
2
I do not have kids and won’t at this point in my life, and I always find myself amazed at the many parents and grandparents who clearly have no concern about what kind of world and environment they leave for their offspring and who apparently spare no thought for a future they won’t be a part of.
2
When the impeachment proceeding would start? Are we not waiting far too long?
1
I guess we all have our own price. For Trump’s minions, it might be entertainment . Maybe it’s venting political incorrect racism.
Maybe it’s money. Judging from the gang he regaled with dog whistles and nostalgia for 2016, these folks are of an age that climate change and its implications for those still living 20 or 30 years in the future is immaterial.
Have they no grandchildren?
2
Between any Supreme Court’s decisions and the future of the planet, the choice is clear.
Let the Court be smart lest it be throw into the dustbin of history.
Clearly no future generations, or even the rest of the planet, can be bound by any high-fallutin yet stupid legalese. At the end of the day any legal rulings are just a piece of paper. It is up to the citizenry and the Courts to ensure that our laws are sane and make sense.
I do hope Wheeler understands no one believes a word he says.
1
"Keep Americans Dumbed Down Again" - Trump Inc.
Don't look to change the "minds" of Trump supporters.
Look to get the 50%+ of Americans who don't bother to even vote. They need to spend the 5 minutes it takes for a mail in ballot
to be filled out in 2020.
It's the best 5 minutes they will spend in all of 2020 if you love America and its future.
4
It seems that this would be part of a package that would qualify for “crimes against humanity”. We should start to consider a lottery for which city will hold Nuernberg type trials for this Administration and its backers.
1
Once again a Trump crony, unqualified to run the EPA is setting rules for pollution. Bad for the country. Air quality is getting worse. When does the Trump nonsense stop? 2020 can’t come soon enough.
"Affordable Clean Energy": the trump administration's euphemism for dirty energy.
1950s Pittsburgh, anyone?
13:50 EDT, 6/19
1
Why not get rid of speed limits and the rules of the road while they’re at it? There must be a silver lining to this. If trump, with this kind of vandalism to our shared home, doesn’t wake the American people up to the farce that is the Republican Party then nothing will
1
If reason can't prevail, then:
(cough, cough) ... (gasp, gasp) ... (nothing)
1
More than 3500 people -- actual living human beings -- die from asthma each year, according to the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America.
Tell me more about your pro-life values, Republicans.
This is insane. We have already passed the threshold at which permanent change to our climate could have been avoided, and now things have been set in motion that can not be undone. We are now at the point of having to mitigate the inevitable worldwide changes to Earth's climate that we're wholly responsible for. This president and his EPA officials are the absolute worst people to be in charge of U.S. climate and environmental policy at this point in history. We have to vote Trump out. We have to get rid of these toxic people running the EPA. We have to.
1
It is wrong for the administration (either under Obama or under Trump) to be making these rules. Congress has not explicitly given this authority to the EPA.
Congress needs to act on this and pass laws. Congressional inaction is no excuse for the EPA to make laws. It is like saying, the checkout line is slow at the grocery store and I am hungry, so I will walk out of the store with the grocery store without paying.
@sK
You are wrong. Read the actual law passed by Congress. They authorized (ordered) the EPA to develop the rules needed to reach their broad goals of improving clean air and water.
1
Everyone thinking renewables can replace fossil fuels anytime soon should get acquainted with "The Duck Curve". As renewables, especially solar, supply increasing amounts of power DURING THE TIME OF DAY WHEN THEY CAN -- MIDDAY, it becomes all the more critical to have nat gas fired power that can ramp up to replace it as the sun goes down every day. In California, and undoubtedly elsewhere, the summer peak demand for electricity every day is in the early evening, after sundown, when solar power is zero.
https://understandsolar.com/renewable-energy-systems/
1
@Lirbrown,
"The city of Clarksville’s utility is adding a second solar-powered generating plant that the city says will provide 100 percent of government electricity needs with solar energy."
This won't be generating much power before about 11 am or after 3 pm. City works "banker's hours"? Solar cells only produce power when the sun shines and produce maximum output during the times of day when the sun is most intense, directly overhead.
1
My liberalism left the building on election night 2016, and hasn't yet returned.
I used to have sympathy for the coal miners, but no one has a right to pollute.
1
The problem with many of these arguments is that the assumption is made that the Obama era climate rules will have a significant effect on reducing global warming. That is not obvious.
Most of the coal fired power plants in the US are old. Most will need to be replaced over the next 10 years anyway. The Obana rules could have reduced the time by 3-5 years.
Last year all of the coal fired power plants in the US emitted about 1.1 trillion metric tons of CO2 so at best, the Obama rules would have reduced total CO2 emissions by 5 gigatons.
The global emissions of CO2 are roughly 39 gigatons/yr, so a 5 GT reduction in CO2 emissions is equivalent to 6 weeks of global emissions. Consequently, if the Obama era climate rules went into full force, the maximum effect will be to delay climate change by 6 weeks.
So the question is it better to spend the 100’s of billions of dollars to delay climate change by 6 weeks, or spending the money on things that could make a real difference: developing CO2 capture and recycling, lowering the cost of energy storage so the US can move to a completely renewable energy system?
I am in favor of fixing the problem, rather than applying a band aid that would only delay climate change by 6 weeks. A my company, Dioxide Materials, is working on a real solution.
1
If I’m understanding this correctly congress is going to have to start legislating and taking back its authority from the executive branch. Vote republicans all out. The electoral college gives them the advantage to gain the presidency and we must start containing their authoritarian agendas.
3
This will be tied up in courts for years and renewables get cheaper further edging out coal every year. Liquid fuel from coal, "clean" coal, is all more expensive and cannot compete.
4
So let me get this straight. States can set their own standards as long as those standards create MORE pollution? So, for example, Virginia can set its own standards which allow coal plants to pollute more, but California can’t set auto emissions standards which reduce pollution?
14
How awful can Trump's tiranny be, by worsening climate change by increasing pollution, worsening cardiopulmonary disease, and choking the air and water to toxic levels, before we stop him? Can't we see that the E.P.A. is complicit in destroying our, and the world's, environment? Isn't it odd, and ironic, and very unjust, that a country contributing to one third of Earth's contamination, the U.S., dares to defy reason and protect our very survival?
11
One of the tragic ironies of all this is that nothing would be better for improving the economy than taking on climate change as a national challenge. People studying for ways to tackle change. People developing new technologies, installing new kinds of equipment. Workers building solar farms and wind power towers. Workers installing residential solar and retrofitting houses to reduce energy demand. And more.
China has its own problems and may fail in the end, but right now they are taking seriously the possibilities for economic progress that come from the discovery and development of new technologies. If they succeed with their efforts to create the kinds of batteries needed to store solar and wind power, they'll eat our lunch--as they're already doing with solar panels. Sad.
32
The Trump Administration is on a collision course with itself (not for the first time).
On one hand, it argues that states do not have the right to waive Federal Clean Air standards in order to set their own more stringent standards, as California does. This right of states has been long upheld by the Supreme Court.
On the other hand, it argues in the Affordable Clean Power Act that states can set their own standards for emissions reductions.
Wheeler projects a very specific reduction of 34% in carbon emissions under the Trump plan even though states can apparently do what they want. Perhaps that's because something else very interesting is happening that won't make the coal industry very happy.
According to a Yale report, the top 5 states for wind and solar production as a percentage of total capacity are Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, South and North Dakota.
And it is said that Kansas alone has enough wind energy potential to power the nation, if the turbines and transmission infrastructure were created.
And if the Trump Administration wasn't so busy undoing Obama, they might notice that China is already way out in front in the automotive future, already responsible for 50% of global electric vehicle production.
But the US car companies have noticed and without free trade in the US, they might be locating their future electric vehicle production to free trade zones like the TPP countries. Canada would love it.
6
This is exactly the thing that keeps my blood pressure high and my anxiety soaring. For people like me (a 33 y/o woman in the Midwest), who invariably vote to advance environmentally inclined politicians and sound policies, the need to get Trump out of office is paramount. I don’t think people understand it because it’s never put this way, but our planet will live or die by our choices. Our lives and this earth, on which we sit and type our comments here, depends on forward-thinking people making environmental-minded, nature-supporting decisions that then can sustain us all. There is not another choice.
39
"According to an early Trump administration analysis of its own plan, it also would lead to hundreds more premature deaths and hospitalizations because of that increased air pollution."
This isn't Democrats accusing Republicans - this is the Republican administration accusing itself. Yet Republican support continues for whatever this administration does. Unbelievable.
32
@Diane Helle - For a lot of Trump supporters, the most important thing is that it'll upset, really upset, the hated libs and thus is to be greeted with great enthusiasm.
1
Energy Information Administration (EIA) is projecting that coal’s share of the electric generation sector (in 2019 ) will drop below 25%, the lowest level since 1949.
US coal exports to other countries have reached their peak and are also expected to drop as much as 20% by 2020 (IEEFA & EIA).
In other words, the dropping of EPA rules regarding coal, will not bring about a turnaround in the coal industry.
The jobs are not coming back.
Those people in coal country who voted for Trump with the expectations of a coal industry resurgence has been sold a bill of goods. They have been bamboozled.
And the rest of us get dirty air and water in exchange for their exercise in futility.
53
@Confused democrat : I am somewhat confused myself. I believe your statistics reflect the trends in the extraction and use of thermal coal, used as fuel to create steam-generated electric power (“coal fired power plants”). There is a push in the Appalachian, coal producing states (Trump Country, indeed) to make up for the decrease in thermal coal extraction in favor of metallurgical coal extraction (used in the production of Steele and other metals), with a visionary goal of supporting increased U.S. domestic steel production which may result from heavy tarrifs on foreign steel. Metallurgical coal burns and emits carbon and other pollutants as well, perhaps at higher rates than thermal coal. Are we going account for this in the energy resources mix, because it is energy production if it fuels heavy industry? The increase in met coal could certainly offset any gains made by a decrease in thermal coal. Thermal coal may be DOA, but met coal appeara to be the trend of the future, and how does one argue it’s bad if domestic steel production and related employment actually grow in the coming years.
2
@Floyd
Metallurgical coal is highly dependent on the demand for steel and the economy.
The largest importers of metallurgical coal (India and China) have slowing economies. In addition, China which produces larger amounts of this coal, is ramping up its production capacity and thus will not be as reliant on the product from US. China may even dominate by the late 2020s.
In short, there isn't enough demand for it. As stated before, the coal state voters were sold a bill of goods....their jobs are not coming back
2
Natural gas WILL replace coal, through natural market forces. It's cheaper and easier to handle and cleaner burning. There is a legitimate concern that if the government tries to force a desired outcome too fast, it will not only spike power prices (who do you think pays for mothballing a plant prematurely and replacing it with a brand new one?) but may lead to brown/blackouts.
Renewables are not a substitute for fossil fuels on a 24/7/365 basis. California now has too much solar power during the January to May period, during the time of day when it is produced. We end up curtailing it, and, on increasing occasions, paying out of state users to take the excess. In the July to October timeframe, when it is really hot, the highest power use time of day takes place after sunset, when solar power is completely gone. Wind power is only sporadically available. Only nat gas fired power can ramp up steeply to supply power as the sun sets and solar power disappears.
It is no exaggeration to say that in June, 2019, there is no way to avoid using fossil fuels to generate electricity.
1
@Kurfco, I have read that utilities are backing away from plans for major new natural gas electric generation plants because the cost of wind and solar is dropping so rapidly as to make natural gas generation a risky investment. Developments in battery storage and other methods to manage fluctuation in solar and wind output are also progressing faster than anticipated.
11
@David Greenlee
I think what is going on is not at all good news. Wind and solar cost are dropping but they only provide power for part of the day. When they supply power, it is used, displacing natural gas fired power. Increasingly, in California anyway, nat gas fired power plants are idle much of the day, especially in the January to May time frame, but are absolutely essential in the evening all year, especially in the summer. Folks operating nat gas plants are looking at this picture and deciding not to invest. Batteries, by the way, are miniscule. Even the much ballyhooed Tesla facility in Australia was only intended to supply power for a short time, like a half hour, to a comparatively small number of people. It was designed to bridge momentary shortages. It lacked capacity to supply nighttime needs.
1
@KurfcoBattery storage is an up and coming industry which will solve the sporadic nature of solar and wind power. It's the future, coal is not.
5
The movement of manufacturing out of the US since 1985 is a major contributor to cleaner air. Of course, that was an unintended consequence. Show the same chart for China. Wonder what it looks like?
3
@Harold Tynes - You're right, air pollution and CO2 emissions are a huge problem in China. They are tackling them, sometimes with draconian measures, sometimes with well thought-out plans and efforts. Lots of conflicting reports--and opinions--on whether or not China is really making progress or not.
Thank you for ensuring that few if any under 50 will vote Republican
What’s next? A roll back of Medicare and Soc Security to ensure those over 65 also not vote Republican?
Thank you for making this coming election the easiest yet for a Democratic sweep.
9
@Adam Stokeru Trump/GOP puts Profits before people Every time. More lung disease; faster Earth warming. GOP takes away our healthcare and now subjects us to increased lung disease. GOP Will take away Medicare; Social Security and Medicaid. If you or any of your loved ones are on any of these programs; kiss them Goodbye under GOP Rule. Ray Sipe
Love how the Trump administration co-opted the word “affordable” for their devastating plan. Affordable for whom? Keeping the planet inhabitable is more important than free-market anything. The effects of climate change - food scarcity, extreme weather, loss of biodiversity, etc. - are going to be unaffordable to all of us. This should be the number 1 campaign issue, but sadly half the country refuses to face the facts and do something about it.
32
The Koch Brothers and oil companies certainly support Trump. The problem for Trump is that the free market has accepted the need to reduce green house emissions. His car emission plans seriously run afoul with automakers who have already moved to implement Obama's changes. Trump is criticized for sowing chaos among the state regulators and the car companies.
13
Actions like this would have prevented Bush I from eliminating acid rain in the Midwest during the late 1980s. Back in those days we had a president who recognized the environmental realities, at least of acid rain, and the need for federal action because polluters in one state were causing grave damage to neighboring states. Leaving it up to individual states to regulate is an abdication by Trump of his responsibility to protect Americans. What else is new?
23
Trump is just confused, he thinks EPA stands for Environmental POLLUTION Agency.
9
" we take climate change seriously " Mr Wheeler said. What? when did this happen? Does Trump know? Has he called a Wheeler a stooge and a shill for the electric vegan fact alliance yet? Make american grapes again!!!
10
Our only hope is that the Millennial and Z generations will save us and bury the Republican party for ever.
I am not to hopeful with my less educated generational baby boomers even as they stare down the abyss of failing Medicare and SS.
Climate change is so real. Just look out your kitchen window and take it all in.
Sadly “Stupid is as Stupid does”...
38
Fire up the coal plants. And no matter what poisons are released into the air, always remember, no coughing. That upsets his Highness.
109
@RNS Excellent, as J. Montgomery Burns would say.
5
The republicans want to kill us. I'd call that murder and republican murderers.
10
saying Republicans want you to die would be slanderous as well as self-centered; the fact is, Republicans just don't care if you live or if you die as long as they can make some money on the outcome.
1
The Supreme Court seat stolen by the GOP is proving to have disastrous impacts to this country and I think all options need to be put on the table to rectify this situation. The most important thing Americans can do is vote Democratic in 2020, but there will still be lasting damage the Trump Administration and GOP Senate has done. It's time to think outside the box.
18
there is no constitutional mandate for 9 SC justices
FDR threatened to add justices to SCOTUS if they stood in the way of the New Deal
They backed off
Time to vote vote vote
And act act act
End the existence if the GOP
2
This only enriches the few, provides fleeting and dying jobs to some, stops us from addressing the greatest crisis humanity has ever faced, while increasing the very things causing the pollution. We go backwards and the rest of the world goes forward. Ignorance manifested by a country in a position to take a strong visionary stance. Mind numbingly stupid.
16
We're gonna party like its 1965!
Make America Sick Again
19
Ah, more winning, more greatness, more America first. We could have 4 more of this too!
1
As someone who has to deal with pollution-related breathing problems, this makes me sick, literally and figuratively. I wonder if I can sue the Administration so the they have to pick up my medical costs. Perhaps a class action law suit. Mr. Trump and his ilk cannot be gone fast enough for me.
42
@Rich Stern Unfortunately, Rich, quite the opposite will be true. Trump is trying to destroy your medical coverage, so you are screwed coming and going.
21
I have to wonder that if rules are going to be state by state, if a neighboring state can sue for toxic emissions from next door. After all, there are air currents to consider.
This is more of the usual get-back-at-Obama maneuvering by Trump and his minions.
10
If to save the earth is not the best reason why the denier in chief MUST be a 4 term president. Please watch an HBO documentary called "Ice on Fire". Leonardo Dicaprio is a producer
2
@Jose - Maybe climate activists should not have used the slogan "save the earth". In reality, the earth doesn't need saving--it will go on doing its own thing just as it always has without regard to the well-being of any living creatures that populate it until, in a few billion years, the dying sun with take earth with it.
What we should have been saying all along is "keep the earth livable." Unfortunately, that's not a very catchy slogan, but it IS more to the point. And perhaps people hearing it would have reacted by asking what it meant rather than being able to point out that they earth doesn't need us to "save" it. Rather, we need to save ourselves by respecting and working with the earth's powers and that's what we should have been acknowledging for all these years.
2
Mr. Wheeler and our POTUS are doing as much damage as possible, as quickly as possible, to the long term habitability of our entire planet. This is beyond even ordinary greed. What could possibly explain such self-destructive insanity?
20
@ghsalb
The only way I can understand this is (1) some are uninformed enough to believe that their wishing climate change is unreal makes it so; (2) others believe that their wealth and power will allow them to escape any negative consequences, at least for themselves during their own lifetimes; (3) many from both groups simply do not care about other human beings, not even their own children. It adds up to institutionalized sociopathy.
11
@ghsalb
Because it won't hurt him in his lifetime. That's all that's important to him.
3
Our systems of government and economy don't work for crises like climate change. They could if the voters, taxpayers and consumers were motivated and united enough to force action, but even the smallest sacrifice for the common good is no longer a part of the American identity. They could if the captains of capitalism had a conscience and a vision beyond the next annual report to stockholders. The only "big" thing we can still do in America is fight wars and prepare to fight wars, no matter the cost in dollars. We meticulously plan, research, invent, test, hire, train and equip for war with some foreign state enemy or terrorist group and our young are willing to give their lives for the effort. We believe. without proof because the future is always unpredictable, that investment in military might will keep us safe at home and prevent big wars and loss of life. Meanwhile, we demand absolute proof that what we do now to slow down climate change is necessary and will be effective. We have faith in our military might but little faith in our scientific brainpower. Our political leaders think globally about military threats but they cannot think globally (or even nationally) about climate threats. Each of us has a chance with our one vote next year to change our leadership. It may be our last chance.
22
We can’t even figure out how to recycle plastic bags. Most Americans see recycling and climate action as a threat their livelihood.
It will be foreign nations that lead in this issue once they figure out how to work together.
5
Electing G.W. Bush locked in global warming of 2 degrees C, electing Trump locked in 2.5-3 degrees C. Thank you republicans, evangelicals and "conservatives"! I wonder if there will be any way for future generations and other nations to hold these politicians and voters accountable. Probably not. But we should not forget their culpability. It is a slim comfort that Southern states will suffer more damages when whole countries in the Global South will be submerged and cities need to be evacuated. Refugees will at at tream to the Southern States, but their voters and politicians will continue to blame others for that too.
5
" ... it sets no targets. ... " and requires that states "suggests ways to improve efficiency at individual power plants."
With no targets, the rule is legally unenforceable to create meaningful changes. It is merely a nice platitude offered by people who have no intention of changing carbon emissions at all.
Moreover, if you are stuck with improving efficiency of specific power plants, coal plants are coal plants. There is a certain ratio of carbon to power output that is intrinsic to any type of hydrocarbon. Coal is the worst, oil is only marginally better, and natural gas is far better. If you are forced to meet specific goals -- Obama rules -- you have to close coal plants down. Then create jobs by building new plants.
The only real solution is to accelerate the rate of building wind and solar plants -- jobs, jobs, jobs.
The idea that we are willing to sacrifice life as we know it on earth so that an uneconomic industry, coal power, can continue to exist is nauseating.
17
I have to add my voice to others here. Why does this tie the hands of future presidents? I, and I believe a huge portion of the American public, continue forward with the belief we can undo the harm this administration has done. This will have been a waste of valuable time and money but now we know how evil they are and how many hateful people are out there.
8
The human lifespan is too short. That’s what impairs long term thinking. If people lived 150 to 209 years there would be more attention paid to issues like climate. If for no other reason, those responsible wouldn’t want to directly have to explain their positions once the consequences start causing real death and destruction.
Americans, especially conservatives, are too short term. Climate policies will always be difficult in the USA.
2
It's time to have an open southern border - no not our southern border - Canada's southern border. Humanity is going to need to shift northward quickly. Dear Canada, you wouldn't give me a Visa for that job I applied for 2 years ago. Please reconsider
5
@George
Minnesota , north and south Dakota, Wyoming , Utah all still have pretty low populations, maybe the future holds vacations in Saskatchewan, rather then Mexico.
1
Where, precisely, in the Republicans' job description is their requirement to significantly diminish the lives of their own grandchildren?
12
@Steves Weave - Green Classifieds
It's not in their job description, but it does appear to be somewhere in their DNA.
1
Heartbreaking and frightening and a sense of hopelessness will continue to dominate. In California, a state with relatively greater protections, climate change has been an assault. It is beyond even a tad of comprehension as to the idiocy of sweeping aside science. As an individual in my 70s, climate havoc might not impact longevity unless I succumb to a fire...but adult children and grandkids will surely suffer significantly greater consequences. One can only hope, or wish, the supreme court would consider ethics, morality, facts and legacy beyond precise legal arguments.
13
Drain the Swamp? Trump along with the bought and sold Republican Senate put the Swamp Monsters of the fossil fuel industry in charge of the EPA, what other result could we expect? Now the Supreme Court is bought and paid for as well, so don't expect any relief there.
When the Senate represents actual people instead of corporations, perhaps we will see laws which can change the current disaster that passes for government.
VOTE FOR CHANGE, like your life depends on it, if not yours than your descendants.
11
Trump's stooges are wasting what little time humanity has left to address the worsening climate crisis. What good is money when a dead world can't support any kind of economy?
4
If you were wondering what an Orwellian climate plan would look like, you've found it: "We are cutting carbon!" (Carbon rises.)
It's so clever it's worthy of Canada's PM: The man who declared a climate crisis just approved a useless, pointless pipeline!
"It is part of our climate strategy to get more bitumen to market!"
3
But according to Susan Sarandon, things would be much worse if Hillary would have been elected instead of Trump.
Thank God this didn't happen (sarc).
4
Americans are the champions of ignorance and poison and they are proud of it.
Pesticides, fertilizers, global monopoly of seeds, OGM manipulations, industrial monocultures, Bad fast food all over the world, bad soda drinks make children obese and diabetic , in South America and Europe, highest emitters of CO2 , highest polluters ( after China, but China works for the USA ) , tobacco , and what else ?
Denial of global warming. Most violent nation on the planet by 8 times the European average. 8 times more incarceration rate.
All the archetypes of obsolete and bad are the characteristics of the American culture.
The most modern nation of all.
6
Seriously, why would anyone have kids these days?
9
Pulmonologists will be thrilled by Trump's myopic plan to roll back President Obama's effort to curtail pollution from coal plants. Trump is a sadist.
3
Obviously Trump and his fellow oligarchs just want to "take the money" and run. They don't give a rat's behind about their own children or grandchildren, or in their more "compassionate" moments, perhaps just assume that money can insulate them from the effects of the ecological-climate-6th great extinction disaster they are helping to speed up.
And then their are the delusional right wing religious types supporting them, who would just love to see the end of the world before they die. I mean who would want to miss the last episode of a series they have been watching all their lives?
9
To Remain Silent
When we are fed the lies that little can be done
And it is chosen for us to do nothing at all,
We have no right to remain silent.
When the false-faced Money God has at long last been rendered impotent,
And cash stuffed pockets of the president’s carcass holds no sway
Over the desolate land that can produce no harvest
Or the polluted sludge that was once our water.
When “the evil men do lives after”
And the righteous voices of the doomsayer prophets are but an echo,
The remaining few exist in dread
Of the day when the oxygen tanks run dry.
When the love of your life joins the legions of the senselessly dead,
And you stand alone with your naked grief,
You are grateful for the only thing left to eat,
And are dreaming of apples as you pull the trigger.
A lonely God weeps in the profound silence of His desecrated garden,
For the humanity that will remain silent here ever after.
A world with end.
Amen.
4
“The Affordable Clean Energy rule gives states the regulatory certainty they need to continue to reduce emissions and provide affordable energy to all Americans."
Orwell couldn't have said it better.
11
Shouldn't we also be worried about the Hg (mercury) that coal burning power plants are emitting? Not that excess CO2 is good.
4
@Letitia Jeavons And the ash pools left behind by coal plants. We have one here in Illinois leaking toxic waste into the Vermilion river.
Externalizing/socializing risks and waste is part of America's raw capitalistic culture.
Don’t blame the EPA. The EPA does not have legal authority over power generation to address climate change to the extent needed (though it can set tailpipe standards, but that’s a different Trumpian tragedy). Congress should give EPA the authority it needs.
8
Is it just me or is this Affordable “Clean Energy” rule an oxymoron which will “allow coal plants to stay open longer and slow progress on cutting carbon emissions”?
By allowing these plants to remain open longer, just how exactly would the air and environment be cleaner in the long run?
"We are addressing climate change,” Mr. Wheeler said, adding, “We take climate change seriously and we are implementing the laws that Congress has given us.”
That quote is rich coming from the guy who was hired by the guy who does not believe climate change or global warming are real.
I fear we're doomed.
25
I guess that Democrats will never update the EPA rules. They know that they got everything right the first time. I am certain that if any pollution rules are made more restrictive by Republicans, they will immediately oppose them.
Our country has been taken over by relentless, amoral businessmen who stop at nothing for more profit. They have found an easily manipulated minority in rural US to elect the people they need to further their raw capitalism agenda.
Meanwhile, this week:
Permafrost at outposts in the Canadian Arctic is thawing 70 years earlier than predicted, an expedition has discovered, in the latest sign that the global climate crisis is accelerating even faster than scientists had feared (source: The Guardian 6/18/2019).
It's disheartening. At the same time I take some comfort in knowing countries like Germany, where the Green Party is sharply on the rise, are taking the lead on climate change.
80
“Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created alot of value for shareholders.”
363
This article was not terrifically informative. It said with no explanation that this rule will tie the hands of future presidents. Not clear why an executive rule will block future presidents. Please explain.
17
The article did explain: if the new EPA regulation goes to the Supreme Court, a ruling might invalidate the previous assumption that the EPA has the authority to regulate carbon emissions. Presumably, a new Congressional mandate and authority to regulate carbon in the overall economy would then be required.
12
Call me crazy but somehow I believe that even conservative Supreme Court justices want to breathe clean air and would certainly want their children and grandchildren to live in a clean environment. I'm counting on that.
6
@maya They care not. The right wing of the court, like the GOP, is made up of religious zealots. They are of the mind set that "it's all in the hands of the lord" and "it will be fine in the afterlife". This midieval mindset is a major part of what is destroying our country.
6
Another disastrous and monstrous initiative by Trump and his cronies. The EPA absolutely should be able to set limits on carbon dioxide emission and dictate how much companies can emit. The EPA does it with all sorts of other hazardous pollutants in order to protect the health of environment, like heavy metals, fluoronated gases, carcinogens and all sorts of other hazardous materials. Why should carbon dioxide be different? Carbon Dioxide is the most dangerous chemical in our atmosphere right now, as it's rise is directly leading to climate change which in the next decades is going to continue to acidify our oceans, melt the polar ice caps, increase forest fires (forests being one of our best dampers on co2), reduce crop yields, make once previously inhabitable areas no longer habitable, and spark mass migrations as people and animals flee areas no longer suitable for survival. We're already seeing people flee areas in Central America now as they can no longer make a livelihood off their crops because hotter conditions and less rain have decimated crops.
Regulating and reducing carbon dioxide is a national security issue at this point quite frankly. And the government needs to do something on a D-Day scale if we're going to prevent true societal catastrophe in the coming decades. Maybe the Supreme Court see outside of the box here or perhaps Congress can do something, cause Trump sure can't, and if not we are all toast.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
41
The Koch Brothers give the Republican party $1 billion annually through their PACs to espouse the myth that Climate Change is not man made. They have done this to great success. Perhaps if the received $2 billion annually from Democratic billionaires, their puppets in Congress would say the opposite, and we could finally make some progress in tackling this most grave issue.
16
@HC There are only a few progressive billionaires, the other ones who claim to be liberal only buy into social progress (LGBTQ rights, racial equality, etc.) while fiercely opposing any regulations and the unions. They back the moderates.
1
@HC
They are also the biggest leaseholders in Alberta, where the single biggest environmental insult to the planet is taking place. Criminal does not begin to describe these greedy slobs.
3
Another war on the American citizen.
What kind of country do we want?
One that goes back to 1950 or one that invests in the future?
32
@ehh - Well, some Americans at least want whatever that "extremely stable genius" Donald Trump tells them is good for them. The rest of us are not so stupid. Unfortunately, dealing with people who willfully lie, cheat, and operate without any respect whatsoever for decency is harder than one would expect.
3
What is this - the Empire of Evil? The Trump Administration brings Orwellian doublespeak to a whole new level.
75
I don't see why this attempt to destroy the environment would tie the hands of future presidents (assuming, of course, that we get elections again, and Trump doesn't just create a dictatorship).
This criminal attack on our environment is just another executive order, it's not a law passed by Congress. It should be able to be undone by the next president, even after the Supreme Court accepts it. Trump could eliminate the E.P.A. entirely, as I'm sure he'd like to, and the next president could simply reinstate it.
I'm really hoping all of Trump's damage will be able to be undone by succeeding administrations. If this article is trying to convince me that all of Trump's damage will be permanent, then I guess America is doomed, and there is no point in hoping for humanity's future.
6
@Dan Stackhouse - sorry, but a policy disagreement between administrations is not "criminal." You sound like Trump.
1
@Dan Stackhouse
We don't "get" elections again. They're not presents, but entitlements. Someone not re-elected is shown the door politely, if possible, but in any way necessary if not.
Americans have been lazy about paying attention to politics, but a dictatorship would stop that.
Another way to "get" elections again is everybody votes. If this administration hasn't made the importance of voting sink in, I don't know what will.
Dear DRS,
In my opinion, an attempt to destroy the environment is a crime against the planet and humanity. Also Trump is, in my opinion, a criminal.
2
Quote from EPA Chief: “We are addressing climate change,” Mr. Wheeler said, adding, “We take climate change seriously and we are implementing the laws that Congress has given us.”
Quote from President of the United States: "Clean, beautiful coal"
....The guy in charge in the White House seems to think differently.
11
@KH, simplicity like that is probably what also led to the invention of the wheel, granted.
@KH
The Trump administration won't even allow executive agencies to say "climate change" and has scrubbed it from all executive agency websites. Are we really supposed to believe Wheeler, the former lobbyist for the coal industry, that this administration takes it seriously? Give me a break.
4
Used car salesmen, that's exactly what politicians are.
"Clean Air" "Clean Coal" "Affordable". None of these words are true.
Nothing will get Americans riled up for any length of time that goes beyond a 1 week attention span.
Not 99% of global scientists saying we are in deep trouble with climate change.
Not Sandy Hook.
Not treason.
USA at its worst.
32
I briefly glanced at the reporting of Trump's rally last night. I could not stomach reading about thousands of Americans who bow down to this destroyer of all things which can help us to live longer and healthier lives, that can help save our earth as we know it for the sake of our children and their children. Do these MAGA supporters not realize that while they endorse his bigotry, racism, greed, and downright hate, that these actions to deregulate industries which pollute every living thing on the face of this earth, is not about them but rather to enrich the already wealthy, greedy, and corrupt? Trump and his sycophants in his Cabinet and Congress are evil personified, and no one is stopping them. The irony is that we may have to depend on a Supreme Court, five members who are themselves of questionable ethics. Yet the final irony is that while the above look to Trump as its messiah, what he does to us who see through him he also does to them. No one is spared.
76
Trump’s followers mirror the Germans during WW II. They are living in total denial. They don’t want to know the truth.
27
@Kathy Lollock - The hatred and the stupidity emanating from that rally last night were mind boggling. One woman interviewed on camera insisted that "Trump doesn't lie." And the crowd seemed to love chanting "lock her" up. Were they just indulging in some good, clean fun to tweak the libs? Hard as that is to believe, maybe that's what they would say if called to account, but they seem oblivious to just how damaging their attitudes can be to the future of this country. Ugliness permeated the atmosphere.
14
@Kathy Lollock
" Do these MAGA supporters not realize that while they endorse his bigotry, racism, greed, and downright hate, that these actions to deregulate industries which pollute every living thing on the face of this earth, is not about them but rather to enrich the already wealthy, greedy, and corrupt? "
It's my thought that, psychologically speaking, to do so would mean that they would feel uncomfortable in reflecting on their own behaviors as incurious citizens of the world, which are based in fear of the other and their unexamined, unconscious selves. It's also a backlash to the "liberal" denial of validation to their existential wants, which fuel their efforts to a greater consumerist society.
For example: If you've been grinding it out at a make-work job in order to afford the biggest truck on the block, when good science says that oil/gas is causing the destruction of the world, their rigid thought processes take over and they double down, then 'short term wants' take the reins, and despite all evidence that switching to an electric car might be better in the long run, their very identity as a worker/consumer is challenged.
6
The saddest part of this is that his supporters are helping to make the lives of their own future generations extremely difficult. What’s happening now in the mid west should be a wake up call. Hey Trump supporters, will your grand and great grandchildren be able to get sustenance from sludge and waste?
12
What trump is doing, is creating our country that will eventually be consumed with black lung disease. Everything he does affects our health. He once again said in an interview seen nationally, that “they have a great healthplan planned.” When asked when they’ll release the intended plan, his reply was “soon, I’m not sure, maybe in a couple of months.” His 2020 campaign is nothing but an exact replay of his last one! Making the same promises, using the same speeches, and rehashing the “witch hunt” and Russia.
6
If they can clean up coal, burn it. What's the problem? But that's a big "if".
Nukes have no carbon emissions.
Our genius governor in New York is forcing Indian Point to close within about 2 years It's the cleanest plant around here. It provides copious amounts of energy to New York City and Westchester and Cuomo is forcing it to close. Good going guv'nor. Trying to keep up with your daddy who unnecessarily shut down the brand new nuclear plant at Shoreham on Long Island wasting billions of dollars and rendering Long Islands electricity rates among the highest in the world?
3
As someone who has worked in the power business for the last thirty plus yrs coal is dead and everyone in the industry knows it.
32
@JD - But Trump and his cronies won't admit that. Unfortunately, it's a slow death and millions will continue to suffer from pollution now and everyone will face the perils of climate change over time as we wait for its inevitable demise.
1
Just guessing, but it must be very painful for Mr. Wheeler to even utter the words 'climate change'. And he probably considers that progress.
5
"Affordable Clean Energy rule"
Just when you think you've gotten used to Orwellian names, the next one bowls you over again. The cynicism here is just bottomless.
40
The Environmental Pollution Agency and its coal lobbyist Andrew Wheeler are hard at work trashing the air, water and earth.
Nice GOPeople
November 3 2020
Eject them from government.
134
@Socrates - I have a better idea ... don't elect them in 2016. None of this should come as a surprise. Trump guaranteed it. The most consequential election in American history - and We the People whiffed. And good luck rolling any of this horror show back with the newly minted McConnell court system.
11
@Socrates
I think the EPA should resort under Congress.
It has become too important to be at the whim of any President and needs more space to inform and act without political interference.
5
What more can be said about this administration? How do you defend polluting our air and enshrining ignorance and arrogance? Trump is trying to destroy Obama and the planet, just because he can.
16
This makes me feel sick and is so wrong.
14
Defies belief. What a country.
12
We’ll fix this on the flip side of 2020.
4
WHY can't this president (and his administration) understand that he and his children and grandchildren will be choking on the same air as the rest of us?? All the money and power in the world can't save him from the environment destruction he and his cronies are fostering!!
10
Under GOP leadership the government and its agencies are feckless and powerless slaves to the corporate masters.
8
This administration will spare no effort to destroy the world -- literally. Trump must be ousted as soon as possible, before his lunacy destroys us all.
10
It's time to put wind and solar everywhere possible in the US since it's clean energy and it works. Iowa wind farms produce electricity for 46% of Iowa homes. The one nuclear plant in Iowa is closing at the end of 2019.
12
@Jacquie I want to put solar panels on my roof here in Chicago but the prices I get quoted are 3x (yes, really!) more expensive than what I paid to have them on the roof of my Belgian home.
From what I understood regulations, certifications, import taxes on panels and a complete lack of installation company competition is killing this business. Intentionally, by our governments.
6
@Anne I know there are programs that offer grants as friends of mine have participated in for putting solar panels on their homes. I do not know who provided the grants however.
I believe in this quote from the article: "If the Supreme Court ultimately upholds the rule’s approach to the regulation of pollution, it would be difficult or impossible for future presidents to tackle climate change through the Environmental Protection Agency." We live in a nation that was, and still is, based on the rule of law. I do not see anything in the constitution that delegates to agencies the ability to create new interpretations of law, including the EPA. This is the responsibility of Congress. Also, there already is an Amendment on the books called "States Rights," the tenth amendment. Many seem to forget that amendment when it is convenient to do so. If we want to bring the nation together we need to work within the existing laws.
4
@Rod - States rights, huh? Have you mentioned to the air that it needs to respect the boundaries of the states? If Ohioans, for example, believe that what their state needs is polluted air, let's make sure they keep it in Ohio and not let it cross the border into Pennsylvania where we might prefer unpolluted air and take steps to make it so.
5
All this means is that a future administration will have to GASP work with congress to get climate change legislation and won't be able to do it by legislative fiat. If congress is unwilling to act, obviously the American people haven't been sufficiently mobilized on the issue and are getting what they want or at least what they deserve. Activists cannot hijack the democratic process merely because they believe strongly in an issue.
3
@DRS, well stated. Trump and his activists, I mean, administration and fellow Republicans, should not hijack the democratic process. We agree on that, though not on what you actually meant.
7
@Karen Lee - Obama hijacked the democratic process in bypassing congress and passing a plan under the Clean Air Act based on a tremendously overly expansive reading of the Act. You may agree with the policy, but you should be able to hold that position and disagree with the process pursuant to which it was pursued at the same time.
1
@DRS Right you are, DRS! Activists can’t gerrymander congressional districts to hand power to the GOP minority. Activists can’t establish that corporations are citizens, and have the same constitutional rights as voters. Activists can’t buy politicians to prevent health-saving regulations. Activists can’t bottle up popular legislation to prevent a vote, so as to protect corporate interests. That’s what you meant, right?
7
If climate change were an urgent problem threatening all human life, then we would be building nuclear power plants as fast as possible to replace coal-fired power plants all around the planet. Nuclear power may create local risks but it would solve the global climate problem. The failure to insist upon nuclearization suggests that the heralds of the climate change emergency don't really believe their own story.
1
There are infinite more viable options than nuclear. Wind, solar, renewables, natural gas, are just a few. Nuclear can be part of the solution, not the be all and end all.
21
@Douglas
Nuclear is a very good option, and is safer than nearly every other option. (Seriously. There have been a handful of deaths attributable to nuclear power. Coal and even hydroelectric, hundreds of thousands.)
The only thing stopping broader adoption is politics.
@Douglas Nuclear power plants are not an option since we cannot store nuclear waste. Wind and solar work fine. Iowa produces 46% of residential electricity by wind. Solar farms are going up in Iowa as well.
8
Scientific monitoring has proven carbon emissions have increased 25% over the last 50 years. It takes 1000s of years for that much of an increase to happen naturally. We have 2 decades left to reduce global emissions below the current level of increase or the climate change process will be irreversible.
There are lakes in Alaska where you can light the ice on fire due to the methane gas escaping into the atmosphere as global warming melts the permafrost. Methane gas adds a whole new element to the progression of climate change. Scientists are racing to figure out how much it could speed up the process.
There's an HBO documentary called "Ice on Fire" currently available on demand. It's an opportunity to hear the climate scientists explain in their own words what's happening and how they arrived at their conclusions. Plus they talk about solutions. I highly recommend it.
92
Another potential nail in the EPA coffin by the climate change denier in chief. Why do they never consider answering the question "What if we are wrong on this? What are the downside risks to being wrong?" They have a 4 year study thay answers those questions. But they deny their own government reports.
148
@KevinB, great questions. Unfortunately, introspection, and considering alternatives to their beliefs, are foreign to Trump and his supporters.
15
Even if you've got your head in the sand and don't accept the problem of climate change, coal still has many concerns. Coal pollution releases mercury and other heavy metal contaminants into the environment. Traces of uranium that naturally occur in coal deposits release more radiation than our nuclear plants. The leftover fly ash is full of highly concentrated pollutants and failure of coal ash retaining ponds is a serious concern for community groundwater contamination (recall the Kingston spill of 2008, etc.)
Time to phase out this antiquated 19th century technology once and for all.
259
@Dwarf Planet
I think if this change empowered companies to change as best possible while offering incentives to do so vice just mandating that they do...it could be beneficial. But it doesn't look like it's doing anything to that effect. Regardless, it's been 3 years and Obama's mandate has yet to be resolved in the courts as legal, and perhaps never would have been.
2
China decided to manufacture solar panels. The government subsidized research. Now China leads the world in solar panel sales. If we had the will and elected leaders that wanted to lead instead of plan for next election our country could achieve similar goals. Instead we subsidize Alcoa to the tune of $5.64 Billion, General Motors gets $3.58 billion, Ford receives $2.52 billion, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles pulls in $2.06 billion, and taxpayers subsidize Royal Dutch Shell a mere $2.04 billion.
55
@Dwarf Planet
The main goal of this policy is to divide the country, and it is working very well.
It has the added benefit of upsetting people who want their government to protect their air, water, and land from dangerous pollutants.
Add to that the ability of large corporations to profit while having no responsibility for the damage that they do, and you have what Donald Trump calls “winning”.
It’s better known as bullying.
39