EPA's New Coal Pollution Rules: More Death, More Asthma

[iluvatar5150]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/climate/epa-coal-pollution-deaths.html

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Tuesday made public the details of its new pollution rules governing coal-burning power plants, and the fine print includes an acknowledgment that the plan would increase carbon emissions and lead to up to 1,400 premature deaths annually.

The proposal, the Affordable Clean Energy rule, is a replacement for the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, which was an aggressive effort to speed up the closures of coal-burning plants, one of the main producers of greenhouse gases, by setting national targets for cutting carbon dioxide emissions and encouraging utilities to use cleaner energy sources like wind and solar.

The new proposal, issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, instead seeks to make minor on-site efficiency improvements at individual plants and would also let states relax pollution rules for power plants that need upgrades, keeping them active longer.

#prolife
#maga (Make Asthma Great Again)

 

[super animator]

This shouldn't be surprising to anyone who pay attention to the 2016 campaign.

 

[Brightmoon]

This, even more than the racism and misogyny ,was why I didn’t vote for Trump

 

[whatbogsends]

Trump supporters somehow see the rollbacks of environmental protections as a positive, despite the obvious negative impact to the environment and our citizens as a result.

Short term profits over long term environmental and health consequences, yay!

 

[JackRT]

You have to admire the bold callousness of actually admitting up front that their actions will likely lead to up to 1400 premature deaths annually. In this mind set money trumps people every time. Yes, I said "trump".

 

[ananda]

The new proposal, issued by the Environmental Protection Agency

from me.

This is returning power to the states, where it belongs. If a state decides to enforce Obama-era type rules, then more power to them.

 

[iluvatar5150]

from me.

This is returning power to the states, where it belongs. If a state decides to enforce Obama-era type rules, then more power to them.

When actions of one state can negatively impact another state (as they do with air pollution), it is absolutely right and proper (even by libertarian ideals) for the federal government to get involved and regulate things.

The fact that you give this a thumbs up suggests that 1.) you value some sort of philosophical ideal over the lives of actual people and 2.) that you don't even really understand the ideal that you're idolizing.

 

[Basil the Great]

Bad news.... very bad news.....

 

[Viren]

The air will still continue getting cleaner thanks to the efficiency upgrades just not as quickly as under the Obama plan.

 

[essentialsaltes]

If a state decides to enforce Obama-era type rules, then more power to them.

Trump's EPA is trying to take that power away from the states that want to do more.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Trump's EPA is trying to take that power away from the states that want to do more.

So much for giving power to the states.

 

[majj27]

So much for giving power to the states.

Yeah, "Power to the States!" as a rallying cry has always been extremely conditional.

 

[ananda]

When actions of one state can negatively impact another state (as they do with air pollution), it is absolutely right and proper (even by libertarian ideals) for the federal government to get involved and regulate things.

The fact that you give this a thumbs up suggests that 1.) you value some sort of philosophical ideal over the lives of actual people and 2.) that you don't even really understand the ideal that you're idolizing.

My answer comes from a Constitutional standpoint. The Constitution does not give the federal government authority to regulate these things, and if we are to remain a republic, we should honor those laws.

Whether or not the federal government should regulate this (requiring a Constitutional amendment) is another question. If those laws need to be updated, let's update them first which gives the federal government such powers, before coming back to this question.

 

[ananda]

Trump's EPA is trying to take that power away from the states that want to do more.

Not necessarily. The federal gov't should treat all states equally, and not grant California special rights. This is what I'm taking from that article, that special rights for California are being revoked.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Not necessarily. The federal gov't should treat all states equally, and not grant California special rights. This is what I'm taking from that article, that special rights for California are being revoked.

I thought "The Constitution does not give the federal government authority to regulate these things".

 

[ananda]

I thought "The Constitution does not give the federal government authority to regulate these things".

True. However, if the goal was to return to a Constitutional republic, I would be in favor of revoking and dismantling these unlawful things in stages for an orderly transition.

 

[theQuincunx5]

Ya know, speaking as one who got his doctorate in coal chemistry I actually had fantasies decades ago of working in coal or petroleum. But then I wound up in other jobs and did other things with my life. I learned how incredibly horrible coal is as a fuel source. Yet I still find coal fascinating.

I wonder what it is like to be the kind of people who cannot survive outside of their sole passion. Imagine what it must be like to be the CEO of a major coal company and be unable to do anything else with your life such that you would fight tooth and nail to ensure America is one of the most regressive environmental forces on earth, working overtime to ensure the future is really, really grim for millions of people.

Just because you couldn't possibly understand how to do ANYTHING else with your miserable single-issue brain.

Sad.

 

[theQuincunx5]

This isn't a constitution issue. This is a common sense, science issue. If we want to see true horror unfold we should DEFINITELY act like this is something that has to go through America's tortured philosophical mill of states rights vs federal rights.

 

[theQuincunx5]

Yeah, "Power to the States!" as a rallying cry has always been extremely conditional.

Just like everything else from the Right. The steely-eyed "realists" who tell us how hard choices have to be made...unless it's hard choices for them...at which point all bets are off.

States Rights? Yeah, until abortion or legalized marijuana come up. Welfare? Nope! Unless of course you're a major corporation. Then katy-bar-the-door, let's make it rain! Gay Rights? Not in this lifetime! Ooops, your daughter turned out to be a lesbian? Well, then by all means, let's moderate our stance! Affordable Healthcare? Not for you lazy suckers....until of course THEY run into giant healthcare bills they can't cover...

 

[ananda]

This isn't a constitution issue. This is a common sense, science issue. If we want to see true horror unfold we should DEFINITELY act like this is something that has to go through America's tortured philosophical mill of states rights vs federal rights.

It certainly is a Constitutional issue, in this Constitutional republic. Your opinion on what is "common sense" may not be "common sense" to another - that is why policy is/should be made according to the processes of Constitutional law.