Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-10-2017, 11:32 AM
 
9,727 posts, read 9,760,038 times
Reputation: 6408

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by evilcart View Post
oh , you mean an EO, like Trump's muslim ban...


Hypocritical Repubs, support Trump rolling back Obama's EOs even as TRump writes EO after EO...



double standard much Cons...?


Barack did not have the authority to write his EO. President Trump does.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-10-2017, 11:35 AM
 
Location: Long Island
57,404 posts, read 26,416,324 times
Reputation: 15709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1 View Post
Good! Trump is just doing what he said he would do. Remove NEEDLESS regulations. We still have the overbearing, and much too broadly interpreted Clean Air, and Water Act. We need less regulation, and lower taxes, or we will remain uncompetitive in the world economy.
Well there are some rather costly side effects to burning fossil fuels, most America’s are in favor of clean air and water. We seem to be competing quite well or do we need to use the environmental standards of 3rd world countries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2017, 11:38 AM
 
21,992 posts, read 15,781,872 times
Reputation: 12953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
Yes congress ceded their power to the EPA as far as developing standards for clean air and greenhouse gases, there are no plans to take back their authority so I don’t know why you continue to bring that up. The current EPA is proposing to role back The Clean Power Plan, that is the issue.
It's to provide distraction. Bottom line is Trump chose an anti-EPA guy to run the EPA so he could run it into the ground. The Republican Party is no fan of the environment. Coal is just the beginning. Scott Pruitt is getting himself a "secrecy booth" so he can conduct very private calls. Plus he has an 18 man security team. This is not what an EPA head typically needs oh...ever. He is likely meeting with the nation's largest polluters bringing bags of money to make pollution great again. There was a Republican blogger who when he heard that Scott Pruitt was brought in to destroy the EPA said "I practically need to smoke a cigarette". Republicans absolutely hate the environment.

EPA Spends $25,000 on Soundproof Booth for Scott Pruitt | Fortune
EPA chief getting his own $25,000 sound-proof booth - CNNPolitics
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2017, 11:41 AM
 
Location: Morrison, CO
34,348 posts, read 18,729,383 times
Reputation: 25921
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
Well there are some rather costly side effects to burning fossil fuels, most America’s are in favor of clean air and water. We seem to be competing quite well or do we need to use the environmental standards of 3rd world countries.
Of course you would accuse us of not wanting clean air, and water. The goal is to maintain the regs that actually work, and are reasonable, and remove the ones that are just a hindrance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2017, 11:44 AM
 
21,992 posts, read 15,781,872 times
Reputation: 12953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1 View Post
Of course you would accuse us of not wanting clean air, and water. The goal is to maintain the regs that actually work, and are reasonable, and remove the ones that are just a hindrance.
Reasonable? Sure, whatever. Tell those people in Appalachia and the Rust Belt they got what they wanted now go get a job. Problem solved. They have no more excuses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2017, 11:46 AM
 
Location: deafened by howls of 'racism!!!'
53,199 posts, read 34,974,845 times
Reputation: 29521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve McDonald View Post
The use of coal affects everyone in a community. Those who live near rail routes, have a steady dusting from the coal cars into the air they breathe and it settles all over the area, getting into everything. You might as well burn coal yourself, if you live in such an area, as you will share the health problems it causes.
i keep my house toasty warm all winter with coal. i have no health problems.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2017, 11:50 AM
 
21,992 posts, read 15,781,872 times
Reputation: 12953
Quote:
Originally Posted by uggabugga View Post
i keep my house toasty warm all winter with coal. i have no health problems.
That's fantastic. I encourage all Republicans to use coal. Bathe in it. Now Appalachia and the Rust Belt need to go get jobs and stop with the excessive Disability claims and stop with the excuses. They got what they wanted, they said if only they could pollute again they would be able to work so go work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2017, 12:34 PM
 
Location: deafened by howls of 'racism!!!'
53,199 posts, read 34,974,845 times
Reputation: 29521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove View Post
That's fantastic. I encourage all Republicans to use coal. Bathe in it. Now Appalachia and the Rust Belt need to go get jobs and stop with the excessive Disability claims and stop with the excuses. They got what they wanted, they said if only they could pollute again they would be able to work so go work.
link pls.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2017, 12:48 PM
 
Location: Long Island
57,404 posts, read 26,416,324 times
Reputation: 15709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1 View Post
Of course you would accuse us of not wanting clean air, and water. The goal is to maintain the regs that actually work, and are reasonable, and remove the ones that are just a hindrance.
I don't think we had a problem with over regulation but that is Trumps contention. We have some rather large problems with potable drinking water and clean air but this is why Pruitt was put in place, the person who regularly sued the EPA to promote fossil fuels is now in charge of the EPA.


Besides, many of those states involved in the Clean Power Plan have turned green and closed some of their coal fired plants. A memo was leaked where they claimed $33B in savings if the Clean Power Plan were cancelled, we will see the details at some point but so far he has been secretive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2017, 02:36 PM
 
32,092 posts, read 27,341,656 times
Reputation: 25029
Pruitt and Trump can scheme and plan all they want; the overall trend is clear; coal is dying out as source of electric power generation. The coal and power markets know this, as do many others including those employed in that sector.


Will coal totally vanish in USA for power generation? No, likely not as there are states that will for various reasons continue to allow/push or whatever. However even in states that once stood with Oklahoma against Obama's so called "anti coal" regulations are seeing the writing on wall.


Pruitt's actions will likely be tied up in the courts for sometime. If they aren't settled by 2020 another administration could simply swing the pendulum the other way. It is the uncertainty that is getting to many in the power generation sector. That plus no matter what EPA does many states and or local governments are making plans or moves on their own to move away from coal.


It is simple Economics 101; if a market for something declines it will contract. Should said market collapse and or see demand go down to nil, then it will self correct and either vanish or become a niche market.


Again as one has repeatedly stated in these sort of debates coal has been dying ever since railroads, ships and other things that used steam power moved to oil or diesel. The next big hit came as heating largely moved to oil, natural gas, propane, electric, etc... That pretty much left only electric power as a large consumer of coal.


Relatively inexpensive, plentiful and clean natural gas is what is killing coal. Add on renewables and greater energy efficacy and you can see where things are going.


Coal for making steel is another matter, there the stuff may prove to be more long lasting.

Last edited by BugsyPal; 10-10-2017 at 03:03 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:18 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top