ModMark wrote: One of the coal plants shut down in Chicago was built ~90 years ago. While upgraded in the 1950's. it still did not meet EPA standards before Obama was elected. These plants were grandfather in when the clean air act was past. These ancient relics should have been converted to natural gas long ago.Do you really want to live next to one of these ancient plants? –in response to Obama Promise Kept: Coal Plants to go Bankrupt with New EPA Carbon Cap
Dear Comrade Mark,
The building was built 90 years ago, but the actual power plant generating electricity is considerably younger than that. And according to the company, the plant either meets “or exceed[s] federal and state emissions requirements” according to the Pasadena Star.
And… oh, by the way… the plant did meet EPA standards well before Obama was elected. That’s why one of the largest buyers of renewable energy- Southern California Edison- bought the coal-fired plants in the first place: They generated cheap electricity from that plant that could be sold to the highest bidder, while staying in compliance with EPA requirements for their class. For the buyers it helped subsidize the costs of more expensive “green” energy.
The issue for plant closure is that the people- think voters- who live around the plant would see the value of their real estate go up if the plant closed down. They would also see their neighbors lose their jobs. But, hey, jobs are optional in Obamaland. So the politically connected did what they do best in Chicago: They waged a harassment campaign against the power plant until the company agreed to close.
No doubt the plant’s an eyesore. But once again liberals perverted science to pretend that it was a threat to the health of the community. Study after study showed that while it’s true that Chicago has high asthma rates, it’s not because of this one power plant. In fact, asthma rates around the plant are lower than average for Chicago.
That and some variation of it, is why cities like Chicago and states like Illinois are losing population to places that don’t confiscate property from others.
You can cite this as an example of policy that works, but this exactly why Chicago has become one of the worst cities to live in in the country and why the city is broke and broken.
Plane wrote: Re: "Because coal has just been given the death sentence"..... not quite correct....... coal users have to break down and make the capital investment to stop their spewing acid rain forming smoke and soot from their outdated furnaces. –in response to Obama Promise Kept: Coal Plants to go Bankrupt with New EPA Carbon Cap
Dear Comrade Plane,
Why do liberals have such an aversion to just telling the truth? Or reading an entire article?
Enviro-Whackos are jubilant over the EPA regulation that would require coal’s carbon emissions to meet or exceed the carbon emissions that come from natural gas. Short of carbon sequestration- which isn’t really technically possible yet- coal can never match natural gas in carbon emission reductions.
“If old King Coal isn’t dead already, he’s certainly teetering toward life support,” said Frank O’Donnell, president Clean Air Watch in Washington according to Bloomberg.
The capital investments that you are talking about make coal completely uneconomic, by design.
“So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can,” said candidate Obama “it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”
And now he has basically tied this country to a single source of fuel: natural gas.
What happens when activists play the “health and safety” card on natural gas, like they have already started to? What happens when an LNG store goes boom in the middle of Boston Harbor?
Bernard83 wrote: Dear Mr Ransom. I don't like to nit-pick but your calculations are incorrect. According to observations I have made and experiments I have conducted you have to carry the 2 but the integer to multiply by is 12,2853764. Otherwise you get Parmesan and everyone knows the moon is not made of Parmesan Cheese. I just hate it when you unbelievers try to promote misinformation as real information. –in response to You are Invited to Occupy the Job-Killing, Wealth-Robbing EPA Mafia
The problem is that we are being ruled over by a bunch of technocrats and scientists who want to take decisions away from us and force us into having no decisions to make at all.
That really worked well in the former Soviet Union where you had one brand of toilet paper (wool) that you stood in line for all night; one brand of car (the Volga version of the Volt) that you paid cash for and then waited years for delivery.
Now that’s what they want to do here with energy, healthcare, banking, student loans- everything.
Years ago my sister bought a tuition annuity from the state of Florida so that her son could attend any state school he wanted for four years. Now that it’s time to collect, her son can’t get into a state school despite having a GPA of 3.6. Instead, they are taking kids from out-of-state with lower GPAs because they charge more and they are sticking in-state kids into community colleges.
Only freaking liberals would do something so irresponsible with taxpayer dollars.
That, or some variation of it, is what’s in store for us with electricity if we continue following Obama’s pipeline to nowhere.
Truth001 wrote: When anyone talks about division in this country the immediate thing that comes to mind is columns like this. It has little known value and only appeals to your faithful readers. So if these are the people you attempting to rally mission accomplished, but wait a minute Ransom it really didn't take you to get them there. They were already there. So all the "ad-a-boys" you just gave yourself appear to be just a means to pump up your own ego. –in response to Where's Obama's Outrage Over Murder of "My" Son?
Dear Comrade Pravda001,
You’re lecturing me about divisions?
Tax just the rich? We are the 99%? If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon?
None of that is meant to unite. That’s the fractional math liberals always do.
When people talk about division these days they only have to point to Obama as a prime example. The longer he’s president, the more reckless his policies have become.
I knew that Obama would pursue policies that I would hate, but I thought, based on his campaign rhetoric, that he would try to heal the racial wounds in the country.
But he’s done just the opposite.
Let’s face it, critics have a point: There is a reason why Obama was a member of Rev Wright’s church.
Jim5522 wrote: Failed Obama policy in Afghanistan John? Do you even recall who and why we were led into this conflict some 10 years ago? Can you explain why Obama was left this war and the Iraq war to finish when he was sworn into office in January 2009? If Bush had accomplished what he swore to do in 2001, then we wouldn't have had to wait until May 2011 for Obama to kill OBL and just maybe this war could have ended years earlier and who knows ... he might still be known as Senator Obama! –in response to Where's Obama's Outrage Over Murder of "My" Son?
Dear Comrade 5522,
Yes. I do recall why we are in Afghanistan.
You don’t though.
19 fanatics hijacked airplanes and rammed them into immovable objects. Their training was in Afghanistan, under the protection of the regime run under Mullah Omar of the Taliban.
42 countries provided troops for the invasion although the core of the troops were provided by NATO. In the combined House and Senate there was only one vote against the resolution authorizing the invasion of Afghanistan.
Obama’s had a year since the United States Navy killed Osama bin Laden, and the security situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan has gotten worse, not better. Perhaps George Bush was right- he was by the way- that Osama bin Laden wasn’t that big a deal, strategically. I think events so far have proven that point of view correct. You don’t invade a country with troops from 42 nations to kill or capture a single man.
I mean, I know liberals are fond of big, unwieldy government programs for everything, but I guess until your comments I never understood how rooted the sickness was.
So your theory is that our whole purpose of invading both Afghanistan and Iraq was so that we could kill or capture bin Laden? And then everything would be OK?
I never thought that Obama would be that naïve, but maybe he really thought that too.
The Iraq War was finished before Obama took office, so he can’t claim credit for that. He can get the blame for not keeping a presence in the region and turning Iraq over to Iran politically. That was a really stupid move on his part.
There was no way the Afghanistan war was going to ever end in anything other than defeat the way Obama went at it. Pouring troops into the country was exactly the wrong tack to take.
Stephen- East Coast wrote: I have to disagree with some of what you said, John: " ... he has been deprived of his party to back him up ..." He doesn't need the Democrat party anymore, because he has the backing of Soros, Buffett, and the entirety of the LSM. There is a great, grand scheme going on here, and We The People are their enemy. They have subverted about everything that has had true character, value, and honor - what WTP believe in - and plan to wrap this up in November, from which they will see to it that there is No Point of Return. –in response to The “Bi-Polar" Presidency
I’m not as far gone as you are on this topic.
I think Obama’s finding out that he does need his party. He can’t govern without them.
We have two years in a row where he couldn’t get even a single vote for his budget. Talk about Mr. Irrelevant.
He had no influence over the debt ceiling debate; he’s had no influence over taxes or jobs or the economy. Where he has had some opportunity, like on Keystone, he’s squandered it.
He was always on probation to begin with. Voters voted for him despite his shortcomings- like Reverend Wright, his thin resume, his fairness doctrine on taxes- not because of those things. As he was shorn of influence, he’s become more exposed for what he really is: a typical Chicago-style black machine politician with a thin veneer of rhetoric that made people believe he was somehow different.
It’ll be interesting to see how many Democrats will campaign with him shortly.
I expect that very few will want to campaign with him in competitive districts, especially swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Shubi wrote: The Press should report all Obama's statement with the caveat they may change without notice. –in response to The “Bi-Polar" Presidency
I prefer the disclaimer: “Not actual size.”
If the Federal Trade Commission had any purpose at all it would make Obama wear that label.
That’s it for this week.
"Like" me on Facebook and you'll get sneak peaks of columns and, as an added bonus, I will never raise your taxes. Send me email and I just might mention you on Sunday.