Slashdot Mirror
Obama Unveils Major Climate Change Proposal
An anonymous reader writes: Two years in the making, President Obama formally unveiled his plan to cut power plant emissions today, calling it the "single most important step that America has ever made in the fight against global climate change." The "Clean Power Plan" includes the first ever EPA standards on carbon pollution from power plants. CNN reports: "Under the plan, the administration will require states to meet specific carbon emission reduction standards, based on their individual energy consumption. The plan also includes an incentive program for states to get a head start on meeting standards on early deployment of renewable energy and low-income energy efficiency."
""We're the first generation to feel the impact of climate change and the last generation that can do something about it," Obama said on Monday."
---
While that sounds nice when he is giving a speech, there are two problems with the above sentence.
First, we aren't feeling the impact of climate change. For all the fear mongering, the oceans haven't risen, the weather is fine, and life has been carrying on.
Second, we aren't the last generation who can do something about it. Depending on who you listen to, either we have already passed the point of no return, or we have a long time to worry about it.
If AGW supporters are correct, then the changes being proposed won't change the outcome by enough to matter. We had to do all this 30+ years ago and get the world on board as well. A few cuts here and there will be swamped by the growth in the global economy and the number of new power plants being built every year. China alone is building a new coal plant every month.
At this point, we're just moving the deck chairs around the Titanic, or perhaps put another way, we using a bucket brigade to try and get the water out of the ship. Nice idea, but pointless when the ship is still going to sink.
So if the AGW people are right (and they might be, I wouldn't discount smart people so easily), then we need to start adapting to the change that is coming regardless of what we do.
If the AGW people are wrong, then this is just a wealth transfer and overreaching power grab from big government.
You forgot the people posting from podunk coal towns with no other industry who could give a crap if the world collapses as long as they get to keep their jobs and live in their tiny little racist enclaves until then.
Not at all, that is the second group of "drill baby drill" people.
Of course, don't forget the extreme libs in San Fran who are as equally deluded as the people in West Virginia are... just in the other direction... They think if everyone just drove a Prius and lived in a little 1,000 sqft eco home the world would be a happy place...
Both groups are wrong...
....because you've already taken the problem into your hands and reduced your carbon output.
I have actually... and more people do every day...
I spent a few hundred dollars to replace all my incandescent bulbs in my home with LED bulbs. And I was ranting a few years ago against government over reach when they wanted to ban incandescent bulbs. I still am, it isn't their job to pick winners.
LED bulbs did get down to a price point where they make sense, now it comes down to education to make people aware of how much money they save. My payback period on those bulbs is just over a year, maybe 15 months. That is a no-brainer if there ever was one. People talk about solar systems having 7 to 10 year paybacks, yet ignore the one that has less than 2 years of payback.
I also recently purchased a car for the first time in almost 20 years. My primary vehicle is a 2015 Yukon XL Denali, a wonderful vehicle that burns crap loads of gas, but is very useful for moving my family, their friends, and stuff. However, if it is just me, or just me and my wife, it is overkill... So now I also own a 2014 Ford Taurus that gets 29 MPH on the highway. It is still comfortable and filled with nice stuff, but it burns almost half the fuel of my big truck and I make a point to drive it instead of the truck when I don't need the truck.
Now I'm thankfully in the position that I can afford to buy another vehicle, not everyone is. I figure that the gas savings pays for the insurance on it, so it isn't "free" or even "cheap", but it does reduce my carbon and pollution footprint.
And I'm a Republican! So not all of us want to just "drill, baby drill" until it is all gone. But the solutions should be reasonable and take into account everyone, not just top down central planning.
I'm not saying that solar and wind are pie-in-the-sky.
Neither am I... I live in Texas and we're now one of the largest wind producers in the US, making some 9% of our power from wind last time I looked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Now... Wind DOES cost more than coal and natural gas, no matter what the AGW people want to say. I buy my power from a competitive marketplace, I can pick from dozens of different power suppliers, and wind costs more than coal does.
To be specific, I just signed a new contract for power for my business, I'm paying 6.2 cents per kWh for the first 2,000 kWh and 6.8 cents after that. That is the total delivered price and it is a fairly even mix of coal, natural gas, and nuclear, with about 6% of the total being "renewable".
If I wanted all wind power, then the price goes to 9.1 cents per kWh for the first 2,000 kWh and 9.6 cents after that.
Of course, a nice carbon tax could fix that in a hurry, if that is what we as a country wanted to do.
Then there will be the sliver of comments about developing additional sources of zero-carbon sources of energy. Traditional fission reactors have their own pollution problems. Fusion is still too experimental; no one has yet to demonstrate a scalable method of doing that. But there is another power metal: thorium. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
True...
But at least with nuclear, you can burn the left overs in another reactor or you can at least put them in a box.
Yes, we haven't had the best record of that in the past, but that doesn't mean we can't change that, we just have to be willing to do so. You can't put the output of a coal or natural gas power plant in a box, no matter how hard you try.
Keep in mind that if the "waste" from nuclear is radioactive, then it also can be used to make power. The only time nuclear anything is really "spent" is when it is no longer radioactive.
We have VERY old reactor designs dating back 40 years, we have not been keeping up with technology. If we really wanted to, I imagine we could build some much better reactors, but the NIMBY and "oh my god the nuclears!" people won't have it.
You know it's hilarious that people in SF act like they have a leg to stand on when it comes to telling other people how to live
http://www.businessinsider.com...
$1000/month to live in a shipping container and that's Oakland.
Do you seriously believe that switching to LED bulbs and driving a car that gets only 29mpg (which is terrible gas mileage in reality, only relative to your other gas guzzler does it seem reasonable) will achieve anything? Even if every single person in the world did this, it would make no effective difference.
The real waste is at the front end, where power is generated, and the only fix for that is "top down" legislation to force the providers to do something about the emissions and inefficiency. And that pretty much has to be dictated because industry has shown time and time and time again that it won't regulate itself if left to its own devices.
Some things simply cannot be solved by laissez faire capitalism. In fact it creates many problems, which is obvious to anyone willing to open their eyes for two seconds. That does not mean that the solution is the opposite, a totally planned central economy, but a sensible mix of the two. The knee-jerk reactionary repugnance to anything with even the mildest whiff of small-s 'socialism' is seriously damaging. It damages the health and happiness of every person, and now it is seriously damaging the planet. Nothing is black or white, perhaps a little subtlety should be given its chance. People have been sold the right-wing view for so long now they've forgotten what the middle ground even is. Centre-right policies are seen as far left, which is ridiculous.
Perhaps when people come to grips with the fact the physical laws of nature don't give a flying fuck about anyone's favorite economic system or political ideology, we can move on to solving problems. But I suppose it's always easier to believe that whatever deity you worship, be it Yahweh or the Invisible Hand, will save you, and just go on as if nothing is happening.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Although now I write that, I'm not quite sure that this is true considering the inability for our leaders to solve these sorts of problems to date due to political backlash. What was supposed to be a funny quip just got depressing.
Yep, that is more or less how I feel. Our leaders seem more interesting in yelling about why the other side is wrong than in solving anything.
The Republicans and Democrats appear to have given up trying to work together. Government will remain a mess until that changes.
Even solar has pollution problems when it comes to manufacturing.
While nuclear power plants grow organically without generating any pollution, and then run without generating any waste? A solar power plant easily offsets the pollution required to build it over its lifespan. I can't see how this is relevant to the discussion.
And people aren't fixated only on one or two power sources, as opposed to the ones who trot out the line "there is one solution - nuclear".
It has always been about creating a workable mix. Even Hillary Clinton's recent proposal was to only generate 33% of America's electricity by 2027.
It's comments like this that really get my goat. There are options between doing nothing and becoming a third world country. The President's plan wouldn't make us a third world country and it will decrease our carbon emissions.
Oh, BTW, closing coal powered plans will actually reduce deaths in the US; and, you know what, it's already happening! See Death and Disease from Power Plants. The numbers of deaths attributable to pollution from power plants has gone down significantly in the last 15 years.
Surely you mean Presidents Truman and Eisenhower, right? I mean, after all, it was the CIA during their administrations that overthrew the democratically elected government in Iran that is more responsible for the situation in the Middle East then anything else. See CIA-assisted coup overthrows government of Iran.
Or perhaps you mean the European leaders who, after WWI, created countries that never existed in the Middle East?
I think putting blame on President Carter is a bit misplaced. While President Carter called on the Shah to stop torturing people and to release political prisoners, the US continued to strongly supported the Shah. Social changes in Iran were too large and too rapid, though, to quell without even more horrendous human rights violations than the Shah was already committing. In reality, there was not way to keep the status quo in Iran. We supported the Shah far too long, against our own stated human rights beliefs and against our own best foreign policy judgements. President Nixon, though, believed that Iran, ruled by the Shah, was vital to American interests in the area, so, that's what we got.
I doubt your math, but it doesn't really matter. For every megawatt of power generated by a coal plant, on average, 2,249 lbs carbon dioxide are generated. In 2013, there were 1,581,115 megawatt hours of electricity generated by coal. That's 3,555,927,635 pounds.
Even so, you're saying, he's a hypocrite, right? Wrong.
The President isn't saying "Shut down everything that emits carbon dioxide". He's saying that it's time to decrease our carbon dioxide emissions. No hypocrisy, and even with your numbers, a drop in the bucket for emissions.
I was going to ask you where you were getting led's so cheaply.
But I checked the math first.
I can get one 65w equivalent led bulb for $7.84 or I can get four 65w bulbs for $7.88.
Assuming energy cost of $0.10/kwh and 4hr/day usage the 55w difference in power usage adds up to a savings of $8.01/year.
I'm replacing mine as they burn out even with their low cost it seems a waste to throw out a perfectly good lightbulb and the newer led bulbs are a near perfect match to the incandescent bulbs I have 6 recessed fixtures in my living room and one of them is a led but you can't tell which one it is!
I Have got to say I really didn't think the turn around time would be that short. Thanks for pointing that out.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
The US power industry puts out 5% of the worlds carbon and this plan will cut it by 1.5% over how many years? China on average is bringing on a new power plant every 10 days. Please explain how this insignificant but costly plan is going to affect climate change?
But there is another power metal: thorium. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I'm not aware that anyone has yet built a financially viable thorium reactor despite at least a couple of attempts. Once someone demonstrates that is possible it may find more acceptance.
No, I live in a coal state. My description was completely accurate.
Nuclear plants easily offset air pollution as well, even more-so that solar. That must be the part you don't get.
If you think that we can discount the pollution caused by nuclear plants, why did you mention the pollution caused by solar plants then? You say that I don't get it, but you were the one that brought up this piece of FUD in the first place. You were being completely disingenuous and deliberately misleading by bringing up non-problems with one technology while ignoring that exactly the same non-problem exists with another.
With the exception that you had to qualify your statement by saying air pollution rather than all pollution (like I said) because you know that nuclear power DOES actually produce a hazardous waste.
Unfortunately, Obama has already silently been trying to shut the door on nuclear, ...
If that's true how come at least 4 nuclear power plants have been approved by the Obama administration?
Vogtle Units 3 & 4 got $8.3 billion in Federal loan guarantees.
Summer Units 2 & 3.
Nuclear renaissance in the United States.
The Republicans and Democrats appear to have given up trying to work together. Government will remain a mess until that changes.
It could be worse. They could be working together.
If that's true how come at least 4 nuclear power plants have been approved by the Obama administration?
If you'll check your history books, the loan guarantees that made those possible were forged before Obama. And, more directly to your point, Obama and Ried appoint Jaczko to chair the NRC. There, he specifically tried to stop the licensing of those plants, but his arguments were proven to have no basis.
Jaczo was incompetent, and eventually it was so bad that he was run out. Appointing such an incompetent person to a post as important as the NRC chair is won of the most reckless things Obama has done, IMHO. While politics drives the chair choice in many agencies, the NRC had always had a person with appropriate expertise and insight at the helm in the past, regardless of who was president. We got Harry Reid's political ponyboy.
Some things simply cannot be solved by laissez faire capitalism. In fact it creates many problems, which is obvious to anyone willing to open their eyes for two seconds. That does not mean that the solution is the opposite, a totally planned central economy, but a sensible mix of the two. The knee-jerk reactionary repugnance to anything with even the mildest whiff of small-s 'socialism' is seriously damaging. It damages the health and happiness of every person, and now it is seriously damaging the planet. Nothing is black or white, perhaps a little subtlety should be given its chance. People have been sold the right-wing view for so long now they've forgotten what the middle ground even is. Centre-right policies are seen as far left, which is ridiculous.
It's not a mild whiff of "socialism". It's a massive restructuring of our society and economy on shaky grounds. What happens when the next imaginary ecothreat comes through? If we continue to use the same decision-making process as we're doing here, then it's going to be a long stream of poor decisions and a descent either into regional dissolution or even a new dark age, if the whole world should buy in for the duration.
Imaginary threats don't harm us. Real threats do. We're facing the real threat of global warming. Instead of taking an honest look at the science and possible solutions, you look the potential bill and say any solution is impossible. Nevermind if the bill would include the price to get the world off fossil fuels and eliminate our gas payments forever. Nevermind if the bill would remove the motivation behind wars for oil and the trillions we've spent for those. Nevermind if the bill would clean up our air and eliminate smog and cut our medical payments for lung conditions. So, we live with your shortsightedness in a worse world where we constantly pay for gas with our money and lives.
People are not responding to Trump because he is Trump. They are responding to the two card monte that the Rs and Ds are playing on us. For instance, Immigration. Immigration, both legal and illegal, is destroying our country. In Texas alone, illegals have been charged with over 177,000 serious crimes since 2008, including almost 3,000 homicides. Trump is the only one willing to point out the insanity of bringing millions of low-skilled and illiterate people here from third world shitholes and then giving them welfare benefits. A few mentally ill people shoot innocents, and the Ds start lecturing us on giving up our civil rights. Illegals kill tens of thousands, and nary a peep about the border. Insanity. And this is only one example. Abuse of political amnesty, "Free trade" etc. are similar issues. I just hope he does not run as a third party candidate. If he is the R nominee, I will most definitely vote for him.
You are full of shit. Load following works fine in nuclear reactors of appropriate design. Modern plants make one or two large changes per day, and are required to be able to cycle daily between 50% and 100% of rated capacity with a rate of change of 3-5% per minute.
Many are rated for several percent change per second.
You are waaay out of touch with technology. Read that report. Look at how often they cycle the power. Load following works fine, and they're required to be able to make these swings for 90% of the fuel cycle--at any point, unplanned.
It would do more than completely eliminating coal burning plants. Transportation generates a similar amount of CO2 to coal burning power plants.
CO2 emissions in transportation are being reduced as well, via higher fuel economy standards, development of electric cars, etc.
This isn't a scenario where any one improvement will "solve" the problem. The problem has to be attacked on many fronts simultaneously, and all of the partial reductions will start to add up over time.
It's a massive restructuring of our society and economy on shaky grounds.
Hardly. The proposal merely sets targets and leaves it up to the individual states how to reach them. The states don't even have to submit a proposal until 2016, and don't have to start making any actual changes until 2020. The administration is bending over backwards to make this as easy as possible, and still conservatives are crying like they're being waterboarded.
What happens when the next imaginary ecothreat comes through?
There's your problem -- you think global warming is imaginary, and therefore the amount of resources that can justifiably be allocated to fighting it is zero. There's no point in discussing mitigation strategies with when you haven't even accepted that there actually is a problem that needs to be solved. Most likely at some point in the next 5, 10, 15 years the evidence will become obvious enough to overcome your ideological blinders; but in the meantime the rest of us need to start working on a fix now, rather than waiting for you to be convinced.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Basically, it is the extremists that are killing America, and even the west.
Many ppl note the fact that the far right HATES science and pick and choose what they want to. And they are correct.
However few ppl have noticed the fact that the far left HATES science and pick and choose what they want to.
Take the case of AGW. A rational person says that the science is overwhelming in favor of AGW. Therefore the smart thing is to drop our CO2 and relatively soon.
BUT, if you run the numbers, you will see that we NEED nukes. In particular, we need gen IV nukes since they can not meltdown. In addition, these can make use of the nuke waste/ aboveground thorium, rather than mining for U.
Yet, the far left fights it. And the far right, really has not done SQUAT for the nuke industry.
Then you have the fact that the far left screams about America's emissions. Yet, current calculated numbers from 2013 show that China accounts for more than 30% of CO2, while the entire west accounts for less than 28%. In addition, China's emission far outweigh even America's emissions. Both in current, as well as total since 150 years ago, or even 1000 years ago.
And that does not include what OCO2 is showing. OCO2's numbers are showing that CHina's emission is well over 40%, and probably closer to 45%. That is HUGE. Absolutely fucking HUGE.
BUT, what does the far left do? They scream that America needs to buy wind/solar from China and continue to drop our emissions. At the same time, they claim that China's growing their Wind/solar faster than America, while ignoring the fact that China's % of electricity from Coal grows EVERY YEAR, and is now in the high 80s.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
It would be revenue-neutral, which is to say the money collected by the tax on carbon would be used to reduce the tax load of the population as a whole. All the money collected would be given back to the taxpayers.
If it would ACTUALLY work like that, I'd be its biggest supporter.
But you and I both know that is never how it works.
If our government could balance the budget, I'd be 100% on board.
Actually the coal towns are the ones bearing the brunt of the coal industry's wrath. After all the coal is extracted, nothing is left but huge dumps with virtually no employment to speak of. Same with the fracking boom. It's just that they lack the vision to see this while the money is still flowing.
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
The reason no one's talking about thorium is that, frankly, thorium sucks. Sorry to break it to you this way. Thorium solves none of the problems we have with current fission reactors. Nuclear reactors are clean but extremely expensive sources of energy. They are expensive because of containment, maintenance, waste disposal/processing, and decommissioning. Thorium solves none of these problems. The much-touted "less waste!" point that LFTR advocates so often talk about is a distortion of truth; LFTR merely brings the waste reprocessing plant into the reactor itself, making it even more expensive.
No one has ever given a realistic cost estimate for LFTR. The reason is that any realistic cost estimate would most likely be EXTREMELY AND HORRENDOUSLY EXPENSIVE. I wouldn't be surprised if a 1 GW LFTR cost $10 bn or more to build. This is after initial R&D costs, btw, and assuming a large number of plants with amortized costs.
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
British Columbia implemented a revenue-neutral carbon tax in .. 2006, I think, or thereabouts. It's been a while. It's been used to reduce income tax. It's been super effective, our carbon emissions have gone down by quite a bit.
I've always wondered, if you hate Social Justice Warriors, does that make you a Social Injustice Warrior? I mean, that's a weird thing to stand proudly behind, social injustice.
Could just make you an Antisocial Justice Warrior
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
I doubt your math, but it doesn't really matter. For every megawatt of power generated by a coal plant, on average, 2,249 lbs carbon dioxide are generated. In 2013, there were 1,581,115 megawatt hours of electricity generated by coal. That's 3,555,927,635 pounds.
Even so, you're saying, he's a hypocrite, right? Wrong.
The President isn't saying "Shut down everything that emits carbon dioxide". He's saying that it's time to decrease our carbon dioxide emissions. No hypocrisy, and even with your numbers, a drop in the bucket for emissions.
But how again is that not hypocrisy? "We need to emit less carbon", then flies everywhere in a fuel guzzling modified 747, even for quick vacations.
And when "deniers" say small steps wouldn't be enough to combat AGW anyway, they get lambasted for being too fatalistic, because every little bit helps.. but now this is a just a "drop in the bucket". Maybe those who wish to lead should do so by example, especially those who call for dramatic reductions. I know he can't go everywhere without AF1, but he and Hillary don't do a damn thing to check their carbon footprint.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
I think you are the one that misunderstand how a carbon tax would work; the heavy CO2-emitters would not only pass along the tax, but increase it by their profit margin, so a dollar increase in taxes would likely result in an price increase of $1.20 at each stage of the supply chain. Only naive Liberals think businesses pay taxes, rather than pass them along.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
You do realize that poor people are going to suffer more than the affluent from climate change effects, don't you? Barring some sort of intervention, they're screwed either way.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes