Congress Votes to Scrap Obama's Clean Power Plan (sciencemag.org)

sciencehabit writes with news that the House voted 242-180 to repeal the EPA's Clean Power Plan, and 235-188 to block EPA rules governing emissions from new power plants. Science reports: "Congress has voted, largely along party lines, to block a centerpiece of President Barack Obama's climate change agenda. The votes are largely symbolic, however, because Obama plans to veto the bills. Still, Congressional Republicans, and a few Democrats, say they want to send a message to global leaders who are meeting this week to negotiate a new climate agreement that the majority of U.S. lawmakers may not agree with any deal."

Comments

Re:Why is this on Slashdot?

[GLMDesigns]

So I guess you think that the executive branch can do whatever it wants. If it assumes dictatorial power you would be fine with that? I suppose you would if it did what you thought was right.

These laws and regulations are the function of the legislative branch (congress) not the executive branch (president).

Warren Buffet has enough money, shouldn't get your

[raymorris]

Here's what they don't like.

Oil flows through the first half of Keystone pipeline, where it is then loaded on trains, mostly owned by Burlington Northern, aka Warren Buffet. That's the same Warren Buffett who financed Obama' s campaigns. The plan was to finish the pipeline, which would be more efficient than transferring it to Buffet's trains.

Obama asked the EPA to look into the plan and the EPA said the net effect of finishing the pipeline would probably be slightly positive for the environment overall. Obama's benefactor, Warren Buffet, had just spent $35 billion buying Burlington Northern, which carries the oil, and he really didn't want to lose that investment. So Obama asked the State Department to issue a report saying the pipeline shouldn't be finished. Unfortunately for him, the State Department said the finishing the pipeline wouldn't be a problem.

Of course that doesn't help Warren Buffet, who owns the railroad amd perhaps the White House, so Obama told EPA and State to start over, and this time say no. They didn't really want to do that, so eventually Obama just declared thay the oil had to stay on Buffet's railroad, just because he says so.

Of course that increases the price of gas slightly for everyone, it's slightly worse for the environment, but the extra penny per gallon you pay for the gas goes to Warren Buffet, who in turn kicks some of it to democrat campaigns.

That's Obama's environmental policy. How could anyone oppose that?

Of course there are dozens of other examples. A favorite method is to have the government give a few hundred million of taxpayer money to some donor who say they plan to start a green business, such as solar-electric. The donors take salaries of $10 million / year , the "green company" donates some of the taxpayer money to democrats, and after a few years the money is gone. At that point the company declares bankruptcy. The donors get paid, the politicians get paid, and not a single solar panel is made. You don't see a problem here? Obama spent hundreds of millions of your dollars amd mine running that same scheme repeatedly.