Slashdot Mirror
EPA Announces Repeal of Major Obama-Era Carbon Emissions Rule (nytimes.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source: The Trump administration announced Monday that it would take formal steps to repeal President Barack Obama's signature policy to curb greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, setting up a bitter fight over the future of America's efforts to tackle global warming. At an event in eastern Kentucky, Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, said that his predecessors had departed from regulatory norms in crafting the Clean Power Plan, which was finalized in 2015 and would have pushed states to move away from coal in favor of sources of electricity that produce fewer carbon emissions. The repeal proposal, which will be filed in the Federal Register on Tuesday, fulfills a promise President Trump made to eradicate his predecessor's environmental legacy. Eliminating the Clean Power Plan makes it less likely the United States can fulfill its promise as part of the Paris climate agreement to ratchet down emissions that are warming the planet and contributing to heat waves and sea-level rise. Mr. Trump has vowed to abandon that international accord.
In announcing the repeal, Mr. Pruitt made many of the same arguments that he had made for years to Congress and in lawsuits: that the Obama administration exceeded its legal authority in an effort to limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. (Last year, the Supreme Court blocked the rule from taking effect while courts assessed those lawsuits.) A leaked draft of the repeal proposal asserts that the country would save $33 billion by not complying with the regulation and rejects the health benefits the Obama administration had calculated from the original rule.
In announcing the repeal, Mr. Pruitt made many of the same arguments that he had made for years to Congress and in lawsuits: that the Obama administration exceeded its legal authority in an effort to limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. (Last year, the Supreme Court blocked the rule from taking effect while courts assessed those lawsuits.) A leaked draft of the repeal proposal asserts that the country would save $33 billion by not complying with the regulation and rejects the health benefits the Obama administration had calculated from the original rule.
No need to drag it out we see whatâ(TM)s going on. Having whores piss on a bed that Obamaâ(TM)s was not enough apparently.
But more importantly:
Fuck you.
Trump is the symptom. You are the problem.
We don't think we're better. We know it.
What's next? Penalize solar and wind and other renewables? Tax people who already have solar panels on their houses and businesses? All so some ass-backwards, mostly dead already coal industry can hang on for a while longer? When will this insanity end?
That lump is the cancer that they got from coal plants' particulate emissions
So do they go beyond the Paris Treaty requirements or not?
Or appointed federal alphabet soup agencies to craft a legacy (no I'm not talking about SCOTUS appointments). Easy come easy go. I bet the president after Trump will reverse what Trumps EPA did as well. If you want a legacy you get law passed through Congress. How's that healthcare repeal coming? Obamas legacy is in the ACA good or bad.
Clearly, my parents were wrong about comic books... we could've all learned something from the debate between scientists and politicians on the Planet Krypton.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Free market will drive energy production towards its natural destination, which is away from fossil fuels, and even nuclear. Distributed power generation and storage is where the future (currently) lies - the tipping point has already been reached. Solar production is not skyrocketing because the CAA pushed power companies away from fossil fuels. The core reason is the global manufacturing industry has slowly, and finally, ramped up photovoltaic cell production to the point that it is extremely competitive. Battery technology (not just driven by energy demands, but primarily by mobile computing which requires very high-density, long-lasting batteries) has been increasing steadily as well. Couple the two together and you have a big part of the future of energy production.
So as with many things in politics, this move is purely... political, and really doesn't matter either way. Sort of like the Paris Agreement.
Better known as 318230.
I didn't realise that Obama had been a Major. When was that? Anyway, as long as they don't repeal the President Obama-era emission rules we should be fine.
I suspect his work toward reducing greenhouse emissions generated a performance-driven promotion to Major Obvious.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
http://www.businessinsider.com...
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
What is the alternative when you have an openly hostile legislature? Obama did what he could. He should have pushed harder and louder for a bill but ultimately that wasn't going to happen since anti-science agendas have ruled the GOP for quite some time.
Natural gas killed it. Cheaper, fewer emissions, fewer miners killed. Does't matter what the cheeto in charge wants or legislates, natgas has killed coal.
I remember as a kid dad driving past oil fields burning off natural gas. I couldn't believe it was cheaper to burn it off that to sell it. Still can't, to be honest.
Bullshit
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
"good things are happening for the rest of the country!"
Facts not in evidence. Care to elaborate as to where? Even coal country doesn't really like coal. They only like it because it's largely the only employer in the area, and people need to eat and support welfare rural areas. Even they know the pollution they spew creates problems downwind.
As to the "rest" of the country, so much for bringing the country together. You burn so you can get rich, while the rest of the country chokes.
This is why ruling a country with ideas is a stupid waste of wealth and time, it must be ruled based on reality, specifically the near and long term.
I wonder what the jobs:deaths ratio will turn out to be for that decision by the end of this presidential term.
Nullius in verba
Bingo.
If a president doesn't have the backing of the rest of the country, well maybe that's good or bad on any particular issue, but it's reality. He can't legally just dictate policy on his own.
What happens if the president can't convince the country to back him on something good? Then he has to try harder to convince them.
(And maybe, just maybe, he might want to reconsider his own position in the process if he finds himself so out of touch with the general perception)
President Obama was very much obeying the law, and a mandate from Congress does exist. The original authority comes from the Clean Air Act of 1963, as amended, Section 111, codified as 42 USC 7411, which covers pollutants from stationary air sources.
The regulation of carbon emissions was already reviewed and ruled on by SCOTUS in 2005.
The stay issued by SCOTUS on the Clean Power Plan had nothing what-so-ever to do with the fundamental authority of the EPA to regulate carbon emissions. The official documents simply state that the stay should be enacted until the rest of the cases wind thru the courts.
It is likely SCOTUS didn't want a possible repeat of Michigan v EPA (2015) where their ruling was so late as to be moot.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/09/supreme-court-puts-the-brakes-on-the-epas-clean-power-plan/
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
The draft from the EPA addresses all of that. I'd encourage you to read it.
In short, even IF CO2 is a pollutant (and the statue defines terminology in ways that make that questionable), the law specifies the ways in which pollutants are to be regulated.
Obama's regulation acted outside of the ways the law provides for regulation of pollution.
The Clean Power Plan, when compared against the law on the books, was clearly illegal from the beginning.
I'd encourage everyone to actually read the EPA's document as it lays out the ways in which the Clean Power Plan doesn't follow the law on the books.
In short, the Clean Air Act, which Obama used to justify his regulation, authorizes specific ways of regulating pollutants. The regulation here wasn't in line with those authorized approaches, so it was without legal authorization.
Obama COULD HAVE put in place a policy that was actually legal. He didn't, for better or worse, and so his plan was found wanting by the courts before being corrected presently.
As for Trump, we should celebrate the moments where he recognizes the legal constraints of his office. With so many people worried about him being authoritarian, let's encourage these shows of legal restraint.
Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
one of the party's central tenets is low taxes on business lead to better outcomes for the country. These sorts of tax breaks are exactly what they stand for.
Not that I'm in favor of letting the invisible hand sort it out mind you. When in anyone's life has a bad situation been made better by leaving it alone and hoping for the best?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
If everybody takes care of their own problems and nobody takes care of everybody's problems, then everybody dies. See: Tragedy of the commons.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Do Americans really deserve this? More voted for Hillary than for Trump. The Commanderp in Tweet only won because their idiotic electoral college system gave him enough advantage to win by a hair.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
If a president doesn't have the backing of the rest of the country, well maybe that's good or bad on any particular issue, but it's reality. He can't legally just dictate policy on his own.
I don't think Obama broke any laws. He simply did his best to get an important and necessary job done, in the face of opposition from the reality-challenged knuckle-draggers who think that shouting bullshit loud enough and long enough turns it into truth. In this case, that meant getting creative with the legislative framework. I'm sure he would like to have put his initiative on a more solid footing; but his opposition cared more about tearing him down than about exercising actual leadership, so he had little choice.
(And maybe, just maybe, he might want to reconsider his own position in the process if he finds himself so out of touch with the general perception)
Ummm, that would be a follower you just described. POTUS is supposed to be a leader; you know, the person who sees what others don't yet see, and makes decisions, (even unpopular ones), based on logic, evidence, and science, for the long-term good of all concerned.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
What happens when the battery runs out?
It's the hottest planet in the solar system because of its CO2 based runaway greenhouse gas situation. It's remarkably bad model to want to emulate.
The NYT and other MSM outlets are obsessed with Trump's tweets. Meanwhile he's steadily undoing everything Obama did in the last 8 years and they don't even notice. It's like they lose their fucking minds over little stuff and don't notice the big stuff. He pardoned Arpaio right before Harvey hit. I had turned CNN on because they usually do a good job on Hurricane coverage. It was like they just forgot the Hurricane. It was the hate Trump fest. They are so obsessed over the petty crap and he knows it.
Time will tell...
If a president doesn't have the backing of the rest of the country, well maybe that's good or bad on any particular issue, but it's reality. He can't legally just dictate policy on his own.
I don't think Obama broke any laws.
The many Supreme Court decisions against his executive orders say otherwise.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
If you want to drive electric cars, you'll need electricity. Consider every time you charge your Tesla, 32-33% of that charge comes from coal, in the US. Can't have it both ways. Morons.
Well if you want to be precise, how about 30.4 % from coal. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs..., at least for 2016. Expect it to be a little lower in 2017.
AC asked "What is the alternative when you have an openly hostile legislature?", and I responded that the president ought to obey the law.
You now claim something different, namely that the openly hostile legislature was irrelevant. Make up your mind.
Repealing such rules, making it cheaper to burn oil or coal, push the "when" even further back. And THAT is the problem : it will allows for even more gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere in the mean time, when such a rule may , at a slight cost, have slowed down the emissions. So unless you are a climate change denier, repealing such a rule is a very obvious "fuck you" to future generations, just for a SHORT TERM benefit, fuck the long term. Thanks the FSM I will be dead and I have no children, when the effects will start to be felt. I will shed a tear for the children of others. But that's about it. After all THEIR parents voted for Trump and will vote for republican in the near future.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
That percentage won't get lower with the new regulations, the Obama plan would have improved it...
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Devoid of ideas of his own trump just wants to repeal everything that Obama did, whether it is good, bad or indifferent
I'm not claiming anything different at all. I'm simply pointing out that in the legislature's failure to enact new legislation specific to the issue, the President acted within the framework of the existing legislation.
He very much did obey the existing law.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
It hurts in the throats and lungs of those living downwind from these sooty polluters. Coal is dirty, coal is dangerous, coal is death. But I guess that, too, is just a Chinese hoax or fake news cooked up by liberal media, huh? Also is counter to the current reality where power generators opt for natural gas (not much better than coal) and renewables. Trump & Co once again show that they are totally detached from reality. If it generates jobs, then maybe a few hundred...far cry from the thousands that Trump fired from his administration.
It is, just with alternative facts.
there are only 76,000 coal industry workers in the country.
that's not just miners, but everyone in the industry: office workers, sales staff, equipment mechanics, etc.
actual miners are only 50k.
its a dying industry. destroying the environment for the sake of an industry smaller than the year round ski tourism industry is hardly sound economic policy. there is not and never was a war on coal. coal was killed by free market forces, not governmental ones.
advancing coal industry objectives is a detriment to the economy and the public health.
advancing green energy industry is both a much larger economic stimulus (employing more than 10x as many people), its also better for the public health and as a result less of a drain on future economy as fewer people will be sickened by the pollution from burning coal.
there is no reason to favor the coal industry.
not in economic terms, not in labor terms, and not in terms related to public health.
the ONLY reasons to favor the coal industry is out of some misguided left/right partisan stupidity, or being one of their paid shills.
both of which apply to Pruitt.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Scott Pruitt is an asshole. He's that amoral jackass in the movie who always realizes at the end of the movie just how fucking stupid they are, and die gruesomely as a result. Think of "the company" in the Alien movies. People like Burke. They just have no fucking clue what they're dealing with, and when reality catches up to them them get their faces eaten.
You don't fuck with mother nature.
~X~
except it's not an executive order.
the EPA is an independent federal agency, bound by law establishing its charter to work to improve and protect the environment in order to protect the public health. the Clean Power Plan falls under that jurisdiction.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
This is as intellectually dishonest as it gets. At the very end of the article is the clarification:
Emphasis mine.
OMG the radiation shielding does its job, who would have thought it.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Hopefully, nukes and Geothermal will get subsidies. We need clean baseload power.
Nuclear and Geothermal already do get subsidies. That's literally the only way they can exist! Nobody will insure a nuclear plant, so the government has to do it. Decommissioning always costs more than "expected", and the taxpayer always has to pay for at least most of that. The waste is never correctly managed, and future generations will have to pay for that.
I live almost in the shadow of the US' largest geothermal plant at The Geysers, which is located in what may the most volcanic region in the world. In fact, where I live right now (in Kelseyville) there is literally a volcano growing on the property; there's a cute little hill which is geothermally active that I walk up onto when I want to look around to see what the weather is like, or how badly socked in with smoke we are. Right now, thanks to some 50,000 acres alight to the southeast and over 2,000 acres to the northeast — wait, I haven't looked at cal fire this morning, make that 52,000 acres and 2,500 acres — you can't see Cobb Mountain, or across the lake, but on a clear day I can see both. The geothermal powerplant at The Geysers is perpetually over budget and under production, and it wouldn't exist without government money. This is especially true because they used to take the heavy metals and radioactives off of the turbine blades with a pressure washer, then after mostly evaporating it they would load it into drums and bury them in a field off Butts Canyon Road (which heads through the Pope Valley.) That became a superfund site, of course, so we all paid for that. They dug up the field, laid down a rubber liner, and buried the soil again, because fuck the future anyway. Now they are building a toxic layer cake up there; they built a pit, and they pressure wash the turbines and then let the water evaporate, then they put a layer of concrete over it. Then they raise the pit wall.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If you want to drive electric cars, you'll need electricity.
We could power them with the methane emissions coming from your face, the only question then is generator or fuel cell?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
(some additional context)
There is ample precedent and case law that the EPA not only has the authority to regulate CO2 emissions, it also has an obligation to do so. Here are two relatively recent decisions:
Massachusettes v EPA: a 5-4 decision from 2007 that said that, under the wording of the Clean Air Act, CO2 emissions fall under the EPA's jurisdiction. Indeed, the ruling went so far as to say that the EPA cannot ignore CO2 pollution by failing to regulate it.
Utility Air v EPA: a 7-2 decision from 2014 (authored by Scalia) that, among other things, allows the EPA to regulate the emissions of large stationary polluters - particularly power plants.
Perhaps we need a cap on the maximum age of POTUS? This one seems to think like it's 1955.
On the one hand you take life too seriously, and on the other, you do not take playful existence seriously enough. Seth
The job of president is to faithfully execute the laws of the country. That is, yes, it is his job to to be a follower, to follow the direction that our representative body comes to consensus around.
Yes, Obama did run afoul of many laws, as confirmed in court over and over again. This is just the latest example of an action that was so far outside the law that it blocked by courts even before going into effect. The EPA's draft spells out exactly how Obama's Clean Power Plan broke with the Clean Air Act.
Of course a president probably should work to sway consensus in the directions he sees best for the country, but when he loses the argument--no matter how right his side of the argument may have been--then it's his job to grit his teeth and work within the results of the deliberation. Or he can quit.
This mess is what happens when a president decides to go it alone. Our system doesn't allow for such unilateral authority.
If what is being overturned is indeed an overreach, then it should be rolled back. With that being said, each state can and SHOULD do what they feel is right for their state, if that means that they continue down the path of the Obama restrictions, so be it, THAT is what they should be doing, making choices as a state, not being mandated in a way that doesn't fit within the legal boundaries of Federal jurisdiction. Aren't the states supposed to be more autonomous? Why aren't they making better choices so that a higher power doesn't have to step in and mandate?
I remember as a kid in the 1960/70s not being allowed outside during summer vacation due to "Smog Alerts". So glad we're making America great again. Looking forward to the enjoyable times of not letting my kids play outside.
OMG the radiation shielding does its job, who would have thought it.
It does until it doesn't, and water is not really known for behaving itself. It is in fact known for being tricky.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Even The Bush administration acknowledged AGW. Arguably, he opened the door for Obama.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Yep, and then suddenly flyash stops being more radioactive.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
The Kryptonians were genetically-modified to be xenophobic and bound to their planet, so were suspicious about any attempt or reason to leave it.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
And that's why I'm saying the electoral college is idiotic. Each person's vote should be worth the same, not more if they have many square feet of unoccupied land around them. That is a worse situation than "the most populous areas controlling the whole country" IMO.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Yep, each State can put their power plants on the border of the downwind State and make the pollution someone elses problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Duly updated, will use a 30% figure in the future.
We weren't discussing whether "Obama obeyed the law" so your arguments about whether he did is irrelevant.
That's the typical strategy of people like you: when you can't win an argument, you obfuscate, confuse, and put up straw men.
He won't die though, at least in his mind. He's thinking money will somehow let him live forever, the planet be damned.
Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
There was a lot of hysteria and alarmism when Obama put these rules in place, about consequences which never came to pass. Scrapping them now is the height of acting in bad faith.
This is sounding more and more like the GWB years: stall and stammering until a massive disaster occurs allowing the administration to look tough and take power, looking inept THE ENTIRE TIME while raiding the coffers and doing the really dirty work behind the scenes.
After all, "never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity"
Same playbook from GWB. They're very competent, they just don't want YOU to think so.
-
If so little coal is being mined these days, then will the (apperently small) number of remaining coal power plants make that big a difference?
If the country was evil, then why would it be seen as out of order to have an evil president be answering to the evil population?
But practically, a president acting unilaterally is doing so without the institution behind him. It doesn't work in our system of government, as our system is specifically designed not to recognize authority that doesn't reflect the wants of the people.
In this way a president with good ideas is forced to work with society, bringing them at least somewhat toward those good ideas in the process, which is a good thing!
The Obama administration was marked by a guy pushing society away from what might have been good ideas by his insistence on bucking consensus instead of contributing to it.
There's a small number of miners because technology acts as a force multiplier allowing one man to mine much more coal than they could 50 years ago. It's the same environmental costs distributed across an ever smaller labor pool.
The sanctity of states rights is not a defensible position in all cases. It wasn't that long ago that a collection of states decided that maintaining slavery as a practice was good for them. Like it or not, state governments aren't magically able to determine the right actions more than the rest of us, especially if the consequences of their decisions extend beyond their own borders. If Wisconsin decided to dump all of it's waste in the Mississippi River, there is no reason why their right to self determination should override the states south of them. Hence, it would be appropriate for the federal government to step in. It's not as if these states aren't represented in the federal government.
Yup. I've said before that anything that's done with a pen & a phone can be undone with a phone and a twit.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
As they were under attack by the Obama admin, and the Bush admin before them and the Clinton admin before them. unfortunately, wing nuts run BOTH parties in this country.
If you want to drive electric cars, you'll need electricity. Consider every time you charge your Tesla, 32-33% of that charge comes from coal, in the US. Can't have it both ways. Morons.
Well if you want to be precise, how about 30.4 % from coal. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs..., at least for 2016. Expect it to be a little lower in 2017.
Well, that just totally upends his point ...
After you tell them that cheap natural gas killed their industry.
That is what should never be done. Legislation should be based on evidence and reason, never on feelings.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
So Obama was lying when he said he'd destroy the coal industry?
The use of coal as fuel will fall over time, particularly if the resultant pollution is penalized in accordance with the actual damage done. Penalizing it more heavily than that is unjust and causes net damage.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
I don't know where you got that bizarro definition. I even checked conservapedia.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Adding more middle-men and detaching expenses from benefits makes products and services more expensive, which is just what happened with Obamacare. The country will be far better will be far better off without it.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Tell that the the coal miners.
So... do we need to artificially prop up their jobs if their jobs are having adverse affects on the rest of the country? Why? Why do the coal companies not have to pay for the consequences of their pollution?
He won't die though, at least in his mind. He's thinking money will somehow let him live forever, the planet be damned.
He doesn't think he'll live forever. Exactly the opposite, most of the people making the decisions and their backers are able to reap the rewards today, without living long enough to suffer the consequences years down the line. They don't give a shit about future generations, those are problems future generations will have to solve, not them.
A B.S. click bait headline.
Yet, if a coal plant were a nuclear facility; they would be shut down for blowing so much radioactive material out the stack. It doesn't count because it is "natural".
NRRPT/RCT
We are fortunate that it can't be affected by a pen and a twat.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
You preferred Lucrezia Borgia. Not a wise choice.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
The United States is a union of states, not a democracy.
Madison's concept was that the best choose from among themselves the best. We're far from that, but at least we've avoided putting into office one of the 100 most corrupt women in the nation's history.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Governmental subsidies of insurance on nuclear plants is a government solution to a problem caused by government in the first place: government setting ridiculously high requirements for the amount of insurance a nuclear facility must buy.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Commercial solar shingles were first available in 2005, predating Musk's efforts.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
At least the nuts on the left actually care about things other than money and won't destroy the planet
Please try a different argument. Trump is even more crooked than Hillary. He's violating the emoluments clause left right and center, and at least took advantage of and encouraged foreign interference, if not actively colluded with the Russians. He's the only president in modern history to not release his tax returns other than the previous most crooked. Not to mention the business practices he's well known for, the sexual assaults he's privately admitted to, and the housing discrimination cases he's settled.
In terms of crookedness, Trump is just Hillary with no restraint, no shame, and a dick. This crooked old bastard will be lucky if he isn't impeached within his first term. He's going down in history as the new most crooked president in any case.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Correct. And my point was that whenever there is a conflict between what he thinks is the right thing to do and what the law says, he needs to obey the law.
No, you didn't address the question of whether he "needs to obey the law," you addressed the question of whether he "was obeying the law." I'm sorry if the distinction eludes you.
the delusion is strong here.
The Obama administration was marked by a guy pushing society away from what might have been good ideas by his insistence on bucking consensus instead of contributing to it.
No, the Obama Administration was marked by a guy being opposed on the basis of his skin color, by a congress that intentionally abdicated its responsibility to govern, yet who had a job to do, so he went about doing it the only way left to him.
it'd be nice if all the toddlers in the room helped pick up their toys and straighten up the room at the end of the day....but when they don't, it still needs done, and so the job then falls to the adult in the room.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
heck, they also then have to deal with black lung, and a medical system, both private (from their employers) and public that doesn't really support them or get them the care they need. then, saddled with an inability to continue working due to the condition (hell, an inability to breathe, having to fight for every incomplete breath!!), they all to often slide into (or further into) poverty, which further exacerbates the problems of the region.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
size of workforce != amount of coal being mined.
there's these things called mechanization and automation....
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
once again you have confused your delusions with reality.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Take it a step further. Go for independence, like Scotland and Catalunia.Many people seem to be in favor o those being independent, even if they do not live in Europe.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
The industry was on it's last legs when fracking came about.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Does he? The Constitutionally specified oath says that the President will faithfully execute the office of the President, and will adhere to the Constitution. That's not quite the same thing.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Which was well before Obama's presidency, so the regulations he put in place had nothing to do with it. The market killed coal, not regulation.
Why aren't they making better choices so that a higher power doesn't have to step in and mandate?
If my state and your state share a river, and I dump all my waste into the river, right at the state line so it flows down into your state, what is my incentive to stop? You could sue me, but in what court? My state's courts could ignore your state's laws.
Things like the environment/pollution/radio and tv frequencies, etc, don't respect state boundaries and shouldn't be in the hands of the states.
Even lefties talk about Gore and his famous carbon footprint. My observation is that the left is nihilistic.