EPA Announces new pollution controls. GOP says just what you expect.

Those little flags are fracking sites.



Pretty cool interactive map, click here.

**********, which ones of these is closest to your place?

I like this nonsensical quote especially-

Mitch McConnell?s Democratic opponent, Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes, is also running on a pro-coal platform.

Grimes said the EPA rule shows ?Washington isn?t working for Kentucky,? citing coal?s role in the state?s economy.

?When I'm in the U.S. Senate, I will fiercely oppose the president?s attack on Kentucky?s coal industry because protecting our jobs will be my number one priority.?

I can tell you first hand, the economy of Eastern Kentucky is at a standstill because of new coal regulations. The amount of poverty and government aid is staggering.


.

They are only doing this to reduce CO2 emissions. CO2 is not pollution. Even if it were this will have no impact on a global scale.

All this is going to do is to lead to more of that awful fracking that you hate so much and drive up the cost of natural gas.

Well done.

oh, that's right eh, you spend time there. I'm looking forward to hitting Nashville someday soon.

I understand the goal of lowering pollution and I also play my part in helping achieve that goal but as I understand it, each state has their own EPA that's tasked with customizing pollution regs for that state based on its' unique situation. What's happening here is the PUSA is using an executive order to not only bypass the state's regulatory authority, but also skips congress on this.

It seems to me that each state needs to handle their own business, a shotgun blast federal approach to regulations like this seems myopic, especially when handled via exec authority.

Out of the 26 poorest counties in America, by median household income, Eastern Kentucky has 13, 50%.

Senate Democrats from energy-producing states blasted the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to rein in carbon emissions from power plants —

“While it is important to reduce carbon in the atmosphere, this should not be achieved by EPA regulations,” Sen. Mary L. Landrieu, D-La., said in a release. “Congress should set the terms, goals and timeframe.”


Sen. Joe Manchin III, D-W.Va., also criticized the proposed rule.

“There is no doubt that seven billion people have had an impact on our world’s climate; however, the proposed EPA rule does little to address the global problem with global solutions,” Manchin said in a statement. “Instead, today’s rule appears to be more about desirability rather than reliability or feasibility, with little regard for rising consumer prices, the effects on jobs and the impact on the reliability of our electric grid.”


Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., was also cautious in her response, saying she is still looking at the rule.

“Today, coal produces 40 percent of the electricity in the U.S., and nearly 80 percent of the electricity in North Dakota,” Heitkamp said, “I’m still reviewing this extensive rule to determine the impact on the U.S. and North Dakota.


Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, one of a group of vulnerable Democrats, “From the initial review of materials released today, this rule exempts all of rural Alaska, but could impact a handful of Railbelt power plants,” Begich continued. “I will work closely with both the EPA and the State of Alaska to ensure that any final rule is flexible and protects Alaska businesses and families.”

Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat who represents manufacturing-heavy Ohio, stressed that states need flexibility to address carbon emissions and climate change.

“Proposals to reduce climate change must give states the flexibility to increase energy efficiency, improve our air quality, and invest in clean energy technology at our power plants, homes, and businesses,”

Confused. Mark said this was all about the GOP. Are you suggesting it's not?

Moi? Certainly not! I would never question the authority of our gfy political correspondent from the North.

since there seems to be a lot of US money in canadian policy on fracking..

perhaps he is doing his best to help his local area.. yes?

You are suggesting that he is against United States fracking for environmental reasons, but okay with Canadian fracking for economic reasons. We finally agree on something. He is a hypocrite!

Okay, that made me laugh. Hard.

Here amongst the intelligent, we understand that these regs will not only jack prices up for energy but also create a shortage where we won't even be able to meet demand.