Requirements by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for states to reduce power plant emissions have been put on hold by the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court on Tuesday temporarily blocked the Obama administration's effort to combat climate change by regulating emissions from coal-fired power plants. The brief order was not the last word on the case, which is most likely to return to the Supreme Court after an appeals court considers an expedited challenge from 29 states and dozens of corporations and industry groups.
But the Supreme Court's willingness to issue a stay while the case proceeds was an early hint that the program could face a skeptical reception from the justices. The vote was 5 to 4.
The challenged regulation, which was issued last summer by the Environmental Protection Agency, requires states to make major cuts to greenhouse gas pollution created by electric power plants, the nation's largest source of such emissions. The plan could transform the nation's electricity system, cutting emissions from existing power plants by a third by 2030, from a 2005 baseline, by closing hundreds of heavily polluting coal-fired plants and increasing production of wind and solar power. [...] The regulation calls for states to submit plans to comply with the regulation by September, though they may seek a two-year extension. The first deadline for power plants to reduce their emissions is in 2022, with full compliance not required until 2030.
Also at NPR, Nature, Bloomberg, BBC.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Wednesday February 10 2016, @03:19PM
"...by closing hundreds of heavily polluting coal-fired plants"
No bias there, nah, none at all. Sure, coal burning produces some pollution, but the regulations are pretty strict. It's not exactly the open smokestacks of days gone by.
Personally, I'd love to see coal plants replaced (though preferably by nuclear). However, the regulatory power claimed by many governmental agencies is just crazy. They create regulations that often have absolutely huge impacts - violating those regulations can results in huge fines or even jail. All based on vague legislation saying "go forth and regulate X". It's a crazy amount of power to put in the hands of faceless bureaucrats. It seems to me that major regulatory changes should require the legislative approval.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by SanityCheck on Wednesday February 10 2016, @03:37PM
Well I understand that it looks like the new regulations are crazy strict, and government agency is wielding undo power. But I feel that this is an attempt to correct the fact that for a long time the regulations were irresponsibly lax. Coal kills people. That's pretty much it. It kills people in many insidious ways which are not apparent on the surface, so they claim that it doesn't exist, or that they are not responsible even if it can be proven that it does exist.
Now I would love to get behind curbing the power of government to some degree, but as you can see from the article there are already curbs in place (mainly the court). And I just can't get on the "curb the power of the government" train if it's going to Coal Town. I'm glad that executive branch can still undertake actions without "legislative approval," because legislation in the U.S. is supremely ineffective, mostly because it can be easily bought via lobbying. In certain circumstances we need to be able to apply power to corporations that have shown to corrupt the system, otherwise they will run amok and destroy the environment.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 10 2016, @03:46PM
But I feel that this is an attempt to correct the fact that for a long time the regulations were irresponsibly lax.
If true, that's a terrible reason. Lax regulations are a sunk cost and the harm they cause is more or less done. You don't reverse their effects by going overboard the other way.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Francis on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:15PM
That's ridiculous. So, we should just let climate change happen because most of the damage was done previously?
This isn't a sunk cost sort of a thing, they continue to damage the environment and we don't even need them, we have better options now and have for decades.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by khallow on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:19PM
So, we should just let climate change happen because most of the damage was done previously?
Um, yes. That would be a good reason.
This isn't a sunk cost sort of a thing, they continue to damage the environment and we don't even need them, we have better options now and have for decades.
Sure, we do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:27PM
> Lax regulations are a sunk cost and the harm they cause is more or less done.
Yeah, the day a coal plant is turned on is the only day that it emits pollution. Day two and its pure green power from then on.
What a bizarro world you live in.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:28PM
Yeah, the day a coal plant is turned on is the only day that it emits pollution. Day two and its pure green power from then on.
My point is that coal was far more polluting in the days before scrubbers. That's the pollution that isn't cleaned up by further tightening of environmental regulations today.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @09:48PM
Yeah, today's coal plants are practically zero-emission!
So meeting the requirements should be easy...
You are real "heads I win, tails you lose" kinda guy.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 10 2016, @10:31PM
Yeah, today's coal plants are practically zero-emission!
Which is patently false. My point here is that we already had the huge gains in pollution reduction. Undoing the current regime of regulatory tightening doesn't undo past regulation on the matter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 11 2016, @07:44AM
I thought the point was that it's foolish to respond to overly lax regulations by creating overly strict regulations. Is there no middle ground?
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:18PM
And of course, the first people that coal kills are the people that mine it: Black lung takes out over 20,000 coal miners worldwide per year. One could argue "hey, you pays your money you takes your chances", but don't try to convince me that coal happens without a body count, even if you don't believe anything climatologists have to say about CO2 emissions.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:28PM
There have been three coal mining fatalities [msha.gov] so far this year alone! And that's just in the US
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:45PM
See that's the problem with fatalities world wide, the Chinese don't have the very white people concern for OSHA or EPA that we do, its just not in them, not in their DNA or culture or whatever. There is no Chinese John Muir, at least not that anyone over there cares about. Without making a value judgment, its just an observation of fact that you have to live with no matter how uncomfortable. With making a value judgment, WTF is wrong with those people, don't they realize it makes them look like ignorant savages?
Anyway my point is you stop them from killing 20 kilominers per year in coal mines, they'll just find a reckless and irresponsible way to kill 20K windmill assembly line workers or WTF. They just don't care.
If its a proven fact that someone doesn't care about killing 20K people in one field, the problem isn't that field, and the solution isn't moving them into another field where they'll just kill 20K people in that other field also without blinking or caring.
In that way coal mining is pretty safe. Its hardly logging or deep sea fishing. Its not even cop or soldier level danger.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:34PM
Are you purposefully ignoring the hundreds of thousands of cancers from the ash and radioactive particles spewed by "excessively regulated" US coal plants?
While the smog doesn't look like Beijing (or what LA used to look like) anymore, tens of millions live downwind from some unnecessary emissions which we should address, because you and I pay real hard cash for their consequences, regardless of where we live.
(Score: 5, Informative) by VLM on Wednesday February 10 2016, @06:25PM
Yes, yes I am. As a disclaimer I am an investor on my local power company and have a lot of money tied up in it and I'm one of those weirdos who read the annual reports and financial statements quite closely.
First you have to remember that coal has been burned for electricity for a century but its not 1950 anymore. My power company used to blow tons of money on capture and land filling of coal ash, but for the last twenty years (yeah I've been investor awhile) they built a cool $20M plant that turns ash into concrete aggregate. Its pretty cool idea. It doesn't seem to hurt the roads I drive on, and its a new profit center for the company, well maybe not so much profit as less disposal expense. So the fly ash you claim to be breathing hasn't been in the air since 1970 and since 1990 has been embedded underneath the concrete roads you drive on rather than dumped in landfills. I seem to remember some foolishness about not being spec'd for beams so its not in the bridges and buildings, just surface roads, and I suppose pads.
I'd assume your local plants are making and selling aggregate instead of paying to haul away fly ash, or if they aren't, the accountants should be asking why. Our power company is making money, why isn't yours?
Yeah yeah industrial accidents and leaks and what ever. Yeah I'd worry about mines destroying the countryside, or acidic mine runoff, or a bunch of other things, but I'd prioritize fly ash exposure in 2016 pretty low.
The radiation issue is also interesting. Fly ash concentrates to 5x to 10x the radiation level of raw coal, its where most of the bad stuff is. There's some weirdness where minor fields have higher readings (I've seen as much as 12x reported from illinois fields) but powder river basin coal is unusually clean, which is good because there's a lot of it being burned.
This is irrelevant to the main point that the Chinese don't care and just dump it in the air and they are or were building another plant every week on average. And that in the USA people actually care about the environment and sign up to buy non-coal electricity all the time and its gradually killing the industry from the demand side. So all this big government supply side regulation stuff is just redundant and waste of time and inappropriate.
I'm not entirely sure what your point is. There is some truth to the statement that it simply doesn't matter what USA plants do if 99% of pollution blows over the ocean from China. The USA supreme court has very little say in China, so again it doesn't matter. On the other hand there's also truth to the statement that our not using the air as a sewer does help at least a little, locally, so it remains a great idea to not use the air as a sewer.
It is weirdly ironic that technology and economics have improved to the point that coal is no longer totally filthy and now only moderately gross, right about the time data processing and alternative energy have improved such that "we" as a group are killing it off on the demand side anyway.
Observation shows the situation is politically weird, both the mega corps and their pet politicians seem confused about what they're supporting this week as opposed to last week, its pretty crazy. My power company buys a guy and he shits all over wind power at the same time as my company is putting up a bazillion MW of wind capacity, hey didn't you get the memo that we're a wind company now and don't forget we own you, what is that idiot doing? Adding to the "fun" a BAU solar project a decade ago was like 30 KW but BAU solar today is like 3 MW so the megacorps are absolutely freaking out about the difference between integrated generation and distribution vs just being a mere distributor in the future. Its a culture clash because they're used to it taking a decade from start to finish to upgrade a distribution line, for example, and now people are putting up distributed generation so fast they don't need the upgraded lines they planned ten years ago, whoops. My point being that electrical power in the USA is likely to get a lot weirder before it begins getting less weird. If you think its weird now, oh just wait another 5-10 years. Its going to be like the conversion from landline to cellular from two decades ago, or from physical media and music stores to online a decade ago, except more chaotic.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday February 10 2016, @06:47PM
While I agree with most of your post, I'd like to know which utility you use, since so many are spending their time fighting air regulations, after doing math that says it's more profitable to keep things as they are. I'm all for post-processing, but clearly some people have decided that extending the life of an existing asset, and investing as little as possible on major transformations which may not yield enough extra operating margin before their turn as CEO is over, is the best way to "maximize shareholder value".
One statement I respectfully disagree with, though:
in the USA people actually care about the environment and sign up to buy non-coal electricity all the time and its gradually killing the industry from the demand side. So all this big government supply side regulation stuff is just redundant and waste of time and inappropriate.
You may need to check average income, or poverty numbers. A lot of people pay (or the state does for them) for the cheapest electricity they can get, because it's all they can afford or, in many cases, get (they would sign anything reducing the bill, regardless of actual source). Choosing a more expensive "green" supplier is a feel-good luxury that is not going to kill coal any time soon. Cheap gas, cheap renewables, and pollution rules are hurting coal, not a tiny minority with enough disposable income to still afford making a statement after they get Iphone n+1. (caricatural, hope you get the point)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 11 2016, @10:36PM
Speaking for myself: when leaded fuel was still available and I had a car that could run on it, I often bought the stuff rather than "unleaded", I'm ashamed to say.
(Score: 1) by nethead on Thursday February 11 2016, @12:52AM
I guess that I'm lucky that my PUD doesn't have a single coal plant. They are into some interesting stuff:
http://www.snopud.com/PowerSupply/landfill.ashx?p=1159 [snopud.com] Landfill Gas
http://www.snopud.com/PowerSupply/biogas.ashx?p=2479 [snopud.com] Biogas
http://www.snopud.com/PowerSupply/Biomass.ashx?p=1157 [snopud.com] Biomass
http://www.snopud.com/PowerSupply/hydro.ashx?p=1154 [snopud.com] Hydro (80%)
SnoPUD also were the ones to pay 100k to transcribe the Enron tapes and bust open the profanity-laced recordings of Enron workers gleefully conspiring to steal money from "those poor grandmothers" in California during the energy crunch of 2000-01. http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jun/21/business/fi-enron21 [latimes.com]
I love my PUD! I'm paying $0.098/kWh.
How did my SN UID end up over 3 times my /. UID?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:50PM
There's a billion plus of them. They don't miss a few tens of thousands. They'll just make more.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @03:45PM
"...by closing hundreds of heavily polluting coal-fired plants"
No bias there, nah, none at all. Sure, coal burning produces some pollution, but the regulations are pretty strict. It's not exactly the open smokestacks of days gone by.
No bias there either. The regulations don't close those plants, they can stay open if the plants can meet the requirements. The only states fighting this lawsuit are those with republican governors. But even the republican governed Tennessee opted not to join the suit [timesfreepress.com] because all the plants there are already on track to meet the requirements.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday February 10 2016, @03:57PM
"...by closing hundreds of heavily polluting coal-fired plants"
No bias there, nah, none at all.
It's not bias, it's trivially verifiable factual information. Coal emits the most CO2 by a wide margin. [eia.gov]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 11 2016, @10:33PM
It would appear that the New York Times editorial staff deems carbon dioxide a pollutant. Some of the commenters here--I surmise--aren't accustomed to, or actively disagree with, that way of thinking.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by CHK6 on Wednesday February 10 2016, @03:44PM
Writing for the majority, in the 5-to-4 decision, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote: “It is not rational, never mind ‘appropriate,’ to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits. Statutory context supports this reading.”
In other words, "my rich friends are about to lose a lot of money and I'm to old to really care about the environment. Let them eat grass."
(Score: 2, Funny) by khallow on Wednesday February 10 2016, @03:47PM
Writing for the majority, in the 5-to-4 decision, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote: “It is not rational, never mind ‘appropriate,’ to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits. Statutory context supports this reading.”
In other words, "my rich friends are about to lose a lot of money and I'm to old to really care about the environment. Let them eat grass."
Why shouldn't we take Scalia's judgment at face value?
(Score: 5, Informative) by takyon on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:34PM
How about because of "a few dollars in health or environmental benefits". Tell that to China, a country backtracking from coal to prevent health declines and civil unrest.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:24PM
How about because of "a few dollars in health or environmental benefits". Tell that to China, a country backtracking from coal to prevent health declines and civil unrest.
Do you understand the pointlessness of that argument? China is not part of the US and US environmental regulations do not apply. Hence, it is completely irrelevant what China does.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:29PM
Wrong. It shows you that some people understand there are more than a "few dollars in health or environmental benefits" to be realized.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:40PM
Wrong. It shows you that some people understand there are more than a "few dollars in health or environmental benefits" to be realized.
Just stop being a dumbshit for a minute here. What regulation of the US or ruling of the US Supreme Court will have even the slightest impact on Chinese pollution? Scalia is reference to US regulations not Chinese just as he's referring to US health or environmental benefits not Chinese.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:52PM
Scalia should take a year-long sabbatical and live in Beijing. He might come home with a different view than what he wrote on what those "few dollars" of health and environmental benefits are.
(Score: 2, Funny) by khallow on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:25PM
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:38PM
Really? Utterly irrelevant? I think not. What is utterly irrelevant is Scalia's estimation of a "few dollars" of health or environmental impacts.
Coal is coal no matter where it is burned. Regulations have helped reduce harm from Beijing levels, but coal power plants still cause cancer and asthma.
http://www.catf.us/fossil/problems/power_plants/ [www.catf.us]
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/coal/2012/11/coal_epidemiology_burning_coal_harms_children_and_worsens_asthma_and_heart.html [slate.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 10 2016, @10:26PM
Coal is coal no matter where it is burned.
We aren't speaking of coal. We're speaking of Beijing pollution sources which aren't regulated by the US.
Regulations have helped reduce harm from Beijing levels, but coal power plants still cause cancer and asthma.
At vastly reduced levels. The problem here isn't that coal plants cause problems but rather how much do the new regulations improve the situation? Imposing huge costs on businesses just to allegedly get small improvements in public health is a terrible exchange.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:40PM
It is entirely relevant because it shows how out of touch his "few dollars" comment is. It is direct evidence of how many "few dollars" it costs with an unregulated coal industry.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 10 2016, @10:17PM
It is entirely relevant because it shows how out of touch his "few dollars" comment is. It is direct evidence of how many "few dollars" it costs with an unregulated coal industry.
The US coal industry is heavy regulated and Scalia wasn't advocating going back to a completely unregulated state. Hence, we have yet another comment which is completely irrelevant. What is the deal here?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:43PM
Well, Irak wasn't part of the US either.
Wanna talk about Syria?
Oh right, whenever it's about oil, it *is* considered part of the US.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:45PM
Did the Good Justice base his numbers on anything, or did he pull "billions" and "few dollars" out of his ass? Given we're looking at nine orders of magnitude between the two, it would be pretty sad to think that is the kind of thought he puts into his scholarly decisions.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 10 2016, @06:25PM
Writing for the majority, in the 5-to-4 decision, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote: “It is not rational, never mind ‘appropriate,’ to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits. Statutory context supports this reading.”
In other words, "my rich friends are about to lose a lot of money and I'm to old to really care about the environment. Let them eat grass."
Why shouldn't we take Scalia's judgment at face value?
Perhaps because Scalia's statement that the "statutory context supports this reading" is wrong on its face, as is obvious to anyone who reads the law as passed by Congress and signed by the President [gpo.gov].
To wit (USC Title 42, Chapter 85, subchapter 1, Part A-section 7408):
This law gives the Administrator of the EPA the statutory authority to define what pollutants are and how they are to be regulated. If Congress no longer believes that the EPA should have the authority that they gave the EPA, then they should change the law.
I find it so amusing that some people complain about "Judicial activism" when the Supreme Court rules in a way they don't like, but are perfectly happy when things get ruled in their favor.
IMHO, the three branches of government all have a role to play, whether we agree with all three branches or not.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 10 2016, @10:41PM
This law gives the Administrator of the EPA the statutory authority to define what pollutants are and how they are to be regulated. If Congress no longer believes that the EPA should have the authority that they gave the EPA, then they should change the law.
No, it doesn't. Notice that your entire section doesn't delegate the authority to regulate. It just grants the EPA the ability to define something as a pollutant and then pass on information to relevant parties. Moving on, we do see the "statutory context" of which Scalia spoke of. For example,
Simultaneously with the issuance of criteria under subsection (a) of this section, the Administrator shall, after consultation with appropriate advisory committees and Federal departments and agencies, issue to the States and appropriate air pollution control agencies information on air pollution control techniques, which information shall include data relating to the cost of installation and operation, energy requirements, emission reduction benefits, and environmental impact of the emission control technology. Such information shall include such data as are available on available technology and alternative methods of prevention and control of air pollution. Such information shall also include data on alternative fuels, processes, and operating methods which will result in elimination or significant reduction of emissions.
That indicates cost of air pollution control techniques was relevant information to keep track of, indicating Congress was concerned not just with reducing air pollution, but also the cost of complying with air pollution regulation.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 11 2016, @12:21AM
Nothing in what I said in any way negated the text you highlighted.
The EPA, still has the authority given to it by congress to define what exactly is a "pollutant" and to define and enforce regulations in reducing their emission.
As to whether or not the new regulations are "cost effective," that's for the EPA (as you cited) to decide. I imagine that if we include the socialized costs of coal-fired power plants (healthcare costs, reduced economic output of those injured/sickened by coal emissions, costs to clean up the environment, SS disability costs, etc., etc., etc.) rather than just focusing on how much the owners of said plants will have to pay to be in line with the new regulations, the ROI would be significant.
Regardless, and I'll say it again. The Clean Air Act (as passed by Congress and it and it's modifications signed into law by Richard Nixon (R-CA), George H. W. Bush (R-TX) and George W. Bush (R-TX)) gives the EPA Administrator authority to identify pollutants and implement regulations to reduce their emissions.
Given that statutory authority, which is clearly constitutional (please cite where you think that the constitution forbids the Clean Air Act -- if you can), I can't see any issue. Granted, Justice Scalia is much more learned and conversant with the U.S. Constitution than I am, but it's clear that he has an ideological bent which, IMHO, limits the usefulness and veracity of his pronouncements.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday February 11 2016, @01:09AM
gives the EPA Administrator authority to identify pollutants
It doesn't give the EPA the authority to arbitrarily label stuff as pollutants.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 11 2016, @01:37AM
It doesn't give the EPA the authority to arbitrarily label stuff as pollutants.
Actually, while the criteria aren't completely arbitrary, they are extremely broad. As such, the CAA effectively does.
Facts are so inconvenient sometimes, aren't they?
From USC Title 42, Chapter 85, Subchapter 1, Part A, Section 7408 [gpo.gov]:
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday February 10 2016, @06:49PM
I thought he did!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 10 2016, @10:49PM
(Score: 1) by nethead on Thursday February 11 2016, @01:02AM
Hell man, I'm a Bernie supporter modding you as funny.
How did my SN UID end up over 3 times my /. UID?
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:41PM
> “It is not rational, never mind ‘appropriate,’ to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return
> for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits. Statutory context supports this reading.”
I'm not sure that is Scalia's department.
He's paid to provide an opinion on constitutionality, not on perceived return on investment.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday February 10 2016, @03:46PM
Our Founding Fathers did not envision global warming.
The Russians could be nuking us, and the court would only consider the Constitutional implications.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @03:52PM
Considering that "considering the constitutional implications" is literally the exact purview of the court... I would certainly hope so. What kind of an argument is this? o.O
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @09:19PM
After consulting the constitution, I hope they realize the 2nd amendment gives citizens the right to keep and bear not just arms, but tanks, nukes, whatever is needed to defend themselves...
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday February 11 2016, @12:37AM
..the 2nd amendment gives citizens the right to keep and bear not just arms, but tanks, nukes, whatever is needed to defend themselves...
Considering that at the time the words were written, private militia companies possessed cannon along with every other state of the moment weapon and the 'armed merchantman' was a quite ordinary sight in a port... your point would be?
Nukes are regulated by Treaty so they probably have to be forbidden to private Citizens. And I'm a 'common sense gun control' kinda guy so I'd support some regulation of crew served weapons to require a properly secured armory to store them, requiring a registered militia company, background checks on the members, etc. In heavily populated cities I could even be persuaded that licensing of concealed carry contingent on the training required to minimize collateral damage is justified.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by VLM on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:36PM
They have a pretty strong point.
Locally I can and have signed up for renewable energy plans. So I suck down (simple math here, no freaking out) 10000 KWh last year and they promise in my name to buy 10000 KWh from the local windmill or solar or biodecomposer plant.
I'm cool with that and it costs practically nothing, like 20% of my electric bill.
I'm a bit pissed off that they don't offer a 100% nuclear bill where my bill drops by 1/2 because they promise to only run my house off uranium. That sucks.
Anyway it seems every retail-ish company greenwashes by putting up giant posters in their lobby (provided by the power company) proudly advertising every kilowatt they use came from renewables. My food store, the local gas station, some of the local office buildings (but not my cheap employer, annoyingly)
Supposedly the propaganda is this percentage is getting significant and always growing a couple percent per year. Eventually they'll be no point in running the old coal plant anymore for the minority of people who want it.
I am a little confused how landfill methane is renewable without using enormous amounts of petroleum products to make and ship food and stuff around, but with a wink and a nod they call it "renewable".
Anyway with this kind of direct democracy in action I don't see the point of almost all of the government regulation. If "we the people" don't want coal, its like 30 seconds online or drop a postcard from your legacy paper bill in the mail, and you're done, no more coal power for you.
The only moral argument I can come up with for more regulation is the .gov has purchasing rules to always buy the competitive cheapest WTF no matter if WTF is an orange traffic cone or electricity. I could see a big legal legislation BS thing to require the county jail to buy its electricity from renewables instead of the cheapest source.
If "we the people" don't want coal, its pretty damn easy to get rid of it. Clearly "we" want coal. Its hard to pretend given decades of propaganda that anyone could not have heard of global warming, so everyone who wants coal doesn't care. I don't, but I like renewables more than I dislike global warming so I signed up.
I could see legal problems like a coal producing state with a (by definition) corrupt state government might make it illegal for the public service commission to offer renewable electricity because the coal mine paid the legislators to control the PSC. That probably needs a legal fix.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:45PM
But the people who can save a few bucks by using cool power may not be the ones who suffer the main side-effects of coal.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:27PM
Yeahbut, the defectors getting slightly cheaper power suffer the lack of greenwashing and protesters (well, never happened, but I suppose it could if enough people actually cared).
There's a scalability thing and a stereotypical american focus on growth at all costs meaning anti-expansion or retrograde advance or whatever always fails. So a mere decline of 50% or so might very well kill the beast entirely. You don't need to transition every house and business in the country... Also WRT the environmental damage coal burning (the electrical kind) does to the areas I like to hike thru, "we" don't really need to shut down every coal plant anyway. Partial success is probably good enough. Given how little impact its had on my life, and I'm kinda an outdoorsman sorta kinda, cutting what doesn't matter much by 90% is going to result in pretty awesome hiking conditions.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by BananaPhone on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:18PM
It's good thing we don't all breath the same air or something.