Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Public Records | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Are CO2 regs worth the economic cost?

June 12, 2014

To the editor: Network TV has been reporting on the Obama Administration EPA’s new regulations calling for a substantial reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from stationary power plants....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Jun-16-14 7:53 AM

Energy Consumption is more to blame for the emissions problems that are causing environmental issues than Energy Production.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-15-14 1:15 PM

Are coal power plants the devil? Yes, part of the problem, but until we ALL take responsibility for our own actions, it can't be solved. Families now have 3 cars, boats, etc. As soon as the weather hits 75 degrees, AC's kick in all summer. Winter - we need to keep the house at 70 degrees. Buying 3-4 TV's/house that only last 10-15 years or less. All these things add to emissions, landfills, pollution, consumption, etc. But, let's just blame the coal power plants because that's a lot easier than telling a 16 year-old that driving, new I-phone,etc is a privilege, not a necessity. Look at the energy consumption we require to power all our "privileges". I'm with tightening the emissions on coal plants, cars, etc, but to truly solve this issue, it takes person responsibility by everyone.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-14-14 6:43 PM

You can look at short cycles and get much needed information on the rate of change. It is this rate of change that is so alarming, and this is without some huge natural catastrophe, add in some catastrophic event and it would be really bad. Once again the rate of change is very alarming.

3 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-14-14 6:37 PM

It always seems these debates are one scientist saying there is man made climate change, and one person saying no such thing. In reality it is 97 scientists saying climate change is real and only 3 saying it is not real. 97 against 3, is quite convincing to me. PS John Coleman is neither one of the 97 nor 1 of the three, he is not a scientist and speaks with no science, just talking points.

4 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-14-14 2:48 PM

The EPA also says that we will be carbon neutral by 2030. Research that for a while and tell me how we're going to be carbon neutral in a climate that has low's of -20's and highs of 95+. These are generic ideals that are based on goals more so than actual plans. "Increased energy efficiency"? Goal or is there a very detailed, attainable plan there? Again, all this stuff sounds great in a political speech, but show me the plan.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-13-14 11:10 AM

1970's we were headed into an ice age , then we were into global warming and we were going to melt , now it has changed to climate change because of the cooling not fitting the narrative.. Guys like Al Gore are laughing all the way to the bank. Aunty is correct , you cannot look at short cycles of weather, you need to look at 100, 200 and 1,000 year averages to get an overview. John Coleman's YouTube video does do that, it is worth watching and drawing your own conclusion.

11 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-12-14 4:29 PM

John Coleman (founder of The Weather Channel) does a youtube video to help dispel the global warming hoax. youtube(dot)com /watch?v=LRQS5RhrwLA

11 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-12-14 9:35 AM

The slowed warming is limited to surface temperatures, which is 2% of overall global warming, and is only temporary. That’s why a short period of years is being used in this argument. Picking a short term of years and ignoring ocean temperatures and short cooling cycles is deceiving.

The EPA did say retail electricity prices are projected to increase in the contiguous U.S. by 5.9% to 6.5% in 2020. They also said prices will have increased by about 3% by 2030, and will fall by 9% after 2030 from increased energy efficiency. The average price increased by 30% from 2000 to 2006 and from 10% from 2006 to 2012.

9 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-12-14 9:05 AM

Even MORE serious people must ask if gambling the future sustainability of our planet is worth it. No one ever promised that it would be cheap or easy to change our wasteful and poisonous plundering of earth's resources, of which clean air is certainly classified. We can however guarantee that future generations will appreciate the investment.

7 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 9 of 9 comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web