General Discussion

Oct. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Barack Obama will classify carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant that can be regulated should he win the presidential election on Nov. 4, opening the way for new rules on greenhouse gas emissions.

...

Placing heat-trapping pollutants in the same category as ozone may lead to caps on power-plant emissions and force utilities to use the most expensive systems to curb pollution. The move may halt construction plans on as many as half of the 130 proposed new U.S. coal plants.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a2RHIj_6hvV0&refer=home

So... you just might want to stock up on some sweaters if Governor Cart... I mean Senator Obama is elected. 

 just as the global temperature begins to fall...

i recommend US companies to move offshore to keep my portfolio alive for retirement.

does this mean the new taxes that this will lead to will be per breath or just one lifetime tax based on an avgerage rate?

I don't see why you would have a problem with this.

"The Democratic senator from Illinois will tell the Environmental Protection Agency that it may use the 1990 Clean Air Act to set emissions limits on power plants and manufacturers."

Is this a bad thing? Do you like smog? Well I guess this would be hard to understand for someone who follows a campaign slogan of "Drill baby, drill!"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act

From the article:

Obama ``would initiate those rulemakings,'' Grumet said in an Oct. 6 interview in Boston. ``He's not going to insert political judgments to interrupt the recommendations of the scientific efforts.''

Well I see a problem right there.  He's going to listen to science.  Evolution?  More like Devilution, amright? And after the current regime was doing so well with ignoring it. 

The move may halt construction plans on as many as half of the 130 proposed new U.S. coal plants.

Given that construction hasn't STARTED it would be damn hard to HALT it.  Oh wait, this is just the left-wing media bias again.  

The EPA under Bush fought the notion that the Clean Air Act applies to CO2 all the way to the Supreme Court. The law has been used successfully to regulate six pollutants, including sulfur dioxide and ozone.

Hey, how did THAT turn out for them, anyway?  Wonder why they didn't mention... oh!  Liberal media.  Of course.

Placing heat-trapping pollutants in the same category as ozone may lead to caps on power-plant emissions and force utilities to use the most expensive systems to curb pollution. The move may halt construction plans on as many as half of the 130 proposed new U.S. coal plants.

"Most Expensive?"  You mean the platinum-coated deviltronics 9001 turbine with solid gold controls and a ruby studded... no.  You mean 'more expensive than the cheapest.'  Of course saying that would ruin their agenda, which is... oh!  Liberal media.  

Do we have a fail emoticon?  

Seriously tho it does have a few good points ...

 its good because this clears the way for nuclear power, because this law will make it to expensive to continue using coal or oil to generate electricity.

plus it just decimated about 100 cities who were counting on those plants as a source of renewed labor in places that dont have much to offer, i guess we will now also have those same 100 towns competeing to get nuc plants.

So yeah actually it is pretty good , except if you produce something that generates heat in its production .. your cost to do busniess just went up , on top of teh new taxes you have to pay . You will have to shut down until you retool your plant to the new standard , woonder who's going to take up all the slack

Yeah im sure china is looking GREAT to GM right now , and ford , and microsoft , and dell , and ...

you get the idea.

 has obama signed on to the nuclear idea?

better yet, follow the money...

has his enviromental group that donated so much cash for his campaign, have they signed on to the idea of nuke plants?

after all, this is about favors.

right now obama is paying homage to a particular constituent. 

payback for his assumed win.

Originally posted by Slythe

I don't see why you would have a problem with this.

"The Democratic senator from Illinois will tell the Environmental Protection Agency that it may use the 1990 Clean Air Act to set emissions limits on power plants and manufacturers."

Is this a bad thing? Do you like smog? Well I guess this would be hard to understand for someone who follows a campaign slogan of "Drill baby, drill!" 

Clean Air is a good thing, but not to be used under the banner of Global Warming.  For those areas impacted of having to do without cola-burning energy plants, what other forms of facilities will be put into place that they can afford and not be opposed by conservation and environmentalists groups?  Nuclear or Solar, guess again, even those energy sources are being opposed for the damaging and destruction of the environment.

Oil is a short-term solution, and one of several solutions to help provide energy consumption to the US.  Otherwise, Americans will need to start wearing sweaters and conserving energy.

There's a huge differance between ozone, carbon dioxide, and lets toss in chlorine for kicks.

Ozone - chemical that cells allow into their nucleus which is capable of tearing DNA to shreds along with cell membranes on the way out.  It can repeat this process several times before the body can get rid of it, and the effects is similar to burning your lungs without heat over prolonged exposure.

Chlorine - nasty stuff that reacts with anything and everything.   plenty of damage everywhere it goes if you were to be exposed to it, even though the body is able to get rid of it pretty quickly.   Chlorine also has a tendancy to get to the polar reigions and become packed in the ice during their winters and work it's way to the upper atmosphere during the summers,  while in the upper atmospere it's reactavity causes some interesting effects the most noticable being that it can break apart ozone bonds(depending on who you ask a single molecule could easily spend 50 years in these reigions before the environment finds a way to get rid of it, basically by the time people care(IE now/soon) it's already too late).

carbon dioxide - is tolerable up to a decent composition percent of the air that humans breath and the earth has balancing measures for getting rid of it mostly by vast algea fields that form during winters.