E.P.A. Ruling Could Speed Up Approval of Coal Plants

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by GABESTA535, Dec 25, 2008.

  1. GABESTA535

    GABESTA535 Member

    Arsenal
    United States
    Feb 19, 2007
    Arlington, Va
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/business/19coal.html?ref=earth

    Officials weighing federal applications by utilities to build new coal-fired power plants cannot consider their greenhouse gas output, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency ruled late Thursday. Some environmentalists fear the decision will clear the way for the approval of several such plants in the last days of the Bush administration. The ruling, by Stephen L. Johnson, the administrator, responds to a decision made last month by the Environmental Appeals Board, a panel within the E.P.A., that had blocked the construction of a small new plant on the site of an existing power plant, Bonanza, on Ute tribal land in eastern Utah.
    The Supreme Court ruled last year that the agency could regulate carbon dioxide, the most prevalent global warming gas, under existing law. The agency already requires some power plants to track how much carbon dioxide they emit.
    But a memorandum issued by Mr. Johnson late Thursday puts the agency on record saying that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant to be regulated when approving power plants. He cited “sound policy considerations.”
     
  2. LiverpoolFanatic

    Liverpool FC, Philadelphia Union
    Feb 19, 2000
    Lancaster, PA
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  3. saosebastiao

    saosebastiao New Member

    May 22, 2005
    Technically speaking, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a greenhouse gas, and a potentially dangerous one, but not a pollutant.
     
  4. MtMike

    MtMike Member+

    Nov 18, 1999
    the 417
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I like having electricity.
     
  5. Scarecrow

    Scarecrow Red Card

    Feb 13, 2004
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I certainly hope part of the Obama change will include heavy research and development of clean fuel sources.....
     
  6. DoctorD

    DoctorD Member+

    Sep 29, 2002
    MidAtlantic
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    And in the meantime?

    Let's see: coal makes air pollution. Nuclear leaves radioactive waste. Hydroelectric blocks fish migration and is almost exhausted anyway. Natural gas requires huge terminals. Wind power blocks the Kennedy view and kills birds. Not a lot of areas have geothermal potential.

    What else?

    edit: solar is inefficient and requires a lot of space. Not to mention that solar cell manufacture is hardly environmentally friendly.
     
  7. Scarecrow

    Scarecrow Red Card

    Feb 13, 2004
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    To start:
    http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/

    As for solar cells, put the money and effort into making it more friendly, as well as increase the efficiency of the cells produced.

    Its easy to sit and point out flaws with every method of fuel production. Nothing is perfect, but continuing with the status quo isn't the answer. Fossil Fuels on the whole are not where we should be investing our future fuel resources on.
     

Share This Page