|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481
Legend
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481 |
http://www.vox.com/2017/2/2/14488448/stream-protection-rule?yptr=yahooWith everything that Republicans want to do — repeal Obamacare, overhaul the tax code — it might seem odd that one of Congress’ very first acts would be to kill an obscure Obama-era regulation that restricts coal companies from dumping mining waste into streams and waterways. But that is indeed what’s going on. In early February, the House and Senate voted to repeal the so-called “stream protection rule” — using a regulation-killing tool known as the Congressional Review Act. On Thursday, President Trump signed the bill, which means the stream protection rule is now dead. Coal companies will have a freer hand in dumping mining debris in streams. Killing this regulation won’t exactly fulfill Trump’s goal of reversing the coal industry’s decline; that decline has more to do with cheap natural gas than anything else. Instead, Republicans are mostly focusing on this rule because they can. Because the stream protection rule wasn’t finished until very late in 2016, it’s much, much easier to kill than most of the other Obama-era rules around coal pollution. It was a ready target, so long as the GOP acted fast. What Obama’s “stream protection rule” actually does Coal mining is a messy business. In parts of West Virginia, Kentucky, and Virginia, mining companies often get at underground coal seams by blowing up the tops of mountains — a process known as mountaintop removal mining. Once that’s done, they’ll dump the debris into the valleys below, which can contaminate streams and waterways with toxic heavy metals. Appalachian Voices, an environmental group, estimates that coal companies have buried over 2,000 miles of streams in the region through mountaintop removal mining since the 1990s. And there’s growing evidence that when mining debris and waste gets into water supplies, the toxic metals can have dire health impacts for the people and mostly rural communities living nearby. Impact Of Coal Mining Operations Leave Scars In Appalachia Mountaintop removal mining: An explosive is detonated at an A & G Coal Corporation surface mining operation in the Appalachian Mountains on April 16, 2012 in Wise County, Virginia. Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images In theory, there’s a law to mitigate this. The 1977 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act says that mining companies should not cause "material damage to the environment to the extent that it is technologically and economically feasible." But that language is vague. And the agency responsible for enforcing this law, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), hasn’t clarified what this all entails since publishing the “stream buffer zone rule” in 1983. Community groups across Appalachia and environmentalists had long pushed to update the regulations here, especially since mining practices have changed drastically over the past three decades and scientists have learned more about the harmful effects of water pollution from coal mining. In 2008, the George W. Bush administration published an update to the stream buffer zone rule, but those efforts later got struck down in court for running afoul of the Endangered Species Act. So enter the Obama administration. Ever since 2009, OSMRE has been trying to update its guidance here. That process involved poring through reams of research on the effects of coal mining on ecosystems, holding endless hearings, talking to various stakeholders, and so on. The final rule got published on December 19, 2016 — just before Obama left office. And while it’s almost ludicrously complex, updating hundreds of older regulations, it basically puts a couple of key restrictions in place for coal companies seeking permits to expand or start new mines in the future: First, a company that wants to open a surface or underground mine needs to avoid causing damage to the “hydrologic balance” of waterways outside of its permit area. The rule goes into excruciating detail on what these definitions mean, but it’s basically a much stricter limit on dumping waste and debris in surrounding ecosystems. Second, companies and regulators have to do a baseline assessment of what nearby ecosystems look like before any new mining begins. They then have to monitor affected streams during mining, and the company has to develop a plan for restoring damaged waterways to something close to their natural state after mining is done. This sounds basic, but the rule-making process involved numerous debates over best how to define “hydrologic balance,” how exactly to monitor waterways, how to deal with the variety of coal industry practices out there, and so on. In the end, environmentalists weren’t thrilled with the rule — many groups didn’t think it went far enough to restrict the dumping of debris, and they don’t believe coal companies can restore damaged streams fully to their prior state after mining. But on balance, they thought the rule an improvement over the status quo. An outside analysis suggested the rule would improve water quality in 262 miles of streams throughout Appalachia. “The rule doesn’t address all the problems with the most destructive mining practices,” says Thom Kay of Appalachian Voices. “But it makes it a little bit harder for coal companies to pollute streams. And it makes it a little easier for communities to fight back against mines if they don’t want them.” How the stream protection rule became so controversial Mitch McConnell Meets With Trump And Pence On Capitol Hill Not fans of the stream protection rule. Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images But coal companies loathe this new rule. Coal mining is already facing a vicious decline in Appalachia — partly because the industry is shifting West to places like Wyoming, but also because the advent of cheap natural gas has displaced US demand for coal, causing hundreds of coal power plants to close nationwide. And now comes a complex new regulation, imposing new restrictions and making it more expensive to operate. The National Mining Association, an industry trade group, says the stream-protection rule would put more than half the nation’s untapped coal reserves off-limits to future mining — further crippling a wounded industry. The group would prefer environmental protections handled at the state level (where, in states like West Virginia and Kentucky, regulators have a much lighter touch). “It’s a pure expression of all that ordinary Americans loathe about rule by bureaucracy,” writes NMA’s Luke Popovich. Other coal companies, like Ohio-based Murray Energy, complained that the new rule could outlaw popular techniques like longwall mining — which involves using machines with revolving blades to cut coal from an underground seam into slices. "This unlawful and destructive rule is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to destroy our nation’s underground coal mines and put our nation’s coal miners out of work," said Robert Murray, the CEO of Murray Energy, after the rule was finished. OSMRE, for its part, insisted that these worries were (mostly) overblown. The agency pointed out that most longwall operations are so deep underground that they wouldn’t have much effect on streams above — and hence are unlikely to be affected by the regulations. But the agency did agree the rule would make certain mining projects uneconomic and shrink coal employment by 124 jobs per year, thanks to lower production. (For context, the industry has lost 25,000 jobs since 2012, much of that due to continue automation and lower demand.) Whatever the precise economic impact, the rule took on a life of its own in political debates. On the campaign trail, Donald Trump talked about reviving America’s coal industry and ending Obama’s “war on coal,” blaming rules like this for the industry’s decline. After the election, Robert Murray — one of Trump’s staunchest supporters — talked about killing the stream protection rule as a top priority. The rule featured prominently on Trump’s transition website. Why it was so easy for Republicans to kill this particular rule Now, the stream protection rule was hardly the only regulation that the Obama administration slapped on the coal industry. Over the past eight years, the Environmental Protection Agency has taken sweeping steps to cut air pollution from coal power plants, adding to the industry’s woes. Combine that with the glut of cheap natural gas from fracking, and coal production has plummeted: (Energy Information Administration) Trump wants to overturn many of those other EPA rules as well. The trouble is that most of them are tricky to repeal. He’d have to go through the agency’s rule-making process, which would take years and face lawsuits from environmental groups. But the stream protection rule is different. Because it took so long to complete, and because it was only finalized in December 2016, it can be easily overturned by Congress via the 1996 Congressional Review Act (CRA). The CRA basically says the House and Senate can kill any recently finalized regulation with simple majority votes in both chambers, so long as the president agrees. What counts as “recently finalized” gets complicated, but Congress can basically vote to overturn any Obama-era regulation that was finished after mid-June 2016 — a list that spans more than 50 major regulations. The stream protection rule happens to be the one coal rule on this list. It’s not the biggest problem facing the coal industry. But it’s procedurally simple to repeal, and Democrats in the Senate can’t filibuster CRA votes. As long as Republicans moved quickly, they could nix it quickly and easily. So that was that. Mining waste became one of the first orders of business in the new Congress. Further reading — Regulations around coal mining will now default to the previous 1983 stream buffer zone rule, which “has historically been applied in a manner that allows mining through streams and the construction of excess spoil fills and coal mine waste disposal facilities in perennial and intermittent streams.” — Here’s more detail on how the Congressional Review Act works. Note that Congress has voted to kill at least eight different Obama-era regulations, including a rule that would require oil companies to disclose payments to foreign governments. (That latter is a rule that new Secretary of State Rex Tillerson once lobbied against.) — Here’s a closer look at why Trump will struggle to save the US coal industry even if he manages to repeal many of Obama’s environmental policies. Scrapping the stream protection rule might help boost the bottom lines of some mining companies at the margins, but it’s unlikely to reverse the long inexorable downward trend of mining jobs in Appalachia.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,849
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,849 |
http://www.vox.com/2017/2/2/14488448/stream-protection-rule?yptr=yahooWith everything that Republicans want to do — repeal Obamacare, overhaul the tax code — it might seem odd that one of Congress’ very first acts would be to kill an obscure Obama-era regulation that restricts coal companies from dumping mining waste into streams and waterways. But that is indeed what’s going on. In early February, the House and Senate voted to repeal the so-called “stream protection rule” — using a regulation-killing tool known as the Congressional Review Act. On Thursday, President Trump signed the bill, which means the stream protection rule is now dead. Coal companies will have a freer hand in dumping mining debris in streams. Killing this regulation won’t exactly fulfill Trump’s goal of reversing the coal industry’s decline; that decline has more to do with cheap natural gas than anything else. Instead, Republicans are mostly focusing on this rule because they can. Because the stream protection rule wasn’t finished until very late in 2016, it’s much, much easier to kill than most of the other Obama-era rules around coal pollution. It was a ready target, so long as the GOP acted fast. What Obama’s “stream protection rule” actually does Coal mining is a messy business. In parts of West Virginia, Kentucky, and Virginia, mining companies often get at underground coal seams by blowing up the tops of mountains — a process known as mountaintop removal mining. Once that’s done, they’ll dump the debris into the valleys below, which can contaminate streams and waterways with toxic heavy metals. Appalachian Voices, an environmental group, estimates that coal companies have buried over 2,000 miles of streams in the region through mountaintop removal mining since the 1990s. And there’s growing evidence that when mining debris and waste gets into water supplies, the toxic metals can have dire health impacts for the people and mostly rural communities living nearby. Impact Of Coal Mining Operations Leave Scars In Appalachia Mountaintop removal mining: An explosive is detonated at an A & G Coal Corporation surface mining operation in the Appalachian Mountains on April 16, 2012 in Wise County, Virginia. Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images In theory, there’s a law to mitigate this. The 1977 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act says that mining companies should not cause "material damage to the environment to the extent that it is technologically and economically feasible." But that language is vague. And the agency responsible for enforcing this law, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), hasn’t clarified what this all entails since publishing the “stream buffer zone rule” in 1983. Community groups across Appalachia and environmentalists had long pushed to update the regulations here, especially since mining practices have changed drastically over the past three decades and scientists have learned more about the harmful effects of water pollution from coal mining. In 2008, the George W. Bush administration published an update to the stream buffer zone rule, but those efforts later got struck down in court for running afoul of the Endangered Species Act. So enter the Obama administration. Ever since 2009, OSMRE has been trying to update its guidance here. That process involved poring through reams of research on the effects of coal mining on ecosystems, holding endless hearings, talking to various stakeholders, and so on. The final rule got published on December 19, 2016 — just before Obama left office. And while it’s almost ludicrously complex, updating hundreds of older regulations, it basically puts a couple of key restrictions in place for coal companies seeking permits to expand or start new mines in the future: First, a company that wants to open a surface or underground mine needs to avoid causing damage to the “hydrologic balance” of waterways outside of its permit area. The rule goes into excruciating detail on what these definitions mean, but it’s basically a much stricter limit on dumping waste and debris in surrounding ecosystems. Second, companies and regulators have to do a baseline assessment of what nearby ecosystems look like before any new mining begins. They then have to monitor affected streams during mining, and the company has to develop a plan for restoring damaged waterways to something close to their natural state after mining is done. This sounds basic, but the rule-making process involved numerous debates over best how to define “hydrologic balance,” how exactly to monitor waterways, how to deal with the variety of coal industry practices out there, and so on. In the end, environmentalists weren’t thrilled with the rule — many groups didn’t think it went far enough to restrict the dumping of debris, and they don’t believe coal companies can restore damaged streams fully to their prior state after mining. But on balance, they thought the rule an improvement over the status quo. An outside analysis suggested the rule would improve water quality in 262 miles of streams throughout Appalachia. “The rule doesn’t address all the problems with the most destructive mining practices,” says Thom Kay of Appalachian Voices. “But it makes it a little bit harder for coal companies to pollute streams. And it makes it a little easier for communities to fight back against mines if they don’t want them.” How the stream protection rule became so controversial Mitch McConnell Meets With Trump And Pence On Capitol Hill Not fans of the stream protection rule. Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images But coal companies loathe this new rule. Coal mining is already facing a vicious decline in Appalachia — partly because the industry is shifting West to places like Wyoming, but also because the advent of cheap natural gas has displaced US demand for coal, causing hundreds of coal power plants to close nationwide. And now comes a complex new regulation, imposing new restrictions and making it more expensive to operate. The National Mining Association, an industry trade group, says the stream-protection rule would put more than half the nation’s untapped coal reserves off-limits to future mining — further crippling a wounded industry. The group would prefer environmental protections handled at the state level (where, in states like West Virginia and Kentucky, regulators have a much lighter touch). “It’s a pure expression of all that ordinary Americans loathe about rule by bureaucracy,” writes NMA’s Luke Popovich. Other coal companies, like Ohio-based Murray Energy, complained that the new rule could outlaw popular techniques like longwall mining — which involves using machines with revolving blades to cut coal from an underground seam into slices. "This unlawful and destructive rule is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to destroy our nation’s underground coal mines and put our nation’s coal miners out of work," said Robert Murray, the CEO of Murray Energy, after the rule was finished. OSMRE, for its part, insisted that these worries were (mostly) overblown. The agency pointed out that most longwall operations are so deep underground that they wouldn’t have much effect on streams above — and hence are unlikely to be affected by the regulations. But the agency did agree the rule would make certain mining projects uneconomic and shrink coal employment by 124 jobs per year, thanks to lower production. (For context, the industry has lost 25,000 jobs since 2012, much of that due to continue automation and lower demand.) Whatever the precise economic impact, the rule took on a life of its own in political debates. On the campaign trail, Donald Trump talked about reviving America’s coal industry and ending Obama’s “war on coal,” blaming rules like this for the industry’s decline. After the election, Robert Murray — one of Trump’s staunchest supporters — talked about killing the stream protection rule as a top priority. The rule featured prominently on Trump’s transition website. Why it was so easy for Republicans to kill this particular rule Now, the stream protection rule was hardly the only regulation that the Obama administration slapped on the coal industry. Over the past eight years, the Environmental Protection Agency has taken sweeping steps to cut air pollution from coal power plants, adding to the industry’s woes. Combine that with the glut of cheap natural gas from fracking, and coal production has plummeted: (Energy Information Administration) Trump wants to overturn many of those other EPA rules as well. The trouble is that most of them are tricky to repeal. He’d have to go through the agency’s rule-making process, which would take years and face lawsuits from environmental groups. But the stream protection rule is different. Because it took so long to complete, and because it was only finalized in December 2016, it can be easily overturned by Congress via the 1996 Congressional Review Act (CRA). The CRA basically says the House and Senate can kill any recently finalized regulation with simple majority votes in both chambers, so long as the president agrees. What counts as “recently finalized” gets complicated, but Congress can basically vote to overturn any Obama-era regulation that was finished after mid-June 2016 — a list that spans more than 50 major regulations. The stream protection rule happens to be the one coal rule on this list. It’s not the biggest problem facing the coal industry. But it’s procedurally simple to repeal, and Democrats in the Senate can’t filibuster CRA votes. As long as Republicans moved quickly, they could nix it quickly and easily. So that was that. Mining waste became one of the first orders of business in the new Congress. Further reading — Regulations around coal mining will now default to the previous 1983 stream buffer zone rule, which “has historically been applied in a manner that allows mining through streams and the construction of excess spoil fills and coal mine waste disposal facilities in perennial and intermittent streams.” — Here’s more detail on how the Congressional Review Act works. Note that Congress has voted to kill at least eight different Obama-era regulations, including a rule that would require oil companies to disclose payments to foreign governments. (That latter is a rule that new Secretary of State Rex Tillerson once lobbied against.) — Here’s a closer look at why Trump will struggle to save the US coal industry even if he manages to repeal many of Obama’s environmental policies. Scrapping the stream protection rule might help boost the bottom lines of some mining companies at the margins, but it’s unlikely to reverse the long inexorable downward trend of mining jobs in Appalachia. Tree huggers beware. This was nothing more than a way to undermine energy companies and kill off jobs. Why do you Democrats hate work so much?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481 |
Why do you Republicans hate the one planet we live on so much?
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,849
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,849 |
Why do you Republicans hate the one planet we live on so much? I don't hate the Planet. Just want a job while I am on it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481 |
Why do you Republicans hate the one planet we live on so much? I don't hate the Planet. Just want a job while I am on it. there's plenty of jobs that don't involve dumping waste into our water.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,849
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,849 |
Why do you Republicans hate the one planet we live on so much? I don't hate the Planet. Just want a job while I am on it. there's plenty of jobs that don't involve dumping waste into our water. I know yiou like Obama's kind of job growth but I don't want to work at McDonalds.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481 |
Why do you Republicans hate the one planet we live on so much? I don't hate the Planet. Just want a job while I am on it. there's plenty of jobs that don't involve dumping waste into our water. I know yiou like Obama's kind of job growth but I don't want to work at McDonalds. are you currently working at mcdonalds?
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,849
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,849 |
Why do you Republicans hate the one planet we live on so much? I don't hate the Planet. Just want a job while I am on it. there's plenty of jobs that don't involve dumping waste into our water. I know yiou like Obama's kind of job growth but I don't want to work at McDonalds. are you currently working at mcdonalds? No got my current job during Bush 41 administration.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481 |
so you don't work at mcdonalds?
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,178
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,178 |
The EPA does a good job of this on it's own 
It's supposed to be hard! If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. The hard... is what makes it great!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481 |
doesn't change the fact that no business or government agencies should be dumping any waste in our water.
i don't understand why that's viewed as a good thing to do.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,822
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,822 |
Bro I can't speak for strip mines as I never worked for one and am not qualified to run my mouth about them. However being an ex underground coal minor, as was my father, and my grandfathers on both sides of the family all done in Appalachia. All we ever pumped out or the mines was water. Water that was already underground. Let me repeat that WATER THAT WAS ALREADY UNDERGROUND.
Now like I said I won't argue or disagree with you in strip mining as I don't have a clue, but deep mining is another story all together.
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481 |
i have a somewhat basic understanding of coal mining. i stress the word 'somewhat'.
but this isn't the water they're talking about bro. it's above ground streams and rivers and such. and that's a problem.
coal mining is dying industry anyway, and it's not because of regulations, its because of the increase affordability in natural gas. industries rise and fall all the time since recorded history, so i don't understand why people are fighting tooth and nail over a a clearly falling industry.
no matter how much kicking and screaming you guys do, it's going away sooner or later. that's the reality. so should the US do what other countries do and get a head start in innovation with other forms of energy, are do we want to continue trying to live in the past, and once again be behind the power curve compared to other countries when it comes to energy?
we liberals have talked about cross training programs for those in the coal mining force. i would hope conservatives would be doing the same. because if you don't, then these guys are gonna lose their jobs anyway....and for what? pride over an industry that is dying?
and i'm sorry bro, but all the excuses you guys give the coal mining industry doesn't change this fact:
it's not an excuse to be dumping your waste into our water. there's option out there that doesn't involve dumping it into our water, so stop making excuses. read that article man, the health risk are real. at some point, you have to put the health of your population over the chance to make a tiny bit more in profits just because you want to be cheap when it comes to waste management.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,822
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,822 |
i have a somewhat basic understanding of coal mining. i stress the word 'somewhat'.
but this isn't the water they're talking about bro. it's above ground streams and rivers and such. and that's a problem. No the water I was talking about IS the water you were talking about. The water we pumped out of the mines was pumped outside and does make it's way into streams, and in our case made it's way down stream and into the Ohio river. Now this water was already underground where nobody could see it. It was already running through peoples wells in the area, but you couldn't see it because it was underground. Now when it gets pumped out and is visable people start crying  it's not an excuse to be dumping your waste into our water. there's option out there that doesn't involve dumping it into our water, so stop making excuses. Like I said when it comes to deep underground mines nobody is dumping waste into your water. It's already there.
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481 |
translation: when people are visibly aware of what's happening with regards to something they didn't know in the first place, it's a problem.
sorry, can't get with that. find another way, or don't do it at all. I'm fine with either option.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,066
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,066 |
So, as you can imagine in my line of work every now and then I get called to some seemingly absurd and outrageous situations that actually turn out to be true when I get there.
So I'm willing to admit to the possibility that Trump is the real life version of the sludge villain from Capt Planet.
BUT, I'm also a big fan of context and have questions and comments. The first being, what else is part of the repealed regulation and rules? I'd imagine that these things can get so complex and wordy that it may be easier to just scrap something entirely and then re-institute the key regulations i.e. no dumping radioactive waste on the kindergarten playground.
One of the things I've seen out there in general is that people assume that all the EPA regulations are necessary and just, they believe that if it wasn't needed than we wouldn't have it. Problem is, with the EPA in particular, it's been found several times in the last few years to have been acting well outside it's authority and has lost a number of Court Cases for acting unConstitutionaly.
Coal country was a huge supporter of Trump. Right now I just don't see him doing something to poison them and expect to get re-elected or at the very least maintain their support.
Unless there is an alien Mothership set to fly by before 2020 that he plans to leave on...
I could end up being wrong though
"Hey, I'm a reasonable guy. But I've just experienced some very unreasonable things."
-Jack Burton
-It looks like the Harvard Boys know what they are doing after all.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481 |
You were in the service just like I was. So apply what we learned to civilian life.
And what was one of those lessons? That there are seemingly dumb ass rules people have to follow that sometimes don't make sense on the surface, but the reality is that the rules and regulations were made because somebody screwed it up for everybody else. Somebody did something stupid and irresponsible, and now everybody has to abide by a rule that would otherwise not affect them just to make sure it doesn't happen again
Or the army technical term: prevention management.
Last edited by Swish; 02/17/17 10:37 AM.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 79,657
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 79,657 |
j/c
What's so funny is that people buy the BS that it's somehow the Democrats "war on coal" that's harmed the coal industry. That's just some made up BS. The free market system is what's killing coal.
The extensive use of fracking has made natural gas so cheap that coal prices can't compete with it. The only way coal will come back is if there is a huge spike in the price of natural gas. And with the abundance of natural gas, I don't see that happening any time soon.
The free market system is putting coal out of business. But everyone is looking for someone to blame. So there's been a concerted effort to ignore what actually happened and make up some BS story.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,066
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,066 |
j/c
What's so funny is that people buy the BS that it's somehow the Democrats "war on coal" that's harmed the coal industry. That's just some made up BS. The free market system is what's killing coal.
The extensive use of fracking has made natural gas so cheap that coal prices can't compete with it. The only way coal will come back is if there is a huge spike in the price of natural gas. And with the abundance of natural gas, I don't see that happening any time soon.
The free market system is putting coal out of business. But everyone is looking for someone to blame. So there's been a concerted effort to ignore what actually happened and make up some BS story. So what you are saying is that when Obama explicitly stated he would bankrupt any new coal operations, the free market came and did it for him? That's awfully convenient... and ironic considering how much liberals disdain free markets and capitalism. Someone should tell all the slack jawed hillbilly's in WVa that they weren't shut down 'cuz of O, instead it was 'Murica. How are on this lovely Friday Pit? 
"Hey, I'm a reasonable guy. But I've just experienced some very unreasonable things."
-Jack Burton
-It looks like the Harvard Boys know what they are doing after all.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 79,657
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 79,657 |
It's not that hard to figure out Devil....... To Save Coal, Trump Has To Raise Your Gas Bill Republicans and Democrats both have reasons for perpetuating the idea of a "war on coal," energy experts said this week, but the decline in coal's fortunes stems largely from competition with natural gas. "Both sides have a vested interest in the storyline for their constituencies: one, that the government is putting them out of work, and on the other side, that they’re reducing emissions," said Steve Cicala, an expert on the economics of regulation and professor at the University of Chicago's Harris School of Public Policy. "And their respective constituencies love that story whether it’s true or not." The story's not true, Cicala contends, so there's little a President Donald Trump could do to improve coal's prospects or to save the jobs of coal miners by ending a government war on coal. To keep his campaign promise to revive the coal industry, he has to find a way raise the price of natural gas. "The only thing that’s going to help these coal-fired power plants stay open and keep operating is if the price of natural gas goes up," Cicala said in a podcast released Friday by the Energy Policy Institute of Chicago. "That’s the only thing that’s going to make it economical to be firing up these plants." The president has limited power to affect gas prices, especially with most of America's gas flowing from fracked domestic wells on private property. But the government could promote natural-gas exports, which would bring the domestic price into closer balance with the price in Europe, where gas costs twice as much, and in Japan, where it costs four times as much. That would raise prices for Americans who use gas to heat their homes, and it might help the coal industry. But it also might not, because renewables, also suppressed by low gas prices, are likely to seize much of the opportunity. "In that sense," added environmental economist and EPIC executive director Sam Ori, "it doesn't really seem like there's much a President Trump can do to bring back those coal jobs." During the campaign, Trump’s energy plan focused on removing bureaucratic and political barriers to oil and gas development in the U.S., citing North Dakota’s fracking revolution as its primary example of American energy potential. But he also promised a coal revival, telling coal miners in West Virginia to "get ready because you're going to be working your asses off." The problem with those promises, said Mark Templeton, director of the Abrams Environmental Law Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School, is that those fuels compete. Cicala, Ori and Templeton agreed coal's struggles have been minimally affected by the Obama Administration's environmental regulations, including the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard, the Cross State Air Pollution Rule, and the pending Clean Power Plan. Some coal-fired power plants have closed rather than upgrade, but those have all been marginal plants that were getting little use, Cicala said. "The idea that regulations designed to prevent pollution hurt the coal industry is misguided," he said. Obama's Clean Power Plan is on hold while it faces an uncertain fate in the courts. If Trump kills the Clean Power Plan, it might delay coal's demise, but it won't prevent it. "I think that if the Clean Power Plan is killed then maybe there will be some delay in some of the retirements of the plants that have been announced or that were kind of accelerated, and so maybe that keeps the demand up a little bit more than it would be otherwise," Templeton said. But most of the Clean Power Plan goals—which seemed distant just a year ago—have come close to fruition thanks largely to the natural gas-powered drop in coal use. "The Clean Power Plan isn’t really expected to have as dramatic an impact as people make it out to be," Ori said. "A lot of the reductions in coal-fired electricity generation and in overall CO2 pollution have already been achieved." But even cheap natural gas cannot be blamed for the loss of coal mining jobs, Cicala said. "When we hear about the war on coal, the face of that is coal companies going out of business, miners being laid off, but if production hasn’t really gone down, those two things don’t really go together," Cicala said. Coal production didn't so much disappear as move west to Wyoming, he said, where strip mining is done by massive machines that can harvest coal more cheaply than Appalachian miners. "But a lot of that has to do with the shift of coal to the west, where you only need a few guys running these machines to produce 20 times more coal in an hour than it takes to put a guy underground in West Virginia," Cicala said. Deregulation of the railroads drove that western shift, he said, not environmental regulations. Deregulation allowed cheap Wyoming coal to compete with West Virginia coal over a much larger area. "Nowhere in here is it an issue of the government keeping the coal in the ground," Cicala said. "We can talk about sulfur regulations if you want but it’s really trivial. The competition that’s going on is for who’s going to fire up their power plant and where are they buying their fuel from." Ori asked Templeton to predict jobs after four years of a Trump Administration: "I think coal jobs will be down," Templeton said. He asked Cicala about coal-fired energy generation: "Oh," Cicala said, "way down." http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/...l/#5593ed003449I'm doing fine Devil. How about yourself?
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 16,188
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 16,188 |
My .02 There is no such thing as clean coal. When Trump brings back all the mfg jobs from China and we use mega tons of coal for energy. Prepar for this.  and this  mfg minus regulations = pollution.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,066
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,066 |
I'm well, thank you  I mean, if you don't allow an industry like say coal to introduce and build more efficient systems and plants, of course it will be difficult to remain competitive. It would be like saying the Browns can't draft anybody in the first 4 rounds. Now please don't misunderstand my position. IF the coal industry were to go the way of the dodo naturally due to market forces and such, then so be it. That's not something I think should be artificially propped up. But I also don't think it's govt's job to speed up that process unnecessarily. Somehow even with those coal plants air quality has improved, so it's not like there's this impending Doom we needed saved from.
"Hey, I'm a reasonable guy. But I've just experienced some very unreasonable things."
-Jack Burton
-It looks like the Harvard Boys know what they are doing after all.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823 |
The Senate confirmed President Donald Trump's nominee, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, to lead the Environmental Protection Agency on Friday in a mostly party line vote. Time to drain that swamp too!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
The Senate confirmed President Donald Trump's nominee, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, to lead the Environmental Protection Agency on Friday in a mostly party line vote. Time to drain that swamp too! Was that before or after legislation was introduced to shut the EPA down?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481 |
Yes, let's celebrate confirming a guy who hates the EPA so much that he sued them 14 times to lead the agency.
Ass backwards.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 79,657
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 79,657 |
I'm well, thank you I mean, if you don't allow an industry like say coal to introduce and build more efficient systems and plants, of course it will be difficult to remain competitive. And who stopped the coal industry from introducing more efficient systems and plants? I hadn't heard of that.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
I'm well, thank you I mean, if you don't allow an industry like say coal to introduce and build more efficient systems and plants, of course it will be difficult to remain competitive. And who stopped the coal industry from introducing more efficient systems and plants? I hadn't heard of that. Nobody stopped them.. but the government did an awful lot to subsidize their competition, thus making it harder for them to compete.. and coal has become significantly cleaner and more efficient than it used to be..
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823 |
King Coal will generate our electricity, heat our homes and cook our food come rain or shine, wind or calm!
Libby alternatives are as limited as Libby minds.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,066
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,066 |
I'm well, thank you I mean, if you don't allow an industry like say coal to introduce and build more efficient systems and plants, of course it will be difficult to remain competitive. And who stopped the coal industry from introducing more efficient systems and plants? I hadn't heard of that. I thought that was the whole hub bub surrounding Pres Obama's comments about, "they can build it, but they'll go bankrupt"... Update: so I was looking for some sources to reference... I found that quote in numerous places, but it was made in Jan 2008. I tried to find an unbiased source... shocker I couldn't LOL I saw plenty that referenced his comments and laid partial blame of companies going under at the feet of the EPA under his Admin, but none of the articles I scanned referenced any particulars. I don't know that he got all the Cap and Trade regs through that he wanted. So without sufficient particulars I will slightly amend my position to: in light of his stated goal to enact onerous regulations that would be prohibitive to new coal, I remain skeptical that it's mere coincidence that they were going under solely due to market forces. Add to that candidate Clinton's promise to put coal miners out of business... It doesn't appear to me to be something happening on it's own.
"Hey, I'm a reasonable guy. But I've just experienced some very unreasonable things."
-Jack Burton
-It looks like the Harvard Boys know what they are doing after all.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481 |
Except coal has been going down before obama and Clinton were in the mix.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823 |
Yes, let's celebrate confirming a guy who hates the EPA so much that he sued them 14 times to lead the agency.
Ass backwards. Hopefully Mr. Pruitt, being the good man he is, can bring an end to this abuse of nature... According to a study in the Wildlife Society Bulletin, every year 573,000 birds (including 83,000 raptors) and 888,000 bats are killed by wind turbines — 30 percent higher than the federal government estimated in 2009, due mainly to increasing wind power capacity across the nation.[i] This is likely an underestimate. And this horror... According to the Associated Press, up to 28,000 birds per year might be meeting an early death after burning up in the focused beams of sunlight, with birds dying at a rate of one bird every two minutes. The burned-up birds are being dubbed "streamers," after the poof of smoke produced by the igniting birds. Please, Please let us save the Planet!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Except coal has been going down before obama and Clinton were in the mix. By what metric?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823 |
The Senate confirmed President Donald Trump's nominee, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, to lead the Environmental Protection Agency on Friday in a mostly party line vote. Time to drain that swamp too! Was that before or after legislation was introduced to shut the EPA down? Status: Referred to Committee on Feb 3, 2017 This bill was sent to a congressional committee on February 3, 2017, which will consider it before possibly sending it on to the House or Senate as a whole.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,174
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,174 |
What I can't understand is the thought process behind such an initiative. I get the fact that gov't agencies are bastions of waste and bureaucratic bloat- and could use some drastic trimmings, but to totally abolish an agency that has demonstrably improved the quality of air and water for ALL Americans just fries my brain to ash. I'm old enough to remember the first utterances of the term 'smog.' It was on the nightly news back in the early 70's, and was always accompanied by vidshots of the LA and NYC skylines: hazy buildings shot from 10 miles away, with no visual detail whatsoever. Cleveland, Ohio became a national punch line when their river actually caught fire. In 1972, Lake Erie was deemed to be beyond salvage... and though not officially declared dead, was also declared "on life support." "America's first dead Great Lake," the headlines ran. Then, Richard M. Nixon (R, California) did one of the few things I ever agreed with at the time: he established the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Within 10 short years, American news watchers were able to see visual proof that Nixon's initiative was bearing positive fruit. In 2017, eagles are now commonplace sightings on Ohio's North Shore, where they were once deemed an endangered species (does anyone remember the EPA's ban on the use of DDT, back in the late '70's/early '80's?). To be sure, there have been crazy-azz overreaches by this agency. I recall Rush Limbaugh back in the mid-'90's, railing on for an entire year about "Spotted Owls" and such. So I get it. I always have, and I really do. But this? Even Ronald Reagan made no push to totally abolish such an agency. True, he appointed 2 folks who'd do everything they could to defang Nixon's agency... but he never gave them carte blanche authority to totally kill a federal program that was designed to protect ALL Americans from being poisoned by the environment that Bid Industry was giving them. http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/02/us/reagan-and-environment-to-many-a-stalemate.html?pagewanted=allNixon made this happen. Reagan wanted to slow it's momentum, but still never saw a need to totally abolish the entire agency.What I need to know from fans of this legislation is this: "What benefit does America gain from a policy like this, that can't be gained from tweaking/pulling back the impact/influence of such an agency?" "What do we, as a nation, gain from totally "throwing out the entire baby with the bath water?" _______________ I get that Industry wants the shackles loosened, and I get why they want it... but at the same time, this was also the same agency that called out Flint, MI. for allowing 'cost-cutting measures' to poison 2/3 of their populace with a deadly toxin known (since the dawn of the EPA) to promote cognitive degradation and other health issues, as well. Dawgs: lead was systematically eliminated from gasoline during the days when I was required to dispense it into the feed lines to tanks 204 and 206 at the Lima Standard Oil Refinery. I had to don an 'early years'-version of a HazMat suit to do this weekly ritual, because The Company already knew just how toxic lead was to humans.... at the same time they were lobbying CapHill to slow Nixon's reforms. "Clem boy"... (I HATED his nickname for me. Everyone in OM&S knew that Earl and Nolan Sherrick were the "Good Ol' Boys" from TN who gave me my 'Unit Name,' and Called me 'ClemBob,' because they'd adopted me into the Fam. Asshat did it on purpose.) "LIU's pumping 92 octane to 204&206 from 10:00 PM to 1:00 AM. You're on Lead Plant Duty tonight. Suit up- and make damn sure&certain that you inspect your suit for breeches before leaving the pump house- Bill 'Red' Knowlton" despised me, because I was a new-age Black employee, messing up his finely-tuned personal view of what America was supposed to be, but even he urged me to take 'precaution protocol.' Because: Nixon's EPA. There are now NO 'leaded gasoline' pumps at any fueling stations in America. Sherwin-Williams, Baer, and PPG have all eliminated lead from their paint compounds... and have been successful in The New Economy. The EPA did that for us. All of us. And Americans now live longer, healthier lives, because of a Republican President's national health initiative, started back 40+ years ago. _______________ So, I'm trying to understand something: Why would a new DC administration seek to totally eliminate an entire agency that has so obviously extended the lifespans (and quality of life) for so many Americans? I'll quote Denzel Washington's character in "Philadelphia," when he said: "Explain it to me like I'm six years old." This makes no sense to me, on any logical level. Somebody please connect the dots for me.... because this [bad word] just seems crazy to me.
"too many notes, not enough music-"
#GMStong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,822
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,822 |
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,822
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,822 |
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823 |
To be sure, there have been crazy-azz overreaches by this agency. I recall Rush Limbaugh back in the mid-'90's, railing on for an entire year about "Spotted Owls" and such. So I get it. I always have, and I really do.
That right there is the reason. The EPA has overreached on so many issues it has become the "Enemy" of the Coal industry, Farming, Small and Large Business, Landowners, Oil, Gas, on and on. Enemies are to be subdued or destroyed. Here in Murica, on most major issues, we swing from one extreme to the other before settling somewhere in the middle. As far as the EPA is concerned, we will either see another extreme or a settling closer to the middle. We will have to wait for Congress to decide its fate. I think it may be saved due to the fact that one of our no nonsense guys will be running it. His gutting of the overreach may actually save the EPA.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,066
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,066 |
In regards to Mr. Pruitt, IIRC listening to some of his confirmation hearings, he was often being accused of being anti-environment, pro-dirty air/h2o etc...
When the Dems stopped talking just to hear themselves speak, he pointed out that many of those lawsuits he headed against the EPA were lawsuits filed because the EPA was acting outside it's lawful authority and trying to implement things that were under the purview of the Legislature.
"Hey, I'm a reasonable guy. But I've just experienced some very unreasonable things."
-Jack Burton
-It looks like the Harvard Boys know what they are doing after all.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,066
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,066 |
The Senate confirmed President Donald Trump's nominee, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, to lead the Environmental Protection Agency on Friday in a mostly party line vote. Time to drain that swamp too! Was that before or after legislation was introduced to shut the EPA down? Status: Referred to Committee on Feb 3, 2017 This bill was sent to a congressional committee on February 3, 2017, which will consider it before possibly sending it on to the House or Senate as a whole. Just FYI Dawgs... what 40 posted here is literally the only thing the Bill says at this point in time https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/861/text Maybe we ought to wait and see what the actual content is before we get concerned that the whaling industry will make a comeback and Haslam sets the Ohio River on fire for the half time show?
"Hey, I'm a reasonable guy. But I've just experienced some very unreasonable things."
-Jack Burton
-It looks like the Harvard Boys know what they are doing after all.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 79,657
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 79,657 |
So other than your suspicions, you have zero evidence that the government is behind some conspiracy theory to kill coal. And the only actual evidence in this thread is that the market created a situation where natural gas is more plentiful, cheaper and cleaner than coal.
You see, my moms cousin owns land that was being mined. They stopped because it was no longer profitable. They told him that until coal prices went up it made no sense for them to mine. They didn't blame the government, regulations or some conspiracy to kill coal. They blamed the market.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Why Trump just killed a rule
restricting coal companies from
dumping waste in streams
|
|
