Skip to comments.EPA regulations could make it difficult for Americans to stay warm this winter
Posted on 12/14/2010 7:10:19 AM PST by EBH
With reports predicting brutally-cold weather to envelop much of the U.S. in the coming weeks, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations could make it harder for Americans to stay warm. According to the National Center for Public Policy, the EPAs regulatory war on greenhouse gas emissions will drastically increase costs for the majority of Americans who get their heat generated from coal.
Coal happens to be the chief emitter of carbon dioxide and other pollutants, making it the EPAs public enemy number one. And in absence of a comprehensive energy bill, the agencys strategy has instead been to regulate and cap its use, which is bad news for the countrys coldest regions. [ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ]
According to a press release from the National Center for Public Policy, the Congressional Research Service this year has already predicted that the average American household will spend $986 just for heat this winter. As far south as Atlanta, Georgia, hundreds have already waited in line for government assistance programs to help pay their energy bills.
With millions of Americans unemployed and struggling to keep their homes warm, the need for government assistance will only increase, said Deneen Borelli of the National Center for Public Policys Project21. Heavy demand and higher prices due to the Obama Administrations assault on the fossil fuels we rely upon are going to stretch charities to their limits and beyond, she said in a press release.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
First, the Congress should declare that the EPA cannot regulate CO2 emissions.
Yeah, except many of Florida’s power plants are coal fired. It was in the high 20’s this morning in the outlying areas of Orlando. I want heat!
On a kind of funny note, the young kid here in the office (mid-20’s, really old enough to know better) was not going to run the heat this winter. That all changed last night. He routinely picks things out of the garbage that I have not properly put in the recycle can, wipes the crumbs off his plate with his hand instead of washing it to save water, etc.
That video doesn’t work anymore. Try this one.
That fact sheet says this...
“Emissions from small farms, restaurants, and all but the very largest commercial facilities will not be covered by these programs at this time.”
These regs will be imposed upon them in short order and watch food costs soar to ionospheric heights never before imagined.
I rarely turn up the heat in winter. If it gets too cold I make sure I have enough heavy blankets and pile them on.
It is past time someone cut the power and heat to their offices. Let them lead by example. No more government vehicles, no air travel, no heat, no air conditioning in summer. Let them work as they would have us live.
Do you wear a heavy winter coat in the house for times when you’re not in bed?
Do you run the A/C in summer? Or just wear a bathing suit all the time?
Seems like it’d become a bit inconvenient day after day.
I’m pretty conservative with my heat as well.
I keep the thermostat at about 70 degrees and live in long johns during the winter. I also close off a bedroom and seal the register during the winter.
You have it wrong. If you plot Al Gore’s time line for global warming with the increased cost of power to hear out homes, it works out even. As the Earth warms, we need less heat and the total bill is the same.
There is no need to worry about the price of gas as there is no reason to go out and buy Chinese made products laced with asbestos.
Finally, the Obama regulations will help lower the cost of heating our homes. There are several web sites showing us how to make logs out of paper. Simply write to the government and ask for the regulations. When the truck delivers them, convert them to paper logs and burn them in the fireplace. Take the savings and mail it to the EPA to cover your emission fines and once again, break even.
What is the problem?
Anyone who wants to destroy this could do so in little time. The CO2 oligarchs and their greentard fringe friends are but a small part of the Democratic barbarian horde. Pick out some rivals in this barbarian horde and tell them they will bear the price for white weenie liberal vanity/profit. Its called divide and conquer folks.
If you get your power from a coal fired power plant, be it a farm, restaurant, etc. You will be paying for this in the higher prices.
Thereby through those prices... you will do everything possible to control your heating/cooling expenses.
What regulation needs to be written.
Oh and in case you have your own industrial boiler, being small, etc. will keep you exempt? Nope...check this out
Agencies Critique Boiler Industrys Excessive Claims of the Cost of EPAs Proposed Rule
The National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) issued a report that refutes the exaggerated cost estimates that the boiler industry has claimed would result from EPAs proposed air pollution regulations for industrial boilers. According to NACAA, industrys claims include inflated estimates of how much EPAs June 2010 proposed hazardous air pollution regulation for boilers would cost and the threat it poses to American jobs. In addition, the industry estimates ignore the enormous public health benefits and creation of new jobs that controls on emissions from industrial boilers would provide.
In August 2010, the industrial boiler industry published a report that purported to calculate the cost of the rule, without giving due consideration to its benefits. Besides claiming that the rule would cost $113 billion economy-wide, the industry report stated that it would put over 300,000 jobs at risk.
NACAAs detailed report entitled, EPAs Proposed Regulations on Hazardous Air Pollutants from Boilers: A Critique of the Boiler Industrys Excessive Cost Claims, sets the record straight by refuting the outsized estimates contained in the industry report. It describes some of the erroneous features of the industry analysis, including: (1) the number of sources that must install controls was grossly overestimated; (2) the cost of the rule did not incorporate positive economic benefits from new capital investmentincluding the creation of new jobs; (3) the positive impacts of increased life expectancy, reduced health care costs, and other health-related benefits were not factored in the report; (4) one-time project costs were overestimated; and, (5) assumptions about the negative impact of investments in pollution controls are unlikely in the current economy.
The more of them who die, the better.
I respect people who "walk the walk", acting according to their beliefs, until they try to force the rest of us to comply. Then I just wanna' shoot 'em!
lol, I just threw a couple more logs into my woodstove to celebrate the EPA
Anybody know what the thermostat in the White House is set at this winter?
Here we are in the 21st Century in the most advanced society on the face of the Earth, freezing our asses off because loonies are loose swinging in the rafters of the Capitol overiding science, creating nonsensical laws from feelings.
Somebody wake up the Organ Grinder, and get this Monkey back under control.