The Current FReepathon Pays For The Current Quarter's Expenses?
Posted on 08/11/2014 6:40:38 AM PDT by thackney
Before we become too optimistic about the prospects for using renewable energy sources to curb carbon emissions, it’s worth looking at a study commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which should give pause to even the most confident advocate of action against climate change.
The study forecasts that new EPA regulations -- regulations intended to cut carbon emissions by 30% from coal-, oil- and natural gas-fired plants by 2030 -- will lead to higher energy costs, fewer jobs, and slower economic growth in the United States. That, in turn, will lower Americans’ standards of living. A typical household could lose up to $3,400 in disposable income annually by 2030.
With carbon emissions projected to rise 31% worldwide by 2030, the study estimates that EPA regulations would reduce emissions here at home by just 1.8%. In other words, American consumers – especially working people – and businesses will bear huge costs for trivial reductions in the U.S. contribution to “global warming.”
President Obama’s EPA is pushing to speed up the substitution of fossil fuels by “renewable” energy sources, such as the sun, the wind, the Earth’s own geothermal heat, and plant-based ethanol. But he and others who insist that those renewable energy sources can replace fossil fuels in generating electricity are engaged in economically costly wishful thinking.
Less than 4% of the nation’s electricity is produced by solar and wind power, despite tax credits and mandates in many states requiring their use. The bald truth is that, while solar and wind power can help satisfy peak demands for electricity, they simply are too undependable to provide “base-load” power and therefore can’t get us anywhere close, anytime soon to the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions significantly.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
—no to “cease fire”—end it—
Liberal insanity without ANY regard for both intended and unintended consequences. There are NO substitutes for hydrocarbon fuels -— NONE.
Maybe the liberals could apply their superior thinking to finding just that....know any other good party jokes??
Any "cease fire" won't stop Ø from figuratively lobbing rockets, digging tunnels and undermining (pun intended) the coal industry.
Not cease fire, absolutely reverse it. Massive tax credits to companies mining coal, building coal-fired power plants, as well as significantly easing the regulatory burden on them. This should also be done with the understanding that miners wages should get a major increase, “to attract new generations of miners”.
Tell the mining companies that they have four years on the inside, and eight years on the outside in which they should go “whole hog”, because there are only limited protections that can be guaranteed to them after that time.
As an added bonus, the US should buy mountains of mined coal stored in a strategic underground reserve (with firewalls and fire prevention within.)
The Current FReepathon Pays For The Current Quarter's Expenses?
Precisely!
If the governor’s of the states where coal is a source of energy, why don’t they as a group or individually tell the EPA to pound sand and allow coal fired generators to keep operating.
EPA could do nothing about it.
For the same reasons you continue to send your tax dollars to the federal government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.