Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 11:40 AM ET, 12/23/2010

EPA announces plans to regulate power plant, oil refinery emissions

By Juliet Eilperin

The Environmental Protection Agency announced Thursday that it would regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and oil refineries next year, targeting the nation's two biggest sources of carbon dioxide.

The move, which comes as part of a legal settlement with several states, local governments and environmental groups which have sued EPA under the Bush administration for failing to act, highlights the Obama administration's intent to press ahead with curbs on carbon despite congressional resistance.

Collectively, electric utilities and oil refineries account for almost 40 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions: Under the agreement, EPA will propose new performance standards for power plants in July 2011 and for refineries in December 2011 and will issue final standards in May 2012 and November 2012, respectively.

"We are following through on our commitment to proceed in a measured and careful way to reduce GHG pollution that threatens the health and welfare of Americans, and contributes to climate change," EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said in a statement. "These standards will help American companies attract private investment to the clean energy upgrades that make our companies more competitive and create good jobs here at home."

Environmentalists such as David Doniger, policy director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate center, hailed the announcement of the new schedule for regulation.

"By setting timetables for issuing standards to cut dangerous carbon pollution from power plants and oil refineries, EPA is doing precisely what is needed to protect our health and welfare and provide businesses certainty at a time when some would prefer to roll back the clock," Doniger said. "The EPA's forthcoming standards will be based on available and affordable measures to clean up the two industries responsible for the most pollution that drives climate change. Clear pollution control standards also will help these industries plan future investments, fuel the economic recovery and create jobs."

Power plants account for more than 2.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions each year, more than any other industry. Oil refineries rank as the nation's second-largest source, with emissions equivalent to more than 200 million tons of carbon dioxide a year.

Charles T. Drevna, president of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, said his industry will urge lawmakers to block EPA's move.

"EPA's proposals would carry tremendous costs but no benefits for the American people - all pain and no gain," Drevna said in a statement. "Regulations can't create technology that doesn't exist or change the laws of physics and economics, so the only way to comply with EPA's proposals would be to inflict massive increases in energy costs and massive increases in unemployment on families across our nation. This is exactly the opposite of what President Obama rightly called for when he said economic recovery and job creation should be our nation's top priorities."

Some key lawmakers such as Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who is in line to chair the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee next year, seemed open to such suggestions.

"Rep. Issa is disappointed by EPA's refusal to appropriately and thoroughly consider regulations that will undoubtedly kill more jobs in an already struggling economy," said Issa spokesman Kurt Bardella in an e-mailed statement. "The fact is there are serious questions about EPA's decision to move forward with these job-killing regulations that will usurp power from states -- violating the principals of federalism that are the backbone of the clean air act. EPA's actions will also impose a de facto building moratorium that comes at the expense of thousands of jobs."

This post has been modified since it was first published.

By Juliet Eilperin  | December 23, 2010; 11:40 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: EPA to regulate carbon from power plants, refineries
Next: House Energy chair Upton calls EPA climate change plan 'unconstitutional power grab'

Comments

WWWWWAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaa.. I can hear the whining from here. They've had since the Supreme court ruling ORDERING the EPA to regulate harmful gases on April 2, 2007 to get ready....do what they needed to do to help the planet not get sicker..now, it's time and they are screaming they didn't know....

Well - BS - THAT's a LIE! So do it - or else!!!

Posted by: rbaldwin2 | December 23, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Darrell Isshole and the obstructionist Republican crowd just don't get it -- Americans from all walks of life want a cleaner, healthier envoronment for them and their children. Regulating (and eventually mothballing) outdated coal-fired electrical plants and chemical-belching refineries is a much-needed step. The public overwhelimgly supports a shift to cleaner sources of energy, which translates into cleaner air and water and a reduction in global warming. Isshole and his K Street cronies are desperately clinging to the past to protect the profits of the polluters. As usual, he is on the wrong side of history.

Posted by: harryejones | December 23, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

I agree with rbaldwin2, but with slightly less enthusiasm. The only way this kills jobs is if power plans and oil refineries shut down, which they won't. They'll have to hire MORE people in order to advance their technology, which is something neither industry has invested enough in recently.

Posted by: crzytwnman | December 23, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

OMG, no more beans for lunch! :)

Posted by: Garak | December 23, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Despite all the hot air being expelled arguing against this, it's a pretty well-argued fact that global warming is happening and that we're the cause. But even if you don't believe it, doesn't it seem like a pretty big risk to take?

Posted by: ravensfan20008 | December 23, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

It is about time government started working for us!

Posted by: BigTrees | December 23, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

The world cools and warms in various cycles. 20 years, 100 years and even 1,000,000 years. We are powerless to stop it. But the wimp libs blame us of course and say government has to intervene.

Posted by: FLvet | December 23, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

The Obama Administration expands its war against America's domestic energy industry and the overall health of the economy and jobs creation. Banning offshore oil drilling, increased difficulty exploring for natural gas, open war with coal mining..now any fossil fuel user may be at risk from EPA functionairies.

Why maintain a cement plant in Illinois when that high energy, coal using facility that provides 118 jobs can be moved to Mexico? Same amount of CO2, just from a different place.

Same strategy as the West Europeans did - announced grandiose cuts in "deady planet harming CO2 generation- proudly announce that significant CO2 cuts were achieved later - then angrily confess that economists were right. They got much of their cuts by exporting high energy use industries like steel, glass, cement, refineries -to Egypt, Romania, etc. But, the EU-crats said - "We gained moral authority and achieved our Kyoto targets and if you have complaints, ask the Egyptian cement factory owner to go solar."

Why will Republicans continue to gain seats despite being the Party of Wall Street and tax cuts for the rich? Because people see Democrats as having endless thirst for more government power to mess with every aspect of the economy and our lives.

Posted by: ChrisFord1 | December 23, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

The Post article forgot to point out one extremely important fact. The Supreme Court ordered EPA to enforce the rules under the CLEAN AIR ACT, which passed in 1970. If you have an issue, blame Congress in 1970, not Obama.

Posted by: jp13 | December 23, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Easy for Issa to say-he represents a district with no power plants (except for San Onofre-which is nuclear) or refineries. Therefore he has no constituents negateivly impacted by the continual air and water pollution.

Posted by: marcwhite24 | December 23, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Why bother having a Congress or representatives or bills?

let's just have Lord Obama rule over the country.

Viva Hugo Chavez!

Posted by: jon15 | December 23, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Why bother having a Congress or representatives or bills?

let's just have Lord Obama rule over the country.

Viva Hugo Chavez!

Posted by: jon15 | December 23, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

You commenters who are blaming Obama are so far off the mark you're not even wrong. This action is part of a settlement of a suit brought by several States against the EPA, demanding that they enforce laws that have been on the books for about 40 years. The Supreme court in 07 (the most conservative supreme court in about 80 years)*ordered* the EPA to regulate CO2. This is the political reality, even if you don't want to admit the reality of the threat we face.

Posted by: msh41 | December 23, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

"The world cools and warms in various cycles. 20 years, 100 years and even 1,000,000 years. We are powerless to stop it. But the wimp libs blame us of course and say government has to intervene."

Bad science my friend. It goes through warming and cooling cycles, however the green house effect is something different entirely. This is not a natural climate shift, brought about by increased CO2 from volcanism or anything (even if it was we should still be concerned as we could still be wiped out) The CO2, put simply, comes form all the fires people have been burning as our population has ballooned. If you doubt the greenhouse effect, look at Venus. As a result of CO2 in the atmosphere from volcanism, it has a surface temperature of 900 degrees F! It started out very close to Earth in climate and appearance.

We don't have control over the climate, but we do have control over the emission of CO2, which WILL cause the climate to warm, all data aside. The greenhouse effect is the reason the Earth has a habitable climate (it would be much much colder without it), however the unnatural addition of CO2 will push the temperature out of our comfort zone. Imagine if summer temperatures in Texas went from 110 F to 120? Not a big change on a planetary scale, but on a human scale that's life and death.

Think about it.

Posted by: jazzis779 | December 23, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

guess obama is gonna put coal out of business just as he said he would

Posted by: docwhocuts | December 23, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Another huge agency is finally doing it's job. Whether we are the SOLE cause of global warming is not the point, we should stop putting poison into the environment we all must live in - or none of our children will be able to.

Posted by: madlyf | December 23, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

EPA can order 2+2 to equal 5 all they want, but that won't make it happen. People using x amount of electricity will require the power plants to burn y amount of fuel which will release z amount of carbon dioxide. Political grandstanding will not change the basic math one iota.

Posted by: jeff20 | December 23, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

I agree with rbaldwin2, but with slightly less enthusiasm. The only way this kills jobs is if power plans and oil refineries shut down, which they won't. They'll have to hire MORE people in order to advance their technology, which is something neither industry has invested enough in recently.

Posted by: crzytwnman
=======================
That is the "broken window" theory of economics. Forcing costs on people to comply with regulations that add no productivity or wealth benefit is like hiring several thousand thugs to go out and break windows. The net benefit of the thugs wages and the glasiers work fixing windows is more than cancelled out by window owners loss of existing investment, time lost dealing with the constantly being broken windows, and the opportunity costs of money spent fixing windows that could be better spent or invested elsewhere.
And the theory really doesn't discuss modern realities that a business owner in a city or country where too many windows are broken - may pull up and just relocate to a place where replacing windows isn't a problem.
Obama people say that the EPA will have to hire 2000 more apparachniks to enforce the new regs, but that is money borrowed from China. People might invest in "exciting new, not yet available technology" - or simply decide to site the steel plant, auto factory, cement works outside the US. (And ironically, the work and jobs transferred to India or China or Mexico will take more CO2 generation to make than here, and will add lots more in the long distant transportation to get the goods to USA end users.)

If the work stays, the productivity loss and extra cost is passed on to users to the detriment of spending in other economic sectors or becomes part of the overhead that would factor into decisions not to expand and hire.

Posted by: ChrisFord1 | December 23, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

I doubt that if all the exhaust from one of these plants could be routed directly to your front lawn, that any American family would stand for it.

This is toxic stuff. We should eliminate it. More strict regulations are good first steps.

Posted by: camasca | December 23, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Okay. I get it. The watermelons won another round. ...

Of course, the American people keep speaking. And, the keep speaking louder. But, the watermelons don't want to hear.

That's fine...

We'll get there. (Unless the watermelons are successful in bringing down democracy).

Posted by: Cdgaman | December 23, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

KUDOS to the EPA! Tighter regulation of power plant and refinery emissions has been long overdue. But let's look closer. If we ended our reliance on coal and oil, what might be the harm? Unquestioned economic disruption - but if we planned this well, we could mitigate it. THERE IS NO OTHER DOWNSIDE to leaving oil and coal behind. And what is the UNDISPUTED HARM of continued reliance on fossil fuels? For oil, economic instability caused by dependence on a single, volatile energy source. The increasing price of oil strangles economic growth. Reliance on an energy source that will one day end (30 years?). Increasing competition (war?) with other nations for dimishing oil supplies. Continued widespread pollution from mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfuric acid, CO2, etc. Environmental destruction from oil well drilling, deep well blowouts, oil processing and refinement, coal mining and processing practices, coal ash disposal, etc.

What would the benefits of leaving oil and coal? Increased national security, freedom from economic shock caused by volatile oil prices, a greatly reduced trade deficit. The end of oil revenue funding terrorism. Investments in alternative sources eliminate the single point of economic failure: oil, and create new jobs in the energy economy. The end of pollution from fossil fuels would bring improved public health, less acid rain, less asthma, etc.

Add the liklihood of environmental disaster from global warming, sea ice melting, oceanic conveyor collapse, ocean acidification, etc. Some people still dispute the global warming argument, but with all of the known downside to fossil fuels, and the huge benefits in moving toward multiple, clean energy sources, doesn’t basic prudence demand that we abandon fossil fuels? Even if you don’t buy the global warming argument, why choose to remain hostage to a limited, expensive, polluting energy source?

Posted by: DanielRCobb | December 23, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

The Supreme Court did not order the EPA to regulate CO2 except for that which comes from vehicle tailpipes.

"April 2, 2007 – In what may prove to be an historic turning point in the fight to reduce global warming, the U.S. Supreme Court today handed down a decision in a landmark environmental case—the first ever involving global warming—that is being hailed as a victory for the environment and a setback for the Bush administration.
In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that carbon dioxide is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act and that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles and other vehicles."

To say that they are to regulate the utilites and power producers is more than a stretch it's an outright fabrication.

Not a problem- as the already skyrocketing cost of heating their homes in the colder climates goes ever higher because of the EPA I'm sure the libs will find someone, anyone to blame because it surely won't be because of the 'regulators' right?

But in the meantime more people will move to the south and western states which require less fuel for heat, demand fewer taxes and vote Republican. The cold northern states will pay the lion's share of this boondoggle for sure. So glad I live in Florida.

Posted by: cathyjs | December 23, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

great obama puts oil out of business... further increasing our needs from foreign supply....

NOW, he is putting coal out of business... further increasing our needs for foreign supply....

and who says obama is anti-business?

Posted by: docwhocuts | December 23, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

So now we have Obama's FCC declaring its right to regulate the Internet, no matter what a federal judge says ... and Obama's EPA declaring its right to regulate American power plants ... and Obama himself declaring his right to shut down the Gulf oil industry.

"Will of the people"? "Consent of the governed"? Bah, humbug!

Time for the new GOP House of Representatives to play the same kind of hardball. The FCC and EPA can't function without funding, can they?

Might as well pass separate funding bills stipulating that the FCC can't regulate the Internet and the EPA can't regulate carbon emissions.

If the bills don't pass ... both agencies would simply shut down. So either way, the American people would win.

Posted by: UponFurtherReview | December 23, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

An EPA that actually protects the environment?

What an anathema to Lord Cheney and blasphemy to his theocons.

Posted by: areyousaying | December 23, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

DanielRCobb - "KUDOS to the EPA! Tighter regulation of power plant and refinery emissions has been long overdue. But let's look closer. If we ended our reliance on coal and oil, what might be the harm? Unquestioned economic disruption - but if we planned this well, we could mitigate it. THERE IS NO OTHER DOWNSIDE to leaving oil and coal behind. And what is the UNDISPUTED HARM of continued reliance on fossil fuels?"

We are hundreds of years away from abandoning coal, gas, and oil or the 9 trillion dollar economic infrastructure that run on the fuels that provide 94% of our net energy needs (solar and wind for a tiny part of the electric gen subpart of net energy use are a pittance and will remain a pittance).

It is a pity that so many Green Zealots are liberal arts types that have no clue on what is realistic in reshaping our energy use profile and what is sappy, pie in the sky Green Delusion.

Posted by: ChrisFord1 | December 23, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

"KUDOS to the EPA! Tighter regulation of power plant and refinery emissions has been long overdue. But let's look closer. If we ended our reliance on coal and oil, what might be the harm? Unquestioned economic disruption - but if we planned this well, we could mitigate it. THERE IS NO OTHER DOWNSIDE to leaving oil and coal behind...."
---------------------------------------------
And what imaginary fuel source do you propose we use? The greenies have regulated nuclear almost out of existence. Basic laws of science rule out solar and wind as meeting anything more than a fraction of our needs. Coal and oil are the fuel that we have.

Posted by: jeff20 | December 23, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

The sooner EPA is defunded and then dismantled, the better.

2012. No liberals. No exceptions.

Posted by: 1911a1 | December 23, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Was there ever a time when American business actually stepped up to a challenge to do something FOR the country that made them RICH and make it a better place to live?

Do American companies actually innovate anymore or do they just whine about doing what any moral entity should do of its own volition?

Mr. Drevna, you make me think the only solution is to nationalize your industry, fire your sorry, traitorous behind and put patriotic Americans to work in your place. I'm sure you're earning at least enough to pay a half dozen real Americans at the medican wage. YOU MAGGOT.

Posted by: edismae | December 23, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

get rid of the no-good freaking liberals in 2012. the repubs better step to the plate in january or a bad time is going to be had by all.

Posted by: 12thgenamerican | December 23, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

harryejones, you're not funny. you're an idiot lib.

Posted by: 12thgenamerican | December 23, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

C'mon folks. Let's go back to fourth grade science class for a moment: Just plant more trees and Mother Nature will take care of the gas-----it's that simple.

Posted by: stockaeyahoocom | December 23, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

About time. Since the knuckle dragging tea-oh-pee doesn't understand the basics of science there is no option left but having the scientists do this, AS ORDERED BY THE SUPREME COURT.

Posted by: John1263 | December 23, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

C'mon folks. Let's go back to fourth grade science class for a moment: Just plant more trees and Mother Nature will take care of the gas-----it's that simple.

Posted by: stockaeyahoocom | December 23, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

The dopes who say you can't change the emmissions because power is power must be near mental flatline.

Here is a very simple example you may have seen.

A lightbulb. An incandescant light that uses 60 watts of electricity is matched in lumens (ligt output) by an flourescent bulb which requires 13 watts. Again matched in lumens by an LED which requires 2 watts. Same user result with differing levels of energy.

A hummer gets 6 MPG. A truck 13MPG. A sedan 22 MPG. A reasonable US made car 30 MPG. A reasonable European made car 45MPG. An electric car the energy use equivelant of 99MPG.

Same user result with differing levels of energy use.

Of COURSE we can maintain our outcomes while reducing energy use. It is that simple. Except it requires mass consumption of more efficient technology in order to make those industries cost effective.

THAT is where government policy is needed to shape behavior. As in so many areas, simply relying on "the market" without shaping the direction of the market does not result in outcomes that are long term beneficial since the market only rewards short term profit motives.

Posted by: John1263 | December 23, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

EPA can order 2+2 to equal 5 all they want, but that won't make it happen. People using x amount of electricity will require the power plants to burn y amount of fuel which will release z amount of carbon dioxide.
-----
The regulations will make the utilities push and underwrite energy-saving conservation measures, helping people retrofit homes to be better insulated -- getting rid of clunker refrigerators, washers, dryers, and air conditioners -- installing more efficient lighting -- cycling during peak hours. I wouldn't be surprised if Congress gets in on this too, because the need to replace outdated energy hogging appliances would also create jobs. By reducing x, y is reduced, and so, ultimately is z.

Posted by: OakdenWolf | December 23, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Just in time for the 2012 election. I hope the EPA puts their foot into it and we watch the electric rates double.

Posted by: yokosuka1985 | December 23, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

CO2 is a LAGGING indicator, not a cause of greenhousing. There is no direct cause and effect relationship between CO2 levels and surface level increases. The sun heats and cools the earth. After the earth surface temperatures increase CO2 levels increase, NOT BEFORE!!!!!

Posted by: virgin12 | December 23, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Thank you Pres. Obama!

Posted by: angie12106 | December 23, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

EPA is taking over greenhouse gas permits in Texas because Gov. Perry refuses to do it!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101223/ap_on_re_us/us_epa_vs_texas

Clever way for Perry to force the federal government to spend more money to do the job Texas refuses to do.

Posted by: angie12106 | December 23, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

'' electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket in my plan''. obama. nuff said.

Posted by: 12thgenamerican | December 23, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Is it time to give Evirobama the Nobel Prize? Perhaps once again we will see that the theories are just that, mere theory like we witnessed with the prize going to the author of the "Earth Out of Balance." Who gets screwed; not the powerful energy folks, just us used to be middle class!!

Posted by: Glassman | December 23, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

It is the age of regulation...control, control, control!

Posted by: jeepmanjr | December 23, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Jobs are the President's "top priority"....and he won't stop until he kills every one of them!

The President is truly lost when it comes to creating jobs in America if he thinks this "green" agenda will get us there. I feel sorry for the 9.8% of the workforce that remains unemployed waiting for these disconnected tax and regulation efforts to somehow create jobs.

It is almost as though Obama is trying to throw as many hardships and obstacles on the backs of the unemployed as he can. He just continues to march on as though none of this has any impact on jobs.

First it was a wholesale change in the health care sector, now it is a wholesale change in the energy sector…. and the whole time the unemployed are expected to just suck it up while the economy goes through another major restructuring.

The sad thing is that this will neither influence global warming, if you believe such a thing, nor create jobs, as the president believes it will.

We’re just going to have to suffer another two years of this nonsense until we all get our next chance to vote.

Then maybe we can add just one more person to the rolls of the unemployed….

Posted by: randkdavis | December 23, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

If the likes of Issa & Co. could actually be harassed enough to nudge this society OFF of its addictive dependency on OIL (other peoples', and for environmental reasons "our" own as well), this society would benefit tremendously. (But of course, "we" have REALLY hard time moving people to actually undertake to make even the most BASIC sort of beneficial change --- like for example QUITTING SMOKING. Once "vested ECONOMIC interests" grow up, even the most ELEMENTARY sort of change becomes "prohibitively controversial".

Posted by: BirdsAbound | December 23, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

I love the way that some of the persons that post here are discussing 'global warming'. Didn't you hear that the correct term is now 'climate change'? The world is currently cooling; anyone notice the shutdown of a bunch of European airports and roads due to the extreme amount of snow they got. The US is receiving record amounts of rainfall and snow. The western US had an uncommonly cool summer. This greenhouse gas garbage is something made up by Al Gore and his cronies on the Chicago hydyrocarbon board to make a bunch of money. It worked. Al can now buy a lot of houses, one notably in CA where his carbon footprint is HUGE and evidently he has excluded himself from lessening his footprint. All of the goons that travel to the conferences to 'deal' with this problem use their private jets and ride in limos (one person per car) to spew their nonsense so they can make more money. I find it nonsensical that they have produced a new breed of believers in this just as much as the people that swore we were going to have another ice age in the 1960's. We had the sense to laugh at them then, but now??? We have produced a bunch of sheep in the permissive age of the baby boomer and so this is our fate; watch the one world government crowd take over, de-valuate the dollar, use foreign court decisions in deciding cases in the US, and on and on. When will the people understand that they have been had and move on to important matters? I'm not certain but my time is running out to see it in my lifetime.

Posted by: sickofitinca | December 23, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

That is the "broken window" theory of economics. Forcing costs on people to comply with regulations that add no productivity or wealth benefit is like hiring several thousand thugs to go out and break windows. The net benefit of the thugs wages and the glasiers work fixing windows is more than cancelled out by window owners loss of existing investment, time lost dealing with the constantly being broken windows, and the opportunity costs of money spent fixing windows that could be better spent or invested elsewhere.
And the theory really doesn't discuss modern realities that a business owner in a city or country where too many windows are broken - may pull up and just relocate to a place where replacing windows isn't a problem.
Obama people say that the EPA will have to hire 2000 more apparachniks to enforce the new regs, but that is money borrowed from China. People might invest in "exciting new, not yet available technology" - or simply decide to site the steel plant, auto factory, cement works outside the US. (And ironically, the work and jobs transferred to India or China or Mexico will take more CO2 generation to make than here, and will add lots more in the long distant transportation to get the goods to USA end users.)

If the work stays, the productivity loss and extra cost is passed on to users to the detriment of spending in other economic sectors or becomes part of the overhead that would factor into decisions not to expand and hire.

Posted by: ChrisFord1 | December 23, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse


Stick to whining about the Jew Media, Chris. You know zero about utilities.

Posted by: Bridge3263 | December 23, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

BOHICA---Bend over here it comes again. The oil companies are stealing Christmas from the American people by artificially raising the cost of gasoline and fuel oil...now what ever savings Americans will get from the tax laws, it will go into the pockets of utilities and refineries who will raise the prices even more because of the new regulations.

Posted by: tonyjm | December 23, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

This is best news for the Chinese economy since union work rules.

Posted by: RSweeney1 | December 23, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

the EPA seams to be striving for complete control of the products necessary to function in the country. They're starting to 'monitor' refinery emissions, 'monitor' small food producers. 'monitor' nonprescription OTC medicine, 'monitor' dietary herbs.
I have a small garden in my back yard I expect to see them any day

Posted by: meiklejd76gmailcom | December 23, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Stick to whining about the Jew Media, Chris. You know zero about utilities.

Posted by: Bridge3263
------------------------
Unlike Green hysterics or the progressivist, transnational Jewish media enablers of liberals....
I have degrees in engineering and economics and have not only worked with utilities on fossil fuel effeciency, but also done nuke utility work, a tidal power project that failed to advance on high consumer costs, and solar heating.
My house is partially solar heated and I drive a hybrid. But more than most, I know the full extent of delusional "renewable energy" and "more Green regulations =Green jobs" fallacies.
As for the progressive Jews in the media, they are masters of the creation of a seductive narrative. Right now, they think pushing Blessed Solar, Wondrous Wind and Miracle Ethanol while demonizing oil, natural gas, nuclear and coal is a real winner for them.

Posted by: ChrisFord1 | December 23, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Our democracy has evolved. We used to have a judiciary, elected congress and executive branch. Now have an unelected regulatory branch which competes against the elected legislature.

In how may ways can you say, "Marx's utopia is upon us?".

Posted by: NoWeCant | December 23, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

EPA

Tell us now, today, what worldwide reduction of CO2 emission in the next 5 years would halt the level of concentration of CO2 at 400 PPM.

Posted by: kwdawg | December 23, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse

watch the house zero out the epa budget in march...

Posted by: DwightCollins | December 23, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Carbon dioxide is a natural result of combustion. It is also what we and every living thing exhale. But the Obama administration has decided that it is a pollutant. Congress has not decided this, but what the heck! So, Obama's EPA is going to issue regulations restricting power plants and refineries emissions of carbon dioxide. How do you restrict carbon dioxide from combustion? Not easily or cheaply. Added costs for sure and maybe less power and refining output. Guess who pays for this nonsense? Yep, we the people.

Posted by: allamer1 | December 23, 2010 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Good to see so many shills for BP and Big Oil here.

@allamer1: Cell growth is normal. Unrestrained cell growth is cancer.

So much for your argument that CO2 is normal.

Posted by: Garak | December 23, 2010 6:42 PM | Report abuse

@DwightCollins: The Senate Dems can simply tie EPA funding to farm welfare. That will end any GOP attempt to gut EPA. 'Cause remember, Elmer Fudd needs his welfare!

Posted by: Garak | December 23, 2010 6:43 PM | Report abuse

It is getting closer. For those that think the job market will get better - I laugh
For those of you that do not think that these refiners will eventually leave the US for more hospitable climates- I laugh
For those that do not think rolling blackouts are your future - I laugh.
We are watching and contributing to the destruction of the greatest producer of wealth and jobs the world has ever seen.
Currently there is a capital strike in this country, next up, a producers strike.
When will this regulatory hurricane end - the real health of nation depends on it.

Posted by: commonsense70 | December 23, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Well, since oil-fired power plants are now teh eeeevul, and coal-fired power plants are now teh eeevul, and since wind isn't generating anywhere near the power we need, I guess all you tree-huggers are going to demand that we build nuclear plants as fast as we can, right?

Gee, it got quiet in here all of a sudden.

You want to know what the future looks like? Look at California, which hasn't had a new power plant built in years. They figured they could buy all they needed from the plants in Nevada. Turned out they couldn't, which is why every summer, you see the headlines, "Rolling Brownouts Sweep Through California."

How many of you tree-huggers have removed the CO2-spewing wood stoves from your houses and replaced them with solar panels?

I can only conclude that you people simply regard homo sapiens as a blight on the earth, that must be exterminated.

Posted by: gilbertbp | December 23, 2010 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Well they've managed to F up jobs in the Gulf...now they move on. Your government working for u :/

Posted by: njtou | December 23, 2010 7:14 PM | Report abuse

Keep driving up the price of energy with unnecessary regulations, ESPECIALLY on oil refineries, and see what happens to the US economy in the next few years. Every extra dollar of income forced into paying for electricity and gasoline comes out of consumption of things that now employ a LOT of people. Keep it up Washington geniuses. You will cause a depression yet.

Posted by: billsimpson451 | December 23, 2010 7:15 PM | Report abuse

Is this the same Environmental PROTECTION Agency that did not PROTECT us from the gulf oil spill?

The same Environmental PROTECTION Agency that did nothing to expedite the cleanup of the gulf oil spill?

The same Environmental PROTECTION Agency that in fact GOT IN THE WAY of the gulf oil spill cleanup?

The Environmental PROTECTION Agency doesn't protect worth a damn. There is no reason for this agency to continue to exist.

Posted by: gilbertbp | December 23, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse


Normal folks wouldn't ordinarily want to drink poison water or breathe toxic air, yet the Republicans beg for it thinking it will bring more jobs.

One thing that will cause an increase in employment is if we STOP shipping our manufacturing jobs overseas.

We had nearly 10 years of unregulated garbarge polluting our air, and did it bring more jobs? Absolutely not.


Posted by: lindalovejones | December 23, 2010 7:40 PM | Report abuse

And while the deniers fret and argue, the carbon concentration in the atmosphere just increased a couple parts per million.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/science/earth/22carbon.html?hpw

Posted by: johng1 | December 23, 2010 8:12 PM | Report abuse


Having failed to sell the idea of a command economy for the sake of "social justice", the left now turns to "environmental concerns" to sell the same snake oil. They don't really need to sell it anymore though. They just take existing legislation and bring more of the economy to bureaucratic heel.

Posted by: edbyronadams | December 23, 2010 8:48 PM | Report abuse

How much more at the pump will this privilege by the EPA cost us?

Posted by: Desertdiva1 | December 23, 2010 9:18 PM | Report abuse

plant more trees, they suck up Carbon dioxide and it doesn't cost as much as regulation.

Posted by: tonyjm | December 23, 2010 9:40 PM | Report abuse

plant more trees, they suck up Carbon dioxide and it doesn't cost as much as regulation.

Posted by: tonyjm | December 23, 2010 9:41 PM | Report abuse


so does this mean we will see algae fuel farms pop-up around refineries?

Algae fuels use CO2 as a raw material & can be used in our infrastructure.

Sapphire Energy could be a good bet.

Posted by: larsp | December 23, 2010 10:26 PM | Report abuse

The problem is, they don't have Law to work under. Congress has not issued them the Framework, so they have no right to act independently.
This is going rogue.

Posted by: Nobamaprez | December 27, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company