| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Lies, Damned Lies, And The EPA's 'Clean Power Plan' | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 21 2016, 07:51 PM (282 Views) | |
| Berton | Jun 21 2016, 07:51 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Thunder Fan
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Lies, Damned Lies, And The EPA's 'Clean Power Plan' Environment: President Obama's "Clean Power Plan" is on pause, thanks to a Supreme Court ruling in March after more than two dozen states filed suit to stop it. A new report shows why the plan should be scrapped entirely, and the EPA sued for fraud. By its own admission, the EPA says Clean Power Plan is one of the most sweeping regulations ever enacted. It would require electric companies to cut CO2 emissions 32% within 25 years -- basically by shuttering coal plants and force feeding "renewable energy." In pushing the Clean Power Plan, the EPA claimed it would cost industry $9 billion a year, but produce up to $54 billion in annual health benefits, including "avoiding 2,700 to 6,600 premature deaths and 140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks in children." Who could complain about that? Turns out, the benefits of the Clean Power Plan will be closer to $0, while the costs would be far higher than the EPA claims. That's the conclusion in an in-depth report by the Manhattan Institute's Jonathan Lesser. Put simply, Lesser says the EPA's benefit calculations are based on faulty assumptions and statistical legerdemain. He notes, for example, that since the Clean Power Plan will have an infinitesimal impact on global CO2 levels, it can't have a $20 billion impact on health. The EPA also claims $34 billion in side benefits because the rules will reduce other pollutants. But Lesser notes that the EPA has been double counting this co-benefits, using them to justify other costly rules, and that there's likely to be zero improvement in health, given how clean the air is already. EPA regulations to cut mercury emissions, for example, relied almost entirely on these supposed co-benefits to justify the $9.6 billion price tag. The direct health benefits from the reduction in mercury was negligible. While the EPA wildly exaggerated the health benefits of the Clean Power Plan, it also made assumptions guaranteed to minimize the actual cost of the rule, Lesser found. This isn't the first time the EPA has been charged with fudging the numbers and relying on faulty science to justify massively expensive regulation. The EPA has long claimed, for example, that cutting smog pollution will sharply reduce asthma attacks, as it is doing with the Clean Power Plan. But the data show the opposite. As smog levels have plunged across the country, asthma levels have climbed. The EPA also assumes in all its regulations that there is no safe level for any pollutant, a claim that defies science and common sense. At some point, there's nothing to gain from squeezing another molecule of pollution out of the air. Even those who take global warming seriously should insist that the EPA come clean about the real costs and dubious benefits of its regulations. LINK Bonus Link to the Original Paper This is what happens when you let zealots take over policy like Obama has done. |
![]() |
|
| Neutral | Jun 21 2016, 07:58 PM Post #2 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I am so tired of being lied to. |
![]() |
|
| Brewster | Jun 21 2016, 11:36 PM Post #3 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Oh good - an article by IBD, based on a paper from a Right Wing think tank founded by Libertarian Antony Peter Mueller which somehow always ends up finding that whatever the government proposes is wrong. A typical RWEC piece, except IBD gave "credit" to their source... Why don't you just make stuff up yourself, Berton? It would be just as accurate, and we're just as likely to believe it as we would anything from IBD. |
![]() |
|
| Thumper | Jun 21 2016, 11:47 PM Post #4 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Change is difficult for some to accept, especially if strong lobbyists are able to control our government. I can remember all the opposition to auto crash safety, seat belts,air bags, economy targets and catalytic converters. These directive were touted by various lobby interests as destroying the auto industry. Now auto buyers look for cars with these features. Today's autos wouldn't be nearly as safe and efficient if it was left to the auto manufacturers and the oil lobbby. |
![]() |
|
| Brewster | Jun 22 2016, 12:01 AM Post #5 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
|
![]() |
|
| Brewster | Jun 22 2016, 12:06 AM Post #6 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I recall that putting parachutes in fighter planes in WWI was strongly resisted... |
![]() |
|
| Thumper | Jun 22 2016, 12:18 AM Post #7 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I guess it was considered less valiant. I had a seat pack and a chest pack. I wouldn't leave home without one. It was my answer to the feared problem or being out of altitude, airspeed and ideas. |
![]() |
|
| Berton | Jun 22 2016, 09:37 AM Post #8 |
![]()
Thunder Fan
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I see that the progressives on this board have done their usual thing when they have no facts to present. So far the OP stands as the truth. |
![]() |
|
| Thumper | Jun 22 2016, 10:45 PM Post #9 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Truth is relative Berton. If you believe it is the truth, run with it but don't expect all to fall inline. |
![]() |
|
| Brewster | Jun 22 2016, 11:46 PM Post #10 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
We all knew the OP was a total falsehood as soon as you admitted it came from IBD. If you think the "libs" on this board are going to chase down every ridiculous claim invented by proven liars like IBD, Breitbart and Powerline, you must think "libs" are as crazy as you are. Edited by Brewster, Jun 23 2016, 12:04 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2






![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)





3:17 AM Jul 12
