A place where Big Stone Lake (and surrounding) area citizens can discuss area news, events and matters of concern.
PortalHomeCalendarGalleryFAQSearchLog inRegister

Share | 

 Did the Obama Administration Kill Big Stone II

Go down 
Power Poster
Power Poster

Number of posts : 721
Registration date : 2008-05-15

PostSubject: Did the Obama Administration Kill Big Stone II   Wed Sep 30, 2009 8:12 pm

After reading the following article one has to think that this administration may have killed Big Stone II.

WASHINGTON The Environmental Protection Agency took steps Wednesday to control the emissions blamed for global warming from power plants, factories and refineries for the first time.

The EPA proposal would require polluters to reduce six greenhouse gases by installing the best available technology and improving energy efficiency whenever a facility is significantly changed or built. The rule applies to any industrial plant that emits at least 25,000 tons of greenhouse gases a year.

These large sources are responsible for 70 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels that are released in the U.S., the EPA said.

"By using the power and authority of the Clean Air Act, we can begin reducing emissions from the nation's largest greenhouse gas emitting facilities without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the vast majority of our economy," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said. "We know the corner coffee shop is no place to look for meaningful carbon reductions."

Earlier this year, the Obama administration announced that it would start developing the first-ever greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars and trucks. Those regulations, which would take effect in 2010, compel the EPA to control greenhouse gases from large smokestacks as well, the agency said.

Industry groups immediately questioned the agency's argument. They charged that the EPA was skirting the law, since the Clean Air Act typically covers any facility releasing more than 250 tons a year of a recognized pollutant. That threshold would require more facilities to fall under the new regulations.

"This proposal incorrectly assumes that one industry's greenhouse gas emissions are worse than another's," said Charles T. Drevna, president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association.

Jeff Holmstead, a former top EPA air pollution official who is now a lobbyist for the energy industry, said the agency was trying to "fit a square peg into a round hole."
"Normally, it takes an act of Congress to change the words of a statute enacted by Congress, and many of us are very curious to see EPA's legal justification for today's proposal," Holmstead said.

Jackson, speaking at a news conference at a climate change summit being hosted by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, said the rule was legally defensible.
"The EPA would not propose a rule that we didn't believe ... made good legal sense," she said.

"EPA would not propose a rule that did not make legal sense," she said.
The EPA's announcement came hours after Senate Democrats unveiled legislation that would set limits on the amount of greenhouse gases from large industrial sources. The Senate bill, unlike the House-passed version, preserves the EPA's authority to regulate under the Clean Air Act.

Environmentalists said Wednesday the two efforts go hand-in-hand.
"You can't have one without the other if we're going to be successful in moving America to clean energy," said Emily Figdor, director of the global warming program at Environment America, an advocacy group.

The move will likely increase pressure on Congress to pass a bill to avoid less-flexible, and what Republicans said would be more costly, regulations. Supporters of the legislation have already used pending EPA rules as leverage to get Congress to act.

Senate Republicans have already attempted to block the EPA from issuing regulations to buy more time for Congress to work on a bill. At least one Republican leader, Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, said Wednesday that Congress would try to stop the EPA again.
Back to top Go down
Advanced Member
Advanced Member

Number of posts : 75
Registration date : 2008-10-17

PostSubject: democrats tough? compared to what?   Fri Oct 09, 2009 4:46 pm


[b][color=black][font='Calibri']I think that the democrats only appear tough on emissions these days because republicans are generally completly in favor of pollution! So of course the Obama administration seems tough. But compared to the enormity of the climate change problem and other environmental problems the democrats are not nearly active enough. The Clean Air Act is old but was relaxed many times under Reagan, Bush and Bush. Industry began to count on extensions and waivers- the auto industry is an example of that.[/font][/color][/b]

[b][color=black][font='Calibri']I had heard that Big STone II was going to produce less pollution than the current plant while doubling production and that was well before Obama was elected. There was a question of exactly how they planned to do that. It would have been expensive for sure. [/font][/color][/b]

[b][color=black][font='Calibri']Maybe clean energy is getting cheap enough that Ottertail would rather invest in that for our future and our childrens' future. Have you ever considered that? Clean energy is getting cheaper and the results of actual projects have been encouraging. Maybe it's just common sense to delay the project.[/font][/color][/b]

[b][color=black][font='Calibri']Below is a little example of republican knee jerking. Certainly our SD farmers don't want climate change and if carbon credits for no till and other ag carbon credits goe through then our SD farmers actually stand to make money on the new system. Rather than pull for our farmers in that way Thune, on auto pilot opposes pollution control. He has to because he's a republican and not a maveric.[/font][/color][/b]

[b][color=black][font='Calibri']Madville Times Blog
Climate change greater threat to U.S. ag than climate change legislation[/font][/color][/b][color=black][font='Calibri']
By Cory Heidelberger
October 7, 2009

[color=black][font='Calibri']The [/font][/color][color=black][url=http://www.fb.org/][font='Calibri'][color=#0068cf]Farm Bureau[/color][/font][/url][/color][color=black][font='Calibri'] (along with [/font][/color][color=black][url=http://dahlecommunication.typepad.com/badlands_blue/2009/10/thune-gets-called-out-for-crying-wolf-on-climate-change-legislation.html][font='Calibri'][color=#0068cf]John Thune[/color][/font][/url][/color][color=black][font='Calibri']!) says the American Clean Energy and Security Act will hurt U.S. agriculture.

What? Don't like climate change legislation? Try climate change. According to a new report from the Environmental Working Group, the costs of [/font][/color][color=black][url=http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2454/show][font='Calibri'][color=#0068cf]ACESA[/color][/font][/url][/color][color=black][font='Calibri'] (and yes, there will be costs) will be far outweighed by the cost of [/font][/color][color=black][url=http://ewg.org/2009/crying-wolf-report][font='Calibri'][color=#0068cf]taking no action on climate change[/color][/font][/url][/color][color=black][font='Calibri']. EWG says the Farm Bureau is crying wolf, ignoring the billions of dollars of losses and lower crop yields that unabated climate change can bring. (See, for instance, South Dakota state climatologist Dennis Todey on heavier rains, which could produce [/font][/color][color=black][url=http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=12AE75800F4D7330&p_docnum=1][font='Calibri'][color=#0068cf]more erosion and less available topsoil moisture[/color][/font][/url][/color][color=black][font='Calibri'].)

EWG also notes that the Farm Bureau is hollering about meager production cost increases (ACESA might make soybeans cost 45 cents more per acre) that would be "lost in the background noise" of the usual, much larger fluctuations in farm input costs. Says EWG, "A fertilizer spreader or herbicide sprayer that is out of adjustment would cost farmers more."

The Farm Bureau is trying to take our eyes off the ball, trying to inflate one tiny non-issue into a reason to vote against a comprehensive energy policy that can help every sector of our economy enjoy more stable growth through the 21st century.[/font][/color][/font][/color][/b]
Back to top Go down
Super Poster
Super Poster

Number of posts : 198
Registration date : 2008-10-04

PostSubject: Re: Did the Obama Administration Kill Big Stone II   Wed Sep 01, 2010 7:50 pm

I think the general consensus is that the Obama Administration or similar thinkers killed Big Stone 2.

Big Stone 2 doesn't matter much to me.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content

PostSubject: Re: Did the Obama Administration Kill Big Stone II   

Back to top Go down
Did the Obama Administration Kill Big Stone II
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
» Harry Potter & The Philosopher's stone *spoilers ahead*
» Letter to Obama
» How to get curse of stone-tongue
» Obama vows to tackle VA problems, voices support for Shinseki

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Big Stone Lake Area Community Forums :: Lets talk: National News and topics of interest-
Jump to: