Clean Power Plan Dismantled

Posted by rbroberg 4 years, 1 month ago to Government
16 comments | Share | Flag

The article title is confusing, but the body of the article clearly explains what the Clean Power Plan (CPP) was intended to do: to drop the temperature 0.02 degrees at a cost of over 50 billion dollars. Which begs the question: what is the real intention? Of course, it is to expand the role of government, create more government jobs, and push the US closer to a Marxian economy.
SOURCE URL: http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/a-blow-for-climate-sanity-trump-gets-rid-of-obamas-clean-power-plan/

Add Comment


All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 4 years, 1 month ago
    Dummies...The temperatures usually drop 2/5 degrees at the height of Grand Solar Minimums...adding an additional -.2 degrees, (which is not likely) , would only make things worse.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 4 years, 1 month ago
    So the purpose of the CPP was to drop the world wide temp 0.02 degrees while countries like China and recent reports of active volcanoes smoke up the air?
    Why was me dino LOL before I wrote the above?
    Whoa! New thought~Countries like China and active volcanoes may have a better chance of lowering the temp 0.02 than the CPP ever did.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ pixelate 4 years, 1 month ago
    The $50B is very real. The 0.02 is hypothetical. So many (all?) of these govt programs are complete frauds. PPACA was not about patients, it was not affordable... it was about the govt take-over of healthcare.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by GaryL 4 years, 1 month ago
    The CPP was and is nothing more than a major money grab designed to enrich all the swamp dwellers and pals who have a hand in the alternative energy industries. If we could see where all the DC critters have their portfolios invested it would just be a simple matter of following the money.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CaptainKirk 4 years, 1 month ago
    Actually, cheap energy is what makes economies work. And this concept of making energy expensive is nothing more than REDISTRIBUTION of PRODUCTION. Which is, in fact, Redistribution of Wealth. In particular from the richest countries to the poorest countries.

    Not based on behavior, values, or abilities, but based on where the GLOBALISTS have invested, and control things, so they, once again, benefit.

    and sell it to the average person as fighting "man made" Global Warming. Which is reall "Mann Made", as in the author of that BS, and the Hockey stick, which has been disproven enough times.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 4 years, 1 month ago
    For northern climates, my plan was to hire thousands of politicians all over the country to speak into a transmission devices at the same time. The subsequent hot air could keep the northern states cozy for several months. The plan was knocked down because human exhalation is mostly carbon dioxide. The 2nd plan was to use the methane produced by cattle when they fart. Methane is very flammable and if there is a shortfall of cattle humans could jump into the breach as it were and all it would cost is a #10 jar of sauerkraut per person.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 4 years, 1 month ago
    It has been my experience that when something like this goes away it is replaced by something else usually worse. To be safe from these kinds of exploits the entire EPA needs to be eliminated.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 4 years, 1 month ago
      YES. The solution to deficit spending is the elimination of a host of these agencies for sure. I would vote for that. Dept of Education, EPA, ATF, DEA, Dept of Transportation and countless others.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by voodoo59 4 years, 1 month ago
    It's all about more government control over a fundamental element of our lives. Another lefty scheme to make us further beholden to big government.It has nothing to do with "Clean Power" a phrase obviously coined by the same propagandist who said "settled science".
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by lrshultis 4 years, 1 month ago
    That should be over 50 billion dollars per year for the .02 degree drop over about eighty years or about 50 billion x 80 = 4000 billion dollars = 4 trillion dollars. You seem to want to make it affordable.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by andrewtroy 4 years, 1 month ago
    While the CPP was clearly an unconstitutional power grab, and the stated goal of the flawed plan was to reduce "global warming", I think that continued research, manufacture, and installation of "alternative" power generators is a good idea.

    This country is hungry for more and ever more power, not only for all the gadgets and entertainment devices, but for products that keep us warm in the winter, cool in the summer, keep food in our stomachs, ideas in our heads, lights in the night, and factories churning out nearly infinite varieties of things that make our lives more comfortable and prosperous.

    It is clear that all types of power generation have some sort of negative impact on the surrounding environment. Coal plants put particulates into the air. Anyone who has been to China, or India, or Brazil (and many other countries) has seen what unchecked belching of gaseous waste into the atmosphere can do. These emissions can be cleaned up, but not without significant investment in equipment and methods to do so. Hydroelectric dams change ecosystems and require substantial investment in purchase of surrounding lands. Nuclear reactors are the most efficient form of power generation, but the dangers to life and health are incredibly high from the mining of the raw radioactive materials, accidents that can occur while in use (Fukisima anyone?), and of course the disposal and storage of the spent material.

    Wind generation has a small effect on the immediate environment aesthetically, although there is significant solid waste generated during the manufacturing process. It is, however, the most viable form of power generation coming into large scale use today, and will no longer be the recipient of government subsidies.

    Until and unless John Galt's motor is introduced to the world, (which will probably never happen for the reasons we all understand), all forms of energy generation should be encouraged and used. It is always a good idea to have a backup plan, and a backup backup plan.

    The key is letting the free market determine which is the most efficient and beneficial. Just don't forget that WE are the free market.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 4 years, 1 month ago
      Nuclear power is vastly safer than any other form of power generation. Thorium holds a lot of promise as being much better than Uranium. And while there is a lot of talk about the half life of the relatively small volume of waste, many of the other processes put heavy metals into the biosphere -- and elements have no half-life, they are forever.

      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 4 years, 1 month ago
    The trouble is that the decision to close most of those coal plants won't be revisited, even if they haven't been demolished yet.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  


  • Comment hidden. Undo