RIP Carbon Capture

[Wild Cobra]

Republicans Approve Regulation-Blocking Coal Bill on ALEC's Wish List

House Republicans who have received hefty campaign contributions from coal and electric power companies approved coal legislation supported by the industry and super-lobby group the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

The House Energy and Commerce Committee voted to approve legislation on July 13 that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating toxic coal ash wastes from electric power plants and delay the implementation of air quality rules. The Republican-controlled House is expected to pass the bills.

Rep. David McKinley (R-West Virginia) introduced the bill that would block the EPA from regulating coal ash powder and sludge as a hazardous waste and give state agencies authority to further loosen regulations.

http://www.truth-out.org/print/4353

I really get tired of you and others posting material that doesn't have the bill numbers attached. How many times have I proven these sites often misrepresent the truth?

Bill number please.

[ElNono]

H.r.1391

http://www.gipl.org/blog/blogView.as...Toxic+Coal+Ash

[Wild Cobra]

H.r.1391

http://www.gipl.org/blog/blogView.as...Toxic+Coal+Ash

Thanx.

If that's what they are talking about, I don't see a problem. It's all about removing the "cradle to grave" accounting requirement for these waste byproducts that aren't that serious, especially if some are recyclable.

[ElNono]

Thanx.

If that's what they are talking about, I don't see a problem. It's all about removing the "cradle to grave" accounting requirement for these waste byproducts that aren't that serious, especially if some are recyclable.

You don't think properly tracking and accounting for hazardous waste byproducts is that serious? I think regulating how those byproducts are disposed is exactly EPA's job.

[Wild Cobra]

You don't think properly tracking and accounting for hazardous waste byproducts is that serious? I think regulating how those byproducts are disposed is exactly EPA's job.

It doesn't need that level of tracking. I think it would be more acceptable to have that level of tracking on CFLs, than ash.

[ElNono]

It doesn't need that level of tracking. I think it would be more acceptable to have that level of tracking on CFLs, than ash.

They're both hazardous substances. If it wouldn't be hazardous, it wouldn't have that classification, thus wouldn't require that oversight.

[RandomGuy]

It doesn't need that level of tracking. I think it would be more acceptable to have that level of tracking on CFLs, than ash.

This is only a reasonable position if you don't know what is generally in this waste.

Toxic cons uents depend upon the specific coal bed makeup, but may include one or more of the following elements or substances in quan ies from trace amounts to several percent: arsenic, beryllium, boron, cadmium, chromium, chromium VI, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, selenium, strontium, thallium, and vanadium, along with dioxins and PAH compounds.[1][2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash

If you are trying to say that tracking and safely disposing of dioxins and toxic metals are not really necessary, I would say that is not a reasonable position.

Do you think it is important to track and safely dispose of such things?





(by the by here is the entry for "PAH compounds")

As a pollutant, they are of concern because some compounds have been identified as carcinogenic, mutagenic, and teratogenic.

(teratogenic = causing birth defects, like two heads)

[boutons_deux]

"I don't see a problem"

coal ash is full of toxic minerals and compounds, but that's OK with WC.

WC doesn't see a problem with destroying mountains and millions of tons of toxic coal ash blowing around the country.

EPA Guidance on Mountaintop Removal: Acceptable Birth Defects and Cancer Corridors in Appalachian Coalfields?

In the face of irrefutable evidence of a spiraling humanitarian crisis in the Appalachian coalfields, the beleaguered EPA has just issued non-binding “guidance” rules to maintain the devastating practice of mountaintop removal mining through an admittedly failed review process.

For Appalachian residents who live under the deadly fallout of EPA’s decisions, state corruption and Big Coal’s assault, the rules are akin to a prolonged death sentence–and in effect, tacitly recognize birth defects and cancer corridors as acceptable collateral damage in the coalfields.

“This guideline falls far short of protecting the life and health of people living beneath and near mountaintop removal,” said Appalachian leader Bo Webb. “There are only two solutions available that will protect life in mountaintop removal communities. One: Keep all materials on the permitted site including blasting dust. Two: The most logical–abolsih mountaintop removal. Anything else serves only as a guideline for a slower kill.”

“The communities of Appalachia need our health and lives protected by abolishing mountaintop removal,” added Vernon Haltom, Executive Director of Coal River Mountain Watch. “While this final guidance is a step in the right direction, Coal River Mountain Watch needs the EPA to take much stronger action. Unfortunately, the politicians entrusted to represent our best interests would rather shackle the only agency taking action to protect us.”

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/...aign=alternet#

======

Government of UCA, by UCA, for UCA

[MannyIsGod]

Not with today's technology. We need technological breakthroughs. Thing is, they are smart enough to know this would fail. It's just a liberal feel good waste of money. Really depressing in my view.

Hey dumbass, liberal's don't want this.

[Th'Pusher]

a slightly better idea?

We have a winner
British Columbia’s carbon tax woos sceptics
Jul 21st 2011 | VANCOUVER | from the print edition


DURING Canada’s 2008 federal election campaign Stephen Harper, the Conservative prime minister, warned that an opposition promise to introduce a carbon tax would “screw everybody”. Partly for that reason, Mr Harper is still the prime minister. But in the same year, the provincial government in British Columbia introduced a carbon tax of its own. Despite the levy, its economy is doing well. What is more, the tax is popular: it is backed by 54%, says a survey in the province by Environics, a pollster. Gordon Campbell, the Liberal premier who introduced the tax, won a provincial election the next year.

When arguing for the carbon tax, Mr Campbell faced the same political obstacles that have stymied such plans elsewhere. Only environmentalists were enthusiastic. Businesses feared it would add to costs and slow the economy. The leftish New Democratic Party (NDP) worried it would hurt the poor. But these fears have proved groundless. “The carbon tax has been good for the environment, good for taxpayers and it hasn’t hurt the economy,” says Stewart Elgie, a professor of law and economics at the University of Ottawa.

It helped that the law introducing the levy required its proceeds to be recycled back to individuals and companies as cuts in income taxes. The new tax was initially set at C$10 ($10) per tonne of carbon-dioxide emissions, rising by increments of C$5 per year to C$30 in 2012. It seems to be working as planned. Since 2008 fuel consumption per head in the province has dropped by 4.5%, more than elsewhere in Canada. British Columbians use less fuel than any other Canadians. And British Columbians pay lower income taxes too.

The new tax has not weakened the province’s economy, which has been boosted by high world prices for its commodity exports. Unemployment is slightly below the national average, and growth slightly higher. Because the tax started low and its rises were set out in advance, businesses had plenty of time to make plans to cut their carbon use.

A recent poll by the Pembina Ins ute, a green think-tank, found that 70% of British Columbians think their province should be a leader in cutting emissions. Christy Clark, Mr Campbell’s successor as premier, is committed to keeping the tax. Adrian Dix, the NDP leader in the province, says his party should have supported it. Both leaders want future carbon revenues to be used for energy-efficient infrastructure projects rather than more tax cuts. Only John mins, the Conservative leader in British Columbia, still opposes the tax.

At C$25 per tonne, British Columbia’s tax already exceeds the price of carbon in Europe’s emissions-trading scheme. But it is still too low to prompt radical changes in behaviour: it adds just five cents to the price of a litre of petrol. Getting the most energy-intensive industries to make big cuts might take a tax four times as high. Even so, British Columbia has shown the rest of Canada, a country with high carbon emissions per head, that a carbon tax can achieve multiple benefits at minimal cost. Unless Mr Harper reconsiders his opposition to the idea, in the future it might be him who faces being screwed.

[MannyIsGod]

Thats innovative. Funneling back the amount collected via income tax is actually very very smart I like it.

[Wild Cobra]

They're both hazardous substances. If it wouldn't be hazardous, it wouldn't have that classification, thus wouldn't require that oversight.

So why don't we comply with subchaper C regulations with CFL's?

Thing is, this isn't the only regulation. It doesn't eliminate all regulation. It only removes the stringent cradle to grave accounting requirements of 42 USC 6921. It doesn't remove the requirements.

[Wild Cobra]

This is only a reasonable position if you don't know what is generally in this waste.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash

If you are trying to say that tracking and safely disposing of dioxins and toxic metals are not really necessary, I would say that is not a reasonable position.

Do you think it is important to track and safely dispose of such things?





(by the by here is the entry for "PAH compounds")


(teratogenic = causing birth defects, like two heads)

These are sold waste compounds that have other requirements. If a firm is going to improperly dispose of them, they can just doctor the books anyway. It's not going to change any ongoing immoral activity. just reduce the costs involved.

[Wild Cobra]

"I don't see a problem"

coal ash is full of toxic minerals and compounds, but that's OK with WC.

WC doesn't see a problem with destroying mountains and millions of tons of toxic coal ash blowing around the country.

EPA Guidance on Mountaintop Removal: Acceptable Birth Defects and Cancer Corridors in Appalachian Coalfields?

In the face of irrefutable evidence of a spiraling humanitarian crisis in the Appalachian coalfields, the beleaguered EPA has just issued non-binding “guidance” rules to maintain the devastating practice of mountaintop removal mining through an admittedly failed review process.

For Appalachian residents who live under the deadly fallout of EPA’s decisions, state corruption and Big Coal’s assault, the rules are akin to a prolonged death sentence–and in effect, tacitly recognize birth defects and cancer corridors as acceptable collateral damage in the coalfields.

“This guideline falls far short of protecting the life and health of people living beneath and near mountaintop removal,” said Appalachian leader Bo Webb. “There are only two solutions available that will protect life in mountaintop removal communities. One: Keep all materials on the permitted site including blasting dust. Two: The most logical–abolsih mountaintop removal. Anything else serves only as a guideline for a slower kill.”

“The communities of Appalachia need our health and lives protected by abolishing mountaintop removal,” added Vernon Haltom, Executive Director of Coal River Mountain Watch. “While this final guidance is a step in the right direction, Coal River Mountain Watch needs the EPA to take much stronger action. Unfortunately, the politicians entrusted to represent our best interests would rather shackle the only agency taking action to protect us.”

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/...aign=alternet#

======

Government of UCA, by UCA, for UCA

How does this apply to the solid waste product after the carbon in the coal is consumed?

Nobody is denying there are toxic byproducts.

I guess nobody wants to talk about sequestration, huh?

[Blake]

How many times have I proven these sites often misrepresent the truth?

If I had been drinking coke when I read this, I might have spit it all over my screen

[MannyIsGod]

[Wild Cobra]

If I had been drinking coke when I read this, I might have spit it all over my screen

Why would you drink that poison?

[Blake]

Why would you drink that poison?

regular Coke, I almost never drink.

I like the Coke Zero with vanilla. Pretty addictive, imo.

[Drachen]

why would you drink that poison?

irony!!!

[Wild Cobra]

regular Coke, I almost never drink.

I like the Coke Zero with vanilla. Pretty addictive, imo.

Carcinogens and artificial crap.

Don't forget the CO2 and global warming!

[RandomGuy]

Keeping track of this stuff from production to disposal is too time consuming and expensive--Wild Cobra

"Toxic cons uents [of coal ash]depend upon the specific coal bed makeup, but may include one or more of the following elements or substances in quan ies from trace amounts to several percent: arsenic, beryllium, boron, cadmium, chromium, chromium VI, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, selenium, strontium, thallium, and vanadium, along with dioxins and PAH compounds.[1][2] "--Wikipedia

Do you think it is important to track and safely dispose of such things?-RG

These are sold waste compounds that have other requirements. If a firm is going to improperly dispose of them, they can just doctor the books anyway. It's not going to change any ongoing immoral activity. just reduce the costs involved.

That's not really an answer to the question. I take it your answer is "No, it is not important to track such things, because it is too expensive, and people can lie anyways if they want to".

The policy solution you would then seem to be in favor of is removing reporting requirements to the EPA, so "we can have more jobs".

I would rather the government retain the ability to drop the hammer on the cheaters when they catch them, than to trust in industry to "just do the right thing".

Honestly I find your logic really weak. "we should not bother with X, because people will just break the law making X illegal"

The nasty in this ash is the unavoidable byproduct of burning coal. It seems to me you want to allow the producers of this toxic a free ride to dump it anywhere that is cheap, if they want to, because that "creates jobs".

Is that what you are saying?

[Wild Cobra]

RG...

If a firm is going to disregard the regulations, what good does accounting do that can be doctored anyway?

I see it as just more "feel good" liberal expenses.

[Blake]

Carcinogens and artificial crap.

I'm sure I know, but what ingredient(s) are you referring to as carcinogens?

[MannyIsGod]

I like Vanilla Coke Zero, too!

[MannyIsGod]

I like Fresca more, TBH.