The EPA’s bait-and-switch on coal continued this week in Washington.  During a Senate hearing on the EPA’s budget for 2015, administrator Gina McCarthy tried her best to argue that all the agency is really trying to do is give coal a path forward to continue to be part of the nation’s energy portfolio.

The “bait” the EPA tosses out is carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), the technology that removes carbon dioxide produced during the burning of coal and other fossil fuels.  The EPA says it has a responsibility under the Clean Air Act to reduce CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases because they affect the climate.

The EPA’s new standards for CO2 make it impossible to build a coal-fired power plant in the future without CCS. The problem, however, is that no one really knows whether the economics of CCS work.

Senator John Hoeven (R-N.D.) tried to pin McCarthy down Wednesday, arguing the new carbon emission standards for coal-fired power plants are not achievable because “carbon sequestration is not commercially viable.”

In her response, McCarthy chose her words carefully.  “We believe carbon capture and sequestration is actually technically feasible (emphasis added).”

Hoeven interrupted McCarthy.  “I did not say ‘technically feasible,’ I said ‘commercially viable.’”

McCarthy said the term “technically feasible” is the standard of the law, which means only that the EPA projects that the technology will be available when a power plant is built.   Well, a manned mission to Mars is technically feasible, but that doesn’t mean we’ll be going anytime soon.

The EPA likes to point to the coal-fired Kemper County Energy Facility in Mississippi as an example of how CCS technology can be used to burn coal cleanly, but that’s a stretch.   The price tag for Kemper has more than doubled, to $5 billion. Taxpayers kicked in $700 million in grants and tax credits, and Kemper has been promised $2.8 billion in higher electric rates in one of the poorest parts of Mississippi.

The Kemper plant is illustrative of why McCarthy will not use the words “commercially viable.”  Kemper allows the EPA to give lip service to its alleged commitment to the continued use of coal, while simultaneously scaring off utilities and investors.

However, the worst is yet to come.  Next the EPA will issue CO2 emission standards for existing power plants.  No doubt they will come with McCarthy’s assurances that meeting those new standards will be “technically feasible.”

 

 

bubble graphic

107

bubble graphic

Comments

  • Marlon

    Great information. Lucky me I found your blog by chance (stumbleupon).
    I have book marked it for later!

    Here is my page - garcinia cambogia how to make
    it work (Elouise)

  • Thorsten

    Public Pools the following is a list of public pools.
    There are 2 small speakers incorporated into the case design, that
    actually work pretty well despite their mini size, but there is a waterproof protected option to use your earphones if you prefer.
    Depending on your needs and what you are willing to spend, pool heaters come in a
    few different flavors to provide the comfort of cozy water.


    my blog: Pool Live Tour Cheats

  • Forrest

    Kipper and pal Tiger build an igloo in "The Igloo" and
    speed down snowy hills in "Tiger's Sled. Creative make-up is developed as British art to confuse facial recognition software as shown in Bridle's talk. Also, it's entirely possible that some of these title will return in days or weeks.

    Look at my web site marvel avengers hack tool

  • Iona

    Once you get into CC debt, it can be a tough road out, in particular
    when you are paying up to 25% interest. [That is] the same
    question that Bucky Fuller asked me back in 1981. Kris: Well, you could if you want a lively discussion.

    My blog pocket god hack apk

  • Kathaleen

    If you dsire to take a good deal from this piece of writing
    then you have to apply these strategies too your
    won weblog.

    My homepage: China and Hong Kong on Wikipedia

  • Jason412

    I retract my earlier statement, apparently not only waste water, but the actual fracking process has beencausing earthquakes in Ohio. Ohio has issued stricter regulations due to this new informtion.

    "They “believe the sand and water injected into the well during the hydraulic fracturing process may have increased pressure on an unknown microfault in the area,” the Ohio Department of Natural Resources said in a statement about the Poland, Ohio, operation"

    www. latimes .com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-ohio-finds-link-fracking-earthquakes-20140411,0,570007.story#ixzz2ylzeAVWv (take spaces out)

  • Jason412

    ""I think the Youngstown seismic activity can mostly be attributted to poor planning in placing that deep injection well. Thank you for having a rational discourse on the subject with me."

    That's pretty much what I thought. 95%, maybe 99%, of gas companies don't worry me. It's the small percentage that doesn't take the time and/or effort to do things as correctly and safety as possible.

    I want to see gas help the economy, I don't want to see companies like XTO Energy(Exxon) intentionally dumping 50,000 gallons of wastewater into streams or these companies who now have gas lines exploding in communities up and down the Marcellus Shale.

    My hope is that as time progresses these incidents will be almost unheard of, but time will tell. Thanks for the information

  • Fiscal Conservative

    A geologic map shows the older fault as well. Again poor planning on the part of the operator. However there doesn't appear to be any eminant danger to the public.

  • Fiscal Conservative

    Jason there is a response to your inquiry on the older comments section. Not sure why it is placed there.

  • Fiscal Conservative

    Jason, from what I have read and know of the geology of the area. A well respected non industry geoscientist believes that they are injecting into an ancient fault line. This could very well be the cause of any significant seismic activity. However the smaller seismic events could easily be from perforations prior to and during fraccing. we have had people from as far as 50 miles away report feeling tremors. Particularly when we hit existing fissures that go farther towards the surface. I think the Youngstown seismic activity can mostly be attributted to poor planning in placing that deep injection well. Thank you for having a rational discourse on the subject with me.

  • Jason412

    Fiscal,

    From living in the area when they first started happening I can tell you that before 2011 they never happened, and if they did it was 50+ years before 2011.

    Athlete,

    The company that was most recently ordered to stop is Hilcorp, Youngstown is on the Marcellus Shale formation.

    During the 2011 earthquakes, I think 3.9 was the highest magnitude.

    Here's an NBC article saying one specific well caused the 2011 ones, and after the well was shut down the quakes stopped.

    www. nbcnews .com/science/science-news/confirmed-fracking-practices-blame-ohio-earthquakes-f8C11073601 ( take spaces out)

  • ricardo

    Appalachian coal is going down for three reasons other than these regulations: 1. The seams are played out, 2. Cheaper western coal has flooded the market, 3. Alternatives such as fracked gas and oil are cheaper and abundant.

    These are the ugly truths no one talks about because we're being played like a fiddle by political interests that could care less about people like us. The Dems played us for years, now the Republicans are doing the fiddling.

  • Wowbagger

    Globally there have been both globally warm and cold periods while CO2 levels were far higher than today, long before humans existed.

  • Aaron

    I'm not bothered, I'm a realist. China is investing in renewable not out of some moral righteous, they are doing so because they know their country needs every available resource for energy.

    The left has convinced minions in this country that we can survive in the short term without coal. As I've grown rather accustomed to seeing light when I flip my switch, that is the only thing that bothers me.

  • Aaron

    China, a communist country flush with cash is paying to put renewables in place and then charging their citizens as much as twice what a West Virginian pays for electric.

    "To address the solvency of the renewable energy fund, in August, the NDRC doubled the electricity surcharge on industrial customers to 0.015 yuan / kWh (0.25 US¢ / kWh), keeping the residential and agriculture surcharge at 0.008 yuan / kWh (0.13 US¢ / kWh) (Chinese announcement). With a little over three-quarters of electricity going to industry, this will increase substantially the contributions to the fund. At the same time, solar FITs were scaled back slightly by instituting a regional three-tier system akin to that developed for wind: sunny but remote areas in the north and northwest offer 0.90-0.95 yuan / kWh (15-15.5 US¢ / kWh) while eastern and southern provinces close to load centers but with lower quality resources offer 1 yuan / kWh (16 US¢ / kWh) (Chinese announcement)."

    That's from a site called The Energy Collective and links directly to an official Chinese government announcement.

    “Our (2013) rates were the sixth lowest in the entire country,” PSC spokesperson Susan Small said. "West Virginians pay on average $95 a month for electricity.
    On average, West Virginians pay 9.52 cents per kilowatt hour. The only states with cheaper rates are Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, North Dakota and Washington."

    That's from a metro news article last week. So if the Chinese are paying twice as much for wind with an all of the above attitude, imagine what West Virginians will pay when the left is successful in eliminating coal as an energy source.

    And just so you know, I just checked and I'm still feeling with my fingers.

  • The bookman

    And it comes full circle, as we began this trip with a visit to the Holy Church of Global Warming. Dr. Hansen has certainly extolled from that pulpit. I wonder what effect this boiling would have on sea level rises? Anyway, great post and interesting information.

  • dolphin3111

    "The buildup of anthropogenic carbon dioxide may lead to dangerous climate change, not because CO2 is a particularly powerful greenhouse gas, but because the slight warming caused by excess CO2 will cause sea water to evaporate, filling the atmosphere with water vapour. Water vapour is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. The evaporation of water vapour will trigger a chain reaction, a runaway greenhouse effect, in which global warming caused by the evaporation of ever increasing amounts of sea water forces yet more sea water to evaporate. In Dr. James Hansen’s words, 'The oceans will begin to boil' ”.

    A very compelling theory. However it is completely unsubstantiated by scientific experimentation.

  • dplphin3111

    Absolutely not. I'm saying that, at 300 to 400 ppmv (0.04%), CO2 is an insignificant driving force in global warming compared to other factors.

  • Wirerowe

    Hillboy we do not agree on global warming. My problem is that this entire debate is not binary yes or no . It is a wide set of beliefs across a wide spectrum with no consensus within various group other than there is or there isn't global warming. I am also very concerned that the policy decision makers either completely disregard economic impacts of their actions and completely ignore global and domestic energy markets. I am not even more concerned that the EPA unlike pollutants that cause health risk can not quantify and probably can't even qualify the benefits of reducing or shutting down coal fired power plants. I hear arguments that America must be a leader. In today's world I don't believe anyone care's much what we do. The second argument is that even we don't know what the benefits are we cannot take the risk of doing nothing. Therefore we must do something and coal is easy to demonize Unlike automobiles which are in the democratic metro areas, coal is only in a few rural red state. I understand that the information is not precise and the impacts are not thoroughly known. But I think the fuzziness and the lack of certainty is disconcerting. To me there is also clearly a risk of doing something that may well have insignificant benefits or poorly defined benefits that distorts energy markets, hurts regional economies , hurts industries that have a competitive advantage with low energy and falls most heavily on those least able to pay. I think that the cost is too much too pay for nebulous or insignificant benefits other than to say we are doing something.

  • Fiscal Conservative

    I read 2 stories on these incidents, the first one spoke of earthquakes prior to recently, while the other one says there were no known earthquakes in the area. Not sure what to believe on that.

  • The bookman

    Actually Jeff, yesterday you implied that China was closing 1725 coal mines in an effort to move away from coal. And although that may be their stated goal, the facts bear a different story. They are shuttering non productive and unsafe mines in favor of higher producing ones, and ramping up production. In terms of pollution, the Chinese are not focused on CO2 emissions, but particulates, as they are light years behind us in terms of mitigating environmental impacts of industrialization.

    If you look deeply into China's stated goals on a number of energy initiatives, you'll quickly find they are in conflict with one another. The one thing you can be sure of, however. China will do what is best for China. Not the Chinese, not the UN, not Asia, only China!

  • Jeff

    pesky facts? I must've missed where you contradicted what I said.

    Anyway, China plans to be at 20% renewables by 2020. Whether that happens remains to be seen. I'm just wondering how that news makes you feel?

  • thornton

    Considering that China is deeply concerned with the advantages provided by clean energy such as wind as well as being doubly concerned about the environment and it's species...is there a link to their investigations into birds killed by their wind energy networks?

  • Jeff

    You're wrong on your first point. I'm sorry you felt deceived.

    Sure, go ahead and talk about China's coal problem, I'm not offended. It seems you're bothered by China's plans to greatly invest, expand, and emphasize their renewable portfolio. Could it be because you're in love with coal? Like, actual love.

  • Fiscal Conservative

    BTW I use the name an actual athlete on the sports stories. Sorry for any confusion

  • Fiscal Conservative

    BTW I use the monicker an actual athlete on the sports comments. Sorry for any confusion.

  • An actual athlete

    I will do a little research and based on known comments practices and which operator holds the lease, and geologic information at least give you an educated explanation as to why this is occurring. I am curious as to what magnitude of seismic activity we are talking about tho.

  • Aaron

    No one mentioned it yesterday until you started with your deceptive post.

    Shall we discuss how China leads the world in coal production as well?

  • An actual athlete

    Do you know the operator by any chance, or which shale play they are currently drilling. That would be helpful in a more accurate explanation. A lot of operators do things differently, and actually depending on superintendent and consultants vary on technique well to well.

  • Aaron

    No need, not mood. Fothermuxking auto correct

  • Aaron

    No mood for spin. Even with their investment in renewable energy sources, they still get only about 6% of their energy from renewable which is half of what the United States supply at 12%.

    China also leads the world in coal production as they account for about half the worlds mining despite shutting down so many months.

    Those pesky facts.

  • An actual athlete

    So they are saying that the water in the strata is enough to cause earthquakes? Are they sure that what they are feeling isn't siesmic perforations? Currently more often than not the waste water is treated and reused in a future fraccing operation.

  • Jason412

    I'm not saying wastewater causes earthquakes, But Fiscal Conservative Id be interested to know if during your internship any explanation was given as to why the Youngstown area had no records of earthquakes until 2011, then had 4 in one day and over 100 that year. As well as having 4 or 5 more in one day last month that resulted in ODNR shutting down the only gas company in the area out of "an abundance of caution".

    This is something Im genuinely very interested in and am open to hearing any factual explanations.

  • Jeff

    The claim is the waste water injection wells trigger earthquakes.

  • Hillboy

    Yes, that's correct. I thought she was still in Connecticut.

  • Jim

    McCarthy also claims that companies are investing in carbon sequestration and that this proves technical feasibility. I wonder if these investments are being done with energy department subsidies, as was the case for Solyndra.

  • Fiscal Conservative

    The market would have pushed the auto makers that way. Perhaps not as quickly but it would have happened. I don't agree with government pushing an agenda either way. Its grown far to big.

  • Fiscal Conservative

    Deforestation is a much bigger problem than co² emissions. That is all

  • Fiscal Conservative

    Then the chicoms will be wasting their money just like we are. In order to actually use most of these "renewable" a complete revamp of our power grid would have to be done. At massive expense to taxpayers either through taxes( because the government would be in bed with this) or skyrocketing power costs. Our economy is already in the crapper this would only make it worse.

  • The bookman

    She was the assistant administrator at EPA prior to assuming Jackson's vacated post.

  • Fiscal Conservative

    Well said sir. I interned as a frac specialist while in undergrad and I can assure you that the water certainly doesn't cause earthquakes. The rate and pressure achieved certainly can't in fact "blow open" rock enough to cause any real seismic activity. That's why we have to use propants to hold open the fissures created. The tool used to measure the actual frac is called microsesmic. We do use co² and nitrogen in this operations and they come out during flow back into the atmosphere "ohhh nooooo". Haha

  • Hillboy

    You may be thinking of Lisa Jackson. I don't think Gina McCarthy was working for EPA two years ago.

  • Jeff

    Dolphin, are you saying CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?

  • Hillboy

    According to the EIA, volcanoes on average emit somewhere between 65 and 320 million tons of CO2 per year.

    Humans, through burning fossil fuels and deforestation account for 300 billion tons per year. So, roughly 100 times that of volcanoes on average every year.

    If you have a source for your Mt. Pinatubo claim I would be interested in reading it.

  • Jeff

    I already replied to your other comment, but FYI, China is leading the world in clean energy investment and will be aggressively investing more over the next five years. You can spin that however you want.

  • Hillboy

    Wirerowe, Although we don't agree on the global warming part I do agree with you in part on two things. 1) Carbon sequestration is not economically viable so talking about technical viability is irrelevant. 2) I don't think it is a good idea to apply carbon standards across the board to all coal-fired power plants. A small percentage of coal plants account for a large amount of the total CO2 emitted. I'd rather see them focus on the worst ones than an across-the-board approach. Get the klunkers off the road first.

  • Jeff

    Well no on has mentioned China in this thread but you. But we can discuss how China clearly lead the world in clean energy investment the last two years.

  • Aaron

    Yesterday you were touting rather emphatically China's commitment renewable energy. Today you mentioned it not at all.

    Does it have anything to do with the fact that as a percentage of total energy China is on the bottom end of the scale as renewable energy only accounts for 7% of China's energy sources or that despite closing nearly 2000 coal mines as you also mentioned yesterday, coal production tonnage has increased every year since they began closing mines in 2009!!!

  • Aaron

    I find it interesting that yesterday Jeff was making very emphatic comment regarding China and their "commitment" to renewable energy yet today he has not mentioned it once.

    Why Jeff?

  • CaptainQ

    It IS over, dolphin3111. The proverbial 'fat lady' is now warming up for her closing number.

  • Wirerowe

    I do not believe it is rational and scientific to close down the coal industry which is only one of two viable sources of fuel for electric power generation because of broad brush climate change connections. Especially when US coal fired emissions are declining and account for only 4 to 5 percent of world co2 emissions, a percentage that will continue to decline with reduced emissions here and increased emissions elsewhere. There is no discernible benefit from doing this and no scientist can justify this based on known outcomes. This is particularly dangerous in light of some natural gas markets having spot prices of 8 a mcf this past winter. Those were seasonal prices but illustrate the danger of putting all our eggs in a natural gas which has had a volatile price history. You can talk about all the preponderance of evidence you want but if climate change beliefs lead to this kind of dubious public policies, then I will continue to deride this scienceA science that makes assertions regarding climate change not supported by facts that severity and incidence of tornadoes and hurricanes are increasing or that droughts are increasing in California when theory would say the opposite. If you wish to distinguish between the natural science and political science of global warming that is fine. But once just once if one of your beloved scientists would stand up and tell the fear mongering politicans that what we know about global warming does not support the politicans assertions. Then I would have some trust and respect for their objectivity and credibility.

  • Aaron

    My bilingual shortcomings aside, I'm curious as to what you think about the comment itself.

  • Hop'sHip

    -6 That brings you back to zero, Bookie.8

  • The bookman

    The Earth is a dynamic and very stable body. Change is always occurring, usually in such small increments they go unnoticed. Even catastrophic events in our planet's history have taken thousands of years to play out.

    Recently, paleontologists have learned through examinations of the fossil record that following the cataclysmic asteroid collision that triggered the end of the dinosaurs, it took nearly 200,000 years for them to be expunged from the fossil record. Consider that the enormous collision sent fragments of debris that encircled the globe leaving a thin layer of iridium, a rare element here on Earth, but known to be prevalent in asteroids and meteors, at the 65 million year marker, commonly known as the K-T boundary in the fossil record.

    Yes, our environment is fragile. But the Earth can withstand monumental and catastrophic change. History describes a dynamic Earth, and man has only been here for a very short 2 million years or so. Yes the climate changes. But not in our lifetime. That is weather!

  • leroy j gibbs

    every time you breathe out you emit co2

  • The bookman

    The Earth is a dynamic and very stable body. Change is always occurring, usually in such small increments they go unnoticed. Even catastrophic events in our planet's history have taken thousands of years to play out.

    Recently, paleontologists have learned through examinations of the fossil record that following the cataclysmic asteroid collision that triggered the end of the dinosaurs, it took nearly 200,000 years for them to be expunged from the fossil record. Consider that the enormous collision sent fragments of debris that encircled the globe leaving a thin layer of iridium, a rare element here on Earth, but known to be prevalent in asteroids and meteors, at the 65 million year marker, commonly known as the K-T boundary in the fossil record.

    Yes, our environment is fragile. But the Earth can withstand monumental and catastrophic change. History describes a dynamic Earth, and man has only been here for a very short 2 million years or so. Yes the climate changes. But not in our lifetime. That is weather!

  • Aaron

    Blame the misspellings on Google, copy and paste. I tried using Syrie but all would say is "I do not understand what you are saying" which begs the question, do I get credit if I say it in a hick accent?

  • Hop'sHip

    Generally speaking to be a sport in West Virginia, something has to die or some loud noise must be made. I guess if you grunt on your ground strokes, you might qualify. But then again speaking in French makes you suspect. The misspelling of the last word may earn you a pass.

  • Shadow

    I would not say it was the government that improved the gas mileage. It was the result of technology. Development of the inexpensive minicomputer and associated sensors coupled with better and more precise manufacturing techniques allowed for better fuel management. It there was any government agencys that my have helped, it would have been DARPA and NASA.

  • dolphin3111

    McCarthy is a stupid idiot.

  • dolphin3111

    Who gave the EPA, the UN IPCC,and President Obama the authority to rename "global warming" to something we all know has been happening for billions of years, "climate change"?

  • Aaron

    Au contraire mon fraire, I have plenty of tennis in the state. Perhaps not competitive with other states but it doesn't stop us from playing. I myself have dabbled and am considering playing in the 90s and older tour.

    King me.

    Or is it go fish?

  • ViennaGuy

    I have heard environmentalists claim that the water pumped underground for fracking is causing earthquakes.

    If what they say is true - that the water pumped underground for fracking is causing earthquakes, what do they think that pumping carbon dioxide underground is going to do? Do they think it will magically disappear or something?

  • Shadow

    Didn't the AMA buy into Obamacare? Now they regret it! It is hard to beat a clever fraud.

  • Jason412

    "This can only be explained by the religious fervor of the Church of Global warming and has nothing to do with reason or science"

    Doesn't sound much different than every other Church.

  • ViennaGuy

    - However, time and time again history has shown us that if the Feds don't push for something to happen, it won't. -

    Really?

    Did the federal government push the Wright Brothers to develop the airplane?

    What about Alexander Graham Bell and the telephone?

    Nikola Tesla and AC power?

    Thomas Edison and his multitude of inventions(electric light, motion pictures, etc.)?

    IBM and the personal computer as we know it?

    Henry Ford and the mass-produced, affordable car?

    I could go on and on ...

  • dolphin3111

    False checkmate.

  • dolphin3111

    +3

  • Hop'sHip

    I believe the Captain said "checkmate." There is no tennis in West Virginia. That's a sport for those science freaks.

  • dolphin3111

    The bookman, you're question deserves an honest answer. NONE.

    The science of human caused global warming is not settled. We haven't even begun to understand all of the details of how our climate works.

  • dolphin3111

    At a congressional hearing two years ago, McCarthy didn't even know how muc CO2 was in the atmosphere. Ha!!

  • dolphin3111

    CaptainQ, It's not over. The truth will prevail. Obama, the EPA, and the IPCC will lose.

  • Aaron

    If you can't bring the Mountain to Obama then Obama will go to the mountain.

    The left has tried to reduce the cost of renewables to compete with coal but have been wildly unsuccessful despite the money thrown at them from government so it's time to do the next best thing.

    Raise the price of coal.

    As the captain says, game, set match.

  • dolphin3111

    The Pickering Post --

    Want to be a “climate scientist”? Well you can be within a week. Simply write a paper on the weather or whatever, have it peer-reviewed, then publish it in some dodgy Green journal and voila! You’re a “scientist!”. Now you can start reporting your conclusions to the UN’s IPCC about how we are all about to die of sun stroke while drowning in high tides at the same time. They are looking forward to hearing from you.

    Of course, if you want to be an oceanographer or a meteorologist, it may take a few years longer and the IPCC will not want to hear from you at all.

  • dolphin3111

    Jeff, Just because the leadership of a society is buying into the AGW political hoax, doesn't mean it's members do.

  • dolphin3111

    That may be true, Jeff, but it’s not been proven. Consider these :

    1. When the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.

    2. The EPA has not proven at all that CO2, a material NECESSARY for life on earth, is causing global warming.

  • Hop'sHip

    Tell me more, oh Wiseowe! Did they all chant "Science is California?"

  • Jeff

    "Which is convenient since a third grader could tell you that climate changes every fricking day."

    Uh where did you go to school??

  • DWM

    This is how liberalism works:

    1) Create a crisis, in this case the crisis is the world is going to end due to global warming, when in fact there is no proof the planet is warming to the point that they now call the crisis "climate change". Which is convenient since a third grader could tell you that climate changes every fricking day. The key to crisis creation is repetition by all the liberal lemmings, in this case their choir consists of 95% of the k-12 teachers, every school book author that wants published, nearly all the media, and all the college professors. Note, all these groups are singing this lie on pitch and in unison.

    2) Once the crisis is created, identify the opposition and destroy them. In this case, the opposition has been branded as idiot rednecks, and racists that should be thrown in jail.

    3) Once you have gained a foothold, try to enact law that supports the fake crisis. If that fails go around the need for law by having unelected government officials with no legal basis enact unattainable standards (just as good as laws) that crush the opposition.

    4) All the while, invest heavily in the future success, in this case it is in carbon credits that will eventually be traded on the exchanges and bought for a hefty price and make these liberals billions of dollars. It is a little like a pyramid scam, only legal.

    You say, how could all this happen in America. It is not a "could happen", it has happened. And it happened because we elected a president that cares more for his ideology than he does for the bedrock traditions of the country. In his mind it would be better if we all danced to his liberal doctrine than if we were all free.

    Welcome to the future of America. The worst generation, coddled by their college professors in the '60's when they were breaking laws, have become the leaders of this charade in the new millenium.

  • Prolo

    Flying pigs are "technically feasible" as well. So let's require everyone who wants to commerically farm pigs to do so using "technically feasible" flying pigs

  • Jeff

    AAAS, ACS, AGU, AMA, AMS, APS, GSA, etc.

  • Hillboy

    There are members in both congregations who take the gospel on faith, not based on reason. However, if you want to go on reason the preponderance of scientific evidence is that anthropogenic carbon emissions are affecting the climate. In 2013, 10,885 peer-reviewed articles were published in scientific climate-related journals. Two of them rejected man-made climate change. Converging streams of independent research show we are affecting the climate. What is the point of funding scientific research if we reject what we learn from it?

  • Wirerowe

    At a Global Warming Church in California the Grand Wizard of the Climate Scientists announced today that rapidly decreasing emissions of CO2 in the US caused global warming which led to snowfalls in the east. The standing room only crowd broke out in Cheers, "Hallejuah Global Warming". One dissenter asked " how can we know that Grand Wizard?" The Grand Wizard replied, "Science".The church grew deathly quiet and one little naive boy asked, "are you sure?" the Grand Wizard replied ," It was peer reviewed science" All of the churchgoers fell to their knees, some even fainted and had to be held up. All of them intoned in unison, "Oh Grand wizard we believe"

  • Hop'sHip

    And they have cool (coal) jingles at their church and stirring sermons from the inspirational Bishop Blankenship!

  • Hop'sHip

    Awomen! (Just to show that there is no gender bias in this congregation)

  • Wirerowe

    Jeff which half of the scientific community?

  • Wirerowe

    Hillboy I would disagree. The coal church is pretty devout but nothing compares to most true believers in global warming who know nothing about it other they have been scared and convinced that they are against it. That is being devout on steroids.

  • Hop'sHip

    Amen!

  • Jeff

    Hmm maybe the human contribution of CO2 is actually significant.

  • Hillboy

    Deacon Wirerowe, OK, but I would have to begrudgingly concede that the religious fervor of the Church of Global Warming is exceeded easily by that of the Full Gospel Tabernacle of the Friends of Coal. Can I hear an amen?

  • Bill MC

    I truly believe that no one in this administration from the top to the bottom ever tells the truth! If they open their mouths to speak it will never be the truth, period!

  • wvman75

    +2

  • wvman75

    Check out how much CO2 one moose burps and farts in one year.

  • Jeff

    "This can only be explained by the religious fervor of the Church of Global warming and has nothing to do with reason or science"

    I'm guessing you don't check in with the science community very often.

  • Buck

    I believe it is technically feasible that McCarthy is a paid stooge for Obama's agenda and is simply carrying out her marching orders.

  • thornton

    At least you capitalized...America.

  • thornton

    Ms. Gina's path is a deliberate dead end, with carrots and rainbows lining the sides to keep the focus narrow and short. At the end, there will be a lot of milling about, confused looks and, finger pointing.
    Ms. Gina will be long gone when that reckoning arrives.

  • Jeff

    Maybe he realized proclaiming "war on America" was tired, hollow, and completely ridiculous.

  • CaptainQ

    +1

  • Wirerowe

    The technology of capturing CO 2 is a viable technology but it is an irrelevant technology because it is impossible today and alway will be to dispose of the carbon in any relevant quantities either by disposing ( sequestration) or selling in the market place. It took over 50 years to make substantial reduction in pollutant identified in the clean air act. These pollutants were real and present danger because they were immediate unequivoable health hazards that were increasing in concentrations in the US. CO 2 concentrations are decreasing in this country especially from coal fired power plants. There is no known specific correlation known between further reducing Co2 emissions and some tangible benefit now or frankly ever. Yet somehow we must kill off one of our only two viable sources of electric generation immediately. This can only be explained by the religious fervor of the Church of Global warming and has nothing to do with reason or science,

  • Jim N Charleston

    Skippy,

    I'm just thankful, Cecil & his band of merry men (umwa) endorsed Obama. The wisdom comes from the harry hat.

    I'm Jim N Canada
    L8r

  • The bookman

    Improving mileage on vehicles has intrinsic value, and the increased cost associated with the improved technology can be adjusted into the cost of the vehicle. Customers receive the benefit of spending less over the life of the vehicle on fuel.

    What benefit is achieved for the customer by utilizing carbon sequestration? When they figure that out, then you can apply pressure on utilities to incorporate this technology. Right now it is a concept that has no benefit, other than satisfying the climate change crowd in reducing CO2 emissions, and those benefits are at best questionable by science and current observations.

  • Medman

    I don't understand why we keep listening to the executives in this Administration. They always lie, stone wall or refuse to back up anything they say with facts. Such a waste of time and the only answer is the next election.

  • Wowbagger

    I would like to hear Ms McCartney explain succinctly why CO2, a naturally occurring gas that is produced by every living thing, that is a trace gas in the atmosphere, and that occurrs in lower concentrations than in most of the geologic past can be considered a pollutant.

  • Shinnston Guy

    Hoppy,

    I doubt anyone would argue that the technology isn't "commercially viable" just yet. However, time and time again history has shown us that if the Feds don't push for something to happen, it won't. As a similar comparison, when CAFE standards were increased several years back to require cars get higher mpg, auto industry leaders said it would be the death of muscle cars and supercars. That was fear talking! Amazingly automakers are achieving these goals after investing in new technologies. (Several are now pulling 300hp from 4-cylinder engines, for instance.) Would automakers have ever cared about gas mileage without various government's legislative actions? Not likely. The same can be said here. Perhaps this technology for caputring carbon won't make a rate of return for several years, but that doesn't mean it isn't good to nudge the industry that way. Many new discoveries arise from pushing technology along, yet few have been found from remaining in the status quo. Perhaps these companies should stop complaining and start spending a little more of their money in R&D.

  • The bookman

    Someone needs to explain to Ms. McCarthy that meeting our energy demands currently without coal is neither commercially viable nor technically feasible. It also is a foolish path. We shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing the electricity generation rates of China and India by foolishly choosing more expensive energy over less expensive energy all in the name of CO2 reduction to halt global warming/cooling climate change mumbo jumbo.

    What Congress needs to do is revisit the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act and remove the latitude it grants the EPA to single handedly insert these limitations to air and water. No executive agency should wield the power that can be so easily manipulated by politics.

  • larryoldboy@hotmail.com

    A few months ago Senator Manchin called the federal assault on the coal industry a 'war on America'. However, in the meantime it doesn't seem like he's done a whole heckuva lot to prevent it. Could be he is keeping his ammo dry, shrewdly triangulating his way toward Hillary Clinton - who should, like her husband, the Great Triangulator himself, run for president as a centrist New Democrat. With perhaps Joe Manchin himself on the ticket to reassure wobbly blue-collar voters that the coal industry will outlast the Obama insurrection.