Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Power plant closures to cost US towns jobs, taxes

Tue Dec 20, 2011 4:07 AM EST
us-news, business, us, associated-press, plants, coal, communities, coal-plants
Vicki Smith, Associated Press
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 2 photos
<p>FILE - In this Dec. 14, 2011 file photo, Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov.  Mitt Romney is interviewed on the Fox News program "America's Newsroom", in New York. For the intertwined U.S. economy and presidential politics, it was a year of twists and unexpected turns. The wobbly economy framed the agenda for both parties, and how it performs in the coming months will help decide whether President Barack Obama wins a second term. (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan, File)</p>

FILE - In this Dec. 14, 2011 file photo, Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is interviewed on the Fox News program "America's Newsroom", in New York. For the intertwined U.S. economy and presidential politics, it was a year of twists and unexpected turns. The wobbly economy framed the agenda for both parties, and how it performs in the coming months will help decide whether President Barack Obama wins a second term. (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan, File)

Advertise | AdChoices

— For more than 90 years, the coal-fired power plant in Glen Lyn, Va., has been churning out electricity and contributing to local prosperity. Of late, it has generated nearly a quarter of the revenue for the $1 million budget of the town.

Yet when the plant ultimately shuts down to comply with new federal air pollution regulations by the end of 2014, says Town Manager Howard Spencer, so too might the community of 200.

"If the town lost all of that revenue," he says, "we would struggle to even continue to be incorporated."

An Associated Press analysis has found that more than 32 mostly coal-fired power plants in a dozen states will be forced to close because of the new, more stringent regulations. Another 36 plants are at risk of closing.

No lights will go dark. But the Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that 14.7 gigawatts — enough power for more than 11 million households — will be retired from the power grid in the 2014-15 period when the rules take effect. One rule curbs air pollution in states downwind from dirty power plants. Another sets first standards for mercury and other toxic pollutants from smokestacks.

The effect is greatest in the Midwest and in coal belt states such as Virginia and West Virginia, where dozens of units are likely to shut down.

Take Giles County, where American Electric Power's Glen Lyn plant is located, and where 44 jobs are on the line.

County Administrator Chris McKlarney worries about the $600,000 tax-revenue hit his $40 million budget will take. But that's just one concern involving a plant and workers whose community contribution is "hard to quantify."

"They've done so much donation-wise for local causes ... And they're really good people working there," he said. "They're coaches in Little League sports, involved in the Parent-Teacher Organization — you lose those kind of people, it's tough."

And they're good jobs — stable, well-paying positions with good benefits in places where such things can be hard to find.

The closures, though, have long been anticipated. The average age of the plants that could be sacrificed is 51 years.

Many plants, such as the one in Glen Lyn, began ramping down production more than a year ago, firing up only when demand surged. Many workers have transferred to more modern plants or are making plans to retire.

To be sure, there will be pain. The smaller the community, the deeper it's likely to be felt. Tax revenues will drop, and communities will struggle to make up the difference.

In Rivesville, W.Va., where Ohio-based FirstEnergy is closing an old plant, the slow death began long ago. Mayor Jim Hershman, who worked at the plant for 25 years before retiring, says it had about 40 employees until a year ago when most transferred out.

Few of the 10 left even live in the north-central West Virginia community of 1,200, Hershman says. The town stands to lose $40,000 in utility tax revenue — one-fifth of its total budget.

On the surface, the loss of 60 jobs at AEP's Kammer Plant near Moundsville, W.Va., may also seem small, said City Manager Allen Hendershot. The plant is outside the limits of the city of 9,000, so it has no direct impact on the budget. Yet there's a trickle-down effect on companies that supply materials and services for its day-to-day operation.

"It's hard to put an exact number on it," Hendershot says. "It's the coal mine jobs, the trucking jobs, the maintenance jobs."

Utility bills are certain to rise as plants go offline and others are retrofitted to meet the new regulations.

But the lights will stay on.

"It won't be like you're just pulling a plug out of the wall at those plants and they'll instantly shut down," said Brian Bretsch, a spokesman for St. Louis-based Ameren Corp.

That company, for instance, plans to finish mothballing plants near Hutsonville in eastern Illinois and Meredosia on the other side of the state by next spring.

Most of the 90 Ameren employees affected have already agreed to relocate, Bretsch said, and many others are retiring.

Roger Eddy, superintendent of the Hutsonville district schools and a Republican legislator, said he expects to recoup at least some lost revenue from the state. Farmland, commercial or residential property owners might face higher taxes, too.

"When this came out, people here were really like, `This is going to kill the school district.' It won't," Eddy said.

"I don't see any destitution coming from this," agreed Hutsonville Township supervisor Mike Gray.

Ameren still owns the property, and it will continue to generate property tax revenue for the community of 1,800. At least, he said, until someone challenges that.

In Hammond, Ind., where the State Line Power Station on Lake Michigan near Chicago is scheduled to close March 31, Mayor Tom McDermott Jr. has mixed feelings.

Like other community leaders, he worries about job losses, the effect on vendors and higher electric bills for people who can barely afford to keep their heat and lights on now.

But State Line is one of the dirtiest coal plants in the United States, "and it's in our backyard," he said. "I understand we need to move forward and we need to clean up our environment."

___

Online:

EPA and coal: http://tinyurl.com/cog6cjf

EPA and Clean Air Act: http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/index.html

EPA and mercury: http://www.epa.gov/mercury/about.htm

___

O'Dell reported from Richmond, Va., and Smith from Morgantown, W.Va. Also contributing were Tom Coyne in South Bend, Ind., and Jim Suhr in St. Louis, Mo.

© 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Vicki Smith's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (47)
Xmarine-4793426Deleted
MikeA-1238275

The Environmental Protection Agency has estimated 14.7 gigawatts — enough power for more than 11 million households — will be retired under new rules though no lights will go dark.

In other words, we'll either be creating 14.7 additional gigawatts of power generation in the next three years, meaning no net job loss, or we're currently producing 14.7 gigawatts more of electricity than we need- so why in the world are we polluting our air to do it?

  • 6 votes
Reply#2 - Tue Dec 20, 2011 4:28 AM EST
BLD

Boy are you brainwashed. No, they are not creating more energy than is needed and that is kind of a ridiculous statement. They are creating energy people don't need or use - huh??? Where do you get that silly idea. What are they doing with this extra energy - tell me, please? Thisi is a typical liberal response - put a positive spin on negatives. It's like the book/movie Big Brother. It reminds me of the scene in the movie where the main character is re-writing the news; his job. Sugar rations were reduced by from 30 to 25. He re-wrote the story to read sugar rations increased to 25; he put a positive spin and people believed it. That's what you and the liberals do - put the spin you want on any story to get people to believe it. Hopefully more and more people are seeing through it, and will if they only use common sense.

No, this is Obama's campaign promise to his greenies that we heard on audio about a month before the election: I won't outlaw these plants but will make it so expensive for them to operate, they will have to shut down. And he is using the EPA to effectuate this promise and to push his green agenda. He believes if we shut down the plants, then we will automatically grow green. Well, the alternative energies are not yet realiable nor ready for sole use. You can find that information anywhere.

Look, I grew up in the 60's and 70's so I remember dirty air. Things are so much better than in the past. You see white plumes of steam - not smoke like we used to see. As long as countries as China or India are not going to limit their pollution - which is probably the levels we had decades ago - then the global pollution is going to be high. Sorry, I am not one who believes WE should impact our economy and lifestyle to reduce levels on this planet just because other countries won't. In other words, WE are paying for THEIR dirty air. Air doesn't just stay in one place, you know.

Even Canada is pulling out of one of the treaties because they realize it's getting to the point of stupidity. I mean, these treaties now talk about "social" issues and it is becoming clear that part of this agenda is a way to transfer money from rich countries to poor ones. What do you want - for us to be freezing in winter and burning in summer? We can't even go back to fireplaces - causes pollution.

Wake up folks - you elected this idiot and his minions of far-left liberals. Now live with the consequences.

  • 3 votes
#2.1 - Tue Dec 20, 2011 6:37 AM EST
RobPlumley

I grew up in the 60's as well, and the air was dirty - very dirty.

Though this is painful, at some point, we need to shut-down and rebuild these plants - yes, the plants are more expensive, but that's the new constraints of the today. The constraints are either live like nothing is happening, with you head in the sand, or live with the reality of the need to obtain energy with fewer impacts to the environment.

This will in fact, create more jobs and more activity.

This is actually good news, and also for the tiny town of 200.

  • 1 vote
#2.2 - Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:54 AM EST
Radical_Centrist

BLD

Boy are you brainwashed. No, they are not creating more energy than is needed and that is kind of a ridiculous statement. They are creating energy people don't need or use - huh??? Where do you get that silly idea. What are they doing with this extra energy - tell me, please?

Wow....Mike asks a reasonable question and all you have to offer is name calling? Or is it more like typical GOP style of reasoning: Don't have a clue what I'm talking about, but if it's a Democrat behind the idea, it MUST be bad!

  • 2 votes
#2.3 - Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:04 AM EST
MikeA-1238275

Boy are you brainwashed. No, they are not creating more energy than is needed and that is kind of a ridiculous statement. They are creating energy people don't need or use - huh??? Where do you get that silly idea.

Well, let's think this through. The article says

No lights will go dark. But the Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that 14.7 gigawatts — enough power for more than 11 million households — will be retired from the power grid in the 2014-15 period when the rules take effect.

In other words, we will be cutting 14.7 gigawatts of generation capacity from our power grid in 2014-2015; however, this will not 'cause any lights to go dark,' i.e., not cause a power shortage.

In even simpler terms, we're getting rid of some power generators, but we'll still have all the power we need. As such, I really only see two possibilities; either we didn't need all 14.7 gigawatts, or we'll be building 14.7 gigawatts worth of new generators to replace the old ones.

What other alternatives do you see?

  • 1 vote
#2.4 - Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:05 PM EST
BLD

2.2 - I am your age, too, and we are not in the 1960's. The air is much cleaner today; you should know that. To compare today's air to the 1960's is just plain ridiculous.

2.4 - If you are removing power from the grid that people are already using, then you are going to possibly face power shortages, brownouts, blackouts, etc, or at least face extremely high electricity. It's supply & demand - take a couple of business classes. As supply decreases, prices increase.

  • 1 vote
#2.5 - Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:24 AM EST
MikeA-1238275

If you are removing power from the grid that people are already using, then you are going to possibly face power shortages, brownouts, blackouts, etc, or at least face extremely high electricity. It's supply & demand - take a couple of business classes. As supply decreases, prices increase.

I can't tell if you're purposely ignoring what the article said or not. It was very clear that this would not cause any power shortages.

  • 1 vote
#2.6 - Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:08 PM EST
WatchTheOtherHand

It won't cause power shortages because as the supply drops the price with increase significantly. Many people will no longer be able to afford running their air conditioners or furnaces because it is just too expensive. Usually its the elderly who end up freezing to death in the winters or dying of heat exhaustion in the summers, but I guess thats the Obama administrations ultimate goal here.

  • 2 votes
#2.7 - Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:53 PM EST
MikeA-1238275

Usually its the elderly who end up freezing to death in the winters or dying of heat exhaustion in the summers, but I guess thats the Obama administrations ultimate goal here.

...ok, well... I'm backing away slowly now.

  • 1 vote
#2.8 - Wed Dec 21, 2011 5:36 PM EST
BLD

2.7 & 2.8 - That is exactly his goal (not freezing people) but causing people to use less electricity by making the cost very high. He said that during his campaign - that his plans would make costs extremely high - but the press didn't bother to push him on that and ask how it helps the poor and middle-class, who are the very people he claims he wants to help. If the public could read between the lines and interpret the underlying meaning, they would have seen that he will do anything to the American citizen to effectuate his social policies, which in this case are environmental. Why else are we not getting a pipeline from Canada, but no one seems to push him on that or write story after story about how bad this is for the American people for him NOT to approve it. Someday this country will wake up, just like Russians did, and get back to sanity. Unfortunately, it might take too long and well beyond my lifetime.

    #2.9 - Wed Jan 4, 2012 7:40 PM EST
    Reply
    Mr.Steady

    Real cute, MSNBC. Put Romney's photo on the headline of the article. What are you doing, trying to imply that this is his fault and that he is the cause of the jobs that will be lost? He has absolutely nothing to do with this story. Why not make him photo 2 and the one with the real relevance to the article photo 1? You really do stoop to anything to discredit someone don't you? Disgusting!

    • 3 votes
    Reply#3 - Tue Dec 20, 2011 4:57 AM EST
    M. Remmers

    Real cute, MSNBC. Put Romney's photo on the headline of the article. What are you doing, trying to imply that this is his fault and that he is the cause of the jobs that will be lost?

    Yes, it's a bad choice for a lead-in photo. But conspiracy accusations? Put your paranoia in check. Did you even bother to read the piece? There are words that go with the photos, too.

    • 3 votes
    #3.1 - Tue Dec 20, 2011 6:01 AM EST
    BLD

    3.1 MSNBC is Obama's lap dog and yes, they would do something to make the Repub candidate look bad. What do you think advertising is all about? It doesn't necessarily matter if it is entirely true; it's the picture and message being portrayed. Look at old cig ads (if you are old enough to remember). You had these idyllic scenes of people smoking, but that was not reality.

    MSNBC wants to create a visceral reaction, and since many on this website don't read and analyze carefully, they know that those people will make an automatic connection between Romney and the story and continue with their "Bad Repubs" campaign. Wake up to reality.

    • 3 votes
    #3.2 - Tue Dec 20, 2011 6:25 AM EST
    M. Remmers

    MSNBC wants to create a visceral reaction, and since many on this website don't read and analyze carefully, they know that those people will make an automatic connection between Romney and the story and continue with their "Bad Repubs" campaign. Wake up to reality.

    Please point me in the direction of anybody who was duped in this fashion. This thread should be teeming with people who've fallen prey to this cunning conspiracy...

    • 1 vote
    #3.3 - Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:32 AM EST
    Mr.Steady

    M. Remmers,

    Haven't you ever heard of the power of suggestion? You know, like at the move theater where they flash a picture of popcorn on the screen so fast you don't notice it with your eye but it registers in your brain. Never heard of that? Don't tell me this wasn't intentional by MSNBC to get people to believe the wrong thing without reading the story. When I first saw the headline and his picture I immediately assumed this article would mention Romney's name in connection with the article. And then I actually read it. Like I said, he has NOTHING to do with this story.

    They must think people are gullible and it appears that some surely are.

    • 1 vote
    #3.4 - Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:43 AM EST
    Mr.Steady

    This thread should be teeming with people who've fallen prey to this cunning conspiracy...

    Maybe because I actually pointed it out and those who did not read the article and jumped right to Newsvine saw my comment before they made a fool out of themselves. Next time, I will keep my thoughts to myself and prove my point. I've seen lots of comments on this board by people who obviously read the headline and stopped right there.

    • 1 vote
    #3.5 - Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:50 AM EST
    fernando-2143457

    I will admit I saw the picture and than the headline and thought the story was about what Mitt Romney thought about the power plant closures. Than I read the story and couldn't figure out why Mitt Romney was in the picture.

    Good job whoever put the picture on the article on the trickery. You got me.

    • 1 vote
    #3.6 - Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:21 AM EST
    WatchTheOtherHand

    Its a pretty common tactic from most of the media. If something has Job losses in the title they put up a Republican picture even when the picture has NOTHING to do with the story.

    These are EPA regulations from OBAMA's own administration that are wiping out these towns.

    • 2 votes
    #3.7 - Tue Dec 20, 2011 5:01 PM EST
    M. Remmers

    This thread should be teeming with people who've fallen prey to this cunning conspiracy...

    Maybe because I actually pointed it out and those who did not read the article and jumped right to Newsvine saw my comment before they made a fool out of themselves...

    Yes, Mr. Steady, you saved the day! YOU! You saved all those folks from falling for this dastardly plot to trick people who don't read the news by getting them to read your post! WOW. I can't begin to tell you what an impressive feat that is.

    I mean, forget about the fact that it makes much, much more sense to see a Republican in this context and assume he's railing against the EPA. You've uncovered MSNBC's use of Cold War era brainwashing techniques to convince people that Republicans are crushing the livelihoods of blue-collar Americans under the boot heels of their Draconian environmental policies... with a single photograph!

    You've really blown the lid off this one! A nation thanks you.

      #3.8 - Wed Dec 21, 2011 12:50 AM EST
      Reply
      michelle-1073610

      We either want clean air or we don't. Remember, the air we leave behind for our children and grandchildren, is up to us. I want my kids to breathe clean air, free of dangerous pollutants. It's way past time for the US to clean up our act.

      • 2 votes
      Reply#4 - Tue Dec 20, 2011 5:24 AM EST
      BLD

      #4 - How old are you? I ask because our air is so much cleaner than it was decades ago. We have cleaned up our Act. You see plumes of steam and think it's air pollution. What about the dirty air that China and India spew? Do you think it stays over their countries? Why do we affect our way of life and comfort and economy just so they can pollute?

      • 1 vote
      #4.1 - Tue Dec 20, 2011 6:41 AM EST
      RobPlumley

      It's cleaner because we worked on it, just like now, we must further our work to better built plants.

      It will mean that electricity will be more expensive, but the price we pay now, we will reap the benefits (as well as my kids and their children) down later.

      • 2 votes
      #4.2 - Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:57 AM EST
      michelle-1073610

      BLD, I'm 65, no spring chicken. I've seen some progress, but not nearly enough. We can and should do better. We should keep pressuring the rest of the world, too. Just sayin'.

        #4.3 - Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:54 AM EST
        BLD

        #4.3 - How much cleaner do you want? We would have to walk everywhere and not have any heat or A/C. We can't even go back to colonial days because they burned wood, which creates pollution. And, you are never going to get rid of all pollution with it coming from other countries. Where is your evidence and proof that the air today is still at such bad levels that we should go broke paying for power and possibly having to suffefr rolling blackouts, etc.?

          #4.4 - Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:07 AM EST
          Reply
          oldfogey

          Ditto, I wouldn't vote for Romney under any circumstances but running his picture over this story is just wrong.

          • 4 votes
          Reply#5 - Tue Dec 20, 2011 5:29 AM EST
          M. Remmers

          EDIT: Wrong Reply

            #5.1 - Tue Dec 20, 2011 5:59 AM EST
            Reply
            Gary Vincent Guss

            Apparently we cant have clean power because its too expensive for greedy companies to keep up with modern technology, Oh Noes !

            • 2 votes
            Reply#6 - Tue Dec 20, 2011 6:30 AM EST
            BLD

            #6 - First, you apparently are too young to remember when the air really was dirty. We have done a lot over the past 3 or 4 decades. Second, why do you always assume it is a "greedy" company and that the "greedy" company is lying about the cost? Funny how your messiah Obama even knows the connection between his EPA dictates and the cost of energy. Maybe you don't remember the audio of him at a presentation to his green friends in San Francisco where he said he wouldn't outlaw coal-fired plants but would make it so expensive they go out of business. It's a fact of business that either unemployed liberals or idealistic youth who have never worked or owned a business don't understand: there is a cost to everything you do. Maybe someday when you move out of your parents' house and buy a car and buy a house, you will understand that.

            • 2 votes
            #6.1 - Tue Dec 20, 2011 6:44 AM EST
            Seattle Architect

            See my response below @ #16.

            • 1 vote
            #6.2 - Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:47 AM EST
            Reply
            AmusedinVa

            A lot of people who just read a story like this one and don't actually live near one of the affected plants have no real factual idea of what the new EPA rules have caused. The utilities were in most cases closing these plants out slowly anyway as newer plants were built or retrofitting the older ones to use natural gas instead of coal. The EPA rules are only speeding that process which was already underway and in many cases setting an arbitrary and unreasonable deadline.

            As a perfect example take the Glen Lyn plant run by AEP mentioned in the article. I live in the nearby area where it's located and have closely followed much more detailed news about its operation because I'm in the affected service area. AEP has already been retrofitting plants with natural gas boilers replacing coal in a couple of newer facilities and had slated Glen Lyn for closure in 2019 anyway when a newer plant was completed to replace it. The new rules from the EPA push that closure to 2014 instead of 2019 forcing the utility to rapidly increase construction speed of replacement plants at significantly more cost which forces additional rate increases on every person in their service area to pay for these new costs.

            The only real impact of these new rules is to increase the amount we are charged for electricity by forcing utilities that were already phasing out these coal plants to do so at an unreasonable pace to make it appear the government was responsible for the overall change from coal to cleaner technologies.

            • 1 vote
            Reply#7 - Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:08 AM EST
            mstanley2265

            Yeah, kinda like what our electric company said, only when I looked at the financials, it was bogus. They have the money and the cost of construction is cheaper now than it will be in 2019 due to the economy being on the downturn. By 2019 it may be on the upturn which means construction costs and materials will cost more...the old supply and demand deal.

            • 2 votes
            #7.1 - Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:48 AM EST
            AmusedinVa

            I realize that some utility companies are flush with cash reserves and can absorb the construction costs but also know that AEP isn't in that category. VA has an odd regulatory system where the utilities can't raise rates without state approval and the state rarely grants them the increases they seek so AEP has a much smaller profit here than some of the larger companies elsewhere would.

            I'd also tend to agree in theory about construction costs being lower now but that's only a tiny part of building these plants. There is mountains of paperwork and approvals from the department of energy, the EPA, state regulators, local permitting and so forth to even begin construction. One of the "replacement" plants I referenced that will be built is still awaiting EPA approval from an environmental impact study that has been going on for almost 2 years. The plant would possibly be running now if not for the regulatory hurdles they must go through to even begin the building.

            AEP specifically in regard to the Glen Lyn plant has relegated it to a backup status now where it only operates during high demand peaks and is otherwise idle. The 2019 closure date wasn't set based on borrowing money for construction but rather because 2019 is the estimated completion time of it's replacement and moving that 5 years forward without streamlining the building process is going to force construction to completed at faster than safe speeds once the red tape pushers finally ok starting the construction.

            • 2 votes
            #7.2 - Tue Dec 20, 2011 11:13 AM EST
            Reply
            Seattle Architect

            BLD

            #6 - First, you apparently are too young to remember when the air really was dirty. We have done a lot over the past 3 or 4 decades. Second, why do you always assume it is a "greedy" company and that the "greedy" company is lying about the cost? Funny how your messiah Obama even knows the connection between his EPA dictates and the cost of energy. Maybe you don't remember the audio of him at a presentation to his green friends in San Francisco where he said he wouldn't outlaw coal-fired plants but would make it so expensive they go out of business. It's a fact of business that either unemployed liberals or idealistic youth who have never worked or owned a business don't understand: there is a cost to everything you do. Maybe someday when you move out of your parents' house and buy a car and buy a house, you will understand that.

            Hey there sport - talk to me! I AM old enough to remember things like Love Canal, the Cuyahoga River burning and the Great Lakes all but DEAD from pollution (and no seat belts, and cigarettes that are "good for you").

            Yeah - I DO REMEMBER - IT WAS HORRIBLE - and that's WHY WE PASSED THOSE LAWS TO BEGIN WITH.

            So, I guess from your perspective - we need "Clean Coal" filling the skies with Acid Rain - and the regulations that are designed to keep the air clean under the Clean Air Act are just more "job killing regs" - right?

            What stupidity. Besides the fact that this country wastes TONS of power every day - and simple conservation measures would roll back the existing demand to something easily handled by the existing number of stations producing it more cleanly - the coal industry keeps pumping out the "Clean Coal" - "Clean Coal" -"Clean Coal" myth as if "Clean Coal" really existed.

            If jobs that create air pollution are so important, why don't we just take all of China's toxic waste - and burn it? Then, we'll get "jobs" and deadly pollution! What a great idea! Hell, let's just start pumping PCBs directly into our rivers, and push for more "ground friendly fracking" to pull the gas out! More "jobs" - more "jobs" - more "jobs"!

            Oh, but hey - for the factory owners and others who shipped all our real "jobs" overseas so they could add another 8% to their bottom line - I guess the air and water for the rest of the country matters little - as long as they can go to the Cayman Islands with their corporate girlfriends, huh? What difference is it to them if the 99% have to live and work in a toxic environment?

            So, I guess YOUR MBA from Phoenix University entitles you to talk down to younger people who are concerned that those ahead of them are RUINING THE ENVIRONMENT that THEY HAVE TO LIVE IN, huh? You think that young people freaking out about the Bag of Sh*t that's being handed to them - the financial mess, the tearing down of existing regs - tax breaks for super wealthy is stupid, huh?

            Well, let me TELL YOU something: I AM old enough, have DO the degrees, HAVE/DO owned several businesses, raised four children, have/do owned multiple homes - AND - come from an old family that was here before the US was the US - probably long, long before your people came here. So - I do have what you're talking about - more so than you'll probably ever have (the last ten years have been very good to my family) - AND - even with all THAT - the kid has a point and a valid reason to be upset:

            No one has a right to trash this country, trash the world's environment, trash other people's future simply because they think they have the right to make more and more money. No one. The day is coming that the "I wanna be wealthy" crowd is going to get smacked down (you're not immune) - and when that happens, I will have NO sympathy for you. Trust me, the super wealthy don't care about YOU either. And when YOU get screwed - those around you - those you've been stepping on - are going to have zero sympathy for you or your family.

            People in this country had better wake up and realize that it is very, very, VERY late in the game - and at a point VERY soon the country will be permanently damaged - and YOUR ability as a "wanna-be" will slide away as easy as those toxic fracking fluids sink into our water tables.

            Me? I'm still working happily because I want to. We just closed on a very nice property in BC - away from the noise and unpleasantness that this young fellow is worried about. I've worked my butt off and secured my future - HAVE YOU? What gives YOU the right to invalidate his concerns?

            Don't tear others down - you'll find you're only doing it yourself in the end.

            • 6 votes
            Reply#8 - Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:36 AM EST
            RobPlumley

            Very well said, Seattle Architect

            • 1 vote
            #8.1 - Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:01 AM EST
            Castor Bridge

            Little over the top there, aren't you sport? Where is the cost/benefit analysis to closing this plant? Answer: there isn't one! The EPA can do anything that they want for any reason, any time that they want to do it. This coal fired generation plant is not Love canal.

            • 1 vote
            #8.2 - Tue Dec 20, 2011 5:38 PM EST
            Seattle Architect

            Castor Bridge

            Little over the top there, aren't you sport? Where is the cost/benefit analysis to closing this plant? Answer: there isn't one! The EPA can do anything that they want for any reason, any time that they want to do it. This coal fired generation plant is not Love canal.

            Yeah, well - maybe. I'm just sick and tired of having lived and worked all my life - and put effort (AND time AND taxes) into trying to help my society - and then waking up in the middle of the night to read some schmuck berate someone - obviously younger - who's upset that the world his generation is inheriting is/will be totally trashed.

            The laws that were passed to clean up the air, water and rest of our environment were a response to the horrible, toxic conditions that existed - and so many people (particularly those now in their late 30's - part of the "back lash generation" - those having grown up under Reagan and Bush #1 - spout off about how the EPA is over-stepping their authority - how the air and water are ok - and the regs are not necessary. The air and water are ok - because of the regs - without them we would be right back to the 1950s/60s/70s!

            I'm also sick of turning on C-Span and listening to the GOP trying to unplug every authority the EPA has. THE EPA IS THERE FOR A REASON. The GOP thinks that the EPA should not regulate things like:

            • Pesticides and pesticide use (perhaps you've forgotten (or don't know about DDT?)...
            • Gasses coming from the combustion of toxic waste (THERE'S a good idea!)...
            • Greenhouse gasses (I'm glad all the GOP'ers in SC - in the "Low Country" - don't believe in Global Warming...it'll be hilarious when Charleston disappears).
            • Too many other things/attempts to gut the agency or its efforts....

            And no, the EPA cannot do "...whatever they want..." they are an agency subject to oversight like any other. AND - I would suggest to you that you go and visit the western slope of the Appalachian Mountains sometime - perhaps in PA or WV or NC or VA and take a look at all the dead trees - from acid rain - then tell me that it's not reminiscent of Love Canal.

            Humans who don't learn from the past WILL repeat their stupidity.

            • 2 votes
            #8.3 - Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:15 PM EST
            AmusedinVa

            And no, the EPA cannot do "...whatever they want..." they are an agency subject to oversight like any other. AND - I would suggest to you that you go and visit the western slope of the Appalachian Mountains sometime - perhaps in PA or WV or NC or VA and take a look at all the dead trees - from acid rain - then tell me that it's not reminiscent of Love Canal.

            I'm curious about this statement and would actually like to inquire about a more specific area to seek out. I live in southwest VA in the mountains and have traveled extensively throughout NC, WV, and PA and don't know where any damage is today left over from acid rain. Thirty years ago I saw trees that were affected by it but the forests have recovered exceptionally well and I'm wondering where there might be trees left showing signs of damage from so long ago. I'm not dismissing your claim but am curious as to where these trees might be since I have not seen them.

            • 1 vote
            #8.4 - Tue Dec 20, 2011 11:38 PM EST
            Seattle Architect

            The problems are still there - perhaps not as dramatic as they once were, but they still exist, and damage is still occurring (http://www.nps.gov/grsm/naturescience/air-quality.htm). Here in Western Washington, we have similar issues - on a local scale - with the pollution from automobiles and other sources resulting in acid rain up in the western slopes of the Cascade Mountains.

            My point is not that things today are as bad as they were thirty years ago - but rather that the attitude that "...things seem ok so we can just scrap all those regulations that annoy us..." is nothing but foolhardy. Just like taking medication - and you feel better - so you stop before completing the course, and so the tumor begins growing again - but this time it is resistant to the antibiotics - it's just plain stupid.

            Don't get me wrong - it's not that I'm against business or Capitalism - I'm a strong supporter of both - obviously. I just think that one of the biggest problems we have in this country is this notion of "all this way" or "all that way". No one believes in moderation anymore - and I think if you look at ANYTHING on this planet you'll find that the moderate path is actually the best way to go.

            • 1 vote
            #8.5 - Wed Dec 21, 2011 1:07 AM EST
            AmusedinVa

            I tend to agree with you on the overall idea but in this instance I think the EPA was only implementing the time frame for political rather than practical purposes. My questioning of their actions isn't on things that have proved to be effective like the reducing sulphur dioxide emissions to stop acid rain but rather I question why we needed a new rule to set a deadline on something that was happening anyway. In this one instance the utilities were already ahead of the curve and were phasing out coal fired plants to begin with so the EPA action was not needed.

            On a broader scale though away from this specific rule related to the article the EPA has accomplished a lot of good over the years and can continue to do so if it will operate based on good science and realistic time lines instead of trying to accomplish political expediency to suit whatever administration happens to be in power at the time. Much of the current opposition against the agency comes not from those who oppose reasonable regulation but from those who oppose using politics rather than science and economics as a basis for regulation.

            Keeping arsenic and mercury out of our air and water and preventing pollution are all things the EPA can excel at. However they crossed from environmental protection to politics when they declared CO2 as a pollutant, since it's impossible for a naturally occurring gas that's part of our atmosphere to be a pollutant of the atmosphere. Under that definition every time any animal exhales it's polluting the air and that's a ridiculous claim to be coming from what should be an agency that promotes protection of the natural environment from real pollutants. Even if we assume that CO2 is a cause of global warming that still doesn't make it a pollutant and doesn't change the fact that the largest source of CO2 production is human and animal respiration not man made industries and vehicles.

            • 2 votes
            #8.6 - Wed Dec 21, 2011 2:22 AM EST
            Seattle Architect

            ...Much of the current opposition against the agency comes not from those who oppose reasonable regulation but from those who oppose using politics rather than science and economics as a basis for regulation...

            And I would agree with you on this point - however - from my perspective, much of the new regulations - those viewed by folks on the Right as unreasonable - are nothing more than a reaction to eight years of deregulation by the Bush Administration - to simply get us back to a more reasonable path. It is the unreasonable positions from 2000-2008 which have resulted in this administration's "overstepping" the acceptable level of regulation in the current time frame.

            The same holds true for financial regulation - where the administration is forced to respond/react/reinstate policies that we unscrewed by the Bush administration - which are vital to the stability of our economy going forward (including income tax breaks - ALL of which should be eliminated). Had the previous administrations held a more moderate line, it is very unlikely that things would have crashed in the manner they did (and of course, nor would the corresponding economy have grown the way it did during that period).

            Keeping arsenic and mercury out of our air and water and preventing pollution are all things the EPA can excel at. However they crossed from environmental protection to politics when they declared CO2 as a pollutant, since it's impossible for a naturally occurring gas that's part of our atmosphere to be a pollutant of the atmosphere. Under that definition every time any animal exhales it's polluting the air and that's a ridiculous claim to be coming from what should be an agency that promotes protection of the natural environment from real pollutants. Even if we assume that CO2 is a cause of global warming that still doesn't make it a pollutant and doesn't change the fact that the largest source of CO2 production is human and animal respiration not man made industries and vehicles.

            And I find this an interesting position as well. But tell me - is not arsenic a naturally occurring compound? It is not found in nature?

            Under your thesis, mans output of arsenic would not be acceptable as an area of governance by the EPA - simply because it found in nature. This is nothing more than a simplistic, foolish approach.

            CO2 and other GSGs have been proven to be the root cause of Global Warming - and it is not the transpiration of humans and animals which initially caused it - is the burning of carbon-based elements, mostly in the form of oil, that started the ball rolling.

            Once the Earth as warmed sufficiently, however, it then sets off a chain reaction, where the sea ice of the North Pole melts during the summer, thus allowing further increases in sea temperature; which also causes sequestered GSGs on the ocean floor to be released; which also causes sequestered GSGs in what used to be - permafrost to also release their GSGs and on and on and on....

            For you to say that its not mans fault that those additional, much larger releases of GSGs are occurring "naturally" totally misses the point: we lit the match that started the forest fire - WE ARE RESPONSIBLE - and we should take whatever steps we can to try and mitigate it.

            • 1 vote
            #8.7 - Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:37 PM EST
            AmusedinVa

            Under your thesis, mans output of arsenic would not be acceptable as an area of governance by the EPA - simply because it found in nature. This is nothing more than a simplistic, foolish approach.

            I see where you get that but it's a totally different ballgame. What I was trying to get at is that CO2 is a natural part of the atmosphere which belongs there. Arsenic while it is a naturally occurring metal is not part of the natural makeup of the atmosphere or the surface water of the planet. With arsenic or mercury we are releasing toxins into the air or water which are deadly to most all lifeforms but harmless in their respective natural states. CO2 is not a toxin but a part of the natural respiration cycle of all living creatures and plant life.

            CO2 and other GSGs have been proven to be the root cause of Global Warming

            This is the source of contention between AGW advocates and skeptics. The actual science is incomplete and while CO2 is suspected of being a major contributor it is not definitively proven to be so. True in combination with other things it is considered to be a "greenhouse gas" but by and of itself there is not enough evidence to suggest that it is the main cause or even a major factor. We are increasing the amount of it in the atmosphere that's not debatable but whether or not it can be called pollution is.

            Now this is personal opinion but my problem with much the political issues surrounding climate change is that we are attempting to justify all these massive changes based on incomplete science. The debates today are more like what would be in a court than scientific in that the standard seems to be reasonable belief rather than accurate and definitive results as the scientific discipline would require.

            But let's say just for arguments sake that all the suppositions are correct and that we'll see all these cascading changes occur in the next century. In that case since this is scientifically documented to have occurred before it will reach a point where it self reverses and becomes a global cooling trend into an ice age and then begin another warming cycle. Since we know that is the case then isn't it more prudent to prepare for the changes rather than attempt to believe we can stop them? If there's going to be floods or droughts or more severe storms or whatever else as a result of the warming trend then shouldn't we be changing the way we build homes and strengthening infrastructure with what resources we have?

            I believe that we should work steadily toward increasing alternate energy and transportation to be ready for the day when there is no more oil or coal or other fossil fuels. But I don't think we should try doing things in a devastating alarmist rush as some want which will cause hardship on the economy and our people in order to force that rapid change. In the last few decades we've made great strides in doing better but they've been done reasonably in smart progression. In the coming decades we will continue to do better whether it's by gradual change or government force but only one of those two options will allow us to keep the lifestyles we value as Americans.

            The ultimate question here on climate change is not can we stop it or slow it but can we adapt to it and maybe minimze the harm it might cause. We may have sped up the current warming cycle with our use of fossil fuels but we won't stop it from happening even if we completely eliminate their usage.

            • 1 vote
            #8.8 - Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:33 PM EST
            BLD

            #8 - Sorry, didn't get my undergrad from Phoenix. Nice jab. I graduated cum laude from OSU with a business degree, cum laude from law school, and have passed two state bar exams so I am not a stupid person. I always remember from college classes the concepts of a bell curve and diminishing returns, and at some point you have to get to the point where you are on the outlying reaches. It's like trying to keep weeds out of your yard. You are never going to be able to stop all weeds from growing in your yard and/or flower beds. Is it worth spending a fortune to try?

            I, too, remember those things but look at Lake Erie now. Have we had any other "Love Canals" in the past 2 or 3 decades? How much cleaner do we get? But I assume you aren't for nuclear, either, because that is an environmental hazard, too, right?

            Tell me what caused the environment to warm up before man was around? I was always taught we have the beautiful topography of this country due to receding ice sheets. Humm, no men, no fossil fuels .... And what about all of the crap that India and China put into the environment. It surely doesn't just hang over their countries, and they have made it known that they are not going to screw their economies to make air cleaner.

            Sorry, but we have a clean environment right now, and I have not seen anything to tell me that the incremental increase in the cost of energy to me is going to create an equal benefit in terms of clean air to justify the Obama policies that are going to harm this country. I like having heat and A/C and good lights. I don't feel like going backwards.

            Oh, and maybe we should tell Obama and all the rich elite who trade carbon credits to justify their lavish lifestyles that they need to start at home. Instead of taking his family to Hawaii for Christmas, stay home. Maybe they should go together when they take vacation instead of wasting all that jet fuel when they decide to fly separately. Maybe he should turn off the lights in the White House and live by candlelight. Maybe he should lead by example.

            • 1 vote
            #8.9 - Wed Jan 4, 2012 7:52 PM EST
            Reply
            MN blu collar worker

            This summer I fished a small lake near our deer shack in minnesota's arrowhead region. On the shore is a newer coal fired power plant that supplies a large portion of the north. As I looked at the stack I could see nothing coming out. I asked my friend from the area if it was running. He said full force. Down the road from my southern Minnesota home are two large ethonal plants and one of the coal fired plants scheduled to be closed. All three have large plumes of smoke at all times. The coal plant will be closed andit should be. One of the ethonal plants dumps it's waste water in a small stream. It has been denied that right but still does. It's answer was to pipe it 30 miles and dump it in a river in the next county. That was denied. Still going in stream. Maybe we should have built one ethonal plant ( for experiment) and one modern coal plant( cause they are proven) I believe in green(I am a accredited green builder) but feel the term is used way to loosely and could ultimately hurt real conservation.

            • 1 vote
            Reply#9 - Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:11 AM EST
            HereIsTruth4uDeleted
            doc b-816977

            Seattle Architect

            This is the best thing I have heard from somebody in your generation in months. I am a 36 year old and I agree with everything you wrote. My generation is tired of the stupid propaganda of making rich people richer is better for all of us, not allowing a company to poison our water is bad regulations, holding the country hostage at the expense of the poor is being patriotic or christian, and fixing our infustructure and having high speedrail, not a *&^% oil pipeline, is not a waste of money and will create jobs. BLD -people like you are the reason the country is in the condition it is in right now. Please read the book 1984 and focus on "Newsspeak" and compare what you read to Fox news. You will find that they have many things in common. Fox news loves people like you and the tea party because you forward their Newsspeak agenda.

              Reply#11 - Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:12 AM EST
              BLD

              #11 - Sorry, I have read 1984 and it's much closer to the MSNBC/liberal Obama news media. Also, tell me what the profit margin of a power plant is? I assume in your business you understand those concepts very well - you know, operating expenses, profit margins, etc.? Even if you don't have your own business, you are working with people who do have to worry about these things. So, can I assume that you and the younger generation are going to give all of their money to charity and live on the barest of necessities? Are you also sick of the athletes and movie stars earning what they do? What about the liquor you may drink and the Starbucks you may frequent - their profit margins may be a lot higher so does that mean you will stop frequenting those establishments?

              Oh, and do you invest? Have a IRA? It's those profits that produce the value of your investments and your retirement account. So all businesses should operate without profits or what YOU deem to be reasonable, and investment values will drop and so will retirement etc.

              I am not rich but I don't begrudge those who are. Life is more than money, and I don't want to live in a country where the govt controls everything and tells business how much money they should make. Maybe Obama should have given away his millions from those books he wrote but he didn't. How much of your salary do you keep? Who's to decide what is "too rich"?

              Until you know that the power plants truly have such large profits that complying with the EPA's dictates is not going to put them out of business because they don't have the extra money, then stop making assumptions.

              • 1 vote
              #11.1 - Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:19 AM EST
              Reply
              fksewDeleted
              MN blu collar worker

              Short term government created jobs do nothing for the economy, they actually draw on the economy. A pipeline would be the same so that is not any better. They would make you look better in an election year but would be gone before the end of your term. If a road needs fixing, if a pipeline needs building, if we need a new power plant, fix it build it, do it, but don't go overboard till the economy improves

                Reply#13 - Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:43 AM EST
                BLD

                #26 - Um, read up. That is not a govt. pipeline; it is all private money. The only involvement of the govt. is issuing a permit. Even the unions support this pipeline. It gives us a source of energy from a friendly country and will create jobs and reduce our cost of gas. We need it but Obama is trying to find a way to avoid giving the OK before the election so he doesn't tick off his green voters. He is in a conundrum, however, because the unions do support it. Maybe his illegal recess appointments got him out of the doghouse with the unions for the pipeline issue.

                  #13.1 - Wed Jan 4, 2012 7:55 PM EST
                  Reply
                  Leave a Comment:
                  You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                  You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                  (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                  Newsvine Privacy Statement
                  As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                  FUN STUFF:
                  • Leaderboard |
                  • E-Mail Alerts |
                  • Top of the Vine |
                  • Newsvine Live |
                  • Newsvine Archives |
                  • The Greenhouse
                  COMPANY STUFF:
                  • Code of Honor |
                  • Company Info |
                  • Contact Us |
                  • Jobs |
                  • User Agreement |
                  • Privacy Policy |
                  • About our ads
                  LEGAL STUFF:
                  • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                  • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                  • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com