Drinking from a fire hose...

[Phil1111 913]

brenthutch

I live four miles from a coal fired power plant, it is located on the campus at Penn State in the middle of the town, I have two children who were born in a hospital just three miles from the plant. Listening to you guys my kids should have three eyes and a tail, I should be on oxygen therapy and my wife would have to wipe off a half inch of soot from her Mercedes every morning! Well we don't. You catastrophists need to relax a bit.

http://onwardstate.com/2016/03/01/penn-state-to-end-coal-shipments-this-month-switch-to-natural-gas/

[gowlerk 1,923]

brenthutch

I live four miles from a coal fired power plant, it is located on the campus at Penn State in the middle of the town, I have two children who were born in a hospital just three miles from the plant. Listening to you guys my kids should have three eyes and a tail, I should be on oxygen therapy and my wife would have to wipe off a half inch of soot from her Mercedes every morning! Well we don't. You catastrophists need to relax a bit.

Lucky for you regulations require a certain level of emissions control for that plant. And have long required smokestacks tall enough to let the particulates out high enough that they blow downwind and become a more evenly distributed problem.

Don't forget to thank the Lord for regulations when you say your prayers tonight.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[brenthutch 388]

I knew they were working on that, I was unaware they had made the switch. It kind of makes my point though. Other than cheaper energy for the university, there is no discernible difference.

[kallend 1,644]

brenthutch

I knew they were working on that, I was unaware they had made the switch. It kind of makes my point though. Other than cheaper energy for the university, there is no discernible difference.

It's not in the list of the top 100 polluters in the USA. Consider yourself lucky.

Others - not so much.

It's good of you to be so empathic - NOT.

[brenthutch 388]

kallend

***I knew they were working on that, I was unaware they had made the switch. It kind of makes my point though. Other than cheaper energy for the university, there is no discernible difference.

It's not in the list of the top 100 polluters in the USA. Consider yourself lucky.

Others - not so much.

It's good of you to be so empathic - NOT.

At the time of the review we had a coal fired power plant right in the middle of town.

http://onwardstate.com/2015/05/29/state-college-ranked-best-town-in-pennsylvania-14th-in-the-nation/

[billvon 2,426]

Quote

I live four miles from a coal fired power plant, it is located on the campus at Penn State in the middle of the town, I have two children who were born in a hospital just three miles from the plant.

Here's a report on the danger from just two power plants in Massachusetts:
===========
HSPH Report Quantifies Health Impact of Air Pollution From Two Massachusetts Power Plants

For immediate release: May 04, 2000

Boston, MA--Air pollution from two Massachusetts coal-fired power plants contributes to particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and ozone exposure over a large region. Using a sophisticated model of how particulate matter and its precursors are dispersed in the atmosphere, Harvard School of Public Health scientists Jonathan Levy and John D. Spengler have calculated exposures to 32 million residents living in New England, eastern New York and New Jersey from these older plants.

Their report estimated that current emissions from the Salem Harbor and Brayton Point power plants can be linked to more than 43,000 asthma attacks and nearly 300,000 incidents of upper respiratory symptoms per year in the region. The study also estimated that 159 premature deaths per year could be attributed to this pollution.

The health risks are greatest for people living closer to the plants. Twenty percent of the total health impact occurs on 8 percent of the population that lives within 30 miles of the facilities.
===========

I am glad for the sake of you and your family you will not face such problems. That's not a reason to ignore the issue, though. Smoking two packs a day and not getting lung cancer for ten years is not proof that smoking is safe.

[brenthutch 388]

I agree with you tha coal done wrong is very bad.(ask China) Can you agree with me that coal done right can work. Or is coal evil and beyond redemption?

[billvon 2,426]

>Can you agree with me that coal done right can work.

Sure, there are environmentally responsible ways to mine, transport and burn coal as well as deal with the byproducts. Take care of those and no problems. The issue isn't coal - the issue is the damage it does.

[JerryBaumchen 1,061]

Hi brent,

Quote

Can you agree with me that coal done right can work.

I can. However, throughout this thread you are advocating removal of regulations; you know, those regs that make it 'done right.'

Jerry Baumchen

[brenthutch 388]

Hi jerry,
I'm not advocating the rollback of all regulations, just Obama's. I realize this is very confusing for some, but that would not mean going back to the 19th century, just the beginning of the 21st. No burning rivers, no Love Canal, no ozone holes, no acid rain nor any of the other hobgoblins that populate the imaginations of many on this thread.

[Faicon9493 114]

JerryBaumchen

Hi brent,

Quote

Can you agree with me that coal done right can work.

I can. However, throughout this thread you are advocating removal of regulations; you know, those regs that make it 'done right.'

Jerry Baumchen

In a perfect world, companies can be trusted to not put dollars ahead of doing what is right. It's like our BSR's. Some might seem petty or unnecessary but they can frequently be traced back to an incident where someone was injured, killed, or simply had the crap scared out of them.

[billvon 2,426]

> I realize this is very confusing for some, but that would not mean going back to
>the 19th century, just the beginning of the 21st.

And in the 1960's, people just wanted to roll back environmental protections to the 1940's, not to Civil War times. But because we did not, you can now see the mountains in LA most days, rivers don't burn any more, and people don't drop dead on bad smog days.

We are now seeing a gradual improvement of our environment even as our population expands and we use more power, resources and food. If we want that to continue, then we have to keep tightening regulations constantly. If you want to stop our population growth, then it would make sense to just "keep what we have" - that way we wouldn't be making things any worse.

>I'm not advocating the rollback of all regulations, just Obama's.

And I'd rather base rollback of regulations on what makes sense for industry and the environment, not on who you hate.

[rehmwa 2]

billvon

>And I'd rather base rollback of regulations on what makes sense for industry and the environment, not on who you hate.

AGREED -

I'd also recommend using the same philosophy when deciding what regs are needed to add. Not just who you want to win, or just "more is better" laziness

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[brenthutch 388]

I don't hate Obama. I just think his policies are misguided; damaging our economy and costing citizens hundreds of billions of dollars.

[brenthutch 388]

billvon

And in the 1960's, people just wanted to roll back environmental protections to the 1940's, not to Civil War times. But because we did not, you can now see the mountains in LA most days, rivers don't burn any more, and people don't drop dead on bad smog days.

Obviously you are still hobbled by those goblins.

[billvon 2,426]

>I don't hate Obama.

Then why is your criteria for cutting environmental regulations "anything Obama did?" That's basing decisions on your personal disdain for someone, rather than anything objective.

>I just think his policies are misguided; damaging our economy and costing citizens
>hundreds of billions of dollars.

It is unfortunate for your thinking that the economy has recovered significantly since he took office, then.

(BTW the cost of repealing Obamacare will likely top $1 trillion. But I assume you support that.)

[brenthutch 388]

billvon

>I don't hate Obama.

Then why is your criteria for cutting environmental regulations "anything Obama did?" That's basing decisions on your personal disdain for someone, rather than anything objective.

>I just think his policies are misguided; damaging our economy and costing citizens
>hundreds of billions of dollars.

It is unfortunate for your thinking that the economy has recovered significantly since he took office, then.

(BTW the cost of repealing Obamacare will likely top $1 trillion. But I assume you support that.)

1. That is just shorthand, I'm sure somewhere in the tens of thousands of pages of regulations there are a few that make sense
2. The most anemic recovery in the modern era and he doubled our debt to do it
3. It depends on how it is done. Repealing Obamacare would cost nothing, in fact it would save billions. Replacing Obamacare is a different kettle of fish.

[airdvr 198]

billvon

>I don't hate Obama.

Then why is your criteria for cutting environmental regulations "anything Obama did?" That's basing decisions on your personal disdain for someone, rather than anything objective.

>I just think his policies are misguided; damaging our economy and costing citizens
>hundreds of billions of dollars.

It is unfortunate for your thinking that the economy has recovered significantly since he took office, then.

(BTW the cost of repealing Obamacare will likely top $1 trillion. But I assume you support that.)

I'm thinking most of the progressives on here are concerned about the dismantling of the EPA. While they've done good in areas they've screwed the pooch in others. The problem I've always had with the EPA is they operate outside of the rule of law. There's no checks and balances. They simply dictate policy, or worse use shoddy science to cover their asses.

Where was the EPA in Flint, MI?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 2,426]

Quote

1. That is just shorthand, I'm sure somewhere in the tens of thousands of pages of regulations there are a few that make sense

And a few that don't make sense outside the Obama presidency. Why not decide what you want to remove based on their merits, rather than your hate for one person?

Quote

2. The most anemic recovery in the modern era and he doubled our debt to do it

Unemployment rate in 1961 - 7%, 1970 - 3.9% (3.1% reduction in 9 years)
Unemployment rate in 2010 - 10%, 2016 - 4.7% (5.3% reduction in 6 years)

2009: $10.6 trillion
2016: $18 trillion

2009 deficit: $1.4 trillion
2015 deficit: $450 billion

When you can't make your points without lying, it makes everything you say suspect.

Quote

It depends on how it is done. Repealing Obamacare would cost nothing, in fact it would save billions.

===============
Obamacare repeal costs: 3 million jobs gone, $1.5 trillion in lost gross state product
Dan Mangan
Thursday, 5 Jan 2017

Spending less by getting rid of Obamacare could end up costing a whole lot more.

Up to 3 million jobs in the health sector and other areas would be lost if certain key provisions of the Affordable Care Act are repealed by Congress, a new report said Thursday.

At the same time, ending those provisions could lead to a whopping $1.5 trillion reduction in gross state product from 2019 through 2023, according to the study.

"Repealing key parts of the ACA could trigger massive job losses and a slump in consumer and business spending that would affect all sectors of state economies," said Leighton Ku, director of the Center for Health Policy Research and professor at the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University.
===============

[wmw999 2,146]

What do you think could have been done better with the economy doing a giant swirly, and a high-profile promise to work on health care? Remember that most people actually expected their candidates to do something towards campaign promises at one time. He was elected in 2008 by a substantial popular and electoral majority; it's fair to say he proposed what was more wanted. And during most of the election the magnitude of the financial crisis wasn't known. I'd have to put that as an added lagniappe for a new president, kind of like 9/11 was for Bush. They didn't earn it, but they had to work it.

A bipartisan discussion toward health care would have been nice. It was not permitted by the minority power structure.

Given those facts, do you have a better approach, besides "whatever he did it was wrong?"

I don't think he was the best president ever, but, ya know, he had a pretty shitty real-world hand dealt him, between the financial crisis and the solid fingers-in-the-ears opposition. And at least he didn't single-handed oh start a war. He probably mismanaged the one he was handed (Syria), but I'm not sure there is a right answer there. It's been fucked up a long time, probably starting with the European powers dividing it up in the early 20th century according to European wishes, not Middle Eastern wishes.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 1,644]

brenthutch

***>I don't hate Obama.

Then why is your criteria for cutting environmental regulations "anything Obama did?" That's basing decisions on your personal disdain for someone, rather than anything objective.

>I just think his policies are misguided; damaging our economy and costing citizens
>hundreds of billions of dollars.

It is unfortunate for your thinking that the economy has recovered significantly since he took office, then.

(BTW the cost of repealing Obamacare will likely top $1 trillion. But I assume you support that.)

2. The most anemic recovery in the modern era and he doubled our debt to do it


I'll take an anemic recovery over the worst recession in my lifetime, every time.

Obama inherited the worst recession in my lifetime.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 388]

I shoud have made clear that I ment that some of Obama's regulations probably have some merit.

With regard to the debt you are confusing deficit with debt. You should bone up on the basics before you pop off with the PAs.

[billvon 2,426]

>With regard to the debt you are confusing deficit with debt.

Not at all. That's why I even noted where I was referring to deficit (which is what changes immediately if you reduce spending) as opposed to debt (which includes everyone else's deficit spending.) When Obama took office, the DEFICIT (not debt) was $1.4 billion. That's the spending rate he inherited, along with a $10 trillion DEBT. When he left office, the DEFICIT (not debt) was $450 billion. Which means he cut spending by more than 60%.

Traditionally deficits are higher when republicans are in office; they are lower when democrats are in office. This time is no exception. Indeed, Trump is planning to increase the debt far more than Clinton was.

[brenthutch 388]

"The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents — 43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome. So we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”
BHO

If $4 trillion is unpatriotic, I think you would agree with me that $8 trillion is downright treasonous.

[billvon 2,426]

>If $4 trillion is unpatriotic, I think you would agree with me that $8 trillion is downright treasonous.

Cool! You backed off from your previous lie of "doubled" and are now back to the standard right wing tactic of calling people names. At this rate, within 5-10 more posts you'll be pretty close to reality.