For once we agree on something. I'm just thinking that we wouldn't agree on how they should correct the failure.
Stupid, hysterical thread. It's taken decades for the EPA to get around to writing this rule (which was directed by Congress), and I seriously doubt they are now not going to phase this in over time. It's what they always do. And you people need to quit whining about mercury in your fish. I have some investments in utility companies and anytime I chow down on a mercury-laden fish sandwich, it tastes like money to me.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204464404577112520759735602.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Here's a good article:
The only thing that's a disgrace is this article. Multiple studies have shown the dangers (and effects) of mercury emissions, which this article completely ignores. The article then makes up the health benefit number at $6 million - that's just a plain lie and they know it. Furthermore, most industry experts say that meeting these regulations won't be that difficult - after all, these changes have been in the works for decades and the smart companies have been preparing. Frankly, I'm getting tired by the sense of entitlement our big pollution creators have (and their apologists at Rupert Murdoch-owned media)- any time they're asked to be responsible, their lobby starts screaming about how unfair it is. Enough is enough with you guys - you were left alone for the first 75 years of the 20th century and the result was Superfund sites and a great lake catching on fire. We finally have an EPA doing its job and it would behoove you to cooperate rather than waste more money fighting taking responsibility for your messes.
KevC, do you think that electricity producers should be liable for the damages that their emissions cause to the property and lives of others?
what i learned from this thread. mongering fear is bad when someone other than the op is doing the mongering.
If there's proof, which there isn't. Even then, I'd rather have electricity than "cleaner" (which it won't be no matter how much EPA thinks this rule is going to change) air.
Kev, without electricity and it's progeny, like air conditioning, there wouldn't be a Texas. LBJ made his mark by getting electricity to the Hill Country and Democrats helped build the national grid through creating or investing heavily in agencies like TVA, the Bonneville Power Administration, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Army Corps of Engineers. One party has consistently been in favor of newer, cheaper, cleaner energy over the last 125 years. One party has recognized the importance of that energy to the economic growth of all citizens and understood that it is a cornerstone for a middle class economy. One party has tried (and obviously failed at times) to keep money guys from screwing people using energy as a weapon (Enron being the most blatant example of recent abuse). One party has tried to balance those energy needs with the health of the people, and the economy and ecosystems in which we live. Democrats are not going to wreck the grid. Republicans, however, if left to their Randian fantasies, would soon have us back on coal to heat our homes while they gamed the system to screw more money out of everyone. We fought that battle once, and a then Republican kicked the now Republican's asses all up and down the country. A new round of trustbusting and a Square Deal would serve us well today.
I'm no evolutionary scientist... But wouldn't the habitual exposure of wildlife and plantlife to manmade hazardous chemicals and whatnot cause them to (over a long period of time) adapt to either reduce the effects or block them? I've seen stories of certain species evolving over a relatively short period of time (like <200 years) adapt to human interaction.
So, you would leave the toxins in the air and tell the people exposed that they should evolve? Randian Libertarianism at its best.
Yep. I think you read the story about how DDT was making the eggshells of Bald Eagles so thin that they would crack when mom sat on them to keep them warm. The Bald Eagles adapted by dying off in sufficient numbers such that they were partly responsible for the passage of the Endangered Species Act and the banning of DDT. Or maybe you read about these species...
LOL, are you that dense to think that it's that absolute? Yes, the major issue in Texas in next 3 years will be choosing between electricity or clean air . The EPA is choking down so many regulations that we will not have electricity. Friggin unbelievable that you're even putting it like that. Delusional.
We've got 3 years to figure it out. Depending on how many of the plants can be retrofitted vs mothballed, that might be aggressive. But, I'm not worried. If you're going to buy the argument that we can't have clean air right now because it's too hard or too expensive -- well, that's an argument that you can keep going to till the end of time. That shouldn't be the driver. There's no reason we should have to defer to the power industry and concede to breathing mercury. So, retrofit or close the dirty plants, build cleaner plants, raise the price, and lets get on.
Companies shouldn't be exempt from the rule of law, regardless of whether or not it puts them out of business. I'm just thinking that, if, like everybody seems to think, electricity producers are emitting mercury that incurs damages, the producer should be liable for the damages they cause. Would you disagree? If not, then I don't see what everybody is arguing about. On the other hand, if you're saying that these companies should be exempt from liability, I think you'd be in the wrong on this, regardless of your impressive credentials. It isn't right for people to profit by harming others.
The practical problem with taking a liability approach to the problem of emissions is that, for the most part, pollution is a collective problem where any one polluter wouldn't produce measurable damage. Only in aggregate is it an issue, and then you need to assign liabilty to the individual polluters. Then, when you take one (or all) to court, they will say and prove that their emissions are within the limits set by regulation, so it's "okay," even if it does damage. Meaningful regulation built to address environmental and health impact is necessary. I was talking to my boss about the new rules a bit and he said something interesting about the blackout business. Dirty plants will be able to run until they've polluted up to their allowance. They will want to be sure to run in the summer time (ERCOT needs them for the demand, and the prices are good), so they will idle in the shoulder months. The shoulder months, however, are a little harder to plan for because Texas weather is more variable then (vs the summer when you know it will be hot all the time), and more plants will be down for maintenance. So, unexpected weather then will more often cause demand spikes not readily covered by supply, resulting in price spikes. In that case, blackouts aren't a big concern, but you would see the impact in electricity prices. Blackouts for summer, of course, are still possible because of our high demand, but probably not because coal plants will be shut down over this rule.
