Comments about ‘New EPA regulations on carbon 'pure fantasy,' Utah congressman says’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, June 2 2014 6:45 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
RP888
Layton, UT

Representative Stewart,

I am sure you have carefully studied this issue and have excellent sources to make you believe the global warming is "pure fantasy". I just don't know who it is that you believe more than these groups.

American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)

American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem."

American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climatechange observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes."

American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide."

DN Subscriber
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Rocky Mountain Power has an existing program allowing customers to pay more for "renewable" Blue Sky wind power.

I fully support a similar plan to allow all the environmentally concerned citizens to sign up to purchase power exclusively from new less polluting sources at their cost of production. Let the rest of us continue to get power from traditional sources at their current cost of production.

Any enviros who refuse to pay the higher costs, should have their power cut off.

Obama's plan is not about the environment, it is about breaking our industrial base and standard of living so we live like a third-world country, and don't act "exceptional".

483bzac
West Valley City, UT

@RP888. Even the IPCC has concluded that a near stop in CO2 emissions will not do much to stave off climate change in the CC models. CO2 is less than 1/2000th part (400ppm) of the atmosphere and admittedly by your own post, not the only thing affecting climate change. To control every country's emissions on this planet for the next three hundred years, reducing CO2 emissions and ignoring other greenhouse gases expecting to reduce CC, is indeed a pure fantasy. Reducing emissions by power plants by only 30% by 2030, expecting to adequately slow global atmospheric CO2 increases is simply a fantasy. We will just pay higher power bills with minimal effect if any, on climate change. I agree with the Senator, there is lots of pure fantasy on how to control climate change by regulating power plants.

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

Lee Iacocca, the then president of Ford Motor Company, and later savior of Chrysler, claimed in the early 70s that epa regulations would be the end of the automobile industry. He said their was no way car companies could deliver product and meet emission standards - they were mutually exclusive of each other.

Lee was wrong - and in fact we now have cars engines that produce more horse power per cubic inch of displacement than did at that time. In that day you needed a liter engine to produce 400 to 500 horsepower. Today that same level of performance is being achieved with motors of half the displacement, and get double the milage. In fact Dodge just began shipping a 1500 class truck that achieve 28-30 mpg.

To say it can't be done way underestimates the ingenuity of Americans. We have sent a man to the moon, invented computers of incredible power...... we can build technology to create clean coal power.

liberal larry
salt lake City, utah

Its always amazing that when people bring up problems related to overpopulation and resource depletion, conservatives say we shouldn't worry because scientists will use science and human ingenuity to solve all of our problems.

But, when these same scientists say we should cut coal fired pollution, conservatives scream economic collapse!

When anti-acid rain legislation was proposed claims were made that costs would exceed $1500.00 to remove each ton of sulfur and bankrupt the nation.

Guess what, it ended up costing less than $200.00/ton and effectively eliminated acid rain!

Esquire
Springville, UT

I think the President's actions will end up as not only the right thing to do, even though it is not enough, but will be approved by the people as long as they get the whole story. Sadly, the carbon energy business, along with their minions, the GOP, will do everything they can to keep us from progress, from moving forward, and from solving a serious problem. It's amazing how a country that was built on progress and innovation has been effectively impeded in recent years by traditional industries with a lot of money who are trying to protect the past instead of letting us move forward. New investment and innovation means more economic activity and jobs. Old jobs may disappear, but new ones will emerge and we will all benefit economically as well as improve the long-term quality of life for us and those who follow. Why does the GOP oppose innovation and progress? Will their short range objectives serve them, and us, in the end? Is it more selfishness and living for the moment?

By the way, have these members of Congress forgotten the lovely inversions here in Utah? Oh wait, they live in Washington.

Baron Scarpia
Logan, UT

@ DN Subscriber

"Rocky Mountain Power has an existing program allowing customers to pay more for "renewable" Blue Sky wind power."

The Energy Information Administration lists natural gas and wind as the cheapest sources of electricity today. Coal is now more expensive.

As a monopoly, Rocky Mountain Power's "Blue Sky" program is sending its ratepayers the wrong price signal by selling renewables above its fossil fuel rate. Without competition, a monopoly can do that. The problem is that Blue Sky misinforms consumers about renewable energy costs -- deterring demand.

This is the problem with electricity markets -- they're not "free markets" as consumers and our legislators think, but rather they are monopolies, supposedly regulated by policymakers. Ratepayers can't buy cheaper, cleaner energy elsewhere -- we're captive consumers.

Regulators are supposed to encourage monopoly utilities to diversify their electricity resources to reduce the risk of looming carbon taxes and pollution costs. Sadly, our policymakers, in their zeal to believe climate change is a hoax and to hate Obama, have not done their job.

Expect Rocky Mountain Power's monopoly to simply pass those costs onto ratepayers... and charge a premium for renewables. It's good to be a monopoly in Utah!

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Lee
Stewart
Chaffetz

What exactly do they do for Utah?
Besides fantasize about taking federal land that doesn't belong to them.
Shutting down the government.
Trying to rewrite a tragedy, that's already been thoroughly gone over. (15 time)

Why don't we save the state some money, and quit paying these guys to do nothing.

DN Sub: Gotta love the oil and coal and whale blubber are the future, because we can't do any better, and science is now witchcraft....again, crowd. Tell you what, I'll pay more to have them pipe the exhaust right into your home, since I'll be the one paying for the clean air, and you want the cheapest power instead.

Baron Scarpia
Logan, UT

Oh, and don't forget that Rocky Mountain Power's monopoly wants to charge solar panel owners a $50 year fee for the privilege of generating their own power. Solar generation decreases the monopoly's profits, so as a monopoly, it can charge its captive market a fee.

Is solar generation, which reduces a customer's electricity bill, any different than buying super efficient appliances, LEDs bulbs, or simply shutting off the AC to reduce a customer's energy bill? No... but the monopoly sees rapidly decreasing solar panel costs as a threat to its polluting coal-fired power plants. Can't allow that as a monopoly. Charge those solar panel owners!

Private solar panels provide many benefits to ALL ratepayers -- from reducing local air pollution to stabilizing the grid at point of use to producing power during high-demand times (summer days when everyone has AC running) to reducing the need for the monopoly to build big power plants at ratepayer expense to decreased water use during summer droughts (no steam for coal-fired power).

But no, the monopoly can charge a fee to private solar panel owners.

Again, its good to be a monopoly in Utah!

Cletus from Coalville
Coalville, UT

Progressivism thrives on symbolism over substance, but symbolic gestures sure make liberals feel good about themselves.

Who can argue with the altruistic rhetoric of our liberal Mayor Becker with his claim that "Taking this responsible and necessary step will go a long way to starting effective societal solutions."

Sounds noble doesn't it?

Of course, most people don't realize, or even care that these new EPA regulations are estimated to reduce U.S. CO2 emissions by only 10% in the U.S. – and it will take more than 15 years to even get to that point.

What about the rest of the world?

The fact is – stabilizing climate change would require near ZERO emissions. Anything beyond complete anthropomorphic C02 reduction will still commit the climate system to irreversible warming for essentially the next 1,000 years.

But hey – symbolic value trumps reality with those who vote for the progressive agenda – progressives simply love to pat themselves on the back over symbolic gestures.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Once again... it's NOT "Climate CHANGE". It's "Climate CHAOS"! And we only have 479 days left to avoid it.

So you better hurry and get those power plants retrofitted! You only have 479 days left!

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

So Cletus and 2 bits suggest the following republican answer to most if not all environmental problems.

Ignore them.

All righty then, why pay them to do and suggest nothing?

Weber State Graduate
Clearfield, UT

@Happy Valley Heretic

Confiscating somebody else's cup and then dipping it into a large river to stem the flow of water into an overflowing lake is what makes liberals feel good about themselves...they actually believe they did something noble.

The trick is to forget stealing somebody else's cup for use in a political scheme and focus on the science and ingenuity it takes to build an effective outlet for the lake. But, of course, such action requires reason and thought on the part of a liberal...it's simply much easier to commandeer the cup, make a symbolic gesture, and claim altruistic superiority.

That's what liberalism is mostly about...engaging in a smug sense of nobility by offering meaningless symbolic gestures intended to emotionally appeal to a populace willing to forfeit reason and thought in favor of feelings.

Unfortunately, Republicans, Democrats, and most religious leaders often use emotion to shore up their power base at the expense of practical sense and logic.

Cletus from Coalville
Coalville, UT

@Happy Valley Heretic

Why are dramatic pantomimes with no meaningful value better than doing nothing?

Such Al Gorish political grandstanding is meaningful in one sense--it will certainly increase energy costs and add another burden to our fledging economy.

I would much rather pay political comics to do absolutely nothing rather than continue paying them to wreak havoc in our economy under the false pretext of significant value.

Keep politicians out of science and allow the scientific community to work on tangible solutions without the incessant interference of political charlatans.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments