Sens. Byrd and Rockefeller on American Clean Energy and Security Act

Green economy growing (0.00 / 0)

West Virginia could have gone this route.

When a man embarks upon a crime, he is morally guilty of any other crime which may spring from it. Sherlock Holmes.

---

by: Carnacki @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 14:19:29 PM UTC

hmmmm (0.00 / 0)

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...

---

by: stevewvu @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 14:40:59 PM UTC

like Bush would have suppressed something (0.00 / 0)

to support his own foot dragging see-no-email open-no-email EPA and that helped Sen. Inhofe? Are you his love child or something?

Even Oklahoma is moving to take advantage of all the hot air there. His ex-staffer Mr. Moran(o) has a vested interest in this fallacy. Once again misusing the word "scientist".

Find that sock yet?

NFTT: Support My Team or I Will Dance

---

by: CA Berkeley WV @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 16:00:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Stevewvu apparently thinks that an economist's views on climate change are more relevant than the science itself. (0.00 / 0)

From our resident coal lover's (stevewvu) own source

An EPA official told FOXNews.com on Monday that Carlin, who is an economist -- not a scientist -- included "no original research" in his report. The official said that Carlin "has not been muzzled in the agency at all," but stressed that his report was entirely "unsolicited."

"It was something that he did on his own," the official said. "Though he was not qualified, his manager indulged him and allowed him on agency time to draft up ... a set of comments."

In its biased article (obviously against any climate change legislation), FoxNews not only failed to even link to the March 16 report (pdf)to which it refers, but also forgot to summarize that the report's authors advise a wait and see attitude.

"We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA before any attempt is made to reach conclusions on the subject" they wrote.

So basically they want to cop the standard wait until it all goes to hell in a handbasket attitude while Canada cashes in on finding a solution.

Did I mention that while both of stevewvu's "experts" are economics geeks in the EPA, neither are actually climate scientists? So if it were left up to the Alan Carlins and Jim Inhofes of the world, Congress would still be weighing the economic aspects of regulating sulfur and mercury emissions even though the toxicity dangers to the public had long been universally settled before the US finally put a lid on them.

The EPA said in a written statement that Carlin's opinions were in fact considered, and that he was not even part of the working group dealing with climate change in the first place. "Claims that this individual's opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false. This administration and this EPA administrator are fully committed to openness, transparency and science-based decision making," the statement said. "The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless the document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding."

source

Hmmm yerself, stevie.

---

by: One Citizen @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 16:32:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

its not the money (0.00 / 0)

its the money....once the government gets its hands on the additional tax revenue this bill will impose on coal, the future of coal as americas leading energy source will be assured...that spigot will never be turned off...witness gambling in west virginia and other states....at the end of the day, what your scientist, or my scientist, or my economist of my dogcatcher say doesnt matter....follow the money...

---

by: stevewvu @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 17:18:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So stevewvu apparently contends that regulating coal companies is a bad thing. (0.00 / 0)

Big Coal is not a good corporate citizen, pal. Coal extraction and the use of it as a power source produces what is widely recognized be the most toxic and harmful pollution in the world. Lack of regulation not only kills those who mine the stuff and destroys the health of those who live near the mines, it now threatens large segments of the world's population. Yet stevewvu wants to shove a bean counter's opinion in front of the science so he can amplify his own nasal whine about his pocketbook.

Gimme a break.

---

by: One Citizen @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 17:53:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

the gambling industry (0.00 / 0)

according to many, is not much of a good corporate citizen either...however the revenue it generates for your big government is to lawmakers what heroin is to a junkie...again, when this bill finally shakes out, coal's future, and the revenues it will produce for your government, will be stronger than ever....

---

by: stevewvu @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 18:24:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Coal Kills, not cheap or secure (4.00 / 1)

How can anything that kills people through various means be considered a cheap energy solution and a cornerstone of our national security?  Until the true costs of coal are considered it's existing as a hoax on the American people.  Ever heard of mercury, black lung, emphazema, toxic dam breaks, polluted water sources, mine disasters.....I have and there's nothing secure about any of these scenarios.

---

by: JBdem4usa @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 02:40:40 AM UTC