Quantcast
Opinion

Join the discussion: What will Obama's new EPA measures do to the economy?

Comments

Return To Article
  • Esquire Springville, UT
    June 3, 2014 8:05 a.m.

    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?

  • Reflectere Utah, UT
    June 3, 2014 8:47 a.m.

    "Sadly, the carbon energy business, along with their minions, the GOP, will do everything they can to keep us from progress"

    Love the loaded language here. I think the measure is a good thing - but it comes from the wrong place. This should be regulated at the local level. Environmental issues are becoming a stage from which national leaders can usurp monarch style authority across both nations and the globe. Imposing presidential sanctions against energy companies is not a solution. It is not an answer. It is crippling. We need new energy solutions - and those will not come from the Presidency. They will come from the free market.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    June 3, 2014 9:07 a.m.

    It will destroy the energy industry _exactly_ the same way that federal rules about seatbelts and airbags destroyed the auto industry!

    And all for what? Cleaner air, cleaner water, jump-starting important new technologies, and a slowing of climate change?

    The horror!

  • SLC guy Salt Lake City, UT
    June 3, 2014 9:11 a.m.

    I'm all for cleaner air in places like Utah! How great would it be to switch our power plants to cleaner sources, then switching to an electric car might actually make sense. Maybe then we could breath the air in the winter without worrying about our health and the health of our children.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    June 3, 2014 9:40 a.m.

    Dear Blue:

    You have set up a straw man. The auto industry was not destroyed by air bags and that claim was never made. What air bags have done is make cars much more expensive thereby making it much harder for lower income people (as well as the middle class) to afford a car. I am totally in favor of air bags as an option, but forcing everyone to have them is big brother as his best.

    Obama's narcissistic EPA regulations are nothing more than an attempt to please his environmentalist big donors and make himself what he believes to be a big legacy. It may not destroy the power industry, but it will make it much more expensive for low income people and will take a huge toll in our economy in general.

    One may be able to live without a car, but freezing in the winter is not an option for most people.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 3, 2014 9:56 a.m.

    It won't result in cleaner air. Because we are just talking about offsets. So reductions here and there are just offset by increases elsewhere (inside the US or outside).

    We all know that China and other countries with growing industry sectors are increasing their CO2 output at rates that will more than offset any gains seen by shutting down American industry. So it's not going to "reduce" pollution globally.

    But it may slow the growth. So that is good. But at what costs?

    I don't want any Liberals whining in years to come about their kids loosing their jobs... YOU did it!

    YOU sold out their future, and the possibility of any job growth in the USA.

    Maybe they can move to China, or Russia, or Africa, or South America... to find jobs... Because there will most likely be drastic job CUTS in America and even more jobs LEAVING America in the coming years, as a result of these new regulations.

    Remember when your son or daughter tells you their company closed or downsized and they are out of a job... the it was you who did it (and all for political dogma)

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 3, 2014 10:11 a.m.

    I guess this is Obama delivering on his campaign promise that "Under my energy plan... electricity prices will naturally skyrocket"...

    At least he's finally getting around to delivering on some of his promises.

    Now if he will just end our racial divide (instead of adding to it each opportunity he gets)...

    ===

    Maybe Utah electricity prices won't skyrocket (at least in the beginning).

    California wants to get NONE of it's electricity from coal burning plants... maybe Utah can buy the coal burning plants California built in Utah to power the air conditioners and other stuff in LA, and keep generating electricity without having to buy offsets.

    We've been burning that coal for years, and suffering with the air pollution they produce, and getting none of the electricity.... we may as well get something for it.

    ====

    We should also go ahead with the Green River nuclear power plant. We have ZERO nuclear power in Utah. We will probably need at least a dozen nuclear power plants to replace our current coal and natural gas burning ones.

    We also need as much wind, solar and geothermal as possible to help offset power plants that will eventually shutdown.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    June 3, 2014 10:20 a.m.

    Obama is at war with coal - he has made this clear. I have no problem trying to clean up coal fired power plants but it MUST be done in a common sense way and not blindly with a sledge hammer. You don't burn one bridge until you have another to go to. The only power generation mechanism that can match the gigiwatt output of a coal fired plant is Nuclear. Nuclear power is clean and light years safer than it was during the 1970's. The Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada will safely store the nuclear by-products for 10000 years. However the environmental crazies on the left only want Solar and Wind. This is like trying to replace your car engine with a little battery powered toy engine from from 5 year olds toy truck. Don't try to convince the left wing loonies of this fact however - facts aren't important to these folks....just ideology.

    So YES people are going to lose their jobs at power plants and YES your local electric bill is going sky rocket. There will also be black-outs in large cities that depend on the electricty from coal fired plants as well.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    June 3, 2014 10:36 a.m.

    "Obama's narcissistic EPA regulations are nothing more than an attempt to please his environmentalist big donors and make himself what he believes to be a big legacy." Always the charge of narcissism - where does this come from? Hannity? Beck? Limbaugh?

    Did anybody watch Cosmos Sunday night? Dr. Tyson mentioned the case of Venus, whose atmosphere cannot support life because it is so hot, because of CO2 concentrations being too high.

    And let me mention the case of Norfolk VA. Norfolk has a devilishly difficult situation occasioned by rising sea levels. Can any of you think of a reason why the sea level is rising? Think hard. Homes and businesses there flood routinely now. This is just a preview.

    Props to President Obama for doing something which has to be done!

  • TRUTH Salt Lake City, UT
    June 3, 2014 10:49 a.m.

    Good job Libs.......now don't complain when you have brown outs that fry your big screen or your air conditioner......or when you receive notice that you can't turn on your heat or air conditioner because of a power shortage....think nothing of the power bill that will look like your Obamacare bill each month.

    Obama is a disaster......can you name anything this guy has not failed at?

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    June 3, 2014 10:49 a.m.

    Getting back to the question of this article, what are the economic consequences? It depends on what we do to substitute for the fossil fuel supplied base power load. Make no mistake about it, climate warming is a crisis and a dilemma. The whole industrial revolution and post-industrial revolution has been built on and made possible by the burning of fossil fuels, especially coal. If we don't substitute another fuel source capable of providing the base load, carbon emission control is going to be very costly indeed, for the entire world.

    The 3rd world, trying to catch up, will have to have help dealing with this situation. I believe nuclear power must be substituted widely for fossil fuels. It clearly has its disadvantages, but what else are we going to do? Solar is not ready - though we should be dedicating resources to make it viable. In the meantime, to control CO2 emissions (absolutely necessary) nuclear power must substitute. There is no other alternative.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    June 3, 2014 10:51 a.m.

    @ Reflectere, since when is air pollution merely a local issue. It is impossible. And the free market, that chases the short-term profit, is not the answer to almost any regulatory issue. If you had your way, we would still have child labor.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    June 3, 2014 11:12 a.m.

    And the scare tactics of the right continue!

    @ truth

    "Good job Libs.......now don't complain when you have brown outs that fry your big screen or your air conditioner......or when you receive notice that you can't turn on your heat or air conditioner because of a power shortage....think nothing of the power bill that will look like your Obamacare bill each month."

    Then maybe repub controlled companies like Rocky Mountain Power should reward instead of punishing solar panel customers? Maybe our "brilliant" legislature should reward hybrid car drivers instead of punishing them?

    The repubs seem to be all about fear and obstructionism and zero about solutions. Sorry repubs, but dirty fuel isn't the answer! Come and join the rest of us in the 21st century!

  • Rufio Saratoga, UT
    June 3, 2014 11:15 a.m.

    So with the economy still in the tank and struggling to get some traction - lets do what has worked in the past so well - more government regulations.

    Back in the 70's, and in almost every decade since, we hear alarmists telling us all that the end is near, acid rain or global warming, man is destroying the earth and doomsday is coming.

  • Thinkin\' Man Rexburg, ID
    June 3, 2014 11:17 a.m.

    The fact that the President couched the regulation of CO2 as a "health concern" is laughable! Everybody knows that CO2 is harmless to people and animals, and is beneficial to plants.

    And he criticizes conservatives as "anti-science"!

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    June 3, 2014 11:32 a.m.

    Second Irony of the Day: Our air will be cleaner. Republicans blow their stacks.

  • conservative scientist Lindon, UT
    June 3, 2014 11:35 a.m.

    If Obama really wants to fight global warming, he should have the EPA slap some serious repercussions on the nations of China and India for their carbon emissions. Perhaps if they can't abide by our U.S. laws (or don't fall under the jurisdiction of U.S. laws), then an invasion of both countries would be justified as we build a mighty U.S. empire and then other countries would fall under the laws of the U.S. and the regulations of the EPA in our righteous crusade to shrink the oceans and cool the planet. Thousands or even millions of lives lost in a war may small beans compared to the global catastrophe that is inevitable with global warming. Since the U.S. emissions cuts will have increasingly minimal effects on total global emissions (especially as the future progresses) and on global warming, why not confront the truly hard questions? How do we force the rest of the world to cut their emissions?

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    June 3, 2014 11:36 a.m.

    @Rufio
    "acid rain"

    That problem was addressed using a cap and trade system on the responsible pollutants involved.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    June 3, 2014 11:50 a.m.

    @Thinkin\' Man
    If it's so safe why don't you go sit in a room filled with CO2 for an hour and tell us how safe it is.....except the part where you would be dead.
    @patriot
    Ya, I remember how the liberals of Utah and Nevada threw a fit about wasted being stored in Nevada, with most of it being sent on trains that move through Utah. Patriot, it isn't a red/blue issue. Nuclear waste is a NIMBY issue.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    June 3, 2014 11:51 a.m.

    @ Thinkin Man

    "The fact that the President couched the regulation of CO2 as a "health concern" is laughable! Everybody knows that CO2 is harmless to people and animals, and is beneficial to plants."

    Ever stuck your head and tried to breathe what was coming out of your car's exhaust pipe?

    Ever heard of the planet Venus?

    And repubs ask why they don't have credibility on this issue? Oh Por Favor!

  • eastcoastcoug Danbury, CT
    June 3, 2014 11:54 a.m.

    I just don't get some of these arguments that reducing air pollution will cost jobs. If we're requiring power plants to make changes, someone has to come in and build the new systems. That's work for someone. And kudo's to the engineers that create something to reduce pollution. They have job security. As well as the people working on renewable energy vs. fossil fuels.

    Maybe coalminers will lose their jobs. As hard as that may be in the short term, do we really want our brothers and sons going into the ground to mine rocks in the 21st century??

    And do we honestly say we want NO LIMITS to the amount of carbons companies can put in the air we breathe? Since when does progress, health and good sense become a Liberal vs. Conservative argument? It's time for everyone to jump in this together and figure out the best way forward rather than one group being stuck in the ancient past and the other scrapping for ways (sometimes bureaucratic ones) of moving ahead.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    June 3, 2014 11:54 a.m.

    re:marxist

    Read my post on this subject - PLEASE!!! To summarize my points:

    1. I am all for cleaning up Coal Fired Power Plants but it must be done in a common sense way. You don't burn one bridge before you have another viable one to go to.
    2. There is no common - sense within the Obama ideology. The man has proven he doesn't think far enough ahead of the consequences of his actions (Obamacare is a classic example).

    Case in point - Page Arizona has two power generation plants that supply power to Las Vegas and Southern California. Glen Canyon Dam and a large Coal Fired plant just south of Page. The coal fired plant produces almost triple the gigi-watt output of Glen Canyon dam and in fact that is WHY it was constructed because the dam wasn't cutting the mustard. Are the folks in Vegas and LA ready for black-outs in their cites? Wind and Solar won't even scratch the surface to make up for the coal fired plant.

    There is a practical side to leadership and your socialist president is running a couple quarts low I'm afriad.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    June 3, 2014 11:57 a.m.

    "What will Obama's new EPA measures do to the economy?"

    It will stimulate the economy as states compete with each other to invent ways in which they can meet or exceed compliance requirements . . . Unless anti-government, anti-American, Regressive Republican types decide to fight every constructive endeavor and drag America down further than they have already.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 3, 2014 12:00 p.m.

    IMO it will be all pain... and no gain.

    Any air pollution gains in America will immediately be offset by the increasing air pollution in other countries (so no gain). And jobs will be lost. There's no question about that. There is the promise that the lost jobs will be offset by NEW clean-energy-jobs coming our way.

    We have to wait and see if the new wave of clean-energy-jobs really replace all the jobs lost by skyrocketing energy prices. And we will have to hope that the PEOPLE who lose their jobs (coal miners, manufacturing sector, etc)... are qualified to fill these new "clean-energy-jobs" they promise are coming.

    ===

    They say the regulations are good and urgently needed... but then they stipulate it not go into affect for 2 years. Hmmmm... the President be OUT in 2 years...

    IMO if a President wants something (especially something that will likely cost Americans jobs, and cost his party votes)... he should have to implement it on HIS watch (not pass the law but delay the effective date till the next guy's watch, and let HIS administration deal with the lost jobs).

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    June 3, 2014 12:13 p.m.

    Re: Patriot "The only power generation mechanism that can match the gigawatt output of a coal fired plant is Nuclear." Yes this is true. The issue is particularly acute in the so-called third world. They are trying to match the economic output of the first world by burning fossil fuels. They simply cannot be asked to stop that process, even though the fitness of the earth for human habitation is at stake.

    But this means a lot more nukes and the need to control them. This is one tough issue, but the path ahead is clear, and it is nuclear.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    June 3, 2014 12:17 p.m.

    Patriot.... you said "1. I am all for cleaning up Coal Fired Power Plants but it must be done in a common sense way. You don't burn one bridge before you have another viable one to go to."

    which is a very coherent statement, except the last bit there. What bridge has been burned. The rules leave it up to the state on how they achieve the reduction in emissions. And we have a 15 year ramp before the new standards are enforced. So what bridge has been burned again?

    To me it more looks like a goal has been set - and the participants have been given 15 years to figure out how to comply with the new rules.

    2Bits... these are not being implemented today because the technology isn't there today. If he wanted to kill coal, he could have done that today. But that isn't the goal. The goal is to give companies ways to comply with plenty of time to come up with strategies... just like the automotive companies have done.

    Forcing compliance today would have been damaging to companies. Now they have time to modernize their generation portfolio in at sensible pace.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    June 3, 2014 12:18 p.m.

    Patriot.... you said "1. I am all for cleaning up Coal Fired Power Plants but it must be done in a common sense way. You don't burn one bridge before you have another viable one to go to."

    which is a very coherent statement, except the last bit there. What bridge has been burned. The rules leave it up to the state on how they achieve the reduction in emissions. And we have a 15 year ramp before the new standards are enforced. So what bridge has been burned again?

    To me it more looks like a goal has been set - and the participants have been given 15 years to figure out how to comply with the new rules.

    2Bits... these are not being implemented today because the technology isn't there today. If he wanted to kill coal, he could have done that today. But that isn't the goal. The goal is to give companies ways to comply with plenty of time to come up with strategies... just like the automotive companies have done.

    Forcing compliance today would have been damaging to companies. Now they have time to modernize their generation portfolio in at sensible pace.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    June 3, 2014 12:25 p.m.

    And BTW Obama has made clear in the past that he is not adverse to nuclear power. He needs to propound a nuclear power strategy - yesterday!

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    June 3, 2014 12:38 p.m.

    What will it do to the economy? Damage it further.

    Marxist, Maverick
    I guess Venus’ proximity to the sun has NOTHING to do with temperatures there.

  • eastcoastcoug Danbury, CT
    June 3, 2014 1:22 p.m.

    Just a question to my fellow Republicans:

    Who was it that set the agenda that says just because you are a Conservative that you are automatically anti-environment?? Some of you sound more like echoes of talk show hosts more than independent thinkers. Lincoln, TR, Eisenhower, Nixon, GHW Bush all did positive things for the environment. Don't listen to these people with a "list" of things you should be for or against. Jump in and help us figure out how to "conserve" the planet in new ways rather than just saying no to everything and letting others do what they want with this unique planet we live on.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    June 3, 2014 1:38 p.m.

    @lost in DC
    "I guess Venus’ proximity to the sun has NOTHING to do with temperatures there."

    It's warmer than Mercury, which is closer than Venus (though I would note that most of the reason Venus is warmer than Mercury is due to the massive pressure difference between those two atmospheres). Greenhouse gases do play a role though, Earth would only have an average surface temperature of around 0F without them (instead it's 59F) so there's really no need for marxist or Maverick to bring Venus into this.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 3, 2014 2:06 p.m.

    Rufio,
    Seems like we solved the acid rain problem of the 70s (without Obama, without skyrocketing energy prices, and without ruining the coal industry or ruining our energy-based economy).

    Air quality has been getting better (most places). Most rivers are cleaner than they were in the 70s. Obama can't take credit for all that. He's relatively new on the scene.

    He just wants to do something big.

    He sees the end coming (like all lame duck Presidents do their last 2 years) and he's wondering what his legacy is going to be. It's nothing new. They have to feather their nest and make sure they have something good to look back on. Bush was unlucky that he didn't get to focus on his legacy at the end. The economy was going to heck (and not all his fault). But Clinton had plenty of time to feather his nest. And boy did he do it!

    Would have been nice if he done less feathering and kept one eye on AlQaida... maybe could have prevented what happened 9 months later.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    June 3, 2014 2:59 p.m.

    Thinkinman: "The fact that the President couched the regulation of CO2 as a "health concern" is laughable! Everybody knows that CO2 is harmless to people and animals, and is beneficial to plants. And he criticizes conservatives as "anti-science"!

    And since water is necessary for life, there's no such thing as drowning!

    Checkmate, you so-called "scientists!"

    What could be more scientific than that?

  • Res Novae Ashburn, VA
    June 3, 2014 5:07 p.m.

    The longer we put our collective head in the sand and ignore the impact of pollutants, the harder and more expensive the impact to the economy will be to mitigate the problems. An ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    June 3, 2014 6:26 p.m.

    Re: "What will Obama's new EPA measures do to the economy?"

    They will do exactly what Obama intends them to do -- hurt the economy and slow any recovery that might otherwise occur.

    They will also shore up support among his radical tree-hugging base, which is the primary effect he intends.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 3, 2014 6:53 p.m.

    @lost in DC
    West Jordan, UT

    Marxist, Maverick
    I guess Venus’ proximity to the sun has NOTHING to do with temperatures there.
    12:38 p.m. June 3, 2014

    ======

    Venus is nearly 80% of the same distance from the Sun.

    MOST of the sun's energy never reachs the planet, because most of it is reflected OFF of the Venusian clouds.
    [Think London or Seattle]

    Venus is nearly 80% of the same distance from the Sun.

    If not for the GreenHouse effect of CO2,
    the surface Venus of would be -40 below zero.

    Never bothered to watch 3rd grade Science videos?

    And we wonder why Conservatives and Republicans are so anti-Science in the first place?...

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    June 3, 2014 7:47 p.m.

    We need to do this for the grandchildren.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    June 3, 2014 8:07 p.m.

    We need to conserve the earth, not cook it.

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    June 3, 2014 8:47 p.m.

    A few inconvenient facts:

    CO2 is odorless and colorless. It doesn't contribute to inversions - it might even help prevent inversions by trapping heat!

    There is not yet any practical way to eliminate CO2 emissions from a power plant, nor any credible reason for wanting to do so.

    Atmospheric CO2 is currently around 400 parts per million. Plants prefer a lot more, at least 1000 parts per million. Neither level has any effect on humans. Judging from the data collected thus far, the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is indistinguishable from zero.

    The greenhouse effect on earth is 95% due to water vapor, and 2% or 3% due to CO2. If the entire US quit emitting CO2 in any form - cars, power plants, home heating, breathing - it would not make a measurable difference in atmospheric CO2, or global temperature, or global sea level. But it would cost a great deal.

    Standard of living is almost entirely dependent on the cost of energy and how efficiently we use it. If you would like to see the rich get richer and the rest of us get poorer, do something to raise the cost of energy.

    And please stop with the infantile insults.

  • Sven Morgan, UT
    June 3, 2014 10:15 p.m.

    2bits said:

    "And jobs will be lost. There's no question about that. There is the promise that the lost jobs will be offset by NEW clean-energy-jobs coming our way.

    We have to wait and see if the new wave of clean-energy-jobs really replace all the jobs lost by skyrocketing energy prices."

    ====

    We don't have to wait and see, we already know! Here's a partial list of Government backed Green companies that have went bankrupt, shut down, or have been sold:

    * Solyndra: $570.4 million
    * Abound Solar: $494.3 million
    * A123 Systems: $390.1 million
    * Babcock & Brown: $178 million
    * Azure Dynamics: $119.1 million
    * Range Fuels: $162.3 million
    * ECOtality Inc.: $135 million
    * EnerDel, subsidiary of Ener1: $182.8 million

    So tell us Liberals, where are all of the clean energy jobs Dear Leader and the Democrats keep promising us year after year?

    As I mentioned in another thread, people have absolutely no idea of the burden this will place on our nation and on individual families. This will hit low income families particularly hard.

    We owe the destruction of our economy on Obama and the Democrats. I guess this is the "fundamental transformation" of America He warned us about.

  • high school fan Huntington, UT
    June 3, 2014 11:01 p.m.

    Doesn't anybody care about CO2, like the fact that without it we all die. No CO2, no plants, no animals, no people. And then there is the fact that the allowable CO2 in the space station or on a nuclear submarine is over fifteen times greater than is currently present in the atmosphere.
    I'm sorry people but CO2 is not the enemy, it is absolutely necessary for our continued existence and more would actually be beneficial. Don't believe all the hype, read about it, study and you will find that this is much ado about nothing.

  • wingnutty Casa Grande, AZ
    June 4, 2014 7:08 a.m.

    The sun is no good, you can't get enough energy from it to sustain life and rolling blackouts EVERY DAY! Come on!

    It's a flawed system that should be fixed by replacing the sun with nuclear units much closer to us.

    I'm not sure what they were thinking when they put the sun so far away. Good resources are ones you can fight over and win.

    The sun's poor profit structure and socialistic nature are the most obvious signs of it's design flaws. It really should be shut off for good.

  • sailhardy BOSTON, MA
    June 5, 2014 5:08 p.m.

    When carbon reductions were first proposed in the Obama Administration, there was something called the Carbon Exchange in Chicago. Members of the Board included Albert Gore, Jr. and Barack H. Obama. I have no idea how profitable a seat on the Carbon Exchange might be, but based on the New York Stock Exchange, I would guess it very profitable. How come we were not notified of a potential conflict. Is the EPA proposing a new carbon exchange and who serves on that board?