obama\'s epa draws praise, fire over new emission regulations
-The Environmental Protection Agency has released new federal standards on toxic pollutants and mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants-a move that has been praised by environmental activists, but has also been criticized by others, who can predict the pressure of unemployment and the State Grid.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced at an event at the Children\'s National Medical Center in Washington, D. C. S. coal and oil-
Operators of thermal power plants must limit the discharge of mercury and other harmful air pollutants.
\"I am happy to be here, marking the final determination of a clean air rule that has been in place for 20 years and is now ready to start improving our health and protecting our children, clean up our air, \"Jackson said.
\"Under the Clean Air Act, these standards will require US power plants to establish mature and widely available pollution control technologies to reduce harmful emissions of mercury, arsenic, chromium, nickel, and acidic gases
In itself, this is a great victory for public health, especially for the health of our children.
\"The new regulations are the broadest --
During Obama\'s administration, he received help from the EPA.
They include separate limits on mercury emissions, acid gases and other contaminants from several metals.
Specifically, EPA will impose numerical emission limits on all existing and future coal-fired power plants and propose a range of \"widely available, technically and economically sound practices, technologies and compliance strategies, meet new demands.
According to EPA\'s analysis, greater economic benefits of reducing pollution will exceed paying for short-term pollution
Regular cleaning costs.
S. Environmental Protection Agency also predicts that as power plants invest millions of dollars to upgrade, more jobs will be created instead of losses.
It also estimates that by 2016, due to less exposure to these toxins, health costs will be reduced to between $59 billion and $140 billion, and new regulations will prevent 17,000 premature deaths each year.
However, the US Environmental Protection Agency also acknowledged that the regulation will lead to increased power grid pressure: It is estimated that 14.
The United States will cancel power supply of 7 gigawatts. S.
The rule came into effect on 2015.
That\'s enough to support more than $10 million in electricity. S.
Families are too optimistic, according to other industry analysis.
Some industry groups and some Republicans also disagree about the economic impact of the new rules. Reps.
House Oversight Committee and Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs chairman Darrell Isa and Jim Jordan sent a letter to the White House earlier this week, claiming that \"EPA failed to properly analyze the impact of the rule on job creation\" and \"taking into account the impact of the rule on grid reliability \".
The new regulations are also on track for the Republican presidential campaign, with Jon Huntsman recently predicting more pollution in the summer, with Rick Perry announcing the EPA as a \"job-killing\"And the U. S.
The Chamber of Commerce, which traditionally sympathizes with Republicans, has advertised, urging listeners not to \"let the Environmental Protection Agency turn off the lights of the US economy \".
\"But the Obama administration found an ally in New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who noted in a recent column
Ed of Huffington Post says new standards are urgently needed.
\"We can stop this,\" Bloomberg wrote about mercury poisoning . \".
\"We can avoid this tragic injustice and the pain it brings to their families.
We can save adults from losing their lives.
We can keep taxpayers from paying huge medical bills for Mercury. related-illnesses.
\"Environmental activists are angry at President Barack Obama\'s refusal to push EPA-backed ozone emission standards, and they are strongly involved.
\"This bold new announcement means reducing pollution to fish and providing more protection for children who are likely to develop learning disabilities and other mercury poisoning-related issues, the Sierra Club said in an emailmail to CNN.
\"This is a major public health victory, 20 years have passed.
It\'s the most important thing.
Pollution measures in recent memory.
How do these Republican koooks think it will \"cost work \".
You fool, you have to hire someone to fix it!
How the hell did this kill jobs? ?
More lies from the \"right.
Or we can\'t do that or save money. . .
Democrats. . .
I just wanted to remind you that Mercury is a toxin that has been confirmed and can cause some very serious symptoms.
I just think it may have been incorporated into the EPA decision as their job is to protect the public from such things.
A courtesy video about why no one but Obama likes it!
Only polite discussion here!
In a US Environmental Protection Agency survey, more than half of the coal-producing energy plants responded that they would shut down due to the cost of upgrading.
This will lead to the loss of every job in each factory.
That\'s why, in the same article, it mentions the additional pressure on the US grid, and the reason why Obama said during the campaign that energy costs will rise sharply.
Do you do your homework before you start calling someone an idiot?
It\'s coming back to you right away.
No, they won\'t shut down.
The stupidity of this statement is shocking.
So instead of doing the right thing,
That\'s why we don\'t need more regulations, not to mention them)
Will they shut down?
This makes sense. . . how?
I think it\'s more important to keep these profits than to care about the air, the water, whether people stay healthy or not.
Matt is right, Tom. You\'re totally wrong.
Some power plants will have to be shut down.
They sent children with asthma to hospitals and graves. (
Tom, are you saying you like killing kids? ? ?
Obviously you\'re not, but that\'s how it sounds. )
These dirty coal
The burning plant will be replaced by cleaner facilities, most likely to burn with natural gas, which we have abundant in the United States.
The construction of the new factory will create a lot of construction work, and the people who now run the dirty factory will be transferred to the new factory.
The Republican Party\'s position is untenable.
Health is totally wrong.
\"In the EPA investigation,\" said seriously. . .
I mean, really. . . .
Haha, so does the survey mention how many companies will be there at night?
If these coal plants cannot profit from competitive energy, they should be shut down.
As any economist knows, if you want to create a real free market, you can\'t let companies take advantage of external factors such as pollution.
Take a look at the tragedy of the Commons and see an example of the problem of Leveraging external factors.
That\'s why alternative energy is so hard.
Existing powers are taking advantage of external factors such as pollution.
Tom, how about you look at what the heads of these peers have said to their underwriters and financiers? . .
A very different photo.
They said they were ready to implement the new rules.
In response to the EPA investigation, they are just playing with tough political tactics.
History shows again and again that the industry according to who their audience is, word of mouth.
These are common sense rules, which have received strong support from both parties under old Bush.
When the EPA was in its early 90 s. .
Don\'t be so credulous about the industry hype.
To be clear, both of you are correct.
Jobs will be created in modifications and lost in closed factories.
In all respects, it could be a clean-up of the work, and each side just uses it as a political tool.
In fact, the vote on coal-fired power plants is incorrect.
According to EIA, look at coal-fired power plants in the United States, about 25% of which generate less than 300 megawatts.
These are mainly composed of the oldest (50+ years old)
Plants with the lowest efficiency
A modern factory can replace 3 of them with almost the same Daily staff.
The worst case scenario is that this will only accelerate the inevitable layoffs.
The reason more Republicans are saddened by the proposal is that states with these old plants are often renewable.
There is nothing wrong with trying to protect their country\'s work from going elsewhere, but on the other hand, they should do what is best for the whole country, not just for them.
I make a living by myself and don\'t discharge mercury into our water and atmosphere.
I used to work for CNN once and I got firedoff. . .
I found another job.
I don\'t understand why we\'re giving the oil and coal industry a clean time in 200. up their act.
\"In a survey by the EPA, more than half of the coal-producing energy plants responded that they would be shut down due to the cost of upgrading.
\"Where can I find that survey, Tom?
Increasing the cost of electricity and resulting in a shortage of electricity will inevitably bring more jobs to the whole economy, rather than incorporating it into corrective measures.
Your logic would say that even the worst redundancy regulations would create a couple of extra jobs for regulators, so ignoring all the unemployment means you can apply for a job opportunity for anything.
It will kill a lot of work.
Doctors need to treat patients with mercury poisoning, the company signed a contract
Tonks our ocean, the list is still going on!
These are temporary construction jobs that disappear after installing the scrubber.
Just like the Keystone pipe works. . . DOH!
There will be a lot of jobs lost, there are a lot of coal miners out of work, you are an idiot Matt.
When you raise energy prices, you increase the cost of doing business, which in turn means that you spend more money on expenses and less money on expanding and developing companies.
In addition, if your electricity bill goes up by $50 a month, then you can reduce the consumption of resources by $50, thus reducing the demand for goods and services that people are \"hired\" to do.
I don\'t have any objection to the need for this rule, but it will definitely drain jobs.
@ Matt, a good imitation of EPA\'s political talk points.
I don\'t know about the Republican Party, but an economist will tell you that the old factories that affect people working there and their communities will be shut down.
Also, power outages can have a negative impact on economic activity unless you sell a generator.
Finally, who do you think will eventually pay for the upgrade. . .
Higher electrical costs for businesses and consumers.
Yes, I believe the upgrade will offset all these factors.
Think about it, according to the history of the past, what the power companies will do, fix or close it, and they will shut them down.
Some power plants want to upgrade their turbines to more efficient turbines, which is part of their modernization plan and you have to upgrade the whole power plant at the same time, as a result, they just turned off, EPA said
Build a new one from scratch and need 10-
15 years through the EPA and the bureaucracy.
EPA is not interested in collateral damage to economic or social damage and would be happier if everyone was deported and the United States became an original Park.
Forgot to work
You know, kids shouldn\'t eat tuna more than once a week because otherwise they\'ll be poisoned! ! !
If a factory needs to cost tens of millions of dollars or more, the cost of electricity must rise in order to meet these costs.
As the cost of electricity rises, the production and living costs of the industry and people in the region are rising.
As costs rise, overseas competition loses jobs and creates more poverty.
This is just another trillion-dollar regulation designed to hurt the middle class.
Wow, I never thought about this!
Stupid me, I think this is a regulation designed to protect all categories from harmful toxins.
Thank you for helping me with this!
Perhaps if the agency running these chemicals to discharge toxins works with EPA instead of fighting them for 20 years, the cost will be much cheaper and no factories will be closed.
People can breathe cleaner air in the past 20 years.
The cost of setting regulatory changes is entirely the fault of the industry itself and their lobbyists.
Where do you suggest in your budget to find the money to hire more inspectors and bureaucrats?
Is it education, social security or health programs?
Maybe we should tax the unemployed and the homeless?
Increased defense allocation. . ?
Because the cost of electricity will allow American companies to price American products in the market.
Think beyond the power plant itself.
This is what Democratic liberals fear.
Looks good on paper.
They never thought of unexpected consequences other than their small pet program.
Eric, I \'ve heard of the kehooga River in Ohio, also known as the fire River.
The disaster was one of the reasons for the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency.
I fully support these rules because they will have triple benefits.
They will save lives, they will protect the environment, they will create high-paying jobs that cannot be outsourced.
Check out this video about jobs and the Environmental Protection Agency to find out the truth.
To get my electricity bill up more is for the EPA.
People like you will not use your mind, if you have one, because after the upgrade is completed, the same is true of the work, but like the previous factory workers, they didn\'t work more machines when they upgraded to do the actual person\'s work, so yes, it will kill the work.
Because of competitive power, it will kill jobs.
China will double the amount of coal
They operate power plants in the next 20 years.
China has discharged 10 times more mercury from coal.
Opened a power plant like the United States.
Like greenhouse gases, we are controlling our emissions, but China does not.
However, in order to maintain economic growth, we must compete with China.
Now you\'re banned from smoking. about time -
Screw down who will drill your ass if you can.
60% of the comments will appear on this blog: Damn Obama, push his green energy agenda and kill energy producers.
What is the Fed\'s business of removing mercury from the air.
A little bit of Mercury has never killed anyone.
If I really care about Mercury, I will move to a better community with all the money I make. Working. (Jees.
It feels dangerous to write this)
So now mercury is not good for you?
There is no scientific consensus on this.
Time published an article in the 1970 Journal saying that Mercury is good for you, isn\'t it?
There is still debate about this issue!
There is no fixed science.
These guys just made up these things to get a grant and I read an email saying it was a lie. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
You don\'t know much about science, do you?
Ask a chemist or doctor about the toxicity of mercury.
Or better yet, you can read scientific publications and learn by yourself.
Time magazine is not a science magazine, and the email you receive from the Republican Party doesn\'t tell you what to think.
I think \"those people who make up for grants\" are the researchers working on mercury toxicity?
If you compare thousands
Of the grant funds used to study Mercury toxicity, the coal industry and generators earn billions of dollars a year, the biggest motivation to mislead us?
In this way, shareholders can earn a few more pence.
Just check \"Miamata disease\" on Google \".
This may change your point of view.
Oh, no, no, that\'s right. Your opinion is based on politics, not science.
You\'re not serious, are you?
Google mini map
The disease was first discovered in 1956 in Japan\'s water ata.
The only person who disputes whether Mercury is flat or not is the same person.
There is a scientific consensus at this point, and as a scientist, I say so.
Vaguely quoted a \"pop-
News magazine articles over the age of 30 do not really come up with thoughtful, rational, scientific arguments.
Oh & I read in an email that Elvis, Janis, Jimi, Buddy, Jim, Jerry and Big Bopper were all in French when we posted this. . Hrmm. . .
You sound more jealous than terrible to me. Of course!
Because mercury in the air (
And other bad things)
Never fall on the \"better\" block.
Lol the Obama administration promotes more mercury in the environment, especially in families where children are most affected by the mandatory use of mercury bulbs.
This is another double standard that this government has no scientific significance.
You forgot the part of the article that says the Greens are angry with Obama.
Your Republicans and Democrats mean nothing to me.
Look at the merchants.
Com understand the truth about mercury in the bulb, if it\'s not too much trouble for you.
In other news, the EPA now stipulates that we need population control because people breathe too much carbon dioxide, produce too much waste, and use too much resources.
What is the great harm of putting known poison into the air?
In addition, the whole work is ridiculous.
No matter what fuel is used for production, we use the same amount of energy and the change is small.
We use more oil or gas.
Work is needed for any energy production.
In fact, some investors are going to build some factories in Mexico and sell the electricity to the United States, and we have sometimes bought the electricity from Canada and moved it to Old Mexico, and the Environmental Protection Agency can say goodbye to it, we ship more money from the American economy.
Good idea, like in the past, the government\'s research on how much greenhouse gas is emitted from cow methane?
I like this science.
Fine, but this is not (soon to be)
Does the government require 100% of all incandescent lamps to be eliminated and CFL bulbs replaced?
I recycle mine, but how many Americans do that? 1%? Think again.
Americans will throw them in the trash, where they will break down the toxic gas and release it into the atmosphere.
How does EPA view all sources of lead, mercury and other metals entering our atmosphere? yup.
I was sitting on a table in the kitchen with two people waiting for me to figure out how to get rid of them now. (
Maybe it will leak into our table and our food? )
I \'d better throw those away today.
The fact is that the CFL saves enough power over its service life, so it emits less mercury into the atmosphere, which is more than a small amount of mercury in the offset lamp.
Yes, the lights should be recycled, but mercury does not enter the atmosphere unless it is burned.
If people can\'t recycle a lamp, they should simply seal it with plastic before throwing it away.
Obviously, you haven\'t really studied so much yet.
There are no regulations prohibiting incandescent lamps or requiring CFL replacement.
Instead, there is a new standard of efficiency to manage most (
Not all bulbs).
Traditional incandescent lamps do not meet the new standards and manufacturers will either not or will not produce them.
There are other better options for CFL though, so you won\'t be \"forced\" to buy them.
Of course, their purchases cost more, but they last longer and run less power.
In the service life of LED bulbs, you will spend thousands of dollars less than incandescent lamps and avoid mercury problems. Exactly.
They live the same life as the old ones.
They know you won\'t keep the receipt for 7 years.
It is much more expensive to buy and produce.
There is much more consumption in production.
To deal with more cost and labor intensive.
Ban a non
Toxic, cheap, and more comfortable bulbs are all for \"green \".
The only green among them is shy\'s money to produce these \"green\" technologies, which is being cleared through legislative authorization.
I don\'t understand that anyone puts the almighty dollar first before putting mercury and other serious toxins into the environment we all have to share.
Why don\'t we ask them to take it away before they sell it to us?
Can\'t they make a scrubber or something to take out before putting toxic chemicals etc into the environment? Thank you!
It doesn\'t make sense to me either, and it\'s very simple.
It\'s too simple.
The United States has more jobs in China. Not really.
But if it does happen, at least you\'re alive. but outta work)
You can\'t move the factory to China and send electricity back to the United States. Let \'em go.
Some of them don\'t understand that the energy we use in America is actually amazing. . . produced here.
They are only familiar with the \"grid\" and finally a \"lle\" grid.
You can move power plants without moving them, but you can move production plants and industries that rely on cheap electricity and hire millions of Americans.
Raising the cost of living will only promote poverty.
Mike B: the pollution problem in China is more serious than you think in the United States.
In some places, almost all the population in some towns suffer from cancer.
They will face an incredibly clean-up and health bill that will almost certainly hinder their progress. OhMy!
I\'m sure it\'s impossible for power companies to afford a device that makes the air cleaner or safer. How mean-
Is this the government?
Can someone here name a person they know who has suffered \"mercury poisoning?
That is to say, in addition to drinking these things.
All these troubles will be solved by the Environmental Protection Bureau. . .
And will increase our electricity bill in obscene amounts-the cost of using what is left of 14 missing people.
7 gigawatts of electricity that will disappear will not be cheap. . .
At the same time, new mercury-filled square led bulbs are also being pushed. . .
All of this will end in our landfill.
Perry may be a poster boy for early-onset Alzheimer\'s, but he is correct in eliminating EPA, Dept and Energy and. .
I don\'t remember.
The mercury content increased dramatically and was recorded as causing serious birth defects.
For those who say that CFL bubs contain mercury, please note that the amount of coal needed to ignite a standard bulb releases nearly four times the amount of mercury in a CFL bulb.
Changes to the Environmental Protection Agency? Sure.
Elimination of the Environmental Protection Agency? No. Never.
I am big enough to remember when the rivers in our country were on fire.
I agree, but EPA should be asked to do an economic impact study in addition to the government\'s cronies.
They have been rampant for too long.
Many people suffer and die.
Thanks to the control and regulation of EPA.
You don\'t know exactly what the EPA is doing, so don\'t worry too much. .
The power plant you like very much spit out a lot of mercury in its life cycle, because that compact bulb has only a mercury drop of a certain amount of time.
So if my Mercury dots reduce the need to make more toxins, I will take a small amount, thanks!
How many people have to get sick or die so you can power your margar Tower mixer? Yeah. . .
I can name the whole area dealing with \"mercury poisoning.
Have you heard of local kidney disease in the Balkans?
I can\'t afford to pay more for utilities.
My wife is out of work, gas has gone up 240% since 2008, my health insurance premium has gone up 24% under the Health Care Act, grocery prices have gone up 20% in the last 3 years, my house is worth 10% less than I owe.
My salary did not increase at the same time.
These costs will be passed on to consumers. . .
Thus, in practice, the electrical activity will increase by 10 or 20%. Yea!
I have hardly succeeded, and now I will be sitting in the dark with no heat and no candles.
I don\'t support this or anything that forces me to take the streets.
I\'m glad many of you are willing to give more, but I can\'t.
Or \"water ata disease \"? Just Google it;
You might learn something.
Of course, you may not trust experts very much.
Do you have a chance to get a degree in chemistry?
Mercury is a nuisance.
Eliminating the Environmental Protection Agency opens the door for businesses to do what it wants to do to the environment.
You may not care, but most people who care about health and the environment will. You lose.
Thumbs up on Perry\'s comments (; -))
But in terms of the rest. . .
The main concern for mercury in coal plants is that it dissolves into water and works up the food chain, and we consume mercury in fish.
That\'s why we shouldn\'t eat tuna or Sailfish more than once a month.
I thought the salmon was OK before, and then I found the farm
Raised salmon can be as high as tuna!
As women, this is more important for us than men, because Mercury will pile up in our womb.
Pregnant women\'s consumption of mercury is associated with birth defects, which is particularly sad considering the benefits of fish for the growth of the fetal brain.
And a large number of excess mercury poisoning case
Consumption of fish.
You might think, what\'s the big deal?
Limit your fish consumption!
I don\'t think that\'s what we should ask people.
First of all, depending on your culture and where you live, fish may be a major component of your traditional diet.
Eating fish is healthier-
Six more times a week than beef, except for mercury poisoning.
In order for energy companies to delay making the necessary changes, we must get rid of the mentality of sacrificing health and finance.
In any case, they have to make these changes in the end.
How many people pay extra specifically
Fish and bottled water?
It\'s a way to get rid of polluters-like we give them the green light to pollute and we bring the blow to our wallets to make sure our food is not contaminated. I say no more.
It\'s time to ask that we have the right to use our natural resources without worrying about toxic pollution!
People used to fish in my town to supplement their diet-you can\'t do that anymore because toxic chemicals are dumped upstream.
Is that fair?
Now, instead of having a viable alternative to store-
Bought the food and we were forced to buy all the food from the store.
As food costs rise, this is just another push for many American families to go bankrupt or homeless.
We have the right to demand better.
Finding alternative technologies will provide a lot of work.
The problem is exposure to mercury because steam can cause problems ranging from shaking, diarrhea to seizures and death.
Typically, doctors do not complete the required tests to determine if they are directly caused by excessive exposure to mercury in the air.
Research shows that asking Google\'s \"Mercury Exposure Study\", prolonged or high-dose exposure can cause many common diseases and developmental problems, so it makes sense to limit the use of these things.
It\'s really simple.
I know my health is starting to drop when I get the alloy filling.
I remember questioning the issue when I was a kid, but I don\'t think they\'re going to take them out, and I feel like I \'ve gone through it a lot of times to make the filling. (
My parents are very poor)
So I agreed.
But I could have felt it.
Since then, I have had a lot of health problems in my life.
I will take them out if I get enough money, but they may put bpa in.
It seems that the healthcare industry likes to make us sick and come back.
Rod, what do you think most of the things in our atmosphere are absorbed?
Ding, the sea! ! .
Why do you think children are not advised to eat certain types of fish in the ocean?
Ding ding, Mercury! ! !
When you have mercury poisoning, the doctor will not look at you and say \"this is an obvious case of mercury poisoning\" and it will cause damage to your nervous system in other forms, such as MS.
Hey, you never know that your Perry joke might be due to mercury poisoning.
If you want to talk about light bulbs, deal with them using recycling systems built by almost any municipality and Home Depot.
This is an easy solution for you and looks lazy.
If you want to cut off the EPA, start working on your own water. Yes, Rod.
I know a person who has been put into cream because of mercury poisoning.
You\'re an idiot, sir.
It must be Republicans who have created your own truth to cater to your distorted selfish ideology.
Mercury: \"We just want a very big number . \"
Just like Bush let us into Iraq, Obama let us into Iran. . . .
Lies and more liesGOP or DEM;
Only those who believe in it believe what they say.
The only exception is Sir. Truth. . . Dr. Ron Paul!
If you want to question the number of premature deaths caused by one year (
A number, of course, is an estimate in the best case, but certainly based on the survey hospital data)
So why not look at the other end of the spectrum and question the industry\'s claims about \"thousands of jobs that will be lost\" and \"Higher energy costs.
Where do they get these numbers from?
If you ask me, I don\'t care if it can save the lives of 1 to 1 billion people, I would rather have no mercury in my fish because there is no debate about whether Mercury is toxic or not. . .
Even, so, what is \"premature\" death?
A person who lived to 73 but died at 71?
Also, is it reasonable?
17,000 is a small part of the American population, accounting for 300,000,000).
00001% is anyone else aware of this? .
00001% of people are at risk of premature death because of the air pollution they are talking about in the article.
I bet there\'s more chance of spontaneous combustion.
What do you think?
In fact, the estimation of this number is based on reasonable scientific principles and data.
We know what level of the environment is causing toxicity (e. g.
Check the water ata disease)
We know how much proportion of the population has a toxic burden on what concentration. From dose-
You can then calculate the number of people with brain damage (
Republicans have a gene that makes them sensitive-look at the current presidential candidate)
, How many people will suffer liver damage and how many years will affect your life expectancy.
In general, you don\'t get \"mercury poisoning\"-instead, you may be stupid-that is, you lose a few IQ points because you are forgiven by Mercury.
Or you have a greater chance of developing learning disabilities, or you have less chance of premature death due to a heart attack or stroke.
Do you really think mercury is not a poison?
In addition, the electricity bill will not be much higher, and when will more work be paid for engineers who design, install and monitor the emission control equipment. Excellent.
Now, it is hoped that these newly regulated power facilities will be able to carry out the necessary upgrades to their infrastructure in order to reduce the listed pollutants, which will create jobs in the buildings under construction, reduce pollution such as tuna and hope that fewer patients will be unemployed, go to school and university.
However, it is because of the same environmental protection bureau that we have a new \"energy-saving\" bulb with what elements?
Yes, that\'s right. . . mercury.
Soon after, after a higher level of mercury is found in our garbage, these bulbs will be hit.
Yes, they will phase them out.
Led There are also problems.
But the reduction in energy demand (
-> Reduction in carbon dioxide emissions)
Welfare v. higher toxics.
This article-and other recent articles on environmental issues-is very ridiculed and biased about environmental issues.
The problem is defined as \"The move is praised by environmental activists.
It was \"laughed at by others\"-which made it a fringe movement for the greeners.
In addition, environmental regulations to control mercury appear to be the cause of children\'s learning disabilities and other health problems, according to environmental activists, rather than the established facts of medicine and the scientific community.
How about detailing the number of premature deaths, the average increase in intelligence, and other benefits of the 59-1400 billion dollar estimate?
Why are journalists so ignorant in science and economics?
Why are their jobs so bad?
Frickin environmental activists won\'t be happy unless we all live in the forest, eat berries, and live at the bottom of the food chain.
I think the EPA and Obama have mercury poisoning with 99% of the members of Congress, continue to lean their heads on the smoke pile, take a deep breath and remove themselves from the genetic pool, because the rest of us like to breathe clean air, it is a good thing to think that this is not poisoned.
A recent article suggests that if you include environmental and other damage to society (
Increase the health burden, etc)
-In fact, coal-fired power plants have had a negative impact on the national economy.
The damage they do to our health and health
For society, existence is more important than their value.
The fact is that it is cheaper to generate electricity from natural gas than coal.
Wind energy competes with coal, and solar energy will compete with coal in 7-10 years.
But none of these fuels have the terrible effects of coal on health and the environment.
Do you know that there are more radioactive emissions in coal plants than nuclear power plants? It\'s true. Look it up.
Do you know what\'s in the coal chimney?
In addition to radioactive substances-mercury, lead, nickel and other heavy metals, as well as SO2, no 2, particulate matter and other substances that cause asthma, heart attacks, lung cancer, hypertension, etc.
Just because you don\'t see anyone suffering from mercury poisoning doesn\'t mean there will be no mercury poisoning.
I \'ve never seen anyone get killed, and that doesn\'t mean there\'s no killing happening in the world.
The fact is the fact that the dangerous chemicals produced also mean the toxic chemicals we eat and breathe.
Ask the peeps at chernobeili and Fukushima.
I think people in Los Angeles can see the sky again due to stricter EPA standards. . .
In fact, I can think of a few people with acute mercury poisoning, a few people with moderate mercury levels.
In fact, you may be surprised by the results if you have your own blood tests.
Mercury has accumulated in your body for several years and will have devastating effects in the long run.
Major sources in the United StatesS.
Is coal-fired power plant.
In fact, this bill will create jobs in my industry.
In order to control emissions, hundreds, if not thousands, scammers will be built and installed.
This means high-paying jobs for steelmakers, welders, engineers and inspectors.
This also means natural gas.
Coal-fired power plants need to be built to make up for the shortage of coal-fired power plants because they are too dirty to stay online.
This means that thousands of high-paying jobs in construction, plumbing, engineering, electrical and other jobs have been created.
The fact that the bill will also save many lives is adding to the cake.
I hope this is the first of many steps the government has taken to modernize the notorious old infrastructure we rely on in the United States. S. It won\'t happen.
What many people cannot understand is that no one will build a new factory under the existing tax law conditions.
If you are a gas operations company, why build a new factory?
Why pay a huge price to meet environmental standards?
These environmental rules will eliminate competitors who have domestic fuel supplies in 400.
You will see your profits soar without increasing the cost. Build more? Why?
This is beyond the understanding of environmental activists.
\"Apart from drinking these things, that is,\" drinking Mercury is actually not very harmful.
It is washed in the form of metal or hard-to-dissolve mercury chloride.
Breathing steam is much more serious, which is a concern for them.
Mercury that rains out and reaches the bottom of the lake can be methylation by local bacteria;
Mercury is a particularly nasty poison.
Your liver turns into a paste, and then you die.
Burning something that contains mercury without a scrubber is a bad idea.
Mercury switches and thermometers are prohibited and panicked when filling teeth. Rod C.
Venger-the reason you don\'t know anyone who is suffering from mercury poisoning is due to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Read \"reviews of mercury in the environment\" @ very informative.
Someone needs to take care of us because big businesses will never.
This is not in the interests of shareholders.
More government oversight, not less. Agreed. Thanks.
My son is autistic.
We believe that one of the 10000 cases jumped to one of 99 due to an increase in contaminants.
Mercury is the main suspect.
\"EPA failed to properly analyze the impact of the rule on job creation\", translated: It was a criticism of our largest campaign contributor.
Does anyone of you like fishing?
When I was a kid, you could fry out any fresh fish you caught. Now?
The mercury content is so high that it is not even recommended to eat one.
Mercury is also present in many saline species, which makes them less healthy.
It is time to regulate this permanent toxin.
Carbon dioxide emissions are the leading cause of global coral reef deaths.
If we continue to move at our current pace, there will be nothing to support the fish.
Don\'t listen to all the fears
Spread noise-like nonsense.
Those right are always anti-right.
Because they were told it was the right place.
You know, poop in someone else\'s backyard, if I spend a few more dollars, it will have an impact on overall health, the impact of the record, and so on.
The liars said it would cost \"obscene money\" and they didn\'t bother to do any research, they were just spreading the wrong message that people they thought were better told they were going to swallow. . .
Hook, line and sink. . . . .
Don\'t think, don\'t study, you have been assimilated. . . . .
You can\'t use it even if you have a brain. . . . .
Repeat, repeat, repeat. . . .
In addition to saying, \'greater economic benefits from pollution reduction will exceed paying for short-term pollution --
The term \"clean up cost\", no, it says where the cost is (
Don\'t forget to include the cost of increasing government inspectors to monitor this).
It didn\'t say what the impact would be on the electricity bill.
I also think that doesn\'t mean the medical expenses for those who don\'t die too early.
Nor does it say what the reduction in mercury is.
There is also a story about vague economic benefits, but there is no cost involved.
Do I agree or disagree?
There is not enough information to say.
But it means that if you object, you are the kind of evil person who hates children.
The inspectors are in place so we don\'t need them anymore.
In fact, as a cleaner plant (
Such as natural gas fuel plant)
We need fewer inspectors. Clean coal. . . . what a joke.
So far, it\'s the dirtiest source of fuel we use.
Thanks to these new regulations.
When we use 100% of our alternative energy, America will be a better country.
No oil war, no oil subsidies, no increase in mercury in fish, no more acid rain. . .
The list continues. . .
Right-wingers and Republicans swing in phrases like \"freedom\" and \"freedom.
\"Well, if they are * serious * about these principles, they will work with millions of Americans to support EPA and their efforts to protect our environment.
There is no greater freedom than breathing clean air, drinking clean water and growing crops in uncontaminated soil.
There should be no confusion about this
Those who defend freedom and freedom will support EPA\'s fight against free haters who want to dump toxic waste in our great country.
Fake \"liberals\" like Ron Paul, who want to wipe out the Environmental Protection Agency, who are conspirators of these polluters, who belittle the freedom and freedom that all Americans deserve --
Freedom to live in a clean environment.
Like being ordered by a group of eco-companies.
The Nazis represented \"freedom\" and \"freedom \".
\"No, actually,\" those who defend freedom and freedom \"will do their best to end the outrageous invasion of American society by the US government.
Hank, sell some very cheap quality properties near those coal plants.
I think you missed the opportunity to buy it cheaply.
Once the whole Mercury scam breaks out, it will sell crazy! By eco-
I think you mean scientists who know what they\'re talking about?
Because the last time I checked the EPA, there was no liberal hippie working with the guardians of our environment (
Exxon oil, Burton, Dow Chemical, etc. )
Your comments on CNN are notorious for being paranoid and sick
Informed and bellicose content.
In Minnesota, the fish you can consume from the lake is limited. Guess why?
Yes, Mercury is high.
But keep pretending that everything is fine because you can\'t see everything.
If there is any way, ecology
S. Environmental Protection Agency Nazis can further crack down on jobs and the economy they will find.
Mercury is one of the most toxic agents known to human beings.
Don\'t let the company continue to poison us in order to make crazy profits!
Thanks EPA, once you have done your job!
Oh, the attack on the right will begin.
How dare you put people above profit! ! ! ! !
In addition to the prevention of death for 17,000/year, medical expenses will be increased.
Similar to the economic stimulus \"job creation\", EPA regulations \"prevent death\", which means I can reduce this number by 80% to get the real number.
Do some research on the over-inflated EPA health statement.
Remember the combined carbide? No?
Sir, is that before your time? Venger?
United carbide released a large amount of hazardous pollutants into the air from one of their factories in India, and soon after, thousands of people were hurt by heavy acid rains.
You get rid of the Environmental Protection Agency and face such a disaster risk in the United States.
For now, we will still get them anyway, but at least after the facts have happened, we have a way to clean them up. . .
Thanks to the EPA.
If any, EPA needs more power due to the company\'s environmental damage.
I\'m not talking about cutting down forests or releasing excess CO2 gas.
I\'m talking about dumping sludge into the environment.
I live in central Florida, one of the areas most affected by environmental pollution in recent memory.
Most of the lakes here are not suitable for interaction between people (
Because of poor management decades ago. I hope if Mr.
Perry has a plan to get rid of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy, and he has a way to integrate their functions into other departments, rather than simply putting demand at a standstill!
United Carbide did not hurt people!
More than 2,000 people were killed.
Out of the Environmental Protection Agency, we can bring disaster like this.
This comment should be repeated over and over until it goes through the thick skull on the right
The winger posted a ridiculous reaction.
EPA comments here.
Blescher, it sounds like you\'ll remember the kaihoga River in Ohio, also known as the river of fire.
This river of fire is one of the reasons the EPA was set up, so you think they are over-exposed and Mercury is something bad.
It is an unusual society that cares more about employment and the economy than its own health.
I never understood.
An inch a mile.
Go to Western PA, oil fields in Texas, or chemical plants in New York\'s New Jersey.
Or try parts of California. or perhaps WV.
The company didn\'t care, people didn\'t say anything to work, and still had scars.
Of course, most people cannot compromise now that they are dead. . .
They have no rules to move to China.
A day in Linfen, China is like smoking three packs of cigarettes a day.
Red neck paradise, we don\'t even have to pay for it!
I used to think it would be a good idea to move these people to Texas, but you\'re right that China has even surpassed Texas\'s biggest dream of environmental damage.
The reason for the 90% decrease in salmon count is mercury content.
You may want to read the growth and mercury accumulation of juvenile Chinook salmon in the Sacremento River and its floodplain, Yoho bypass
Rene Henry was a little surprised.
I think environmental activists will be happy with the lack of people.
If they let the industry do their job, there will be fewer people around them.
@ Rod C Venger: At a recent event, I overheard a friend\'s husband say, \"Oh, we were able to meet all of these regulations a few years ago. . .
We have money, technology and manpower to do it, but why can we do it with our feet?
People can\'t help but ask why the EPA has not stepped up its crackdown.
Because you said you don\'t know anyone who\'s been hurt by mercury poisoning. . . means what?
You all know many of the current autoimmune diseases, no one knows the cause, no one has found a cure.
Maybe you should study the symptoms of mercury poisoning.
It\'s easy to say when you don\'t say any name, but you just say a friend\'s husband, what is the power company he works for Duke, XCEL, the Sierra Mountains, Edison. . .
That\'s right, because he never said, and you \'ve never heard that you\'re just bashing the power company and know nothing about the power grid or structure of the United States, it is not to say that these components that must be installed and replaced by power companies take several years to be manufactured, and each power plant has a limited budget each year to maintain/work on the plant. .
AEPYou asks for the company name smart a @ so you go there.
At the same time, the world allows China to reach zero emission standards while buying cheap garbage and throw garbage into our landfill for 6 months. later. .
No Mercury in food.
Once it enters the chain.
This is why pregnant women cannot eat certain kinds of fish.
The number of larger fish species has risen sharply due to pollution.
This is not a good idea.
It is both ignorant and selfish to oppose this.
It is important that coal will never be eliminated.
I don\'t understand why efforts to improve efficiency and reduce pollution are always seen as disruptive work.
It is relevant and you can reduce pollution by improving efficiency.
Seat belts have become law, and the first mileage standard after the OPEC crisis is not voluntary.
Power plants, like any other business, need to develop a little.
The past dinosaur approach did not contribute anything to our own long-term energy needs/independence.
This is a short-term hick-
For long-term results.
Recently, our society has argued in the short term, not in the long term.
If you follow this belief, no change on the bat means complete perfection, and there are no market/demand and supply issues with any change.
One should realize that changes in the rules of the game are inevitable in business.
It\'s like saying that if your supplier is limited, it will run out.
You continue to order in good faith and they will find the products you need instead of looking for additional suppliers. It\'s time.
If not for decades, this is overdue.
These factories should be cleaned up when upgrading, and the industry has been running away from these rules.
If I have to pay a little more to prevent 17,000 premature deaths each year and deal with the myriad of pain caused by diseases that primarily affect children, then that\'s it.
This atmosphere does not belong to the power company compared to their wishes.
If they want to dump rubbish into our common air, then they have to make sure it doesn\'t affect others.
Every time we add regulations, this crying baby complains and usually gets a reluctant solution and somehow the problem disappears. What\'s new.
At the same time, the Liberal Party allowed only bulbs containing mercury. Go figure.
They are not \"full of Mercury\", they are just fluorescent bulbs with a small amount of mercury in them, just like the LED we have been using for years, it does not contain mercury at all.
By the way, any of them is more effective and lasting than incandescent lamps.
Have you heard of LED?
@ Jerrycc replacing 1 incandescent bulb with a CFL bulb will keep half a ton of CO2 out of the atmosphere for the lifetime of the bulb.
If everyone in the United States uses energy-efficient lighting, we can eliminate the 90 power plants on average.
Saving electricity can reduce carbon dioxide emissions, sulfur oxides and nuclear waste.
CFL bulbs are 4 times more efficient than incandescent lamps and 10 times longer than incandescent lamps.
The CFL of 22 W is equivalent to 1 W incandescent lamp, using 50 W80% reduction in energy.
Even though we will all eventually turn to LED lighting.
I suggest going to the easy solution for the sustainable life website on Earth to see the cost comparison of using each bulb.
The price of incandescent lamps is $1.
25 for 60 W bulbs with a life of 1200 hours.
If you take into account the cost of $35 LED factor.
95 will provide the same amount of light in a 6 watt bulb for 50,000 hours.
To get such a long time from a 60 W incandescent lamp, you will need to purchase 42 bulbs for $52 at today\'s price.
50, in addition to that, you will use incandescent lamps with more kilowatt hours.
At the end of the 50,000 hours you will spend (today\'s price)$652.
50 with LED, you will buy a light bulb and save a lot of energy for a total of $95.
The combined cost of a bulb and $60 energy.
The CFL bulb costs $3.
95, you need 5 @ 10,000 hours = 50,000 for 50,000 hours of life, the cost of using more energy than LED, you will spend $159. 75.
If you change 25 bulbs (average home)
For CFL or LED, if you only use incandescent lamps, savings may increase the CFL of $300 and the LED average of $14,000 during 50,000 hours of use.
11 years ago, we started switching our home where and when we had CFL and LED bulbs.
Now, we have found several bulbs in a chandelier that have not yet been converted.
No CFL bulb needs to be replaced at this point.
There are no LED bulbs either, but most of them have been replaced recently.
Frankly, I\'m not going to change my very concise LED kitchen because of the bulky, hot energy of the past devouring incandescent lamps. . . .
I also don\'t want to need to constantly climb the 16 feet ladder to replace the bulbs on the ceiling of the cathedral.
When I was 76, I was too old to climb a ladder.
The Environmental Protection Agency is not credible.
It\'s impossible to know when they really protect the American people from legitimate threats, when they\'re just promoting a big government on the left,-
Agenda for redistribution of wealth.
People like you should be thrown directly into the smoke heap.
Rubbish of no value
Especially something as ambiguous as our old friend Hg.
The Communist Party on the left has been promoting their \"mercury toxic\" agenda for too long!
As a proud right
Winger, I feed my kids to drop Mercury just to show the world it\'s all about re-doing
Distribute the wealth of power companies.
After 15 years of doing so, they were as smart as I was-and I was smart too-and voted twice for George W. Bush. Good grief !
Do you really believe the BS you wrote?
If it weren\'t for the EPA, you would still draw lead, smoke and ozone from the exhaust gas of the car, the rain damages our Basin, the industrial waste is poured into our waterways, and many other \"sacred\" dirty practices. than-Mother-
To save a dime, Teresa wants to come back here.
You sound like you got all the news from high school graduates at Fox News.
Are you the brainwashed cronie? Embarrassing.
The original Clean Water Act made progress in the early 70 s and late 70 s Clean Air Act. . .
And the subsequent updates to these behaviors. . .
Great benefits to our country.
The Environmental Protection Agency is the executor of these laws.
You take all the benefits you get from these laws every day for granted.
Every time you flush the toilet or water, the water is delivered to the factory and processed before discharge.
Over the years, water treatment has led to a significant decline in typhoid, hepatitis A and many other transmitted diseases.
Thanks to the Environmental Protection Bureau.
Also, I don\'t know how old you are, but before the Clean Air Act, if you drive past the power plant, you\'ll see miles of smoke coming out of the plant.
Due to the bill and the requirements for the scrubber, etc, you can no longer see visible emissions from the power plant (
Depends on factors such as humidity, temperature).
So the air we have today is much cleaner.
Thanks again to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Of course, I don\'t know why I\'m wasting my time.
To Baker and his cronies, you sound like a complete puppet.
Science has nothing to do with you.
Even though anyone who thinks the industry will make all these gains on its own is naive.
But I think we can trust you because there is clearly no political motivation for your comments.
Just fix the tax cut and I can support my family.
@ % * Who is the person who cares about this?
Can you give me an AMEN?
Can I ask a man here?
Haha, we can only make fun of the whole thing that happened in our country.
But I still need to feed my family without having to ask the government for food stamps.
I prefer my air Mercury without my approvalfree. . .
We should stop doing anything and don\'t promote the concept of clean air and water for economic reasons is nonsense.
I don\'t know why people are happy with these so-called \"tougher measures.
Over the past decade or so, power plants have taken \"tougher\" measures against the amount of pollutants they can release and have not complied with them, no one held them accountable for not doing so. And now. . .
They need to comply with more \"tougher measures \".
As we all know, Mercury is completely harmless.
It\'s just a more free excuse to regulate our lives and impose the big government on the people.
There should be no restrictions on coal mining or coal burning.
View this link :[
Youtube = Copy and paste this link and watch the video.
If you don\'t shake it, then I really don\'t know what will happen.
1/2 teaspoon of this stuff spills out of your house and the hazmat team has to come and isolate the area. . . .
Think about it.
Next, they will take back Bush \"boldly --
Administrators increase the arsenic limit for drinking water.
What\'s next-banning human feces from being added to drinking water?
Or \"no scrap uranium rods for ground filling in the playground?
\"I swear this government sometimes seems to care more about our long term
The word Health is mainly foreign than its profit-
When the right-wing republican scum loses the people\'s victory.
EPA is authorized to regulate harmful human emissions to minimize their impact on our health and the environment.
This is not a partisan political issue, but a scientific one.
The science behind these rules changes is solid.
In fact, they are overdue!
The analysis of \"work\" has nothing to do with the period.
Mercury, chromium or arsenic poisoning is not suitable for business to do horse trading.
= This crying baby complains every time we add regulations, usually gets a barely resolved solution, and somehow the problem disappears.
= Chillaglee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
As someone who has already been tested, we need to solve this problem nationally and globally --wide.
Maybe some of you should be tested to see what your mercury level is?
Change your mind.
Are you saying the EPA wants to protect our air?
How Communist they are!
Don\'t they know this is patriotism? Coal companies have the right to discharge large amounts of pollution into the air as they wish.
I think it\'s constitutional. Go EPA!
I think the Constellation Energy in Maryland is already in line with the new restrictions.
They say it\'s not as expensive as other companies say and it doesn\'t take that much time.
Who says mercury is harmful?
Scientists, that\'s it!
It is said that dinosaurs are older than humans, and the same thing is happening with global warming.
If Mercury is harmful, God will not let it (
Extract from Texas high school science textbook)
The guy who complains about unemployment sounds like a baby who needs a nap.
Go somewhere else and complain.
These environmental laws are being implemented now and I would be a little embarrassed --
When they were discovered decades ago
How many miscarriages or deformed babies were born due to severe industrial environmental negligence?
Industry lies over and over again, exaggerating the cost of environmental regulation, which conservatives eat as Gospel!
People just have to look at the industry\'s statements to the underwriters and the financial oversight board, as well as their comments to the media and Congress.
In the previous case, they said \"there is no big cost and we are ready to implement it \". . .
But politically, it will kill jobs! \" BS.
No one remembers how conservatives declared the original Clean Air Act (
In their 70 s)
Will it destroy the US economy?
Well, after the Clean Air Act, we saw a huge increase in 20 years. . .
Ironically, in the 2000 s, there was almost no new environmental regulation (
So far, Obama has done very little.
The economy has collapsed.
The benefits of doing so are real.
Mercury is very toxic.
This is not as difficult to control as conservative cronies think.
In addition, these are rules approved by Bush, when both sides agreed very well that it was necessary to do so.
It was not until the tea party came that conservatives changed their minds because they gave in to the ideology of the facts.
But you don\'t need to agree with my comments. . .
Again, all the information you posted here says this is bad and can cause loss of employment, and I challenge you to do a little research to see what the industry has said to the underwriters. . .
Not so exaggerated.
By the way, these rules are more important than the delayed ozone rules.
Are you the kind of person who wants green energy?
Do you applaud the action of the Environmental Protection Agency?
Why not vote without your money instead of implementing XYZ requirements for me?
If burning coal or anything else is hurting or killing the coal company, why not sue the coal company?
Impossible because of lack of evidence?
If that\'s the case, it\'s wrong for you to claim a negative impact on health.
They\'re too big to sue?
Then they are protected by the same interests you claim and you are doing something right now to help your cause: the government (
In this case, the federal government).
You see, you should be able to sue them if you are sure that coal will cause birth defects or global warming.
If you can\'t, then there are other problems, you are looking for the wrong tree.
Think about it.
It applies to everything, not just coal burning.
Let me guess who is against these new rules. . . . Let\'s see. . .
Well, I think so. . . Republicans? Do ya think? Yeah!
One of their very rich bosses may have to spend a dime.
Is greed for people not what Republicans mean? No, John.
The rules are opposed by pragmatists and economists.
I encourage you to keep your post in mind as you will almost certainly be the first to complain about the power outage and the rising energy costs caused by those evil Republicans.
So the EPA will see electricity companies control mercury emissions from power plants, but we have to buy bulbs that contain mercury? ?
Oh, I see that without power plants, we won\'t be able to use these mercury bulbs because there are brown bulbs all over the country.
No, due to the new demand for mercury, we need to extract mercury from power plants. lolH. R.
3630 through 12/20/11.
It looks like another amendment will work if the Senate comes back to compromise.
EPA has no right to write rules and regulations without congressional supervision and approval.
In fact, Congress has set up the Environmental Protection Agency, which is specifically responsible for the development and implementation of emission rules.
As Barack Obama and his energy czars have promised, the process of making energy more expensive continues.
Our debt is up 33%.
Our energy costs are increasing,
Economic uncertainty remains. time high.
This may be a change you can believe in, but it\'s a major shift in responsibility and a significant leadership void.
Are you kidding?
You think President Obama (
Or any president, Congress, politician)
Do you have control over commodity markets, especially oil markets? !
The reason why your energy costs are rising is because the population is rising (demand)