EPA ruling could fast track coal plant approvals...are you ready to fight?

The EPA is a like a sick fucking joke.
Everything they don't (DON'T DO) is a kick in our planetary face. Pricks. Jan, let me know the minute you hear anything I can do.

If Obama hadn't been lying about clean coal and pushing it when it doesn't exist, people wouldn't be criticizing him about it. You should be asking him why he continually talks about it as if it exists and supports it instead of questioning why people would criticize him for it. And yes, there is plenty to do once we get rid of coal, and the country will be cleaner and healthier for it. And no one said it had to be done in two seconds flat, but if you are reading any of the scientific reports about what is going on in this world due to climate change particularly in the Arctic and to glaciers worldwide, you will know we cannot wait 42 years to allow reductions in GHGs, and we certainly cannot wait until after 2009 to place strict restrictions on GHG emissions if we want to save the climate balance of this planet. This isn't about sparing his or any other politician's feelings to me.

Jan,

Ok, do we have anything else for those folks to do?
Don't we use coal to make steel?

Doesn't mean a darn thing to stop polluting and throw them out of a job, with nothing for them to do.

These things can't be done in two seconds flat either.

And Obama isn't even in office yet.

Nothing cleans coal. Kind of the point.

It's really strange how folks are the first to diss someone who hasn't even had one day in office?

For pete sakes folks...get a life will you?

We've got to put people back to work first don't you know?

Maybe we can't clean the coal but you know, I think we should at least try.

Like FDR said..we are going to try a lot of things until we find some that work.

The industry is killing people, while the majority of the government is being absent minded.....we can indeed try to sue them or hold them accountable for the things they caused towards the environment, people, and the economy....

When the rally/protest... i'll hold the "Global Warming is Killing Santa." sign aka "the economy".

Watched the video JFG and passing it on. Thanks!

If I see another Obama ad touting clean coal I'm going to scream. I was hoping he would help us clean up the environment - not to continue to destroy it. I've liked most of his appointments & hope that real change means heading in a healthy direction - just not the same one with different people.

John Lennon said in a recent pod,"We're all Hitler and Jesus Christ, inside." I really agree with that. I'm not ready to spit on my species for a few mistakes we've made. We've overcome many challenges.
However, we're Big Business and over population has been raping the earth.
Its time to put the muscle into prolonging Earth's natural cycles and beauty. The first step is to cleanse Washington, which we've managed so far. Next educate the world and set an example.

so true i want to make sure that my childrens children aren't as one minded and fat and ignorant as i think the current economy is going...i wanna fight and help.

NFUSA: I don't know if you were referring to my response with yours, but I actually do agree to a point if you are. It is a bit of gradualist crap at a time when gradualist crap is definitely way past what we should be thinking of. However, apart from buying a majority of the stock in all of these coal companies and then kicking them all out and starting over as a renewable energy company or a miracle occurring and politicians actually having an epiphany about this, we simply have to keep letting our voices be heard... essentially becoming pains in the asses.

The problem with civil disobedience regarding the environment is that it is all too scattered and not sustained in my view. During the women's suffrage movement, those women were out there everyday, rain, shine, snow, and they were in the faces of the people who needed to know they were there, and they were all together. They risked and got ridicule, physical abuse, and eventually jail and torture for what they believed in. I would love to do the same in as much as standing out there everyday regardless of the circumstances and would be willing to take ridicule to make my beliefs known. However, how many would really be with me?

That is why I asked the question above: What are you prepared to do this year to stand up for your planet and your future? What I do know is that even though confronting Senators, and protesting coal plants, and sending petitions is minimalist at best when we face a planetary emergency, how do you really wake people up short of a catastrophe happening?

for a start, vote this story up

A bit of gradualist crap.

For me it means making personal trips to my Senator's offices instead of writing letters that get form replies, and even participating in a coal plant protest. I wish I could go to the actual mountains they will continue blowing up to get their coal, but I will continue to support organizations that do so.

It will mean trying to start a community group to work through my state government to oppose any new coal fired plants in my state, and working with other organizations more hands on to get out the truth about coal and other energy sources that are detrimental to the climate balance of this planet. It means handing our flyers on the street, putting them on parked cars, in mail boxes, on bus stops, in doorways and anywhere else I can put them. It also may mean starting an activist group right here to follow through with action on stories posted about this if anyone is willing to be part of it. Aside from actions that are illegal which I would never be a part of, what do you suggest?

I actually wish I was rich enough to buy up land to put solar arrays on it and use it to get innovations in solar out to the public at an affordable price. That is what we really need government to do now. Enough with the game playing and trying to stroke these industries. They had their chance, they know the score, and if they aren't willing to do what is necessary to cut emissions because profits are more important to them, then they should be left by the wayside.
Any other suggestions?

Names to remember:

Gail Norton (Interior Sec'y)
Dirk Kempthorne (Interior Sec'y)
Stephen L. Johnson (EPA Administrator)

These have been Bush's prime hit-men in his war against the environment. I can't believe how angry this makes me. I want them to pay.

we need mercenaries.

justright
I watched CNN the other day. The Big News.... Caylee's body was found. (I am not making light of that little girl's murder)

While watching the scroll...
a bombing in Irag, a bombing in Afghanistan, Southern Israel under attack, Hamas calls end of "truce". Germany's government on verge of collapse.
I know you said most news is all fluff, and you're right.
CNN spent at least the 15 minutes I watched it on Caylee's body found, repeating the same thing in a different way.

This is supposed to be our "main source for news"
The dumbing down of the people.
Keep them ignorant....

Sorry, but with all due respect, I don't give two farts in space if Paris Hilton bought a pink Bentley, if Kevin Federline has a new girlfriend, if Miley Cyrus got a car for her birthday, 'the ways guys cannot let their girls know they are cheating', 'how women drink men under the table', or other assorted fluff that means nothing in the scheme of what is important. That is not news nor fun, it is frivolous BS that has distracted people from the truth and real news. And I am in full agreement with Al Gore on that as he even eluded to the same thing in his remarks at Poznan. And I am not looking for people to follow me, I am trying to make people understand the danger this planet is in and that we must all be leaders in this fight for our very survival. But thanks for your comment and happy holidays to you too.

Jan,
I agree that fluff news is stupid, but I have to argue that with out it people who like it might never even read the news and maybe notice important stories such as this. I attempt to live in balance, vote, write letters, and convince my fellow man of the dangers we face, but I also like to laugh and be entertained. Your post are always great, but maybe tying doing the right thing to something happy or fun would get more followers. Either way great post and happy holidays.

Petition drive? Possible. I'm actually thinking of a more up close and personal scenario this coming year. And I know exactly of what you speak of regarding the BS form letters. I got the same one from my Senator touting the same 80% by 2050 bs line. Tired of that.

I have written to my senators, Reid and the other one (can't think of his name offhand) and both, get that BOTH, support this "clean coal" technology.
I have sent short sections of articles, ones you post here, along with the links, and I get back the bullshit letters.
Petition drive....next step?

From the article:

Officials weighing federal applications by utilities to build new coal-fired power plants cannot consider their greenhouse gas output, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency ruled late Thursday. Some environmentalists fear the decision will clear the way for the approval of several such plants in the last days of the Bush administration.

The ruling, by Stephen L. Johnson, the administrator, responds to a decision made last month by the Environmental Appeals Board, a panel within the E.P.A., that had blocked the construction of a small new plant on the site of an existing power plant, Bonanza, on Ute tribal land in eastern Utah.

The Supreme Court ruled last year that the agency could regulate carbon dioxide, the most prevalent global warming gas, under existing law. The agency already requires some power plants to track how much carbon dioxide they emit.

But a memorandum issued by Mr. Johnson late Thursday puts the agency on record saying that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant to be regulated when approving power plants. He cited “sound policy considerations.”

His said in the memorandum that each year, about 275 new sources of pollution, from power plants to apartment buildings, must obtain permits saying that they will not significantly decrease air quality. Mr. Johnson wrote that the decision he overruled had confused the federal and state agencies that issue these permits.

“Given the confusion,” the memorandum said, “the best path forward is to establish a clear interpretation” of what can be considered a pollutant to be regulated.

“The current concerns over global climate change should not drive E.P.A. into adopting an unworkable policy of requiring emission controls” in these cases, he said.

Mr. Johnson rejected a new line of attack by environmental groups. In the wake of the Bush administration’s failure to decide if carbon dioxide could be regulated under existing laws, environmental groups pursued a new strategy in fighting proposed coal plants like the one in Utah.

They asserted that because carbon dioxide must already be monitored under federal laws, that monitoring is tantamount to regulation. Therefore, they argued, its impact must be considered before new plants are approved. Last month the appeals board said the argument could be used, but was not required. On Thursday the administrator overruled the board. He said that simple monitoring cannot be considered regulation.

John Walke, a lawyer at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement, “It’s a marvel to behold an E.P.A. action that so utterly disdains global warming responsibility and disdains the law at the same time.”

Jeff Holmstead, a former E.P.A. official who now works with the Electrical Liability Coordinating Council, said the Johnson memo ensured that the incoming Obama administration had increased freedom to make its decisions on the status of carbon dioxide.

“I think if you’re Lisa Jackson,” whom Obama has chosen as Mr. Johnson’s successor, “you have to be pretty grateful,” he said. “She has the opportunity to go through a rule-making and see how to deal” with the issue.