The Boobsie Twins' prophecy: Killing coal
Published: Friday, April 6, 2012,
With its Environmental Protection Agency's proposed new rule limiting new power plants' greenhouse gas emissions, the Obama administration disregards what's best for America.
Aided by a U.S. Supreme Court directive allowing carbon dioxide to be classified -- absurdly -- as a pollutant, it's a way around cap-and-trade legislation's rejection. The rule effectively kills new coal-fired plants by requiring them to use prohibitively expensive "carbon capture" technology.
The past four decades show coal-fired plants already are efficient and clean. The rule attacks the source of about 45 percent of U.S. electricity, surely driving up utility bills, risking blackouts and setting back the holy grail of "energy independence."
Scientifically and economically unsound, the EPA diktat is political and ideological. And it long has been foretold by the Boobsie Twins in the White House.
Remember what President Barack Obama said during the 2008 campaign• "So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them ... ."
Added Vice President Joe Biden: "We're not supporting clean coal. No coal plants here in America. Build them ... over (in China)."
This is ignorance incarnate and social re-engineering at its most blatant.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.