On the CO2 mark
The editorial “Those EPA CO2 rules: Let us fight anew” regarding the proposed federal regulations on carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants was on the mark.
Amid the discussion of a 30-percent reduction in emissions and the hundreds of tons that would represent is one little factoid that puts this whole issue in perspective, compliments of the Energy Information Administration, the independent data collection and analysis arm of the U.S. Department of Energy: Carbon dioxide emissions from U.S. power plants represent only 4 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Regardless of what you may have heard or read from the anti-carbon crowd, knocking coal out of the energy mix will cause electricity prices to rise significantly. For proof, one needs only to look at California, which has all but eliminated coal from its energy portfolio. Electricity prices in California are 45 percent higher than the national average.
The Obama administration's proposed standards will put this country at a competitive disadvantage, due to the higher prices and the diminished reliability of our power supply. At what cost do we go down the path of unilateral economic disarmament, and for what minuscule gain, if any?
The writer, a former state senator, is CEO of the Pennsylvania Coal Alliance (pacoalalliance.com), which has offices in Monessen and Harrisburg.
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.
- GOP: Integrity
- ‘Badges’ before Brooks
- Boys, girls & toys
- Corbett, the reformer
- Miss Penney’s catalog
- Failing to lead
- Not for expressway
- Not clean enough
- Vandergrift killing Olmsted’s vision
- Find hilarity in the headlines
- Export more oil