Warmist Christmas Wish List Includes New “Carbon” Regulations – On Other People

Continuing the 25 Days Of Climate Christmas, here’s Warmist Karen Telleen-Lawton in Santa Barbara

(Noozhawk) My holiday wish list is a little beyond my family to manage, so I’m putting it out to the world. It’s not dazzling or even visible in the short term, but stems from the startling fact that the U.S. still has no national limit on carbon pollution from power plants.

Now, regulations on the largest source of carbon pollution are finally within sight. Last September, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed federal carbon pollution standards for new fossil fuel fired power plants. At an emission rate of about 2.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide pollution per year, fossil fuel-burning power plants are the nation’s single largest of source of emissions, producing about 40 percent of the total. Carbon dioxide traps heat, which destabilizes the climate. My wish is that these new regs be passed in 2014.

How cute, “destabilizes”. I hadn’t heard that gripe before, but I suppose it goes to the Warmist notion of “extreme weather”, which hasn’t happened. I wonder if Ms. Telleen-Lawton can enlighten us as to when Earth’s climate has been stable? Oh, right, that happens mostly during ice ages and “snowball Earth”

The proposed standards are not just an edict without reasonable alternatives for meeting the demand. Solutions are available and in use today, including renewable energy, natural gas, coal with carbon recapture technology, and improved energy efficiency. The proposed standards are good for business because they provide reduced uncertainty about investing in alternative sources. Technology businesses will be able to bring to production cleaner, safer and more efficient solutions.

Notice what’s going on here: Ms. Telleen-Lawton is doing the typical Warmist schtick and wanting to implement Hotcoldwetdry policies on Someone Else. Furthermore, nowhere does she realize that her “wish list” will cause pain for those companies, which will be passed on in the form of higher consumer costs and lost jobs.

Carbon pollution affects rich and poor, urban and rural in every state of the nation. With a leveled playing field, the market can be trusted to devise ways of encouraging sustainable practices and discouraging polluting ones. Santa, can you just sprinkle us with some (biodegradable) fairy dust to encourage passage of the carbon pollution regulations?

Leveled playing field? Doesn’t sound too fascistic (National Socialist Party, anyone?), does it? Santa, can you sprinkle Warmists with some fairy dust that causes Warmists to give up their own fossil fueled vehicles and make their own lives “carbon neutral”?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

9 Responses to “Warmist Christmas Wish List Includes New “Carbon” Regulations – On Other People”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Pirate,

    Not sure I understand your continued fine whine that regulations would not apply to climate realists. Wouldn’t a carbon tax apply to all users?

    Is this related to your risible contention that only liberal activists should pay taxes and reduce their carbon footprint?

  2. Much like with taxation, Warmists always want to hit That Guy with their regulations and such, and do not seem to realize that it will eventually hit them.

  3. gitarcarver says:

    Jiffy,

    You always demand that others provide proof for their statements. Can you show once where Teach has said “only liberal activists should pay taxes and reduce their carbon footprint?

    I have never seen him say or put that forth, but I could be wrong.

  4. Jeffery says:

    Pirate,

    Now you’re just making stuff up or repeating what you heard Rush say. What makes you think that liberal climate realists don’t understand what higher carbon costs would mean to them? This trite conservative meme that liberals only expect their policies to apply to others is tired. Rush or Glenn or Sean need to up their game.

    Funny you should bring up taxation, since most liberals support higher taxes, which will hit them.

    I already pay 6 figures/year in federal taxes and strongly support revamping our tax system to shift the burden even more on the well-off to reduce the burden on those less fortunate. Did you read the NYT article on how the wealthy use manipulations of the trust laws to skirt paying estate taxes? This costs the US up to 100 billion a year! And why is unearned income taxed at a lower rate than wages?

    While I’m administering the old ground and pound here, and since hypocrisy is the worst crime in your eyes, do you agree that it is hypocritical for any conservative, any Republican voter, or any Teabagger to accept federal subsidies? This would include disability, unemployment, federal (including military) pensions, Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. If all of America’s conservatives refused to suck the teat of Mother America, wouldn’t we have a balanced budget? Why won’t conservatives walk the walk?

    You call liberals hypocrites if they don’t voluntarily pay extra taxes to support you. You call liberal climate realists hypocrites if they drive to work or use appliances, yet you ask nothing of conservatives.

  5. Jeffery says:

    guttersnipe,

    Just so you know, I don’t have time for commenter silliness here, so I’ll be directing my criticisms to The Pirate. If he answers, fine, if not, so be it.

    Of the regular far-right commenters here, we have an evolution denier, a neo-confederate and a couple of science-deniers. What do we have to discuss?

  6. gitarcarver says:

    Jiffy,

    Just so you know, you just proved the point that you lied in trying to impugn Teach’s credibility.

    He never made such a statement, you know it, but still chose to lie about it.

    So we have some right leaning commenters and one commenter who denies science, lies, and appears to have no morals.

  7. More_Snowy_Gumballs says:

    the startling fact that the U.S. still has no national limit on carbon pollution from power plants

    Lies from the start. What a way to begin a discussion. our power plants do have limiting regulations on the amount of carbon particulates that it can emit, and even CO2 scrubbers are mandated to be installed.

    Now, regulations on the largest source of carbon pollution are finally within sight.

    Again, we already have very stringent pollution standards, many overly stringent designed to put power plants out of business.

    the Environmental Protection Agency proposed federal carbon pollution standards for new fossil fuel fired power plants

    yes, these NEW regs will apply to new power plants, effectively preventing them from being built. They will be an additional regulations applied on top of existing regs.

    At an emission rate of about 2.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide pollution per year,

    So, human breathing is pollution? Plants thrive on pollution then? Wouldn’t that then mean it is not pollution?

    Carbon dioxide traps heat, which destabilizes the climate.

    while CO2 does “absorb” some heat directed at the earth and heat re-radiated by the earth, there is only so much it can absorb. It has reached its maximum already. All the slight warming it was going to do has occurred.

    And so now, this doofus wants to remove heat from our environment? Might I suggest he take a visit to Pluto before complaining about atmospheric heat pollution? If it wasn’t for this pesky heat thing we got going on, there wouldn’t be any life here on earth, let alone abundant human life.

    The proposed standards are good for business because they provide reduced uncertainty about investing in alternative sources.

    W.T.F.?!!?!?

    Carbon pollution affects rich and poor, urban and rural in every state of the nation.

    No, carbon pollution only affects the poor because the rich don’t wish to live around power plants. And, the poor tend to live in lower quality areas as well. Also, the taxes that this idiot wishes to impose will unduly hurt the poor as they don’t have extra expenses to spend on “preferential greenie energy”. They have to buy food, medicine, and school supplies. The poor don’t have the luxury to buy specialty flavored power to heat their homes or cook their meals.

    This is nothing about leveling the playing field and protecting people. It is all about punishing someone else. Specifically the poor.

  8. gitarcarver says:

    I am still waiting for people like this woman and Jiffy to recognize that the US is under the levels proposed by the Kyoto Protocols.

    Maybe they are willing to go over to China and North Korea and tell those governments they have to stop polluting.

  9. jl says:

    “I support revamping our tax system to shift the burden even more to the well-off.” Well of course you do. The top 1% of wage earners already pay almost 40% of the total tax bill- so their burden is already great. I support revamping so the almost bottom 50% who pay no income taxes pay at least some. “And why is unearned income taxed at a lower rate than wages?” Well, that’s the law, but why don’t you ask your Democratic buddies why they didn’t change that when they controlled all of Capital Hill, including a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate? Let us know when you get an answer. But my answer would be the money is at great risk in the market, so more risk, more potential reward. And by the way, most of that unearned income in the market was first earned as regular wages, and taxes accordingly at the higher rate. This would be the second time around being taxed. “Did you read the NYT article how the wealthy manipulate trust laws to escape estate taxes?” No, but did you read the part where anything illegal is being done? Did you read the NYT article asking why the Dems, when they had super-majorities in congress, didn’t do anything about it if it’s so evil? In fact, Obama signed a law making permanent a 5 million dollar exclusion from estate taxes-compare that to Bush’s version of estate tax law which had a sunset date. No, of course you didn’t read that article. That would mean that the NYT would have committed an act of journalism.

Bad Behavior has blocked 6424 access attempts in the last 7 days.