O'Child Regime's ScumBag Tactics to Kill Keystone

[cc]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/22/emails-show-cozy-relationship-between-epa-environmental-groups-on-keystone-coal/">'Secret dealing'? Emails show cozy relationship between EPA, environmental groups



unscrupulous  Newly disclosed emails suggest senior policy officials at the Environmental Protection Agency and environmental groups are working closely to kill the Keystone XL pipeline, critics say.



"These damning emails make it clear that the Obama administration has been actively trying to stop this important project for years," Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., who has long advocated for the Canada-to-Texas pipeline's construction, said in a statement to Fox News.



The emails were obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request by the Energy and Environment Legal Institute. In one communication, Lena Moffit of the Sierra Club wrote to three senior policy staffers at the EPA, including Michael Goo, who was then the associate administrator for policy.



"Thanks so much for taking the time to meet with us on Keystone XL yesterday," she wrote. "Let me know if I can be helpful in any way -- particularly in further identifying those opportunities for EPA to engage that don't involve 'throwing your body across the tracks,' as Michael put it."



EELI senior legal fellow Chris Horner told Fox News that as a government agency, EPA couldn't be seen as overtly trying to kill Keystone, but was reaching out to environmental groups for other ideas on how to do it.



"On its face," Horner told Fox News, "it smacks of classic secret dealing and an uncomfortably close working relationship and one that is known to these parties, but quite plainly not advertised to the public."



Barrasso was less diplomatic. "Despite the fact that Keystone XL has bipartisan support in Congress and from governors, environmental extremists inside and out of the administration are working behind closed doors to kill it," he said.

[Anonymous]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/22/emails-show-cozy-relationship-between-epa-environmental-groups-on-keystone-coal/">'Secret dealing'? Emails show cozy relationship between EPA, environmental groups



Newly disclosed emails suggest senior policy officials at the Environmental Protection Agency and environmental groups are working closely to kill the Keystone XL pipeline, critics say.



"These damning emails make it clear that the Obama administration has been actively trying to stop this important project for years," Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., who has long advocated for the Canada-to-Texas pipeline's construction, said in a statement to Fox News.



The emails were obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request by the Energy and Environment Legal Institute. In one communication, Lena Moffit of the Sierra Club wrote to three senior policy staffers at the EPA, including Michael Goo, who was then the associate administrator for policy.



"Thanks so much for taking the time to meet with us on Keystone XL yesterday," she wrote. "Let me know if I can be helpful in any way -- particularly in further identifying those opportunities for EPA to engage that don't involve 'throwing your body across the tracks,' as Michael put it."



EELI senior legal fellow Chris Horner told Fox News that as a government agency, EPA couldn't be seen as overtly trying to kill Keystone, but was reaching out to environmental groups for other ideas on how to do it.



"On its face," Horner told Fox News, "it smacks of classic secret dealing and an uncomfortably close working relationship and one that is known to these parties, but quite plainly not advertised to the public."



Barrasso was less diplomatic. "Despite the fact that Keystone XL has bipartisan support in Congress and from governors, environmental extremists inside and out of the administration are working behind closed doors to kill it," he said.

It's too bad that development projects are being delayed or denied for purely political reasons.

[cc]

Yes. The great majority in both countries want it. Both countries need it.



It will make work in the short and especially in the long haul for both countries.



AND, it will be a big step away from suicidal Terror Oil.



The %%$^&* dipshit ba-sturd  so often hurts his own country to achieve his counter-productive waky wefty agendas.

[Renee]

Obama is a far left ideologue so I wouldn't expect anything less. His so-called administration has also been conspiring with the EPA to kill what's left of the coal industry in the US. Obama and his ilk will not be satisfied until the average US citizen is paying 3 or 4 times what they pay now for a KW/Hr and 9 or 10 dollars a gal. for gas. This is nothing new; in fact his former Sec of Energy Steve Chew has actually come right out and said as much in front of congress.

[Renee]

Yes. The great majority in both countries want it. Both countries need it.



It will make work in the short and especially in the long haul for both countries.



AND, it will be a big step away from suicidal Terror Oil.



The %%$^&* dipshit ba-sturd  so often hurts his own country to achieve his counter-productive waky wefty agendas.

That's not true, cc. Replace "often" with "always" and you will be correct. Nothing this bastard has done in the 6 years so far has helped the US one damn bit. Failure is his fucking middle name unfortunately the slobbering leftist press in the US hasn't made any hay out of it and for what can only be discribed as idiotic, twisted, self-serving reasons they are unlikely to change.

[cc]

I slipped up on that one - "always" it is.



Not only do they cover for him, the wefty pwess created him  ... oh, and won't use his middle name  lol



Your country is really in trouble ("totally fucked" would be more accurate) as everything good is being dismantled and replaced with everything bad (or self-destructive)... as will ours be soon enough





Did you see today? He OK'd religious dress in the military ... including islamic supremacy beards (like his buddy Muslim Brotherhood's style) ffs.



Where does it all end? We don't want to go there!! Every day now, a new surprise

[Anonymous]

Yes. The great majority in both countries want it. Both countries need it.



It will make work in the short and especially in the long haul for both countries.



AND, it will be a big step away from suicidal Terror Oil.



The %%$^&* dipshit ba-sturd  so often hurts his own country to achieve his counter-productive waky wefty agendas.

Unfortunately, Odumbo has sold his soul to billionaire hypocrite, sleazebags like Tom Steyer. Odumbo's sugardaddy will not allow appointments that aren't anti-Keystone. Steyer wants some of that Solyndra-style public largesse lavished on his useless green energyscams.

[Anonymous]

Obama is a far left ideologue so I wouldn't expect anything less. His so-called administration has also been conspiring with the EPA to kill what's left of the coal industry in the US. Obama and his ilk will not be satisfied until the average US citizen is paying 3 or 4 times what they pay now for a KW/Hr and 9 or 10 dollars a gal. for gas. This is nothing new; in fact his former Sec of Energy Steve Chew has actually come right out and said as much in front of congress.

US coal exports are actually soaring which is so ironic for a prez that pays so much lip service to so-called man-made global warming. A pipeline from Canada supplanting heavy oil brought to the US by super tanker will increase AGW, but new coal-fired power plants all over the world won't??  

[Gary Oak]

Obongo is slimoid that goes to churches to listen to pastors bash with people.

[cc]

The good waco wefty weverin wight ... who ALSO hates the way of life in the country?



https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQYbwYfV--Aasat_3kQXgswpRRJf70eugmuFfyIfdH_AEXttdNJ">

[Anonymous]

The good waco wefty weverin wight ... who ALSO hates the way of life in the country?



https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQYbwYfV--Aasat_3kQXgswpRRJf70eugmuFfyIfdH_AEXttdNJ">

You cannot be a Christian and preach hatred based on race..



Galatians 3:28, There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

[Renee]

Obama is a far left ideologue so I wouldn't expect anything less. His so-called administration has also been conspiring with the EPA to kill what's left of the coal industry in the US. Obama and his ilk will not be satisfied until the average US citizen is paying 3 or 4 times what they pay now for a KW/Hr and 9 or 10 dollars a gal. for gas. This is nothing new; in fact his former Sec of Energy Steve Chew has actually come right out and said as much in front of congress.

US coal exports are actually soaring which is so ironic for a prez that pays so much lip service to so-called man-made global warming. A pipeline from Canada supplanting heavy oil brought to the US by super tanker will increase AGW, but new coal-fired power plants all over the world won't??  

Yes our exports are way up but overall usage within the US is dropping. And it has nothing to do with modernization and everything to with coal fired electric plants in the US not meeting new EPA regulations. The icing on the cake is that the technology does exist to make coal meet those regs but the EPA has no intention of allowing it to happen. They've done stuff like this in the past where they imposed regulations and allowed the coal industry to meet the regulations only to raise the bar before the coal fired plants could meet the old (new) regs.  It's all a political game played by the enviro-Nazis designed to bankrupt the coal industry by ceaselessly imposing stricter and stricter regulations.



When you actually consider how tenuous our electric grid in the US actually is one has to wonder if these corrupt far left pigs at the EPA actually understand the ramifications what they are doing. Do they even have a clue what lies beyond their idiotic agenda or is it something much more sinister that drives their efforts?



This is all part Obama's fundamental change to the culture of America.

[Anonymous]

Yes our exports are way up but overall usage within the US is dropping. And it has nothing to do with modernization and everything to with coal fired electric plants in the US not meeting new EPA regulations. The icing on the cake is that the technology does exist to make coal meet those regs but the EPA has no intention of allowing it to happen. They've done stuff like this in the past where they imposed regulations and allowed the coal industry to meet the regulations only to raise the bar before the coal fired plants could meet the old (new) regs.  It's all a political game played by the enviro-Nazis designed to bankrupt the coal industry by ceaselessly imposing stricter and stricter regulations.



When you actually consider how tenuous our electric grid in the US actually is one has to wonder if these corrupt far left pigs at the EPA actually understand the ramifications what they are doing. Do they even have a clue what lies beyond their idiotic agenda or is it something much more sinister that drives their efforts?



This is all part Obama's fundamental change to the culture of America.

I have no problem with converting to natural gas whenever possible Renee. I know coal will be part of the mix for some time though, so let's get on with improving it. The shale oil and gas boom South of the border has given the USA a competitive advantage over Europeans who are forced to pay higher costs to produce goods and services while simultaneously importing more American coal. American coal exports travel right through my city on their way to Prince Rupert BC and then on to the Far East.



If what you say is true, then that really pisses me off. Artificially and arbitrarily making one industry unable to compete is just plain wrong. I know the EPA is hyper-political and that's a damned shame they look at ideology first and science second third or fourth.

[cc]

Before elected O'Child openly telegraphed his intention to kill the coal industry - a promise he kept

[Anonymous]

This fits into what Renee and CC were saying.

On Sept. 20 the Obama Administration proposed regulations that would require future coal-fired power plants to deploy currently nonexistent technologies to reduce their CO2 emissions. The President has also directed the Environmental Protection Agency to propose rules next year to reduce CO2 emissions from existing coal fired plants. Coal provides nearly 40 percent of America's electricity – no small amount – because it is domestic, abundant, affordable and reliable.  By putting onerous restrictions on a resource that is such a vital part of the U.S. energy mix and U.S economic prosperity, the President needs to address four fundamental questions about the impact of his proposal – especially since it is being implemented by unelected regulators that are unaccountable to the people of the United States and the Congress.



What's your plan to fill the future energy gap?



Demand for power in the United States is expected to grow 28 percent from 2011 to 2040 according the U.S. Energy Information Administration.



While we have made progress as a result of energy efficiency initiatives, we will still need new electricity generation in the future – to keep our lights on, manufacturing plants running, electric cars driving and our digital world humming (yes, iPhones and the cloud require lots of power, and it commonly comes from coal). Wind and solar provide only 5 percent of our electricity needs and continue to face technological challenges, most notably storage and 24/7/365 reliability.   This is not to mention the amount of subsidies – taxpayers' money – that renewables generally require to be cost competitive.  Our nuclear fleet, which generates about 20 percent of our electricity, is ageing.  New plants are facing increased pressure on the back of Fukushima, nuclear waste storage and cost concerns of implementing the next generation of technology.



What we're left with is counting on natural gas to be the silver bullet.  I believe natural gas is good for our energy security and good for our economy, which is good for our country.  However, essentially staking our future, and our children's future, on one energy source is irresponsible, risky and provides us with little margin for error.  In fact, even the President himself referred to natural gas as a "bridge fuel" in his climate address. We can't power our nation to growth without all energy sources, including coal, playing a meaningful role in the future.



How much will EPA's proposals cost and who pays?



Our country currently enjoys affordable and reliable electricity in no small part because of the diversity of our energy mix.  Competition is good for costs and limiting our choices will lead to higher electricity prices for everyone.  Today, natural gas is a cost-effective energy solution that many businesses and individuals are turning toward.  But what happens when these historically low prices double – or triple – and other energy options like coal are inhibited by government regulation?  These costs will quickly reverberate throughout our economy.  If there are no coal plants, there is no diversity, and we are forced to pay the cost, whatever it is.



Higher energy prices are regressive and will disproportionately impact the poor and those on fixed incomes who can least afford it.  They will also flow through to all the goods and services that require electricity to produce.  As part of this, American businesses, especially manufacturing, depend on affordable energy to compete successfully in today's hyper-competitive global economy.



How long before research into advanced clean coal technology dries up?



Alongside industry, the Administration claims to have invested nearly $5 billion in clean coal research and development. Without a viable commercial market to support advanced clean-coal technologies – where America enjoys unmatched leadership – investment in this space will grind to a standstill.  This is a missed opportunity.  America was built on innovation, and we should continue to invest across the board to better use those energy sources that provide the vast majority of our generation and consumption.  What we should not do, however, is what EPA is mandating: impose standards based on technologies still in the testing phase and not yet ready for commercial deployment.



The electric utility industry has steadily made progress but is still a ways off from developing the carbon capture and storage technologies in the Administration's proposal.  This proposal will undermine the substantial amount of investment that coal-fired utilities have already invested in cleaner production, as well as the significant amount of investment on the horizon. Coal-fired utilities have driven down emissions levels over the past several decades for criteria air pollutants – up to 90 percent in many cases – and the same can be done for carbon dioxide if given adequate time and investment for the technology to mature rather than be handicapped by regulatory mandate. Other countries benefit if the U.S. does not innovate, as the U.S. will lose the opportunity to be a seller of technology to the global market.  In the meantime other countries will continue to build coal plants regardless, and be well positioned to out-compete us with a low cost electricity advantage.



Can your Administration articulate its energy policy?



We are living in an exciting time for American energy. We are developing innovative new technologies that increase production, and improve efficiency and environmental performance.  Our domestic energy reserves continue to shrink our dependence on foreign sources while positioning our nation to capitalize on global demand. Yet the Administration's rules promise to take us backward and squander this opportunity in the name of negligible environmental benefits.  Acting unilaterally, as is the case here, has rarely served as successful U.S. policy as our government has an unenviable record of picking winners and losers.  According to an assessment conducted by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, which is based on an EPA analysis, the future climate benefits of handicapping the U.S. coal fleet are insignificant, because growing, developing nations are understandably focused on bettering the livelihoods of their citizens through energy access, not reducing greenhouse gas emissions.



At a time when the world is diversifying its energy mix and using coal to build a path to prosperity and increase global competitiveness, we're promulgating costly regulations that limit our options and risk our future by excluding reliable and proven energy sources. We're also ceding economic opportunity to nations with substantially weaker environmental standards than the United States.  In the final analysis, it's clear that "all of the above" is a euphemism and not a policy for this Administration.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/03/01/coal-is-history-or-is-it/">http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopher ... -or-is-it/">http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/03/01/coal-is-history-or-is-it/