Discussion:

Discussion for article #223388

“…cut earth-warming pollution from power plants by 30 percent by 2020…”

Easily doable for an “exceptionalism” country, especially under a Democratic administration renown for its belief in federal support of transitions.

Alternate energy sources can make up for that, and then some, opening up MORE jobs, and BETTER PAYING jobs too. There is no downside, not even for the polluters running these archaic, expensive beasts. They should be in museums.

Put old power plants out of their misery before somebody (e.g. we, the people) gets hurt.

Go, Obama!! You have accomplished more on green energy, carbon curbs and raising mileage standards than any previous president. And that is not the only front that you have dragged this country forward on.

I just find it weird that the news media, analysts and historians miss the real significance of his presidency, taking side paths into race for example.

Can’t wait to hear the insane fault and consternation that modern Liberals and CONseratives find with his proposal – when they both ignorantly conclude we’re better off doing nothing, rather than any plan of President Obama.

History will judge Mr. Obama kindly. He’s moved us forward on gay rights, ramping down our military adventures, healthcare as a universal right, the very idea of tax fairness income equality, and brought a standard of even-headedness to the office. And he did it all in the face of the most vile racism.

I may not agree with everything he’s done, but at 45 years old, he’s clearly the best president in my lifetime.

Can’t wait for 40 years from now when cultural/political conservatives claim they were always for it.

the gop are going to find this to be a real stinker!

First, is it 2020 or 2030? http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/epa-carbon-emissions-30-percent-cut says EPA plans to cut emissions 30% by 2030.

Second, is it 30% from today’s levels or from 2005’s levels? The article says emissions have already been reduced by 13% since 2005.

Third, is it based on total emissions or emissions per capita? The U.S. population and economy will both be much bigger in 2020 (or 2030 depending on the answer to question #1) than it is today (or 2005 depending on the answer to question #2) .

And I am 82 years old and Obama is the second best after FDR.

My concern is that this presidential order to the EPA will be undone by the first Republican president that gets into office. But the way things are going, that day won’t come for a verrry long time. Hopefully, the next Democratic President, whoever she is…will maintain the EPA objective of a reducing carbon at roughly the same or even more of a percentage, along the same timeline.

Remember the fears of acid rain? Remember the crisis with the ozone hole? Both serious problems that were solved. With moves like this, perhaps the climate crisis will be next in line as something we defeated.

What I don’t get about people like the Koch’s is why they don’t embrace this and invest heavily in alternative energy. They will make a ton of money in a growing industry rather than trying in vain to milk more out of a dying one.

I have said that many times about Obama. He will go down as one of the best. The real historians will be kind to him and rightfully so. No President has accomplished as much in the face of such obstructionist and disrespect.

I love my President. And to Ottis, if Obama had what FRD had to work with, he would have done even better. But FDR was a great man,

That’s why we have to make sure those sonsofbitches never see the inside of the WH again, and let’s give the next Democratic president a congress and senate to work with.

Amen to that. I am more than 45 and I have seen a lot of Presidents, but never a President with such honesty and integrity. Maybe you don’t agree with everything he has done, but one thing for sure, he’s a good and decent man who really tried to do the right thing and had the crash of 2008 had not happened he could have done a lot more

I think Obama will be judged similarly to Truman, another President who was greatly underrated during his tenure but presided over an important transition period with remarkable skill, including an intransigent do-nothing Congress, despite some missteps (some of which seemed either minor or the right thing at the time, such as supporting the French in Vietnam, but turned out to have drastic consequences down the line).

I recently read David McCullough’s biography of Truman, and in spite of the obvious differences, the parallels between him and Obama are striking. Not least of which is the rhetoric of Republicans (not that they’ve ever changed much, but it’s even more like that of 1948 now than it was in the mid 90’s when the book was written, so it’s not just deliberate cherry-picking). I only wish Obama was as strident and “radical” in speaking against them as Truman was; he would be considered to the left of Elizabeth Warren. The resemblance between Thomas Dewey and Mitt Romney is also striking.

Good. Lay it out.

Because Democrats want it, Republicans are too heavily invested in “Drill, baby, drill” and a black guy is doing it – period.

Yeah, Obama’s cutting emissions…because he’s a Marxist.

I’m surprised the GOP doesn’t claim that cutting emissions by 30% will actually make emissions increase. It’s basically the same logic they use for justifying tax cuts.

Not that radical a move. The Argus plant near us in California, the fourth largest coal-fired pollution source in the state, is slated to be closed anyway. Coal is not coming back in California. That should be the model everywhere on the planet if we hope to start lowering manmade CO2 and particulate emissions 2-3% a year, instead of still increasing them by that amount… Australia, a huge coal seller, will have to forego export revenues. India, after five or six decades, still lacks a coherent energy strategy, although planning to use cheap coal while everybody else tries to get off it might qualify barely.