Oberon how dare you attempt to add levity to this thread through hilariously captioned pictures! :>

no one does it with the panache of tribesman!

If only his debate skills were as polished! Then we could have some fun!

I'm sowwy :oops::03:

The skills are polished all they need to be, you are presenting something as something it is not, you are then taking that thing and inventing an arguement out of "facts" you just made up, even the arguement from your made up facts invents more "facts".

Simple question for ya. Under these terrible executive orders(which your current president seem to be getting a historicly low number of written) and under the sneaky "backdoor" that amazingly is the frontdoor plans....when will the power plants be affected (apart from those that have applied for new extentions to their existing facilities)?

A further question to see if you can actually think.
Given the large astroturf and lobbying outrage being widely vented in relation to the coal industry with the clean air, can you link through the EPA to another system of permits that is up for serious review following the huge problems the industry has created in utilising its "cheap fuel" policy?

Ahhh I love that "holier than thou" attitude of the ultra-left. It makes things so much more fun. :]

Good to see you've actually managed to produce a little substance, small as it may be; though you still need to work on your 5-year-oldesque "nuh uh, u suck!" method of arguing your point of view.

The number of executive orders by the President is an irrelevant point. We're arguing quality over quantity here and whether issuing directives to the EPA to carry out regulations that have already been tossed out by Congress undermines Congress's authority, a point which you have heretofore ignored.

Since you seem interested in arguing the impact of the EPA regulations, I will present a relevant Regulatory Impact Analysis by the EPA regarding one of their recent rule changes.

The RIA for the "Final Transport Rule":
http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/pdfs/FinalRIA.pdf

A few lovely tidbits:
"This selected remedy covers the electric power industry and allows interstate emissions trading of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the covered states..."

In other words, the EPA is implementing interstate cap and trade, something which Congress struck down. In effect, an executive agency whose only oversight is the office of the President of the United States has directly undermined the authority of Congress to make law. In addition to this, selling credits doesn't tend to make the problem better, it just moves a bunch of money around between people who were already polluting and people who weren't going to pollute anyway, thus resulting in no net effect on the desired outcome: to reduce emissions.

However, I digress, what you're interested in are the costs on industry with complying with this executive fiat. Very well...

"... the final rule expedites the adoption of SO2 emissions controls that are planned in the base case to occur after 2012 and be underway by 2014..."

In other words, the EPA has expedited changes the industry originally had 3 years to implement instead of 1 year, to answer your question of when industries will be affected. As an aside, the RIA uses the base goal of 2014 to determine economic impact, while sidestepping the very relevant issue that moving the required compliance date ahead 2 years will have a non-trivial cost impact (actually they agree that it will cost more to move implementation ahead 2 years, but bury that point deeper in the executive summary and don't elaborate).

"Retail electricity prices are projected to increase nationally by an average of 1.3 % in 2012 and 0.8 % in 2014 with the final Transport Rule. "

In other words, "screw the poor who will be disproportionately harmed by this rule, I want my hippy green votes!"

"The average delivered coal price decreases by about 1.4 percent in 2012 and 0.5 percent in 2014 relative to the base case as a result of decreased coal demand and shifts in the type of coal demanded. EPA also projects that delivered natural gas prices for the electric power sector will increase by about 0.3% over the 2012-2030 timeframe..."

In other words, those who rely on natural gas for heating will have to pay more for it. This disproportionately affects poor Americans in the Northeast. Oh, and what about the coal miners, who are often predominately poor, who will now be adversely affected by the decrease in coal prices? Screw them, I guess, since they weren't going to vote for Obama anyway...

"Economic impacts do not take into response of electric power consumers to changes in electricity prices..."

In other words, "we're ignoring free market factors in a free market economy."

"Compliance costs based on the pre-policy output levels would be overstated if we do not consider the new lower levels of consumption as a result of higher market prices."

In other words, "since this rule is likely to reduce the standard of living for Americans, things could be even cheaper to implement!"

Oh, and the kicker:
"Because it is not a distribution, it is not possible to infer the likelihood of any single net benefit estimate. "

In other words, the entire RIA is blowing smoke with pretty powerpoint graphs, and the EPA just doesn't know how beneficial the new rule is.

You wouldn't recognise the ultra left if it was dancing nude with a full orchestra while teabagging you under a neon sign saying "this is the ultra left"

Is that because it undermines your "current administration" rant?

So you want to go over a bigger pile and demonstate that the little pile is all much worse.


All the substance needed was in the first post.

Not in the slightest, congress say bye bye over 40 years ago, keep up with the times young man.

I do like the way you use "in other words"
The funniest is of course "free market factors in a free market economy".

I don't need a hug. And I'm not debating your interpretations because they're black and white proclamations that lack any nuance, and the world is full of it. On some of the issues you've pointed out, I agree that the President has gone around the normal process and there's no debate to be had. On the others, I don't care to rehash the same talking points that have been debated and countered and disproven to death before. Frankly, it's very boring.

Magicstix.... a word of advice.

Some here will debate you - others will insist on avoiding any actual debate by constantly circling from subject to subject, instead of focusing on the issue at hand.

Those that refuse to debate won't care for facts or proof. Its best to just ignore them, as it does no good to argue with a stop sign.....

Find those who can stick to a topic instead of bandying semantics and you will find good conversation.

Hopefully this was not an implied shot at me. History shows there have been times that I've systematically and factually dismantled your arguments without "bandying semantics."

I simply find the current argument stupid and boring and refuse to be drawn into it.

Hey Haplo, want to to do scripture?
Any canon you want you false preacher:yeah:
Oh sorry I didn't mean to imply that a religious voccalist should have some arguementative basis in scripture:rotfl2:

Issue at hand A is C and B wouldn't be as bad as D even when D is B which is C & A.
Partisan crap , which to Haplo could add "sulfur ain't in the bible apart from as linked to the devil":har::har::har::har::har::har:

No worries mookie its about his false "christian " rants which he can't defend, I don't recall you getting on his "xTIAN" hit list