Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It was nice be be able to feel proud of my country once again on the day we elected President Obama (praise be unto Him!)yep. Presidential leadershipFuel cost is down because President Obama (praise be unto Him!) willed it so!
We on the other hand will immediately decrease our CO2 emissions by 20%...driving up the cost of energy in America and making it that much harder for US businesses to compete with Chinese industries.
So you believe in the same RW forecasters that predicted in 2012 that Obama's reelection would directly drive the cost of gasoline way above $5.00 per gallon. Those predictions were based on nothing.
Now you are still singing the same old song.
Reducing carbon emissions will not drive the cost of energy up any more than Obama winning a second term would drive up gasoline prices back in 2012.
. The Clean Power Plan will ultimately save about $45 billion a year, the EPA says, by both shrinking Americans’ energy use and reducing health costs for asthma, lung cancer and other illnesses caused by air pollution. The EPA estimates the rule will also cut about $85 a year from the average American’s utility bill.
White House Plan Calls for Even Greater Greenhouse Gas Reductions
You are hell bent on eating crow on the electricity angle too.
Meanwhile you might live longer because reducing carbon emissions has made your envirionment more healthy although you act as if you'd rather be living in Beijing right now with a surgical mask on your face.
Stop whining and believing idiots who make rediculous predictions based on nothing but RW'er standard boilerplate BS.
What's happening is US natural gas is cheaper and cleaner than coal and the power plants have been switching.
And alternative energy and renewables are continually becoming lower cost- higher benefit and competitive with carbon based sources.
Here's a dose of reality for you. Coal is cheap and it's plentiful. It's alsoHere's a dose of reality for you. Coal is cheap and it's plentiful. It's also dirtier than other energy sources. If you do phase out coal as an energy source then the alternatives WILL cost more money! So stop lying to people about the costs of what you want to accomplish!
.
Heating oil and propane prices are lower this winter ›
The U.S. Energy Information Administration's State Heating Oil and Propane Program (SHOPP) collects state-level residential heating oil and propane price data in 38 states during the winter heating season. SHOPP is a joint effort between EIA and state energy offices in regions (especially states in the Northeast and Midwest) where heating oil and propane are commonly used as heating fuels. In all of the states surveyed, propane and heating oil prices are lower than they were at this time last year, and EIA expects prices will remain at lower levels throughout the winter. More›
Source: EIA, State Heating Oil and Propane Program
Here's a dose of reality for you. Coal is cheap and it's plentiful. It's also dirtier than other energy sources. If you do phase out coal as an energy source then the alternatives WILL cost more money! So stop lying to people about the costs of what you want to accomplish! Tell them that alternative energy and renewables are going to increase their electric bills by a large amount and let them decide with their votes if they want your policies to be implemented
Oldstyle 13011190Here's a dose of reality for you. Coal is cheap and it's plentiful. It's alsoHere's a dose of reality for you. Coal is cheap and it's plentiful. It's also dirtier than other energy sources. If you do phase out coal as an energy source then the alternatives WILL cost more money! So stop lying to people about the costs of what you want to accomplish!
Do you heat your home with coal? If not why not if coal is so cheap?
The truth is coal has been being phased out as an energy source for decades. It is being replaced at electric generator plants by natural gas. Do you deny that natural gas is cheaper than coal to heat homes and to fuel electrical production plants?
.
Heating oil and propane prices are lower this winter ›
The U.S. Energy Information Administration's State Heating Oil and Propane Program (SHOPP) collects state-level residential heating oil and propane price data in 38 states during the winter heating season. SHOPP is a joint effort between EIA and state energy offices in regions (especially states in the Northeast and Midwest) where heating oil and propane are commonly used as heating fuels. In all of the states surveyed, propane and heating oil prices are lower than they were at this time last year, and EIA expects prices will remain at lower levels throughout the winter. More›
Source: EIA, State Heating Oil and Propane Program
Heating oil and propane prices are lower this winter - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
So just like gasoline the liars you are listening to are making very false predictions.
Oldstyle 13011190Here's a dose of reality for you. Coal is cheap and it's plentiful. It's also dirtier than other energy sources. If you do phase out coal as an energy source then the alternatives WILL cost more money! So stop lying to people about the costs of what you want to accomplish! Tell them that alternative energy and renewables are going to increase their electric bills by a large amount and let them decide with their votes if they want your policies to be implemented
Tell them that based on what? Your same lying forecasters that told you electing Obama to a second term would drive the price of gas at the pump way above $5 and drive the economy all the way to hell and never come back.
Not sure if you have heard, those predictors were as wrong as wrong could be.
So why would anyone trust people like you to give anyone advice based upon your predictions about energy costs in the future?
You and your fellow RW'ers have been so wrong every time when making such baseless and fraudulent forecasts and predictions of doom it is obvious to anyone that can think for themselves.
Why do I need to know all the particulars when I trust the President to advance the climate change issue?Give me some links.Why am I getting the feeling that I'm only hearing half of the story?Kenyan voodoo?
You want to step in here and help out Dottie and Franco, Synth? I asked them to explain why the CO2 emissions deal Barry got with the Chinese is good for America? They seem to be struggling...
So here's the gist of the deal...the Chinese get to continue polluting the atmosphere...in fact increasing their CO2 emissions for the next 15 years (even though they are already far and away the biggest polluters on the planet!) and only THEN capping their pollution levels!
We on the other hand will immediately decrease our CO2 emissions by 20%...driving up the cost of energy in America and making it that much harder for US businesses to compete with Chinese industries.
So tell me why that's a good deal, Synth!
Another liberal who doesn't have a clue what's in that agreement between China and the US? Come on Synth...this is getting pathetic! Surely ONE of you must have read the deal?
Did Sanders, Warren, Brown, Franken, Boxer vote for it?
You want me to give you a link NOW so you can read up on what Barry has already agreed to? You Obamabots are hilarious, Synth. You're all here whining about the bad ole Republicans that won't give Obama what he wants on this climate deal...but you don't even know what it is that Obama wants? Like I said...PATHETIC!
Won't drive up the cost? What do you know that Obama doesn't?
.
We were familiar with Obama's original quote from his campaign for president. It came from a videotaped interview he did with the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board very early in the campaign in January 2008.
"Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket," Obama told the Chronicle . "Coal-powered plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers."
Obama also said the biggest challenge would be making sure voters understand why such a plan is necessary. "The problem is, can you get the American people to say this is really important," Obama said.
Obama was talking in general about cap and trade, but there is now a specific bill making its way through Congress, written by Reps. Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, Democrats from California and Massachusetts, respectively. Their goal is to lower carbon pollution by 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. Under their plan, most pollution permits initially would be given out for free. But eventually, companies would have to buy those permits from the government.
The latest version of the bill includes a number of measures to offset higher utility bills for consumers. Revenue from the permits would be passed to consumers through rebates or expanded efficiency programs, and an additional 15 percent of the revenue would go directly to low-income consumers. Legislators have opted to give 85 percent of the polluting permits away for free instead of putting them up for sale, as Obama pledged to do on the campaign trail. In theory, this approach should reduce costs to consumers.
So how much would rates go up for consumers? It's hard to say.
There has been much debate about the costs, and it's been difficult to come up with a reliable number because the bills have been changing as they move through the House and the Senate. Republicans have cited numbers as high as $3,000 per year, a claim that when it was combined with a falsehood on health care, earned our Pants on Fire rating. Recent estimates by the Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental Protection Agency are much lower — between $80 and $340 a year, depending on income.
So the climate debate has changed substantially since Obama sat down with the Chronicle nearly two years ago.
Despite those potential cost cuts, there's still little disagreement that consumers will pay for cap-and-trade, whether it's $3,100 a year or $340. Because that hasn't changed since Obama first said that utility rates would "necessarily skyrocket," and because Palin got Obama's words right, we give Palin a True.
In a round about way you could say that MOST Americans heat their homes with coal because coal is still the number one source of fuel to create electricity.
Won't drive up the cost? What do you know that Obama doesn't?
Why do I need to know all the particulars when I trust the President to advance the climate change issue?Give me some links.Why am I getting the feeling that I'm only hearing half of the story?You want to step in here and help out Dottie and Franco, Synth? I asked them to explain why the CO2 emissions deal Barry got with the Chinese is good for America? They seem to be struggling...
So here's the gist of the deal...the Chinese get to continue polluting the atmosphere...in fact increasing their CO2 emissions for the next 15 years (even though they are already far and away the biggest polluters on the planet!) and only THEN capping their pollution levels!
We on the other hand will immediately decrease our CO2 emissions by 20%...driving up the cost of energy in America and making it that much harder for US businesses to compete with Chinese industries.
So tell me why that's a good deal, Synth!
Another liberal who doesn't have a clue what's in that agreement between China and the US? Come on Synth...this is getting pathetic! Surely ONE of you must have read the deal?
Did Sanders, Warren, Brown, Franken, Boxer vote for it?
You want me to give you a link NOW so you can read up on what Barry has already agreed to? You Obamabots are hilarious, Synth. You're all here whining about the bad ole Republicans that won't give Obama what he wants on this climate deal...but you don't even know what it is that Obama wants? Like I said...PATHETIC!
And I don't worry about China. Did you see the news today? They are so fucked. You can't see five feet in front of you from the pollution. They just started banning driving because people can't see where they're going.
That's why they have invested so much into solar, driving out competitors like Solyndra.
Natural gas is now the choice for NEW power plants in the US because the natural gas that fracking has unlocked is so cheap. That doesn't mean that coal is no longer being burned in US power plants to provide electricity to heat American homes. "The nation's fleet of over 100 coal plants is responsible for 57 percent of the electricity generated in the U.S., more than any other single electricity fuel source." U.S. Dept. of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA) Most US homes don't heat with electricity or fuel oil now because both are far more expensive than natural gas. Still most US homes electricity is produced by the burning of coal in power plants.Oldstyle 13011513In a round about way you could say that MOST Americans heat their homes with coal because coal is still the number one source of fuel to create electricity.
Not true. NG has surpassed coal as the leading fuel in power plants in the U.S.
And I don't believe most homes have electric heat. They use natural gas and propane, coal has been outdated for heating homes for decades now.
Saudi Arabia decided to pump all the oil it wants and to ignore anything OPEC says. They are clearly doing their best to wipe out the petroleum boom in the USA and Canada. Make the price so low that well heads will be shut down and exploration stopped.
The best way to overcome this is do away with oil export restrictions. Let 'em ship all they want overseas and get the wells going again.
Lift EPA crap and build a few more refineries.
Toddster 13010971Won't drive up the cost? What do you know that Obama doesn't?
I know that Obama way back in January 2008 was being honest with the voters when he said what energy conditions and prices across the board at that time (nearly 8 years ago) meant to any U.S. government effort to reduce greenhouse emissions and save the planet from the costs of global warming which will be much higher as time rolls on.
That being said I know exactly what Obama and all you RW's know - that global energy conditions and prices have drastically changed the past eight years for the U.S. energy suppliers and consumers - since Obama got elected President while being honest, 11 months earlier about what he thought it would cost to help save the planet.
Do you know about the fracking boom and that lower priced and cleaner natural gas surpassed coal a short while back as the primary fuel for electricity production since candidate Obama uttered those words in January 2008? Do you not know of such changes that certainly affect the net cost of electricity for all consumers in a good way?
This was written just after the presidential election in November 2009.
It's important that you read the following excerpt so you can realize how foolish you are to argue a point that does not recognize the magnitude of the global shift in energy supply, demand and cost that has occurred over the past eight years.
.
We were familiar with Obama's original quote from his campaign for president. It came from a videotaped interview he did with the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board very early in the campaign in January 2008.
"Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket," Obama told the Chronicle . "Coal-powered plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers."
Obama also said the biggest challenge would be making sure voters understand why such a plan is necessary. "The problem is, can you get the American people to say this is really important," Obama said.
Obama was talking in general about cap and trade, but there is now a specific bill making its way through Congress, written by Reps. Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, Democrats from California and Massachusetts, respectively. Their goal is to lower carbon pollution by 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. Under their plan, most pollution permits initially would be given out for free. But eventually, companies would have to buy those permits from the government.
The latest version of the bill includes a number of measures to offset higher utility bills for consumers. Revenue from the permits would be passed to consumers through rebates or expanded efficiency programs, and an additional 15 percent of the revenue would go directly to low-income consumers. Legislators have opted to give 85 percent of the polluting permits away for free instead of putting them up for sale, as Obama pledged to do on the campaign trail. In theory, this approach should reduce costs to consumers.
So how much would rates go up for consumers? It's hard to say.
There has been much debate about the costs, and it's been difficult to come up with a reliable number because the bills have been changing as they move through the House and the Senate. Republicans have cited numbers as high as $3,000 per year, a claim that when it was combined with a falsehood on health care, earned our Pants on Fire rating. Recent estimates by the Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental Protection Agency are much lower — between $80 and $340 a year, depending on income.
So the climate debate has changed substantially since Obama sat down with the Chronicle nearly two years ago.
Despite those potential cost cuts, there's still little disagreement that consumers will pay for cap-and-trade, whether it's $3,100 a year or $340. Because that hasn't changed since Obama first said that utility rates would "necessarily skyrocket," and because Palin got Obama's words right, we give Palin a True.
Obama said cap and trade would increase electricity rates
From that link that was published Monday, November 16th, 2009 when Bush was still President about a cap and trade bill that was moving through Congress:
"The latest version of the bill includes a number of measures to offset higher utility bills for consumers. Revenue from the permits would be passed to consumers through rebates or expanded efficiency programs, and an additional 15 percent of the revenue would go directly to low-income consumers."
Your point is a pitiful fail because the recently released - White House Plan Calls for Even Greater Greenhouse Gas Reductions - actually comes with an EPA forecast that this plan will save consumers an average yearly amount of $78.
All the energy changes for the good of America since Obama said what he said in January 2008 has gone from a forecast in November 2009 for C&T costing between $80 and $340 a year depending on income for electricity consumers to a savings of around $80 on average in 2015.
The lying RW'ers in 2008 jumped on Obama's remarks and exaggerated the C&T cost to consumers to be over $3000 a year as the link to Politifact points out as a Pants on Fire Republican lie.
The latter is the only thing that has not changed over the past eight years. Your pants are on fire.
Toddster 13010971Won't drive up the cost? What do you know that Obama doesn't?
Whenever I post a direct quote from Obama the RW'er hoard tells me Obama never tells the truth - he means the opposite of what was said. So tell me why that continual conspiracy theory does not apply here? You see that means that Obama in January 2008 really was saying that his C&T policies would greatly lower electricity prices according to Wingnuttians.
Capturing CO2 & injecting it into shale formations & tar sands increases oil production & profits far in excess of the cost of CO2 capture at coal power plants & transporting it to oil fields.
Yeah, and Obamacare is gonna save the average family $2500 a year.
Not one Obama hating wingnut predictor wants to yell about how Obama's rejection of Keystone pipeline and EPA abuses and his contempt for big oil was going to lead to $5 to $6 gasoline and destroy jobs and the economy.
Where are you?
Credit Card in Northern Virginia at $1.82.
National avg at $2.04 right now.
