Sentences with phrase «regulations on carbon dioxide»

In a recent interview with E&E TV's Monica Trauzzi, the American Wind Energy Association's (AWEA) Rob Gramlich discussed the effects that EPA's new regulations on carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants would have on wind energy.

Crucial new EPA rules are in the works, including regulations on carbon dioxide from new power plants and, climate hawks hope, existing power plants too.

Given that it will take years for Environmental Protection Agency regulations on carbon dioxide and the other gases to meaningfully kick into gear, you would think that could wait.

Not exact matches

Obama had introduced a raft of regulations intended to slash emissions of carbon dioxide blamed for climate change, a policy course that accelerated the retirement of older coal - fired power plants and bolstered the nascent solar and wind sectors, which depend heavily on weather conditions for their power output.

The U.S. power sector must cut carbon dioxide emissions 30 percent by 2030 from 2005 levels, according to federal regulations unveiled on Monday that form the centerpiece of the Obama administration's climate change strategy.

But in a world which does not place a cost on environmental degradation, but sees the environment as a free resource, it is not surprising that a market - led energy policy lets industry dump sulphur dioxide, carbon dioxide and other pollutants indiscriminately into the atmosphere unless prevented by legal regulation.

Moreover, the Senate bill that would fund DOE — the so - called energy and water bill — hangs in limbo, thanks to the political battle over the Obama administration's plan to use Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations to set new limits on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, especially those that burn coal.

These regulations shall take into account the total number of tons of carbon dioxide equivalent of greenhouse gas emissions for which a covered entity is demonstrating compliance temporarily, and may set a limit on this amount.

Writing in today's Guardian and last week's Mail on Sunday, Professor Myles Allen, head of climate dynamics at Oxford University, proposes that governments introduce a new regulation requiring companies that extract or import fossil fuels to sequester and store a fraction of the carbon dioxide they emit.

President Obama has had to resort to executive steps on climate change, like writing new carbon dioxide regulations, because the path to even modest legislative solutions (as on so many other issues) is blocked by the inevitability of filibusters under the the 60 - vote supermajority in the Senate.

With that in mind, Fuzz Hogan, the managing editor at the New America Foundation, invited me to weigh in with others on this question about President Obama's proposed «Clean Power Plan» — the first American regulations restricting carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants:

I'm in Beijing to participate in a week of meetings related to the unfolding international science effort called Future Earth, so I won't be able to weigh in in a timely fashion on President Obama's planned Monday release of regulations restricting carbon dioxide emissions from existing American power plants.

An important question that political and climate analysts will be examining is how much bite is in the regulations — meaning how much they would curb emissions beyond what's already happening to cut power plant carbon dioxide thanks to the natural gas boom, the shutdown of old coal - burning plants because of impending mercury - cutting rules (read the valuable Union of Concerned Scientists «Ripe for Retirement» report for more on this), improved energy efficiency and state mandates developing renewable electricity supplies.

Although U.S. carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions associated with electricity generation have fallen from the 2005 level, they are projected to increase in the coming decades, based on analysis in EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 2015 (AEO2015) that reflects current laws and regulations, and therefore does not include proposed rules such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan.

[1] Critics argued the Initiative, despite its title, actually weakened existing laws, such as the Clean Air Act and EPA proposed regulations on air pollutants, and did not address carbon dioxide, the most abundant heat trapping greenhouse gas leading to global warming.

The moves will save an estimated 120 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year by 2025, closing the gap by about a third between his economy - wide pledge and the sum total of all of Obama's myriad executive actions and regulations on climate thus far.

Beyer then switched tactics, and compared Democrats» advocacy for carbon dioxide regulations to former Vice President Dick Cheney's arguing for the use of «enhanced interrogation» on the «one percent chance» it could prevent al - Qaida from getting a nuclear weapon.

Mr. Barbour mainly works to loosen enforcement of environmental regulations affecting utilities, though other Washington lobbyists said that he had also argued against action on reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

(Sec. 112) Amends the Clean Air Act (CAA) to require the EPA Administrator to: (1) establish a coordinated approach to certifying and permitting geologic sequestration; (2) promulgate regulations, within two years, to protect human health and the environment by minimizing the risk of escape to the atmosphere of carbon dioxide injected for purposes of geologic sequestration; (3) report to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works every three years on geologic sequestration in the United States and in North America.

When it comes to climate change issues, the spotlight is always on the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels.

These regulations shall take into account the total number of tons of carbon dioxide equivalent of greenhouse gas emissions for which a covered entity is demonstrating compliance temporarily, and may set a limit on this amount.

--(i) At any time after the Administrator promulgates regulations pursuant to subparagraph (A), the Administrator may, pursuant to the requirements of part D of title VII and based on the carbon dioxide equivalent value of the substance destroyed, add the types of destruction projects authorized to receive destruction offset credits under this paragraph to the list of types of projects eligible for offset credits under section 733.

The EPA on April 17 [2009] proposed new regulations to control carbon dioxide (CO2) and five other «greenhouse gases» as «pollutants» under section 202 (a) of the Clean Air Act.

When US President Obama announced revised regulations on reducing carbon dioxide emissions from US power plants on August 3, 2015 in a laudable speech supporting the new rules, as he predicted opponents of US climate change policy strongly attacked the new rules on grounds that they would wreck the US economy, destroy jobs, and raise electricity prices.

«We shouldn't focus on whether carbon dioxide will be regulated (it will), or if ACCCE could possibly support regulation (we do),» he wrote on his blog.

If the regulations are extremely costly, such as the current proposed regulations to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) or the ban on DDT in 1972, it is often not possible to justify them.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order today (March 28) that dismantles the Clean Power Plan, an Obama - era regulation that would have set limits on emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants from power plants.

The EPA is on the verge of finalizing regulations that would limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by forcing states to adopt measures to cut emissions from the energy sector.

At this moment, our national economy is under threat by carbon regulation schemes on three fronts: The Copenhagen conference designed to create a world carbon regulatory authority which could undermine our sovereignty; The cap and trade bill thatâ $ ™ s been passed by the House of Representatives and now awaits Senate approval; and the Obama Administrationâ $ ™ s decision that it can regulate carbon dioxide via the EPA even without approval by Congress.

4) July 13, 2010: Despite his claim that it was about fraud and not about science, Cuccinelli relies on blog - science in a brief filed with the court, arguing that Mann and his colleagues have manipulated scientific data for years to back the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions.

Instead of acknowledging this progress, the administration's piling on of new regulation could hinder domestic natural gas production, potentially reducing supply and natural gas use that has played a leading role in reducing U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide to near 20 - year lows.

Various organizations have published forecasts of the economic impacts of the Clean Power Plan (CPP), EPA's regulation that limits carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, with studies arriving at markedly different conclusions about the effect of the policy on electricity affordability and the overall economy.

The regulations will emerge after years of activism and scientific studies on the climate risk posed by methane, a powerful greenhouse gas that's dozens of times more potent that carbon dioxide.

The U.S. power sector must cut carbon dioxide emissions 30 percent by 2030 from 2005 levels, according to federal regulations unveiled by the EPA on Monday.

ANNOUNCER: This report continues on our Web site, where you can explore a map of each state's carbon dioxide output and regulations, read special reports on climate science and its politics, the extended interviews, and examine companion reports by the Center for Investigative Reporting, watch the whole program again on line and join the discussion at PBS.org.

You may wonder why the government finds the need to pursue such action since 1) U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have already topped out and have generally been on the decline for the past 7 - 8 years or so (from technological advances in natural gas extraction and a slow economy more so than from already - enacted government regulations and subsidies); 2) greenhouse gases from the rest of the world (primarily driven by China) have been sky - rocketing over the same period, which lessens any impacts that our emissions reduction have); and 3) even in their totality, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have a negligible influence on local / regional / global climate change (even a immediate and permanent cessation of all our carbon dioxide emissions would likely result in a mitigation of global temperature rise of less than one - quarter of a degree C by the end of the century).

Based upon it's conclusions, governments have implemented expensive carbon taxes and new overbearing regulations designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, cap and trade schemes, a phased - in ban on incandescent light bulbs, the forced relocation of whole populations of people to make room for carbon credit producing plantations and numerous other far reaching and expensive initiatives.

This week, however, the blog Moonbattery found a very interesting memo from Romney's office in 2005 announcing tough new regulations on emissions... Governor Mitt Romney today announced that Massachusetts will take another major step in meeting its commitment to protecting air quality when strict state limitations on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants take effect on January 1, 2006.

The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) forthcoming climate change regulations for new and existing electricity generating units have been appropriately labeled the «war on coal,» [1] because the proposed limits for carbon dioxide emissions would essentially prohibit the construction of new coal - fired power plants and force existing ones into early retirement.

The proposed regulation, which resulted from a federal energy bill signed by President Bush in December, promises to curtail carbon dioxide emissions from cars and light trucks and reduce America's reliance on foreign oil.

Ironically, these aerosols are also the product of fossil fuel burning and strict regulations were imposed in the developed world on their emissions in the 1960s and 1970s which allowed the warming from carbon dioxide to emerge again.

EPA's attempt to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide would also be a disaster if the Trump Administration allows the Obama regulations to be implemented since CO2 is not a pollutant, does not have a significant effect on global temperatures, and would have had huge adverse effects on the economy, on plants, and on poor people for no purpose.

Writing in today's Guardian and last week's Mail on Sunday, Professor Myles Allen, head of climate dynamics at Oxford University, proposes that governments introduce a new regulation requiring companies that extract or import fossil fuels to sequester and store a fraction of the carbon dioxide they emit.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee, on a mostly partisan vote, approved the bill that would halt EPA regulations that began this year to control emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants linked to climate change.

On regulations, the platform says Republicans will prohibit EPA from regulating carbon dioxide and repeal the «Clean Power» Plan.

Two new federal air pollution regulations are expected to spur the closure of up to 69 aging, inefficient, coal - fired power plants, reducing both harmful air pollutants and emissions of the climate destabilizing greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2), according to an AP survey of US power plant operators and a preliminary Breakthrough Institute analysis of the likely impacts on CO2 emissions.

A hard Brexit is one where we have a bonfire of regulations; where we have no truck with experts who advise us on risks of ethylene - based cladding or excess carbon dioxide in our atmosphere; where «risk assessment» is a joke we have down the club; where the little people enjoy the fruits of «trickle down» economics in a thriving Britain, free of (allegedly) over-weaning regulation.