Breaking News: U.S. and China Reach Climate Deal After Secret Negotiations
Log In - The New York Times
Log In - The New York Times
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Breaking News: U.S. and China Reach Climate Deal After Secret Negotiations
Log In - The New York Times
Breaking News: U.S. and China Reach Climate Deal After Secret Negotiations
Log In - The New York Times
Good!
The leaders of the incoming GOP Congress said the president had it out for the American energy consumer and vowed to stop his enhanced regulatory scheme come January. “This announcement is yet another sign that the president intends to double down on his job-crushing policies no matter how devastating the impact for America’s heartland and the country as a whole," House Speaker John Boehner said. "And it is the latest example of the president’s crusade against affordable, reliable energy that is already hurting jobs and squeezing middle-class families."
Mitch McConnell, the incoming Senate majority leader, who is the preeminent protector of coal in the Congress, said the deal was "an unrealistic plan" that would "ensure higher utility rates and far fewer jobs." The chief climate-change denier in the Senate, and the likely next chairman of the its environment committee, James Inhofe, denounced the pact as a "non-binding charade."
Yes, that will happen some: no pain, no gain. Right? We are addicted to something as a nation that will take some effort to switching over. We can take those coal jobs and move them into solar installs and manufacturing/corp. Jobs. At this point i have no tolerance for excuses from that side.Don't underestimate the importance of regional impacts. Mitch McConnell is absolutely correct: the EPA's proposed regulations on carbon would have a short-run negative impact on Kentucky, as well as West Virginia, Montana, and all the other coal-producing states. And it would have a short-term negative impact on the larger number of states that have enjoyed cheap electricity from coal--artificially cheap, I would argue, but cheap nonetheless. I have no doubt that the overall effect of the regulation will be good for the American economy and the world environment, but there are transition costs that are real, and they fall disproportionately on some states' citizens.
The crime is that the Republicans killed their own approach to address climate change, cap-and-trade, which would have generated a revenue stream that could have been channeled back to offset the impacts on particular groups of citizens. Of course, the money probably would have been hijacked as 'corporate welfare' for companies like Peabody Coal that are harmed, rather than Peabody Coal's unemployed miners.