EPA to propose power plant emission cuts


The Environmental Protection Agency will propose legislation mandating U.S. power plants to cut greenhouse-gas emissions by an average of 30% by 2030 from levels 25 years earlier.

The proposal will be unveiled later today, and is in line with President Barack Obama's climate-change and environmental protection agenda.

Each state will have different reduction standards, with the national average being 25% by 2020 and 30% by 2030.

The law would affect hundreds of fossil-fuel power plants, and would strike the nation's 600 coal-fired plants the hardest.

ETFs: KOL

From other sites
Comments (55)
  • Seth Walters
    , contributor
    Comments (675) | Send Message
     
    Cool, someone can hang a bunch of solar panels around a coal plant and hit the new emissions target without reducing plant utilization. I'm sure US energy needs will keep growing.
    2 Jun 2014, 04:31 AM Reply Like
  • Doyee51986
    , contributor
    Comments (328) | Send Message
     
    We don't need to be hanging shit around a smoke stack. We need to rip those things down, and lay out wind and solar energy. I'm also sure that the US energy needs will continue to grow; moreover, I'm also equally sure that if we capture a fraction of the total wind and solar energy on our planet we could generate enough electriciy to support the entire planets present and future needs.

     

    Sun and wind aren't going away, but coal will either stay in the ground, or will be CO2, methane, soot, and other crap in our atmosphere instead. We add CO2 and methane simply from having the ice caps mel through trapped greenhouse gas escaping into the atmosphere. Time for some FAN and TAN stocks.
    2 Jun 2014, 04:18 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message
     
    What happens when it's dark?

     

    I don't know about you, But I need my lights, AC & TV on when it's dark.

     

    My Coal powered TESLA has to charge at night while the sun does not shine as well.

     

    Coal is cool, only one letter different than the word Coal itself..

     

    It is all American too. No Arabs and foreign wars required.

     

    Go Coal.

     

    Bullish All American Coal!
    2 Jun 2014, 04:27 PM Reply Like
  • Rope a Dope
    , contributor
    Comments (708) | Send Message
     
    Alternative energy will happen in time, but there are no magic Liberal switches that can make it happen overnight without destroying something else, namely the economy. Or maybe I should say what is left of our economy.

     

    You Liberals destroy you touch. You have the track record of an F5.
    2 Jun 2014, 04:34 PM Reply Like
  • Doyee51986
    , contributor
    Comments (328) | Send Message
     
    "We have proved the commercial profit of sun power in the tropics and have more particularly proved that after our stores of oil and coal are exhausted the human race can receive unlimited power from the rays of the sun."

     

    —Frank Shuman, New York Times, July 2, 1916

     

    He was correct then, and he's correct now. If we were building his solar panels for the last century our entire energy system would likely be based on solar by now.

     

    Speaking of track record. Bush Presidency started with the largest surplus in our nations history and turned it into, at the time, the largest deficit in our nations history when he left. It took 1/2 of Obama's first term just to undo the 800 THOUSAND jobs we were losing EVERY MONTH.

     

    Fast-forward and you'll see 50 straight months of consecutive job growth under this president. Show me the last Republican president who has that on their resume.
    2 Jun 2014, 08:19 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message
     
    Stop with the Dot.com bubble, along with Clinton's opportunity to nail Bin Laden before it happened.

     

    Or, should I mention Summers, Clinton & Rubin throwing out Brooksley Born on her arse, along with the repeal of Glass-Stegal.

     

    They love people like you. Pretending there really is a difference between parties.

     

    Hysterical. Do you work for them? Tell us please.

     

    http://bit.ly/195Yn5o

     

    Keep failing to acknowledge the bubble blown buy .90 cent gasoline from the most inexpensive war of all time (desert Storm) $23.66 per capita cost, along with it's stimulative effect on the economy and the middle class. While you play your rhetoric to do just the opposite, crush the middle class & poor with energy costs.

     

    http://bit.ly/fvRg6L

     

    Spare us
    2 Jun 2014, 08:27 PM Reply Like
  • Rope a Dope
    , contributor
    Comments (708) | Send Message
     
    When all else fails, blame Bush or scream racism. You are a true, card carrying Liberal but you only continue to underscore your lack of comprehension with your posts.

     

    There was NEVER a surplus under Clinton. He came close in FY2000, but always ran a deficit. Clinton siphoned money from the SS funds and that made the debt numbers look better, but look at intra-government holdings and you can see how he cooked the books. http://1.usa.gov/1etzFik

     

    Under Clinton, there were PROJECTED surpluses, largely based on anticipated receipts during the dot-com era, but that turned out to be a bubble and the surpluses never materialized.

     

    I liked Clinton and he was one of my favorite presidents. One great thing I will say about Clinton is that if there was someone skilled in the art of compromise, it was Bill Clinton. This current idiot in the White House ignores the US Constitution on a daily basis and thinks he can bypass the legislative process, something that inherently dangerous, mostly for Americans but also for Obama.

     

    You left out additional elements of Obama’s legacy; record poverty rates, record number of Americans receiving government assistance, record low LFPR, record number of Americans who have given up hope of ever finding a job … and the list goes on. And of the jobs created under Obama, we have never had an imbalance like this of high paying jobs to low paying part-time jobs being created. They show up as positive numbers, but in reality, they’re nowhere as good as they look.

     

    Obama will go down in history as THE worst US President ever. With 70% of our economy driven by discretionary spending, no administration has done more to undermine our economy. Obamacare alone threatens to remove a significant portion of the amount of money Americans have for discretionary spending and it is simple math to project what will happen when you undermine something that drives 70% of our economy. Obama promised to save the average American $2,500 a year and had that happened, it would have fueled our economy like nothing we have ever seen before. But, the exact opposite is happening and Obamacare will undermine our economy like nothing we have ever seen before. When the downward spiral begins, there won’t be anything to stop it. The Fed is out of ammo.

     

    I will reiterate; the US has $200 Trillion in unfunded liabilities and this ‘administration’ can't produce a budget. It’s not that the US will be bankrupt in the future, we’re bankrupt now. Even the CBO says we are on an unsustainable path. I’m not sure what part of ‘unsustainable’ Liberals don’t understand.

     

    The guy from 1916 probably had some good ideas but I suspect the government refused to subsidize them?
    3 Jun 2014, 04:41 AM Reply Like
  • Doyee51986
    , contributor
    Comments (328) | Send Message
     
    I can hammer issues you are in doubt on further, but first thing was about debt. If you want to be a stickler, you are technical right about it not being a true "surplus". But to be fair, I am referring to what is quoted below, it's not just something out of thing air.

     

    "In 2001, the CBO projected that the total Clinton surplus of about $280 billion would balloon to $5.9 trillion worth of cumulative surpluses through 2011, when in reality the accumulated deficits reached $6 trillion at the end of that time period.

     

    That's pretty bad arithmetic. So what happened?

     

    Read more: http://read.bi/1osgY4M

     

    http://abt.cm/1osgVWB

     

    http://wapo.st/1osgVWH
    3 Jun 2014, 09:41 AM Reply Like
  • Doyee51986
    , contributor
    Comments (328) | Send Message
     
    I feel the comment above shows that it is true, both Clinton and Obama technically had a contribution to the debt, but they also show what caused the major growth of the debt, and that most of the debt (approximately 46%) is the fault of Bush.

     

    Record poverty, record assistance -> blame the poverty president? What about the people being cut off food stamps, or the litany of other things House republicans shot down. They're equally if not more so at fault, along with population growth and a continuing divide of financial equality that Mr. Socialist (Obama) was actually kinda helping with that to try and make a more even playing field, thats why companies contracting with the government now have to pay women and minorities equal pay.

     

    I'm glad to see you talking about Obamacare ruining our nation, after 50 bills from the House Republicans getting shot down and over 8 million individuals enrolled, I started to lose hope Republicans would continue to complain about a program flawed primarily in that it didn't take it far enough to a public option.

     

    You may disagree, but I think of this gentleman having this conversation with you.

     

    "Dean Angstadt, a self-employed logger with a bad heart, says it's really quite simple: If he hadn't signed up for Obamacare when his life was on the line, if instead he had continued to heed the lies on Fox News, he "probably would have ended up falling over dead."

     

    http://wapo.st/1pCzACX

     

    Theres going to be 100's more example as the program continues to grow. Yet all the horror stories never pan out. If this program is so shitty why can't Republicans in congress attack it with solid examples of people being impacted by the program. None of their criticism ever holds up to fact checking.

     

    200 Trillion in liabilities isn't nice, nobody likes a huge credit card debt, but the debt under Obama was mostly tied to the Stimulus, and other things that were genuine (albeit debatable things) to help the economy. I don't mind that debt is growing when there is a rationale, because I know in Japan you can have a lost decade if you cut spending when you're economies hurting most. It's smart to borrow when moneys cheap, although obviously that can't go on indefinitely. I will say that the DEBT, not the deficit, has been reduced dramatically under this president - at the fastest rate in 60 years.

     

    http://bit.ly/1pCzxXM

     

    Lastly I'm not sure about subsidization, just heard on Cosmos his solar panels were ripped down to make WWI planes.
    3 Jun 2014, 09:55 AM Reply Like
  • Rope a Dope
    , contributor
    Comments (708) | Send Message
     
    The key word in the SA outline above is ‘agenda’. Obama does not govern; he rules.
    2 Jun 2014, 05:10 AM Reply Like
  • Doyee51986
    , contributor
    Comments (328) | Send Message
     
    We need to cut our greenhouse gas emissions.
    2 Jun 2014, 03:59 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message
     
    Why?

     

    It was very cold this winter. I think we need more warming.

     

    Just look what happened to NatGas & propane this past winter.
    2 Jun 2014, 04:04 PM Reply Like
  • Doyee51986
    , contributor
    Comments (328) | Send Message
     
    Watch the Cosmos episode that aired last night, and then explain why you'd want to use any other energy source besides renewables. We need to be supporting wind and solar, not burning coal and natural gas. They're running out in 40-100 years, so whether you like it or not we're gonna be forced to stop using them eventually.
    2 Jun 2014, 04:13 PM Reply Like
  • Rope a Dope
    , contributor
    Comments (708) | Send Message
     
    I'll ask 1980's question again; why? Please don't come back with more man made gullible warming crap.
    2 Jun 2014, 04:18 PM Reply Like
  • Doyee51986
    , contributor
    Comments (328) | Send Message
     
    And don't give me your Marco Rubio it's not man made crap either. Show me proof that it isn't man-made, and then I'll show you a chart of atmospheric CO2 you putz. Are you a physicist, or just some on the internet with an opinion.
    2 Jun 2014, 04:20 PM Reply Like
  • Rope a Dope
    , contributor
    Comments (708) | Send Message
     
    The temperatures on Mars are rising pretty much the same as Earth despite the fact Al Gore does not have a mansion there.

     

    Spare me with the CO2 crap too, already been debunked by non Maurice Strong associated scientists.
    2 Jun 2014, 04:26 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message
     
    Those minimum wage people will really need their wage hiked now.

     

    As far as the 1%? I don't think they'll feel it very much.
    2 Jun 2014, 06:47 AM Reply Like
  • Doyee51986
    , contributor
    Comments (328) | Send Message
     
    You're all over the place and I assume you're implying that increased electricity costs will hurt minimum wage workers - not supported by the facts.

     

    "Critics complain that the rule will drive up electricity costs, but the E.P.A forecasts that the rule will increase energy efficiency, leading to an average decrease of about 8 percent on electricity bills nationally when the program is fully implemented in 2030."

     

    http://nyti.ms/1nIzpGe#
    2 Jun 2014, 04:11 PM Reply Like
  • Rope a Dope
    , contributor
    Comments (708) | Send Message
     
    "the EPA forecasts". The EPA has as much knowledge of economics as Goldman Sachs has about the environment.

     

    The US Chamber of Commerce predicts 250,000 jobs a year will be lost. Par for the course for Obama & clueless Liberals.
    2 Jun 2014, 05:14 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message
     
    16202282,

     

    Hysterical,

     

    There is NOTHING more regressive than energy costs for the lower 25%

     

    Nothing. It's math, not politics.
    I could care less what some liberal rag (with an ulterior motive) may think.

     

    Even if,

     

    I'm sure your projections of realized gains by 2030, will help keep them warm next winter.

     

    But I'm sure you have a Gov't entitlement program to help with that as well.
    2 Jun 2014, 05:21 PM Reply Like
  • Doyee51986
    , contributor
    Comments (328) | Send Message
     
    Attacking the speaker doesn't help without facts. You wanna act like someone on an investing forum is getting government entitlement? Possibly, but I can assure you, not the case for me I'm a biomedical engineer with no need for entitlement programs thrown my way.

     

    Even better, attack the motivation of the speak. Obviously my rinky dink position in alternative energy is the sole basis for my comments. That's kinda retarded to believe, and makes me wonder if the only reason you're stating an opinion is because you also have an ulterior motive.

     

    I'm long
    Solar Wind Biodiesel
    TAN, CSIQ, FSLR. FAN AMRS, PEIX

     

    I'm short: CLD and KOL.

     

    Now that any ulterior motive has been disclosed, I'll note that we could have had solar energy handle

     

    Don't whine about the upcoming winter, because we could start today switching from non-renewable to renewable sources. Note what Frank Shuman said 98 years ago back in 1916.

     

    "We have proved the commercial profit of sun power in the tropics and have more particularly proved that after our stores of oil and coal are exhausted the human race can receive unlimited power from the rays of the sun."

     

    —Frank Shuman, New York Times, July 2, 1916

     

    He was correct then, and he's correct now.
    2 Jun 2014, 08:15 PM Reply Like
  • phxcrane
    , contributor
    Comments (749) | Send Message
     
    This will all be overturned well before 2030. This is just more politics for the midterm election.
    2 Jun 2014, 07:28 AM Reply Like
  • Doyee51986
    , contributor
    Comments (328) | Send Message
     
    It's not politics, the problem is people don't take global warming seriously. Investors should short KOL, and all the other coal ETF's.
    2 Jun 2014, 04:01 PM Reply Like
  • Humble Value Miner
    , contributor
    Comments (477) | Send Message
     
    short at these prices? I am for clean energy but we will have years and years of transition
    2 Jun 2014, 04:47 PM Reply Like
  • Rope a Dope
    , contributor
    Comments (708) | Send Message
     
    It is politics when one person with a pen starts legislating.
    2 Jun 2014, 04:58 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message
     
    Only 2-1/2 years to go.

     

    Things should get better soon.
    2 Jun 2014, 04:59 PM Reply Like
  • Rope a Dope
    , contributor
    Comments (708) | Send Message
     
    963 days; I keep track of the day in my Excel trading ledger.

     

    Let's hope enough Americans grow a brain in November and take away his pen.
    2 Jun 2014, 05:08 PM Reply Like
  • Doyee51986
    , contributor
    Comments (328) | Send Message
     
    Coal's cheap, but worthless, so let's get it to 0 ;).
    2 Jun 2014, 05:22 PM Reply Like
  • Doyee51986
    , contributor
    Comments (328) | Send Message
     
    I made 10k betting for Obama, and against Mitt Romney on Intrade.com. You guys are fools if you think you're gonnna have a Republican get elected in 2016.
    2 Jun 2014, 05:24 PM Reply Like
  • Rope a Dope
    , contributor
    Comments (708) | Send Message
     
    Because your party can run on success?
    2 Jun 2014, 05:26 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message
     
    Not success, Vote buying with OPM. And free printed money from the Fed.
    2 Jun 2014, 05:28 PM Reply Like
  • Doyee51986
    , contributor
    Comments (328) | Send Message
     
    You really need a rationale as to why a Republican won't win in 2016? I give them a 1% only because the Koch brothers can throw unlimited money at any race because the supreme court was packed by Bush.

     

    Who is your candidate for success?

     

    Marco I don't believe in Global Warming but can't back it up Rubio, Rand Wikipedia Paul, Rick Can't remember the departments I wanna remove Perry, Rick I'm a Religious Joke Santorum? Give me a break...

     

    I can go on, but seriously, the voting demographic is moving away from old rich white people (or the base of the Republican Party) and becoming a younger less white and more liberal demographic. And all Republicans can do is piss of Mexicans over immigration, piss off woman over reproductive rights, and gerrymander house districts to keep minorities out and white people in.

     

    Republicans have control of the house, but less individuals voted for a Republican House member than for a Democratic House member. You can't have that trend every year without some of the Republican party sand castle eventually caving.
    2 Jun 2014, 08:04 PM Reply Like
  • 6151621
    , contributor
    Comments (1172) | Send Message
     
    Last winter in the northeast lack of natural gas would have meant brown-outs in freezing weather if those coal plants weren't around. Too many people don't really get what these regulations will cost.
    2 Jun 2014, 07:48 AM Reply Like
  • Doyee51986
    , contributor
    Comments (328) | Send Message
     
    A fraction of the total solar and wind energy can power the entire world. A lack of regulations will make our earth look like Venus, too many people like you don't really get what a LACK of regulations will cost.
    2 Jun 2014, 04:02 PM Reply Like
  • 11146471
    , contributor
    Comments (1356) | Send Message
     
    Well Done Mr. President!

     

    Someone needs to have the will to move things forward! (although I own some Coal!)
    2 Jun 2014, 09:12 AM Reply Like
  • Doyee51986
    , contributor
    Comments (328) | Send Message
     
    Sell your coal, and short it. Buy FAN and TAN. Support Wind and Solar.
    2 Jun 2014, 04:08 PM Reply Like
  • thb007
    , contributor
    Comments (8) | Send Message
     
    Too much noise, people hear, but don't listen. We can ship to other countries, NatGas demand will outstrip supply.
    2 Jun 2014, 09:22 AM Reply Like
  • 6151621
    , contributor
    Comments (1172) | Send Message
     
    It doesn't matter where the Green house gases (GHG) come from they become global very quick. This is the folly of the EPA -- they aren't a global regulator.
    2 Jun 2014, 09:29 AM Reply Like
  • Doyee51986
    , contributor
    Comments (328) | Send Message
     
    China's a problem, but so are we, and China pledged back in August $275 billion over the next 5 years to cut record air pollution. We're never going to have global air regulation, so a quitter/point-the-fing... attitude is far worse than trying a from the ground up approach, especially when your starting point is the 2nd largest green house gas emitter in the world behind China.
    2 Jun 2014, 04:06 PM Reply Like
  • Doyee51986
    , contributor
    Comments (328) | Send Message
     
    The regulations are the reason I am now short KOL through put options. F coal.
    2 Jun 2014, 04:07 PM Reply Like
  • Mongoose7916
    , contributor
    Comments (233) | Send Message
     
    You are married to your politics with your money...kind of an investing sin.
    2 Jun 2014, 04:16 PM Reply Like
  • Doyee51986
    , contributor
    Comments (328) | Send Message
     
    I invest in Solar and Wind Energy, in biodiesel, and I short oil and gas. Are you trying to imply the fact I want to take ownership in advancing our energy future is a sin? Sounds like a stretch, if not the exact opposite of a sin.

     

    IS the UC system a sinner for coal divestment?

     

    I'm doing it not for politics, but because this day forward I'm standing up and saying we need to stop acting like coals/natural gas are viable options. That's a load a crap from the oil industry. We need to shut these plants down and start setting up a truly renewable and sustainable energy infrastructure.
    2 Jun 2014, 04:24 PM Reply Like
  • Mongoose7916
    , contributor
    Comments (233) | Send Message
     
    There is a difference between a sin and an investing sin.

     

    from http://bit.ly/1p1Knnu
    Deadly Sin #6: Lust

     

    There’s a thin line between love and hate, and an even thinner line between wrath and lust. Biblically speaking, lust refers to excessive or inappropriate desires of a sexual nature. In terms of investing, lust takes on a more romantic hue, in which an investor “falls in love” with his investments. Since an investment is not a legitimate object of love, this can be rightly considered “lust.”

     

    It’s important not to anthropomorphize your investments. This is especially easy when it comes to stocks and bonds. For example, you might really like Target. You shop there with your family and you love the ambiance. You love what the company stands for and what it represents. However, you make a grave mistake when you conflate Target the company and Target the stock. Target the company owns and manages stores that you love to shop at, and it may earn your loyalty and even your love. Target the stock, however, is just a piece of paper—it neither wants nor deserves your love. The stock is a vehicle through which you make or lose money, and if you fall in love with it, the latter is much more likely.

     

    Another way to fall in love with an investment is to grow an attachment to the investment itself, as opposed to the company it represents. For instance, maybe you’ve held shares of an obscure REIT for years, and it has been very good to you in terms of both dividends and capital appreciation. You may feel loyalty to the investment, but this loyalty is not warranted. Lust is the flipside of wrath, and whereas wrath encourages you to buy or sell out of anger, lust inspires you to hold out of misplaced allegiance. Your only allegiance in the investment world should be to the bottom line of your account statement.
    2 Jun 2014, 04:32 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message
     
    Mongoose,

     

    Very well said. Loyalty is bad for investing I have no loyalty to Obama's green energy schemes he gambles with OPM.

     

    I like Coal not Obama.
    2 Jun 2014, 04:35 PM Reply Like
  • Rope a Dope
    , contributor
    Comments (708) | Send Message
     
    Agree well said. However, one caveat; never post anything like that in a TSLA thread!!
    2 Jun 2014, 04:37 PM Reply Like
  • Mongoose7916
    , contributor
    Comments (233) | Send Message
     
    But I have something to disarm the TSLA cadre. http://bit.ly/1nIFkuX
    2 Jun 2014, 04:46 PM Reply Like
  • Doyee51986
    , contributor
    Comments (328) | Send Message
     
    Investment is ownership, it's not about love for a company. I'm becoming a fractional owner of the company, such as Target, when I invest in them. You're trying to make money because you feel the company is worth more, or you short because you feel the company is overvalued - but that gain/loss is through ownership, and I take pride in ownership.
    2 Jun 2014, 05:26 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message
     
    CLD,

     

    Down only .07 cents despite leftist attack.

     

    Do not be afraid. Buy the Best of Breed.
    2 Jun 2014, 05:01 PM Reply Like
  • Doyee51986
    , contributor
    Comments (328) | Send Message
     
    Truth comes out, you're long Coal.

     

    Do you have any other short recommendations for me? :)
    2 Jun 2014, 05:27 PM Reply Like
  • Rope a Dope
    , contributor
    Comments (708) | Send Message
     
    You lack the comprehension skills necessary to be an investor.
    2 Jun 2014, 06:52 PM Reply Like
  • Doyee51986
    , contributor
    Comments (328) | Send Message
     
    I'm short CLD now 109 shares and I'm a bioengineer. Try to minimize the use of ad-hominum attacks when you've said nothing that either A) Makes you sound like the intelligent individual of the conversation or B) Stated a rationale as to why you're talking shit.

     

    What attributes do you have that give you the comprehension to invest that I lack? The fact that I'm not stupid enough to vote for a Republican?

     

    You say liberals ruin everything we touch, what about the American Auto Industry? Republicans woulda let that collapse, and even more of a percentage of cars would be coming from Asia.

     

    You state the temperature on Mars is raising as quickly on Earth. That's complete BS. Where is you're proof for that? Lodged in your asshole?

     

    I'm sorry the EPA's primary focus isn't economics, but that doesn't make their numbers inaccurate. Back your shit up or can it. You're trying to act like you've outsmarted 99% of Environmental Scientists and the entire EPA because you hold an inaccurate view not supported by facts.

     

    You act like switching to alternative would DESTROY the economy. It would just hurt the profit margins of oil and gas companies, you wanna act like fired coal workers wouldn't be able to help install wind and solar?

     

    "Spare me with the CO2 crap too, already been debunked by non Maurice Strong associated scientists." You want act like basic physics is debatable with no facts to back yourself up and it makes you look foolish. Look up the absorption spectrum of CO2, pretend for a second you're intelligent, look at the wavelength of the rays of light coming from the sun. Wiki the word Ozone, figure out why OZONE GOOD CO2/METHANE BAD, and you'll quickly realize anyone with half a brain isn't blaming the sun or volcanos like - they are blaming the near tripling of atmospheric CO2 over since the start of the industrial revolution.

     

    That big as spike at the end of the graph isn't solar flares, volcanoes, or some other scapegoat that the oil and gas industry has paid scientists to say. It's carbon shat out by human beings.

     

    http://bit.ly/MdtT6K
    2 Jun 2014, 07:56 PM Reply Like
  • Rope a Dope
    , contributor
    Comments (708) | Send Message
     
    Our economy is already destroyed; no need to wait for anything there. We have roughly $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities and this 'administration' can't even produce a budget. What does moron #1 do? Add more weight to a country still on its knees.

     

    CO2 levels have spiked, temperatures have not. All the previous IPCC crap was based on hypothesis and projections, none have even come close to playing out the way the 'scientists' said they would.

     

    As I said, you lack the comprehension skills necessary to be an investor.
    2 Jun 2014, 08:14 PM Reply Like
  • Doyee51986
    , contributor
    Comments (328) | Send Message
     
    50 straight months of consecutive job growth. I know Republicans tried to ruin our economy, through deregulation, but you guys failed, and Democrats made sure we didn't lose GM. You're welcome.

     

    Can't produce a budget. Watch Fox news much? I can elaborate more on why that's stupid if you like.
    http://cbsloc.al/1p2hUxQ

     

    C02 levels have spiked, we can agree on that, and Temperature has not??? Light of shorter wave length passes through CO2, hits earth, the wave length elongates and this is trapped in the atmosphere by CO2. Ozone just reflects the shorter wave length light. You admit CO2 has spiked, now follow my physics and quit pretending like you've proved something. More CO2, means more trapping of greenhouse gases -> higher temperature.

     

    Still not clear what you're lack of understanding has to do with your claim as to my inability to invest ;).
    2 Jun 2014, 08:27 PM Reply Like
  • DH51
    , contributor
    Comments (705) | Send Message
     
    The most credible climatologists are predicting a cooling trend ala 1970's. These are folks with a track record of success who didn't feel the need to "hide the decline".

     

    At the same time the human caused planetary warming religionists want us to get rid of a cheap & abundant fuel that can keep us warm. These people are dangerous.

     

    So adding huge regulatory costs to power plants won't increase the cost of electricity? coughlunacycough

     

    Yes, Obamacare was supposed to make our health costs cheaper. I've heard this drivel before. It's a bunch of spew.

     

    So Obama is the jobs president now? Tell that to all the people existing off student loans or living in moms basement. At 40. Participation rate anyone? Spew.
    2 Jun 2014, 11:24 PM Reply Like
  • Doyee51986
    , contributor
    Comments (328) | Send Message
     
    The most credible climatologists predict a cooling trend? CoughBScough.

     

    What's a human caused planetary warming religionist, no idea, or why they should be considered dangerous.

     

    Rachel Maddow last night DRILLED people like you who just myopically assume that regulations = more cost.

     

    But auto industry leaders, Maddow explained, have long strained when told to adapt to new regulations. Then-Ford Motors president Lee Iacocca complained in 1970, for example, that that year’s version of the Clean Air Act could imperil the company’s production efforts in the U.S. Four years earlier, chief executive officer Henry Ford II told lawmakers that the company would “have to close down” if the U.S. passed a law mandating seatbelts be installed in every new vehicle.

     

    Not supported by the facts.

     

    http://bit.ly/1osnt7C

     

    Healthcare: The health-care law's expansion of insurance coverage will cost $104 billion less than projected over the next decade, according to revised estimates from nonpartisan budget analysts Monday. Obamacare's lower-than-expected costs will come largely because premiums will be cheaper than previously thought.

     

    http://wapo.st/1osnt7H

     

    Jobs: 50 consecutive months of job growth when Bush left an economy losing almost a million jobs a month. You should have a talk with House Republicans about the 40 year old in mom's basement. They are cutting their food stamps, their unemployment extensions, and you want to then point the finger at the president whose party created COBRA, and all these other types of systems? Didn't Obama also announce he's trying to help people with student loan debt? Rhetorical question.

     

    http://bit.ly/1osnto0
    3 Jun 2014, 10:10 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs