You can save money, or you can save the planet

The debate on this plant is pretty simple.  Do we want to put in place a new power plant that will provide another source of energy at affordable costs using a very abundant and economical US natural resource or do we want to go back in standard of living a hundred years or more. 

The so-called environmentalists like to through all types of “oh, wow” numbers around, like the tons of pollution.  They do not mention that this plant must be built with essentialy state of the art pollution control.  The effects of pollutants are examined for impact on ambient air quality over large distances.  If the plant has any degradation on ambient air quality then it must address those pror to construction.

The opponents mention mercury emissions.  This was the big cry before they discovered global warming.  About 80% of mercury in the environment comes from natural sources.  Most of the anthropogenic mercury pollution came from a, now discontinued, process of converting brine to chlorine and caustic soda for industrial uses.  This mercury-cell process has been discontinued.  Also, mercury is a great scare. There are no doecumented reports of mercury poisoning or ill effects other than high exposure to elemental mercury or massive mercury discharges about 50 years ago in Japan. All this is “it could” be harmful.  Yes, methyl mercury is a very hazardous chemical, but not in the concentrations you can ingest.  The Great Lakes Fish advisories are based on someone eating a couple pounds of salmon every day for 70 years, to get a 1 in a million increased chance of problems. 

The enviro’s have latched onto global warming.  All the global warming scares are from computer models designed to “find” the affect.  The models cannot predict the climate in 2000, much less 2100.  The models ignore water vapor which accounts for 93% of the so-called greenhouse effect.  The anthropenic global warming scares ignore the fact that average temperature has gone up and down as CO2 (neasured by the way in only one place) increases.  We have had such reports that 1998 (the peak of an el nino event) was the hottest year in a century only to discover the statistics were pooched. We had alarmist reports that 2008 was the warmest winter on record until someone discovered that the total effect came from using September data in October. Somehow the alarmist dismiss the fact that the sun has some influence on climate.  All the “warming” is based on increasing temperatures from something known as the “little ice age” which ended about 1870 or so.  Even the UN IPPCC keeps decreasing their over-estimate of sea level rise.  PS, the polar bear population has been increasing during this period of global warming, not decreasing.  We stopped hunting them.

Have you noticed that the enviro’s also fight every alternative energy project?  They don’t want any growth.  We can just go back to the emissions of 1700’s and live like that.  By the way, since there has been no increase in average temperatures in a decade, we now worry about climate change, not global warming. 

The carbon tax does nothing for so-called global warming, it does find a splendid new way to increase your taxes.

The choice is very simple. Do you want a continued supply of abundant energy at prices we can afford, or do we want to pay a lot more for less based on extremely flawed, political science?  Me, I opt for more energy, more jobs and an increased standard of living.

I’m willing to accept that there maybe some form of global warming occuring even if I don’t think we can say for sure what its causative agent/s is.

That being the case we should be humble
enough to not attempt to micro manage our economic affairs down to whether a power plant in Virginia can cause or stop the phenomenom.

One can find global warming effects of the same magnitude predicted by even the most alarmist econut by getting in your car and driving a few hundred miles. Will Richmond’s climate become more like that of say, South Carolina or Jacksonville, Florida in a centuries time? Would that be so bad? Might Boston’s winters become more like those of Richmond?

Let’s understand one thing above all else- A warm planet is preferable to a cold one. If we can extend the tree line further north into Siberia and Canada is that a bad thing? If the growing season is longer will that lead to less or more food for the hungry? If
our pollution is staving another ICE AGE have we really ‘polluted’ the planet or sacrificed the Polar bear to preserve a million other species?

First, global warming doesn’t exist. It’s a hoax designed by Al Gore to earn him billions from the Ponzi scheme he created called carbon credits. Nothing more. Hundreds of scientists have debunked global warming and proven that the climate is cyclical, and the cyclical aspect of weather shows that we are within five years of returning to a cooler climate after 20 years of a hotter climate.

Now, that being proven, we need to find alternative sources of energy. But we have so much conventional domestic sources of energy that we do not tap because of this idiotic, ridiculous, facetious concept of global warming that we could provide energy for our country for another 100 years uninterrupted. We need to be tapping these sources while we develop the alternative sources.

So the coal plant should be approved, built, and put into operation. Coal, contrary to the stupid headline on this story, will not kill the planet.

This premise is all wrong.  Carbon dioxide will not destroy the planet…period.  All the carbon contained in the coal that will be burned by this and other coal fired plants was once part of the environment – obviously it was, after all it was sequestered by living plants.  And guess what, last time all that carbon was part of the environment, the planet was not a burned up cinder.  It was a warm most place very conducive to life.

with co2 at less than .4% of the atmosphere the argument that co2 is
causing the climate change is faulse at best and a flat out lie at worst.