The Sift Here’s what we’re Sifting today

Trump relaxes anti-coal regulations

by Rachel Lynn Aldrich
Posted 6/19/19, 01:12 pm

The Trump administration on Wednesday finalized the rollback of the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, a sweeping attempt to reduce U.S. reliance on fossil fuels. Environmental Protection Agency chief Andrew Wheeler signed the replacement Affordable Clean Energy rule, which gives states more leeway in requiring coal plants to implement upgraded technology.

“Americans want reliable energy that they can afford,” Wheeler said at a news conference, adding that there’s no denying “the fact that fossil fuels will continue to be an important part of the mix.”

Democrats and environmental activists immediately slammed the move. New York Attorney General Letitia James announced that the state will sue to block the change, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., dubbed the new rule the “Dirty Power Scam,” calling climate change “the existential threat of our time.”

President Donald Trump promised to support the hard-hit coal industry as part of his 2016 campaign. Mandy Gunasekara, a former EPA senior official who helped write the new rule, said the former regulations were “designed largely to put coal out of business.” Supporters of the revision argue that the EPA overstepped its authority with the original plan.

“This action is recalibrating EPA so it aligns with being the agency to protect public health and the environment in a way that respects the limits of the law,” Gunasekara said.


Read more from The Sift Sign up for The Sift email
Rachel Lynn Aldrich

Rachel is an assistant editor for WORLD Digital. Follow Rachel on Twitter @Rachel_Lynn_A.

Read more from this writer

Comments

  • OldMike
    Posted: Wed, 06/19/2019 05:39 pm

    Coal power generation today is much cleaner than in the past, and it will be even better in the future.  Same for automobiles.  It's really odd to me that the same folks who tell us to "trust" the science that says man-caused climate change is going to kill us (if we don't immediately give up a lot of our lifestyle), also seem to believe the scientists are incompetent who are making huge progress in supplying the energy we need with less pollution.

    But of course a considerable portion of those same folks do not believe an unborn baby is human, and that a woman becomes a man (or vice versa) just by wishing it.  Who is it who really does not believe in science?

  • Allen Johnson
    Posted: Fri, 06/21/2019 06:03 pm

    Dear Mike,
    I presume you are old. Therefore, you will not have to personally endure the effects of increasing global climate chaos. 
    I also challenge your illogical statement that presumes many of us who do trust climate science that we support abortion and gender fluidity. Of many examples, I will point to Pope Francis.
    The upshot is that Mammon is the driving force behind climate change denial. The dollar bill is the "green."
     World News Service would have integrity if it would interview Christian climate scientists such as Katharine Hayhoe.
     

  • OldMike
    Posted: Wed, 06/26/2019 06:07 pm

    Mr. Johnson, you are quite correct, I’m old.  In 70 years I also have seen scientists change their considered and evidence-based opinions on many things they were previously willing to bet their lives on. Among others, in the late 50’s some were telling us we were about to enter a period of drastic global cooling. 

    But you are wrong to assume I don’t care because I’m old. I have grandchildren, nieces, nephews , etc. 

    Two things propel a great deal of my skepticism:  First, many of the elites in the world (including Americans) are quite anti-democracy and oppose quite a few individual freedoms we Americans take for granted. The obvious globalist foci of many of those demanding we take immediate drastic action to curb the things that are “causing” warming are rather alarming.  Motivations are not always what are stated.  

    Second, I think in all I’ve heard from the climate change alarmists, there has never been any acknowledgement that (presuming the climate changes are as large as the alarmists claim) some areas of the earth now less suitable for habitation, growing food etc. will become much more hospitable than at present.  There’s ample evidence that has happened in the historic past, as well as in prehistoric times. Greenland, for instance, around 1000-1200 years ago had a dairy industry. For you non-farmers, that means grass was growing in pastures for cattle to feed on, and in sufficient quantities to harvest hay to store for winter feed. Obviously, Greenland’s climate has changed enormously since then, as has the earth’s climate throughout the history of the earth.  

    So why would this never be mentioned?  I believe the answer is linked to my first reason for skepticism. Is it possible globalist elites do not want us to understand humanity will largely survive despite global warming?  Hmmm...  maybe they expect  panicked humans will be easier to manipulate into following an agenda that is not in the common person’s best interests.  But if there are large adjustments to be made, particularly in coastal areas or in areas that are already so hot or arid as to be marginal for growing food, I personally believe many of the measures being demanded of the majority of the world’s population are uncalled for. However, Mr. Johnson, in addition to the other benefits of being old, I also will be spared having to make any of these decisions for humanity. 

    Finally, Mr. Johnson, you apparently regarded as a personal slur my statement about many climate change alarmists also being abortion or gender change supporters.  No, I think it unlikely World readers fall into those groups. I apologize for seeming to include you in that. 

    Regards, OldMike

ADVERTISEMENT