President Biden just pledged to shut down 60% of America’s electric power

[rambot]

I have a litmus test for any issue on which I must take a position. It's simply this. I ask myself, what if this position is wrong? If the consequences of it being wrong will affect my Christian life in any negative way, then I will abandon it. In this case, I feel I can safely say, "If I'm wrong, so what? If you're wrong, then what?" So, if I choose not to become involved in the propagation of this type of inflammatory partisan political rhetoric, since Christ never taught us to be involved with politics in any way, I don't believe God will ask me on the judgement day, Why didn't you get involved in the partisan political fray of your time? But on the other hand, if I do get involved, then it's just possible that God might ask, Why did you involve yourself with worldly politics and alienate so many to your Christian witness? Just a thought.

For you, when does it become a "human person" issue and when is it a "political issue"? I understand why folks would argue that BLM is a political issue, but I every black person I know (up in canada) has an example of racial profiling by authority figures (usually police).

When does "supporting the downtrodden" go from a personal, 1 to 1 obligation to a "help all people in that situation"?

 

[Desk trauma]

Educate me?

In the early 2000s Westinghouse had a new nuclear reactor design approved and licenses to build them issued. The VC Summer plant in SC and Vogtle GA were the two that actually started construction with many in the planning stages. Then Fukushima happened, people got scared again and all the proposed ones were scrapped leaving the two underway. Cost overruns and delays plagued both projects with VC Summer failing entirely as the utility could not sustain the costs. Vogtle just limped across the finish line , 17 billion over budget and 7 years behind schedule.

US companies have demonstrated they learned nothing from the first wave of nuclear construction with the latest wave falling to the same overruns, poor planning, bureaucratic delay, raw ineptitude that plagued past projects. Nuclear is our only good option for truly clean power, barring a visionary who creates and funds a nation wide project to transition us to nuclear winning the public/government , we're not going to see it as no company is going to taken on the risk again for a generation or more.

 

[Laodicean60]

New at this. Don't know how yet, so I'm practicing by replying to others.

Cool, welcome.

 

[Laodicean60]

In the early 2000s Westinghouse had a new nuclear reactor design approved and licenses to build them issued. The VC Summer plant in SC and Vogtle GA were the two that actually started construction with many in the planning stages. Then Fukushima happened, people got scared again and all the proposed ones were scrapped leaving the two underway. Cost overruns and delays plagued both projects with VC Summer failing entirely as the utility could not sustain the costs. Vogtle just limped across the finish line , 17 billion over budget and 7 years behind schedule.

US companies have demonstrated they learned nothing from the first wave of nuclear construction with the latest wave falling to the same overruns, poor planning, bureaucratic delay, raw ineptitude that plagued past projects. Nuclear is our only good option for truly clean power, barring a visionary who creates and funds a nation wide project to transition us to nuclear winning the public/government , we're not going to see it as no company is going to taken on the risk again for a generation or more.

Thank you for your time. I'll read about it.

 

[Godsunworthyservant]

For you, when does it become a "human person" issue and when is it a "political issue"? I understand why folks would argue that BLM is a political issue, but I every black person I know (up in canada) has an example of racial profiling by authority figures (usually police).

When does "supporting the downtrodden" go from a personal, 1 to 1 obligation to a "help all people in that situation"?

I have no qualms with wanting equality under secular law for everyone, regardless of race, gender, sexual proclivities or religion. I have no problem with speaking out about injustice anywhere and everywhere it is found. As Christians, I believe that we should address these social issues to the best of our ability without getting sucked into Satan's trap of using hateful rhetoric, placing blame on or judging those of a certain political party, propagating misleading or false narratives or engaging in over the top protest that oft times leads to unintended trampling of other folk's civil rights. It's always a 1 to 1 obligation of a Christian to do everything in their power to help every individual who is downtrodden, being unfairly treated or otherwise discriminated against. As for BLM, I am very sympathetic to their mission and would only say that from a Christian standpoint, I would suggest going about initiating change through less confrontational methods. I have looked at the statistics and found that the only minority group in the US that has a higher percentage of unarmed young men who are killed by law enforcement is the Native Americans. I support them as well. I also don't really see this as a political situation, as the killing of unarmed young men should be equally abhorrent to Christians on all sides of the political spectrum. So, while I support civil rights for every single person, I am pragmatic enough to know that it's probably a pipe dream. I do believe we should vote for those candidates who support civil rights as well. I also believe that since 60% of the US population identifies as Christian (down from 90% in 1990) if all those people simply voted for those type of candidates and/or lobbied their leaders, things would change. Christians should call out sin where ever they see it and killing of unarmed people (regardless of race) is sin. I'm more appalled by the rhetoric around issues that aren't of a social equality or civil rights ilk. The provocative, hate filled, partisan propaganda around issues that are more about nationalism and tribalism than any Christian ethical concern.

 

[Tuur]

I thought that was mainly due to safety/health risks, not greenhouse gases.

Here's a few links to news stories:

MSN

California declared war on natural gas. Now the fight is going national

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/03/us/new-york-natural-gas-ban-climate/index.html

https://www.npr.org/2021/12/15/1064496749/new-york-natural-gas-buildings-electrification

New York City is banning natural gas hookups for new buildings to fight climate change

 

[iluvatar5150]

Here's a few links to news stories:

MSN

California declared war on natural gas. Now the fight is going national

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/03/us/new-york-natural-gas-ban-climate/index.html

https://www.npr.org/2021/12/15/1064496749/new-york-natural-gas-buildings-electrification

New York City is banning natural gas hookups for new buildings to fight climate change

Derp, for some reason, I was only thinking of stoves. The climate angle makes more sense when you include furnaces.

 

[Valletta]

Let me start by saying that the article you quote is very inflammatory as it's title indicates he "pledged to shut down 60% of America's power" which is patently false. As a reading of the article reveals what he "pledged" was that his administration would not approve funding for any new coal powered electric plants in the US and that they would strengthen the rules for methane emissions. That's hardly "shutting down" 60% of America's power. As a matter of fact, if you read their entire set of proposals, they are simply trying to replace the coal powered electric plants with more environmentally friendly methods of power production. You mention that "Joe is not a king and has no authority to shut down any industry he chooses". Again, he didn't say he was going to or even had the authority to shut down any industry, so that statement is a false equivalency. Of all people, President Biden knows that he can't rule by fiat. I think we'd be much better served if all presidents understood that fact. That said, while I am in agreement that we should generate power in an environmentally friendly way as possible, but as a Christian, I don't really care how they produce my power as long as it's affordable

What I question is why Christians would want to be involved in promoting antagonistic partisan political propaganda when it could seriously damage their credibility to witness to that half of the country who vehemently oppose those views and who may see their actions as intended to inflame already sharp political divides. What is more important to your Christian life, to propagate political discord or to preserve your Christian testimony with every one and not just those who agree with your political views?

I have a litmus test for any issue on which I must take a position. It's simply this. I ask myself, what if this position is wrong? If the consequences of it being wrong will affect my Christian life in any negative way, then I will abandon it. In this case, I feel I can safely say, "If I'm wrong, so what? If you're wrong, then what?" So, if I choose not to become involved in the propagation of this type of inflammatory partisan political rhetoric, since Christ never taught us to be involved with politics in any way, I don't believe God will ask me on the judgement day, Why didn't you get involved in the partisan political fray of your time? But on the other hand, if I do get involved, then it's just possible that God might ask, Why did you involve yourself with worldly politics and alienate so many to your Christian witness? Just a thought.

Joe's attack on fossil fuels is real. While a number of his orders have been struck down by the courts that does not seem to stop him from trying to work around the court rulings, such as he did with the student loans. I am not a mind reader, and I cannot say specifically why Joe promotes "antagonistic partisan political propaganda when it could seriously damage their credibility to witness to that half of the country who vehemently oppose those views and who may see their actions as intended to inflame already sharp political divides." But in general it appears that a good portion of the global warming mentality is much like a religion, and it appears many of the leaders are trying to seize power rather than taking the ideas to heart.

 

[Godsunworthyservant]

Joe's attack on fossil fuels is real. While a number of his orders have been struck down by the courts that does not seem to stop him from trying to work around the court rulings, such as he did with the student loans. I am not a mind reader, and I cannot say specifically why Joe promotes "antagonistic partisan political propaganda when it could seriously damage their credibility to witness to that half of the country who vehemently oppose those views and who may see their actions as intended to inflame already sharp political divides." But in general it appears that a good portion of the global warming mentality is much like a religion, and it appears many of the leaders are trying to seize power rather than taking the ideas to heart.

Sounds like you obviously totally miss the point of my reply but I'll not engage in redundancy as it's usually not productive.

 

[rambot]

Joe's attack on fossil fuels is real. While a number of his orders have been struck down by the courts that does not seem to stop him from trying to work around the court rulings, such as he did with the student loans.

This is gonna be blunt; Your thread title is an absolute bald faced lie. There is no excuse for misrepresenting information so blatantly. You should change it.

But in general it appears that a good portion of the global warming mentality is much like a religion.

What an absolute nonsense statement. But I'm still curious about what SPECIFIC aspects about "global warming mentality" is like a religion and what definition of religion are you using?

ETA: It's very weird when Christians refer to something else as a "religion" in a pejorative sense; correctly or incorrectly.

 

[eleos1954]

First, Team Biden announced it will stop production of all new coal plants in the United States.

President Biden just pledged to shut down 60% of America’s electric power

The Biden administration’s proposals aren’t likely to change the planet’s temperature by even one-tenth of a degree, but they might just destroy the 21st-century American industrial economy a…

nypost.com

Joe is not a king, he has no authority to shut down any industry he chooses. He can lobby for a law to be passed, but such an order would be an attack against our Constitution.

Coal Mining. The main U.S. statute controlling coal mining is the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). Under the law, each state must establish a federally approved enforcement program. SMCRA is administered by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement in the Department of Interior.

It's done through regulation ... not law. There are many many many restrictions done through regulation rather than law ... it's the main way government controls the people.

 

[Arcangl86]

Coal Mining. The main U.S. statute controlling coal mining is the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). Under the law, each state must establish a federally approved enforcement program. SMCRA is administered by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement in the Department of Interior.

It's done through regulation ... not law. There are many many many restrictions done through regulation rather than law ... it's the main way government controls the people.

Regulation is law. It's not legislation which has superior force and authority, but it is still law.

 

[eleos1954]

Regulation is law. It's not legislation which has superior force and authority, but it is still law.

Regulations are not laws themselves, but are legal directives written to explain how to implement statutes or laws. (interpretations of law of which can vary greatly) Many laws are generalized and then later defined in detail and can become something it was not originally intended to be and then often become convoluted.

What law in the constitution specifically deals with coal mines?

 

[Arcangl86]

Regulations are not laws themselves, but are legal directives written to explain how to implement statutes or laws.

Legal directives. As in laws. They are what is known as administrative law or secondary legislation. They are written by entities empowered to do so by legislation, and follow a rule making process also determined by legislation. And what you get in the end is an official directive of the government that be enforced by coercive measures, otherwise a law. And if Congress doesn't like a regulation, they can repeal it because all authority to issue regulations comes from Congress.

What law in the constitution specifically deals with coal mines?

None, because that's not how the Constitution works. It is a source of law in that it lays out how the government functions, but isn't concerned with specific legislation (with one notable exception). But ultimately the answer to your question is the Commerce Clause, which Congress used to pass the SMCRA which created Office of Surface Mining to administer it, including by issuing regulations that are created using the process laid out in the APA.

I know you are conflating law and primary legislation, but there are multiple sources of law (four or five depending how you look at it) in the US, with a determined hierarchy.

 

[eleos1954]

Legal directives. As in laws. They are what is known as administrative law or secondary legislation. They are written by entities empowered to do so by legislation, and follow a rule making process also determined by legislation. And what you get in the end is an official directive of the government that be enforced by coercive measures, otherwise a law. And if Congress doesn't like a regulation, they can repeal it because all authority to issue regulations comes from Congress.


None, because that's not how the Constitution works. It is a source of law in that it lays out how the government functions, but isn't concerned with specific legislation (with one notable exception). But ultimately the answer to your question is the Commerce Clause, which Congress used to pass the SMCRA which created Office of Surface Mining to administer it, including by issuing regulations that are created using the process laid out in the APA.

I know you are conflating law and primary legislation, but there are multiple sources of law (four or five depending how you look at it) in the US, with a determined hierarchy.

The constitution is being subverted in many ways .... regulating is one of the main ways it is done. Specifically with the coal issue .... it is largely being eliminated through the EPA and is being done of anything else extracted out of the ground.