Here is part of what was said on Hoppy's show this morning.
A key point Hoppy raised (although it did not make it into this article) is that the CPP would reduce global CO2 emissions by 0.2 %, so why do something so economically devastating for so little gain? I have heard that one before, including from Congressman McKinley, so we should identify a short sound-bite rebuttal.
Suggestions?
JBK
Full story at: http://wvmetronews.com/2016/02/10/murray-ceo-supreme-court-stay-portends-epa...
The president and CEO of Murray Energy Corporation is taking Tuesday’s decision from the U.S. Supreme Court to temporarily halt the implementation of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan as a sign that the entire plan will eventually be tossed.
“It portends that we will overturn the illegal climate change agenda of the destructive Obama Administration,” predicted Bob Murray on Wednesday’s MetroNews “Talkline,” a day after the Supreme Court granted an emergency request for a delay until legal challenges are resolved.
Three years ago, Murray Energy filed the lawsuit against the EPA’s proposed emission limits for existing coal-fired power plants and, at that time, Murray said he knew would be “an uphill fight.”
Later, 29 states, including West Virginia, joined the effort.
“It is our case and I’m very happy that we’ve been able to stay this illegal government overreach for our coal miners and for the state of West Virginia,” Murray told Hoppy Kercheval.
The temporary stay may be an indication a majority of justices are skeptical about the Clean Power Plan’s legality, according to court observers.
Those in the majority with the 5-4 decision were Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Anthony Kennedy, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito. All were appointed by Republicans.
“It’s good news and, good heavens, we need some good news. There’s no question about that,” said Bill Raney, president of the West Virginia Coal Association, of the stay.
“Anything like this is a good, positive story — an arm of the federal government has, all of the sudden, had a positive decision about something that is so devastating and that we’ve been dealing with for years here.”
...
“This rule would destroy so many lives,” Murray said. “We are fighting for our survival here.”
You're holding back, Jim. Why SHOULD we make the wrenching changes changes for the sake of a 0.2% reduction in CO2 emissions? On Feb 10, 2016 2:40 PM, "James Kotcon" jkotcon@gmail.com wrote:
Here is part of what was said on Hoppy's show this morning.
A key point Hoppy raised (although it did not make it into this article) is that the CPP would reduce global CO2 emissions by 0.2 %, so why do something so economically devastating for so little gain? I have heard that one before, including from Congressman McKinley, so we should identify a short sound-bite rebuttal.
Suggestions?
JBK
Full story at:
http://wvmetronews.com/2016/02/10/murray-ceo-supreme-court-stay-portends-epa...
The president and CEO of Murray Energy Corporation is taking Tuesday’s decision from the U.S. Supreme Court to temporarily halt the implementation of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan as a sign that the entire plan will eventually be tossed.
“It portends that we will overturn the illegal climate change agenda of the destructive Obama Administration,” predicted Bob Murray on Wednesday’s MetroNews “Talkline,” a day after the Supreme Court granted an emergency request for a delay until legal challenges are resolved.
Three years ago, Murray Energy filed the lawsuit against the EPA’s proposed emission limits for existing coal-fired power plants and, at that time, Murray said he knew would be “an uphill fight.”
Later, 29 states, including West Virginia, joined the effort.
“It is our case and I’m very happy that we’ve been able to stay this illegal government overreach for our coal miners and for the state of West Virginia,” Murray told Hoppy Kercheval.
The temporary stay may be an indication a majority of justices are skeptical about the Clean Power Plan’s legality, according to court observers.
Those in the majority with the 5-4 decision were Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Anthony Kennedy, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito. All were appointed by Republicans.
“It’s good news and, good heavens, we need some good news. There’s no question about that,” said Bill Raney, president of the West Virginia Coal Association, of the stay.
“Anything like this is a good, positive story — an arm of the federal government has, all of the sudden, had a positive decision about something that is so devastating and that we’ve been dealing with for years here.”
...
“This rule would destroy so many lives,” Murray said. “We are fighting for our survival here.”
EC mailing list EC@osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec
and by how much are domestic emissions reduced? That's a more appropriate number.
Jim- I'm glad you've agreed to do tomorrow's interview. Hoppy asked that you send your phone number to arrange whatever needs arranged. Conni
-----Original Message----- From: Jim Sconyers jimscon@gmail.com To: James Kotcon jkotcon@gmail.com Cc: Conni Lewis connigl@aol.com; Bill Price bill.price@sierraclub.org; ec ec@osenergy.org Sent: Wed, Feb 10, 2016 2:49 pm Subject: Re: [EC] Talk Line comments on the Supreme Court stay of the CPP
You're holding back, Jim. Why SHOULD we make the wrenching changes changes for the sake of a 0.2% reduction in CO2 emissions? On Feb 10, 2016 2:40 PM, "James Kotcon" jkotcon@gmail.com wrote:
Here is part of what was said on Hoppy's show this morning.
A key point Hoppy raised (although it did not make it into this article) is that the CPP would reduce global CO2 emissions by 0.2 %, so why do something so economically devastating for so little gain? I have heard that one before, including from Congressman McKinley, so we should identify a short sound-bite rebuttal.
Suggestions?
JBK
Full story at: http://wvmetronews.com/2016/02/10/murray-ceo-supreme-court-stay-portends-epa...
The president and CEO of Murray Energy Corporation is taking Tuesday’s decision from the U.S. Supreme Court to temporarily halt the implementation of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan as a sign that the entire plan will eventually be tossed. “It portends that we will overturn the illegal climate change agenda of the destructive Obama Administration,” predicted Bob Murray on Wednesday’s MetroNews “Talkline,” a day after the Supreme Court granted an emergency request for a delay until legal challenges are resolved. Three years ago, Murray Energy filed the lawsuit against the EPA’s proposed emission limits for existing coal-fired power plants and, at that time, Murray said he knew would be “an uphill fight.” Later, 29 states, including West Virginia, joined the effort. “It is our case and I’m very happy that we’ve been able to stay this illegal government overreach for our coal miners and for the state of West Virginia,” Murray told Hoppy Kercheval. The temporary stay may be an indication a majority of justices are skeptical about the Clean Power Plan’s legality, according to court observers. Those in the majority with the 5-4 decision were Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Anthony Kennedy, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito. All were appointed by Republicans. “It’s good news and, good heavens, we need some good news. There’s no question about that,” said Bill Raney, president of the West Virginia Coal Association, of the stay. “Anything like this is a good, positive story — an arm of the federal government has, all of the sudden, had a positive decision about something that is so devastating and that we’ve been dealing with for years here.” ... “This rule would destroy so many lives,” Murray said. “We are fighting for our survival here.”
_______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC@osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec
How about providing examples of the doom-and-gloom and economic disasters that fossil fuel industries predicted when the Clean Water, Clean Air and Safe Drinking Water Act were implemented? Those disasters did not happen. Or other big regulations that did not cause economic harm that the industries fighting those regulations warned of?
Hasn't it typically been the case that these kinds of environmental regulations don't have huge, negative economic impacts? Are there examples of an improving economy after environmental regulations took affect?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Sconyers" jimscon@gmail.com To: "James Kotcon" jkotcon@gmail.com Cc: "Conni Lewis" connigl@aol.com, "Bill Price" bill.price@sierraclub.org, ec@osenergy.org Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 2:49:56 PM Subject: Re: [EC] Talk Line comments on the Supreme Court stay of the CPP
You're holding back, Jim. Why SHOULD we make the wrenching changes changes for the sake of a 0.2% reduction in CO2 emissions? On Feb 10, 2016 2:40 PM, "James Kotcon" < jkotcon@gmail.com > wrote:
Here is part of what was said on Hoppy's show this morning.
A key point Hoppy raised (although it did not make it into this article) is that the CPP would reduce global CO2 emissions by 0.2 %, so why do something so economically devastating for so little gain? I have heard that one before, including from Congressman McKinley, so we should identify a short sound-bite rebuttal.
Suggestions?
JBK
Full story at: http://wvmetronews.com/2016/02/10/murray-ceo-supreme-court-stay-portends-epa...
The president and CEO of Murray Energy Corporation is taking Tuesday’s decision from the U.S. Supreme Court to temporarily halt the implementation of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan as a sign that the entire plan will eventually be tossed.
“It portends that we will overturn the illegal climate change agenda of the destructive Obama Administration,” predicted Bob Murray on Wednesday’s MetroNews “Talkline,” a day after the Supreme Court granted an emergency request for a delay until legal challenges are resolved.
Three years ago, Murray Energy filed the lawsuit against the EPA’s proposed emission limits for existing coal-fired power plants and, at that time, Murray said he knew would be “an uphill fight.”
Later, 29 states, including West Virginia, joined the effort.
“It is our case and I’m very happy that we’ve been able to stay this illegal government overreach for our coal miners and for the state of West Virginia,” Murray told Hoppy Kercheval.
The temporary stay may be an indication a majority of justices are skeptical about the Clean Power Plan’s legality, according to court observers.
Those in the majority with the 5-4 decision were Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Anthony Kennedy, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito. All were appointed by Republicans.
“It’s good news and, good heavens, we need some good news. There’s no question about that,” said Bill Raney, president of the West Virginia Coal Association, of the stay.
“Anything like this is a good, positive story — an arm of the federal government has, all of the sudden, had a positive decision about something that is so devastating and that we’ve been dealing with for years here.”
...
“This rule would destroy so many lives,” Murray said. “We are fighting for our survival here.”
_______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC@osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec
_______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC@osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec
And it's only going to get more expensive the longer we wait.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Liz Wiles" liz_wiles@comcast.net To: "Jim Sconyers" jimscon@gmail.com Cc: "Conni Lewis" connigl@aol.com, "Bill Price" bill.price@sierraclub.org, "James Kotcon" jkotcon@gmail.com, ec@osenergy.org Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 10:21:13 AM Subject: Re: [EC] Talk Line comments on the Supreme Court stay of the CPP
How about providing examples of the doom-and-gloom and economic disasters that fossil fuel industries predicted when the Clean Water, Clean Air and Safe Drinking Water Act were implemented? Those disasters did not happen. Or other big regulations that did not cause economic harm that the industries fighting those regulations warned of?
Hasn't it typically been the case that these kinds of environmental regulations don't have huge, negative economic impacts? Are there examples of an improving economy after environmental regulations took affect?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Sconyers" jimscon@gmail.com To: "James Kotcon" jkotcon@gmail.com Cc: "Conni Lewis" connigl@aol.com, "Bill Price" bill.price@sierraclub.org, ec@osenergy.org Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 2:49:56 PM Subject: Re: [EC] Talk Line comments on the Supreme Court stay of the CPP
You're holding back, Jim. Why SHOULD we make the wrenching changes changes for the sake of a 0.2% reduction in CO2 emissions? On Feb 10, 2016 2:40 PM, "James Kotcon" < jkotcon@gmail.com > wrote:
Here is part of what was said on Hoppy's show this morning.
A key point Hoppy raised (although it did not make it into this article) is that the CPP would reduce global CO2 emissions by 0.2 %, so why do something so economically devastating for so little gain? I have heard that one before, including from Congressman McKinley, so we should identify a short sound-bite rebuttal.
Suggestions?
JBK
Full story at: http://wvmetronews.com/2016/02/10/murray-ceo-supreme-court-stay-portends-epa...
The president and CEO of Murray Energy Corporation is taking Tuesday’s decision from the U.S. Supreme Court to temporarily halt the implementation of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan as a sign that the entire plan will eventually be tossed.
“It portends that we will overturn the illegal climate change agenda of the destructive Obama Administration,” predicted Bob Murray on Wednesday’s MetroNews “Talkline,” a day after the Supreme Court granted an emergency request for a delay until legal challenges are resolved.
Three years ago, Murray Energy filed the lawsuit against the EPA’s proposed emission limits for existing coal-fired power plants and, at that time, Murray said he knew would be “an uphill fight.”
Later, 29 states, including West Virginia, joined the effort.
“It is our case and I’m very happy that we’ve been able to stay this illegal government overreach for our coal miners and for the state of West Virginia,” Murray told Hoppy Kercheval.
The temporary stay may be an indication a majority of justices are skeptical about the Clean Power Plan’s legality, according to court observers.
Those in the majority with the 5-4 decision were Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Anthony Kennedy, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito. All were appointed by Republicans.
“It’s good news and, good heavens, we need some good news. There’s no question about that,” said Bill Raney, president of the West Virginia Coal Association, of the stay.
“Anything like this is a good, positive story — an arm of the federal government has, all of the sudden, had a positive decision about something that is so devastating and that we’ve been dealing with for years here.”
...
“This rule would destroy so many lives,” Murray said. “We are fighting for our survival here.”
_______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC@osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec
_______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC@osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec
_______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC@osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec
Liz- we can talk about the chicken littles of the business world at another time. or we can let the economic justice folks talk aout how mniumum wage, workplace safety and related laws didn't destroy business. Any way, Hoppy said I did fine and I responded by asking to come back next week. He said yes, but we need a hook. Conni
-----Original Message----- From: Liz Wiles liz_wiles@comcast.net To: Sconyers, Jim jimscon@gmail.com Cc: Conni Lewis connigl@aol.com; Bill Price bill.price@sierraclub.org; James Kotcon jkotcon@gmail.com; ec ec@osenergy.org Sent: Thu, Feb 11, 2016 10:23 am Subject: Re: [EC] Talk Line comments on the Supreme Court stay of the CPP
And it's only going to get more expensive the longer we wait.
From: "Liz Wiles" liz_wiles@comcast.net To: "Jim Sconyers" jimscon@gmail.com Cc: "Conni Lewis" connigl@aol.com, "Bill Price" bill.price@sierraclub.org, "James Kotcon" jkotcon@gmail.com, ec@osenergy.org Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 10:21:13 AM Subject: Re: [EC] Talk Line comments on the Supreme Court stay of the CPP
How about providing examples of the doom-and-gloom and economic disasters that fossil fuel industries predicted when the Clean Water, Clean Air and Safe Drinking Water Act were implemented? Those disasters did not happen. Or other big regulations that did not cause economic harm that the industries fighting those regulations warned of?
Hasn't it typically been the case that these kinds of environmental regulations don't have huge, negative economic impacts? Are there examples of an improving economy after environmental regulations took affect?
From: "Jim Sconyers" jimscon@gmail.com To: "James Kotcon" jkotcon@gmail.com Cc: "Conni Lewis" connigl@aol.com, "Bill Price" bill.price@sierraclub.org, ec@osenergy.org Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 2:49:56 PM Subject: Re: [EC] Talk Line comments on the Supreme Court stay of the CPP
You're holding back, Jim. Why SHOULD we make the wrenching changes changes for the sake of a 0.2% reduction in CO2 emissions? On Feb 10, 2016 2:40 PM, "James Kotcon" jkotcon@gmail.com wrote:
Here is part of what was said on Hoppy's show this morning.
A key point Hoppy raised (although it did not make it into this article) is that the CPP would reduce global CO2 emissions by 0.2 %, so why do something so economically devastating for so little gain? I have heard that one before, including from Congressman McKinley, so we should identify a short sound-bite rebuttal.
Suggestions?
JBK
Full story at: http://wvmetronews.com/2016/02/10/murray-ceo-supreme-court-stay-portends-epa...
The president and CEO of Murray Energy Corporation is taking Tuesday’s decision from the U.S. Supreme Court to temporarily halt the implementation of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan as a sign that the entire plan will eventually be tossed. “It portends that we will overturn the illegal climate change agenda of the destructive Obama Administration,” predicted Bob Murray on Wednesday’s MetroNews “Talkline,” a day after the Supreme Court granted an emergency request for a delay until legal challenges are resolved. Three years ago, Murray Energy filed the lawsuit against the EPA’s proposed emission limits for existing coal-fired power plants and, at that time, Murray said he knew would be “an uphill fight.” Later, 29 states, including West Virginia, joined the effort. “It is our case and I’m very happy that we’ve been able to stay this illegal government overreach for our coal miners and for the state of West Virginia,” Murray told Hoppy Kercheval. The temporary stay may be an indication a majority of justices are skeptical about the Clean Power Plan’s legality, according to court observers. Those in the majority with the 5-4 decision were Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Anthony Kennedy, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito. All were appointed by Republicans. “It’s good news and, good heavens, we need some good news. There’s no question about that,” said Bill Raney, president of the West Virginia Coal Association, of the stay. “Anything like this is a good, positive story — an arm of the federal government has, all of the sudden, had a positive decision about something that is so devastating and that we’ve been dealing with for years here.” ... “This rule would destroy so many lives,” Murray said. “We are fighting for our survival here.”
_______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC@osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec
_______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC@osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec
_______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC@osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec
-
connigl＠aol.com -
James Kotcon -
Jim Sconyers -
Liz Wiles