M*n
2 楼
应该是的。WLT已经跌到没法看了。
给安神点赞！
给安神点赞！
a*m
3 楼
煤炭的大形势要翻转，看来要指望全球变暖教彻底破产，
小冰河期早点到来。
据说小冰河期还有15年就要来，耐心一点吧。
小冰河期早点到来。
据说小冰河期还有15年就要来，耐心一点吧。
a*n
4 楼
煤老板早在股票上发大了.
a*m
5 楼
这一波新能源（可再生能源，bioethanol，太阳能，风能等）的起家，
其实跟美帝的全球变暖教的兴起，进而导致的低碳经济有很大关系。
尤其是水压裂法搞的天然气和油，直接把传统煤炭行业给弄死了。
更要命的是，打着变暖教的旗号，国家还给新能源发放大量补贴，就是
不给煤炭业补贴，就是把煤炭业朝死里整呀。
变暖教的大潮流浩浩荡荡，直接碾压了煤炭产业。
尽管最近两年，变暖教的多个预言（北极冰川全部融化，海平面大幅上升，
全球气温持续上升，冬天变暖，夏天更热）等等全面破产，逼着变暖教换名头，
改成climate change教。但是，climate change教（变暖教）还是把持话语权，
只是在最近的EPA的新规被搞死上，略微丢分而已。
煤炭行业要想起家，东山再起，必须要全面打垮变暖教，climate change教才行。
至于页岩油，页岩气，等着低油价把他们轰死就行了。
煤炭产业可以翻盘的突发事件：
1. 核电站大规模爆炸，事故（可能性较小），核电站大面积关停。
2. 油价持续低徘徊，打死页岩气，搞死天然气。
3. 全球气候骤然变冷，能源需求剧增，变暖教破产，新能源的补贴都发到煤炭行业。
这个要看，到底哪个科学家更靠谱了。虽然我不信变暖教，但是，是不是真的短期就进入
小寒冰期，也不好说，太阳的鸟事情，谁他妈能预测准呀？
4. 全球经济复苏，能源短缺，煤炭供不应求。 （可能性也不大）
老龄化的地球经济，感觉短时间没啥指望，长时间更没指望，
只能指望科技出现飞跃。
总体而言，煤炭业必须要等待变天的东风，老天不配合的话，
很难日倒变暖教，自己很难抬头。
其实跟美帝的全球变暖教的兴起，进而导致的低碳经济有很大关系。
尤其是水压裂法搞的天然气和油，直接把传统煤炭行业给弄死了。
更要命的是，打着变暖教的旗号，国家还给新能源发放大量补贴，就是
不给煤炭业补贴，就是把煤炭业朝死里整呀。
变暖教的大潮流浩浩荡荡，直接碾压了煤炭产业。
尽管最近两年，变暖教的多个预言（北极冰川全部融化，海平面大幅上升，
全球气温持续上升，冬天变暖，夏天更热）等等全面破产，逼着变暖教换名头，
改成climate change教。但是，climate change教（变暖教）还是把持话语权，
只是在最近的EPA的新规被搞死上，略微丢分而已。
煤炭行业要想起家，东山再起，必须要全面打垮变暖教，climate change教才行。
至于页岩油，页岩气，等着低油价把他们轰死就行了。
煤炭产业可以翻盘的突发事件：
1. 核电站大规模爆炸，事故（可能性较小），核电站大面积关停。
2. 油价持续低徘徊，打死页岩气，搞死天然气。
3. 全球气候骤然变冷，能源需求剧增，变暖教破产，新能源的补贴都发到煤炭行业。
这个要看，到底哪个科学家更靠谱了。虽然我不信变暖教，但是，是不是真的短期就进入
小寒冰期，也不好说，太阳的鸟事情，谁他妈能预测准呀？
4. 全球经济复苏，能源短缺，煤炭供不应求。 （可能性也不大）
老龄化的地球经济，感觉短时间没啥指望，长时间更没指望，
只能指望科技出现飞跃。
总体而言，煤炭业必须要等待变天的东风，老天不配合的话，
很难日倒变暖教，自己很难抬头。
a*m
6 楼
Supreme Court rules against EPA on power plant regs
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/29/supreme-court-rules-
In a major win for the energy industry, the Supreme Court ruled Monday
against the Environmental Protection Agency's effort to limit certain power
plant emissions -- saying the agency "unreasonably" failed to consider the
cost of the regulations.
The rules curbing emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants
began to take effect in April. But the court said by a 5-4 vote Monday that
the EPA failed to take their cost into account when the agency first decided
to regulate the toxic emissions from coal- and oil-fired plants.
The challenge was brought by industry groups and 21 Republican-led states.
Writing for the court, Justice Antonin Scalia said it is not appropriate to
impose billions of dollars of economic costs in return for a few dollars in
health or environmental benefits.
"EPA must consider cost -- including cost of compliance -- before deciding
whether regulation is appropriate and necessary," the court said.
The case now goes back to lower courts for the EPA to decide how to account
for costs.
The decision is a blow to the Obama administration, just days after the
court delivered President Obama a major win by upholding his signature
health care overhaul. The White House also celebrated Friday's historic
ruling legalizing gay marriage nationwide.
In the majority opinion on Monday, Scalia wrote that while the EPA decided
to regulate power plants to improve public health and the environment, even
the agency estimated it would cost power plants nearly $10 billion a year. "
EPA refused to consider whether the costs of its decision outweighed the
benefits. The Agency gave cost no thought at all, because it considered cost
irrelevant to its initial decision to regulate," Scalia wrote.
In this, he wrote that the EPA over-reached.
The EPA did factor in costs at a later stage when it wrote standards that
are expected to reduce the toxic emissions by 90 percent. They were supposed
to be fully in place next year. The issue was whether health risks are the
only consideration under the Clean Air Act.
The EPA said in a statement it would review the decision and take "any
appropriate next steps" when the review is complete. "EPA is disappointed
that the Court did not uphold the rule, but this rule was issued more than
three years ago, investments have been made and most plants are already well
on their way to compliance," EPA Press Secretary Melissa J. Harrison said.
She said that since the decision pertained to cost considerations -- and not
the agency's overall Clean Air Act authority -- "EPA remains committed to
ensuring that appropriate standards are in place" to curb air pollution.
"The Court's decision focuses on EPA's initial finding that it was
appropriate and necessary to regulate these emissions and not on the
substance of the standards themselves," she said, adding that for every
dollar spent on reducing pollution under these rules, "the American public
would see up to $9 in health benefits."
But Republicans cheered the decision. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska,
chairwoman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said in a
statement she hopes the opinion leads to some "balance" in these
environmental standards. "It is heartening to hear that the court has reined
in the EPA, especially on the issue of the costs of regulation," she said.
Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy
, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan said it was enough that the EPA considered
costs at later stages of the process.
"Over more than a decade, EPA took costs into account at multiple stages and
through multiple means as it set emissions limits for power plants," Kagan
said.
She was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia
Sotomayor.
The case is the latest in a string of attacks against the administration's
actions to use the Clean Air Act to rein in pollution from coal-burning
power plants.
EPA is readying rules expected to be released sometime this summer aimed at
curbing pollution from the plants that is linked to global warming. States
have already challenged those rules even before they are final, and Congress
is working on a bill that would allow states to opt out of any rules
clamping down on heat-trapping carbon dioxide.
The legal and political challenges ahead could undermine U.S. efforts to
inspire other countries to control their emissions, as they head into
negotiations in Paris on a new international treaty later this year.
In the case of mercury, the costs of installing and operating equipment to
remove the pollutants before they are dispersed into the air are hefty -- $9
.6 billion a year, the EPA found.
But the benefits are much greater, $37 billion to $90 billion annually, the
agency said. The savings stem from the prevention of up to 11,000 deaths, 4,
700 nonfatal heart attacks and 540,000 lost days of work, the EPA said.
Mercury accumulates in fish and is especially dangerous to pregnant or
breastfeeding women, and young children, because of concern that too much
could harm a developing brain.
A disproportionate share of the 600 affected power plants, most of which
burn coal, are in the South and upper Midwest.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/29/supreme-court-rules-
In a major win for the energy industry, the Supreme Court ruled Monday
against the Environmental Protection Agency's effort to limit certain power
plant emissions -- saying the agency "unreasonably" failed to consider the
cost of the regulations.
The rules curbing emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants
began to take effect in April. But the court said by a 5-4 vote Monday that
the EPA failed to take their cost into account when the agency first decided
to regulate the toxic emissions from coal- and oil-fired plants.
The challenge was brought by industry groups and 21 Republican-led states.
Writing for the court, Justice Antonin Scalia said it is not appropriate to
impose billions of dollars of economic costs in return for a few dollars in
health or environmental benefits.
"EPA must consider cost -- including cost of compliance -- before deciding
whether regulation is appropriate and necessary," the court said.
The case now goes back to lower courts for the EPA to decide how to account
for costs.
The decision is a blow to the Obama administration, just days after the
court delivered President Obama a major win by upholding his signature
health care overhaul. The White House also celebrated Friday's historic
ruling legalizing gay marriage nationwide.
In the majority opinion on Monday, Scalia wrote that while the EPA decided
to regulate power plants to improve public health and the environment, even
the agency estimated it would cost power plants nearly $10 billion a year. "
EPA refused to consider whether the costs of its decision outweighed the
benefits. The Agency gave cost no thought at all, because it considered cost
irrelevant to its initial decision to regulate," Scalia wrote.
In this, he wrote that the EPA over-reached.
The EPA did factor in costs at a later stage when it wrote standards that
are expected to reduce the toxic emissions by 90 percent. They were supposed
to be fully in place next year. The issue was whether health risks are the
only consideration under the Clean Air Act.
The EPA said in a statement it would review the decision and take "any
appropriate next steps" when the review is complete. "EPA is disappointed
that the Court did not uphold the rule, but this rule was issued more than
three years ago, investments have been made and most plants are already well
on their way to compliance," EPA Press Secretary Melissa J. Harrison said.
She said that since the decision pertained to cost considerations -- and not
the agency's overall Clean Air Act authority -- "EPA remains committed to
ensuring that appropriate standards are in place" to curb air pollution.
"The Court's decision focuses on EPA's initial finding that it was
appropriate and necessary to regulate these emissions and not on the
substance of the standards themselves," she said, adding that for every
dollar spent on reducing pollution under these rules, "the American public
would see up to $9 in health benefits."
But Republicans cheered the decision. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska,
chairwoman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said in a
statement she hopes the opinion leads to some "balance" in these
environmental standards. "It is heartening to hear that the court has reined
in the EPA, especially on the issue of the costs of regulation," she said.
Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy
, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan said it was enough that the EPA considered
costs at later stages of the process.
"Over more than a decade, EPA took costs into account at multiple stages and
through multiple means as it set emissions limits for power plants," Kagan
said.
She was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia
Sotomayor.
The case is the latest in a string of attacks against the administration's
actions to use the Clean Air Act to rein in pollution from coal-burning
power plants.
EPA is readying rules expected to be released sometime this summer aimed at
curbing pollution from the plants that is linked to global warming. States
have already challenged those rules even before they are final, and Congress
is working on a bill that would allow states to opt out of any rules
clamping down on heat-trapping carbon dioxide.
The legal and political challenges ahead could undermine U.S. efforts to
inspire other countries to control their emissions, as they head into
negotiations in Paris on a new international treaty later this year.
In the case of mercury, the costs of installing and operating equipment to
remove the pollutants before they are dispersed into the air are hefty -- $9
.6 billion a year, the EPA found.
But the benefits are much greater, $37 billion to $90 billion annually, the
agency said. The savings stem from the prevention of up to 11,000 deaths, 4,
700 nonfatal heart attacks and 540,000 lost days of work, the EPA said.
Mercury accumulates in fish and is especially dangerous to pregnant or
breastfeeding women, and young children, because of concern that too much
could harm a developing brain.
A disproportionate share of the 600 affected power plants, most of which
burn coal, are in the South and upper Midwest.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
相关阅读