Climate Change: The EPA Has Gone Overboard (Full Debate)

Reducing carbon emissions is clearly good for the environment but often imposes substantial costs. The costs are most obvious when coal companies go bankrupt, but can affect everyone indirectly through higher energy costs, slower economic growth, reduced employment, and lower business profits. Has the Environmental Protection Agency considered the costs and benefits of its regulatory mandates fairly and appropriately? Is its Clean Power Plan a bold initiative to reduce carbon pollution at power plants, or an unconstitutional usurpation of power?

FOR THE MOTION:
Charles McConnell, Executive Director, Rice University’s Energy and Environment Initiative

Michael Nasi, Environmental and Energy Lawyer & Partner, Jackson Walker LLP

AGAINST THE MOTION:
Carl Pope, Former Executive Director, Sierra Club & Strategic Advisor to Michael Bloomberg

Jody Freeman, Founding Director, Harvard Law School Environmental Law and Policy Program

MODERATOR: John Donvan
Video Rating: / 5

Naataka Maarai Hathedi Maarai
Watch More Videos :- http://goo.gl/gNwDaG
————————————————————————————
Watch Sinhala Teledramas, gossips, pictures & get more updates…
http://www.derana.lk
http://derana.lk/dreamstar
http://derana.lk/misssrilanka
Join official fan page :- http://www. FACEBOOK /tvderanaofficial
Android App for Mobile :- http://goo.gl/KMMu1

22 thoughts on “Climate Change: The EPA Has Gone Overboard (Full Debate)”

  1. Carbon capture isn't just a mistake or a misnomer, it's a deliberate distortion of facts, a lie.
    Subsidies for fossil fuel far out weigh any form of support for renewables.
    Solar and wind only needs critical mass of generation and battery storage to provide consistent utility and domestic power supply. The base load argument is at best a bridge situation before full transition to end fossil fuel use in electricity generation.

    Reply
  2. A new peer-reviewed study by scientists and a statistician claims to reveal that “nearly all” of the warming shown in current temperature datasets from NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Met Office in the United Kingdom are the result of adjustments made to the datasets after temperatures were recorded, calling into question just how much warming is real and how much is pure fantasy.

    thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

    Reply
  3. Only willfully ignorant and/or people with interests in fossil fuels think that the fact of AGW isn't real.

    Like it or not, science deniers, AGW is a fact. Where the funny thing about facts is they remain facts, regardless of your willful ignorance towards them.

    Reply
  4. i really love all of debat because it give me alot of knowledge.
    but guide can you help me by put all of English subtitle in vedeo couse my english is second language so difficult to understand some point if hvae subtitle is make me easy than. Please help me

    Reply
  5. Clearly which has been largely ignored and side tracked is that coal is non viable due to subsidies provided to alternates which is fake viability. Remove the subsidies and bill the customers the real cost see who is really viable.

    Reply
  6. Obama clearly stated he will tax coal into extinction so Jody you are lying just a bit aren't you!!

    Reply
  7. its social engineering,people people people,please wake up , cant you see what they are doing,they are manipulating the whole human race,please, at least start questioning these global warming /climate change fanatics,they are instilling this fear in all of us, and they will use this bullshit, and blame every single thing, even wars, on this bullshit

    Reply
  8. A debate about climate change with beuracrats, lawyers, 'strategic' advisors? Sorry but where the fuck are the scientists? Facepalm.

    Reply
  9. Way too legalistic. In some countries it is legal to stone people to death. Not that long ago, many counties did not allow non-white people and women to vote. Let's talk about what is right first, then change the laws according to our values.

    Reply
  10. My God. A lawyer talking about electrical grids as if she as a clue. Stability is a big deal. Which is why so many fossil fuel power plants are kept on standby (e.g. burning fuel) in case the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining. And then there are the feed-in tariffs that the consumer has to pay. Renewables, with the exception of hydroelectric, simply aren't ready for prime time. Any analysis you see to the contrary doesn't include subsidies and penalties and tariffs.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

four + three =