« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

A Call to Our Brothers and Sisters in Coal Country

By: Daniel Horowitz (Diary)  |  November 5th, 2012 at 01:11 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Americans often exude an apathetic attitude regarding the importance of elections.  Many people feel as if their lives will be the same the day after the elections, irrespective of the outcome.  As such, they are not enthusiastic about voting.  Well, in this case, if Obama is reelected, our country will never again resemble the Constitutional Republic that it once was and should continue to be.  However, for all of our brothers and sisters in coal country, here is what you have waiting for you immediately following an Obama victory.

The Washington Examiner has the details about Obama’s final strike in the war on coal later this month:

President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency has devoted an unprecedented number of bureaucrats to finalizing new anti-coal regulations that are set to be released at the end of November, according to a source inside the EPA.

More than 50 EPA staff are now crashing to finish greenhouse gas emission standards that would essentially ban all construction of new coal-fired power plants. Never before have so many EPA resources been devoted to a single regulation. The independent and non-partisan Manhattan Institute estimates that the EPA’s greenhouse gas coal regulation will cost the U.S. economy $700 billion.

The rush is a major sign of panic by environmentalists inside the Obama administration. If Obama wins, the EPA would have another four full years to implement their anti-fossil fuel agenda. But if Romney wins, regulators will have a very narrow window to enact a select few costly regulations that would then be very hard for a President Romney to undo.

Environmentalists at the EPA pulled this trick before in 2000 when the Clinton administration rushed out a finding that Mercury emissions from power plants were a growing public health threat pursuant to the Clean Air Act. That finding did not regulate power plants itself, but it did force the Bush administration to begin a lengthy regulatory process. The Obama EPA has estimated that this regulation alone will cost the U.S. economy $10.9 billion a year.

Remember, there were already 9,000 mining jobs eliminated in October, according to the BLS.

Folks, it boils down to this.  Do you want to keep your jobs and self-respect or not?  Do you want to sacrifice your careers and hard-earned income on the alters of Obama’s rich oleaginous environmental parasites?  Do all Americans want to “necessarily” pay more for energy.

Luckily, you are not helpless.  Obama’s destiny – and the destiny of Obama’s presidency, as well as your jobs – is in your hands.  As voters in Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, you all hold the keys to the election.  If you turn out in record numbers for Romney, we will all win.  Romney is not that conservative on a variety of issues, but one thing is certain about a Romney presidency: he would completely suspend the war on coal.

Last week, Obama urged his supporters to vote for revenge.  Well, our friends in coal country, this is your time for revenge.

Cross-posted from the Madison Project

Tags: , , , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY

  • Pingback: A Call to Our Brothers in Coal Country | Politics Dividing US

  • rbdwiggins

    A vote “For Coal” is the first major step the electorate can take in undoing the multi-trillion dollar greenhouse fraud that has been perpetrated against the American people for more than two decades.

    Vote like the “American Way of Life” and our Constitutional Republic depend on it, because in this case, it truly does.

  • damaze

    I really am tired of this BS and I’m not even voting for Obama. Why don’t one of you actually visit coal country and see what is going on? Coal is dying because gas is the future in these parts. Its cheaper, cleaner, and we have TONS of it. There are tons of gas and gas related jobs blooming up all over. Coal is dying, and Obama ain’t the one killing it. MARKET FORCES are you morons. And its a GOOD thing. Gas jobs are way safer and pay more. If Obama wins tomorrow, gas will grow and coal will shrink. If Romney wins tomorrow, gas will grow and coal will shrink.

    Have you ever even been to Ohio?

  • streiff

    apparently you are the only person in the energy sector that believes that. How does if feel to be unique?

  • streiff

    for readers out there, a bit of research shows this assclown is a Democrat who lives in…. Seattle. The heart of natural gas country and right beside Ohio.

  • rbdwiggins

    The coal industry is dying because the federal government, based entirely on the “greenhouse” fraud, has regulated it to death. Much is the same with the oil industry.

    The natural gas industry is next in line. Hydrogen Dioxide is the most prevalent “greenhouse” contributor.

    When the new EPA regulations regarding fracking are published and the additional cost for extraction are documented, I’m sure you’ll make the effort to return and apologize to the RedState community.

  • gmat

    Shale gas, not regs, is definitely what’skilling coal power production, at least for now. Gas would have to be well over $9 (3 times what it is now) to make a new coal power plant feasible. But that could happen if hydraulic fracking got severely regulated.

    Right now it seems the best hope for coal is the export market described in the Manhatten Institute report that was linked above

  • rbdwiggins

    An addendum: According to the a href=”http://www.puco.ohio.gov/puco/index.cfm/consumer-information/consumer-topics/where-does-ohioe28099s-electricity-come-from/”>Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, 82% of the electricity produced in your state comes from coal-fired generators. Energy cost in your state will necessarily skyrocket with the closing of those plants.

  • streiff

    that is fundamentally a crazy position. What is killing coal is the cost of environmental regulations both in extraction and in using in power plants.

    The price of future regs that have announced is what is preventing the construction of more coal fired plants.

    Nice try at trolling, though

  • Tavern Keeper

    If coal were dying as a result of market forces that would be great. New coal-fired plants would be built should the federal regulations allow it. If new plants were built, there would be an increased demand for coal. If/when natural gas and nuclear make more sense, then the demand for coal will decrease. That’s market forces. Regulations do not equate to supply and demand.

    Have you ever taken an economics class?

  • gmat

    I don’t do any primary reading in energy and environmental regulatory matters, so I depend on the analysis of the specialists at Cato, who are obviously no friends to either Obama or government regs in general. So I’ll just refer you to

    http://www.cato.org/search_results.php?q=war+on+coal&btnG.x=45&btnG.y=16&site=cato_all&client=cato-org&filter=p&lr=lang_en&output=xml_no_dtd&proxystylesheet=cato-org&proxyreload=1&getfields=summary

    (nice try at an intelligent rejoinder, though)

  • lineholder

    Big picture here, gmat…we need to keep all our options open, not shut them down.

  • gmat

    Point taken. But to do that, I think we will have to go all the way back and repeal the Clean Air Act, because the regs under discussion were court-ordered as the result of lawsuits under that act.

    No harm in trying to use it in the current campaign. Although in Virginia (I don’t know anything about PA or OH), everybody in coal country is already voting for Romney

    http://www.roanoke.com/politics/wb/315670

  • crusty

    Wow talk about uninformed. It is true gas competes with coal. How to we get the abundant gas you cling to with this argument? Fracking, yes fraking. Did you completely miss the war on fraking? I too am sick of the BS coming from this administration in their game of division. You try to tell us kill coal because we have gas. Guess what when they win their war on coal it allows them to double down on their war against gas. Either you are with them or have been duped which is it?

  • streiff

    did you bother reading any of the studies there? Of course not. Why would you? CATO, in the first study, blames the Clean Air Act for the decline of coal.

    BTW, I’m not a guy you want to snark based on half-assed research.

  • lineholder

    It isn’t just a matter of using it in the campaign. Regs are tricky. It isn’t just the initial scope of the reg. It’s also the damage that is done that can’t be undone.

    We’re going to be fighting an uphill battle to get our economy up and going at the rate needed to overcome the threat that our ever-expanding social welfare programs represent to our nation’s financial security.

    We need to keep all of our options open. All of them.

  • quantguy

    Over the last 4 years in particular the EPA (http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/#env) , has imposed new regulations on the users of coal, which are predominantly
    US Electric Utility Operators. Coal accounts for 45-50% of total Killowat production in the US (http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/demand.html). In short, domestic demand for coal has been depressed relative to oil & gas as the cost to extract and “use” coal have gone up. This is directly attributable to the EPA; Government realted compliance (http://www.epa.gov/compliance/data/planning/initiatives/2011mineralsmining.html) acting as a distorter of the historical price/demand structure.

    As to “safety” http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.t03.htm and http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.t03.htm US BLS data does not agree with your statement. Simply stated, O&G deaths and injuries have been higher than coal related .

    Longer term the estimates for US and Global demand by the US Government http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/coal.cfm suggest demand to increase nearly 50% by 2035

  • gmat

    “BTW, I’m not a guy you want to snark based on half-assed research.”

    Apparently, that’s exactly the guy you are, because of your evident reading comprehension problem (ie, In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king)

    OK, in the first piece I linked: (I’ll go slow)

    “…low-cost natural gas (courtesy of hydraulic fracking) is a far bigger
    economic problem for the coal industry than are President Obama’s
    various coal policies.”

    He does say that the “War on Coal” (in quotes, and most definitely not the “decline of coal”) is due the Clean Air Act. Then goes on to say

    “That war is an economic sideshow.

    As long as hydraulic fracking is producing low-cost natural gas, the
    coal industry will continue its economic slide. Telling politically
    convenient fairy tales to the contrary does the country no favors.”

  • rbdwiggins

    No need to repeal the Clean Air Act. Just revisit Massachusetts vs EPA 549 U.S. 497 (2007), and subsequently remove Carbon Dioxide from the list of airborne pollutants. Climategate I & II laid waste to any need for it to be on the list.

  • thinnerman

    Hi Gmat!

    I figured I’d fill you in on some of the rules around here since it looks like Streiff is about to ban your account. Actually, there aren’t really any rules so much as a single rule: you’re not allowed to disagree with anyone that has “Mod” after their name. Never ever. *Especially* don’t post any links, articles, studies, etc that prove your point. By doing so, you’re just proving that you’re a moby that’s here to irritate the mods and cause disruption in the closed garden.

    Another point: if anything is spelled incorrectly in your replies, it completely invalidates any point that you were trying to make. However, you’re allowed to have absolutely atrocious grammar if you’re in agreement with the mods. Most of the commenters here illustrate this quite well. Take a look.

    Additionally, by disagreeing with a mod, you’ll also find that most requirements about being civil go out the window. They’re allowed to insult you, goad you, and generally harass you after each reply you post. However, by replying in equal, you’ll likely get banned along with a snarkly little insult. BLAM! Actually, now that I think about it, if you *don’t* reply to their insults then they’ll sometimes ban you for that too.

    Hope this helps!

  • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

    Although a very good analysis of the economics of coal v. methane, the regulations on mercury and particulate matter constitute only one facet of the whole picture (one that has been addressed by the coal and electrical utilities over the past three decades). It does not touch on the EPA’s CO2 regulations. May I suggest: http://epalawsuit.com/epa-lawsuit-updates/

  • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

    You know, thinnerman, nobody likes a know-it-all–especially one that doesn’t.

  • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

    Nobody likes a know-it-all, thinnerman–especially one that doesn’t.

  • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

    Thanks for posting the EPA lawsuit information. If you hadn’t, I was going to.

  • gmat

    good stuff, thanks

  • Pingback: » A Call to Our Brothers and Sisters in Coal Country

  • jphamlore

    The environmentalists simply want to kill off ANY form of energy. They’re just going after the weakest links first. These people simply want 9/10 of the people, other than themselves, on this planet to magically go away.

    The subsidies for solar power only provided a price floor that encouraged the Chinese to invest in polysilicon plants that will eventually kill off the US industry that used to make solar panels. Wind power is being opposed by NIMBYs everywhere, leading to the mad scheme of putting wind turbines offshore greatly increasing costs and leaving them unconnected to nonexistent power lines as has been pointed out repeatedly by say Der Spiegel in Germany. (To be fair there is one exception, Denmark, where the Danes have cooperated to establish a successful wind power industry. But let’s just say the left is busy trying to destroy everywhere the preconditions for the social cohesion the Danes have.)

  • rbdwiggins

    If the environmental activists actually cared about the environment, they’d reject wind power.

    The dirty secret about “clean” wind power is that its turbines are giant, whirling machetes. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), “With more than 100,000 turbines expected to be in operation in the United States by 2030, annual bird mortality rates alone (now estimated by the Service at 440,000 per year) are expected to exceed one million.”

    snip…

    “We anticipate issuing programmatic permits for wind, solar, and other energy projects,” says an FWS fact sheet. It also states: “Permits may authorize lethal take that is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity, such as mortalities caused by collisions with rotating wind turbines.”

    “Lethal take” is Washingtonian for “federally approved eagle slaughter.” Precise eagle-kill numbers are tough to determine, in part because “other animals gobble the carcasses almost immediately,” the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s R. J. Smith explains. About 67 golden eagles are estimated to be killed annually just at Northern California’s Altamont Pass wind farm.

  • gmat

    Does that mean EPA takes Mass to court based on new evidence about CO2? Great idea, never occurred to me. That’s encouraging.

  • rbdwiggins

    It’s more likely that those individuals, businesses and industries harmed by the new CO2 regulations would go after the EPA for actual damages, and in light of the recent developments convince the Court to review Massachusetts v EPA in the process. Since much of the original evidence and testimony was based on a fraud, it’s possible that a Romney Administration could ask the Court to review the case.

  • http://www.redstate.com/wp-admin/user/profile.php docfreeman

    I think the States that depend on 50% of their power with
    coal had better stop and think who they vote for.

    List of States that uses 50% or more of coal for
    electricity 24 States almost half of the country.

    MO 84.6%, IA 75.4%, MN 61.5%, MT 59.7%, NB 56.6%, WI
    62.2%, TN 61.8%, KY 93.1%, IN 95.1%, MI
    56.7%, OH 86.2%, PA 55.1%, WV 97.5%, NC 62.3%, GA 64.2%, AL 57.4%, DE
    66.9%, ND 92.2%, WY 94.4%, UT 86.9%, NM 78.7%, CO 70.2%, KS 72.3%, SC 53.7%

  • rightlane1111

    People with common sense are going to think about this one. Know why? Hurricane Sandy. No heat…not electrity…no electricity to power the dual fuels. They are cold, they can’t drive and OBAMA’S STUPID VOLT won’t charge. So..A vote for Romney is a vote for freedom. A vote of Obama is a vote for third world conditions.

  • Pingback: Melaine Mcmenamin