Over the years, Obama and other liberal leaders have made a number of seemingly contradictory statements and have taken several conflicting actions regarding coal. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)
On the one hand, in a controversial interview of 2008, which continues to haunt Obama even during his second term as president, then candidate Obama denied being a "coal booster," and even intimated that his proposed cap and trade policy was intended to bankrupt or effectively get rid of the coal industry. (See HERE) After acknowledging the futility of eliminating coal any time soon by saying, "This notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion, because the fact of the
matter is that right now, we are getting a lot of our energy from coal," Obama went on to proclaim, "So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's
just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a
huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted....What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a (sic)
ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use
coal in a clean way, we should pursue it." (ibid.)
Whereas, on the other hand, according to the President's "All of the Above Approach to Energy Independence" website: "President Obama has set a 10-year goal to develop and deploy cost-effective clean coal technology."
In the face of all the double-speak, and in the wake of the Climate Change Strategy (greenhouse gas regulations) announced by the White House in June of 2013 (see HERE and HERE), some liberals have been quick to deny that Obama is at war against coal (see HERE), while opponents and industry experts strenuously assert that he is. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE) Even some of Obama's own supporters and union backers have begun "protesting EPA's war on coal." (See HERE, see also HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE) Yet other liberals, including a White House advisor, figure that a war on coal is precisely what is needed. (See HERE and HERE)
Whether there is a war on coal or not, the potential Leftist LUNCs of Obama's coal policy (which again subordinates energy concerns to his environmental and climate change agendas), then, may be the disruption of a relatively cheap energy source, subsequent economic fallout, shipping of "dirty coal" overseas, and "an unrecoverable blow to coal-rich states." (Reported HERE). It may lead to further closure of coal-powered electric plants--145 out of 589 have already announced retirement (see HERE and HERE); effectively prevent new coal plants from coming on line; kill jobs; and raise energy costs. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)
All this downside without any upside change in the climate. (See HERE)
"For example, in attacking coal, a new EPA regulation will ban the
construction of any new coal plants. Other regulatory rulings being
contemplated will effectively close most or all of the existing coal
plants in the United States.
The U.S. coal industry is already under great economic pressure from
abundant and inexpensive natural gas which will continue to replace coal
for power and heating. Enormous shale gas resources that are being
developed in places like the Barnett in Texas and the Marsalis in Pennsylvania
are having a huge impact, but that does not mean our nation, with the
largest supplies of coal in the world, should deny ourselves its use and
become overly reliant on one energy source that the government could
then regulate out of business. That is, in a word, stupid.} (See HERE)
The Heritage Foundation reports: "If the regulations on the coal industry
are allowed to stand, they will almost certainly destroy the coal
industry, with predictable, undesirable economic effects on the rest of
the country....significantly reducing coal’s share in America’s energy
mix would, before 2030: Destroy more than 500,000 jobs, Cause a family of four to lose more than $1,000 in annual income, and Increase electricity prices by 20 percent. Even worse, the Americans forced into unemployment lines and those
paying higher energy prices couldn’t even claim that their suffering is
helping to save the planet. If America stopped all carbon emissions, it would decrease the global temperature by only 0.08 degrees Celsius by 2050. The war on coal provides no hope for the economy and little change in
the earth’s temperature. Not quite the hope and change Americans
desired." (See HERE)
For an explanation as to why these Leftist energy LUNCs occur, please see: Gov: Wrong Tool for the Right Job - Introduction and Cold Nanny as well as The Politics of Compassion, Emotions, Ignorance, Denial, Blame-Shifting, and Victimization
No comments:
Post a Comment