This news item got a bit lost over the weekend, which may have been by intent. However, this excerpt shows you just how deeply indebted (or how like-minded) President Obama is to the radical “Green” lobby in the United States.
In a New York Times interviewpublishedSaturday, President Obama came out foursquare against the Keystone XL pipeline, claiming that it would not create jobs. “Republicans have said that this would be a big jobs generator,” Obama said. “There is no evidence that that’s true.”
I just realized something: I think I’m an “environmentalist”.
No, I haven’t suddenly started to wander around in leather sandals and a hemp shirt (at least, not yet). But based on a recent news report, I’m fairly certain that I’m more concerned about the welfare of the environment than the folks we usually see purported to be ‘saving the planet’.
Here, I’ll prove it.
A few days ago near the Quebec town of Lac-Mégantic, a runaway train exploded. The train was loaded with crude oil from North Dakota, and the gigantic explosion is estimated to have killed at least 50 people.
But a larger point was missing from most of the headlines on this tragedy, namely: why was the oil being transported by train in the first place?
I went to the store last weekend to buy some replacement 100-watt light bulbs….and I couldn’t find any.
Now, they had puh-lenty of bulbs: the squiggly, wiggly ones, along with several other shapes I’d never seen before. Plus, they also had a modest section of the normal incandescent 60- and 75-watt bulbs, but no 100’s.
And then I recalled, again, the Great Light Bulb Debacle®.
If you need a refresher on this subject, or if you’d just appreciate a fresh excuse to grind some of the enamel off your teeth, here you go (h/t the Washington Times):
That new 30-second ad arrives on the heels of a recent article by two Representatives in U.S. Congress, Shelley Moore Capito & Bill Johnson. Writing in ‘The Hill‘ blog, they detailed one thing: President Obama’s disdain for all things Coal.
“Since taking office, President Obama and his extreme EPA have issued new rules and regulations that are crippling the coal industry. In the weeks following President Obama’s inauguration, his administration was already in the process of rewriting the Stream Buffer Zone Rule – a rule that took 5 years to codify under the previous administration. President Obama’s rewrite of this one rule would cost tens of thousands of direct and indirect coal jobs.
New and costly regulations on coal-fired power plants are on their way. This “Train Wreck” of new EPA regulations has already caused companies like AEP and FirstEnergy to close coal-fired power plants throughout Ohio and the East costing jobs in places where unemployment is staggering. Also, President Obama’s EPA has taken actions toclassify coal ash as a hazardous material. Coal ash is used in drywall, concrete, and even bowling balls.
There’s no denying that we want clean air and clean water. But the President’s policies in no way balance protecting the environment with protecting jobs.”
19 Democrats joined with their GOP counterparts in the House today to vote in favor of legislation aimed at keeping coal plants open. The 233-175 vote is the last House lawmakers will take for the next seven weeks, as they now head back to their districts to campaign for the November 6 elections.
The Stop the War on Coal Act, H.R. 3409, introduced by Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio), would prevent the Obama administration from enforcing or instituting any new regulations on coal producers until at least the end of next year.
Lost in the shuffle of all the recent election wrangling has been the EPA’s assault upon the coal industry. The EPA’s new arbitrary rule, the Utility MACT (“Mercury and Air Toxics”), is having a chilling effect upon one of our primary sources of energy. We’ve previously seen what otherObama EPA officials feel their job is, so this isn’t exactly a surprise.
This time, EPA regional Administrator Carl Spalding speaks honestly, maybe too honestly, about the likely impact of the EPA on the future of coal.
Check out the video below.
“But know right now, we are, we are struggling. We are struggling because we are trying to do our jobs. Lisa Jackson has put forth a very powerful message to the country. Just two days ago, the decision on greenhouse gas performance standard and saying basically gas plants are the performance standard which means if you want to build a coal plant, you got a big problem.
That was a huge decision. You can’t imagine how tough that was. Because you got to remember that if you go to West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and all those places, you have coal communities who depend on coal. And to say that we just think those communities should just go away, we can’t do that. But she had to do what the law and policy suggested. And it’s painful. It’s painful every step of the way.”
Is this even arguably necessary? Does this make ANY sort of financial sense? For an accurate answer, I’d strongly suggest you visit Wesley Coopersmith over at FreedomWorks blog. There’s really no way to summarize it, and I don’t want to repost the whole thing here. I can, however, copy his summary sentence:
“What the Utility MACT rule would do is expand the already vast powers given to the EPA by the Clean Air Act, increasing red tape and imposing billions in new costs on the economy.”
I don’t know about you guys, but that certainly sounds worthwhile to me……
Along with the Catholic Church’s fight against Obamacare, this attempted power grab is one of the biggest fights for freedom in the country. If the EPA can basically cripple entire swaths of the energy industry completely on their own, don’t imagine that this will be the only time they do so.
This is the 2nd post that we’ve done on this topic (…here’s the first one).
I lived for a number of years in a Coal state (West Virginia) and am sympathetic to the plight discussed here. By any measure, the Obama Administration’s targeting of the coal industry seems deliberate. And, by setting arbitrary levels of mercury output, they are virtually begging for the law of “unintended consequences” to rear its head.
The EPA is proposing to forcepower plants to reduce mercury by 90 percent within three years—at an estimated cost of $11billion annually. A significant number of coal-fired plants will actually exceed the standard—by shutting down altogether. Indeed, grid operators, along with 27 states, are warning that the overly stringent regulations will threaten the reliability of the electricity system and dramatically increase power costs.