The war on coal: Dems do battle
Published: Sunday, June 23, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
New federal emission limits that, in reality, will eliminate future coal-fired power plants are generating considerable heat for an obstinate Obama administration — most notably from his own party.
Democrat governors of Montana and West Virginia, along with a group of U.S. senators, mince no words in urging President Obama to rein in the overbearing Environmental Protection Agency and its relentless war on coal.
Based on estimates from the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, more than 280 coal-fired power-generating plants would be scheduled for shutdown because of the harsher regs.
“For too long the EPA has overreached with its power at the cost of countless American jobs and critical investments,” says Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va. He's among those demanding that the Obama administration amend emission standards for new power plants.
But as some Dems spout off about the EPA, environmental groups and a dozen states have threatened legal action if the EPA doesn't finalize new emission standards. Reportedly, they're waiting to see a White House climate policy.
And lest we remind Pennsylvanians, coal provides nearly half of the electric-power generation in the commonwealth, where coal mining accounts for more than 49,000 jobs, according to the National Mining Association.
This is no fight for the faint of heart. Democrats who step up to defend coal are going to have to dig in and get their hands dirty — especially considering that Mr. Obama now is said to be ready to announce draconian limits on existing power plants.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Nelson Mandela: The real legacy
- Sunday pops
- PSERS time bomb: Tick, tick, tick, tick ...
- The Thursday wrap
- The Box
- More ObamaCare fallout: Medicare disadvantage
- The U.N. Human Rights Council: Warped definition
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- ‘Racism’? No
- Anti-fracking scandal: More junk ‘science’
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances