Climate plan vs. coal I
The news story “Obama sparks $7B action in Africa” in the July 1 print edition of the Trib said that in a speech at South Africa's Cape Town University, “President Obama ... announced an initiative to double access to electric power in sub-Saharan Africa with an initial $7 billion investment from the United States.” The effort will first focus on Ethiopia, Kenya, Liberia, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda and Mozambique.
It's ironic that while the president pledges American tax dollars to provide energy for Africa, he is attempting to destroy the coal industry in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and the rest of our country by imposing onerous regulations on an industry that produces 50 percent of America's energy.
I hope there are restrictions that accompany this $7 billion gift, stating that any energy funded by this money must be produced by wind farms and sunshine. Heaven forbid that it be produced by coal, wood or natural gas.
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.
- U.S. Steel worthy of grant
- Good ‘friends,’ good food
- An Obama clone
- Hospital’s hero & more
- White House not playing to win
- Write-in alternative
- Better in long run
- Working hard in fast food
- Unworthy of high office
- Farewell, my Springdale
- HB 1722 subjective