'Going backward or forward?': Fight intensifies over coal exports

BELLINGHAM, Wash. (AP) - The progressive college town of Bellingham, Wash., is known for its stunning scenery, access to the outdoors and eclectic mix of aging hippies, students and other residents. But lately it's turned into a battleground in the debate over whether the Pacific Northwest should become the hub for exporting U.S. coal to Asia.
Five ports proposed for Washington and Oregon could ship as much as 140 million tons of coal, mostly from the Rockies, where it could travel by rail through communities such as Spokane, Seattle and Eugene, Ore., before being loaded onto ships bound for Asia.
The Cherry Point marine terminal would be the largest coal-export port in the U.S., exporting up to 54 million tons of bulk commodities, mostly coal.
With so much at stake, critics and supporters have intensified their pitches in recent weeks, running TV and radio spots, doorbelling homes and turning to phone banks and social media to rally support for their side.
Hundreds packed a public hearing in Bellingham last week to tell regulators what should be analyzed during the environmental review process. Hearings in Seattle, Vancouver and Spokane are also expected to draw crowds.
"This flies in the face about what are we about as a region, as far as our leadership on building a clean economy and saying no to coal. We're seen as a region that leads with innovation," said Kimberly Larson, with the Power Past Coal campaign. "Are we going backward or forward?"
Environmentalists, some Northwest tribes and others want regulators to study the cumulative effects all five projects: increased train traffic, carbon emissions from burning coal overseas and other health and environmental concerns.
Project supporters say it's not practical to lump the projects together. Only some ports will be built, they say, and each has different circumstances.
"Most of the people who are proposing that just view it as an opportunity to grind everything to a halt," said Craig Cole, a spokesman for developer Seattle-based SSA Marine. "We are expecting a very full review of the impacts of this project."
Even as environmental reviews have started for three coal-export projects at Cherry Point, Port of Morrow, Ore., and Longview Wash., the Army Corps of Engineers hasn't decided whether it'll conduct a broader environmental review for all the projects.
"We haven't made that determination yet," said corps spokeswoman Michael Coffey. "We're not saying yes and we're not saying no either."
Two other projects are proposed in Oregon at Coos Bay and St. Helens. Another in Grays Harbor County, Wash., was shelved over the summer, after the developer decided to explore other terminal uses.
Meanwhile, a trade group that includes the three largest U.S. coal producers has been running TV and newspaper ads to tout jobs, tax revenues and other economic benefits.
"We feel that someone is going to supply the coal to the ports that need it. ... The question is: where is that coal going to come from?" said Lauri Hennessey, a spokeswoman for the Alliance for Northwest Jobs & Exports, which includes BNSF Railway and companies such as Peabody Coal, Arch Coal and Ambre Energy with stakes in the Northwest projects. "That coal can be sent through Washington and Oregon ports in a way that's environmentally responsible."
Several union leaders and some lawmakers say the region can't afford to turn down well-paying jobs. The company says the $665 million project will create 1,250 permanent direct and indirect jobs and generate $11 million in tax revenues; critics are skeptical.
"Some groups have demonized a natural resource and they think nobody on the planet should burn this material. I disagree. We need jobs," said Mike Elliott, chairman of the state's Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen.
Trains already carry coal from the Rockies through the state for export through British Columbia. But Bellingham resident Lynn Berman and others fear the increase in coal shipments - about nine mile-long trains a day - could threaten fisheries, create health problems and foul the area's natural resources.
"It's such a bad idea," said Berman, who worked the phone bank one afternoon in the field office in downtown Bellingham set up by ReSources, a local group that has been organizing against the project. "I think it will impact everyone in this community."
Volunteers have made 32,000 phone calls and hope to make tens of thousands more to educate people about the project, said Matt Petryni, Power Past Coal Campaign organizer. The Sierra Club is also running TV ads in Eastern Washington to warn of risks. It has plans to run more ads statewide and in Oregon.
The Cherry Point area is noted for extensive herring spawning grounds. It's also known burial grounds for the Lummi Nation. The tribe recently came out against the project.
"We do not want any further disturbance," said Jewell James, who manages the tribe's sovereignty and treaty protection office. "It's also a treaty rights issue. This always has been a major fishing and harvesting site for our fishermen."
On a recent afternoon, SSA Marine's Cole pointed to the site, near marine terminals for two oil refineries and an aluminum smelter. "This site has been intended for this purpose," said Cole, a former Whatcom County Councilman. He said the company plans to follow the highest environmental standards.
"The hoops that the company has to jump through are very extraordinary. They're really high. You have to prove that you can avoid impacts, minimize them or mitigate them," Cole said.
But neighbors and others who gathered in Cindy Franklin's living room for a letter-writing workshop that same afternoon weren't so sure.
"I'm afraid that this new race to get all this coal out of the ground, sell it under the guise of energy independence ... is going to destroy our atmosphere," said Franklin, 59, retired business consultant and environmental activist. "It's about the burning of the coal being a major contributor to climate change. We need to do all we can to stop this."
Five ports proposed for Washington and Oregon could ship as much as 140 million tons of coal, mostly from the Rockies, where it could travel by rail through communities such as Spokane, Seattle and Eugene, Ore., before being loaded onto ships bound for Asia.
The Cherry Point marine terminal would be the largest coal-export port in the U.S., exporting up to 54 million tons of bulk commodities, mostly coal.
With so much at stake, critics and supporters have intensified their pitches in recent weeks, running TV and radio spots, doorbelling homes and turning to phone banks and social media to rally support for their side.
Hundreds packed a public hearing in Bellingham last week to tell regulators what should be analyzed during the environmental review process. Hearings in Seattle, Vancouver and Spokane are also expected to draw crowds.
"This flies in the face about what are we about as a region, as far as our leadership on building a clean economy and saying no to coal. We're seen as a region that leads with innovation," said Kimberly Larson, with the Power Past Coal campaign. "Are we going backward or forward?"
Environmentalists, some Northwest tribes and others want regulators to study the cumulative effects all five projects: increased train traffic, carbon emissions from burning coal overseas and other health and environmental concerns.
Project supporters say it's not practical to lump the projects together. Only some ports will be built, they say, and each has different circumstances.
"Most of the people who are proposing that just view it as an opportunity to grind everything to a halt," said Craig Cole, a spokesman for developer Seattle-based SSA Marine. "We are expecting a very full review of the impacts of this project."
Even as environmental reviews have started for three coal-export projects at Cherry Point, Port of Morrow, Ore., and Longview Wash., the Army Corps of Engineers hasn't decided whether it'll conduct a broader environmental review for all the projects.
"We haven't made that determination yet," said corps spokeswoman Michael Coffey. "We're not saying yes and we're not saying no either."
Two other projects are proposed in Oregon at Coos Bay and St. Helens. Another in Grays Harbor County, Wash., was shelved over the summer, after the developer decided to explore other terminal uses.
Meanwhile, a trade group that includes the three largest U.S. coal producers has been running TV and newspaper ads to tout jobs, tax revenues and other economic benefits.
"We feel that someone is going to supply the coal to the ports that need it. ... The question is: where is that coal going to come from?" said Lauri Hennessey, a spokeswoman for the Alliance for Northwest Jobs & Exports, which includes BNSF Railway and companies such as Peabody Coal, Arch Coal and Ambre Energy with stakes in the Northwest projects. "That coal can be sent through Washington and Oregon ports in a way that's environmentally responsible."
Several union leaders and some lawmakers say the region can't afford to turn down well-paying jobs. The company says the $665 million project will create 1,250 permanent direct and indirect jobs and generate $11 million in tax revenues; critics are skeptical.
"Some groups have demonized a natural resource and they think nobody on the planet should burn this material. I disagree. We need jobs," said Mike Elliott, chairman of the state's Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen.
Trains already carry coal from the Rockies through the state for export through British Columbia. But Bellingham resident Lynn Berman and others fear the increase in coal shipments - about nine mile-long trains a day - could threaten fisheries, create health problems and foul the area's natural resources.
"It's such a bad idea," said Berman, who worked the phone bank one afternoon in the field office in downtown Bellingham set up by ReSources, a local group that has been organizing against the project. "I think it will impact everyone in this community."
Volunteers have made 32,000 phone calls and hope to make tens of thousands more to educate people about the project, said Matt Petryni, Power Past Coal Campaign organizer. The Sierra Club is also running TV ads in Eastern Washington to warn of risks. It has plans to run more ads statewide and in Oregon.
The Cherry Point area is noted for extensive herring spawning grounds. It's also known burial grounds for the Lummi Nation. The tribe recently came out against the project.
"We do not want any further disturbance," said Jewell James, who manages the tribe's sovereignty and treaty protection office. "It's also a treaty rights issue. This always has been a major fishing and harvesting site for our fishermen."
On a recent afternoon, SSA Marine's Cole pointed to the site, near marine terminals for two oil refineries and an aluminum smelter. "This site has been intended for this purpose," said Cole, a former Whatcom County Councilman. He said the company plans to follow the highest environmental standards.
"The hoops that the company has to jump through are very extraordinary. They're really high. You have to prove that you can avoid impacts, minimize them or mitigate them," Cole said.
But neighbors and others who gathered in Cindy Franklin's living room for a letter-writing workshop that same afternoon weren't so sure.
"I'm afraid that this new race to get all this coal out of the ground, sell it under the guise of energy independence ... is going to destroy our atmosphere," said Franklin, 59, retired business consultant and environmental activist. "It's about the burning of the coal being a major contributor to climate change. We need to do all we can to stop this."
So who stands to make money for the sale of this coal? Up to 140 million tons, When using fossil fuels there should be in place a cost for research for renewable energy. Solar, wind, tidal even pedal power .  Would I be saying that if I owned a very productive oil company? Hell no, its all about money our money and how they can get it now.                                                                                                                         Â
Liberals! coal is watered down and covered and there is no release just BS and Rumours from liberals.
Â
However fact is 65% of total sulfur dioxide emissions come from Volcanoes, then we have the guessing game on the remaining percentage since there is no possible way to determine how much is coming from every vehicle we have or other sources,
Â
EPA stated this as fact read up you liberals
Â
Â
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection
Agency). 1982.
Â
Air Quality Criteria for Particulate
Matter and Sulfur Oxides.
Â
EPA-600/8-82-029. December.
Research Triangle Park, N.C.
ââââ. 1986.
Â
Â
Â
Â
Second Addendum to Air Quality Criteria
for Particulate Matter and Sulfur Oxides (1982).
Â
EPA-600/8-86/020F. December. Research Triangle
Park, N.C.
ââââ. 1990.
Â
Review of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standard for Particulate Matter: Assessment of Scientific
and Technical Information
Â
. Research Triangle
Park, N.C.
ââââ. 1991.
Â
Â
Â
Â
National Air Quality and Emission Trends
Report, 1990
Â
. EPA-450/4-91-023. November. Research
Triangle Park, N.C.
Â
Â
Â
Â
One day EPA will have scubbers for Volcanoes it will only cost the Tax payer 600,000 Trillion
Makes Obamas 6 Trillion look like stupid chump change since we still have 7.9% unemployment to show for this debt dumped onto our children to pay off..Â
Â
Fact is 65% of total sulfur dioxide emissions come from Volcanoes, then we have the guessing game on the remaining percentage since there is no possible way to determine how much is coming from every vehicle we have or other sources,
Â
EPA stated this as fact read up you liberals
Â
Â
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection
Agency). 1982.
Â
Air Quality Criteria for Particulate
Matter and Sulfur Oxides.
Â
EPA-600/8-82-029. December.
Research Triangle Park, N.C.
ââââ. 1986.
Â
Â
Â
Â
Second Addendum to Air Quality Criteria
for Particulate Matter and Sulfur Oxides (1982).
Â
EPA-600/8-86/020F. December. Research Triangle
Park, N.C.
ââââ. 1990.
Â
Review of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standard for Particulate Matter: Assessment of Scientific
and Technical Information
Â
. Research Triangle
Park, N.C.
ââââ. 1991.
JUST "selecting a state to ship the coal out to foreign countries". This is currently being transported on the railways in open containers with no cover....so all the dust as this train moves through our communites is already happening! We do not need this money. It will cost us more in the long run. Damage to our environment , our people and creatures! It should not all be about the money.
False Nananona the coal is watered down and covered and there is no release just BS and Rumours from liberals.
Â
However fact is 65% of 65% of total sulfur dioxide emissions come from Volcanoes, then we have the guessing game on the remaining percentage since there is no possible way to determine how much is coming from every vehicle we have or other sources,
Â
EPA stated this as fact read up you liberals
Â
Â
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection
Agency). 1982.
Air Quality Criteria for Particulate
Matter and Sulfur Oxides.
EPA-600/8-82-029. December.
Research Triangle Park, N.C.
ââââ. 1986.
Â
Second Addendum to Air Quality Criteria
for Particulate Matter and Sulfur Oxides (1982).
EPA-600/8-86/020F. December. Research Triangle
Park, N.C.
ââââ. 1990.
Review of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standard for Particulate Matter: Assessment of Scientific
and Technical Information
. Research Triangle
Park, N.C.
ââââ. 1991.
Â
National Air Quality and Emission Trends
Report, 1990
. EPA-450/4-91-023. November. Research
Triangle Park, N.C.
Â
This comment has been deleted
Carbon Dioxide is a false argument, it always has been. Ask any botanist what happens with increased CO2. Plants grow faster thereby producing more oxygen. PArt of the argument is that CO2 raises into the atmosphere and causes global warming. Not true. CO2 is heavier than oxygen and tends to stay low, which is again good for plant growth. The real culprit in air pollution is not CO2 but CO which is carbon monoxide. It kills everything. @n9078jk4Â Â @Bill Bylthe
One more time: Â This is just selecting a "state' to ship the coal out of to foreign countries.
Â
We will not be burning it or using it in Washington state.
Â
One of the states will win the contract. Â One of the states will have more money to spend on their disabled, feed their hungry, better fund their schools - and here's a new idea to you Democrats, AND maybe actually budget the balance.
Â
Â
Washington state doesn't need this money - let Oregon have it. Â I think we still have $1.27 in the checking account for the Democrats to spend.
Â
Idiots. Â
 No matter what the good these projects will do the enviros will delay it. The enviros will tie this up in the courts and eventually the buyers will just buy the product someplace else. Progressive Democrats with their enviro antics ,taking away AMERICA,destroying the country,taking away property rights. When will you wake up.
The war on coal just caused natural gas fracking to occur which is now going to thoroughly contaminate waters which were never polluted before. If WA does not ship this coal some other place will.Â
Â
Do the college educated in Bellingham have a real degree in hard sciences or some flaky green- psychology degree about Zen gardens?
 @david davey tell you what. let's run the train through your front yard.
65% of total sulfur dioxide emissions come from Volcanoes, then we have the guessing game on the remaining percentage since there is no possible way to determine how much is coming from every vehicle we have or other source,
Obama who is ignorant about lower-sulfur coal is also ignorant about Lower-sulfur coal mines in the US that we would sell to China. Now we can take the stupid approach and let some other country sell the dirty coal to China or save Miners jobs in central Appalachia and the western United States would see big gains in production of this lower-sulfur coal, which would be transported via Railroads.  When you have people who are ignorant about lower-sulfur coal like Obama and his buddy caphillkid then the facts get lost.
 @Bill Bylthe 73% of statistics are made up - I read it on the interwebs on this message board so it has to be true.
 @Howard Beale  @Bill Bylthe EPA Statistics must be lying again... But if you don't believe the EPA that 65% of total sulfur dioxide emissions come from Volcanoes than you don't believe the EPA
 @Bill Bylthe Both Obama and caphill think that government office jobs produce wealth and that grinding the private sector into the ground with frivolous EPA regulation will have little impact on their lives. At least Obama is right about that--the rest of us, not so much.
 @Bill Bylthe They aren't talking about processing the coal here. The raw coal is what they are talking about shipping.Â
if youve ever watched the cooking shows china and ect use coal like we use charcoal they live longer then we do maybe we should be interested to how, and since we (dont have to sell coal)? or would rather not why not charge alooot more then someone else?
Â
 @maggie112Â
According to the CIA, the Chinese are ranked 63rd for life span, we're ranked 37th. Now last I checked, 37th comes BEFORE 63rd.
Â
This of course raises a bigger point - how on earth can we be ranked only 37th when we spend the second most per citizen in terms of GDP on health care in the world? With all our resources, you'd think we were number one.
Â
If you're really trying to build an argument that coal smoke is "good for you," well - that seems like insanity to me. Have you ever been to Bejing and breathed in their lovely air? Ever actually been to a coal burning power plant, or worked in one, and dealt with coal dust everywhere? In your office. In the vents of you car. In your clothes. In your hair. Chest X-ray mandatory every year.
Â
But I'd love to see the study that says that burning coal leads to a longer lifespan.
These environmentalists anger me because they don't look at the entire picture.Â
Â
First and foremost there is nothing that is zero impact on the environment. Loccards Law states it is impossible to enter and environment without permanently altering the environment.Â
Â
I am not a big fan of coal power plants myself. The harsh truth though is many of these Asian countries are third world countries. Power has become an essential element to survival and without it many of these area cannot develop or survive without it. That leads to conflict and blood shed. There are numerous examples of countries having civil wars because basic needs are not met for the citizens.Â
Â
We cannot control what someone does with a product once its out of our hands. Many foreign coal plants have become "clean" and installed scrubbers to help reduce contaminants. Unfortunately we ultimately have no control whether they do that or not.Â
Â
The bottom line is this is a chance for economic growth and jobs here in the US and ultimately economic and human growth in the countries receiving the product. The environmental impact is minimal - we already ship coal and countries already burn it. We have a large supply and not much demand here in the US, why not turn it into an economical boost for this country?
Â
I can think of much worse things than this. As long as the railroads can work out an efficient schedule to minimize the impact to drivers then I say go for it.Â
 @seattleemt somehow I don't think you are going to be in the running for any diplomatic positions any time soon...Â
"This flies in the face about what we are about as a region, as far as our leadership on building a clean economy and saying no to coal."Â It also flies in the face of common sense! With the most recent 'franken-storm', you would think we all would step back and reexamine our priorities...do we really want to release more carbon with coal? What is wrong with this thinking? It's what has gotten us to this tipping point...we do not need to be exporting more coal..that's simply insane!
 @ytboarder so the "frankenstorm" was caused by the so-called global warming? You really want to go with that? Because if you do you should recognize that there past seven years there have been no hurricanes that hit the USA. So by your "logic" we should be burning more coal to ensure AGW.Â
Â
Fortunately, AGW is an unproven fantasy and global climate change has no effect on hurricanes.
 @LockesChild  @ytboarder All the credible scientist in this country (and others) are in agreement that man-caused climate change is a reality. It is only those such as yourself who want to continue to deny that fact and for what reason? From what I can gather, it is mostly because of a fear of having to spend $$$$ in a new direction. Just add up the costs of all the storms, fires, droughts and other recent destruction - due to climate change - and you see we are already having to spend $$$$ in a new direction. I think the denial is mostly due to fear - if the deniers were to admit they are wrong, they would also have to admit it is because of THEM and their 'hoax' logic that has lead to the costly delays in putting together a comprehensive response to the insane position we are in.
There's no proof that "global warming" is man made. It could easily be explained away as a natural phenomenon. There have been huge swings in global temperatures documented in the past well before man walked this Earth.
Where's the EPA in all of this???Â
 @CJ Trying to figure out which way will give them the biggest budget increase, so they know how to decide.
We are possibly the only country in the world who thinks it can control what all other countries do. I'm all for preserving the enviornment but these enviornmentalist have in some respects crippled this country as far as being competitive is concerned. This coal is going to be exported whether Wa. State likes it or not. The jobs will just go elsewhere. There are many things in this world contributing to air polution and we are naieve if we think we are going to control all of it.
 @Jatok just in some ways? Obama's EPA is implementing his stated plan to destroy the coal industry and is well on his way to crippling our economy with infeasible regulations.Â
@LockesChild Yes, the EPA has done some great work in this country but when they crossed the line between that and what they are doing now they went to far.
 @LockesChild  @Jatok it's your EPA. this is a democracy no matter how much you spew otherwise.
@tufa23 @LockesChild No, the government is responsible for that agency. I had nothing to say about it. If it were mine I would definately not let them "run" the country. This is a democracy and whether you like it or not I am entitled to my opinion. Now you go spew somewhere else.
Mommy! Let me out!
Â
Â
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/05/asian-brown-cloud-threatens-us.html
http://www.masterresource.org/2012/06/asian-air-pollution-warming/
http://researchmatters.noaa.gov/news/Pages/ozonestudy.aspx
It seems like a no brainer, really.
 @Elvis Oh please. Another overdriven model. Did you read this for comprehension?
 @LockesChild  @Elvis when are you and little billy gettin hitched?
 @Elvis It is. But where there is big profit to be made brains don't seem to function right.
Yau like the Profit from those bankrupt solar companies our tax dollars funded.
 @Bill Bylthe you like Beijing's yellow coal-burning poison sky. you wish it was yours too.
I see the bright environmentalists lightening up!! It's pot and drugs!!
Sounds like its a choice between clean air and water versus greed and pollution.
 @Darn it! Or it could be framed as "jobs and electricity, or darkness and poverty." Just as stark, just as true, and just as much a false dichotomy.
 @RN1 If conservatives like Romney actually cared about the coal workers in Appalachia, he would be demanding that the mine owners pay their workers a little more instead of doing campaign speeches at mines where the workers are told by their boss to show up or get fired.Â
 @RN1  @Darn it!  @caphillkid If you quit, you do not qualify for unemployment. Do you really need to be told how bad the job market is? There aren't a lot of alternatives for many of us. How does someone quit the only jobs available in an area and still support their family? I spent a miserable decade in a terrible workplace because my family means more to me than any job. I didn't quit, because there were not a lot of jobs to choose from in my area.
 @RN1  @caphillkid Obama does not fit the actual definition of a narcissist. That and other mental health terms get thrown around rather flippantly when someone simply does not like a person. Race actually does have a bit to do with why a lot of people don't like Obama, but many will try like heck to hide that.
 @alwaysbusy  @RN1  @caphillkid I have come to the conclusion that you are absolutely correct.Â
 @alwaysbusy  @caphillkid  @Darn it! Your one-dimensional view of people doesn't exactly speak well of your view of humanity... so why do you want such people in charge of GOVERNMENT FORCE to "encourage" what you think are desirable outcomes? The people at the top of the GOVERNMENT food chain don't care much about the people at the bottom, either, so how are you planning on calling THEM to account? Also, do you have a job? Yes? So, do you work for a profit, or at cost?
 @RN1  @caphillkid  @Darn it! The people at the very top of the corporate food chain don't care about anything other than profit. If one mine or mine company goes down, more fat cats move in to take their place. As always, the rich stay rich at the expense of the workers and the public at large. People like RN1 will never understand this and don't care to see what the rest of us see plain as day so trying to change their minds is a waste of effort.
 @RN1  @caphillkid You really believe that it is ok that mines operate at unsafe conditions. That it is ok that the mine owners pay fines instead of fixing the unsafe conditions because it's cheaper to pay the fines. You make a lot of assumptions. I am going to say that the net savings is in peoples lives.Â
 @caphillkid  @Darn it! So. Spend the money to make the mines TOTALLY safe.Coal-powered electricity generation costs double. Due to increased costs, hundreds die elsewhere because of electricity cutbacks to save money, and because of other cutbacks in usage vacations are cut back (meaning greater unemployment in THOSE fields), and there is greater discomfort from decreased usage... OK, where is the net savings, there?Â
 @Darn it!  @caphillkid If it's the only game in town, then take the offer... or change towns. People have been doing that for a LONG time.
 @caphillkid Exactly. It's the same philosophy as Bain buying companies, closing them down and shipping the jobs overseas. These people have no morals or social conscience. Basically, they want to go back to the days of serfdom and slavery.
 @Darn it! RN1 doesn't get it. These are not Mom and Pop coal mine operations. These are massive energy companies that own many mines. They don't care about fines and citations. They expect to be fined. It is cheaper for them to pay the fines than to make mining safer. So what if the shelter areas don't have enough oxygen or water or batteries for communication devices. If you get caught, just pay the fine and move on.Â
 @RN1 Ok let's talk profit and safety. Remember Massey Energy? A few years ago they had that massive coal dust explosion in W. Virginia where 29 people were killed.
Â
The company paid out 10 million in statutory fines and over 200 million in civil settlements.Â
Â
So obviously it bankrupted the company right?
Â
Nope, one year later Massey was bought by another energy company for 7.1 billion.Â
Â
Before Massey was bought, their profit in 2009 was over 100 million and they took in well over 2 billion in revenue. Â
Â
Â
 @RN1  @caphillkid It's the only game in town There are no other employers. OSHA has given them many warnings and citations that they keep ignoring.Â
 @Darn it!  @caphillkid If the pay is to low, they can quit. If it's unsafe, they can report it to OSHA. If they are not quitting, and not shut by OSHA, then it's not as bad as you say.
 @caphillkid Pretty pathetic that you play the race-card at every chance you get. I don't like his policies, or his white half either. He's an incompetent narcissist, a trash-talking bully, a dyed-in-the-wool statist. Race has zero to do with many people's dislike for him.
 @caphillkid  @RN1 That was bad. And they didn't even get paid for showing up. Was it here that they were told they also had to contribute to Romney's campaign or they could be fired?
 @RN1  @caphillkid If the owners aren't going to meet safety requirements even after they have been told to, mtany times, then the mine should be shut down. The owner's are laughing all the way to the bank and workers are coughing all the way to the hospital.Â
The thing that really makes me mad is watching Republicans like Romney use a terrible employment situation as leverage against the workers themselves. It's like, "yeah this job pays nothing, but if you vote for the black guy, you won't even have this pathetic job."
 @RN1  @caphillkid It's deplorable that you want those workers to keep working in the unsafe, unhealthy conditions they go through now.Â
 @caphillkid Have you considered that the purpose of a mine operation is TO MAKE A PROFIT? No profit plus lots of risk equals shut mine.
 @caphillkid  @RN1 Maybe they can grow asparagus. Sorry, didn't mean to be flip. The conditions they live and work in are deplorable and would only get better if they had an alternative,
 @RN1 Gee, I dunno. How much profit do the mine owners make? Why is it that you guys never consider that option?  Â
 @caphillkid Pay them more - you mean either make power generation more expensive, or lay off some workers and automate more (because the higher the unit labor cost, the more cost-effective automation is).
 @RN1 Maybe after a century or more of raiding the communities in Appalachia, leveling their mountains, destroying their streams, and using them as cheap labor for rich fat cat industrialists, losing the coal jobs would actually help that part of the country. Because, after all, look at all those rich West Virginians who made all that money working in the mines all day. It's been so great for all of them. Thank God the Republicans are here to save all your great jobs.
 @RN1 I guess you don't believe there is any wind in China.Â
Nuclear power and electric cars are the only viable options to reducing greenhouse gases and the dependency on oil. You can snicker all you want but that is what technology has to offer at this time.
 @LockesChild  @Larrygg ah yes. the friendly atom. an angry white guy posting from his basement yet again.
 @Larrygg Particularly if by using these overpriced and under-producing "green" energy strategies the USA cripples itself.
Â
How can you tell if someone is a environmental fraud? They believe in AGW and oppose nuclear energy.
 @RN1 Coal can be used if it is gassified and then burned. But the cost is too hiigh to complete at this time. But over time as oil and gas become more and more expensive it will become feasable. The holy grail is to gassify coal and then scrub all of the pollutants and CO2 out of the exhaust emmisions.Solar is getting better but it is still not economically feasable on a grand scale without the current tax breaks.
China will not use much wind power because it is not cost effective and not feasible in the quantities that are needed. They are quite happy to sell us all of the wind turbines and solar cells that they can produce and that we can subsidize with taxpayer funds.
 @RN1 I like a combination of renewable energy. Solar power technology is getting better all the time. But once there is so much smog from buring coal it won't be of much use.
 @Darn it! Ah, wind power. You must hate birds and bats. You must also like irregular, expensive power, or else building stand-by plants running on idle to kick in when the wind dies. http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/why-wind-wont-work.pdf , http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenergy/writev/517/m59.htm