Obama Regulations Force Coal Mines To Shut Down Right Before The Election

[Stephanie]

hey, Obama CARES about YOU

snip:

Posted on September 18, 2012 by TheTamminator // Hillbuzz

If Obama is counting on winning Pennsylvania, he may have a little surprise coming to him. According to Business Week, Alpha Natural Resources is closing down mines in West Virginia, Virginia, and Pennsylvania IMMEDIATELY. A total of 1200 people will be without jobs.

Is this the hope and change Obama was talking about? Or was it his promise a few years back that coal regulations would cause energy prices to “necessarily sky-rocket”? Not only are you going to have a bunch of angry, unemployed people, but those same folks won’t even be able to afford to turn their own lights on in their homes. Of course, with no jobs, they won’t be able to pay their mortgages, so I guess that’s a moot point.

As far as I could find, the Corrupt Media hasn’t even touched this story yet. Drudge had a link, and I found the Businessweek story, but apparently few else seem to care that another working class industry that makes our Nation thrive, is now tanking.


Read more Obama Regulations Force Coal Mines To Shut Down…Right Before The Election


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpTIhyMa-Nw]Obama's Promise the Bankrupt the Coal Industry - YouTube[/ame]

 

[world]

Trust me, CNN would dispute every story that looks bad for Obama...

 

[Lakhota]

Why are they closing? I already know, but would like to hear your wingnut spin.

 

[Bfgrn]

The REAL story:

Alpha, the nation’s second-largest coal producer, will increase its focus on metallurgical coal, which is used to make steel and typically feeds the export markets, while downsizing its higher-cost production of thermal coal, which is used to generate electricity.

“Operations that have competitive cost positions and more stable customer demand — such as supplying baseload power plants and generating units that will survive a stricter regulatory regime — will supply the majority of the company’s U.S. thermal coal output,” the company said in a statement.

Read more: Alpha Natural Resources closing 8 coal mines - Erica Martinson - POLITICO.com

 

[Black_Label]

The REAL story:

Alpha, the nation’s second-largest coal producer, will increase its focus on metallurgical coal, which is used to make steel and typically feeds the export markets, while downsizing its higher-cost production of thermal coal, which is used to generate electricity.

“Operations that have competitive cost positions and more stable customer demand — such as supplying baseload power plants and generating units that will survive a stricter regulatory regime — will supply the majority of the company’s U.S. thermal coal output,” the company said in a statement.

Read more: Alpha Natural Resources closing 8 coal mines - Erica Martinson - POLITICO.com

Now don't go around showing the facts or anything

 

[martybegan]

The REAL story:

Alpha, the nation’s second-largest coal producer, will increase its focus on metallurgical coal, which is used to make steel and typically feeds the export markets, while downsizing its higher-cost production of thermal coal, which is used to generate electricity.

“Operations that have competitive cost positions and more stable customer demand — such as supplying baseload power plants and generating units that will survive a stricter regulatory regime — will supply the majority of the company’s U.S. thermal coal output,” the company said in a statement.

Read more: Alpha Natural Resources closing 8 coal mines - Erica Martinson - POLITICO.com

And why do you think they have to downsize higher cost production of thermal coal? Because the upcoming regulations making coal plants less cost effective will lower demand for thermal coal, thus lowering costs if supply remains the same.

So the new regulations are still to blame for the downsizing, and since they are Obama's regulations, its still on him for these losses.

Nice attempt at spin though, although next time I would reference something that actually proves your own point, instead of the OP's original point.

 

[mudwhistle]

hey, Obama CARES about YOU

snip:

Posted on September 18, 2012 by TheTamminator // Hillbuzz

If Obama is counting on winning Pennsylvania, he may have a little surprise coming to him. According to Business Week, Alpha Natural Resources is closing down mines in West Virginia, Virginia, and Pennsylvania IMMEDIATELY. A total of 1200 people will be without jobs.

Is this the hope and change Obama was talking about? Or was it his promise a few years back that coal regulations would cause energy prices to “necessarily sky-rocket”? Not only are you going to have a bunch of angry, unemployed people, but those same folks won’t even be able to afford to turn their own lights on in their homes. Of course, with no jobs, they won’t be able to pay their mortgages, so I guess that’s a moot point.

As far as I could find, the Corrupt Media hasn’t even touched this story yet. Drudge had a link, and I found the Businessweek story, but apparently few else seem to care that another working class industry that makes our Nation thrive, is now tanking.


Read more Obama Regulations Force Coal Mines To Shut Down…Right Before The Election


Obama's Promise the Bankrupt the Coal Industry - YouTube

Heard about this last night.

But Obama has nothing to do with it..........

 

[Bfgrn]

The REAL story:

Alpha, the nation’s second-largest coal producer, will increase its focus on metallurgical coal, which is used to make steel and typically feeds the export markets, while downsizing its higher-cost production of thermal coal, which is used to generate electricity.

“Operations that have competitive cost positions and more stable customer demand — such as supplying baseload power plants and generating units that will survive a stricter regulatory regime — will supply the majority of the company’s U.S. thermal coal output,” the company said in a statement.

Read more: Alpha Natural Resources closing 8 coal mines - Erica Martinson - POLITICO.com

And why do you think they have to downsize higher cost production of thermal coal? Because the upcoming regulations making coal plants less cost effective will lower demand for thermal coal, thus lowering costs if supply remains the same.

So the new regulations are still to blame for the downsizing, and since they are Obama's regulations, its still on him for these losses.

Nice attempt at spin though, although next time I would reference something that actually proves your own point, instead of the OP's original point.

There is no sin except stupidity.
Oscar Wilde

Spin? How about FACTS? These 'new' regulations have been in place for over 20 years. The Obama administration is going to enforce the law...FINALLY.

Clinton tried, and would have succeeded if the 2000 election wasn't stolen by the Supreme Robes. During his administration, the EPA filed lawsuits against some of the nation's largest electric utilities. The government charged these companies with violating the Clean Air Act by expanding their coal-fired electric plants without controlling emissions such as nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide--noxious gases that cause smog, asthma, lung cancer, and premature death.

These companies had settled out of court to clean up their power plants.

Enter Bush...

The Bush administration quickly set about weakening the Clean Air Act, stoking public fears of energy shortages and blackouts as a rationale for leniency (even though 2001 was a record year for power plant expansion). White House staff and the Energy Department, working closely with lobbyists for the same companies we had sued, directed EPA to expand loopholes that allow 40- or 50-year-old power plants to continue pumping out 12 million tons of sulfur dioxide a year, without implementing modern pollution controls. What's more, in March, EPA Administrator Christine Whitman shocked everyone by publicly suggesting that companies hold off on settlements pending the outcome of litigation. Not surprisingly, Cinergy and Dominion backed out of their agreements and refused to sign consent decrees. (Recently, the administration rolled out a series of "reforms" making it so easy for these big plants to avoid pollution controls that they might as well have been written by defendants' lawyers.) A year and a half later, nothing has improved, and the opportunity for cleaner air that once seemed so close has been lost--the other companies, once on the path to settlement, have drifted away from the negotiating table.

In a matter of weeks, the Bush administration was able to undo the environmental progress we had worked years to secure. Millions of tons of unnecessary pollution continue to pour from these power plants each year as a result. Adding insult to injury, the White House sought to slash the EPA's enforcement budget, making it harder for us to pursue cases we'd already launched against other polluters that had run afoul of the law, from auto manufacturers to refineries, large industrial hog feedlots, and paper companies. It became clear that Bush had little regard for the environment--and even less for enforcing the laws that protect it. So last spring, after 12 years at the agency, I resigned, stating my reasons in a very public letter to Administrator Whitman.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Dean Connor
President and CEO, The American Lung Association

Confusion is a popular tool in Washington. The opposition campaign to the Environmental Protection Agency's new health standards for toxic air pollution from coal-fired power plants is a clear example.

Lately, there seems to be a new claim every day about why some polluters can't or won't install modern pollution controls on their smokestacks. Far too often, what's missing from the discussion is the real and significant consequence of their resistance -- the health impacts. Cleaning up toxic air pollution will save lives, and this action is long overdue.

The American Lung Association thanks President Obama and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson for seeing through the smokescreen and putting the health of our children first. Life-threatening air pollutants from coal-fired power plants have slipped through a "toxic loophole" that has existed for more than 20 years. Finally, all power plants will be cleaned up. Half of the country's plants already have installed modern emissions controls, now is the time to finish the job.

The final standards, announced by President Obama this week, will protect Americans against life-threatening air pollution like mercury, arsenic and other toxins linked to cancer, heart disease, neurological damage, birth defects, asthma attacks and even premature death.

These standards are a lifesaver. Each year they will prevent 11,000 premature deaths and 130,000 childhood asthma attacks. Yet some big polluters and their allies in Congress continue to call for a delay. They want to postpone the cleanup by years and they want to emit up to 20 percent more mercury than the limits set by the Obama administration. But who could possibly justify needless deaths, disease and damage to children's neurological development?

This pollution impacts people who live and breathe in the shadow of the power plant and those that are hundreds of miles away. More than 400 coal-fired power plants located in 46 states across the country release in excess of 386,000 tons of hazardous air pollutants into the atmosphere each year.

Since President George H.W. Bush signed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 twenty-one years ago, companies have been on notice that this cleanup was coming. There is better and cheaper technology available now, that American companies make and American workers will install, to lower emissions.

Many power companies have made the investment or have plans to comply; they are to be commended. We urge the remainder to spend money on cleanup, not on lawyers and lobbyist to try to block these lifesaving standards. Step forward and work to maximize the pollution reductions and do your fair share to help those that breathe the air downwind from your smokestacks. No one wants to breathe your secondhand smog any more.

 

[Old Rocks]

Coal is under a triple whammy right now. Cheaper natural gas that has far less cost in plant maintenance and pollution controls, increasing costs of mining and transporting coal, and the fact that so many in the industry ignored the timelines on pollution controls.

 

[buckeye45_73]

The REAL story:

Alpha, the nation’s second-largest coal producer, will increase its focus on metallurgical coal, which is used to make steel and typically feeds the export markets, while downsizing its higher-cost production of thermal coal, which is used to generate electricity.

“Operations that have competitive cost positions and more stable customer demand — such as supplying baseload power plants and generating units that will survive a stricter regulatory regime — will supply the majority of the company’s U.S. thermal coal output,” the company said in a statement.

Read more: Alpha Natural Resources closing 8 coal mines - Erica Martinson - POLITICO.com

And why do you think they have to downsize higher cost production of thermal coal? Because the upcoming regulations making coal plants less cost effective will lower demand for thermal coal, thus lowering costs if supply remains the same.

So the new regulations are still to blame for the downsizing, and since they are Obama's regulations, its still on him for these losses.

Nice attempt at spin though, although next time I would reference something that actually proves your own point, instead of the OP's original point.

There is no sin except stupidity.
Oscar Wilde

Spin? How about FACTS? These 'new' regulations have been in place for over 20 years. The Obama administration is going to enforce the law...FINALLY.

Clinton tried, and would have succeeded if the 2000 election wasn't stolen by the Supreme Robes. During his administration, the EPA filed lawsuits against some of the nation's largest electric utilities. The government charged these companies with violating the Clean Air Act by expanding their coal-fired electric plants without controlling emissions such as nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide--noxious gases that cause smog, asthma, lung cancer, and premature death.

These companies had settled out of court to clean up their power plants.

Enter Bush...

The Bush administration quickly set about weakening the Clean Air Act, stoking public fears of energy shortages and blackouts as a rationale for leniency (even though 2001 was a record year for power plant expansion). White House staff and the Energy Department, working closely with lobbyists for the same companies we had sued, directed EPA to expand loopholes that allow 40- or 50-year-old power plants to continue pumping out 12 million tons of sulfur dioxide a year, without implementing modern pollution controls. What's more, in March, EPA Administrator Christine Whitman shocked everyone by publicly suggesting that companies hold off on settlements pending the outcome of litigation. Not surprisingly, Cinergy and Dominion backed out of their agreements and refused to sign consent decrees. (Recently, the administration rolled out a series of "reforms" making it so easy for these big plants to avoid pollution controls that they might as well have been written by defendants' lawyers.) A year and a half later, nothing has improved, and the opportunity for cleaner air that once seemed so close has been lost--the other companies, once on the path to settlement, have drifted away from the negotiating table.

In a matter of weeks, the Bush administration was able to undo the environmental progress we had worked years to secure. Millions of tons of unnecessary pollution continue to pour from these power plants each year as a result. Adding insult to injury, the White House sought to slash the EPA's enforcement budget, making it harder for us to pursue cases we'd already launched against other polluters that had run afoul of the law, from auto manufacturers to refineries, large industrial hog feedlots, and paper companies. It became clear that Bush had little regard for the environment--and even less for enforcing the laws that protect it. So last spring, after 12 years at the agency, I resigned, stating my reasons in a very public letter to Administrator Whitman.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Dean Connor
President and CEO, The American Lung Association

Confusion is a popular tool in Washington. The opposition campaign to the Environmental Protection Agency's new health standards for toxic air pollution from coal-fired power plants is a clear example.

Lately, there seems to be a new claim every day about why some polluters can't or won't install modern pollution controls on their smokestacks. Far too often, what's missing from the discussion is the real and significant consequence of their resistance -- the health impacts. Cleaning up toxic air pollution will save lives, and this action is long overdue.

The American Lung Association thanks President Obama and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson for seeing through the smokescreen and putting the health of our children first. Life-threatening air pollutants from coal-fired power plants have slipped through a "toxic loophole" that has existed for more than 20 years. Finally, all power plants will be cleaned up. Half of the country's plants already have installed modern emissions controls, now is the time to finish the job.

The final standards, announced by President Obama this week, will protect Americans against life-threatening air pollution like mercury, arsenic and other toxins linked to cancer, heart disease, neurological damage, birth defects, asthma attacks and even premature death.

These standards are a lifesaver. Each year they will prevent 11,000 premature deaths and 130,000 childhood asthma attacks. Yet some big polluters and their allies in Congress continue to call for a delay. They want to postpone the cleanup by years and they want to emit up to 20 percent more mercury than the limits set by the Obama administration. But who could possibly justify needless deaths, disease and damage to children's neurological development?

This pollution impacts people who live and breathe in the shadow of the power plant and those that are hundreds of miles away. More than 400 coal-fired power plants located in 46 states across the country release in excess of 386,000 tons of hazardous air pollutants into the atmosphere each year.

Since President George H.W. Bush signed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 twenty-one years ago, companies have been on notice that this cleanup was coming. There is better and cheaper technology available now, that American companies make and American workers will install, to lower emissions.

Many power companies have made the investment or have plans to comply; they are to be commended. We urge the remainder to spend money on cleanup, not on lawyers and lobbyist to try to block these lifesaving standards. Step forward and work to maximize the pollution reductions and do your fair share to help those that breathe the air downwind from your smokestacks. No one wants to breathe your secondhand smog any more.

This is why I love liberals, guess what it's still liberals that pass this enviroshit. They are shutting the coal mines down. Get rid of this stupid ass law or regulation.

And no the supreme court didnt steal the election, Gore is a pussy and a sore loser. And democrats are too fucking stupid to punch a ballot.....get some education you fucktards

 

[Bfgrn]

And why do you think they have to downsize higher cost production of thermal coal? Because the upcoming regulations making coal plants less cost effective will lower demand for thermal coal, thus lowering costs if supply remains the same.

So the new regulations are still to blame for the downsizing, and since they are Obama's regulations, its still on him for these losses.

Nice attempt at spin though, although next time I would reference something that actually proves your own point, instead of the OP's original point.

There is no sin except stupidity.
Oscar Wilde

Spin? How about FACTS? These 'new' regulations have been in place for over 20 years. The Obama administration is going to enforce the law...FINALLY.

Clinton tried, and would have succeeded if the 2000 election wasn't stolen by the Supreme Robes. During his administration, the EPA filed lawsuits against some of the nation's largest electric utilities. The government charged these companies with violating the Clean Air Act by expanding their coal-fired electric plants without controlling emissions such as nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide--noxious gases that cause smog, asthma, lung cancer, and premature death.

These companies had settled out of court to clean up their power plants.

Enter Bush...

The Bush administration quickly set about weakening the Clean Air Act, stoking public fears of energy shortages and blackouts as a rationale for leniency (even though 2001 was a record year for power plant expansion). White House staff and the Energy Department, working closely with lobbyists for the same companies we had sued, directed EPA to expand loopholes that allow 40- or 50-year-old power plants to continue pumping out 12 million tons of sulfur dioxide a year, without implementing modern pollution controls. What's more, in March, EPA Administrator Christine Whitman shocked everyone by publicly suggesting that companies hold off on settlements pending the outcome of litigation. Not surprisingly, Cinergy and Dominion backed out of their agreements and refused to sign consent decrees. (Recently, the administration rolled out a series of "reforms" making it so easy for these big plants to avoid pollution controls that they might as well have been written by defendants' lawyers.) A year and a half later, nothing has improved, and the opportunity for cleaner air that once seemed so close has been lost--the other companies, once on the path to settlement, have drifted away from the negotiating table.

In a matter of weeks, the Bush administration was able to undo the environmental progress we had worked years to secure. Millions of tons of unnecessary pollution continue to pour from these power plants each year as a result. Adding insult to injury, the White House sought to slash the EPA's enforcement budget, making it harder for us to pursue cases we'd already launched against other polluters that had run afoul of the law, from auto manufacturers to refineries, large industrial hog feedlots, and paper companies. It became clear that Bush had little regard for the environment--and even less for enforcing the laws that protect it. So last spring, after 12 years at the agency, I resigned, stating my reasons in a very public letter to Administrator Whitman.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Dean Connor
President and CEO, The American Lung Association

Confusion is a popular tool in Washington. The opposition campaign to the Environmental Protection Agency's new health standards for toxic air pollution from coal-fired power plants is a clear example.

Lately, there seems to be a new claim every day about why some polluters can't or won't install modern pollution controls on their smokestacks. Far too often, what's missing from the discussion is the real and significant consequence of their resistance -- the health impacts. Cleaning up toxic air pollution will save lives, and this action is long overdue.

The American Lung Association thanks President Obama and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson for seeing through the smokescreen and putting the health of our children first. Life-threatening air pollutants from coal-fired power plants have slipped through a "toxic loophole" that has existed for more than 20 years. Finally, all power plants will be cleaned up. Half of the country's plants already have installed modern emissions controls, now is the time to finish the job.

The final standards, announced by President Obama this week, will protect Americans against life-threatening air pollution like mercury, arsenic and other toxins linked to cancer, heart disease, neurological damage, birth defects, asthma attacks and even premature death.

These standards are a lifesaver. Each year they will prevent 11,000 premature deaths and 130,000 childhood asthma attacks. Yet some big polluters and their allies in Congress continue to call for a delay. They want to postpone the cleanup by years and they want to emit up to 20 percent more mercury than the limits set by the Obama administration. But who could possibly justify needless deaths, disease and damage to children's neurological development?

This pollution impacts people who live and breathe in the shadow of the power plant and those that are hundreds of miles away. More than 400 coal-fired power plants located in 46 states across the country release in excess of 386,000 tons of hazardous air pollutants into the atmosphere each year.

Since President George H.W. Bush signed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 twenty-one years ago, companies have been on notice that this cleanup was coming. There is better and cheaper technology available now, that American companies make and American workers will install, to lower emissions.

Many power companies have made the investment or have plans to comply; they are to be commended. We urge the remainder to spend money on cleanup, not on lawyers and lobbyist to try to block these lifesaving standards. Step forward and work to maximize the pollution reductions and do your fair share to help those that breathe the air downwind from your smokestacks. No one wants to breathe your secondhand smog any more.

This is why I love liberals, guess what it's still liberals that pass this enviroshit. They are shutting the coal mines down. Get rid of this stupid ass law or regulation.

And no the supreme court didnt steal the election, Gore is a pussy and a sore loser. And democrats are too fucking stupid to punch a ballot.....get some education you fucktards

In light of the cognitive level of your reply, the only response that can match it is: 'I know you are, but what am I?"

 

[Bfgrn]

Coal is under a triple whammy right now. Cheaper natural gas that has far less cost in plant maintenance and pollution controls, increasing costs of mining and transporting coal, and the fact that so many in the industry ignored the timelines on pollution controls.

Shhhhh, quiet Old Rocks! Don't let the righties know that the EPA has a co-conspirator...

The market

Coal-fired power plants will face pressure and in some cases closure despite a Republican energy plan favorable to the industry and a court victory against new environmental rules.

As many as one-sixth of U.S. coal-fired power plants would close within eight years and be replaced by natural gas, according to an Energy Department estimate.

"I think the biggest challenge facing the coal industry is cheap, abundant, less carbon-intense natural gas, and no matter how many photo ops he has in front of coal-fired stations, it doesn't change the economics," said Kevin Massy, a Brookings Institution analyst.

Major advances in horizontal drilling and the practice of hydraulic fracturing have led to a boom in natural gas supply, driving prices to 10-year lows of around.

MINOR IMPACT

Even with the cross-state air pollution rule being thrown out, it is unlikely to change the math around how many coal-fired plants are likely to be shuttered over the next decade or so, Massy and other analysts contend.

"I think the retirements under Romney are unlikely to look that different than those under a second Obama administration," he said.

Reuters

 

[martybegan]

The REAL story:

Alpha, the nation’s second-largest coal producer, will increase its focus on metallurgical coal, which is used to make steel and typically feeds the export markets, while downsizing its higher-cost production of thermal coal, which is used to generate electricity.

“Operations that have competitive cost positions and more stable customer demand — such as supplying baseload power plants and generating units that will survive a stricter regulatory regime — will supply the majority of the company’s U.S. thermal coal output,” the company said in a statement.

Read more: Alpha Natural Resources closing 8 coal mines - Erica Martinson - POLITICO.com

And why do you think they have to downsize higher cost production of thermal coal? Because the upcoming regulations making coal plants less cost effective will lower demand for thermal coal, thus lowering costs if supply remains the same.

So the new regulations are still to blame for the downsizing, and since they are Obama's regulations, its still on him for these losses.

Nice attempt at spin though, although next time I would reference something that actually proves your own point, instead of the OP's original point.

There is no sin except stupidity.
Oscar Wilde

Spin? How about FACTS? These 'new' regulations have been in place for over 20 years. The Obama administration is going to enforce the law...FINALLY.

Clinton tried, and would have succeeded if the 2000 election wasn't stolen by the Supreme Robes. During his administration, the EPA filed lawsuits against some of the nation's largest electric utilities. The government charged these companies with violating the Clean Air Act by expanding their coal-fired electric plants without controlling emissions such as nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide--noxious gases that cause smog, asthma, lung cancer, and premature death.

These companies had settled out of court to clean up their power plants.

Enter Bush...

The Bush administration quickly set about weakening the Clean Air Act, stoking public fears of energy shortages and blackouts as a rationale for leniency (even though 2001 was a record year for power plant expansion). White House staff and the Energy Department, working closely with lobbyists for the same companies we had sued, directed EPA to expand loopholes that allow 40- or 50-year-old power plants to continue pumping out 12 million tons of sulfur dioxide a year, without implementing modern pollution controls. What's more, in March, EPA Administrator Christine Whitman shocked everyone by publicly suggesting that companies hold off on settlements pending the outcome of litigation. Not surprisingly, Cinergy and Dominion backed out of their agreements and refused to sign consent decrees. (Recently, the administration rolled out a series of "reforms" making it so easy for these big plants to avoid pollution controls that they might as well have been written by defendants' lawyers.) A year and a half later, nothing has improved, and the opportunity for cleaner air that once seemed so close has been lost--the other companies, once on the path to settlement, have drifted away from the negotiating table.

In a matter of weeks, the Bush administration was able to undo the environmental progress we had worked years to secure. Millions of tons of unnecessary pollution continue to pour from these power plants each year as a result. Adding insult to injury, the White House sought to slash the EPA's enforcement budget, making it harder for us to pursue cases we'd already launched against other polluters that had run afoul of the law, from auto manufacturers to refineries, large industrial hog feedlots, and paper companies. It became clear that Bush had little regard for the environment--and even less for enforcing the laws that protect it. So last spring, after 12 years at the agency, I resigned, stating my reasons in a very public letter to Administrator Whitman.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Dean Connor
President and CEO, The American Lung Association

Confusion is a popular tool in Washington. The opposition campaign to the Environmental Protection Agency's new health standards for toxic air pollution from coal-fired power plants is a clear example.

Lately, there seems to be a new claim every day about why some polluters can't or won't install modern pollution controls on their smokestacks. Far too often, what's missing from the discussion is the real and significant consequence of their resistance -- the health impacts. Cleaning up toxic air pollution will save lives, and this action is long overdue.

The American Lung Association thanks President Obama and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson for seeing through the smokescreen and putting the health of our children first. Life-threatening air pollutants from coal-fired power plants have slipped through a "toxic loophole" that has existed for more than 20 years. Finally, all power plants will be cleaned up. Half of the country's plants already have installed modern emissions controls, now is the time to finish the job.

The final standards, announced by President Obama this week, will protect Americans against life-threatening air pollution like mercury, arsenic and other toxins linked to cancer, heart disease, neurological damage, birth defects, asthma attacks and even premature death.

These standards are a lifesaver. Each year they will prevent 11,000 premature deaths and 130,000 childhood asthma attacks. Yet some big polluters and their allies in Congress continue to call for a delay. They want to postpone the cleanup by years and they want to emit up to 20 percent more mercury than the limits set by the Obama administration. But who could possibly justify needless deaths, disease and damage to children's neurological development?

This pollution impacts people who live and breathe in the shadow of the power plant and those that are hundreds of miles away. More than 400 coal-fired power plants located in 46 states across the country release in excess of 386,000 tons of hazardous air pollutants into the atmosphere each year.

Since President George H.W. Bush signed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 twenty-one years ago, companies have been on notice that this cleanup was coming. There is better and cheaper technology available now, that American companies make and American workers will install, to lower emissions.

Many power companies have made the investment or have plans to comply; they are to be commended. We urge the remainder to spend money on cleanup, not on lawyers and lobbyist to try to block these lifesaving standards. Step forward and work to maximize the pollution reductions and do your fair share to help those that breathe the air downwind from your smokestacks. No one wants to breathe your secondhand smog any more.

All you are giving is the reason why you are OK with these jobs being eliminated due to costs. That is your perogative. But the fact is, Obama enforced the regulations in a new way, and the jobs are gone.

Be proud about getting rid of these polluting jobs, isnt that the whole point of the green movement?

What you want is your cake, and to eat it to. Give Obama credit for "cleaning the environment" but not be blamed for the inevitable job loss in the old industries.

Reality, its annoying isnt it?

 

[martybegan]

Coal is under a triple whammy right now. Cheaper natural gas that has far less cost in plant maintenance and pollution controls, increasing costs of mining and transporting coal, and the fact that so many in the industry ignored the timelines on pollution controls.

But in the end, The EPA under Obama is now enforcing the regulations, and the jobs are being lost. That is the situation, no matter how you try to spin it (and you will)

 

[Katzndogz]

These people will be unemployed for their own good. They can go on welfare.

 

[g5000]

hey, Obama CARES about YOU

snip:

Posted on September 18, 2012 by TheTamminator // Hillbuzz

If Obama is counting on winning Pennsylvania, he may have a little surprise coming to him. According to Business Week, Alpha Natural Resources is closing down mines in West Virginia, Virginia, and Pennsylvania IMMEDIATELY. A total of 1200 people will be without jobs.

Is this the hope and change Obama was talking about? Or was it his promise a few years back that coal regulations would cause energy prices to “necessarily sky-rocket”? Not only are you going to have a bunch of angry, unemployed people, but those same folks won’t even be able to afford to turn their own lights on in their homes. Of course, with no jobs, they won’t be able to pay their mortgages, so I guess that’s a moot point.

As far as I could find, the Corrupt Media hasn’t even touched this story yet. Drudge had a link, and I found the Businessweek story, but apparently few else seem to care that another working class industry that makes our Nation thrive, is now tanking.


Read more Obama Regulations Force Coal Mines To Shut Down…Right Before The Election


Obama's Promise the Bankrupt the Coal Industry - YouTube

It is amusing you say the "Corrupt Media" (whatever that is) has not touched the story when the SOURCE story for the one in your link is from Bloomberg Businessweek! Were you trying to be funny, or was that an accident?

.

 

[Bfgrn]

And why do you think they have to downsize higher cost production of thermal coal? Because the upcoming regulations making coal plants less cost effective will lower demand for thermal coal, thus lowering costs if supply remains the same.

So the new regulations are still to blame for the downsizing, and since they are Obama's regulations, its still on him for these losses.

Nice attempt at spin though, although next time I would reference something that actually proves your own point, instead of the OP's original point.

There is no sin except stupidity.
Oscar Wilde

Spin? How about FACTS? These 'new' regulations have been in place for over 20 years. The Obama administration is going to enforce the law...FINALLY.

Clinton tried, and would have succeeded if the 2000 election wasn't stolen by the Supreme Robes. During his administration, the EPA filed lawsuits against some of the nation's largest electric utilities. The government charged these companies with violating the Clean Air Act by expanding their coal-fired electric plants without controlling emissions such as nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide--noxious gases that cause smog, asthma, lung cancer, and premature death.

These companies had settled out of court to clean up their power plants.

Enter Bush...

The Bush administration quickly set about weakening the Clean Air Act, stoking public fears of energy shortages and blackouts as a rationale for leniency (even though 2001 was a record year for power plant expansion). White House staff and the Energy Department, working closely with lobbyists for the same companies we had sued, directed EPA to expand loopholes that allow 40- or 50-year-old power plants to continue pumping out 12 million tons of sulfur dioxide a year, without implementing modern pollution controls. What's more, in March, EPA Administrator Christine Whitman shocked everyone by publicly suggesting that companies hold off on settlements pending the outcome of litigation. Not surprisingly, Cinergy and Dominion backed out of their agreements and refused to sign consent decrees. (Recently, the administration rolled out a series of "reforms" making it so easy for these big plants to avoid pollution controls that they might as well have been written by defendants' lawyers.) A year and a half later, nothing has improved, and the opportunity for cleaner air that once seemed so close has been lost--the other companies, once on the path to settlement, have drifted away from the negotiating table.

In a matter of weeks, the Bush administration was able to undo the environmental progress we had worked years to secure. Millions of tons of unnecessary pollution continue to pour from these power plants each year as a result. Adding insult to injury, the White House sought to slash the EPA's enforcement budget, making it harder for us to pursue cases we'd already launched against other polluters that had run afoul of the law, from auto manufacturers to refineries, large industrial hog feedlots, and paper companies. It became clear that Bush had little regard for the environment--and even less for enforcing the laws that protect it. So last spring, after 12 years at the agency, I resigned, stating my reasons in a very public letter to Administrator Whitman.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Dean Connor
President and CEO, The American Lung Association

Confusion is a popular tool in Washington. The opposition campaign to the Environmental Protection Agency's new health standards for toxic air pollution from coal-fired power plants is a clear example.

Lately, there seems to be a new claim every day about why some polluters can't or won't install modern pollution controls on their smokestacks. Far too often, what's missing from the discussion is the real and significant consequence of their resistance -- the health impacts. Cleaning up toxic air pollution will save lives, and this action is long overdue.

The American Lung Association thanks President Obama and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson for seeing through the smokescreen and putting the health of our children first. Life-threatening air pollutants from coal-fired power plants have slipped through a "toxic loophole" that has existed for more than 20 years. Finally, all power plants will be cleaned up. Half of the country's plants already have installed modern emissions controls, now is the time to finish the job.

The final standards, announced by President Obama this week, will protect Americans against life-threatening air pollution like mercury, arsenic and other toxins linked to cancer, heart disease, neurological damage, birth defects, asthma attacks and even premature death.

These standards are a lifesaver. Each year they will prevent 11,000 premature deaths and 130,000 childhood asthma attacks. Yet some big polluters and their allies in Congress continue to call for a delay. They want to postpone the cleanup by years and they want to emit up to 20 percent more mercury than the limits set by the Obama administration. But who could possibly justify needless deaths, disease and damage to children's neurological development?

This pollution impacts people who live and breathe in the shadow of the power plant and those that are hundreds of miles away. More than 400 coal-fired power plants located in 46 states across the country release in excess of 386,000 tons of hazardous air pollutants into the atmosphere each year.

Since President George H.W. Bush signed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 twenty-one years ago, companies have been on notice that this cleanup was coming. There is better and cheaper technology available now, that American companies make and American workers will install, to lower emissions.

Many power companies have made the investment or have plans to comply; they are to be commended. We urge the remainder to spend money on cleanup, not on lawyers and lobbyist to try to block these lifesaving standards. Step forward and work to maximize the pollution reductions and do your fair share to help those that breathe the air downwind from your smokestacks. No one wants to breathe your secondhand smog any more.

All you are giving is the reason why you are OK with these jobs being eliminated due to costs. That is your perogative. But the fact is, Obama enforced the regulations in a new way, and the jobs are gone.

Be proud about getting rid of these polluting jobs, isnt that the whole point of the green movement?

What you want is your cake, and to eat it to. Give Obama credit for "cleaning the environment" but not be blamed for the inevitable job loss in the old industries.

Reality, its annoying isnt it?

Here is some reality for you. First of all, you fail to put a financial value on clean air and clean water. Or better said, you don't understand the cost burden pollution imposes on We, the People. It is pure and unadulterated socialism. Polluters get to internalize their profits, and externalize their costs. They make themselves rich, while making others poor. Does Cinergy and Dominion ask parents to send them the doctor bills for their kids asthma treatments? Do they send them a check when the breadwinner misses work because of illness caused by their pollutants? You KNOW the answer.

Don't buy the job-killing hype: Regulations create jobs, save lives

What’s good for job growth, good for the environment, and good for public health? No, it’s not a trick question, but it is a reassessment of what passes for conventional wisdom in Washington, D.C., these days. The answer is the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and other enormously popular environmental regulations enacted in the 1960s, ’70s, and ’80s with strong bipartisan support.

Three questions come to mind.

What happens to the billions spent in capital and compliance costs? Far from being thrown away, this money supports jobs in sectors that manufacture capital goods and provide support services for compliance. Often called “green jobs,” the employment generated spans from the blue-collar assembly line to white-collar scientific research. Installing new equipment to prevent pollutants from leaching into our air and water also brings work to electricians, plumbers, and other more specialized technicians. Money spent for environmental regulation is spent productively, and the result is job creation.

When facing these new costs, will employers cut their workforce? This old supply-side warhorse gets dragged out every time regulations need to be cast in a negative light. When the cost of doing business goes up — and especially when those cost increases are just a small share of revenues, as they are with almost every environmental regulation — firms don’t start cutting production and, consequentially, their workforce. Instead, they pass the costs on to their customers and keep production and employment steady. (At present, with profits relatively high and demand low, it’s not even clear that prices would increase — it could be a pure Keynesian stimulus, forcing a small share of profits to be spent on goods and services, without any price changes.) Whether higher costs will dampen customers’ demand, and producers will respond by cutting back, is a separate, more complicated question. For many of the goods and services most affected by environmental regulations — electricity generation, for example — demand is extremely insensitive to small changes in the price. Studies have shown [PDF] that environmental regulations very often create more jobs than are lost from reduced demand for the regulated, and therefore more expensive, goods and services.

What about the benefits of environmental policy, and the cost of allowing pollution to continue? Missing from the call to repeal key regulations is any mention of these policies’ benefits for environmental and public health. A recent EPA study estimated that just one law — the Clean Air Act — prevented 230,000 deaths, 3.2 million lost school days, and 13 million lost work days a year in 2010. The benefits of this act, including savings in medical expenses and increased worker productivity, are 30 times greater than its cost of implementation, and the benefits of regulation, more generally, also have been shown to exceed costs [PDF]. Not inconsequentially, clean-air (and other) regulations also provide us with a cleaner, healthier natural environment.

It may be hard to believe after watching a little too much cable news, but environmental regulations prevent senseless deaths and improve our standard of living, often while creating new jobs. Yes, they make the goods and services that pollute our neighbors’ air and water more costly — and any economist should be willing to admit that correcting these sorts of “market failures” is all for the good — but their job-killing powers have been greatly exaggerated. The jobs-environment trade-off is a scary story, but it’s not based in fact. When we are asked to choose between jobs or clean air, the answer should be “both.”

"We didn't inherit this land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."
Lakota Sioux Proverb

 

[martybegan]

There is no sin except stupidity.
Oscar Wilde

Spin? How about FACTS? These 'new' regulations have been in place for over 20 years. The Obama administration is going to enforce the law...FINALLY.

Clinton tried, and would have succeeded if the 2000 election wasn't stolen by the Supreme Robes. During his administration, the EPA filed lawsuits against some of the nation's largest electric utilities. The government charged these companies with violating the Clean Air Act by expanding their coal-fired electric plants without controlling emissions such as nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide--noxious gases that cause smog, asthma, lung cancer, and premature death.

These companies had settled out of court to clean up their power plants.

Enter Bush...

The Bush administration quickly set about weakening the Clean Air Act, stoking public fears of energy shortages and blackouts as a rationale for leniency (even though 2001 was a record year for power plant expansion). White House staff and the Energy Department, working closely with lobbyists for the same companies we had sued, directed EPA to expand loopholes that allow 40- or 50-year-old power plants to continue pumping out 12 million tons of sulfur dioxide a year, without implementing modern pollution controls. What's more, in March, EPA Administrator Christine Whitman shocked everyone by publicly suggesting that companies hold off on settlements pending the outcome of litigation. Not surprisingly, Cinergy and Dominion backed out of their agreements and refused to sign consent decrees. (Recently, the administration rolled out a series of "reforms" making it so easy for these big plants to avoid pollution controls that they might as well have been written by defendants' lawyers.) A year and a half later, nothing has improved, and the opportunity for cleaner air that once seemed so close has been lost--the other companies, once on the path to settlement, have drifted away from the negotiating table.

In a matter of weeks, the Bush administration was able to undo the environmental progress we had worked years to secure. Millions of tons of unnecessary pollution continue to pour from these power plants each year as a result. Adding insult to injury, the White House sought to slash the EPA's enforcement budget, making it harder for us to pursue cases we'd already launched against other polluters that had run afoul of the law, from auto manufacturers to refineries, large industrial hog feedlots, and paper companies. It became clear that Bush had little regard for the environment--and even less for enforcing the laws that protect it. So last spring, after 12 years at the agency, I resigned, stating my reasons in a very public letter to Administrator Whitman.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Dean Connor
President and CEO, The American Lung Association

Confusion is a popular tool in Washington. The opposition campaign to the Environmental Protection Agency's new health standards for toxic air pollution from coal-fired power plants is a clear example.

Lately, there seems to be a new claim every day about why some polluters can't or won't install modern pollution controls on their smokestacks. Far too often, what's missing from the discussion is the real and significant consequence of their resistance -- the health impacts. Cleaning up toxic air pollution will save lives, and this action is long overdue.

The American Lung Association thanks President Obama and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson for seeing through the smokescreen and putting the health of our children first. Life-threatening air pollutants from coal-fired power plants have slipped through a "toxic loophole" that has existed for more than 20 years. Finally, all power plants will be cleaned up. Half of the country's plants already have installed modern emissions controls, now is the time to finish the job.

The final standards, announced by President Obama this week, will protect Americans against life-threatening air pollution like mercury, arsenic and other toxins linked to cancer, heart disease, neurological damage, birth defects, asthma attacks and even premature death.

These standards are a lifesaver. Each year they will prevent 11,000 premature deaths and 130,000 childhood asthma attacks. Yet some big polluters and their allies in Congress continue to call for a delay. They want to postpone the cleanup by years and they want to emit up to 20 percent more mercury than the limits set by the Obama administration. But who could possibly justify needless deaths, disease and damage to children's neurological development?

This pollution impacts people who live and breathe in the shadow of the power plant and those that are hundreds of miles away. More than 400 coal-fired power plants located in 46 states across the country release in excess of 386,000 tons of hazardous air pollutants into the atmosphere each year.

Since President George H.W. Bush signed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 twenty-one years ago, companies have been on notice that this cleanup was coming. There is better and cheaper technology available now, that American companies make and American workers will install, to lower emissions.

Many power companies have made the investment or have plans to comply; they are to be commended. We urge the remainder to spend money on cleanup, not on lawyers and lobbyist to try to block these lifesaving standards. Step forward and work to maximize the pollution reductions and do your fair share to help those that breathe the air downwind from your smokestacks. No one wants to breathe your secondhand smog any more.

All you are giving is the reason why you are OK with these jobs being eliminated due to costs. That is your perogative. But the fact is, Obama enforced the regulations in a new way, and the jobs are gone.

Be proud about getting rid of these polluting jobs, isnt that the whole point of the green movement?

What you want is your cake, and to eat it to. Give Obama credit for "cleaning the environment" but not be blamed for the inevitable job loss in the old industries.

Reality, its annoying isnt it?

Here is some reality for you. First of all, you fail to put a financial value on clean air and clean water. Or better said, you don't understand the cost burden pollution imposes on We, the People. It is pure and unadulterated socialism. Polluters get to internalize their profits, and externalize their costs. They make themselves rich, while making others poor. Does Cinergy and Dominion ask parents to send them the doctor bills for their kids asthma treatments? Do they send them a check when the breadwinner misses work because of illness caused by their pollutants? You KNOW the answer.

Don't buy the job-killing hype: Regulations create jobs, save lives

What’s good for job growth, good for the environment, and good for public health? No, it’s not a trick question, but it is a reassessment of what passes for conventional wisdom in Washington, D.C., these days. The answer is the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and other enormously popular environmental regulations enacted in the 1960s, ’70s, and ’80s with strong bipartisan support.

Three questions come to mind.

What happens to the billions spent in capital and compliance costs? Far from being thrown away, this money supports jobs in sectors that manufacture capital goods and provide support services for compliance. Often called “green jobs,” the employment generated spans from the blue-collar assembly line to white-collar scientific research. Installing new equipment to prevent pollutants from leaching into our air and water also brings work to electricians, plumbers, and other more specialized technicians. Money spent for environmental regulation is spent productively, and the result is job creation.

When facing these new costs, will employers cut their workforce? This old supply-side warhorse gets dragged out every time regulations need to be cast in a negative light. When the cost of doing business goes up — and especially when those cost increases are just a small share of revenues, as they are with almost every environmental regulation — firms don’t start cutting production and, consequentially, their workforce. Instead, they pass the costs on to their customers and keep production and employment steady. (At present, with profits relatively high and demand low, it’s not even clear that prices would increase — it could be a pure Keynesian stimulus, forcing a small share of profits to be spent on goods and services, without any price changes.) Whether higher costs will dampen customers’ demand, and producers will respond by cutting back, is a separate, more complicated question. For many of the goods and services most affected by environmental regulations — electricity generation, for example — demand is extremely insensitive to small changes in the price. Studies have shown [PDF] that environmental regulations very often create more jobs than are lost from reduced demand for the regulated, and therefore more expensive, goods and services.

What about the benefits of environmental policy, and the cost of allowing pollution to continue? Missing from the call to repeal key regulations is any mention of these policies’ benefits for environmental and public health. A recent EPA study estimated that just one law — the Clean Air Act — prevented 230,000 deaths, 3.2 million lost school days, and 13 million lost work days a year in 2010. The benefits of this act, including savings in medical expenses and increased worker productivity, are 30 times greater than its cost of implementation, and the benefits of regulation, more generally, also have been shown to exceed costs [PDF]. Not inconsequentially, clean-air (and other) regulations also provide us with a cleaner, healthier natural environment.

It may be hard to believe after watching a little too much cable news, but environmental regulations prevent senseless deaths and improve our standard of living, often while creating new jobs. Yes, they make the goods and services that pollute our neighbors’ air and water more costly — and any economist should be willing to admit that correcting these sorts of “market failures” is all for the good — but their job-killing powers have been greatly exaggerated. The jobs-environment trade-off is a scary story, but it’s not based in fact. When we are asked to choose between jobs or clean air, the answer should be “both.”

"We didn't inherit this land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."
Lakota Sioux Proverb

I dont watch TV for my news, too slow, and the inability to check sources is annoying.

Still avoiding the fact that these jobs are gone because Obama's EPA is enforcing the regulations.

I always love the internalize/externalize argument when it comes to pollution. The one thing you always forget is the net benefit is to the user of the electricity generated, with only about 10% of the value being considered profit (if you are good at it). Most of the cost which results from this, is therefore on the end user. Also any improvement on this is also paid by the end user, in the form of increased costs, as the owners of the company will always try to maintain a similar profit margin.

 

[Jarlaxle]

This reminds me...I need to get more anthracite for the winter.

 

[bripat9643]

Why are they closing? I already know, but would like to hear your wingnut spin.

They are closing because of Obama EPA regulations, nitwit.