This Is What America Would look Like If....

[peach174]

EPA makes the rules, then the States have to comply with them.
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/productio...s/proposed_regulatory_wus_text_40cfr230_0.pdf

What do the proposed EPA rules really mean

“Ditches— the rule regulates ditches as tributaries. EPA claims that the rule would exclude ditches, but the so-called ditch exclusion only covers ditches dug entirely in uplands. The rule doesn’t define uplands (so much for clarity), True- look up what it actually says in the first link.

Bloggers have opinions.

The onus is on you to prove that the EPA rules are the problem and not the local State DEP rules.

The first link is the EPA rules and I bet you did not read them.
The Farm Ranch Guide is not a bloggers site.
It's a ag publication

I am familiar for CFR regulations because I have worked with them most of my life. I can quote some of them off by heart. I don't need to read through them all to understand how they apply.

The blog article you pointed to was not specific to the topic that WW and I are discussing and therefore irrelevant. WW said that farmers would get into trouble building a pond. Nothing in that article refers to ponds. Instead it refers to existing wetlands and areas that fall under the jurisdiction of seasonal wetlands.

EPA rules does come under ponds.
EPA rules 8216 Waters of the U.S. 8217 threatens all private property Northern Colorado Gazette
The EPA argues that even tributaries which are man-made could fall under EPA authority, this includes ponds, canals, impoundments and ditches. The basis for the EPA to claim permitting authority over any property through which water flows, has flowed in the past, or could flow in the future is the determination by the EPA that if the water was, did, or could flow in such a manner as to have a significant nexus to traditional navigable waters. However, the meaning of “significant nexus” is unclear.

Wyoming welder faces 75 000 a day in EPA fines for building pond on his property Fox News

The first article is undated and I would appreciate if you could please provide one because it needs that context.

The second appears to be conflict between what the state of WY permits and the EPA. If the state is out of compliance then the EPA needs to deal with them first.

Read it again top right hand corner April 22,2014

 

[WelfareQueen]

EPA makes the rules, then the States have to comply with them.
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/productio...s/proposed_regulatory_wus_text_40cfr230_0.pdf

What do the proposed EPA rules really mean

“Ditches— the rule regulates ditches as tributaries. EPA claims that the rule would exclude ditches, but the so-called ditch exclusion only covers ditches dug entirely in uplands. The rule doesn’t define uplands (so much for clarity), True- look up what it actually says in the first link.

Bloggers have opinions.

The onus is on you to prove that the EPA rules are the problem and not the local State DEP rules.

The first link is the EPA rules and I bet you did not read them.
The Farm Ranch Guide is not a bloggers site.
It's a ag publication

I am familiar for CFR regulations because I have worked with them most of my life. I can quote some of them off by heart. I don't need to read through them all to understand how they apply.

The blog article you pointed to was not specific to the topic that WW and I are discussing and therefore irrelevant. WW said that farmers would get into trouble building a pond. Nothing in that article refers to ponds. Instead it refers to existing wetlands and areas that fall under the jurisdiction of seasonal wetlands.

EPA rules does come under ponds.
EPA rules 8216 Waters of the U.S. 8217 threatens all private property Northern Colorado Gazette
The EPA argues that even tributaries which are man-made could fall under EPA authority, this includes ponds, canals, impoundments and ditches. The basis for the EPA to claim permitting authority over any property through which water flows, has flowed in the past, or could flow in the future is the determination by the EPA that if the water was, did, or could flow in such a manner as to have a significant nexus to traditional navigable waters. However, the meaning of “significant nexus” is unclear.

Wyoming welder faces 75 000 a day in EPA fines for building pond on his property Fox News

The first article is undated and I would appreciate if you could please provide one because it needs that context.

The second appears to be conflict between what the state of WY permits and the EPA. If the state is out of compliance then the EPA needs to deal with them first.

There are 11.7 million google hits on abusive EPA regs. You have been told that. A mountain of evidence has been presented to you already.....none of which you have looked at or read.

Why should anyone keep providing info you will refuse to look at anyway?

Obama and the EPA are destroying the coal industry among others. Federal Government data was provided. You will not acknowledge the data or even admit you have read it.

You are a complete partisan hack with zero credibility. You are the definition of intellectual dishonesty.

Now you can either read the data and links you have requested...and comment on them intelligently....or continue to be completely full of bullshit. Your choice.

 

[Derideo_Te]

That is only West Virginia and Kentucky

Which are 2 of the top 3 coal mining states in the nation. WY is also in decline.

What is vision for Wyo. as coal declines WyomingNews.com

The entire US coal industry is in decline and has been for decades now. The most recent downturn is because of the availability of natural gas and wind power.

U.S. coal industry would face decline even without Obama 8217 s policies - The Washington Post

But it's not true that the Obama administration is wholly responsible for coal's current decline. That's the argument that Mitt Romney and other Republicans have made lately,accusing Obama of waging a "war on coal." And the charge misses an important point. The U.S. coal industry would be struggling even without Obama's pollution rules. Coal's biggest problem at the moment is the recent influx of cheap natural gas in the United States. And that's a situation that even Mitt Romney would have a hard time reversing.

One way to see this is by checking out the latest report from the Brattle Group, a consulting firm (via Grist's David Roberts). There's some grim news in here for the coal industry. Between 59 and 77 gigawatts worth of coal capacity is set to retire by 2016 — between one-fifth and one-quarter of the country's coal-fired plants. That's even larger than earlier forecasts. But, the Brattle report notes, the recent uptick in retirements has largely been driven by market forces:

This 2012 reassessment indicates that somewhat more retirements are likely (about 25 GW) than we foresaw in late 2010. However, that change is primarily due to changing market conditions, not environmental rule revisions, which have trended towards more lenient requirements and schedules.

Over the past few years, natural gas has become extraordinarily cheap, thanks to refined drilling techniques that allow companies to extract more gas from shale rock. And, to a lesser extent, wind turbines have been sprouting up around the country. The result? Electricity generation from coal is way down. And power plant operators have said they were facing pressure to close their oldest, most inefficient plants even before the recent wave of EPA rules.​

The facts prove that you are wrong about both Obama and the EPA.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[WelfareQueen]

Bloggers have opinions.

The onus is on you to prove that the EPA rules are the problem and not the local State DEP rules.

The first link is the EPA rules and I bet you did not read them.
The Farm Ranch Guide is not a bloggers site.
It's a ag publication

I am familiar for CFR regulations because I have worked with them most of my life. I can quote some of them off by heart. I don't need to read through them all to understand how they apply.

The blog article you pointed to was not specific to the topic that WW and I are discussing and therefore irrelevant. WW said that farmers would get into trouble building a pond. Nothing in that article refers to ponds. Instead it refers to existing wetlands and areas that fall under the jurisdiction of seasonal wetlands.

EPA rules does come under ponds.
EPA rules 8216 Waters of the U.S. 8217 threatens all private property Northern Colorado Gazette
The EPA argues that even tributaries which are man-made could fall under EPA authority, this includes ponds, canals, impoundments and ditches. The basis for the EPA to claim permitting authority over any property through which water flows, has flowed in the past, or could flow in the future is the determination by the EPA that if the water was, did, or could flow in such a manner as to have a significant nexus to traditional navigable waters. However, the meaning of “significant nexus” is unclear.

Wyoming welder faces 75 000 a day in EPA fines for building pond on his property Fox News

The first article is undated and I would appreciate if you could please provide one because it needs that context.

The second appears to be conflict between what the state of WY permits and the EPA. If the state is out of compliance then the EPA needs to deal with them first.

Read it again top right hand corner April 22,2014

He does not read any of the links or data he requests. He is the deinfition of a partisan hack. Sorry.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Bloggers have opinions.

The onus is on you to prove that the EPA rules are the problem and not the local State DEP rules.

The first link is the EPA rules and I bet you did not read them.
The Farm Ranch Guide is not a bloggers site.
It's a ag publication

I am familiar for CFR regulations because I have worked with them most of my life. I can quote some of them off by heart. I don't need to read through them all to understand how they apply.

The blog article you pointed to was not specific to the topic that WW and I are discussing and therefore irrelevant. WW said that farmers would get into trouble building a pond. Nothing in that article refers to ponds. Instead it refers to existing wetlands and areas that fall under the jurisdiction of seasonal wetlands.

EPA rules does come under ponds.
EPA rules 8216 Waters of the U.S. 8217 threatens all private property Northern Colorado Gazette
The EPA argues that even tributaries which are man-made could fall under EPA authority, this includes ponds, canals, impoundments and ditches. The basis for the EPA to claim permitting authority over any property through which water flows, has flowed in the past, or could flow in the future is the determination by the EPA that if the water was, did, or could flow in such a manner as to have a significant nexus to traditional navigable waters. However, the meaning of “significant nexus” is unclear.

Wyoming welder faces 75 000 a day in EPA fines for building pond on his property Fox News

The first article is undated and I would appreciate if you could please provide one because it needs that context.

The second appears to be conflict between what the state of WY permits and the EPA. If the state is out of compliance then the EPA needs to deal with them first.

Read it again top right hand corner April 22,2014

Thank you. That wasn't showing up on my browser originally. I had to click to the homepage and back again to get it to show up.

 

[WelfareQueen]

That is only West Virginia and Kentucky

Which are 2 of the top 3 coal mining states in the nation. WY is also in decline.

What is vision for Wyo. as coal declines WyomingNews.com

The entire US coal industry is in decline and has been for decades now. The most recent downturn is because of the availability of natural gas and wind power.

U.S. coal industry would face decline even without Obama 8217 s policies - The Washington Post

But it's not true that the Obama administration is wholly responsible for coal's current decline. That's the argument that Mitt Romney and other Republicans have made lately,accusing Obama of waging a "war on coal." And the charge misses an important point. The U.S. coal industry would be struggling even without Obama's pollution rules. Coal's biggest problem at the moment is the recent influx of cheap natural gas in the United States. And that's a situation that even Mitt Romney would have a hard time reversing.

One way to see this is by checking out the latest report from the Brattle Group, a consulting firm (via Grist's David Roberts). There's some grim news in here for the coal industry. Between 59 and 77 gigawatts worth of coal capacity is set to retire by 2016 — between one-fifth and one-quarter of the country's coal-fired plants. That's even larger than earlier forecasts. But, the Brattle report notes, the recent uptick in retirements has largely been driven by market forces:

This 2012 reassessment indicates that somewhat more retirements are likely (about 25 GW) than we foresaw in late 2010. However, that change is primarily due to changing market conditions, not environmental rule revisions, which have trended towards more lenient requirements and schedules.

Over the past few years, natural gas has become extraordinarily cheap, thanks to refined drilling techniques that allow companies to extract more gas from shale rock. And, to a lesser extent, wind turbines have been sprouting up around the country. The result? Electricity generation from coal is way down. And power plant operators have said they were facing pressure to close their oldest, most inefficient plants even before the recent wave of EPA rules.​

The facts prove that you are wrong about both Obama and the EPA.

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]


False per EIA Federal Government Data on actual National Coal Production I provided. Look at the data next time before you continue to make an idiot of yourself.

You have the link. Look at the real actual numbers.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Who is asking to do away with the EPA? Typical Liberal strawman bullshit.

There is a middle ground between protecting the environment and killing industry. Stop being a retard.

Name the industries that have been "killed" by EPA regulations.

Coal. Thousands have lost their jobs and coal production is down over twenty percent under Obama.

When Obama campaigned in my State (Virginia) in 2008 he stated he fully supported the coal industry and would work to advance "clean coal technology."

Yet another fucking Obama lie. He and the EPA are doing everything in their power to shut down coal production.


Eia.gov BETA - Data - U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA



***EDIT***


And don't be a stupid douche bag again. If people actually provide a link look at it before you make an idiot of yourself. The above is data from the Federal Government.

The EPA has forced the coal plants to use their very expensive coal filter for all coal plants. Cost between 160- 200 million. That is passed on to the customers.
That tells me that Washington D.C congress has done a deal with the company that makes the coal filter.
Texas and here in Cochise Az. we have a better more efficient coal filter and the cost is 21 million here at our plant in AZ., but the EPA is refusing any of the better type coal filters.
They refused to listen to us at their meeting and closed all discussions about it.
Ron Barber got them to open up negations again but I doubt it will help and will not accomplish anything.
Corrupt Washington has made a deal with the one company that is more expensive.
EPA rejects Texas plan to cut haze-causing pollution from coal plants Dallas Morning News
Opposition strong for proposed EPA regs - Arizona Range News News

The goal is to shut them down.

Cleaning up distant polluters to improve regional haze is a decades-long process, but critics of Texas’ plan focused on a state timetable that suggested it would take as long as 141 years from now. The TCEQ calculated that it would achieve “reasonable, natural clarity” at Guadalupe Mountains by 2081 and at Big Bend by 2155.

“Waiting more than a century until 2155, as TCEQ proposed to do to return clear skies, is simply unacceptable,” Cyrus Reed, acting director of the Sierra Club’s Texas chapter, said in a statement.​

Texas wants to keep on polluting the skies of other states for the next 144 years?

Barbara Warren, a physician, talked about the thousands of tons of nitrous oxide the three plants release in the air every year. “Pollution from these three plants contributes to $314 million in health costs in Arizona every year,” Warren said. The pollution causes cardiovascular disease and asthma in children, she added. Warren urged the EPA to enforce its pollution control proposal, calling the three facilities “antiquated toxic coal plants.”​

It is costing the state of AZ $300+ million in healthcare costs but the filters only cost $200 million?

You believe that coal should have the right to harm the health and tourist industries without any restrictions?

Do you have hard evidence that proves your alternative filter is as effective and long lasting?

BTW why is Texas one of the largest wind energy states in the nation? Because the utilities in TX know that coal is dirty and expensive and that they can do better with natural gas and wind power instead.

I live here and there is no regional haze.
What the EPA is saying is regional haze is from our fires.
That's 200 million for each plant and would be around 800 million.
Your 2nd to last question makes no sense if our power plant has a more efficient filter.
Yes they had hard facts and tests that proved our APECO filter is better and lasts longer at the meeting.
I believe that people should have a reasonable cost to power our homes.

Anecdotal evidence does not refute what is measured by instruments.

The efficacy of the filter is what I can't find in the articles your provided. What am I missing? Where did it show the hard facts and tests on the alternate filter? I am getting zero hits in both articles when I search on the term filter.

 

[Derideo_Te]

That is only West Virginia and Kentucky

Which are 2 of the top 3 coal mining states in the nation. WY is also in decline.

What is vision for Wyo. as coal declines WyomingNews.com

The entire US coal industry is in decline and has been for decades now. The most recent downturn is because of the availability of natural gas and wind power.

U.S. coal industry would face decline even without Obama 8217 s policies - The Washington Post

But it's not true that the Obama administration is wholly responsible for coal's current decline. That's the argument that Mitt Romney and other Republicans have made lately,accusing Obama of waging a "war on coal." And the charge misses an important point. The U.S. coal industry would be struggling even without Obama's pollution rules. Coal's biggest problem at the moment is the recent influx of cheap natural gas in the United States. And that's a situation that even Mitt Romney would have a hard time reversing.

One way to see this is by checking out the latest report from the Brattle Group, a consulting firm (via Grist's David Roberts). There's some grim news in here for the coal industry. Between 59 and 77 gigawatts worth of coal capacity is set to retire by 2016 — between one-fifth and one-quarter of the country's coal-fired plants. That's even larger than earlier forecasts. But, the Brattle report notes, the recent uptick in retirements has largely been driven by market forces:

This 2012 reassessment indicates that somewhat more retirements are likely (about 25 GW) than we foresaw in late 2010. However, that change is primarily due to changing market conditions, not environmental rule revisions, which have trended towards more lenient requirements and schedules.

Over the past few years, natural gas has become extraordinarily cheap, thanks to refined drilling techniques that allow companies to extract more gas from shale rock. And, to a lesser extent, wind turbines have been sprouting up around the country. The result? Electricity generation from coal is way down. And power plant operators have said they were facing pressure to close their oldest, most inefficient plants even before the recent wave of EPA rules.​

The facts prove that you are wrong about both Obama and the EPA.

[/QUOTE]


False per EIA Federal Government Data on actual National Coal Production I provided. Look at the data next time before you continue to make an idiot of yourself.

You have the link. Look at the real actual numbers.[/QUOTE]

Your link showed a decline from 2008 onwards which corresponds to the supply of natural gas from fracking and wind power growth.

Your lies about Obama and the EPA are exposed by your own link.

 

[peach174]

Name the industries that have been "killed" by EPA regulations.

Coal. Thousands have lost their jobs and coal production is down over twenty percent under Obama.

When Obama campaigned in my State (Virginia) in 2008 he stated he fully supported the coal industry and would work to advance "clean coal technology."

Yet another fucking Obama lie. He and the EPA are doing everything in their power to shut down coal production.


Eia.gov BETA - Data - U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA



***EDIT***


And don't be a stupid douche bag again. If people actually provide a link look at it before you make an idiot of yourself. The above is data from the Federal Government.

The EPA has forced the coal plants to use their very expensive coal filter for all coal plants. Cost between 160- 200 million. That is passed on to the customers.
That tells me that Washington D.C congress has done a deal with the company that makes the coal filter.
Texas and here in Cochise Az. we have a better more efficient coal filter and the cost is 21 million here at our plant in AZ., but the EPA is refusing any of the better type coal filters.
They refused to listen to us at their meeting and closed all discussions about it.
Ron Barber got them to open up negations again but I doubt it will help and will not accomplish anything.
Corrupt Washington has made a deal with the one company that is more expensive.
EPA rejects Texas plan to cut haze-causing pollution from coal plants Dallas Morning News
Opposition strong for proposed EPA regs - Arizona Range News News

The goal is to shut them down.

Cleaning up distant polluters to improve regional haze is a decades-long process, but critics of Texas’ plan focused on a state timetable that suggested it would take as long as 141 years from now. The TCEQ calculated that it would achieve “reasonable, natural clarity” at Guadalupe Mountains by 2081 and at Big Bend by 2155.

“Waiting more than a century until 2155, as TCEQ proposed to do to return clear skies, is simply unacceptable,” Cyrus Reed, acting director of the Sierra Club’s Texas chapter, said in a statement.​

Texas wants to keep on polluting the skies of other states for the next 144 years?

Barbara Warren, a physician, talked about the thousands of tons of nitrous oxide the three plants release in the air every year. “Pollution from these three plants contributes to $314 million in health costs in Arizona every year,” Warren said. The pollution causes cardiovascular disease and asthma in children, she added. Warren urged the EPA to enforce its pollution control proposal, calling the three facilities “antiquated toxic coal plants.”​

It is costing the state of AZ $300+ million in healthcare costs but the filters only cost $200 million?

You believe that coal should have the right to harm the health and tourist industries without any restrictions?

Do you have hard evidence that proves your alternative filter is as effective and long lasting?

BTW why is Texas one of the largest wind energy states in the nation? Because the utilities in TX know that coal is dirty and expensive and that they can do better with natural gas and wind power instead.

I live here and there is no regional haze.
What the EPA is saying is regional haze is from our fires.
That's 200 million for each plant and would be around 800 million.
Your 2nd to last question makes no sense if our power plant has a more efficient filter.
Yes they had hard facts and tests that proved our APECO filter is better and lasts longer at the meeting.
I believe that people should have a reasonable cost to power our homes.

Anecdotal evidence does not refute what is measured by instruments.

The efficacy of the filter is what I can't find in the articles your provided. What am I missing? Where did it show the hard facts and tests on the alternate filter? I am getting zero hits in both articles when I search on the term filter.

It isn't on the internet you had to be at the meeting to see those facts that was presented.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Nitwit....the link I provided says nothing about fracking or wind. You are lying. Here is the link again.

Eia.gov BETA - Data - U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA

Obama and EPA regs are directly responsible for the loss of thousands of jobs in the coal industry.


Here is a link (one among thousands) that highlight how Obama and the EPA is killing coal. Read it before embarrassing yourself again.


Coal Plants Affected by EPA Regulations

 

[Derideo_Te]

Nitwit....the link I provided says nothing about fracking or wind. You are lying. Here is the link again.

Eia.gov BETA - Data - U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA

Obama and EPA regs are directly responsible for the loss of thousands of jobs in the coal industry.


Here is a link (one among thousands) that highlight how Obama and the EPA is killing coal. Read it before embarrassing yourself again.


Coal Plants Affected by EPA Regulations

Blame Obama. blame Obama, blame Obama!

You are a broken record!

Obama had nothing to do with the rise of the fraking industry that is generating all of the natural gas and neither was he responsible for wind energy.

Both of those were driven by market forces. The search for oil is why they invented fraking. Wind energy has been making a comeback in the EU nations and utilities don't want to be locked into the fossil fuel rollercoaster.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Nitwit....the link I provided says nothing about fracking or wind. You are lying. Here is the link again.

Eia.gov BETA - Data - U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA

Obama and EPA regs are directly responsible for the loss of thousands of jobs in the coal industry.


Here is a link (one among thousands) that highlight how Obama and the EPA is killing coal. Read it before embarrassing yourself again.


Coal Plants Affected by EPA Regulations

Blame Obama. blame Obama, blame Obama!

You are a broken record!

Obama had nothing to do with the rise of the fraking industry that is generating all of the natural gas and neither was he responsible for wind energy.

Both of those were driven by market forces. The search for oil is why they invented fraking. Wind energy has been making a comeback in the EU nations and utilities don't want to be locked into the fossil fuel rollercoaster.

Where are you getting fracking and wind from? No link...no data...just your usual bullshit.

Read the link I provided and stop looking like an idiot. Obama and the EPA are directly responsible for the loss of thousands of jobs in the coal industry as well as dozens of power plant closures. That cannot be refuted.

Now either read the information and educate yourself or stop. You keep digging the hole deeper and deeper.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Nitwit....the link I provided says nothing about fracking or wind. You are lying. Here is the link again.

Eia.gov BETA - Data - U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA

Obama and EPA regs are directly responsible for the loss of thousands of jobs in the coal industry.


Here is a link (one among thousands) that highlight how Obama and the EPA is killing coal. Read it before embarrassing yourself again.


Coal Plants Affected by EPA Regulations

Blame Obama. blame Obama, blame Obama!

You are a broken record!

Obama had nothing to do with the rise of the fraking industry that is generating all of the natural gas and neither was he responsible for wind energy.

Both of those were driven by market forces. The search for oil is why they invented fraking. Wind energy has been making a comeback in the EU nations and utilities don't want to be locked into the fossil fuel rollercoaster.

Where are you getting fracking and wind from? No link...no data...just your usual bullshit.

Read the link I provided and stop looking like an idiot. Obama and the EPA are directly responsible for the loss of thousands of jobs in the coal industry as well as dozens of power plant closures. That cannot be refuted.

Now either read the information and educate yourself or stop. You keep digging the hole deeper and deeper.

Ironic that you falsely accused me of not reading your links when you would have known where the references to natural gas and wind power were coming from if you had bothered to actually read my links.

Great job on exposing yourself a lying hypocrite!

 

[Dana7360]

The conservatives had their way. They would do away with the EPA and all regulations. So that America would be just like China.

Inside Beijing's airpocalypse – a city made 'almost uninhabitable' by pollution

yep. Thats a conservative paradise, clear-cut everything & sell everything not nailed down

Yup. That's about it.

They have no respect for our environment or what the people of our nation want.

They are delusional if they think that removing EPA regulations and the EPA isn't going to turn our nation into what is going on in China now.

They're in denial about what their politicians and their policy will do to America.

 

[Dana7360]

The conservatives had their way. They would do away with the EPA and all regulations. So that America would be just like China.

Inside Beijing's airpocalypse – a city made 'almost uninhabitable' by pollution

Who is asking to do away with the EPA? Typical Liberal strawman bullshit.

There is a middle ground between protecting the environment and killing industry. Stop being a retard.

Name the industries that have been "killed" by EPA regulations.

Coal. Thousands have lost their jobs and coal production is down over twenty percent under Obama.

When Obama campaigned in my State (Virginia) in 2008 he stated he fully supported the coal industry and would work to advance "clean coal technology."

Yet another fucking Obama lie. He and the EPA are doing everything in their power to shut down coal production.


Eia.gov BETA - Data - U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA



***EDIT***


And don't be a stupid douche bag again. If people actually provide a link look at it before you make an idiot of yourself. The above is data from the Federal Government.

Thank you for admitting that you could not cite a single instance of any industry that has been "killed" by the EPA.

Coal has been in decline for decades now.

But being a racist you will dredge up any excuse to blame Obama even though the decline of the coal industry has been happening since your beloved St Reagan was in office.

So once again you provide absolutely nothing of any value except lies and insults.

The coal industry isn't killed. Coal is still being used in many parts of our nation. The residual sludge that's left from so called "Scrubbed " or "Clean" coal is toxic and has been spilled in some areas leaving the people who live there without clean water.

My state has one coal fired plant left but it's being shut down. The shut down started in 2005 and should be finished soon.

The EPA had nothing to do with the plant being shut down. The people of our state demanded it and it's not needed. We use mostly water, wind and sun to generate our electricity.

 

[Judicial review]

Just fire a gun to the ceiling and they will all go running like the boston marathon. We need more guns.