Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

'War on Coal'

Obama makes it official

June 28, 2013

President Barack Obama is intelligent enough to understand what his declaration of war on the coal industry will mean to tens of millions of Americans....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Jul-01-13 12:02 AM

AaronS made an interesting post to the Headline Poll War on Coal page on Jun-29-13 8:06 PM, to which I was going to reply -- but the page was down all day Sunday & is now gone. Wouldn't make much sense to post my reply here unless I also re-posted Aaron's post. In brief, he & I agree on much more than you would expect -- but still can't get to a practical solution.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-30-13 7:32 AM

What about the hot weather out in the south west now? Want to comment about that little buddy?

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-29-13 6:19 PM

I think the one lesson we can take from Obama is that actions speak louder than words.n seems to apply with our posters on here as well.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-29-13 1:52 PM

Denver posts" Instead of a war on coal, I like to call it a war on pollution". I agree with that statement 100%!! Just as Galileo,a forerunner of the scientific method in search of rational truth was forced to recant his statement that the earth was round by Holy Church's(conservatives) acceptance of irrational truths,based on Scripture's now known fable that the earth is flat,today Conservatives(essentially profiteers) want to force recantation of scientists research who dare discuss the obvious evidence of global warming due largely to coal burning,fossil fuel burning,carbon spewing power plants.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-29-13 1:44 PM

But it would be hard to do without AC now thinks to the burning of coal. It gets so hot in the summer time anymore. Just look how hot it is, out in the south west now! And look at the weather we've had this year so far.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-29-13 1:21 PM

Whats so hard about that little buddy? You probably never had to do without any of those, but I did! And I got along just fine without air conditioning, phones that requires electricity, computer, and household appliances that require the use of electricity. and the TV we had only had three channels.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-29-13 10:29 AM

Coal provides nearly 40% of electricity needs and remains the #1 source for electricity generation yet as can be seen below; many vehemently oppose the use of coal as a source for our energy needs.

As such, if the individual below truly oppose coal as an energy source, they should reduce their energy consumption by 40%. Various methods to achieve the reduction include but are not limited to turning off their air conditioners, eliminate any phone that requires an electrical charge for personal use, eliminate all computer, television and other entertainment use that requires consumption of electricity and eliminate and/or reduce all household appliances that require the use of electricity.

If they do not want to be seen as hypocrites, we should stop seeing post from those who so ardently oppose our #1 source of energy.

Let’s see how they spin this.

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-29-13 8:34 AM

I live in the shadow of John Amos power plant Neo. I've watched the Construction boom that has occurred there over the last decade. On that one plant alone, AEP has spent hundreds of millions upgrading their environmental standards. That spending has been duplicated all along the Ohio, from Cheshire, OH, New Haven, WV, Willow Island, WV to Wheeling, WV and beyond. As a result, emissions of hazardous pollutants have been greatly reduced and as a result the air and water is cleaner.

And while it may not be perfect, it’s a fair trade for the lights coming on when I flip the switch and the cost is something I can afford. If our setting President has his way, he will eliminate the thousands of jobs while he’s running the cost of energy through the roof. About the only good news is that the era of brown-outs will be over as renewables do not have the capabilities to provide us with our daily energy needs. You think that’s what he wants?

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-29-13 7:20 AM

If it was left up to the republicans it wouldn't be at a 20 year low, now would it?

5 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-28-13 10:59 PM

Problem is Neo, the facts on US emissions Sheila that carbon dioxide is at a 20 year low and are down ~15% over the time frame you claim worldwide emissions are up. Should Americans really have to reduce our emissions that much more to offset emissions from other countries?

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-28-13 8:02 PM

AaronS, I know you are pretending to not understand what I'm saying about carbon dioxide, to make me go back to the beginning all over again. (That's OK, I'm getting better at it.)

CO2 is like many other things in this way: too much is bad, too little is bad. (Rain, for instance: this is one of those years when meadows are growing great. So there will be lots of good hay at the end of the growing season? Probably a lot of rained-on hay -- not so good.)

In the long term, it's not so much a matter of how much CO2 we should have, as the RATE OF CHANGE. It's like a minor incident in the 1950's: a white driver, by accident, almost rammed a carful of black men. The black driver rolled down his window & said, "We want integration, but NOT THAT FAST!" Likewise, even if more CO2 is desired, if it continues this fast it will be a crash.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-28-13 7:18 PM

I think The only "war" going on in the coal industry is the one the fat cat owners are waging against labor and the environment.

7 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-28-13 6:33 PM

West Virginians just don't get it. The War on coal is lost. It is too dirty, it endangers the health of millions of citizens and it cost too much to produce electricity. Natural gas is the future of electrical generation. It will be cheaper than coal when all the cost of the pollution is calculated, including health care costs. West Virginia should welcome this dynamic change to natural gas - West Virginia has lots of it. Only coal companies such as patriot and its parent company want to continued the destruction of West Virginia and the men and women who work for them. West Virginia must work towards an economy without coal. It is insane to continue on the same path that somehow...someway coal will survive as a major resource to generate electricity. The definition of insanity (quoted by someone who I cannot remember) is doing something over and over again and expecting a different outcome. Wall Street and the big money is on natural gas...not coal. Coal is a loser...

10 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-28-13 4:46 PM

Another prime example of your "DO NOTHING CONGRESS" Interest rates on new subsidized student Stafford loans will skyrocket—from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent—on Monday. They have failed again, to do their job. Congress has recessed again for the week of Independence Day, for yet another vacation. BUT, LET"S VOTE TO RETURN THESE ""DO NOTHING"" CONEHEADS TO OFFICE AGAIN......DUH!..... YOUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN WON'T MIND THE ADDITIONAL DEBT UPON THEM!!!!

9 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-28-13 4:44 PM

Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) went on Fox News on Wednesday to slam President Obama’s renewed push to take action on climate change. However, returning to the refrain that Obama has declared a “war on coal” appears not to be enough this time. Now, the coal-backed senator has upgraded his rhetoric to a “war on America.” Mining and utilities account for Manchin’s second and third industry Contributer's. But Manchin is also a coal insider, maintaining an income of almost $2 million from a coal firm. Together, these can explain why he repeated the industry’s argument for climate inaction: Congressman McKinley has his own GREAT FINANCIAL TIES to the energy companies. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!! STOP THIS INSANITY!!!!!

9 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-28-13 4:38 PM

WHATSNEXT: I think it is shameful that YOU people and the media {PN&S} don't place blame where it actually belongs. BLAME the ""DO NOTHING CONGRESS" that has FAILED to act. Except to protect and defend the oil, gas,and coal industries, that are padding the pockets of our politicians. Many years ago, the President requested CONGRESS to address the issue of Global Warming, and all of the related issues of sensible regulation of various air pollutants, green house gases, carbon emissions, etc. He voiced his concerns and requests to Congress on this issue and many other issues, like ""JOBS"", and yet CONGRESS HAS DONE NOTHING! EXCEPT introduce bills to overturn OBAMA-CARE {37 times} and ABORTION. There's no war on COAL, there is a war on POLLUTION and GLOBAL WARMING. YOU RIGHT WINGERS/TEA BAGGERS want and expect our country to be involved in every other war. WHY NOT THESE WARS?????

10 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-28-13 3:48 PM

"On Tuesday, Obama announced he will assume power traditionally reserved for Congress to battle global warming." "Assume power" that the same as "take power"? He's taking power away from Congress so that he can get his way, again. Are you practicing your "Hail, Obama" chants, yet? Get ready for King Obama, coming soon to a nation near you.

3 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-28-13 1:53 PM

If AEP and others can reduce the other pollutants released in the atmosphere NEO, then how will releasing CO2, a naturally occurring gas a crucial nutrient for the Earth's environment and ecosystem be harmful?

0 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-28-13 1:41 PM

The Editor says, "Obviously, the president simply doesn't care about the casualties."

Did James K. Polk care about the casualties in the Mexican War? As you count wars that a President basically started up to the present, some cared more, some not so much.

After WWII, our government basically tested the effects of middle-distance nuclear blasts on our own military personnel, & fallout on our own civilians. When the stakes are high enough, nobody cares about the casualties.

The stakes are high. Don't bend over to pick up a quarter from the street when a coal truck is about to run you over.

9 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-28-13 1:26 PM

mythravere, I like your bold thinking. Your 9:46 is totally Agree. Your 9:52 is pretty far out, but as you say it does take this kind of thinking to find something that works.

Recycling carbon dioxide through biofuels is good; but as long as we're burning fossil fuels in stationary plants, we can probably get CO2 from stack gas more easily than from the atmosphere. After fossil fuels -- well, hard to see w/ any clarity that far ahead.

There are 2 ways to take CO2 out of the carbon cycle: Bury the gas, bury it deep. Or make charcoal, hardly have to bury it at all, it's surprisingly resistant to oxidation.

8 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-28-13 12:54 PM

AaronS, how have AEP et al w/ all those $billions reduced carbon dioxide emissions? Increasing efficiency reduces fuel consumption & that's good, but it doesn't reduce the CO2 released per ton of coal burned. Last I heard, construction of the only power plant that would have removed CO2 from stack gas had been cancelled.

9 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-28-13 9:52 AM

On the CO2 front why not make a planetary atmospheric processor to scrub the co2 out of the air? You know like the installation in Aliens.

Crazy you say? Maybe. Maybe not!

Imagine a world wide consortium of countries getting together to build massive facilities to pull the co2 out of the atmosphere.

Essentially we'd keep on using fossil fuels but be sequestering the co2 out of the atmosphere and putting it back underground.

Or by some means we could use that to make more biofuels. The Co2 from could be pulled from the atmosphere and be pump into biofuel farms to grow the feedstock for the biofuels.

A somewhat crazy idea but bold times call for bold measures.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-28-13 9:46 AM

I agree with Aaron on this. I'll add that maybe we need to start "re-greening" the earth? Also there is lots of room for efficiency. Is there any reason a home could not be powered with less energy? I think there could be some breakthroughs in that area.

One thing's for sure our energy problems are not going to be solved with one solution. Its going to be a wide mix of solutions that will power us into the future.

7 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-28-13 8:27 AM

The EIA estimates there are 483 BILLION short tons of demonstrated reserve base (DRB) coal in the US. That amount is larger than gas and oil combined. Half of the DRB is readily available for some form of mining.

Over the last decade, AEP and other energy providers have spent billions upgrading coal fired power plants to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury compounds. Every power plant on the Ohio and John Amos at Winfield has new burning stacks with scrubbers that reduce the emissions.

Natural gas releases many of the same compounds but at lower rates per mega watt hour. The only feasible power source that does not release these gases is nuclear. We can either continue to clean fossil fuels, switch to nuclear or do with less energy as renewable energy isn’t capable of providing for our needs.

If the President continues his agenda, energy cost will skyrocket for Americans and the poor will pay disproportionately.

4 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-28-13 5:24 AM

Instead of a war on coal, I like to call it a war on pollution.

11 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 25 comments


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web