Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've always found this one a bit amusing. The coal industry always claims that the government is responsible for them losing profits, yet the decline for coal usage recently has been the increase in domestic natural gas drilling.
I've always found this one a bit amusing. The coal industry always claims that the government is responsible for them losing profits, yet the decline for coal usage recently has been the increase in domestic natural gas drilling.
Does this mean Republicans will join in the anti-shale movement? Tune in and find out.
TLDR: The market is making coal less effective.
There is a bit of truth in what you are saying...
But you are ignoring that the EPA's new regulations on coal, are projected to cost the industry $184 Billion by 2030.
That is no tiny dent and it makes natural gas more attractive.
If you want to tell me that we need to be finding ways to get off of coal - I will agree with you. Fact is, most Republicans do write off alternative energies too quickly IMHO. But don't say new policies have had zero influence on coal.
stopped reading after #2, only extremely naive people think Presidents create jobs.
Should have stopped at #1. Anyone claiming that Obama signed the 2009 budget with no input from GWB either knows nothing about how the US government operates, or is a brazen liar.
The Independent Journal Review is a joke. The fact that libertarian conservatives need to hide behind the label "Independent" speaks volumes about their honesty. They are either too ashamed to call themselves Conservative or are so dishonest that they want people to perceive that they are independent, while pushing a radical RW agenda.
Should have stopped at #1. Anyone claiming that Obama signed the 2009 budget with no input from GWB either knows nothing about how the US government operates, or is a brazen liar.
Here's the actual quote...
"Obama signed onto the 2009 budget exploding spending, which he only slightly scaled back."
No one ever lost the healthcare they wanted under Bush!! That's enuff for me!
I have a question, which government program are you covered by Medicare, Tricare, or VA because you don't have a clue how rates increased under Bush. You talk like someone covered by a gubbermint program complaining about something that doesn't impact you.
But you are ignoring that the EPA's new regulations on coal, are projected to cost the industry $184 Billion by 2030.
That is no tiny dent and it makes natural gas more attractive.
If you want to tell me that we need to be finding ways to get off of coal - I will agree with you. Fact is, most Republicans do write off alternative energies too quickly IMHO. But don't say new policies have had zero influence on coal.
Do you know if those regulations took effect? The latest statement I could find was a proposal (apparently one that has been going on for a few years). The latest info was from a news release 2 months ago.
The Times article didn't provide links to any specific bill.
I think it'll come down to how it's implemented. For instance, the original Clean Air Act signed by the first Bush implemented a cap-and-trade for regulating SO2 and it was quite successful while still leaving the coal industry intact. For the moment though, the natural gas sector seems to be the one gaining the upper hand.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.