Has Obama declared a "war on coal?"
Cardinal Plant, a coal-fired power station near Brilliant, Ohio.
/ CBS News/Brian MontopoliThat's the message coming from Romney's Ohio campaign manager, Scott Jennings, who argued in an interview that Mr. Obama's "hostility to domestic oil production" - particularly when it comes to coal - will help put Romney over the top in this pivotal swing state. Mr. Obama is holding a campaign event in Cincinnati on Monday.
Jennings pointed to the fact that six coal-burning power plants in Ohio - three in or around Cleveland and one each near Toledo, Dayton and Cincinnati - are slated to close or have closed, taking hundreds of jobs and much-needed tax revenue with them. Republicans and many in the coal industry attribute the closures in large part to Environmental Protection Agency regulations mandating reduced mercury and other emissions. Jennings said the losses will resonate across a state where the Ohio Coal Association, citing unnamed studies, says there are up to 11 "spin-off" jobs tied to each of the more than 3,000 jobs in the state in the coal industry.
"The energy policies don't just affect a guy that's a coal miner," he said.
The notion that Mr. Obama has declared "war on coal," as his detractors put it, could have ramifications beyond Ohio. Anger toward the Obama administration is boiling over in coal mining areas of West Virginia like Mingo County, where some residents blame the president for mine and plant closures and lost jobs - an apparent factor in the strong showing by a convicted felon against the president in the Democratic primary early this year. (Democratic West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin has aggressively distanced himself from the president and his policies on coal.) And while Mr. Obama has little chance of taking West Virginia regardless of his position on coal, the industry is also significant in nearby Pennsylvania, where the president holds a single-digit lead in recent polls, as well as the crucial swing state of Virginia.
Republicans are doing their best to raise the issue in the public consciousness: The GOP-led House Natural Resources Committee last week asked Obama administration officials, including Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, to testify over a proposal to protect streams from coal mining that the administration acknowledges would cost thousands of coal jobs. The Romney campaign, meanwhile, says Mr. Obama has shown "disdain" for the coal industry and the jobs it creates.
Democrats in Ohio, citing Mine Safety and Health Administration figures, counter that coal jobs in the state have actually increased 10 percent under Mr. Obama. "In Ohio today, there are more people working in coal than the day the president took office," said Chris Redfern, Chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party. Redfern added that the coal-burning power plants being closed would have been shut down soon without the EPA regulations because of their age.
Obama supporter Ed Good, who who works at Sammis Coal Plant in Stratton, Ohio, says Republicans are misrepresenting Obama's position on coal.
/ CBS News/Brian Montopoli"We see these signs all the time without disclaimers, we see this perception that there's a war on coal, it's simply not true," he said. "There's more mining jobs right now than there has been in the last 14 years."
Yet the notion that Mr. Obama favors environmental concerns at the expense of much-needed jobs resonates in this southeast Ohio region, which has not found an economic lifeline in the wake of the collapse of the U.S. steel industry 30 years ago. The Rust Belt shift toward natural gas production, driven by new technology that allows for extraction through "fracking," has thus far generated few jobs in the region.
"If you're looking regionally, these folks understand how bad this administration has been to the American coal industry," said Mike Carey, chairman of the Ohio Coal Association. "But I also think that once people start having to spend more for electricity - which they will - there's nobody to blame except for the administration." He said that domestic coal production has fallen from 1.2 billion tons per year when Mr. Obama took office to 808 million tons per year today.
"If you look at the rhetoric and the policy from the president and his staff, clearly we see a direction," Carey said. "You don't look at those numbers and think that he's improved the lot of the coal miner's life."
He added: "From a regional perspective, it's an all-out war."
The United Mine Workers of America, which represents 600 active coal miners in Ohio and 90,000 active and retired coal industry workers nationwide, has thus far not endorsed Mr. Obama's reelection despite backing him in 2008.
Steubenville, Ohio, which has been hard hit by the decline of the steel industry.
/ CBS News/Brian MontopoliRomney has opposed greater regulation on coal production during the campaign, saying the industry needs to be free to help "power America's economy." He has said that carbon emissions should not be subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. Mr. Obama's EPA has been fending off lawsuits backed by coal and other energy interests challenging its authority to regulate carbon as a pollutant.
Romney's record as Massachusetts governor, however, suggests far more openness to regulation. In 2005, Romney lauded the state's establishment of carbon emission limits that he said "will provide real and immediate progress in the battle to improve our environment." Early in his term, Romney hired a prominent environmental activist who stood by his side as he stood outside a coal-fired plant and explained, "I will not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people, and that plant, that plant kills people." Romney also at one point backed a regional cap-and-trade system as governor, though he later backed off that position.
The EPA regulations approved under Mr. Obama are designed to reduce emissions of mercury and other pollution by 90 percent by requiring plant owners to install mechanisms to control the pollution. While many newer plants were already largely in compliance with the requirements, many older plants were not, and owners were forced to either install the costly technology to reduce toxic emissions or move toward a shut down.
The rules "will protect millions of families and children from harmful and costly air pollution and provide the American people with health benefits that far outweigh the costs of compliance," EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said when they were finalized in December 2011.The EPA estimates the regulations, which will cost an estimated $9.6 billion, will prevent up to 11,000 early deaths each year and save billions in health care costs.
Mr. Obama's website calls for an "all of the above" energy policy that includes an investment in "clean coal" technology - that is, more efficient and less costly technology to reduce emissions. "President Obama has set a 10-year goal to develop and deploy cost-effective clean coal technology," the site says. "The Recovery Act invested substantially in carbon capture and sequestration research, including 22 projects across four different areas of carbon capture-and-storage research and development."
Forty-five percent of the electricity consumed in the United States is generated by coal, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Popular in Politics
- Romney condemns "breach of trust" in Washington 170 Comments
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice" 346 Comments
- IRS targeting overlooked biggest soft money groups
- For GOP, scandals could be an electoral plus - or minus 327 Comments
- Republicans use IRS scandal to tar Obamacare
- Ousted IRS chief: "I did not mislead" the American people 262 Comments
- Why Obama should worry that current scandals might impact 2016 243 Comments
- Where is the Benghazi cover-up Republicans promised? 416 Comments
1. Reduce cost of fuel and energy.
2. Diversify energy sources.
3. Invest in R&D for new energy sources.
4. Increase domestic production.
5. Double renewable energy on his first four years.
Quadruple in 8 years.
6. Make energy consumption efficient by creating a smart grid,
improving automotive emissions; and make appliances, homes and
government buildings more energy efficient.
FACT:
President Obama's all of the above energy strategy has led to both
greater energy production and higher employment in the energy sector.
FACT:
During Obamas's first 3 years, domestic oil production has
increased while dependence on foreign oil has decreased.
1A. You do realize that the POTUS has absolutely NOTHING to do with gas prices, right? Gas prices are strictly tied to OPEC oil prices + wall street speculators, NOT now nor never has been by Presidential actions. The totally IGNORANT view that the POTUS controls it is not only ignorant but stupid as well.
NG production has increased because it is a CLEAN alternative to coal - simple economics.
Now, there's an old saying - better to stay silent and thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Maybe you should heed that?
2F. Actually, the auto industry is thriving and they have been forced to up the MPG on autos because of high prices of gas. Are you really that stupid not to understand that they would NOT have done so had they not be forced to? After all, they were getting their ***** stomped into the ground because foreign made cars are better made and get better mpg and the big 3 have known about this for eons but REFUSED to address the problem.
2. Ethanol additives do increase the price of gas, but that law was done YEARS ago, in fact 10-15 years ago and has NOTHING to do with the current POTUS. Do your homework instead of looking and sounding like a total FOOL.
1B. The Pipeline was held up until assurances could be made regarding enviromental SAFEGUARDS. In addition, do your homework - the oil that comes thru that pipeline is NOT nor has EVER been planned to stop in the US. It is to be shipped OVERSEAS.
We are in desparate need of ALTERNATIVE and RENEWABLE engery that is CLEAN, not dirty.
Coal is being mined and shipped overseas. Owners/operators keep fighting regulations to make the industry SAFER - why? Are they so absorbed with $ that the safety of their own workers take a back seat. We already know that answer - Massey Coal showed us where the operators/owners REALLY stand.
You sound like an angry constipated old man, who hasn't had any in 20 years.
Since you are claiming to be a woman and wanting so much attention, you probably have homosexual tendencies and suffers from middle child syndrome. Rather than trying to get attention here at CBS, you should consider adopting a puppy. You will get all the love and attention you so much desired.
I can't imagine there is a girl who can be as obnoxious and unpleasant as you are. And if you are, I recommend that you take more fiber in your diet and enroll your self in an anger management class. Tai-Chi is not a bad idea either. Also, call up your mother and tell her sorry for all the misery you have caused her.
The land mass of N. Dakota is 5 times smaller than Saudi Arabia.
Even if you saturate North Dakota with fracking wells 10 miles apart, and if you get natural gas on all of them (although it's unrealistic), it still won't be anywhere near Saudi's production.
Saudi pumps out rich liquid oil at 2000 Psi. They make 10 BILLION barrels a day. And they are holding back!
Fracking produces natural gas in gaseous form; which contains methane, CO2 and mostly Nitrogen. It needs to be refined and liquified. Fracking would produce a very small fraction of what a liquid oil well would.
It is for the gullible to believe that N. Dakota can produce more oil than Saudi Arabia with fracking. And repeating it 100 times won't make it true.
I am going to hit you with a stick now Gulliver!
---------------------
by Mdsjules July 17, 2012
To educate you little one, regardless of how the oil and gas is extracted, North Dakota is rich in it. It is estimated to have as much if not more than Saudi Arabia. Do you need that repeated for you? Your president is a farce, a fake and a person that twists the truth.
Fracking is the term. This is not a short term "Gold Rush" situation. Do you know North Dakota has as much if not more oil then Saudi Arabia? (no I will not provide the facts..look it up yourself and reexamine the bull your local liberal media chooses to feed you).
The ignorance of what some you believe like little puppets is enough to incite violence against idiots in my mind.
----------------------------------------------------------
Your brain is probably numb for watching Foxnews everyday. But I
will make it simple so that you can understand.
The U.S. produces 10 million barrels a day.
Saudi makes 10 BILLION barrels a day. That's a 1000 times more.
If Saudi runs out of oil 300 years from now. They can also do
fracking on those old wells and produce 1000 times more than what
our fracking can.
Hence, your statement that we have more carbon reserves than Saudi
in terms of fracking is just so naive. Maybe coal yes. But not
fracking old gas wells.
If you still don't get it, you should get someone to hit you
repeatedly with a 5tu&p1d stick!
Fracking is the term. This is not a short term "Gold Rush" situation. Do you know North Dakota has as much if not more oil then Saudi Arabia?
N Dakota 1/5 the size of Saudi Arabia has more oil?
Y O U A R E 1 S T U P I D R E P % $ #
Economics. When oil was $10/bbl and gasoline was 25 cents/gallon, "fracking" couldn't compete. Same with tar sands today. They cannot compete while oil prices are as low as they are.
Fracking is a "gold rush" because the ramifications of the process have not been determined.
Jesus, I'm arguing with a 10 year old.
We could just keep Fracking at a minimum until they can develop a cleaner way of extracting those used up wells.
1. Reduce cost of fuel and energy.
2. Diversify energy sources.
3. Invest in R&D for new energy sources.
4. Increase domestic production.
5. Double renewable energy on his first four years. Quadruple in 8 years.
6. Make energy consumption efficient by creating a smart grid, improving automotive emissions; and make appliances, homes and government buildings more energy efficient.
FACT:
President Obama's all of the above energy strategy has led to both greater energy production and higher employment in the energy sector.
FACT:
During Obamas's first 3 years, domestic oil production has increased while dependence on foreign oil has decreased.
Don't believe me, look it up.
1. Invest only on oil and coal.
2. Demonize renewable energy as expensive.
3. Reduce renewable energy.
4. Make energy and fuel expensive by manipulating oil markets.
5. Create big profits for Big Oil.
6. Subsidies for big oil companies.
7. Give contracts to conservative owned companies.
My Opinion:
The Iraq war was to keep fuel expensive. Hence more profits for big oil companies. The war also creates a need for big government contracts to conservative owned defense contractors like Haliburton, Black water and DynaCorp.
BUT MOST of ALL I SEE OUR PRESIDENT holding on to a solid lead in Ohio.
The war on coal spin is NOT hunting in Ohio sorry baggers...