Romney goes on offensive on coal in Ohio

Cardinal Plant, a coal-fired power station near Brilliant, Ohio.

/ CBS News/Brian Montopoli

(CBS News) Mitt Romney today will attack President Obama over what Republicans have cast as his "war on coal," arguing, in the words of a campaign spokesman, that the president's "disastrous energy policies" have meant fewer jobs and higher energy costs.

Romney is set to appear outside a coal mine in the Eastern Ohio town of Beallsville, an Appalachian town where coal has long provided an economic lifeline to residents. He plans to argue that, pandering to environmentalists, Mr. Obama has put in place unnecessary regulations that have cost coal jobs. The argument is central to the GOP's attempt to win the crucial swing state.

Last month, CBSNews.com traveled to Steubenville, Ohio - an hour north of Beallsville - to examine the Republican argument. Ohio Republicans say Environmental Protection Agency regulations mandating reduced mercury and other emissions are largely responsible for the closure of six coal-burning power plants in the state. They also note a January 2008 comment by the president that building a coal plant will bankrupt the builder because "they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted." Democrats, citing Mine Safety and Health Administration figures, note in response that coal jobs in Ohio are up 10 percent under Mr. Obama.

There is a clear difference between Romney and Mr. Obama on the issue, though Romney's record has changed over the years. Romney now opposes strong regulation of the coal industry and argues that carbon emissions should not be subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. As Massachusetts governor, however, he lauded carbon emission limits and at one point stood outside a coal plant and said, "I will not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people, and that plant, that plant kills people." He also backed a regional cap-and-trade system, which would reduce carbon pollution by imposing caps on emissions and allowing companies to buy and sell pollution permits, before backing off of that position.

Mr. Obama's administration has approved regulations to reduce mercury and other pollutants by 90 percent, which require plant owners who do not already comply to install mechanisms to limit the pollution. The regulation largely affects older plants and appears to have prompted owners of such plants for moving up their timetable for closing those plants down. The president has notably declined to issue rules limiting greenhouse gas emissions for power plants and abandoned efforts to pass federal "cap-and-trade" legislation.

The regulations, the administration says, "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." The Environmental Protection Agency 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.

The Romney offensive on coal in Ohio comes as the Obama campaign goes after Romney on wind in Iowa. The Obama campaign has spotlighted Romney's opposition to a wind tax credit tied to 7,000 jobs in the state and championed by Iowa Republicans.

[SaveOurFuture]

Just how does evasive, unaccountable, and sworn to secrecy, Willard Mitt Romney propose to put back to work the 47% of entitled parasitic Americans feeding off the government system? Since he refuses to elaborate on any of his solutions, all we voters can do is guess. Will it be with individual state house bills like the Utah house bill HB 148 passed by the legislature earlier this year and signed by Governor Gary R. Herbert to recover 20 million acres of Federal land? Will it also include the proposed anti-union California Proposition 32 (which recently received a $4 million contribution from the billionarie Koch Brothers of Koch Industries, the second largest privately owned company in the United States, and backed by the California Future Fund for Free Markets, and The American Future Fund, along with the Center to Protect Patient Rights)? What about the Utah Mine Safety Commission founded to replace the Federal Mine and Safety Commission of the United States? If so, I cannot say the American public will be too thrilled about our country being taken back to the era of the lawlessness and exploitation of the industrial revolution, which provided very dangerous high risk, overworked employment with excessively long hours, and under paid jobs, ladened with occupational hazards.

[nitella40]

2003 Romney against coal. Does he not understand video and the fact that he couldn't shred it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BpgLYryI8g&playnext=1&list=PLED02B43ABA68E936&feature=results_video

[venusvegasvada]

Republicans have cast as his "war on coal"

More like the Republicans "War on Reality".

[stevehamilton858]

Or, Mitt's desire to emulate the Chinese Communist government which has created some of the worst environmental disasters on the planet, with the goal of driving their economy.

[Jaylah54200]

Considering there's no such thing as "clean coal" but wind creates no pollutants and is infinitely renewable.

Sometimes it's really hard to believe that Romney could actually be THAT clueless. (His -bots, yes. Him, no.)

[John782011]

Rocky It is Anthracite and since it is less than 1% of the coal that occurs naturally, it is statistically insignificant to the general argument of cleaner energy.

[Jaylah54200]

Perhaps you have wax in your ears:

There is no such thing as "clean coal."

[mountainstates1]

It's no surprise younger people are running away from the Republican party. To hear Mitt talk he'd have us go back to the early 1900's when skies over big cities were black with soot, people died young, the air was bad, the water was not to be trusted, and the rich got richer... shame on you, Romney.

[John782011]

Antiglobal, Since less than 5% of the cost of a product is the energy costs, the fact that NG is higher overseas does not mean we will be th place to manufacture. It is much more complicated than that.

[josephp5]

antiglobal: Coal can be clean? Only if you don't burn it!

Same with natural gas.

These are fossil fuels, which means that when you burn them, they produce carbon dioxide. This is an unavoidable fact of chemistry. Carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas that is responsible for global warming.

The "Clean Coal" idea is just propaganda mythmaking from the coal industry. They claim to have plans to collect the carbon dioxide and pump it back underground. Does anyone think that they really will build the infrastructure of pipelines and storage tanks required? It would be massive---as large as the currently existing oil distribution pipeline system. And of course, once the carbon dioxide is underground, it can never be allowed to leak. If it does leak near a populated place, it would kill everyone around---it could result in the drowning of thousands or even hundred of thousands of persons. Of course, if it leaks in an unpopulated place, it would merely undo the whole purpose of collecting the carbon dioxide in the first place.

In short, "Clean Coal" is never going to happen. It's just propaganda.

[cntrygirl3]

I guess the VP allows him to be against coal without having to ask. As long as he doesn't cross him on the budget. It is really hysterical how his handlers keep promising direction on the budget comes from the "top of the ticket" and he has not uttered a word different from what Ryan has laid out. The "me to" candidate if you look really close you can see Ryan's hand in his back.

[Jaylah54200]

Did you hear Romney's comments on Ryan's budget yesterday? He said he didn't agree with all of it, but when asked what parts specifically, he didn't know.

[robert1129]

Lord, forgive Milt for he is a Republican and knows not what he says or does.

[Eco99]

This smacks of the "Clear Skies Initiative" that W started back when that gave a happy name to an actual roll back in air quality standards.
It astounds me that they cannot find a middle ground emissions from fossil fuels are polluting: particulates, mercury, carbon, etc. It all just comes down to money over health of the environment and people and it seems money always wins. There are ways to make fossil fuels cleaner but the same people arguing for burn baby burn also resist regulations for cleaner and lowering of emissions. They don't care as long as they get their money.

[WHAT-IS-HE-SMOKING]

Does anyone remember ACID RAIN?

[John782011]

But that only occurred in the east, they insured the smoke stacks in the coal belt were high enough to send it our way.

[sjc_1]

The Canadians were majorly bent about us destroying their lakes, rivers and forests with acid rain. Reagan told them they were exaggerating, that they had no proof. They showed the evidence and the world said you are busted. Reagan always took the side of his rich friends, he knew which side his bread was buttered on.

[Think3Times]

Hey CBS, there is a buzz going around about Romney's Illegal fund raiser in Israel, how about you get a journalist to research and elaborate on that?