West Virginia Blue
The Best Blogging Community in West Virginia Democratic politics, progressive policies, the good life and free living in Wild, Wonderful West Virginia.
(Reposted in case you missed it the first time. - promoted by Clem Guttata)
By Clem Guttata
Coal CEOs get political representation, what about the rest of us?
Logan County Commission President Art Kirkendoll requested a meeting and he got it. Michael Browning reported (emphasis mine):
Kirkendoll has asked Gov. Joe Manchin for a meeting with him, commission presidents from Lincoln, Boone, Mingo and Kanawha counties, the EPA, the Division of Environmental Protection, Congressman Nick Rahall, Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito, representatives from U.S. senators Robert C. Byrd and Jay Rockefeller's offices and officials from the coal industry.
Today at 3 p.m., the group will meet privately in the governor's office to discuss coal's future and the economic impact it has on the state and nation.
"This meeting was way overdue to have all the major coal producers' officials together with the EPA and the DEP, the congressional people and the commission presidents from the five major coal-producing counties that spend the money and try to create activities on coal tax," Kirkendoll said. "Everybody that has a stake in what we do will be there. Instead of each of us writing letters, I wanted to get us all together - the people who are investing their money, who are spending the money, the people who are making laws and making the rules - so that we can ask how do we a qualify permits that are solid and work. I sent the governor a letter and he thought it was a great idea so he put the meeting together."
Kirkendoll doesn't think anyone downstream has a stake in coal mining. He doesn't think it matters that we drink the same water, breath the same air, or--point of fact--actually pay for the electricity that makes that coal valuable.
...the list of expected attendees includes Massey Energy President Don Blankenship, CONSOL Energy CEO Brett Harvey and International Coal Group President Ben Hatfield. Two members of Congress will be there, as will county commissioners from the state's major coal producing counties, and top officials from a dozen or more other coal companies. It's a big deal to get all those folks in the same room, and it seems like the public ought to know what is said.
With enough twists to fill a pretzel factor, Gov. Manchin and his communications director, Matt Turner, said there was no need to invite potential critics of coal mining practices because:
"the meeting is not about environmental regulations." (AP - via)
"This is not about the environment. This is about the economic plight the (coalfield local government officials) are being put in." (source)
The meeting happened this afternoon outside the Governor's Mansion in a party tent literally bought and paid for by coal industry donors, (I kid you not... you couldn't make this stuff up) and was followed by a press conference.
Nov. 10, 2009 - CHARLESTON, W.Va. - Gov. Joe Manchin, joined by West Virginia elected officials: U.S. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Congressman Nick Joe Rahall, Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito, Senate President Earl Ray Tomblin, House Speaker Rick Thompson and various other state leaders, county commissioners, representatives from the coal industry and labor met to discuss the future of coal in West Virginia during a press conference. Photos by: Steven W. Rotsch
West Virginia political leaders promised Tuesday to speak "with one voice" to clarify the Obama administration's proposals to more strictly regulate mountaintop removal coal mining.
Gov. Joe Manchin, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, and Reps. Nick J. Rahall and Shelley Moore Capito said they would join forces to seek a high-level White House meeting to raise coal industry concerns about tougher permit reviews instituted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
"It's about the economy of West Virginia," Manchin said at a news conference after a two-hour, closed-door meeting with industry leaders. "We're just trying to find that balance right now."
I'd like someone to ask Gov. Manchin what it is that he's trying to "balance"? As far as I can tell, "balance" is his code word for stopping any tighter environmental regulation enforcement.
Coal company CEOs have been guaranteed a voice in Washington. The Gov. of West Virginia, Sen. Rockefeller, Rep. Rahall and Rep. Capito stood at a podium this afternoon and promised to speak "with one voice" in Washington, DC on their behalf.
The citizens of West Virginia did not elect these officials to represent coal company executives, they serve to represent us all.
What is good for Don Blankenship is not what is good for all of West Virginia. What is good for CONSOL Energy CEO Brett Harvey is not what is good for all of West Virginia (just ask the residents of the Dunkard Creek watershed). What is good for International Coal Group President Ben Hatfield is not what is good for all of West Virginia.
We need political leaders who will lead for all West Virginians, not political followers catering to the needs of coal company CEOs. We need political leaders who will ask not what they can do for coal, but what they can do for West Virginia. We need political leaders who can honor both our heritage and our future.
I just heard today that a member of my extended family had another application for health insurance denied because of a pre-existing condition. This pre-existing condition is something she's had since birth--in fact, the best available scientific evidence suggests she inherited it from a parent, who also has this rare condition.
The denial letter from the insurance company helpfully suggested looking for a state program for coverage. In her case, she's a young adult who is potentially eligible for a state program but only if she goes for at least half a year un-covered by any insurance whatsoever. Meanwhile, she's at risk of major expenses if anything catastrophic happens.
Here's a young adult going to school part time who is falling between the cracks of any available health insurance plan. She's had health insurance her entire life and now that her COBRA coverage has run out she's joining the ranks of the uninsured.
For the conservatives and libertarians reading this who say "the market is the answer"--what we have here is a total market failure--no one will sell her insurance at any price. My relative's story is a hardly exceptional. There are people dying every day for lack of health care coverage.
How can it be that the wealthiest society that has ever existed on this planet is failing so badly to provide for the basic needs of its citizens?
Health care insurance reform can't happen quickly enough.
Keep at it, Sens. Byrd and Rockefeller, Reps. Mollohan and Rahall. We're counting on you to get health care reform passed this month.
Following last week's launch of anti-Democratic attacks by the prostitute-loving Dick Morris (who admitted his commercials were full of factual errors), a new group of rightwingers is airing "issue ads" against Rahall and Mollohan.
This week, the West Virginia Republicans can count on help from the American Future Fund.
A quick look into the past of the future fund shows it's made up of the expected Lee Atwater disciples:
- Former spokesman for the House GOP in Iowa, Tim Albrecht, who also worked on Mitt Romney's failed presidential campaign.
- Ben Ginsburg, legal counsel for the group. You'll remember Ginsburg as chief outside counsel for the Bush Cheney campaign in 2004. He, of course, had to resign his position when it was revealed he was advising the Swift Boat smear effort and contradicting the Bush campaign's claim that they had nothing to do with "outside" attacks on Sen. John Kerry.
- and Larry McCarthy, media strategist for the group - best known for producing the racist-as-hell Willie Horton ad for Bush Sr.'s campaign against Gov. Michael Dukakis in 1988.
The West Virginia Democratic Party has a strong slate of candidates running for office, in some cases against each other. In most of the primary races I intend to remain neutral, but people can take their own stances.
Two notable exceptions I'll state upfront. I strongly support the re-election of Nick Rahall and Alan Mollohan to the U.S. House of Representatives.
Sometimes the obvious needs to be stated: with the ads he is running, coal baron Don Blankenship wants to split Democrats. He knows he has no chance of winning those two House races. (He's willing to throw his vacation buddy Spike Maynard out as the Republican sacrificial lamb to lose to Rahall. Some friend you got there Spike. You two deserve each other.)
Blankenship's real agenda is at least twofold: 1.) to push the Overton window his direction no matter who is running and 2.) weaken Mollohan and Rahall for any future senatorial races by attacking them now and making them spend campaign resources now.
I'm not playing Blankenship's game. We've got two fine representatives for West Virginia in Mollohan and Rahall - I've long wished Rahall in particular was my representative instead of Republican Rep. Shelley Moore Capito - and those two gentleman have my support.
As always, I speak for myself. The rest of the fine community members of this group blog are free to disagree or agree.
- As expected, following his coming out ceremony, longtime closet Republican and Blankenship vacation buddy Spike Maynard has announced he will run against Rep. Nick Rahall.
"I didn't leave the Democratic Party - the Democratic Party left me," Maynard said.
Well, if by "left me" he means they were turned off by scandal to the point that a sitting chief justice suffered a landslide defeat in a primary and practically tied for last on the ballot, then, yeah, I guess the Democratic Party did leave him.
But what's a little corruption to West Virginia Republicans, who used the occasion to announce a bold new era of ethical bankruptcy for their party?
"I think he's been in the wrong party all of his life," Chairman Doug McKinney said. "We would welcome someone of his character and integrity in the Republican Party."
The usual media suspects sprang into action, touting Maynard's chances in objective, thoughtful "analysis" pieces that praised Brent Benjamin's campaign and railed against something called the "Democrat Party."
Lower Taxes: Building Futures for Families, Jobs and Businesses
Lower taxes, tax cuts, and tax breaks help build futures for our families, by creating jobs, and benefiting small businesses. The savings can be significant in the wide range of tax benefits Congress has passed in the last year such as the expanded Earned Income Tax Credit, the Making Work Pay Tax Cut, which was in the Recovery Act, and the $1.7 trillion in tax cuts for Americans over ten years in the FY2010 budget.
The expanded Earned Income Tax Credit could make a significant financial difference for thousands of households in southern West Virginia, particularly as families struggle during the economic downturn. Currently the IRS estimates that 20 to 25 percent of EITC-eligible workers, or 5-7 million people, fail to claim this tax benefit each year. In order to qualify for the expanded EITC you will need to be a working individual with an income of less than $43,279 for a single person or $48,279 if you are married and filing jointly. In southern West Virginia in 2008; 52,829 West Virginians received the EITC for a total of $98,243,737, with West Virginians who filed receiving an average credit of $1,800.
The Making Work Pay Tax Cut credit, a refundable tax credit of up to $400 per worker or $800 per couple filing jointly, provides over 110 million working families the tax relief they need right now and is being distributed largely by reducing tax withholding from workers' paychecks.
In addition the Child Tax Credit cuts taxes for the families of more than 16 million children through an expansion of the child tax credit. This provides a new tax cut for more than 6 million children, and increases the existing credit for more than 10 million children.
Today education costs continue to mount, which is why the American Opportunity College Tax Credit is available to help more than 4 million additional students attend college with a new, $2,500 tax credit for families.
This past year Congress also voted to extend and expand the Homebuyers tax credit which is available to provide assistance to the struggling housing market and the millions of small businesses involved with homebuilding and construction. Before the recession, building new homes accounted for a significant part of our gross national product, and this legislation amended the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) and replaced the current tax credit for first time homebuyers to allow for a one-time credit for 10%- up to $15,000 - of the purchase price of a principal residence. Under the new law, an eligible taxpayer must buy, or enter into a binding contract to buy, a principal residence on or before April 30, 2010 and close on the home by June 30, 2010. For qualifying purchases in 2010, taxpayers have the option of claiming the credit on either their 2009 or 2010 return.
There have also been significant business tax incentives put in place to create jobs such as the small business expensing provision, spurring investments by extending expensing, and doubling the amount businesses can immediately write off their taxes for capital investments and purchases of new equipment within a certain cost range made in 2009.
In addition legislation passed that helps small businesses by allowing investors to exclude 75% of the gain from the sale of small business stock that is purchased and held for at least 5 years. It also allows small businesses which are looking to reduce their debt burdens by delaying taxes on discharged indebtedness. This will help these companies strengthen their balance sheets so they can invest in job creation. It will also encourage investments in small businesses by cutting the capital gains tax on investors in small businesses that buy stock in the next two years and hold it for more than 5 years.
Congress also included incentives to create jobs and support our veterans by providing business tax credits for hiring recently discharged unemployed veterans or youth who have been out of school for 6 months prior to hire.
The Earned Income Tax Credit and the many other tax credits and benefits may work for you and your family and/or your business. Please take a look at them during this tax season as the savings can be significant. To find out more information about the EITC and other tax credits please call the IRS at 1-800-829-1040, Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. - 10:00p.m. or visit the IRS website at: http://www.irs.gov/.
U.S. Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) represents West Virginia's 3rd District
For those of you who read what this blog frequently, you know I criticize Democrats more than Republicans because Democrats are the ones in power. When Republicans were running government in Washington, I spent more time pointing out how misguided their ideas and political philosophy are. Now, what the GOP says or does is largely irrelevant.
As we enter Election Season 2010, it's good to remember all the ways that Democrats who represent West Virginia do a good job. For example, the majority (though not quite all) of my disagreements with Reps. Mollohan and Rahall are around the single issue of coal. I feel they over-emphasize the importance of coal to West Virginia and under-represent the interests of the other 90% of the state's economy.
But, putting that aside, there are many ways that Reps. Mollohan and Rahall do a great job of looking out for the interests of the average West Virginian. This is something that all liberals and progressives in the state should be proud of. I was reminded of that this week when the NAACP released their score card for 2009 votes on a broad range of civil rights issues.
The NAACP score card covers votes on issues related to economic justice--things that directly and indirectly make a positive impact on the lives of West Virginians.
Thank you Rep. Alan Mollohan and Rep. Nick Rahall for a job well done in 2009.
The field for the West Virginia Representatives to the U.S. House is complete. Here's the candidates who have filed for office in each of the three district races.
The Candidates
WV-01
Alan B. Mollohan (Democrat) from Fairmont, Marion County
Mike Oliverio (Democrat) from Morgantown, Monongalia County
Cindy Hall (Republican) from Wheeling, Ohio County
Patricia VanGilder Levenson (Republican) from Wheeling, Ohio County
David B. McKinley (Republican) from Wheeling, Ohio County
Sarah Minear (Republican) from Morgantown, Monongalia County
Thomas Stark (Republican) from Parkersburg, Wood County
Mac Warner (Republican) from Morgantown, Monongalia County
WV-02
Virginia Lynch Graf (Democrat) from Charles Town, Jefferson County
Shelley Moore Capito (Republican) from Charleston, Kanawha County
WV-03
Bruce Barilla (Democrat) from Bluefield, Greenbrier County
Nick Joe Rahall II (Democrat) from Beckley, Raleigh County
Lee A. Bias (Republican) from Barboursville, Cabell County
Marty Gearheart (Republican) from Bluefield, Mercer County
Conrad G. Lucas II (Republican) from Huntington, Cabell County
Elliott E. "Spike" Maynard (Republican) from Williamson, Mingo County
What to expect
WV-01 While six different Republicans bloody each other up to face the incumbent Alan Mollohan he'll have, on paper at least, just as tough a challenger in the Democratic primary. The primary challenge from the conservative Democrat Oliverio may be a blessing in disguise for Mollohan if it brings out Mollohan supporters early and awakens a campaign apparatus that was dormant when he ran unopposed two years ago. The national GOP want WV-01 to be a high profile race, but with the recent clearing of Mollohan of any criminal wrong-doing in a long-simmering FBI probe, Mollohan can now focus on building up a war chest. Rep. Mollohan may have to campaign harder than usual, but with the advantages of incumbency he should have no returning for another term.
WV-02 After facing a well-supported and well-financed challenge by DCCC-recruited strong challenge by DCCC-supported* candidate Anne Barth in 2008, Republican Rep. Shelley Moore Capito is breathing a major sigh of relief this year. The DCCC and state Democrat party was unable to recruit any high profile candidates for this race. Democrats are lucky that grassroots activist Graf has stepped up to challenge Capito, so the seat remains contested. Graf benefits from no primary challenge so can immediately focus on Capito and a general election campaign. Capito has 'bought a landslide' two cycles in a row, Graf can only hope Capito is complacent and gets caught by surprise if the Graf campaign catches fire.
* Updated: In my haste earlier, I may have left the wrong impression. To clarify: Anne Barth was well supported by the DCCC once she entered the race; State Sen. John Unger was the original DCCC-recruited candidate up until he unexpectedly dropped out just prior to the filing deadline. Also, although Anne Barth did well with fund-raising, she was still out-spent by Rep. Capito by around 3:1.
WV-03 Incumbent Democratic Nick Rahall will have no problem dispatching Barilla in the primary. Former Democrat Spike Maynard is widely expected to be well funded by Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship and prevail in the Republican primary field. A Rahall vs. Maynard general election will almost certainly be a hugely negative, substance free affair. This race will draw national interest--after all, can you think of any other congressional candidates who have inspired Grisham novels? In the end, the interest will benefit Rep. Rahall's fund-raising and he'll be returned for yet another term.
Interestingly, Pruett is vague about his political affiliation. I've been told he's an independent which would allow him to choose to run either as a Democrat or Republican.
Given Pruett's conservative politics, it would be a matter of chosing between running as a Republican and risking the district's enormous registration gap in favor of Democrats, or jumping in early as a Maynard-style rightwing "Democrat."
In the case of the former, he'd still have the coal-funded Ralph Rodighiero to try to divide Democrats in the primary.
Bobby Nelson hosted Majority Leader Truman Chafin(D-Mingo) as a guest on Tri-State Talk today. Despite his advocacy on behalf of the coal industry and rabid criticism of the EPA, Chafin made it clear that he still supports Rahall's re-election.
No word on the identities of the "several people" encouraging Pruett to run, but it wouldn't be surprising if it's the same folks behind Rodighiero.
Conveniently, Pruett resigned his position in Friends of Coal just last month.
Pruett is equally vague on why he might run - simply offering something generically along the lines of "people are mad."
What we do know is that Pruett is more than willing to adopt the coal industry's baseless sky-is-falling rhetoric to try to whip southern West Virginia into a panic.
"I don't have any share in any coal company, but what I do know is what I see on television. You watch Fox News and they've declared war on coal."
Wingnut Web site The West Virginia Watchdog is pushing the idea that former Supreme Court Justice Elliot "Spike" Maynard, who was booted from office by the voters following a little photo problem, is a possibility to challenge Representative Nick Rahall in next year's election.
The Watchdog hilariously thinks Spike is the kind of 'statesman' the race needs.
Apparently, Delegate Ralph Rodighiero. who was recruited by the coal companies for the Democratic primary, has a resume as a massive tool that's a little too thin. Or maybe Rodigiero is just intended to soften up Rahall for Spike, who could run as a Republican.
Roman Stauffer, who served as a political operative for the other French Riviera vacationer, Don Blankenship, has weighed in - and he's excited that there's chance ol' Spike might finally come out of the political closet and switch to the GOP.
Which wouldn't be too much of a surprise. With his promotion of Antonin Scalia's so-called "strict constructionist" philosophy and ties to the Mingo County thugs, the guy is anything but a Democrat.
Being open about his political affiliation might be the first honest thing Spike does in his career.
If the coal barons continue to attract candidates of this quality, don't be too surprised if there's an announcement soon that Arch Moore is coming out of retirement to run for the job.
I posted a version of this diary at DailyKos on Saturday morning. Thank you to everyone who engaged in a constructive dialogue on the topic there and on Facebook over the weekend.
If you're not really sure what "Clean Coal" is, that's easily forgiven. Clean Coal has meant a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Many decades ago, one enterprising company sold "clean coal" that burned with less smoke in your home heating furnace. Today, the term usually refers to carbon capture and storage (CCS) or coal-to-liquid fuel (CTL).
The Obama administration and leading figures in Congress are still pushing for tens of billions of dollars of investments in "cleaner coal." With a pause in consideration on the energy and climate change legislation, it's a good time to ask... just what we would we get in return for that investment?
:::
For those who like to cut to the chase, here's the short answer. Carbon capture and storage is risky and expensive. Coal to liquid only makes sense if you ignore carbon emissions or if expect we'll lose access to foreign sources of oil. But, read on. There's another major challenge you probably aren't aware of.
Sadly, although it might make little economic or scientific sense, the political logic behind clean coal is overwhelming. Coal is mined in some politically potent states-Illinois, Montana, West Virginia, Wyoming-and the coal industry spends millions on lobbying. The end result of the debate is all too likely to resemble Congress's corn-based ethanol mandates: legislation that employs appealing buzzwords to justify subsidies to a politically favored constituency-while actually worsening the problem it seeks to solve.
The Meigs piece is good at laying out the basics of carbon capture and storage, but an even more detailed look at the economics is provided by Richard Heinberg, writing for the Solutions Journal. (All emphasis in quotes is mine.)
The "clean coal" argument runs like this: America is brimming with cheap coal, which provides almost half our electricity and is the most carbon-intensive of the conventional fossil fuels. The nation will need an enormous amount of energy over the next few decades, but renewable sources just aren't ready to provide all-or even the bulk-of that energy. Meanwhile, preventing catastrophic climate change requires that we stop venting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It is possible to capture and store the CO2 that would otherwise be emitted from burning coal, and elements of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology are already in use on a small scale. Put all of these factors together and the case for government funding of research and development of "clean coal" seems strong.
However, several recent studies of US coal supplies suggest that much that we think we know about coal is wrong. If these studies are correct, the argument for investing in "clean coal" becomes tenuous on economic grounds alone. These studies call into question the one "fact" that both pro-coal and anti-coal lobbies have taken for granted: that the US has a virtually limitless supply of cheap coal.
Back in April, Democrat Rep. Nick Rahall (WV-03), spoke to this unpleasant truth. He noted "the state's most productive coal seams likely will be exhausted in 20 years." The backlash from in-state coal interests was strong. Rahall has not spoken about coal supplies since, and for that brief moment of truth his consequence is a coal-industry funded primary challenger.
What would it take for Rep. Rahall to say something like this? Back to the Heinberg piece for the answer...
Doubts were first raised in a book-length 2007 report by the National Academy of Sciences titled "Coal: Research and Development to Support National Energy Policy" (1), which noted that "Present estimates of coal reserves are based upon methods that have not been reviewed or revised since - 1974," and concluded that a newer and better assessment "may substantially reduce the number of years' supply."
Also in 2007, an energy analytics organization founded by a member of the German Parliament, Energy Watch Group (2), released a study of US and world coal supplies concluding that global coal production will reach a peak and begin to decline sometime around 2025, and that US coal production will peak only slightly later-perhaps by 2030 or 2035.
Last December the USGS issued a report (3) on the nation's largest and most productive coalfield, in Wyoming, finding that, at current prices, only about six percent of the coal can be profitably mined; if coal prices soared, then more of the coal would be recoverable-but then coal wouldn't be economically competitive with other energy sources.
But I keep hearing we have hundreds of years of coal left in the United States. That has to be correct doesn't it?
America's coal resources are indeed vast-none of the studies claims otherwise. However, during the past century, coal reserves (the portion of total coal resources that can be mined profitably with existing technologies) shrank much faster than could be accounted for by the depletion of those resources through mining. That is because geologists are doing a better job now of taking into account "restrictions" that make most coal impractical to mine-factors having to do with location, depth, seam thickness, and coal quality. In recent years, some nations have reduced their booked coal reserves by 90 percent or more on the basis of new, more realistic surveys. The National Academy of Sciences report mentioned above is essentially a plea for an updated US national survey, and it offers abundant reasons for thinking that such a survey would almost certainly reveal a much smaller reserve base than the one on which current supply forecasts are founded.
Moreover, when it comes to forecasting future coal supplies the official agencies seem to have been asking the wrong question, namely, "When will the nation run out of coal?" The customary answer is, "Not for a couple of hundred years or more"-which is a sufficiently long period for current energy planning. But more relevant questions are, "When will it no longer be possible to increase the rate at which coal is being extracted?", and "When will coal cease to be an economically competitive energy source?" These are addressed in the Energy Watch Group study, which reasons that, long before the nation runs out of coal, production will peak and start to decline due to the depletion of easily accessible, high-quality deposits. Already some of America's most important coal regions are long past their glory days, and recent field surveys by the USGS (including the one cited above) suggest that the capacities of even the most abundant coalfields in the nation have been over-estimated.
So what? As long as we've got coal to mine, shouldn't we try to burn it as cleanly as possible?
A 2007 MIT study, "The Future of Coal" (4), found that if just 60 percent of the CO2 from US coal-fired power plants were to be captured and compressed to a liquid, its daily volume would equal the amount of oil Americans consume each day (about 20 million barrels). The study also concluded that a huge increase in investment in industrial-scale demonstration plants would be required now even to know in 10 or 15 years if the technology can work at a meaningful scale. All of this underscores the basic fact that carbon capture and storage is going to be very expensive-if it is even possible to accomplish on the scale that is being proposed.
Yet there is a subtler but possibly even more decisive price tag for "clean coal": the energy cost. According to the most recent estimate (from Harvard University's Belfer Center (5), at least 30 percent of the energy produced by burning coal will be needed to run the system for capturing, compressing, pumping, and burying CO2. Therefore any efficiency benefit from gasifying coal at IGCC power plants would be canceled out.
But already the average quality of coal being mined is declining-that is, we get less energy for each ton of coal burned today than we did ten years ago. This is a natural consequence of the "low-hanging-fruit" principle of resource extraction, in which we tend to consume the highest-quality, most easily accessed resources first.
So as time goes on, the US will need to burn more coal, while the coal itself will be more scarce and costly. And the technology used will be far more expensive and complex, both to build and to operate, than the system of power plants we have today. Taken together, these factors read like a recipe for cost overruns and spiraling electricity rates.
That doesn't sound good. Wait... did he just say "spiraling electricity rates?" You mean, you and me and me and you are the ones who are going to be paying higher rates if this coal carbon-capture-storage stuff doesn't work out quite right?
Imagine a scenario in which the US goes ahead with the attempt to develop "clean coal" technologies. During the coming decade tens of billions of dollars (mostly from government) would likely need to be invested in research and the construction of demonstration projects. By 2020, the price of coal will already have begun to rise, as supply problems multiply, yet "clean coal" technology won't be ready to deploy widely (the most ambitious proposals don't see that happening until after 2025). Even if renewable energy doesn't get cheaper due to technological advances (and most analysts assume it will), at some point along this timeline the "clean coal" bandwagon will almost certainly grind to a stop because it is simply too expensive to keep going.
That's a rather ugly and all too plausible scenario. West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller insists "that efforts to address greenhouse gas emissions give our economy and our industries the time that's needed to develop and implement these new technologies."
If Rockefeller is right that CCS needs decades and these studies are right that we're fast running out of coal, then we're talking about one massively expensive boondoogle in "clean coal" that will do nothing to clean up our atmosphere, do nothing to secure our economic future, and do nothing to prepare us for a post-carbon future.
I don't agree with the premise that it is okay to waste billions of dollars just to provide political cover to win a vote for energy and climate change legislation. Those Senators and Representatives who say that "cleaner coal" technology is essential to win their vote need to prove how it could ever be an economically viable option.
U.S. Rep. Nick Joe Rahall appears at a press conference on November 10 at WV Health Right in Charleston, honoring him for his work on health care reform.
I'm too pissed about the amendment forced through for a vote by Bart Stupak (D-Mich) to write a full-fledged diary about it. There's a lot of excellent coverage at FDLACTION (emphasis mine):
Multiple sources are reporting that Stupak's anti-abortion amendment, that would basically prevent all insurance plans sold in the individual and small group market from covering elective abortion, is expected to pass. It would be the most far reaching restriction place on abortion at the national level in years. Moments ago on MSNBC, Bart Stupak (D-Mich) affirmatively said that his amendment will pass.
I warned last week that Reps. Rahall and Mollohan were actively supporting Rep. Stupak. If you're unhappy about that, contact them now and urge them to vote against the Stupak amendment. Tell them health care reform is no time to limit access to legal health care procedures.
(We're not there yet, but if the Stupak amendment passes it's fine with me if any liberal legislators decide to vote against the entire bill because of it.)
Update Call Rep. Capito, too. She's a member of the pro-choice Republican woman's caucus. She is supposedly pro-choice (even though most of her supporters think otherwise). This is the moment of truth. Call and make sure her office knows you are paying attention.
The core premise of health reform is that if you like the coverage you have, you can keep it. Yet for the millions of women whose current insurance plans include coverage for abortion care, that promise may be broken today.
Congressman Stupak wants to place new restrictions on abortion and deny women this coverage. However, the House bill being voted on today already contains a compromise that reflects the status quo and current law: It prohibits federal funds from being used for abortion but still allows women to use their own money to buy the coverage they need.
Copyright 2009 West Virginia Blue
Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
This site exists thanks to financial support from BlogPAC, the tireless efforts of volunteer contributors and continued participation from this community. The views expressed at West Virginia Blue belong soley to their respective authors.
![](http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:Y7Y--cV60wtKPM:http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/01/14/us/15court02_650.jpg")
