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

War on coal will hurt U.S.

August 2, 2013

New Environmental Protection Agency head Gina McCarthy made it clear recently where she stands on the war on coal: She is in denial and wants other Americans to share her refusal to accept the trut....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(33)

Scarecrow57

Aug-02-13 12:03 PM

"Can we stop talking about environmental regulations killing jobs?"

NO!!! How about we look no further than Fulton County for proof of this. There used to be a huge leather industry here. EPA and OSHA regulations chased these businesses to Mexico and Korea, where they care not about those regulations. Believe it or not, we are in direct competition with those countries.

SO here is your choice, pristine water or poverty?? Perhaps a compromise on the values would be a better place to start.

5 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

adkkev

Aug-02-13 12:11 PM

SC - isn't "compromise" a dirty no-no word for you?

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ron1960

Aug-02-13 12:17 PM

For many years most all of the homes in the north and northeast burned coal and funny I don't see where it done very much harm to the people, and for the leather industry yes they had their problems but if the EPA and OSHA would have tried to work with those companies we just may have been able to keep those companies here along with the jobs they provided. As for the mines that produce the coal it would not be as bad as it is if the EPA and OSHA would get off their duffs and do the inspections they are required to do and work with the mine owners they could keep many decent jobs and keep those mines open and operating safe. But you can not do the inspections by sitting in an office.

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

Aug-02-13 1:35 PM

Obama and his progressive friends have a continuing war on rural America! Under the direction of liberals rural anywhere USA is going to be an economic nightmare! We will not be allowed to heat our homes drive a vehicle or many other simple freedoms. Mass transit is their answer to all our problems but that is not the answer and when dependent on a mass anything you are a prisoner to it as when it does not preform as it should you get no service. Move along is what we need to do, as far away from this current administration as we can get!

6 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

LoyalSocialist

Aug-02-13 1:39 PM

Huh... I wonder if there is a constant source of energy we could be using that would limit our dependence on foreign fossil fuels and bloated corporations? Maybe someone should SHINE some LIGHT on this for me?

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Patriot1

Aug-02-13 1:46 PM

Congrats to the L-H for this 100% on target editorial. The strength of a sophisticated economy depends upon an energy supply whose cost does not seriously diminish the profitability of the industry which uses that supply. The politically correct, ideological shriekers have had a negative impact on our economy for the past few years by buying votes and influence. The politicians lap it up because they are more interested in consolidating their power and lining their pockets than properly performing in the best interests of the electorate. Major industry simply cannot use green energy economically. We are not an agrarian economy -- get smart, ideologues!

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scarecrow57

Aug-02-13 1:48 PM

adkkev "SC - isn't "compromise" a dirty no-no word for you?"

Not at all, as an engineer I know there are no absolutes in life, there are always tradeoffs.

This is how I know when someone tells me all positives or negatives about their position on an issue I know they are blowing smoke. TO be clear, each and every position has pros and cons. If you fail to acknowledge both sides then you really don't know what you are talking about.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scarecrow57

Aug-02-13 1:52 PM

I wonder if there is a constant source of energy we could be using that would limit our dependence on foreign fossil fuels and bloated corporations?

Sure, there are none that meet your criteria.

Nuclear is a constant source for sure, but involves corporations. We then have solar, but that is not constant and also involves corporations - many of which took government money,paid their execs bonuses , and closed the doors.

Nope, no one has built the perpetual motion machine yet.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

LoyalSocialist

Aug-02-13 2:17 PM

So we should continue to use what little natural resources we have because it's easier than developing green technology? How about we give NASA a bit more funding to continue research on alternative energy instead of spending that money on making more bombs and expanding an already bloated military?

8 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Pards13

Aug-02-13 3:52 PM

Sound like a plan. Let's turn out the lights, pay lots of $$ to Solyndra (spelling?). Hey let's check with Al and his buddies in the middle east. May be we can get a visa to go there, oh right they are closed due to a terrorism holiday. I'm all for alternative energy but I don't want to go broke getting there.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scarecrow57

Aug-02-13 4:00 PM

Loyal. I for one have no problem funding research in alternate energy. I do have a problem funding the manufacture and installation of such technology.

I agree, we should cut military spending by at least 50% if not more. We could also stop supporting the Muslim Brotherhood as well as all other foreign aid.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rschweizer

Aug-02-13 4:20 PM

Pards13, sometimes it takes money to start saving money. it's called an investment. I know, I know, it's Fulton County and not many people know what that means.

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Pards13

Aug-02-13 4:44 PM

Actually there are quite a few people in Fulton County that know what an investment is. There are even a few that know the difference between a good one and a bad one. Some even know enough to stop throwing good money after bad.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

pepper

Aug-02-13 5:50 PM

Burn more coal? Are you kidding? Destroy more fishing spots, Do you nuts want the whole chain of lakes empty of recreation, and fishing. Just for the money, these billion dollar company corps can profit.

8 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

pepper

Aug-02-13 5:51 PM

Burn more coal? Are you kidding? Destroy more fishing spots, Do you nuts want the whole chain of lakes empty of recreation, and fishing. Just for the money, these billion dollar company corps can profit.

6 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DaveGibson

Aug-02-13 8:50 PM

"why can't our government fund a scientific program to finally figure out how to make coal cleaner burning"??

Why do conservatives always look to the government to bail them out. How about if we let our capitalist system work. Corporations can do their own scientific research on how to make coal cleaner burning. Or how about if corporations do what we all do to lower our utility bills- energy efficiency.

Keep in mind WHY burning coal is bad- carbon emissions and it's effect on global warming. Now, if you don't believe global warming is at least in part caused by man's burning of fossil fuels, then there's no discussion here. But if you do, then alternatives to burning fossil fuel makes sense, including nuclear power.

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

laker88

Aug-02-13 9:35 PM

The so-called "war on coal" began with the Clean Air Act signed way back under Nixon, and which gained strength under Bush. Also, the coal industry's main problem is natural gas...cheaper and cleaner. Just another poorly researched article from the LH editorial staff.

10 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

Aug-02-13 10:12 PM

Conservatives looking for a bailout?? Are you on this planet? Dems Favor Federal Bailout of Detroit, But Majority of Public Opposed. They spread money like a farmers honey wagon and if a single piece falls near a working man a liberal will point and yell. Nice!

3 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

Aug-02-13 10:14 PM

Good point. Natural gas is cheap and plentiful... progressives do not want us to get that either. Progressives do not want us to have any fuels at all!

2 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrBoB51

Aug-03-13 6:08 AM

Well dave, lets see, global warming/cooling has been going on since the planet was formed but all of a sudden WE are partly to blame??? Some fat slob on TV or in a movie tells you its our fault and you believe him. How naive of you. When I was a kid I watched Heckle and Jeckle on TV but I grew up and still don't think crows can talk. Seems to me that you do.

5 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DaveGibson

Aug-03-13 6:41 AM

MrBob, people like you and TOT read an opinion article written by one man and take it as gospel because it fall in line with what you believe, but you choose to ignore 98% of scientists who have facts showing that the globe warming faster than at any time in history. And you compare science to cartoons? Amazing.

8 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

notgood

Aug-03-13 8:09 AM

Dave-lets see how your facts add up, those scietist get there funding from who? The very people crying global warming, so the 98% is scewed not just a bit but alot.

3 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

drugsrus

Aug-03-13 11:50 AM

Hey, 40 years ago the chicken littles were crying about a new ice age in the near future

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

Aug-03-13 11:50 AM

OK Dave, here we go again. There are publications on BOTH sides of the argument. YOU chose to ignore some as do we. In the end it is all speculation. ALL ANYONE'S GUESS! You chose the wrong side again that's all!

1 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

drugsrus

Aug-03-13 12:10 PM

Loyal, "So we should continue to use what little natural resources we have ...." In case you missed it , we have more resources that we could use in hundreds of years. The tree huggers would rather have us dependent of foreign supplies than utilize our own stuff because a gnat's habitat could be disturbed

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 33 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web