Time for a complete picture of what anti-coal rules really mean

True to it's penchant for embracing all things 'left,' The Blade did an editorial last week expounding on how the new EPA rules would be good for Ohioans.

They claim that imposing massive and costly regulations on the coal industry will save lives, based upon estimates from the EPA itself.

It's an editorial, so it's an opinion piece and certainly the unknown author is entitled to express an opinion.

But readers of the editorial should know both sides so you can form an opinion of your own.

These rules are part of Pres. Barack Obama's plan to put the coal industry out of business, despite his claim of wanting an 'all of the above' approach to energy in the nation.

As Phil Kerpen explains:

Four years ago, then-candidate Barack Obama explained his anti-coal energy policy in an editorial board meeting with the San Francisco Chronicle. Obama said: “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad.” He went on to explain: “So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them.”

Indeed Obama attempted to make good on his campaign promise to bankrupt the coal industry and make electricity prices skyrocket the legitimate way – by proposing cap-and-trade legislation in Congress. It was jammed through the House but crashed and burned in the Senate, where many Democrats understood such an energy rationing plan to be political suicide.
...

But the day after the 2010 election President Obama said: “Cap-and-trade was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way. It was a means, not an end. And I’m going to be looking for other means to address this problem.”

With Tuesday’s EPA action to bankrupt coal, he found his “other means” to address the “problem” of affordable electricity.

Here are some points to consider that the paper really doesn't want you to know:

* Technological progress has made coal use far cleaner than ever before. Since 1970, use of coal for power generation has shot up 183% while emissions have dropped 75%.

* Studies have shown the EPA’s approach will force power plants to close across the country, force electricity prices to spike by an average of 12% nationwide, and cost the economy well over one million jobs.

* The measure opposed in the editorial, S.J Resolution 37, proposed by Senator Inhofe, would have made sure the EPA writes sensible regulations that reduce mercury emissions but do not raise energy prices unnecessarily and destroy more jobs.

The key is balance - having sensible regulations that don't bankrupt an industry and don't raise the price we have to pay only to accomplish a minimal, barely measurable, reduction in pollution. And while they claim the measure will 'save lives,' we know the consequence will be lost jobs in the coal industry, higher costs for each of us - especially in Ohio, and loss of tax-paying businesses in the state.

We've already seen the impact with the closing of six coal-fired plants including ours in Oregon, Ohio. So much for jobs being the President's "number one priority."

I'm all for reducing pollution - but how much reduction will we really get and at what cost?

I guess I don't believe the accepted premise from the left that 'if it saves just one life' we should do it, no matter what the consequences.