- ‹ previous
- 726 of 2715
- next ›
The Power of Coal
Ezra Klein notes that coal state Democrats voted against the Waxman-Markey climate bill at a higher rate than non-coal state Dems, but not that much higher. About one-in-four of the coal state Democrats voted no, compared to only a little over one-in-10 of everyone else:
Even so, that means only one-in-four of the coal state Democrats voted no. I'd like to see those results drilled down to coal-dependent districts, but still, that's quite a bit less parochial defection than one might imagine.
....Another way of putting this is that the evidence suggests that this vote was less about parochial interests than partisanship and ideology. Plenty of Democrats from coal states made the judgment that they could defend this legislation to their constituents.
I think I'd look at this a little differently. Sure, partisan politics was the main divide, but that's the main divide on everything. What's more interesting is that a quarter of the coal state Dems voted against the bill even though it had already been massively watered down to reflect coal state interests. In its current state, Waxman-Markey has very little effect on coal state interests for at least the next decade, and possibly for more like 20 years. But even so, lots of coal state Dems voted against it despite the fact that passage is a major goal of the party leadership, it's a major goal of the president, and it's the right thing to do. I'd call that pretty damn parochial.
OT - Franken declared winner by MN supreme court
I know this is OT but a pretty big story.
The MN supreme court today released its 32 page ruling declaring Franken 'entitled' to the position of US senator based on the election results and the fact that Coleman had not satisfied the burden of proof to show this election was invalid.
One thing to watch is Pawlenty, the current R governor of MN who is leaving the state with a budget mess to clean up as he tries to be President in 2012 has repeatedly said he would sign the certificate if the court orders him to do it.
The court has not ordered him to do it, and that is not the court's job. So will Pawlenty sign the election certificate with this court order without an order which he should never have expected anyway.
No doubt he would have liked the cover of the courts but he did not get it. What will he do?
Tripp
correction
I meant will Pawlenty sign the election certificate with a court ruling but no specific order compelling him to do it.
Tripp
Tripp, I'm hoping that
Tripp,
I'm hoping that saying Franken is entitled to certification is just a polite way of saying that the governor's duty is now clear. After all, standard procedure is not for governors to certify winners on anyone's instructions but those of the voters.
One in four coal-state Dems voted to poison their constituents
Kevin wrote: "I'd call that pretty damn parochial."
It's not just "parochial". The coal-state Democrats who voted against the bill are putting the profits of the coal corporations above the interests of the actual human beings who inhabit their states and Congressional districts, whose lives are devastated by the massive, toxic pollution of coal mining. Their "no" vote was not only a betrayal of the national interest in reducing GHG emissions, it was a betrayal of their constituents' interest in a clean, healthy, livable local environment. These Democrats, like the Republicans, are nothing but bought-and-bribed shills of the fossil fuel corporations, who don't want wind turbines built on Appalachian mountaintops that would put them off limits to the environmental disaster of mountaintop-removal coal mining.
SecularAnimist, I don't
SecularAnimist,
I don't think it helps to exaggerate things. Current coal mining does not create massive, toxic pollution. Coal burning disperses mercury around the globe, and it also adds CO2, but it is not correct to say coal mining specifically creates massive local pollution.
And as far as wind turbines go, Appalachia is not very good for them, but the turbines are sprouting like mushrooms along the central wind corridor of the US.
Tripp
The question you have to ask
The question you have to ask yourself is -- if this is the right thing to do for America, why does it have to be voted on when no one possibly could have read it. ( A 300 - page amendment 12 hours before the vote???? ).
If this is business as usual - then maybe I am just naive about politics, but I thought
rational passage of bills was done with care through a honest debate in a mature deliberative legislative. Not by cramming the bills through in an unread state.
Looks an awful lot like some elites who think they know what is best for everybody are working hard to stifle any kind of debate. But keep going arrogant liberals. It looks like your days in power are definitely numbered. Looks like 1993 all over again. The thing about people who are so convinced they are right, is that they repeat the same mistakes over and over expecting a different result.
They haven't the time.
Unfortunately, there are so many bills that legislators can't read all of them. As John Conyers said, "Sit down, my son. We don't read most of the bills we vote on."
As for honest debate in a mature deliberative fashion, watch a few hours of C-SPAN to disabuse yourself of that notion. I had the debate for H.R. 2454 on while I was working last week, and the debate of that bill was anything but mature. Each side repeated its talking points in pre-scripted speeches.
Mountaintop removal coal mining vs. wind energy
Trippp wrote: "Current coal mining does not create massive, toxic pollution."
I stand by what I wrote. Mountaintop-removal coal mining causes massive, toxic pollution of local ecosystems, including the dumping of gigatons of toxic debris into fragile watersheds. Look it up.
As for the wind energy resources of the Appalachian region, according to the conservation group Appalachian Voices:
"Data from the Mountaineer Wind Energy Center (Est. 2002) and the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) show that a large percentage of Southern Appalachian land is rated as class 2 and class 5 wind resources. Data also show that a wind turbine sited in these areas is capable of producing between 3.2 and 3.8 million kWh on an annual basis . A recent study carried out by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) estimates that mountainous regions (similar to Southern WV) can likely support an average of at least one turbine every 26 acres. This implies that 1 million acres of land could support roughly 38,000 turbines that annually produce 3-4% of total US electric demand. The actual footprint of these turbines would be roughly 10,000 acres, leaving a surrounding 990,000 acres of untouched forested land ...
"The Southern Appalachian regions with the highest wind potential usually correspond to those with the greatest variation in topography. It is also the case that these areas are the most likely to be flattened and mined via MTR [mountaintop removal coal mining]. According to NREL, once an area has been flattened by MTR, its wind potential is reduced to the extent that it is no longer economically viable to develop for wind turbine use. If current trends continue over the next 10 years, MTR will be responsible for flattening 1 million acres of mountain land as well as the destruction of wind resources capable of providing the US with continuous, inexpensive, abundant, emission-free electricity."
Beltway parish.
Perhaps this is a bit optimistic, but I think that the house got what they needed to pass a bill, and the leadership wasn't going to expose any Dems to possible November hassles unless and until the other body proved it could accomplish something constructive. I think that some of these nays might be a reserve in case a Conference produces something that might find favor with 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.