Why mention coal subsidies when its so much easier to blame the president for the decline of Appalachian coal?
This morning's Intelligencer front page tells us that a group of Democratic senators are trying to "charge companies for pollution":
A group of Senate Democrats are pushing to charge companies for potential carbon dioxide pollution they cause while working on federal lands.
Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., ranking . . .
Charles Patton, the president of WV's largest electric utility - Appalachian Power, spoke yesterday at the state Energy Summit. David Gutman in this morning's Gazette-Mail reported what Patton said (emphasis is mine):
Coal consumption is not likely to increase, regardless of whether new federal regulations on power . . .
You may have noticed that the local "newspapers" have started using "war on affordable electricity" instead of "war on coal." I think that's because they figure that appealing to the pocketbook is more likely to persuade the audience. Beyond their assertions and use of questionable evidence that electricity . . .
(Walmart, Proctor & Gamble, Starbucks and other Fortune 500 companies turn to renewables)
Our local "newspapers" like to place primary blame for the decline of West Virginia coal mining on President Obama and "his" EPA. For any number of reasons, he is a convenient scapegoat -- never mind that market forces and a growing public awareness of the causes of climate change started coal's decline long before his . . .
Taking note of the News-Register's assault on economic theory and ethical journalism
Wednesday afternoon's lead editorial, "Taking Note of Assault on West Virginia" references a blog post written by Anna Louie Sussman for the Wall Street Journal last Friday. Sussman's post examines the causes of West Virginia's employment drop. What the News-Register does in its editorial is distort the blog's . . .
(with August 26 update)
Yesterday's News-Register carried an AP report, "Obama Pushes More Clean Energy." This morning's Intelligencer did not carry the AP report but that did not prevent them from editorializing against Obama based upon what was in the report. (Just a thought -- we know the Intelligencer would never misrepresent what the president . . .
I have argued (most recently here) that the Intelligencer is not pro-coal, it's pro-coal owner. Pro-coal would mean that you cared about coal miners as something more than troops in the "war on coal." Being pro-coal owner places emphasis on maximizing profits regardless of what happens to the workers. Here is a screen shot of . . .