Posted on 10/10/2010 1:44:35 PM PDT by Qbert
Even as Speaker Nancy Pelosi twisted arms for the final votes to pass her climate bill in June 2009, Democrats feared they might be "BTU'd." Many of them recalled how Al Gore had forced the House to vote in 1993 for an energy tax, a vote Democrats later blamed for helping their 1994 defeat.
The politics isn't the same this time around. This time, it's much, much worse.
Ask Rick Boucher, the coal-country Democrat who for nearly 30 years has represented southwest Virginia's ninth district. The 64-year-old is among the most powerful House Democrats, an incumbent who hasn't been seriously challenged since the early 1980s. Mr. Boucher has nonetheless worked himself onto this year's list of vulnerable Democrats. He managed it with one vote: support for cap and trade.
Anger over the BTU tax was spread across the country in 1994; the tax hit everything, even nuclear and hydropower. And the anger was wrapped into general unhappiness with Clinton initiatives. Some Democrats who voted for BTU but otherwise distanced themselves from the White House were spared. Mr. Boucher, for instance.
Cap and trade is different. The bill is designed to crush certain industries, namely coal. As coal-state voters have realized this, the vote has become a jobs issue, and one that is explosive. It is no accident that Democrats face particularly tough terrain in such key electoral states as Ohio and Pennsylvania, as well as Kentucky, West Virginia and Indiana. They are being laser-targeted for their votes to kill home-state industries.
In Ohio, billboards have shown Democrats John Boccieri and Zack Space as puppets, manipulated into voting for the "National Energy tax." Kentucky Republican Andy Barr demands Democratic Rep. Ben Chandler explain his vote to cost his state 35,000 jobs...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Here in KY (as elsewhere I assume) the EPA is implementing its “Destroy Coal” policy without waiting for a legislative go ahead. More government by decree.
According to my state rep, the feds are trying to stop coal from leaving the state to fill existing contracts. It’s really much worse than even most of you here realize.
The desire to reign and have power over energy overcomes common sense.
The need to control energy and thereby control the electorate trumps anything - even citizenship and the Constitution.
When Obama threatened to bankrupt the coal industry, every Democrat from the coal states needed to stand up and start yelling their displeasure. Their silence is now costing them dearly. May they ALL go down in defeat!
It was not lost on the voters in West Virginia that Byrd didn't seem too concerned by Obama's threat. Their Governor Manchin didn't seem too concerned either. However, they now have a Republican who is running for Senator who IS concerned about the threat, and THAT isn't lost on on the voters EITHER!
A very HIGH priority of the Republicans, should they gain the House, should be to defund the EPA. If Obama wants hand to hand combat in the House, he will have to suck up a lot of coal dust.
“Cap and trade is different. The bill is designed to crush certain industries, namely coal.”
Not really different. Same objective. Force American’s to cut back on energy use and to provide more revenue to the federal government. Might work differently but all these ‘energy’ bills are the same. Less energy at higher cost and more revenue to the feds.
“Here in KY (as elsewhere I assume) the EPA is implementing its “Destroy Coal” policy without waiting for a legislative go ahead. More government by decree.
According to my state rep, the feds are trying to stop coal from leaving the state to fill existing contracts. It’s really much worse than even most of you here realize.”
—That definitely needs to get much more attention.
In Texas, the EPA is trying to close down the oil refineries.
My gut feeling is that Boucher will survive. But I’d LOVE to be wrong.
Makes you wonder why they don’t haul out the deer rifles and shoot a few people.
We may not be too far from that point.
I would love to see this jerk lose.
Coal CAN be converted into gasoline
Fischer-Tropsch method converts coal to diesel. Diesel engine are very efficient now.
And
"Texas lignite coal sells for $18 a tonne. The coal conversion technology uses one tonne of coal to produce 1.5 barrels of crude oil. One barrel of crude produces 42 U.S. gallons of gasoline. In other words, $18 worth of coal yields 63 gallons of gasoline: 0.28 cents a gallon."
See Post #15
“Texas lignite coal sells for $18 a tonne. The coal conversion technology uses one tonne of coal to produce 1.5 barrels of crude oil. One barrel of crude produces 42 U.S. gallons of gasoline. In other words, $18 worth of coal yields 63 gallons of gasoline: 0.28 cents a gallon.”
If I’m not mistaken, 1 barrel of crude = 42 gallons period.
Wonder where else and how else the math is wrong.
"So there you are. After all this analysis, we are back where we started. A barrel of oil can produce 42 gallons of gasoline. If the US could cut reduce consumption by 1 billion gallons of gasoline, that would translate to 24 million barrels of oil."
I work in refinery design.
There is no way to get 42 gallons of gasoline from a single barrel of oil. I read the linked article. The author either misunderstood the process or is deliberately misleading.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.