Baucus continues to explore new territory on the corruption chart

The betting seems to (0.00 / 0)

favor coal.  See: http://abcnews.go.com/Business...

Coal Mines Eyed Near Red Lodge, Bridger
Calif. company eyes coal mines near Red Lodge, Bridger

By MATTHEW BROWN Associated Press Writer
BILLINGS, Mont. February 26, 2010 (AP)

Coal developers are maneuvering to build new mines in south-central Montana near Red Lodge, where the industry shut down decades ago after a tragic fire, leaving behind underground reserves estimated at a billion tons.

Public financial filings show a California coal startup, Management Energy, Inc., has amassed leases on more than 10 square miles of land northeast of Red Lodge near Bridger.

Also being eyed for a mine are parcels near the small town of Bearcreek - site of a 1943 underground mine fire that killed 75 workers. A third possible site is near Grove Creek, near the Wyoming border.

The pursuit of mines in that area is another indication of rising corporate interest in Montana's huge coal reserves, the largest in the nation but still largely undeveloped.

Last year's opening of the Signal Peak mine north of Billings was Montana's first in three decades.

Farther east, the Crow Tribe is seeking to build a mine to serve a proposed $8 billion coal-to-liquids plant. Nearby, Arch Coal recently paid more than $70 million for rights to mine a 731 million ton reserve. And next to Arch's leases, Montana's Land Board is seeking bids on 532 million tons of publicly owned coal.

Citing the dangers of climate change, environmentalists have tried to slow or stop some of those projects - so far to little avail.

Montana's pro-coal governor, Democrat Brian Schweitzer, has courted a steady parade of companies that have gone on to start projects in the state. None of those have yet included the type of carbon capture technology that Schweitzer says is needed to account for climate change.

The EPA has it's challenges with Obama's falling approval and the fragility of the economy.  Furthermore, they pinned much of their Endangerment Finding on the IPCC which they mentioned something like 48 times in the report.  The IPCC continues to sink over the scandals.  

---

by: Craig Moore @ Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 18:21:00 PM UTC

Which is why regulation is needed. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Montana Cowgirl @ Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 18:24:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Craig, Craig, Craig... (0.00 / 0)

"Obama's falling approval"

Prove it. Gallup shows Obama's approval rating hovering right at the 50% deviating only by margin of error since mid-August last year. That's the last 6 months.

"fragility of the economy"

Which economy we talking about craig? The one Wall Street lives on that paid out more than $20 billion in bonuses and had over $50 billion in profits (and that conservatives like you worship)? The one where GDP is up 5.9% in the last quarter? The one that survived a potential fall into the next Great Depression? The economy may not be great, but it is anything but "fragile" right now. It was fragile 18 months ago.

"pinned much of their Endangerment Finding on the IPCC"

So the fuck what if they did? Actually, they pinned their Finding on a whole lot of other supporting data from a wide variety of reports and studies. Here is the finding:

Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases--carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)--in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.

Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare.

Any rational person can conclude those findings are true without any supporting data. One just needs to breathe the smog in Missoula during a winter inversion to know that their health is threatened. Furthermore, the rules rely on a wide variety of supporting evidence.

Ya really need to quit looking to your right-wing bogeymen for ammo supporting your denier mentality, Craig. It just don't wash.

Here's  some homework for you Craig. Go back and read the Technical Support Document for the Findings and report back to class with a 300 word essay on what you learned. You can post it to this blog as a diary and we can all look at the evidence from your view point.

Until then, your feeble attempts to whitewash the EPA are really, really... unscientific and pathetic. It'a a throwback to the uninformed anti-scientific, anti-intellectualism of the Bush and Reagan eras. Just ain't gonna wash among intelligent, informed people.

---

by: JC @ Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 19:34:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Deep breaths JC (0.00 / 0)

You will feel better and not pop an artery.

Rasmussen reports that Obama's PAI is now -21 and heading south.  Independent voters pulsed say they disapprove by 61%, and they will decide the next elections.

As to the rest of your rant, who cares... as it is merely a deflection to whistle past my point.  There is a reason that coal leasing is picking up and it ain't because the EPA is going to go all big and bad. Their soft underbelly has been revealed.

---

by: Craig Moore @ Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 20:16:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Rasmussen has absolutely no credibility (0.00 / 0)

anymore, except among conservative Obama-bashers.

If your point was about coal, why did you bring up the EPA? Your point was to discredit the EPA, and you used a report on possible coal development in Montana to make your point to tie manufactured Obama polls with ignorance about the IPCC to why coal mining is good in Montana.

You really are that transparent, Craig.

Fortunately the EPA has the regulatory authority to act, even in the face of ignorance by conservatives. What you see as a soft underbelly is meaningless. The EPA has enough tooth to regulate in the absence of Congressional action.

Still waiting for your class assignment, by the way. Or are you too lazy to read the report and give it a decent critique based on your own reading?

---

by: JC @ Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 20:24:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

JC, learn to read (0.00 / 0)

Cowgirl brought up the EPA.  Start at the beginning.

---

by: Craig Moore @ Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 20:29:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How about that mid-term report, Craig. (0.00 / 0)

Still waiting.

Yes, Cowgirl brought up the EPA, duh. You are the one trying to tie it up with a bunch of fallacies in order to bolster your push for coal mining.  

---

by: JC @ Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 20:45:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

JC, your cheese has slipped (0.00 / 0)

off your cracker.

JC:  "why did you bring up the EPA?"

Me:  "Cowgirl brought up the EPA.  Start at the beginning."

JC:  "Yes, Cowgirl brought up the EPA, duh."

Me:  LMAO.

Again, go back and read from the beginning.  

---

by: Craig Moore @ Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 20:50:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sure, if you'll read (0.00 / 0)

the technical support doc and report back. Or are you afraid to, cuz you might learn something?

I don't know why conservatives are so afraid of science. (Well, I do, but that doesn't make as good of a rhetorical statement.)

---

by: JC @ Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 21:38:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

When did Rasmussen ever have credibility? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Kyle42 @ Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 01:11:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yo JC (0.00 / 0)

what about the Sage Grouse?  http://articles.latimes.com/20...

Interior Department says sage grouse deserves -- but won't get -- protection
The department declares that the greater sage grouse merits protection under the Endangered Species Act but won't receive it for now because other species are a higher priority.

March 05, 2010|By Jim Tankersley

Reporting from Washington - The Interior Department declared Friday that an iconic Western bird deserves federal protection under the Endangered Species Act, but declined to offer that protection immediately -- a split decision that will allow oil and gas drilling to continue across large swaths of the mountainous West.

The department issued a so-called "warranted but precluded" designation for the greater sage grouse, meaning that the bird merits protection but won't receive it for now because other species are a higher priority.

This is Obama's Intertior Department.

---

by: Craig Moore @ Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 18:36:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Same as it ever was... (0.00 / 0)

...there is water at the bottom of the ocean.

---

by: JC @ Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 18:47:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Basically: (0.00 / 0)

The point on all of this is that if you believe we need a national energy policy, and if you believe co2 needs to be gradually curtailed, then the feds have to do it. no state or other actor is going to do anything meaningful without a national effort. and the feds need to help industry develop the technology. all the windmills and solar panels we can build cannot supplant the fifty-percent or more of america's power than comes from fossil fuel. plus, developing nations like those in asia and africa couldn't care a wit about carbon despite what wide-eyed global optimists  like tom friedman or others write in the new york times. so until there is a reasonably priced way to produce low-co2 energy or somehow clean up co2 directly from the atmosphere, all the treaties and coppenhagens and kyotos don't mean squat. even a radical 20% reduction of carbon emissions earth-wide will be negated by the increase in global population in the next two decades.  schweitzer says he supports a carbon fee nationally, assessed on polluters, to raise funds to develop scalable alternatives. that's at least a step in the right direction. if otter creek coal, and other deposits like it, were not mined, yes, it would gradually increase the price of coal and potentially cause conservation by the end user because of price. but not if wyoming doesn't give a shit and adds to the national portfolio whatever an otter-creek moratorium subtracts. plus, let's face it. even if all new mines nationally are scrapped,  costs will be passed on to others in the chain, internalized, or diminished by give-aways and subsidies from congress just like the oil industry has always gotten in tough times.  until the president takes complete control of this issue and we embark on a national program where people conserve and in which energy becomes expensive enough to change behavior significantly, and until we become serious federally about subsidizing some cleaner types of plants regardless of how expensive they are at first, it's all smoke.

---

by: Gumbo @ Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 19:49:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yet not one negative word of Governor Schweitzer (0.00 / 0)

and Otter Creek.  

For all the blogging you've done, not one word, yet now we hear a cry for regulation of CO2 and coal and carbon.

It's just that I'm a little confused about this new found outrage.

---

by: jhwygirl @ Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 21:03:39 PM UTC

I'm saying if there is going to be development, it should be regulated. (0.00 / 0)

No where do I say "we should never mine coal," we should never build buildings, or that we should never turn on the lights.  I'm saying we need regulations to make sure it's done right.  

---

by: Montana Cowgirl @ Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 01:01:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You use coal as the primary example of a CO2 polluter... (0.00 / 0)

and the article you link to headlines with the words "Coal-state Democrats".  You are pointing to Baucus being evil, the proposed EPA regs being a good thing, and coal being one of the big-bad-monsters in the whole bit.

I mean - if the connection to coal and CO2 and polluted air is all new information to you, then I understand. But if that isn't the case, this sounds like a whole bunch of huffin' and puffin' for some reason over Baucus when our own Governor, our own Auditor and our own Sec. of State did when the supported the Otter Creek leases.

I guess its not OK to pass the buck.  Yeah - the Gov doesn't have the legal responsibility regulating the Clean Air Act.  Neither do you or I either, I guess.  But when I support the changes to the Clean Air Act, I'm doing my part.  Seems you are too.  But Otter Creek - essentially getting in there "under the wire," as it were - isn't.  

It's not OK that Blue Cross Blue Shield Montana is raising its rates by 45% in the face of impending legislation - it's not fair that credit card companies did the same last year.  

---

by: jhwygirl @ Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 01:36:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Last time I checked the Governor didn't take $1.8 million from the mining industry. (0.00 / 0)

So, um, there's that.  

---

by: Kyle42 @ Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 01:07:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I haven't checked (0.00 / 0)

I'll take your word for it.

In any case, it's a hell of a return, then, for someone like Great Northern.

I do know that they make donations to the Democratic Governors Association, though.

---

by: jhwygirl @ Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 01:38:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Max (0.00 / 0)

Don't overlook the possibility that Max is just doing what's best for Montana -

---

by: Eric Coobs @ Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 22:29:35 PM UTC

hahahahaha (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Montana Cowgirl @ Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 01:01:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dude, you're killing me. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Kyle42 @ Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 01:07:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Of course Eric's right.. (0.00 / 0)

in a purely economic sense.  Oh that we COULD develop coal without destroying our environment, culture, and landscape. But we can't.  The thing that really bothers me though about Schweitzer is his decision to greatly lower the price.  That was very, very dumb and bad economics.  If they want the coal, they gotta pay and pay big. Ya DON'T give it away fercrhissakes!  What WAS he thinking? He should have consulted Tom Towe before deciding to lower.

---

by: Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers! @ Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 02:54:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Regulated (0.00 / 0)

Shmegulated. Coal is poisonous. It is our duty to stop all coal mining and burning using any means necessary. Only in a profit system would it be logical to regulate your poison intake.

---

by: troutsky @ Mon Mar 01, 2010 at 06:17:45 AM UTC

Coal is medicine (0.00 / 0)

So says the British Medical Journal.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

---

by: Craig Moore @ Mon Mar 01, 2010 at 15:04:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So is cocaine (4.00 / 1)

pot, opium, meth... But like coal, they're all addictive and cause people to do irrational things.

---

by: JC @ Mon Mar 01, 2010 at 22:07:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]