Speaking to the New York Times just last month, Daniel P. Schrag, a member of the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology, revealed the not-so-secret mission of our federal masters at the EPA:
“The one thing the president really needs to do now is to begin the process of shutting down the conventional coal plants. Politically, the White House is hesitant to say they’re having a war on coal. On the other hand, a war on coal is exactly what’s needed.”
But really – given then-presidential-candidate Barack Obama’s Obama’s 2008 promise to bankrupt any entrepreneur foolish enough to establish a coal-fired power plant, EPA Region 6 Administrator Al Armendariz’ 2010 comparison of EPA policy to Roman legions sacking Turkish dissenters, and EPA Region 1 Administrator Curt Spalding’s 2012 admission that new regulations would be painful every step of the way – was any further proof necessary?
And in the wake of the president’s promise of executive orders to further put the boots to Kentucky coal via controversial carbon regulations, it’s clear this “war” is about ideology, not improving the standard of living for Kentuckians.
Sen. Rand Paul provided a “bottom line” on the issue just last week:
“The bottom line: Coal is an ample and cheap form of energy. It is a major economic driver for Kentucky and our country. We should continue to get it out of the ground safely and use it in the most efficient way we can.
That doesn’t mean that other forms of energy production should be discouraged. It means that instead of talking about the government putting coal out of business, we should be talking about energy freedom.
Like all other sectors of the economy, allowing businesses and ideas to compete on the free market will not only produce the most efficient forms of energy, but will also pass along the savings to the consumer and help grow our economy.”