that Kaine's "ambitious energy plan...included cutting Virginia's greenhouse-gas emissions 30 percent by 2025."  Why is the corporate media so @#$%@#$ ignorant/stupid/gullible?

Not the reporters. Or maybe they think that explaining the issue would take up precious lines on the pages of their publications that could be devoted to Lindsay Lohan...

Washingtonian publishes letters, Lowell, are you writing one?

At this point, I've just about given up on the corporate media with regard to the simple matter of getting the facts straight.  I've written a zillion times on this blog and elsewhere about the various misstatements I've seen in the Washington Post, Washingtonian, etc. regarding energy.  Yet they never change.  Maybe it's time for someone else to give it a shot, I'm sick of these morons.

Maybe everyone is being a little too hard on the governor, he is following the Virginia tradition of promoting coal. His two  new appointments to the air pollution control board come July 1st will tell the tale. If he appoints, for example, the CEO of Dominion then that will look bad.  He already has a water polluter on the state water control board, maybe that is enough to meet his quota. One thing about it, had Jerry Kilgore been elected at least he wouldn't be called a hypocrite, he never pretended to be a tree hugger!

...we'd be blasting him mercilessly for this.  The fact is, Tim Kaine has a lot of good will among Democrats for all the hard work he's done for the party, but he's just dead wrong when it comes to Dominion in general, and the proposed coal-fired power plant in Wise County specifically.  Personally, I don't think that Kaine is in any way a "dirty rotten scoundrel," but that he lets his "optimism" cloud his judgment sometimes.  The fact is, being "optimistic" is not going to prevent the polar ice caps from melting or the Chesapeake Bay from dying because of anthropogenic global warming.  For that, we're going to need swift, strong, heroic action, including biting the bullet on coal in Virginia.  (I would note, as I have previously, that coal makes up a miniscule percentage of Virginia's economy, and coal employment an even more miniscule percentage...and both continue to fall).

and serial polluters? We hear of $250k from Dominion, but what about money from the coal industry and railroads?  How much of Kaine's political bankrolling has come from serial polluters?

I am quite seriously disappointing in Kaine. To say the least ...

The Commonwealth is striving to be the least energy efficient state and working towards an objective of being among the most polluting per kilowatt. This is not an honor that I'd want to have hanging in my home.

Tim Kaine's Moving Virginia Forward PAC, see here.   For contributions to Tim Kaine's gubernatorial campaign, see here.  Seems like real estate, construction, finance, insurance, political, law, and organized labor, technology and communication are the top sources of money to Kaine.

Dominion was one of the top two sponsors at the Richmond J-J Dinner in February.

Posts to most state boards and comissions etc. are usually handled by an appointments secretary. I wonder who's getting the candidates together for these imminent gubernatorial appointments? Did Dominion slip Tim a list of "their guys'?
Tim Kaine's lack of commitment to action on climate change is so uncharacteristic of the guy he's endorsed. Look at this--
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Sounds like Barack is ready to hire Gore in his administration!!

Tim needs to talk to Al, better yet he should watch his movie and meet with him! NOW!  

He talks the talk on climate change. I've heard it myself. A cynic might say he's made the political calculation that he can take credit for talking climate action in front of the liberals in the DC suburbs while hyping coal in southwest Virginia. But I'm not a cynic.

Virginia Business Magazine, in their July, 2007 issue, has an interesting article titled:  The Future of Energy in Virginia.  The article had some interesting data in it:

Old king coal reigns supreme
It's difficult to discuss Virginia's energy needs without mentioning coal. It's the chief source of fuel for generating Virginia's electricity and the top state export, accounting for about $1.7 billion in state revenue last year. That's up from $836 million in 2005, according to the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy (DMME).

In terms of annual production, Virginia ranks among the top 10 states in the country. About 32 million tons of the mineral were extracted in 2006. The state's bituminous coal is prized for its high heat density and comparatively low sulfur content. Along with other coal mining states, Virginia expects to benefit substantially from skyrocketing demand for electric power in China, India and elsewhere on the Asian subcontinent.

Closer to home, coal remains crucial. One quarter of Norfolk Southern Corp.'s revenue comes from coal shipments, or about $2.3 billion annually. To move Appalachian coal to maritime ports in Hampton Roads more efficiently, the Norfolk-based rail carrier is investing about $2 billion during the next decade to replace its aging fleet of 33,000 coal cars.

Coal also is a longtime linchpin for Southwest Virginia's economy. Despite declines in recent decades, coal mining still provides good-paying jobs to about 6,000 people in Virginia's Southwest coalfields, where miners earn between $55,000 and $60,000 a year.

As you can see, the economic impact of coal in Virginia is far and wide - and so is the political impact, especially within the Democratic party, pitting environmentalists  fighting for a clean environment versus unions fighting for jobs; grass-roots activists versus a sitting governor.  

I am far from an expert on global warming and greenhouse gases but I have a tendency to side with environmentalists on these issues.  The effects of global warming are undeniable, based on weather changes, melting ice caps, etc.  But having said that, I also worry about the loss of jobs as well. I guess I want to have my cake and eat it too, as far as both issues are concerned, but with the complexity of these issues so great, I am not sure if that is possible.

Bust as far as global warming is concerned, there seems to be quite a conundrum here.  If the Wise plant does not get built, obviously this will have a positive impact on global warming and will help Virginia meets its goals of reducing greenhouse-gas emmissions in 2025.  However, isn't that offset by coal companies in southwest Virginia and around the country continuig to ship coal overseas to their customers in India, China and elsewhere throughout Asia, to produce electricity? How do we ever get a global consensus on this issue?

Governor Kaine is certainly in a difficult position here because no matter what side he takes on this issue, the other side is going to be really irritated with him.  

And it will also be interesting to see if there is any fallout for Mark Warner and some members of the legislature over this issue.  The Wise County plant proposal originated from a 2004 deregulation law approved by the General Assembly and signed into law by then-Gov. Mark R. Warner, as reported by the Washinton Post on March 30, 2008.  

http://www.gatewayva.com/biz/v...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

 

Let's use your estimate of 6,000 people employed in VA's coalfields at $55,000 per person. That's $330 million in payroll. Where are all the other billions going? Not to Appalachia, that's for sure.

is not my figure, it was part of the article.  

And I have no clue where the rest went.  Perhaps that is a diary you could prepare - I am sure there is a huge story there.  

 

The State Department of Natural resources has said repeatedly that for every job (take the 6,000)there are (3) jobs that are directly linked to the coalfield, whether its in rail, port, human resources, benefits, insurance of facilties (risk managers etc). Based on those numbers that would be more like 18,000 additional added to the 6,000 actually performing in the coalfields.
In a sidebar note if you think thats crazy, explain to me why the RMA (Richmond Metropolitan Authority) generates 25 million a years in toll revenue in and around Richmond but has a payroll of 5 million a year. (Thats 25% folks of revenue) Is the answer that for every person they actually have peforming a work function they have two or three back office supporting that one worker. Crazy economics.
Advocates against coal also ignore what the Ceo of CSX decscribes on CNBC as the ecomonies of scale with regard to the transport of coal via rail. One can look narrowly and say coal is 4% of state revenues but it touches the railroad industry and the port side of the economy. Without coal CSX revenues drop 30% and thus the workforce that supports CSX and Norfolk Southern drop dramatically as well.
Anyone working in or who has ever worked in State Government knows its the railroad poweers that have Kaine or any Governor's for that matter in Virginia ear not necessarily only the Dominions of the world. If you break down the death of coal and its impacts the numbers are striking with regard to the number of industries such a death would impact in the Commonwealth.

out of around $40 billion in total revenue.  That's just 4% of state revenues.  

As far as Virginia exports are concerned, they exceeded $18 billion in 2004. Of these, manufactured goods accounted for $9.38 billion (more than half), with coal and tobacco exports COMBINED accounting for $1.81 billion (around 10% of the total).  According to this website, Virginia's tobacco exports were $1.16 billion in 2004, which leaves about $650 million of coal exports (4% of of the $18 billion in total Virginia exports in 2004).

In short, coal makes up a very small share (4%) of state revenues and of exports.  It accounts for an even smaller share of state economic output.  So why do people keep talking about Virginia as a "coal state?"  It may have been in the past, but it's not anymore.

Thanks for the data - it's useful to be able to put all of this in perspective.

There's so much misinformation and false assumptions floating around, but FACTS are the best antidote.

Consider this while 4% isn't alot it is quite possibly a very large section of the economy of SW Virginia

Think about it we all know NoVa is a large section of the economy then TW/HR then Richmond and then Charlottesville

I think there is a strong chance that when you isolate SW Virginia that 4% quickly increases it might be as high as 50% even

people tend to gloss over the real impacts when trying to advocate agendas. I always find it interesting when people think that the entire state economics are not reflected or impacted by things that are associated with SW Virginia. Where do these people think the product generated there goes and how does it go there and how many Virginians are involved in that endeavor. Of course that 4% number is more impactful in certain geographic areas but when the arguement is made that a decision made merely impacts one geographic area it is poorly crafted. Fact is when you talk coal your talking SW Virginia (fields)Central Virginia (rail houses) and Hampton Roads (port facilities) all work being performed by Virginians.  

In fact, there are many, many jobs that need to be done.  We have been at historically low unemployment rates nationally, and where there are problems, like SWVA, the government should step in and do aggressive -- but sustainable -- economic development.  

We should employ people to fix the world's problems, not to exacerbate the world's problems.  Think about it -- what value to society is a job that degrades the prospects of future generations?

If your employer required you to hurt your kids as a condition for keeping your job, would you do so?
 

your suggesstion that the government step in and do aggressive, substantial economic development is not only a false choice but politically unrealistic.

The economy is falling apart, unemployment is rissing and the federal budget has enough red ink in it to sink a ship.  How do you funf something like this?    

Who is supposed to do this - the president, the governor?

How do you ever get the political will across both aisles to implement a economic development plan to replace 6,000 jobs paying $60,000 a year in the southwest corner of the state?  Any jobs that are created to re-place these high paying jobs will be at much lower wages.  

There are so many regions across the country like this - who determines where to start first?

   

With the economy "falling apart" a lot worse than today, the government stepped in with all kinds of New Deal programs.  Would you have opposed those?

but the political will existed in the '30's for those types of New Deal programs.  The political environment is much different today, more polarized and big government programs are not something most politicians and voters have an appetite for.    

And more importantly, how would you convince workers making $60,000 a year to give up those jobs to make $30,000 or $40,000 a year?  Would you?  

...FDR was a great leader and because the economy was a mess and people needed a helping hand.  Thus, some of the great New  Deal programs were born.

but lets bring this this discussion down to the coal worker in southwest Virginia.

Three counties in southwest Virginia produced 85% of the coal mined in southwest Virginia - Buchanan, Dickenson and Wise counties.  

On average, lets assume, based on the prior article I posted, that the average coal miner/worker living in one of these three counties, earns $55,000 a year.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the median income for each of these three counties, as of 2004 is as follows:

Buchanan County - $25,549
Dickenson County - $26, 490
Wise County - $30,203

On average, a coal miner is earning twice the median income of their county.  So why would these workers agree to give up a job paying so much more?  And would their state legislatures, congressman, etc., really agree to government programs that would create new jobs to replace their present jobs, at a lesser rate of pay?  

I just don't see the type of political will developing to implement something like this.    

So instead, we'll let them stay hooked on coal, then when Congress passes a bill putting a price on carbon emissions next year and demand for coal dwindles while the clean energy economy takes off, we'll just leave SW VA behind?

But until Congress passes a bill on carbon emmissions, that point is mute.  

But, if and when does pass a bill, this is the type of issues that are going to have to be addressd at the same time.        

Flipper, I would summarize your attitude as "act as if the future doesn't exist."  According to this logic, it doesn't matter if you're driving 80 miles an hour towards a cliff because you haven't gotten there yet.  Once you get there, then that issue "will have to be addressed at that time".

The truly remarkable thing is that classic laissez-fairy-tale economics enshrines such an attitude as the epitome of "rational behavior."

"Laissey-fairy-tale economics."   Pretty much sums up the entire Republican approach to the economy and the environment over the past 3 decades...

miss the point.  I am not stating that we do nothing, what I am saying is that both sides of the equation need to be addressed at the same time - if they are not, those who are opposed to it based on the economic impact wil kill it.    

...that economic deveopment is vital to be addressed.  

However, you pooh-poohed the notion that government play a role in economic development, even though every time the government builds a road, lays a sewer or electric or telecommunications line, or trains a job-seeker or in many cases simply makes a policy change, it stimulates the economy.  

Government has to play a role when the market fails to deal with enormous problems it perceives as "externalities" -- with climate change as a currently urgent example.  It's not enough to give up on the future because we don't think the political will exists to solve our problems.  We need to beat the holy hell out of our politicians until they develop that will.

But if you speak with seniors that are still around they will tell you that the budget then did not have the pork that it does today. If you broke down the budget then compared to know you will find thousands of programs that were non-existant then and thus did not have to be financed by taxpayers. Think of all the absurd programs today and flash back then and see what we were funding.Take a look at the difference in education funding/programs alone and the size of the Department of Education for example, or the size now of things like Treasury and State compared to then. Proposing those then was of course visionary but in todays world you would be talking about doubling at the very least all the major tax revenue streams from current levels to sustain such measures. Its not that it cannot be done, but Washington would have to cut almost a third of the current budget which they will never do in order for things like this to have a chance to where taxpayers are not severely over burdened.