Will Ziggy continue to deny this occurs?

Here is an Editorial based on the News article that follows.

Shutting down
No coal means no electricity for an industrialized nation

WHEN it comes to building the power plants that generate the electricity Americans need, the Not In My Back Yard crowd is now screaming Not in Anybody's Back Yard.

A coalition of anti-coal groups contends it has scored 65 victories over coal in the past three years, reported Judy Pasternak of the Los Angeles Times.

Any time a proposal is made to build a new plant, the coalition assigns a lawyer to stop the project.

The coalition includes the Sierra Club, the National Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Integrity Project.

The group admits it is obstructionist.

"We hope to clog up the system," said David Bookbinder, the Sierra Club's chief climate counsel. "It's putting pressure on Congress to put together a comprehensive plan."

Huh? Despite spending billions of dollars on research through the Department of Energy over the past 30 years, alternative energy sources are years away from being able to carry the load in the United States.

And many of the alternatives offered are destructive of the environment.

Wind turbines violate the land, kill birds and are useless on windless days. Hundreds of square miles of land could be covered with solar cells without making an appreciable difference in reliable energy supply.

Knee-jerk opposition to any coal plant anywhere will carry a heavy price. Reducing the supply of electricity would hurt businesses and individuals, and low-income people would feel the pain first.

The U.S. economy would suffer as other nations, China for example, gain a competitive advantage.

What those who protest coal overlook is that if electricity could be generated more cheaply and more easily, the power companies would have switched to that technology a long time ago.

The nation's power supply should not be controlled by obstructionists in federal courts who bear no responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

http://www.dailymail.com/Opinion/Editorials/200804160153

Was it the Sierra Club that Ziggy said he has been a long time Member of?

Tuesday April 15, 2008
Activists sniff out, snuff coal plants
Network of groups apply legal clamps to clog permitting process
by Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON - Every time a new coal-fired power plant is proposed anywhere in the United States, a lawyer from the Sierra Club or an allied environmental group is assigned to stop it, by any bureaucratic or legal means necessary.

They might frame the battle as a matter of zoning or water use, but the larger war is over global warming: Coal puts twice as much temperature-raising carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as natural gas, second to coal as the most common power plant fuel.

The plant-by-plant strategy is part of a campaign by environmentalists to force the federal government to deal with climate change. The fights are scattered from Georgia to Wyoming, from Illinois to Texas, but the ultimate target is Washington, where the Bush administration has resisted placing limits on carbon dioxide and Congress has yet to act on a global warming bill.

The campaign against new coal-powered plants has infuriated utilities, who charge that the environmentalists' tactics are an abuse of the regulatory and judicial systems. They are counterpunching with ads, lobbying and court briefs of their own, bringing the clash over coal to a pitch that rivals the environmental and legal fights over nuclear power decades ago.

The environmental coalition, which includes the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund and Environmental Integrity Project, claims 65 victories over the past three years. The Sierra Club is currently coordinating opposition to about 50 additional power plant proposals.

"We have a national presence, so we're sort of mission control," said Pat Gallagher, director of the Sierra Club's environmental law program.

The goal: "We hope to clog up the system," said David Bookbinder, the Sierra Club's chief climate counsel. "It's putting pressure on Congress to put together a comprehensive plan."

http://www.dailymail.com/News/200804150253

There is a glimmer of hope - this link is to an article from Newsweek and an interview with a founder of Greenpeace, the radical political group. He indicates he left Greenpeace because of their intransigence on nuclear power and says near the end of the interview that licenses are starting to roll on new plants:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/131753

I remember in the '70s that many coal trucks sported a bumper sticker that read, "LET THE BASTARDS FREEZE IN THE DARK".

I would be interested in the carbon footprints of these terrorist individuals and groups.

SamCogar wrote:Was it the Sierra Club that Ziggy said he has been a long time Member of?

Ziggy is not a member of the Sierra Club.

Aaron wrote:I would be interested in the carbon footprints of these terrorist individuals and groups.

What "terrorist individuals", specifically?

The Sierra Club among others.

Legal Terrorism implies the use or threat of use of legal proceedings by the perpetrator against an individual/group to force them to carry out their desired agenda.

source

AH SO, then that would include those demanding "Constitutional Rights" for the Gitmo prisoners.

.

Aaron wrote:The Sierra Club among others.

Legal Terrorism implies the use or threat of use of legal proceedings by the perpetrator against an individual/group to force them to carry out their desired agenda.source

The U.S. Constitution appoints the Courts to settle questions of the Constitution and the law. It is a gross corruption of the English language to equate Court litigation in America to "terrorism".

If availing one's self of the two hundred year old practice of using the public laws on this nation to further one's interests is terrorism, then every corporate lawyer in the country is a practicing terrorist.

Hores pucky Ziggy. These liberal lawyers will file any law suit and stoop to any level whether they've got a case or not. They do it to clog up the court system and to bog down permitting procedures and it's worked to the point that there haven't been state of the art refineries built in over 30 years and they want to do the same thing to coal power plants.

The power plant in Meigs, OH is going to convert coal to gas and then burn that for energy. It received the seal of approval from several environmental groups yet that didnt' stop, among others, The Seirra Club, from filing lawsuits and endless amounts of paperwork in an effort to stop the plant from being built. The really sad thing is, that plant, up completion, would shut down at least 2 and possibly 3 coal burning plants and would in the long run be much better for the environment. It's nothing short or terrorism. PERIOD!!!

Aaron wrote:Hores pucky Ziggy. These liberal lawyers will file any law suit and stoop to any level whether they've got a case or not.

It is up to the courts, not to you or me, to determine what constitutes a "case".

They do it to clog up the court system and to bog down permitting procedures and it's worked to the point that there haven't been state of the art refineries built in over 30 years ............... and they want to do the same thing to coal power plants.

Then why are the oil companies not complaining about it, and lobbying for laws to change it? The oil companies can get whetever they want from the Bush administration and Congress- just as they did from the Clinton administration- and just as the coal companies do. If the oil companies wanted to build new refineries, they would. They don't only because they don't want or need to.

It's nothing short or terrorism. PERIOD!!!

So the big bad Aaron finally found something that scares him- that terrorizes him- the American legal system. Why are we not surprised?

You want to know about terror? Try sharing a crooked one lane road with a 60 to 100 ton coal truck with a driver who's primary "agenda" is hauling all the loads he can today. Try living below a multi-billion gallon coal sludge lake. Try living downstream of a strip mine and valley fill during a rainstorm. Try relaxing just down the hill or across the ridge from a MTR ridge top "shot". Try sending your kids of grandkids to school at Marsh Fork Elementary.

And you are so terrified by a few environmental lawyers? If you and the coal industry and the oil industry don't like what the environmental lawyers are doing to you in Court, then maybe you need to hire better lawyers and lobbyists for yourselves.

[quote="ziggy"]

Aaron wrote:

They do it to clog up the court system and to bog down permitting procedures and it's worked to the point that there haven't been state of the art refineries built in over 30 years ............... and they want to do the same thing to coal power plants.

Then why are the oil companies not complaining about it, and lobbying for laws to change it? The oil companies can get whetever they want from the Bush administration and Congress- just as they did from the Clinton administration- and just as the coal companies do. If the oil companies wanted to build new refineries, they would. They don't only because they don't want or need to.

Zig, then why can't the power companies get what they want?

The power companies are as big as the oil companies and bigger than the coal companies.

.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:Hores pucky Ziggy. These liberal lawyers will file any law suit and stoop to any level whether they've got a case or not.

It is up to the courts, not to you or me, to determine what constitutes a "case".

They do it to clog up the court system and to bog down permitting procedures and it's worked to the point that there haven't been state of the art refineries built in over 30 years ............... and they want to do the same thing to coal power plants.

Then why are the oil companies not complaining about it, and lobbying for laws to change it? The oil companies can get whetever they want from the Bush administration and Congress- just as they did from the Clinton administration- and just as the coal companies do. If the oil companies wanted to build new refineries, they would. They don't only because they don't want or need to.

It's nothing short or terrorism. PERIOD!!!

So the big bad Aaron finally found something that scares him- that terrorizes him- the American legal system. Why are we not surprised?

You want to know about terror? Try sharing a crooked one lane road with a 60 to 100 ton coal truck with a driver who's primary "agenda" is hauling all the loads he can today. Try living below a multi-billion gallon coal sludge lake. Try living downstream of a strip mine and valley fill during a rainstorm. Try relaxing just down the hill or across the ridge from a MTR ridge top "shot". Try sending your kids of grandkids to school at Marsh Fork Elementary.

And you are so terrified by a few environmental lawyers? If you and the coal industry and the oil industry don't like what the environmental lawyers are doing to you in Court, then maybe you need to hire better lawyers and lobbyists for yourselves.

What's truely sad is that you actually believe this garbage. Pa-freaking-thetic.

It's because of people exactly like you that we're paying $3.50 plus for a gallon of gas, our food prices are increasing by 20 to 30% every year and our electric grid is so out of date that you never know when it will shut down.

I've talked to the people that supposedly have it so bad just last week at a ball game. You and your's are overwhelmingly a 'bunch of idiots'. There words, not mine.

Cheers dude.

What's truely sad is that you actually believe this garbage. Pa-freaking-thetic.

Having had my first vehicle run down a guard rail by a coal truck that never even stopped, much less slowed down on Rt 10 in Wyoming Co, I'm here to tell you there is nothing pathetic about Ziggy's statement.

If you don't want "environmentalists" out there "slowing progress", perhaps you should tell the companies to start making some - progress, that is.

BTW, the electric grid is in much of the shape it is in because the power companies just don't care. If it costs them more to generate the same amount of juice, they just tack it on our bill.

Sure there is. It's all garbage. Coal trucks run in Wyoming county. That's a fact of life. If they're running overweight, that's the states (state employee, imagine that) fault for not enforcing DOT laws.

Aaron wrote:Sure there is. It's all garbage. Coal trucks run in Wyoming county. That's a fact of life. If they're running overweight, that's the states (state employee, imagine that) fault for not enforcing DOT laws.

Wrong! How is it you place job safety on the employee, yet when it comes to trucking coal it's the state's fault for not catching those who violate the law? It is the coal companies that are at fault.

You haven't got a lick of sense.

SamCogar wrote:Zig, then why can't the power companies get what they want?

The power companies are as big as the oil companies and bigger than the coal companies.

Maybe they don't get what they want because they have lousy lawyers.

Sure there is. It's all garbage. Coal trucks run in Wyoming county. That's a fact of life. If they're running overweight, that's the states (state employee, imagine that) fault for not enforcing DOT laws.

Which is it - garbage or a fact of life?

Stephanie wrote:

Aaron wrote:Sure there is. It's all garbage. Coal trucks run in Wyoming county. That's a fact of life. If they're running overweight, that's the states (state employee, imagine that) fault for not enforcing DOT laws.

Wrong! How is it you place job safety on the employee, yet when it comes to trucking coal it's the state's fault for not catching those who violate the law? It is the coal companies that are at fault.

You haven't got a lick of sense.

HUUUUUUMMMMM, then I guess according to that logics ........... when it comes to preventing felony crimes ........ it is the criminal companies that are at fault.

A "safe job site" is the employer's responsibility.

"Job safety" is the employees responsibility.

.

TerryRC wrote:Sure there is. It's all garbage. Coal trucks run in Wyoming county. That's a fact of life. If they're running overweight, that's the states (state employee, imagine that) fault for not enforcing DOT laws.

Which is it - garbage or a fact of life?

Ziggy's post is garbage. Coal trucks in Wyoming county are a fact of life. If you're going to driver there, deal with it. Or stay out. It's really not complicated.

Stephanie wrote:

Aaron wrote:Sure there is. It's all garbage. Coal trucks run in Wyoming county. That's a fact of life. If they're running overweight, that's the states (state employee, imagine that) fault for not enforcing DOT laws.

Wrong! How is it you place job safety on the employee, yet when it comes to trucking coal it's the state's fault for not catching those who violate the law? It is the coal companies that are at fault.

You haven't got a lick of sense.

You telling me I have no sense. Now that's rich.

And actually the blame goes back to the trucking companies for letting the coal companies beat them down on prices and forcing them to haul more then the legal limit just to get by. Now some bleeding heart lib will try to blame the coal companies for paying so little but it is the trucking company that CHOOSES to do business with the coal company, right!!!

I know trucking, inside and out. I know the cost and all that's associated with it. That's why, every single time I've had the opportunity, I've turned down running coal, both as a driver and owner. There is no way I would deal with the likes of Massey or Peabody. They don't want to pay for services and it takes them forever to pay what they do agree to pay. Only a fool would do business with that type.

Aaron wrote:And actually the blame goes back to the trucking companies for letting the coal companies beat them down on prices and forcing them to haul more then the legal limit just to get by.

As the coal hauler's wife said about how coal haulers bid each other down just to get that hauling contract at any price, profit be damned, "You can take a bunch of coal haulers, put 'em in a room full of sluts & whores, and they'll still come out screwin' each other".

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:

Aaron wrote:Sure there is. It's all garbage. Coal trucks run in Wyoming county. That's a fact of life. If they're running overweight, that's the states (state employee, imagine that) fault for not enforcing DOT laws.

Wrong! How is it you place job safety on the employee, yet when it comes to trucking coal it's the state's fault for not catching those who violate the law? It is the coal companies that are at fault.

You haven't got a lick of sense.

You telling me I have no sense. Now that's rich.

And actually the blame goes back to the trucking companies for letting the coal companies beat them down on prices and forcing them to haul more then the legal limit just to get by. Now some bleeding heart lib will try to blame the coal companies for paying so little but it is the trucking company that CHOOSES to do business with the coal company, right!!!

I know trucking, inside and out. I know the cost and all that's associated with it. That's why, every single time I've had the opportunity, I've turned down running coal, both as a driver and owner. There is no way I would deal with the likes of Massey or Peabody. They don't want to pay for services and it takes them forever to pay what they do agree to pay. Only a fool would do business with that type.

Even under your described scenario it isn't the state's fault nor the fault of a state employee. The individuals & companies involved in putting those over limit trucks on the road are responsible and to blame.

Perhaps you think the state should have inspectors at every facility to make sure the trucks aren't violating the law. You don't want that now do ya?

[quote="Stephanie"]

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:

Aaron wrote:Sure there is. It's all garbage. Coal trucks run in Wyoming county. That's a fact of life. If they're running overweight, that's the states (state employee, imagine that) fault for not enforcing DOT laws.

Wrong! How is it you place job safety on the employee, yet when it comes to trucking coal it's the state's fault for not catching those who violate the law? It is the coal companies that are at fault.

You haven't got a lick of sense.

You telling me I have no sense. Now that's rich.

And actually the blame goes back to the trucking companies for letting the coal companies beat them down on prices and forcing them to haul more then the legal limit just to get by. Now some bleeding heart lib will try to blame the coal companies for paying so little but it is the trucking company that CHOOSES to do business with the coal company, right!!!

I know trucking, inside and out. I know the cost and all that's associated with it. That's why, every single time I've had the opportunity, I've turned down running coal, both as a driver and owner. There is no way I would deal with the likes of Massey or Peabody. They don't want to pay for services and it takes them forever to pay what they do agree to pay. Only a fool would do business with that type.

Stephanie wrote:Even under your described scenario it isn't the state's fault nor the fault of a state employee.

Who do you propose enforce the state and federal weight limits on public roads? Ziggy!!!

Stephanie wrote:The individuals & companies involved in putting those over limit trucks on the road are responsible and to blame.

That's what I said.

Stephanie wrote:Perhaps you think the state should have inspectors at every facility to make sure the trucks aren't violating the law. You don't want that now do ya?

They wouldn't have to be in 'every facility'. 3 or 4 very well traveled routes would suffice.

No, this is what you said!

Aaron wrote:Sure there is. It's all garbage. Coal trucks run in Wyoming county. That's a fact of life. If they're running overweight, that's the states (state employee, imagine that) fault for not enforcing DOT laws.

Can't you make up your mind?

Aaron wrote:You telling me I have no sense. Now that's rich.

And actually the blame goes back to the trucking companies for letting the coal companies beat them down on prices and forcing them to haul more then the legal limit just to get by. Now some bleeding heart lib will try to blame the coal companies for paying so little but it is the trucking company that CHOOSES to do business with the coal company, right!!!

I know trucking, inside and out. I know the cost and all that's associated with it. That's why, every single time I've had the opportunity, I've turned down running coal, both as a driver and owner. There is no way I would deal with the likes of Massey or Peabody. They don't want to pay for services and it takes them forever to pay what they do agree to pay. Only a fool would do business with that type.

I did make up my mind when I admitted my mistake. Unlike you, I can do that. The state plays a role because they have oversight but the blame goes back to the DRIVER for hauling the load and then back to the company for having a driver haul the load (many times they are one in the same).

For the record though, the reason the drivers and companies haul overweight and the reason the coal companies force them haul overweight is because the state is not enforcing the rules. The state can stop what companies and drivers rufuse to do and isn't that why they have oversight?

Nice try though Stephie...