EPA rules on coal-fired plants harsh, unrealistic
People can have honest differences about climate change and what should be done about it. But there is little dispute about the impact that the Environmental Protection Agency's new regulations for power plants will have on the economy or the environment.
The Department of Energy recently confirmed that EPA's regulations to control carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants would increase wholesale prices by 80 percent. Expect households and jobs in coal-dependent states like Kentucky to be particularly hard hit.
EPA admits the regulation will have no significant impact whatsoever on the climate. The administration's policy is simply a symbolic gesture to show China and others that the U.S. is prepared to make sacrifices.
Kentucky deserves better. This week an alternative put forward by Kentucky Rep. Ed Whitfield and Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia will be considered by the House of Representatives. Their bill would base the emissions standard for new plants on proven technology, not on a developing technology that has never been demonstrated, as EPA proposes.
Whitfield wants Congress to ensure that EPA's guidelines for existing power plants reflect a similar common-sense approach. That includes a reasonable implementation timeline to avoid additional coal-plant retirements and the further weakening of grid reliability.
Kentucky shouldn't have to suffer economic hardship just to please Washington's bureaucracy, let alone to satisfy foreign rivals. With Whitfield's plan, they won't have to. We can continue to achieve lower emissions with advanced technologies without sacrificing the commonwealth's economy and high-wage employment. It's called common sense.
President and CEO
National Mining Association
Alison Lundergan Grimes, when recently asked if she would campaign with President Barack Obama, replied that she could speak for herself and didn't need a surrogate.
Choosing to campaign with an impeached President Bill Clinton who lied about having sexual relations with an intern vs. not campaigning with the moral leader of her own party is obviously hypocritical.
No vote, no taxes
Our country was founded on the belief that everyone should have a say in how our government works. This is a right denied to anyone who has a felony on their record for far too long.
Even with the majority of people in favor of restoring our rights, some Republicans are digging their heels in and again proving they are still the party of "no."
They seem to believe that the secret to hanging onto power is hanging onto the past, instead of moving into the future.
I have a simple solution to this. Since it's our belief that we should not be taxed without being represented, let's make it so that if you're not allowed to vote then you should not have to pay state taxes.
Hit them where it hurts: in the wallet.
No way to play
Excuse me, but isn't hitting someone repeatedly in the testicles, as reportedly happened at the state garage in Lee County, sexual assault or at least sexual harassment? Why was this not addressed sooner?
William R. Elam
Smoke not smoke
A letter writer recently said that "smoke is smoke" and asked if marijuana smoke was as bad a tobacco smoke.
Tobacco smoke causes cancer. Marijuana smoke does not cause cancer. That is the difference.
Tobacco kills its users, marijuana does not. Pretty simple, huh?
Since your paper is not truly a free press, why should any Republican conservatives purchase it? Joel Pett's cartoons show what and who your paper represents.