Wyoming stands up for coal with threat to sue states that refuse to buy it

[Glitch]

Argue all you want. You are wrong.

ROFL! I cited the actual decision which clearly demonstrates that you are an habitual liar, like all leftists.

 

[DataPoint]

ROFL! I cited the actual decision which clearly demonstrates that you are an habitual liar, like all leftists.

You cited it, and then gave a wrong conclusion. I can't help you with that alternate fact of yours.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Another question: Should a state be able to forbid their citizens and businesses from buying something they might want just because it comes from another state?

You mean like cocaine?

 

[Mycroft]

You mean like cocaine?

No.

 

[Lisa]

What did you have in mind?

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

The entire basis of Republican party is selfishness. Coal is a dying energy source, start working on green energy to create jobs in your state, because coal and eventually oil/gas will be a thing of the past. THe selfishness is who cares if we are killing the environment and causing climate change (undeniable at this point), I just want my job so lets keep polluting. Should have embraced green energy, we could have been the leader of the world but no, we ceded to China and Europe.

 

[JacksinPA]

The entire basis of Republican party is selfishness. Coal is a dying energy source, start working on green energy to create jobs in your state, because coal and eventually oil/gas will be a thing of the past. THe selfishness is who cares if we are killing the environment and causing climate change (undeniable at this point), I just want my job so lets keep polluting. Should have embraced green energy, we could have been the leader of the world but no, we ceded to China and Europe.

WY is a plains-mountainous state. They should be reaping the rewards of all the wind power they have to tap.

 

[Nickyjo]

Wyoming stands up for coal with threat to sue states that refuse to buy it

Republican governor says measure sends message that Wyoming is ‘prepared to bring litigation to protect her interests’

www.theguardian.com

Republican governor says measure sends message that Wyoming is ‘prepared to bring litigation to protect her interests’


Wyoming is faced by a transition to renewable energy that’s gathering pace across America, but it has now come up with a novel and controversial plan to protect its mining industry – sue other states that refuse to take its coal.
A new state law has created a $1.2m fund to be used by Wyoming’s governor to take legal action against other states that opt to power themselves with clean energy such as solar and wind, in order to meet targets to tackle the climate crisis, rather than burn Wyoming’s coal.
==========================================================================
Interesting move. Can someone or some corporation be forced to buy something that they want to stop buying? Can a state sue them if they refuse?

The governor obviously used to be a drug pusher. “Hey buddy, buy some dope or you’ll be sorry.”

 

[Nickyjo]

Wyoming stands up for coal with threat to sue states that refuse to buy it

Republican governor says measure sends message that Wyoming is ‘prepared to bring litigation to protect her interests’

www.theguardian.com

Republican governor says measure sends message that Wyoming is ‘prepared to bring litigation to protect her interests’


Wyoming is faced by a transition to renewable energy that’s gathering pace across America, but it has now come up with a novel and controversial plan to protect its mining industry – sue other states that refuse to take its coal.
A new state law has created a $1.2m fund to be used by Wyoming’s governor to take legal action against other states that opt to power themselves with clean energy such as solar and wind, in order to meet targets to tackle the climate crisis, rather than burn Wyoming’s coal.
==========================================================================
Interesting move. Can someone or some corporation be forced to buy something that they want to stop buying? Can a state sue them if they refuse?

The post says states are blocking consumer access to coal. Anyone know what that means? I assume I in California could put in an order for a train car full of Wyoming coal. The problem would be selling it once it got here.

This sounds like a someone saying “date my ugly sister/brother or I’ll sue you.”

 

[notquiteright]

Another question: Should a state be able to forbid their citizens and businesses from buying something they might want just because it comes from another state?

No, but could if the product is considered harmful. Like leaded gas or coal that can't meet clean air standards.

Does seem like the MAGA wing of the GOP is going full Mafia with threats to litigate into financial ruin using tax payer money. May benefit some in Wyoming, but why don't those corporations pool their money for their fight....

Oh that's right, use other people's money...

 

[Lisa]

The post says states are blocking consumer access to coal. Anyone know what that means? I assume I in California could put in an order for a train car full of Wyoming coal. The problem would be selling it once it got here.

This sounds like a someone saying “date my ugly sister/brother or I’ll sue you.”

Nobody is blocking anything. Union Pacific or BNSF railroad will deliver 120 cars of Powder River coal anywhere they have track rights. The problem is that nobody wants it because it is dirty and polluting. Utilities have switched over to burning natural gas or green energy soucres such as wind or solar.

My city owned electrical utiiltyy used to generate power from coal mined in SE Ohio but about 10 years ago they switched over to cleaner natiural gas as a way to get more pollution creidts from the EPA and its cheaper per BTU.

 

[Glitch]

The entire basis of Republican party is selfishness. Coal is a dying energy source, start working on green energy to create jobs in your state, because coal and eventually oil/gas will be a thing of the past. THe selfishness is who cares if we are killing the environment and causing climate change (undeniable at this point), I just want my job so lets keep polluting. Should have embraced green energy, we could have been the leader of the world but no, we ceded to China and Europe.

Coal is a vital part of Alaska's economy. We sell most of it to China. Oil, however, is Alaska's biggest cash cow, and 95% of that goes to the lower-48. If we had our act together we would also be exporting our vast supply of natural gas, but alas it is not to be.

Since you are either confused or uneducated, I will inform you that carbon dioxide is not "pollution." CO2 is actually a beneficial, life-giving gas. What you are thinking of is CO, or carbon monoxide, which is a gas that is deadly to oxygen-breathing life and is considered "pollution." CO has absolutely nothing to do with climate change, and even the effects of CO2 on the climate is hotly debated.

Your so-called "green energy" also contributes even more CO2 to the atmosphere than fossil-fueled vehicles. Where do you think all that power you use to power your electric vehicle comes from?

 

[Glitch]

WY is a plains-mountainous state. They should be reaping the rewards of all the wind power they have to tap.

The problem with that is WY also has very cold Winters. You can't operate wind generators in sub-zero temperatures. Alaska also has numerous wind generators, and they operate at best 3 or 4 months of the year. We need something that can generate power longer than just one quarter of a year. Even solar is better because it will at least generate power for half the year (the half when we don't need it).

Thus far, however, the only thing that has assured us of continuous non-stop power, year after year, has been burning fossil-fuels.

With Yellowstone in their backyard, WY would be better served by looking into geothermal energy. Which is something that Alaska is also looking into, with a government-funded project at the Augustine volcano.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Wyoming stands up for coal with threat to sue states that refuse to buy it

Republican governor says measure sends message that Wyoming is ‘prepared to bring litigation to protect her interests’

www.theguardian.com

Republican governor says measure sends message that Wyoming is ‘prepared to bring litigation to protect her interests’


Wyoming is faced by a transition to renewable energy that’s gathering pace across America, but it has now come up with a novel and controversial plan to protect its mining industry – sue other states that refuse to take its coal.
A new state law has created a $1.2m fund to be used by Wyoming’s governor to take legal action against other states that opt to power themselves with clean energy such as solar and wind, in order to meet targets to tackle the climate crisis, rather than burn Wyoming’s coal.
==========================================================================
Interesting move. Can someone or some corporation be forced to buy something that they want to stop buying? Can a state sue them if they refuse?

The new "states rights" narrative of the wing nut party. Too funny!

 

[Glitch]

The post says states are blocking consumer access to coal. Anyone know what that means? I assume I in California could put in an order for a train car full of Wyoming coal. The problem would be selling it once it got here.

This sounds like a someone saying “date my ugly sister/brother or I’ll sue you.”

The problem is that States cannot impose embargoes on the commerce between States. Article I, Section 10, Clause 2 of the US Constitution prohibits it, unless Congress gives their consent. Which means that if a customer in NY that wants to buy WY's coal, then NY is prohibited from stopping the transaction, unless Congress gives their approval.

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate interstate and international commerce, not the individual States.

 

[Glitch]

No, but could if the product is considered harmful. Like leaded gas or coal that can't meet clean air standards.

Does seem like the MAGA wing of the GOP is going full Mafia with threats to litigate into financial ruin using tax payer money. May benefit some in Wyoming, but why don't those corporations pool their money for their fight....

Oh that's right, use other people's money...

States cannot prohibit commerce into or out of their State without the approval of Congress. States are only responsible for the commerce that occurs within their State borders, and no further. Congress is responsible for all interstate and international commerce, not the individual States. Only Congress can prohibit a product from one State being sold in another State, the States do not have that constitutional authority.

 

[Glitch]

Nobody is blocking anything. Union Pacific or BNSF railroad will deliver 120 cars of Powder River coal anywhere they have track rights. The problem is that nobody wants it because it is dirty and polluting. Utilities have switched over to burning natural gas or green energy soucres such as wind or solar.

My city owned electrical utiiltyy used to generate power from coal mined in SE Ohio but about 10 years ago they switched over to cleaner natiural gas as a way to get more pollution creidts from the EPA and its cheaper per BTU.

We did the same thing about 40 years ago in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley. Upgraded our coal power plants to natural gas. However, it appears that the natural gas we've been getting from the Cook Inlet is drying up. We also use hydroelectric and wind generators, but with a growing population it looks like we may have no choice but to go back to using coal. Especially considering that there are still two operational coal mines within the Matanuska-Susitna Valley, so the resource is plentiful.

 

[Lisa]

We did the same thing about 40 years ago in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley. Upgraded our coal power plants to natural gas. However, it appears that the natural gas we've been getting from the Cook Inlet is drying up. We also use hydroelectric and wind generators, but with a growing population it looks like we may have no choice but to go back to using coal. Especially considering that there are still two operational coal mines within the Matanuska-Susitna Valley, so the resource is plentiful.

The biggest coal mine in Alaska, that is still relatively small by mining standards, has significant permit problems and faces a possible shutdown. Coal is as dead as the horse and buggy. Why you continue to defend this 19th century technology I do not understand.

Feds scold state on Usibelli permit renewals

A long-awaited federal decision on the permits behind a proposed coal mine near Sutton upheld the permits, but upbraided the Alaska Department of Natural Resources.

www.adn.com

There is a lot of coal left in the lower 48 but nobody wants it.

States cannot prohibit commerce into or out of their State without the approval of Congress. States are only responsible for the commerce that occurs within their State borders, and no further. Congress is responsible for all interstate and international commerce, not the individual States. Only Congress can prohibit a product from one State being sold in another State, the States do not have that constitutional authority.

That states aren't prohibiting anything, but they have the right to regulate business because of the Commerce Clause. Its the customers who dont want it and the states cannot force the utilities to buy a product that they do not want and do not use.

 

[notquiteright]

States cannot prohibit commerce into or out of their State without the approval of Congress. States are only responsible for the commerce that occurs within their State borders, and no further. Congress is responsible for all interstate and international commerce, not the individual States. Only Congress can prohibit a product from one State being sold in another State, the States do not have that constitutional authority.

States can and do set standards for products imported for consumption. California has a long list of products I can buy/own but a Californian can't. ('Gun rubbers' can give you quite a rant about that)

States can't demand a tariff or toll for products crossing through like we have 50 countries. You need to do some more research...

 

[Nickyjo]

The problem is that States cannot impose embargoes on the commerce between States. Article I, Section 10, Clause 2 of the US Constitution prohibits it, unless Congress gives their consent. Which means that if a customer in NY that wants to buy WY's coal, then NY is prohibited from stopping the transaction, unless Congress gives their approval.



Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate interstate and international commerce, not the individual States.

Understand. But it sounds like WY was upset that other states promoted alternative fuels, not that they prohibited the import or use of coal. How can that be the basis of legal action?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

The moment WY attempts to actually make a legal move on this it will be curb stomped with extreme prejudice.
PS: Yeah I realize judges don't use terminology like that.

Nevertheless, this attempt at strongarming will not succeed and will end badly for Wyoming.

 

[Glitch]

The biggest coal mine in Alaska, that is still relatively small by mining standards, has significant permit problems and faces a possible shutdown. Coal is as dead as the horse and buggy. Why you continue to defend this 19th century technology I do not understand.

Feds scold state on Usibelli permit renewals

A long-awaited federal decision on the permits behind a proposed coal mine near Sutton upheld the permits, but upbraided the Alaska Department of Natural Resources.

www.adn.com

There is a lot of coal left in the lower 48 but nobody wants it.


That states aren't prohibiting anything, but they have the right to regulate business because of the Commerce Clause. Its the customers who dont want it and the states cannot force the utilities to buy a product that they do not want and do not use.

Consider the source. The ADN is a San Francisco based paper that doesn't have the first clue about Alaska.

First, Usibelli coal mine is not located in Sutton, but rather 115 miles south of Fairbanks, right next door to Denali National Park, and has been in operation since 1943 supplying six coal power plants in Alaska, plus shipping coal to South Korea, China, Chile, and other Pacific Rim nations.

Second, the coal mine located in Sutton, Alaska, is called the Eska coal mine and has been in operation since 1968.

The only problem either of those coal companies had with permitting was under the anti-American communist Obama who wanted to illegally abolish all coal everywhere.

There use to be as many as 17 coal mines in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley. Alaska will continue to use coal power plants and furnish households with coal for heating because it is a cheap and abundant resource, and in some cases for a given area the only resource.

If your only choice was to use coal to stay warm through an Alaskan Winter no doubt you would choose to freeze to death.

States do not have the right, or the authority, to regulate commerce between States. Only Congress has that authority.

Apparently in WY's case they do have a customer in NY that wants their coal, and NY is trying to tell WY that they cannot sell their product in their State, and they cannot do that constitutionally. Not without approval from Congress.

 

[notquiteright]

Consider the source. The ADN is a San Francisco based paper that doesn't have the first clue about Alaska. First, Usibelli coal mine is not located in Sutton, but rather 115 miles south of Fairbanks, right next door to Denali National Park, and has been in operation since 1943 supplying six coal power plants in Alaska, plus shipping coal to South Korea, China, Chile, and other Pacific Rim nations. Second, the coal mine located in Sutton, Alaska, is called the Eska coal mine and has been in operation since 1968. The only problem either of those coal companies had with permitting was under the anti-American communist Obama who wanted to illegally abolish all coal everywhere. There use to be as many as 17 coal mines in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley. Alaska will continue to use coal power plants and furnish households with coal for heating because it is a cheap and abundant resource, and in some cases for a given area the only resource. If your only choice was to use coal to stay warm through an Alaskan Winter no doubt you would choose to freeze to death. States do not have the right, or the authority, to regulate commerce between States. Only Congress has that authority. Apparently in WY's case they do have a customer in NY that wants their coal, and NY is trying to tell WY that they cannot sell their product in their State, and they cannot do that constitutionally. Not without approval from Congress.

MAGA spin- imagine that...

ADN is based in Alaska, perhaps like many other news outlets it is part of a larger corporation but they know Alaska, just don't see it through MAGA/Moa glasses.

Teddy Roosevelt was the first 'commie' to close Alaskan coal fields...

This isn't President Obama's administration being mean to coal producers- it's exposing the Good ol boy network that spawned the likes of Palin. The network was exposed and shown to not follow STATE laws. Most 'mines' being discussed don't produce coal, hence the extensions. Only 3% of the coal used in Alaska comes from Alaska. Alaska has roughly 1% of the US total of coal and the vast majority is the softer 'dirty' coal...

Alaskans, 'native' and Native are fighting starting new mines and the coal dust winds from others. This is home grown resistance.

Alaskan coal use/production didn't falter under Obama, it fell off after WWII when the military decreased and trains converted to diesel. The soft coal isn't destined for US consumption as much as use overseas where pollution limits are very lax.

Once again I remind you States can and do limit what can be imported. Try sending a few thousand 30 rd mags or non certified vehicles into California, see if your opinion holds up in a court of law...

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

Coal is a vital part of Alaska's economy. We sell most of it to China. Oil, however, is Alaska's biggest cash cow, and 95% of that goes to the lower-48. If we had our act together we would also be exporting our vast supply of natural gas, but alas it is not to be.

Since you are either confused or uneducated, I will inform you that carbon dioxide is not "pollution." CO2 is actually a beneficial, life-giving gas. What you are thinking of is CO, or carbon monoxide, which is a gas that is deadly to oxygen-breathing life and is considered "pollution." CO has absolutely nothing to do with climate change, and even the effects of CO2 on the climate is hotly debated.

Your so-called "green energy" also contributes even more CO2 to the atmosphere than fossil-fueled vehicles. Where do you think all that power you use to power your electric vehicle comes from?

You defending using such a dirty energy and calling me uneducated. Typical projecting right winger. You are proving you are the one who is uneducated with your idiotic comments about CO2,.

And you just proving the selfishness of them continuing to lie about climate change to push their shitty, polluting, dying energy source.

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

Addendum to #35,

Conservatives had multiple herds of misspelled kittens when they were forced by the ACA to have health insurance, which we all use at one point or another in our lives but somehow they don't mind being forced to buy an outdated polluting energy source such as coal, despite the fact that there are other better energy sources available. When will the TEAparty reemerge to protest this legislation or aren't we supposed to be outraged when the government is in cahoots with a for-profit private business to protect their market share and profits? That hypocritical action is fascist.

LOL, Teaparty was the biggest crock of shit, you are just projecting. You didn't care about taxpayer money, trillions, going to wars. You didn't care when billionaires and millionaires getting tax breaks. Tea party was solely a bunch of racist, actual hypocritcs, that wanted to attack a black man and blame all the deficits and debt on him. Someone who had to spend to correct yet another disaster a republicans administration caused

You are the hypocrites and fascists. holy shit, all you people do is lie, deflect and project, and are completely shameless


Oil, coal and gas states could have adapted, pushed the future of green, retrained their workers, but no, instead, like typical conservatives, they refuse to adapt and just want to demand everybody do the same outdated shit, solely becuase it benefits those states. Well, no matter how much you people bitch, moan and complain, like always, the world moves on, even if you go down kickiing and screaming. And those states are going to be screwed because of their refusal to adapt and change.