But it 'adds up' nationally.<quoted text>
As former Speaker of the U.S. House Tip O'Neill famously said, "All politics is local."
One reason is the cost of transport (subsidized) but the main criteria is the heating value (Wyoming coal has, on average, 8600 Btu's of energy per pound. Eastern coal has heat rates of well over 12,000 Btu's per pound.) But the CRITICAL deciding factor is the sulfur content (Sub-bituminous Wyoming coal is only 0.35 percent sulfur by weight, while Kentucky coal is 1.59 percent sulfur). With EPA regulation, this becomes critical and one reason that the Appalachians are losing and being quite vocal about anti-environment, anti-government feelings. But it isn't even that simple. The toxic dust and pollution are making it hard for those who don't profit from coal, and those costs are starting to add up, and the economics doesn't. tinyurl.com/lbyzxys<quoted text>
If youve noticed, most of the denier and War on coal rhetoric has come from coal mining country, particularly Appalachia. Coal mining jobs in Appalachia are going away already because of economics. Wyoming coal, which accounts for almost 40 percent of American coal, is much cheaper: under $20 per ton or so compared to over $54 for Appalachian coal.
That is a given and mostly due to the bicamera party setup which invites 'us vs them' deadlocks. You cannot have Democratic institutions with too many (ends up with fragile coalitions that toady to the extremist parties) or too few (end up with us vs them deadlocks) parties. I think that Canada has a better idea with parties that have 5% of the popular vote and can field candidates in every riding. That allows for flexibility in parties while limiting the number.<quoted text>
Far more likely is a prolonged deadlock like the one that we are seeing now.