I don't think there has been much (any?) mountaintop removal mining in PA, as this image from Appalachian Voices suggests:

With that said, coal mining is very destructive in PA, though many democrats would not be happy about a presidential candidate who attacks it.

change "now" to "how"...???!!!

thinking the riser on the "h" had just been covered up by some schumtz or something, since it was clear that it was meant to be "how".

Also kind of funny what the diarist's user name is, considering the subject.

Also yours, come to think of it ;)

Sorry, just fixed it.

Man, right after I wrote this my computer went down!  

I'm now on my daughter's computer to see if anybody responded and WHOA it's on the recc list!

Thanks, everybody.  Glad I'm not the only one who thinks this could be a great issue for Obama.

$150 Billion and 10 years to energy independence, more than any other candidate.

More on his energy policy here.

Grist sponsored it. Edwards and Kucinich and Clinton came. Obama did not.

And both candidates have comprehensive energy policy plans. Only Clintons includes a killer app.

She declares carbon risk a fiduciary risk that must be disclosed to the SEC. That will provide a strong incentive to coal companies to put up turbines on that land instead. Likewise it will push oil companies to switch to drilling for geothermal power.

Energy Plan pg 2A requirement that all publicly traded companies report financial risks due to climate change in annual reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission

The reason our profit system is destroying the planet is that currently the risk companies must report is only risk of loss. Her plan changes that. It would entirely change the way companies operate.

Plus her energy plan includes the decoupling of utilities that has worked well in CA which uses half the power of the rest of the country, because our utilities profit is based on saving electricity, not selling more.

doesn't make a diary illiterate.

Sorry, just fixed it.

Man, right after I wrote this my computer went down!  

I'm now on my daughter's computer to see if anybody responded and WHOA it's on the recc list!

Thanks, everybody.  Glad I'm not the only one who thinks this could be a great issue for Obama.

This diary should be titled "Here's how Obama wins Pennsylvanian environmentalists".  Even if everything else in the diary is correct, it's not clear that winning the environmentalist vote would win the state for Obama.

"new traditional coal facilities" mean that the method used to get the coal must be MTR?

I thought the facilities had to do with how coal is processed after it is mined.

In that case, he could still be against MTR as the method for getting the coal. :-)

Tell the Pennsylvania residents that this is what Big Coal wants to do to their communities.

Too bad there isn't a national program to replace the jobs in the Old Energy communities with jobs in New Energy.

but maybe just thought I did.  Hmmm.  I'll go back and check it out

Obama's contrasting position

When Appalachian Voices asked Senator Obama about MTR, and whether he supported or opposed strip mining, he (Obama) said:

"Strip-mining is an environmental disaster!"

The telegenic Presidential hopeful did not stop there. He went on to adress mountatintop removal by saying:

"We have to find more environmentally sound ways of mining coal, than simply blowing the tops off mountains."

link

He's been quite clear on opposing strip mining and mountaintop removal.

Yes, he supports deep coal mining....

a serious group that dealt with FACTS. So he says he is for coal if it can be made as clean as gaa -- which it can't -- so he won't.

opposing MTR can be a winning issue. See post above ..

First, there are the job losses. Let no one tell you otherwise, Mountaintop removal mining eliminates jobs and destroys traditional mining communities. The practice is popular with mining companies precisely for this reason; the massive machines that move these mountains have no pensions, no families to provide healthcare for, no children to educate, and no union. These massive machines replace men, and corrupt the environment. The machines are 20 stories high and can pick up 130 tons of dirt and rock with one bite of their shovels.

link

Yup. It's a damn shame how the mountains of Illinois and of eastern Montana have been levelled to get the coal out!</snark>

Personally, I'm against all use of coal until we have carbon sequestration working. But allowing that we're using coal (and our electrical grid would collapse tomorrow if we stopped), coal from the Plains is strip mined, but with far less environmental damage than Appalacian coal. It's cleaner coal to burn, too.

The coal industry in West Virginia employs very few people. And it destroys the landscape - a landscape the state could make a very nice living from if it can be preserved, much as Vermont does with similar mountains. They're not just destroying the mountain tops either, they're filling the valleys. This should be stopped. Totally stopped. We should switch entirely to Western coal, and confiscate the assets of those coal companies which have to a large extent behaved illegally in raping West Virginia, to be devoted entirely to ecological and economic recovery there.

When I read Faithfull's diary, I thought "wait.  there's a lot of coal in Pennsylvania if I recall."  Did some googling and viola.

And Hillary's comments REALLY made me angry.  Anyone who can't just come out and condone mountaintop removal, for any reason, is just a goddamn monster.