Was West Virginia a Victim of the Free Market?

And now a rare first person commentary!

I have wrestled with the idea of the "robber baron" theory of West Virginia economic development since I was in college.  Historians such as John Alexander Williams taught for decades that a once pristine and functional society fell victim to greedy and rapacious seizers of land and resources.  They squeezed the land and people dry of wealth, then abandoned the state for greener pastures in the 20th century.  This left the state with little to show for the sacrifices made.

Taking another look at this time is vital.  Historians and the books they write almost uniformly blame the free market for all the evils that took place.  This mainly comes from the fact that many of them fail to see that a truly competitive free market defended by rule of law is not synonymous with doing business.  Many of the abuses done by business and described by historians are the opposite of the free market.

Williams grafted a colonial-periphery theory from studies of the Third World.  In his explanation, West Virginia was a "colony" of New York based business interests.  They recruited and used a comprador class of local lawyers and other professionals to advance their interests and to get the people behind them.  This theory, advanced by many, portrays a naïve population duped, used, and left behind.  They made little intellectual contribution, so they bear little responsibility.

Others, such as West Virginia University's Ron Lewis, have described more moderate ideas that do not reduce either the businessmen nor the state's people to caricatures.  Lewis' works focus as much on the environmental sacrifices as well as the social and economic ones.

One cannot argue away the fact that West Virginia's environment was drastically changed by industrialization.  Lewis in Transformation of the Appalachian Countryside describes how practices of getting timber to market caused eroded hillsides, made vast areas more vulnerable to both floods and fire, and annihilated river life.  He also points out that the clear cutting actually worked to the economic detriment of the logging companies because the land could not renew its forests quickly.

So there was environmental sacrifice on the same lines as the rest of a country untutored in best practices.  Interestingly, the example of West Virginia and other Appalachian states (clear cutting removed almost all of the virgin forest in the region) showed the resiliency of the environment instead of the fragility.  Forests and streams rebounded fairly quickly.

And the environmental impact did not start with the Industrial Revolution, either.  Traveling writer Anne Royall described  the stripping of forests around the Kanawha Valley salt works in the first decade of the 19th century.  She talked about the ugly, stump ridden hillsides and the black smoke hanging in the air.  Before the salt industry, Indians and frontier farmers used rather wasteful methods to remove trees, farm a plot until the land wore out, then move on. 

The crux of the economic argument discussed by historians (but rebutted by economists such as Russ Sobel) is that wealth was "stolen" from West Virginia.

Did greed and hatred for humanity cause businessmen to swindle the people from their land, then force them into unhealthy jobs that paid nothing?  And did the state get nothing in return?

The record is mixed.  Some focus on the amount of money paid to landowners for their property.  Owners received a pittance compared to the value of resources removed.  In many cases, this is true.  The true market value of land isolated from centers of transportation and unsuitable for farming was very low.  Company agents looking for coal lands offered market value.  Some recognized the eagerness in the eyes of the agents and negotiated for more.  Others savored the idea of getting more cash than they had likely ever seen in their lives for what they thought was worth very little and took the offer without question or counterproposal. 

But other owners refused to sell.  Companies then brought in the lawyers.  Land claims in the mountains of what was once Virginia were a tangled mess.  People established claims with boundaries marked by trees or moss covered rocks, laid out in paces.  Different land offices granted the same land to separate people.  Residents lived on the land they thought was theirs.  Companies in Philadelphia, New York, and elsewhere bought competing claims.

So naturally many cases ended up in court.  With no clear ownership of the land established, judges had to fall back on legal principle.  Here is yet another example where government meddling in the private sector creates social problems. Before the Industrial Revolution, courts in Western Virginia used natural rights and common law principles.  The rights of the individual were more important than those of collective society.  With all else equal, a court would usually use the maxim "possession is 9/10 of the law."  The person living on the land, all else being equal, gets to keep the land. 

After industrialism took hold, courts moved to a collectivist social justice approach.  The maxim now was to advance the common good.  In any era, the common good is usually defined by entities trying to take resources from the less powerful individual for some other purpose.  Collectivism was on the side of big business.  So instead of advising the companies to make better offers or go elsewhere, courts ruled in favor of the companies "for the common good."

The common good was also supposedly advanced by a law allowing railroads to be built without permission on private land if the owners did not notice the construction of the rail line. 

Common good arguments are just as nefarious when done in favor of modern causes as they were when done to advance crony capitalist interests.  Every time used, the common good argument hurts the common individual man. They are rarely appropriate in a free society, even if the common good is advanced.

And the common good did advance.  It could have advanced just as far, if not farther, had the rights of individuals remained respected. But advance, it did.  Railroads connected most towns and county seats.  Mind you, sometimes the county seats were moved by force to the rail lines in some cases.  But it happened.

Satellite industries grew up around timber and coal extraction.  Paper mills, coke ovens, glassware, and other products were churned out of towns and cities across the state.  Trains and river traffic carried products to domestic markets and port cities.  The free public school system advanced farther and faster after the Civil War than nearly anywhere else south of the Potomac and Ohio Rivers.

At the time of the industrial revolution, dredged rivers, expanding rail networks, and establishment of free schools were all marks of progress.  West Virginia got those and a government weather station.

The argument that naïve or greedy natives sold out to big city interests falls flat.  Henry Gassaway Davis of Piedmont was a mover in politics and business, not one who was moved.  Elkins, who politically advised presidents and would-be presidents, chose to move to the state.  Johnson Camden did sell out his oil and gas interests to John Rockefeller in a Godfather-like "offer you can't refuse." But that was under pressure of riches or ruin and was the aberration instead of the rule.

Employment of the people also created a mixed result.  Abuses did happen, particularly in the southern counties.  Some companies took advantage of the isolation, using debt and low wages to create near serfdom style conditions in company towns.  The company owned the houses, stores, schools, and even churches.  Running afoul of the company meant a blacklisting from almost any job in the region.

Again, government and business worked too closely in unison in these areas.  Many sheriff's deputies worked double duty as law enforcement and company guards.  Law enforcement broke up the free association of union organizers and workers while also intimidating journalists.  The stifling hand of government allied with business perpetuated these abuses.  It is a sin of business, but not one of the free market.

On the other hand, those now working for cash money had more access to the benefits of industrialism.  Historians bemoan the move from self-sufficiency to the market economy.  But they do not consider the price of items compared to the value of the time spent in making them oneself.  Factory made clothes could be bought for cash earned in less time than it took mom or grandma to make homespun.  Food was cheaper when considered in this way. People also had access to medicine, newspapers, and other products rarely seen in some areas prior to the coming of industrialization.  Standards of living rose for most people.

Of course the downside lay in the fact that a cash paying job provided less security.  What happened to people laid off, too old, or too injured to work was a real social problem.

Overall, it is hard to see how one could find that business as a collective whole abused or stole from the state and people of West Virginia.  Then, as before and later, individual malefactors took advantage of people and the laxity of the laws.  But they do as much or more harm now by lobbying to use the power of government to eliminate competitors, or infringe on the rights of the people. 

Revisiting the interpretation of industrial history in West Virginia is necessary.  The perceived sins of the past are used against those trying to develop for the future.  We have all been raised to wrongly blame the free market system when many of the real problems stemmed from government help.  Except for the environmental destruction, which a more educated society and legal system has addressed adequately, the free market ideal is just not responsible

The lesson of West Virginia's past is not that the free market failed, it is that the failure to maintain a free market hurt the people.

Capito Questions Obama at House Republican Conference

Congresswoman Raises Coal, Cap-and-Trade

WASHINGTON – House Republicans invited President Obama to address their conference this morning and – after making his remarks – the President took questions from Republican Members of Congress, including a question from Rep. Shelley Moore Capito:

REP. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO: “Thank you Mr. President for joining us here today. As you said on your… in the State of the Union address on Wednesday, jobs and the economy are number one. And I think everyone in this room, certainly I, agree with you on that.

“I represent the state of West Virginia. We're resource rich. We have a lot of coal and a lot of natural gas.

“But our… my miners and the folks who are working and those who are unemployed are very concerned about some of your policies in these areas: cap-and-trade, an aggressive EPA and the looming prospect of higher taxes. In our minds, these are job-killing policies.

“So I'm asking… if you would be willing to re-look at some of these policies, with the high unemployment and the unsure economy that we have now, to assure West Virginians that you're listening.”

The full exchange accessed here

Coal-State Members Launch Congressional Coal Caucus

WASHINGTON – As energy issues remain at the forefront of the national political debate, a coalition of coal-state members of Congress announced today that they have teamed-up to form the Congressional Coal Caucus.

Calling coal “America’s most abundant and affordable energy resource,” the bipartisan group of congressmen and women note that coal provides nearly 50% of America’s energy supply and generates more than 130,000 coal-mining jobs. They’ve pledged to use their new caucus to provide a voice for coal communities in Congress.

“Coal is a critical component to our nation’s energy future,” said Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va. “Whether it’s on a cap-and-trade bill or on clean coal technology, this caucus will give coal-states a forum to highlight their priorities and present a unified voice. I’m proud to join my colleagues in forming this caucus and I look forward to our work together.”

“As a Congress, it is vitally important that we continue to support the development of clean coal technologies,” Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pa., said. “I am proud to help launch this caucus, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to help enact policies that will maximize America’s coal resources.”

Members joining Altmire and Capito in forming the coal caucus include Reps. Tim Holden (D-PA), Denny Rehberg (R-MT), John Salazar (D-CO) and John Shimkus (R-IL). Together the new coalition will promote awareness of American coal along with the new technologies currently on the horizon that can help make coal use cleaner and safer.

The six initial caucus members are also circulating a Dear Colleague inviting other members of Congress to join them.

“The Coal Caucus gives coal states like Pennsylvania a strong voice in Congress to encourage the use of coal as an affordable, reliable and increasingly clean source of energy,” said Rep. Tim Holden, D-Pa. “I am proud to be a part of this effort to promote economically and environmentally sound mining, reclamation and consumption practices including clean coal technologies on Capitol Hill.”

“America needs an all-of-the-above energy plan that increases domestic supplies, lowers costs and makes us less dependent on foreign sources of energy,” said Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont. “While many in Washington may think that energy comes from the wall outlet, Montanans have been in the energy production business long enough to understand the vital role coal plays in our country and our economy. As a caucus, we’ll focus on developing cleaner and more efficient ways to use America’s vast stores of coal, and by doing so, help create good-paying jobs and affordable energy for American families.”

“Coal is a vital resource in Colorado and throughout the nation, and will continue to play a role in helping meet our nation’s energy needs. Coal provides jobs in my district and nearly all of our energy is derived from coal. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Coal Caucus,” said Rep. John Salazar, D-Colo.

“With the current debates over energy policy as well as the environment, it is more important than ever that coal interests be represented in Congress,” said Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill. “We can move much faster toward energy independence by taking advantage of the enormous supply of coal that exists in my district and elsewhere in the nation. To ignore an abundant source of low-cost energy in our own country is absurd.”

Capito Reacts to Latest News on Two W.Va. Mine Permits

Congresswoman Expresses Cautious Optimism

WASHINGTON – Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va, released the following statement this afternoon in light of the Environmental Protection Agency’s latest announcement about the Hobet 45 mine in Lincoln County and the Spruce No. 1 mine in Logan County:

“While today’s news regarding the Hobet mine is an important step forward, it is critical that all parties continue to seek long-term clarity in this process,” said Capito.

“This issue is not about one individual mine, but about laying a clear foundation on which all miners and mine operators can build upon as they navigate the complex federal bureaucracy. I hope today’s announcement can help lay that foundation and finally bring clarity to a process made difficult by a politically driven regulatory process.

“In this vein, I hope that today’s announcement regarding the Hobet mine will serve as a model for ongoing discussions regarding the Spruce mine and countless others across our state. We must have cooperation between state and federal officials to protect West Virginia jobs and strike an appropriate balance between environmental protection and economic development.”

The "N" Word

Federal action against coal operations in West Virginia has put hundreds of men and women out of work and denied the state its share of potential revenue. The Environmental Protection Agency has initiated a War on Coal to destroy mining operations. Right before Christmas, an EPA action resulted in the layoff of five hundred in Clay County.

What can the State of West Virginia do in response?

This may seem painful, but a way might exist to constitutionally void federal regulations. That is nullification.

Nullification doctrine first emerged in the 1830s from the mind of John C. Calhoun of South Carolina. Federal import taxes raised prices on manufactured goods, crippling farmers. Calhoun suggested that the state legislature pass an ordinance nullifying the tariff within the boundaries of the state. President Andrew Jackson met this action with a military deployment. Since then, nullification of a law passed by Congress has been seen as unconstitutional.

What about state legislative nullification of a federal agency regulation or executive order? The Constitution does recognize Congress's right to pass binding legislation. It does not recognize regulatory law or presidential executive orders. State governments are under no obligation to abide by these so called laws. In fact, the Tenth Amendment protects states from many of the laws that Congress uses to bind their actions today.

All states have to do to regain their sovereignty is to swear off of federal funds for anything. At that point, Congress has very little authority over what a state can or cannot do. West Virginia cannot arrest federal officials inspecting or making reports, but it can pass acts preventing the enforcement of executive branch regulations. Swearing off of federal funds does mean a huge drop in money for roads, schools, and other items. However, the drop in money is offset by the fact that the state no longer would have to spend countless resources on paperwork and unfunded federal mandates.

Nullification is a last ditch tactic because it will provoke a serious contitutional crisis. Thousands will gather soon in Austin, Texas to ask their governor to do that very thing. In the name of freedom, strong steps may have to be taken. The election of 2010 will go a long way towards moving back to a Republic, or forward to crisis.

Government Claims That Stimulus Created 2,500 Jobs, Mostly in Government

http://www.herald-dispatch.com/news/briefs/x165320108/W-Va-stimulus-spending-credited-for-2-400-jobs

This article from the Herald Dispatch in Huntington describes a federal claim that stimulus spending created or saved over 2500 jobs. It admits, however, that most of those jobs lay in education.

So all those millions spent and almost zero private sector growth. That is not stimulus. Private sector growth comes from activity along the lines of, say, coal mining. Obama's EPA has all but outlawed new mining operations and has started shutting down existing operations. They claim to have created 2,500 jobs, but what about the thousands lost through the de facto mining ban? What about the stimulus that could have created in countless businesses in small West Virginia communitites that Obama's army of elitists will never see. What about all the house payments not made, all the electric bills not paid, and all the families that will see less on their tables because of Obama?

No wonder West Virginia miners have started changing their registration. The Democratic president has zero feeling for them and their families.

Real stimulus comes when the private sector wakes up and produces on its own. Growth in government jobs stimulates nothing except more taxes.

Time For A Statement on Coal

West Virginia has suffered tremendously from the advent of an Obama led federal government. His opposition to coal seems to combine with a personal grudge against West Virginia. West Virginia was one of a few states that rejected him not once, but twice! His team cut off highway funds to Corridor H while increasing funds to districts that voted for him. Now it attacks coal using a badly interpreted Clean Water Act.

Seventy-nine permits have been denied since he took office and a major one was just revoked. We are down almost 30,000 jobs since he took office. How many hundreds of jobs would have been added directly by those coal mines, how many more in the nearby communities?

West Virginia needs to fight this outrage.

Federal policy relies upon the Interstate Commerce Clause to enforce its actions without relying on the states. Otherwise they have no constitutional ability to enforce anything economically related within state boundaries. Montana, Ohio, and other states have passed legislation that invalidates federal gun laws. If a gun is manufactured entirely within that state and stamped with "Made in _____," it is not subject to federal gun laws.

Can we do the same thing on a limited basis in West Virginia? If you have an independent company that uses machinery sold by a West Virginia company to produce coal consumed entirely within the state of West Virginia, it would seem that the EPA would have no authority whatsoever. Of course this would require the State of West Virginia to pass enabling legislation just as Ohio and Montana did with firearms (come to think of it, let's follow their example on guns too!)

It might never work economically speaking, but West Virginia can make a bold political response by having its legislature pass this kind of legislation. Obama is on a mission to destroy our industry. It is up to our state to fight back.

The Last Friends of Coal Bowl

This may be the last Friends of Coal Bowl.

It's not that West Virginia and Marshall will stop their series this year. The contract still runs for a couple of more games. However the game will have to locate another sponsor. West Virginia's coal producers and related industries have seen discouraging drops in revenue. This did not happen because energy prices dropped that much. Their efforts to expand production and jobs have hit a federal brick wall.

Perhaps the Environmental Protection Agency will step forward to pony up some money. After all, some of the proceeds and financial; support go to both of these great universities. The EPA has embarked on a mission to assassinate King Coal. They denied seventy-nine surface mining permits this year, killing off uncounted thousands of jobs and millions in revenue for state government, local authorities, and West Virginia schools.

This does not reflect real issues, but a determination by an increasingly dictatorial presidency to control the economy and livelihoods of individuals. It is unfortunate that Senator Byrd, a long time supporter of miners, has chosen this instance to muddy the waters by attacking Massey Energy's refusal to build with its money in these tough times a brand new school in a county where they pay a heavy percentage of property taxes.

Anyone who fights this outrage against our state, Democrat, Republican, independent, union or company, must join together. Believe me this attack, let's call it what it is, against a state that voted for John McCain must be met with action.

Have the coal companies always been saints? No. Shouldn't West Virginia continue to work on creating a truly diversified economy that does not rely so heavily upon one industry? Absolutely! However this is a bald faced assault on an industry and a state that dared to vote against The Won almost two to one.

******************************************************************

Another conservative blog has argued that state Republicans have not appreciated the urgency of this issue. I can speak for no one else, but the Potomac Highlands Conservative has addressed this issue repeatedly in the past. We support Congresswoman Capito's "all of the above" energy plan and oppose attacks on coal. We have not done so on as regular a basis as other pundits because the left wing in this country seems to present us with a new, different, and occasionally bizarre outrage every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Congresswoman Capito Says Announcement is Latest in EPA Delays and Continues Troubling Uncertainty for Miners

As the Environmental Protection Agency today announced that they would effectively block nearly 80 mining permits across the mining region, Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-WV, expressed her concerns about the potential economic impact of the administration’s decision.

“With a new announcement from the EPA comes more delays and continued uncertainty for West Virginia miners,” said Capito. “As I’ve said before, it’s certainly appropriate to have legitimate oversight and review of all proposed permits, but today’s announcement amounts to the latest in a series of decisions that create still more ambiguity for mines across our state and region. Our nation depends on West Virginia coal as a domestic resource to power our economy and we can’t afford never-ending delay on the many outstanding permits. ”

Over the course of the summer, Capito met with officials at the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers where she highlighted the stakes of the continued evolution of the permit review process.

“In my discussions with officials at the EPA, I’ve regularly stressed that their decisions stand to directly impact jobs in our state and today’s news of further delays is a troubling development. Simply put, the decisions of bureaucrats in Washington have a real personal impact on West Virginia families.”

Twenty three of the 79 permits mentioned in today’s announcement are located in West Virginia. The EPA, which will have final approval on all permits, gave no binding deadline for completing their enhanced review process.

“This can’t be an endless process,” added Capito. “Yet it’s beginning to seem like it might be, and that’s unfair to mining families and mining communities throughout the Mountain State.”

When Interests Collide With Principle

It will be interesting to see where the Allegany County Chamber of Commerce comes down on the issue of a wind energy manufacturing facility coming to Cumberland. The placement of factory jobs comes as welcome news to the city and region. John Condego, a descendant of Italian immigrants, sees wind energy construction in the United States as a new declaration of independence from both foreign oil and manufacturing. The benefits of both wind energy and new jobs have been touted as positives in the location of this concern to the region.

But what about the wind energy opponents? Kolin Jan, president of the Allegany County Chamber of Commerce in a letter to the West Virginia Public Service Commission last January argued that "wind energy is not clean, it's unreliable, and causes environmental harm." He believes that reliance on wind energy would produce "rolling brownouts." Jan also referred to those backing the projects as "greedy developers." Obviously Jan opposes wind farms in principle. Where will he stand on a facility that manufactures crucial parts for them?

It will be interesting to see if the Allegany Chamber of Commerce enthusiastically supports this most recent, positive development.

***********************************************************************

I do agree with wind energy opponents in one area. This industry must be able to eventually stand on its own two feet without subsidies. That being said, its establishment comes with the hefty price of retaining lawyers, commissioning studies, and jumping through every hoop required by state, local, and federal law. In America you cannot even just build a shed in your backyard anymore without checking the environmental impact.

Jan compares the subsidies given to wind compared to those of coal. That is a valid point. However coal established itself in this region during a time when the government required of the company almost nothing to commence operations. If wind farm companies had the same option, they may have been able to stand on their own from the beginning. Regulatory costs burden the system to the point that innovation is much more difficult than it was a century ago.

As far as I am concerned, I want to see both wind farms and coal fired plants under construction in West Virginia. This would bring down costs for West Virginians while putting more of us to work. Coal should always form the backbone of the grid. A combination of wind, solar, and hydroelectric power should form the supplement.

New Common Sense West Virginia Ad

Cap and Trade: Lights Out

National Energy Tax Bad for West Virginia

Contact your Congressional Representative today! Tell them Al Gore's ideas are bad for West Virginia.

Sen. Robert C. Byrd E-mail: senator@byrd.senate.gov Website: byrd.senate.gov District Offices: Charleston, (304) 342-5855; Martinsburg, (304) 264-4626 Sen. John D. Rockefeller

E-mail: senator@rockefeller.senate.gov

Website: rockefeller.senate.gov

District Offices: Charleston, (304) 347-5372; Beckley, (304) 253-9704; Fairmont, (304) 367-0122; Martinsburg, (304) 262-9285

Alan B. Mollohan

Website: www.house.gov/mollohan

District Offices: Morgantown, (304) 292-3019; Parkersburg, (304) 428-0493; Wheeling, (304) 232-5390 Clarksburg, (304) 623-4422

Shelley Moore Capito

Website: http://capito.house.gov

District Offices: Charleston, (304) 925-5964; Martinsburg, (304) 264-8810

Nick J. Rahall II

Website: www.rahall.house.gov

District Offices: Beckley, (304) 252-5000; Bluefield, (304) 325-6222; Huntington, (304) 522-6425; Logan, (304) 752-4934

West Virginia wake up, Cap and Trade will kill our state

Breaking Wind(mills)

Like Don Quixote, we spend a lot of time tilting windmills, especially in this neck of the woods.

First let me say that windmills are certainly a component of any alternative energy program, and they will probably have a place in any energy plan developed over the really long haul. Their principal shortcomings are these: they are currently expensive energy sources, and their power production is intermittent rather than continuous, and so other electrical power sources whose production is controllable and stable will be needed, or a wide array of windmills, tidal energy sources, and so forth will have to be hooked together in a very sophisticated grid system which rapidly shifts the origin of power in the power grid to the particular energy sources that are currently producing. There are probably some other ways to somewhat alleviate the problem, as well, which sound “Buck Rogerish,” but even with current technology would be somewhat feasible, though also very costly. For example, the domestic consumers could easily have an array of batteries as components of electrical equipment, which would turn on when the power was low and turn off when it was normal, recharging themselves automatically during the powered- up intervals.

The Western European experience with windmills is instructive to a point. Windmills are obviously proliferating there, and apparently are a commercial success; just as nuclear power plants are and have been in France for years. But bear in mind that Western Europe is largely devoid of fossil energy sources, and almost any oil or coal they use for electrical power production must be imported, and is increasingly expensive. They also, generally speaking, don't have to worry about air-conditioning the way the United States does. Their economic payoff for switching to alternative energy now is different from most of America’s. There is an economic component to the switch to windmills and other alternative energy sources that is very rewarding in Western Europe. America’s situation is different in the sense that we have no shortage of coal whatsoever,(nor oil if we were willing to let the market develop it when economic factors dictate), and coal and eventually oil could supply most of our electrical power far into the future much more cheaply than any current alternative energy source except, perhaps, nuclear power currently could now, or likely ever could. In addition, we have a carbon-based energy system built and operating quite admirably, and there would be no difficulty in attracting private investment to enlarge and improve that system, provided that government action did not threaten the economics of the current American electrical energy production and delivery system.

This is what the windmill argument really boils down to: do we need and want so-called green energy sources now or soon. If we do, we can have them. Their inefficiencies currently are so profound that only government subsidies and concessions of various sorts, including some hammerlocks on the arms and shoulders of the electric companies in order to compel them to accept expensive electrical output from alternative energy sources when it is available. Without introduction of artificial factors into the economics of energy production in the United States, there would be virtually no interest on the part of private investors in most current alternative energy sources and therefore no arguments hereabouts over windmills. Would any nationally prominent politician, however, step forward and plainly state the truth: you can only have green energy if we take taxpayer money to create it and defeat the (tax-paying) competition by taxing them and you taxpayers, or both, to do so.

Personally, I have no particular objection to the presence of windmills on the horizons. Mankind has been tinkering with landscapes since time immemorial. Sometimes a Taj Mahal or an Exeter Cathedral is created; sometimes a dismal slum is the result. Indeed, most of West Virginia was clear-cut a hundred years ago, in arguably by mankind, and probably would be again if there were enough money in it to make the option interesting. (So much for ridge line or view scape integrity).

Are the windmills inevitable? If you believe Al Gore and all the proponents of global warming who blame energy production for a good bit of that problem, windmills are inevitable and so are nuclear power plants and hydroelectric plants, etc. because those who favor alternative energy and want to eliminate most or all carbon-based electrical energy production evidently have the predisposition and the votes to force that position on everyone else. If the people like Gore say you can’t use coal, even though it is plentiful and cheap, and they have a majority of even one, you don’t get much choice but accept the windmills now or later, and in all probability accept, also, an array of government regulations on the energy efficiency of your appliances, and probably eventually the rationing of the amount of electrical energy you can use in your household, or at the least, self-rationing, brought about by the enormous growth of your electrical bill as various alternative energy sources, derived not from competitive market action but rather government subsidy and regulation, replace current efficient and effective systems of electrical energy production.

“To green, or not to green”; that is the real question in this purported land of the fuzzy and ever jolly green government giant. The question really is not specifically about windmills on the ridge lines of Mineral and adjacent counties at all. Argue as we may around here locally about windmills, what we decide doesn’t matter much unless it coincides with what the federal government decides. Government of the people, by the people, and for the people perishes at the local level bit by bit any time local interests conflict with what those politicians who seldom or never come around here decide to do to us in cases such as windmills. That’s not what the Constitution provides for, but after all, the Constitution’s just a document, a socially-constructed reality which can be ignored by anyone who doesn’t have any compunction about doing so. It’s just a baseline isn’t it; something the political class can look at so they can deviate from it to show that they are avant garde, politically savvy, hip, and all that sort of ballyhoo. Unless, of course, we’ve got people with spine enough to stand up for the kind of governance of, by and for the people that we and they really believe in and value.

Don Quixote was either a pathetic fool, or a sort of Everyman. He was inspiring although he was usually ineffectual. He always stood up for what he believed in. My inclination would normally be to favor windmills hereabouts in order to give important new technology a chance, but the Don Quixote in me says oppose them in the extreme in order to put big government in the position of having to roll on over once more we local people in pursuit of their current “flavor-of-the-month” on the ultra-liberal policy wonk circuit. That would underscore the way it really is: West Virginians must pay again for some sort of sins we didn’t commit or didn’t knowingly commit, while those who benefited ignore their own culpability in the creation of the alleged carbon crisis and global warming, and are allowed to seemingly solve the problems they created by abusing their country cousins in new and satisfying ways at least one more time. If you buy windmills, wait until you see...(whatever is your worst nightmare)? that the feds have got for you next.

The Future Is Now

The University of Delaware has just developed a prototype vehicle that may be the answer to rising fuel costs for small cities, businesses, and college campuses.

The V2G, or vehicle to grid, propulsion system for automobiles was created by Willett Kempton who has been refining this technology for over a decade. Kempton actually powers a Scion with this engine. The Scion is a hideous vehicle, but it is the size of a small SUV. This means that such an engine could probably run a moderately sized pickup truck, minivan, or SUV if the conventional engine and gas tank are removed. It runs on a battery that works as an energy sponge. It absorbs power from the grid when plugged in. If the battery contains excess power, it flows back into the power grid. This reduces strain upon the power system which from time to time sees its own fluctuations.

Right now the battery requires two hours to charge and has a range of 150 miles. This means that families cannot yet rely on it for vacations. However automobile fleets maintained by small towns, local busineses, or college campuses could utilize this type of engine and save money on fuel. Families can also benefit by purchasing an electric car for local use and a gasoline powered one for longer trips.

Over time, these types of vehicles will gain more power and range. Owners have already started turning to hybrids. The current electric power system cannot handle a massive demand surge for electric power that a jump in the number of electric vehicles will create. Expansion of coal, wind, and hydroelectric power now is essential to anticipate this demand. If electric vehicles are an answer to large segments of the market, then we must start preparing for it.

Conservatives are not anti-environment. We simple prefer that market solutions be allowed to occur instead of governmnet imposed ones. Conservatives also favor balancing the needs of the environment against the needs of people, rather than denying human beings what they need to prosper. The market will demand alternate energy sources as the price of oil moves more and more out of reach. This prototype developed by the University of Delaware could be a market solution to this market problem.

New advertisement spotlights Obama/Biden's anti-coal stance

You can watch the new McCain ad here or read the transcript below.

For Immediate ReleaseSeptember 24, 2008

Contact: Press Office
McCain-Palin 2008 Launches New Web Ad: "The Coal Miner"
ARLINGTON, VA -- Today, McCain-Palin 2008 released its latest web ad, entitled "The Coal Miner." The ad highlights Joe Biden's recent comment that the Obama-Biden ticket is anti-coal and anti-clean coal. While John McCain supports an "all of the above" energy policy to achieve strategic energy independence, Barack Obama and Joe Biden continue to take options off the table, including now coal. VIEW THE AD HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT12O9bWUQw Script For "The Coal Miner" (Web :40) CHYRON: Obama + Biden CHYRON: They'll tell you they support coal. BARACK OBAMA: We're the Saudi Arabia of coal. CHYRON: Then for a vote. Say no way. JOE BIDEN: No coal plants here in America. Build them if they're going to build them over there. CHYRON: For it here... BARACK OBAMA: I actually mentioned in my speech, my convention acceptance speech, the need for the development of clean coal technology. CHYRON: Against it here... WOMAN: Solar, are flourishing here in Ohio, so why are you supporting... BIDEN: We're not supporting clean coal. CHYRON: That must be why he said. CHRYON: "I'm a hard-coal miner, anthracite coal, Scranton, PA." CHYRON: Obama + Biden CHYRON: Ready to Pander? Yes. Ready to Lead? No. AD FACTS: Script For "The Coal Miner" (Web :40) CHYRON: Obama + Biden. They'll tell you they support coal. BARACK OBAMA: We're the Saudi Arabia of coal.
Barack Obama: "We're the Saudi Arabia of coal." (Barack Obama, Remarks, Duryea, PA, 9/5/08)CHYRON: Then for a vote. Say no way. JOE BIDEN: No coal plants here in America. Build them if they're going to build them over there.
Joe Biden: "No Coal Plants Here In America. Build Them, If They're Going To Build Them Over There Make Them Clean Because They're Killing You." (Joe Biden, Remarks, Maumee, OH, 9/17/08)CHYRON: For it here... BARACK OBAMA: I actually mentioned in my speech, my convention acceptance speech, the need for the development of clean coal technology.
Barack Obama: "I Actually Mentioned In My Speech, My Convention Acceptance Speech, The Need For The Development Of Clean-Coal Technology." (Barack Obama, Remarks, Duryea, PA, 9/5/08)CHYRON: Against it here... WOMAN: Solar, are flourishing here in Ohio, so why are you supporting... BIDEN: We're not supporting clean coal.
Joe Biden" "We're Not Supporting Clean Coal." WOMAN: "Senator, Senator, wind and solar are flourishing here in Ohio, so why are you supporting clean coal?" BIDEN: "Say ... I didn't hear what you said." WOMAN: "Wind and solar are flourishing here in Ohio, so why are you supporting clean coal?" BIDEN: "We're not supporting clean coal. Guess what. China's building two every week. Two dirty coal plants. And it's polluting the United States. It's causing people to die." (Joe Biden, Remarks, Maumee, OH, 9/17/08)CHYRON: That must be why he said. CHRYON: "I'm a hard-coal miner, anthracite coal, Scranton, PA." CHYRON: Obama + Biden. Ready to Pander? Yes. Ready to Lead? No.
Joe Biden: "I Hope You Won't Hold It Against Me, But I Am A Hard-Coal Miner, Anthracite Coal, Scranton, Pa." "In his first visit to Southwest Virginia, Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden, speaking at the United Mine Workers' annual fish fry here on Saturday, was quick to tout his ties to coal. 'I hope you won't hold it against me, but I am a hard-coal miner, anthracite coal, Scranton, Pa.,' Biden said. 'It's nice to be back in coal country. ... It's a different accent [in Southwest Virginia] ... but it's the same deal. We were taught that our faith and our family was the only really important thing, and our faith and our family informed everything we did.'" (Debra McCown, "Biden: 'It's Nice To Be Back In Coal Country,'" Bristol Herald Courier, 9/21/08)

Democrat Showdown Looming

We're not just talking about Clinton versus Obama either.

The West Virginia Young Democrats called for a complete halt on the assigning of permits for mountaintop removal mining in West Virginia. This certainly cannot sit well with traditional supporters of the West Virginia Democratic Party such as the United Mine Workers of America. It also shows that many liberal Democrats do choose to live in some sort of bubble world where reality strikes about as often as the tooth fairy.

Did they not watch the news last night? Shortages of energy around the world have helped spin off a rise in food prices. Coal is a vital part of America's energy solution and West Virginians are heading off to good paying jobs in coal related operations. In the long term, coal must replace oil entirely as an energy source for power plants. The explosion of electric car use will place even more strains on our grid. We need to use our coal, corn, wind, natural gas, and water resources.

That's where the West Virginia Young Democrats don't get it. Like most liberals they believe energy comes from some sort of magical place. In the real world that some Democrats and most Republicans inhabit, we realize that the needs of people must be balanced against our desire to preserve nature as it is. In the real world we need to mine more coal, we need to drill for natural gas, we need to build hydroelectric stations on some of our rivers, we need to put windmills on some of our ridges. You can put West Virginians to work and put a dent in our nation's oil demand at the same time. We can't leave all of nature unspoiled in the process, but we cannot ask Americans to sacrifice their standard of living either. Not only do we rely on energy, but the world relies on us to produce many of its necessities for it.

That is the solution that Republicans and real world oriented Democrats favor. The Young Democrats are completely out of touch. Their advocacy for a halt to coal permits pits them against their elders. It also shows locally the growing rift in the Democratic Party. Older voters and industrial workers who understand the world as it is have less and less in common with the young Obama supporting intellectuals who see the anti-American George Soros as their guru. We are seeing Democrats battle over the soul of their party nationally, and now at the state level as well.

Birds, Bats, and Bears

As a country we need to stop our foolishness. Really. We cannot afford it anymore.

I am talking about our foolish insistence of holding ourselves hostage to not the survival, but the convenience of animals. Ten years ago we could afford to be concerned that Alaskan polar bears might not want to live next to oil rigs. We could debate the problem of birds and bats possibly or not possibly hitting windmills. Power was cheap and the economy was strong. No more.

Our national security depends upon our national economy. Our national economy runs on accessible energy and transportation. Without these things, our economy would adjust, but only after a painful transition.

George W. Bush saw this coming and proposed an energy plan some years ago. This plan would research a variety of energy sources while opening up the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to drilling for oil. The Republican Congress did not approve it due to skittishness over the upcoming election. Most of those don't have to worry about campaigning this year.

Had we listened to the foresight of Bush, we would not be experiencing many of the shortage problems we have now and Alaskan wildlife would be fine. White tailed deer and black bears thrive in the eastern United States. I doubt a few oil wells and pipelines would hurt wildlife in that area. ANWAR is the size of our smallest states. There is plenty of room for animals and oil production. I would predict that if it is possible, President Bush will open at least part of it to oil drilling near the end of his term via executive order.

Some propose that we lessen our dependency upon oil by driving hybrid cars. Not a bad idea and it is also a logical market reaction. The more we depend upon hybrid vehicles, the more we will need to expand production of coal while harnessing wind and water. As I pointed out recently, West Virginia has ample clean energy potential to supplement our coal. Our country needs it all. However there are some out there who would place the welfare of bats and birds above restoring sanity to the energy market. I'm sorry. When we and our neighbors struggle to pay our bills because the energy supply is constricting, we must expand the supply. Bring on the windmills! Start drilling for and using the natural gas resources that lie under our state.

People are more important than bears, birds, and bats. It is time to put some energy into finding solutions before we reach a full blown national crisis.

The Energy Answer is Under Our Feet

Of all the states, West Virginia’s economy ranks at the bottom while we sit on mountains filled with energy in the middle of an energy crunch. Our economy should be booming, yet it is not. One reason is that we have a tendency to look to government for solutions and not to ourselves. Ronald Reagan once said, “Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.” His words hold true today. Everyday as we fuel up our vehicles paying close to $4 or more per gallon we are reminded government has not solved the problem, nor will it.

Government officials hold meetings and conferences, form committees and coalitions, but then all that happens is they talk about the problem and get their pictures in the media. One conference referred to the “New Technology of Coal Liquefaction.” For the record Friedrich Bergius developed one of the first processes for turning coal into gasoline almost 100 years ago.

Government doesn’t even know how old the processes are; are we sure we want it in charge?
One of the ideas being floated is a Private-Public Partnership, where government becomes a partner in the construction and operation of a coal liquefaction plant. The problem is government becomes the dominating partner in these ventures; the project becomes bloated, inefficient, and politically influenced to the detriment of the private business partner, the taxpayer and the consumer. History also reveals that the term “corporatism” was coined by Benito Mussolini to describe Private-Public Partnerships, which were used as a way to maintain government control. This is not a road we want to go down.

So what should be government’s role? Government’s first and most important goal should be to make as level and competitive playing field as possible. We must give West Virginia’s businesses a competitive advantage through business friendly tax and legal reforms. Half measures like eliminating the franchise tax by 2015 is not going to give us a competitive advantage anytime soon. It is like getting in a swimming pool one toe at a time instead of jumping in all at one time, getting wet and starting to swim. We must enact the needed tax and legal reforms wholly and fully now — get the initial shock out of the way and then begin to swim in increased jobs and tax revenue as our economy expands because West Virginia will be economically competitive.

So if government’s job should be to provide a level playing field for the competitors, then how do we move forward? The free market will always seek the lowest price and if fuel made from coal is cheaper, then the market will purchase fuel made from coal instead of oil. While we know we can currently make fuel cheaper from coal than oil, the problem is in regard to the cost and time of building the coal liquefaction plant. That cost is estimated at around $2 billion with about 2 years of construction. Some company has to be willing to risk the investment in the plant and take the chance that oil prices will remain high long enough for the plant to pay them back with interest.

Sometimes the only nudge the free market needs is the spark of an idea. Consider that CSX Corporation in 2006 purchased $1.2 billion dollars worth of fuel and you know from your own visits to the pump its 2008 numbers are substantially higher. What if the West Virginia coal Industry sits down with CSX Corp and says, since CSX already services 130 active coal mines and purchases billions of dollars worth of fuel, together we can build a profitable coal liquefaction plant. The plant could provide CSX with lower cost fuel, provide West Virginia coal producers with a new market outlet, provide high paying jobs across the board, give the state increased tax revenues and pump billions of dollars into the West Virginia economy.

As a state loaded with natural resources we have an opportunity, but only if we are willing to make the necessary political changes to make it happen. If we are not held back by Charleston’s bad economic policies, then West Virginia has an answer to the nation’s energy challenges. That answer is under our feet.