In an otherwise fine article on how cap and trade legislation would lead to exploding energy bills that would hurt families and kill economic growth, the New York Times reports:
But few pay attention to the origin of their little-noticed savings: 21 coal-fired power plants that emit more than 75 million tons of carbon dioxide annually and generate 80 percent of Missouri’s electricity. Even residents who endorse wind and solar energy have grown accustomed to the benefits of state policies that favor coal by putting a premium on low-cost electricity. So the idea of federal climate legislation that could increase electricity bills by putting a price on emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide is unsettling.
…
Here in Missouri, economic incentives built into the state’s laws, history and habits encourage burning as much coal as possible. Peabody Energy started as a local business a century ago and now promotes itself as the world’s leading coal merchant. Trainloads of Wyoming coal cross Missouri daily.
Now the NYT does link to the Energy Information Administration state profile of Missouri when they write “economic incentives built into the state’s laws, history and habits”, but no where on the EIA website, or in the rest of the NYT article, is it explained which Missouri “laws” or “policies” “favor” or “encourage” producing electricity from coal.
If the NYT is going to accuse the coal industry of recieving state subsidies, the very least they could do is identify how exactly they are neing subsidized.
