MTR vs. health care: What would Jay do?
There can be no electricity without coal.
– Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.
The thought that Sen. Jay Rockefeller would somehow try to block, stonewall or mess with health-care reform to get the Obama administration to back off its increased scrutiny of mountaintop removal permits seemed a little over the top to me yesterday.
But … we haven’t heard back from Rockefeller’s office. No denials. No comments at all in response to state Senate Majority Leader Truman Chafin’s suggest that Rockefeller use health-care reform as a bargaining chip to help mountaintop removal mine operators out.
So who knows what Sen. Rockefeller is up to. But the whole thing did prompt me to go back through my notes and look at a couple of things he said on Friday at the dedication of AEP’s carbon capture project over in Mason County.
And in fact, Rockefeller in his speech at the event and in numerous media interviews was connecting coal industry troubles with health-care reform legislation.
For example, when he proposed spending $20 to $25 billion in federal money to prop up development of carbon capture and sequestration for the coal industry, Rockefeller compared that to an $848 billion health-care bill being debated in Congress.
And, Rockefeller made it very clear that he’s going to do whatever he needs to do to try to stop a climate change bill that he doesn’t believe has adequate help to rescue the coal industry. Rockefeller warned that “rabid environmentalists who want to get rid of coalaren’t going to be able to pass a bill” without the support of coal-state lawmakers:
It’s very serious to me. I have got power through being a committee chair and through have a vote.
When talking to the media after the ceremony, Rockefeller went so far as to proclaim that “There can be no electricity without coal.” Watch the video:
18 comments
Jay has sure come a long way since Cabin Creek Quilts. However it appears to me he has come the wrong way vis a vis the coal industry. He is just another industry apologist who has forgotten his roots.
Wait I’m wrong! I forgot he is a Rockefeller and acting like one. My bad.
Rockefeller’s sound-bite that says “no electricity without coal” is actually a shorthand version of something that many strong advocates of climate change legislation agree with. See, e.g., Pew Center fact sheet at http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/coalfacts.cfm.
It looks like the “next big thing” on getting climate legislation passed is lots of money for coal and nuclear, see: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/blogs/republican/graham-kerry-climate-bill-47101801.
This approach sticks in the craw of many, many people. However, I believe I read an article in which the head of the Sierra Club acknowledged that this path, even though it is in many ways adverse to the approach of that group, may be what it takes to get a cap-and-trade architecture enacted.
Given the politics of this state, I would not expect Senator Rockefeller to do anything other than advocate for lots of money for coal in a climate bill. And if that is what it takes to get a deal, I think most people who see the incredible danger of continued unrestricted atmospheric carbon emissions will end up supporting his decision.
Tom,
I think you are way wrong on this one … you seem to be bending over pretty far backwards to give Sen. Rockefeller the benefit of the doubt.
It’s one thing for him to advocate for more and more weakening of the climate bill to help the coal industry - by that I mean backing down the near-term emissions reductions. And it’s one thing for him to advocate for more money for CCS.
Coal Tatttoo has covered in quite a lot of detail the arguments of folks who believe CCS is needed not just in the country, but in China, India, etc.
But, to say something like “there can be no electricity without coal” is a pretty incredible short-hand — if it’s short hand at all. It seems to me to be the kind of exaggeration of coal’s role that doesn’t allow the people of West Virginia to see the forest for the trees.
Careful you don’t fall over backward there trying to defend Sen. Rockefeller … of course, I could be wrong.
Ken.
Ken, thanks for engaging. Se what you think of this:
If you can point me to one recognized expert who thinks that either the US or the world can meet the expected demand for electricity over the next 20-30 years without coal playing a substantial role, I will accept that there are two ways to see this.
I don’t think you can. In truth, there can be no fulfilling of the worlds’ inescapable and rapidly growing demand for electricity without coal.
If you think that the head of England’s energy policy, who says that without coal and workable CCS, civilization is doomed, is just exaggerating — then you have a right to do so, but it could be that he has just as likely a correct take as you do.
Of course I’m bending way over to see Rockefeller’s approach as one that I can support! — because his vote is critical, and I see absolutely no evidence that he is going to take any other approach, or that any other approach will get us climate legislation.
If Senator Rockefeller does not feel he can take this view without irreparably damaging the Democratic Party in this state, he will recede from it — and that would be a catastrophe.
You can call money for coal and nuclear “weakening” climate legislation if you like — but you know that it also could be seen as strengthening it.
Let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Whaddaya think?
Rodd, good points.
Tom,
You misread part of my comment … I wrote:
It’s one thing for him to advocate for more and more weakening of the climate bill to help the coal industry - by that I mean backing down the near-term emissions reductions. And it’s one thing for him to advocate for more money for CCS.
Certainly, I think everyone recognizes that reducing the level of near-term reductions makes the climate bill weaker in terms of whether it does more or less to fight global warming. That’s the part — as I made clear — that I referred to as weakening the bill.
Certainly, as you’ve said and Joe Romm has said, adding more for coal STRENGTHENS the bill, at least politically. I’m not saying adding more money for CCS weakens the bill … I’m saying reducing the amount of emissions reductions necessary weakens the bill.
Surely you know that’s true.
Certainly, you are correct that most energy forecasts — and most experts I’ve read or heard about — understand that coal isn’t going away. Certainly, even if the U.S. stopped using it altogether — I’m not advocating that or saying it’s going to happen — China, India and others would continue burning lots and lots of it.
You’re right about that.
However, as I pointed out in my big Sunday story on CCS, http://www.wvgazette.com/News/MiningtheMountains/200910240481, the IPCC (a pretty smart bunch of folks) projected in 2005 that CCS will only provide somewhere between 15 and 54 percent of the emissions reductions needed by 2100.
The issue that needs examination about what Sen. Rockefeller — and most other West Virginia political leaders say about coal and climate — is the idea that CCS is a magic bullet that will cure anything that ails us.
To say, “There can be no electricity without coal” is an incredible over-simplification that adds to the idea across the coalfields, among some folks, that coal is all there is — either for energy or for our coalfield economy.
A much more accurate and defensible statement would be more along the lines of what you said:
That it’s very unlikely that the world can fuel its demand for electricity over the next 20-30 years without coal.
But, that’s not what Senator Rockefeller said.
Climate change is way bigger than the future — or lack of future, as the case may be — of the Democratic party in West Virginia. Or at least it ought to be.
And as for your initial point, I wrote one pretty interesting story back in December 2008. Here’s the link:
http://www.wvgazette.com/News/200812270535
And here’s the lead couple of paragraphs:
New technologies will move the world economy away from coal and other fossil fuels much more rapidly than experts from the energy industry would have the public believe, according to a new study by the Worldwatch Institute.
Hundreds of old coal-fired power plants that provide 40 percent of the world’s power could be retired in the process, eliminating up to one-third of global carbon dioxide emissions, while creating millions of new jobs, the study asserted.
“We are on the verge of an energy revolution,” said Christopher Flavin, president of Worldwatch and author of the report, “Low-Carbon Energy: A Roadmap,” issued earlier this month.
The link with that story to the report is broken, but here’s the report link that works:
http://www.worldwatch.org/press/prerelease/EWP178.pdf
I don’t know if Worldwatch meets your test as a “recognized expert” or not … but the report speaks for itself.
Ken.
The link to the report
Casey, I always appreciate your speaking up for people whose jobs are on the line.
As I see it, and I could well be wrong, under even the most coal-friendly climate legislation, coal will have a growing competitive disadvantage, and the long-term and even medium-term prognosis for coal can’t be seen as good — no matter how politicians spin it.
How rapidly that disadvantage grows will be to a substantial extent driven by (1) the as-yet-unknown technical challenges and costs of CCS (in all forms, not just underground injection), and (2) by how quickly the ever-worsening data on the climate comes in. Nothing like evidence of more rapid melting of the Greenland ice cap to panic coastal dwellers everywhere!
Nothing Jay Rockefeller or the US government does will alter the fundamental costs of producing electricity in an atmospheric- carbon-emissions-constrained world. All legislation can do is try to give coal (and it now seems, nuclear) a “leg up” at the git-go.
Does Jay Rockefeller have his “eyes wide open?” Come on, he’s a politician — even if he did, you’d never hear him say what he really sees! But I think he wants to vote for and pass a bill, a bill that people like Joe Romm say may well be the best we can get — and that’s what matters to me as a West Virginian with grandchildren.
By the way, and I would welcome comments on this, my vague impression is that the 14% target for 2030 emissions reduction that Rockefeller has been putting out is also what Obama mentioned. True?
Tom,
Comparing these numbers on proposed emissions cuts gets a little confusing, to me, anyway.
I believe that Obama’s campaign talked about reducing emissions levels to 1990 levels by 2020 … which I think you are right, ends up being similar to the 14 percent cut by 2020 (not 2030) that Rockefeller says he would support.
Most political observers seem to think the 20 percent by 2020 in the Boxer-Kerry bill isn’t going anywhere. The House bill was 17 percent by 2020, so Sen Rockefeller is proposing a weakening of that House-passed bill.
Which number is right? Good question. The real answer is that nobody knows.
The Union of Concerned Scientists report I have linked to several times, http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/emissions-target-report.pdf provides some good background on all of this. I’ve found it very helpful.
Of course, one important thing to remember is that other nations are proposing much tougher cuts than our Congress is considering … 25 to 40 percent, according to this account:
http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/06/12/us-still-undecided-international-agreement-on-climate-treaty-seems-unlikely-in-2009/
It’s also my understanding that other nations of the world are basing their reductions on cuts from 1990 emissions, while the bills pending here are cuts below 2005 emissions — which makes our cuts not as substantial.
But I could be wrong.
Anyway … part of the puzzle that’s missing (generally) from the political discourse in West Virginia on this issue is that the things Congress is looking at aren’t all that radical when you consider what scientists are telling us, or look at what other nations think is needed.
Ken.
Hard to argue with what Ken says. What a world!
One more thing — I think have to plead guilty as charged to putting my own “spin” on what Ken reported about Senator Rockefeller’s statements.
I hope I made it clear in what I said after Casey’s post that I have different expectations from politicians - in terms of them facing facts squarely - than I do for myself, Ken Ward, or anyone else who enters into these excellent dialogues on Coal Tattoo!
But Ken is absolutely right: West Virginians do need to face the toughest facts about coal’s future under the absolutely certain climate policies that are coming fast at us. I have a whole essay on that subject at: http://acccforum.blogspot.com/2008/07/purpose-of-appalachian-coalfields.html.
I’ve learned a lot here, and expect to learn a lot more. Thanks, everyone.
Folks,
Just got an answer … well, a response, anyway … from Sen. Rockefeller’s press office. Here it is:
“West Virginians know that Senator Rockefeller has been a champion for health care and coal and miners for years - that will never change. West Virginia needs both health care reform and to protect its coal industry jobs and miners and Senator Rockefeller intends to fight for and deliver on both.”
Ken.
One of the biggest difficulties I see in debating the merits of various energy policy options with Sen. Rockefeller is he’s seem to have an over-inflated idea about how much coal there actually is left in West Virginia.
In Jan. he said in a Congressional hearing the U.S. has a 400 year supply of coal remaining. He dialed that back to 250 year supply in a press release the same (or next) day. (See http://www.wvablue.com/diary/3942/sen-rockefeller-says-clean-coal-is-dirty and scroll down in comments for the press release.) Neither figure is consistent with the most recent government studies. (They’re more like 100 years at current usage rates and even more recent studies call that into question re: what percent of reserves are economically recoverable by region. Appalachia is the most mature region so has far fewer years left than out West.)
There are some pretty quick paths for reducing green-house gas emissions due to coal–investments in conservation and efficiency can easily reduce consumption around 1% per year (which adds up quickly over 20-30 years). Converting at least some coal plants to natural gas is also likely. Within the next 15-20 years we could see some pretty major reductions in coal usage just from those moves, not even counting new wind, solar, geothermal, and hydroelectric coming on board (all of these in both concentrated and decentralized forms).
The problem for W.Va. / Appalachia is the best case scenarios for major greenhouse gas reductions via carbon-capture and storage of coal electric plants are at least 12-20 years away, no matter how much money we throw at the challenge. By then, even more of the coal industry will have its eyes further West.
I think Sen. Rockefeller is making a fundamental miscalculation. He’s trying to protect the interests of the coal mining industry decades from now. Gazing into my cloudy crystal ball, I see W.Va. in 10-15 years having even less dependence on coal mining related revenue. We should be using the energy / climate change legislation today to position W.Va. in the very best possible position for a transition, not locking W.Va. electric rate payers into buying MT/WY coal decades from now.
[…] Blogs @ The Charleston Gazette - » MTR vs. health care: What would Jay do? blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2009/11/ – view page – cached The thought that Sen. Jay Rockefeller would somehow try to block, stonewall or mess with health-care reform to get the Obama administration to back off its increased scrutiny of mountaintop removal… Read moreThe thought that Sen. Jay Rockefeller would somehow try to block, stonewall or mess with health-care reform to get the Obama administration to back off its increased scrutiny of mountaintop removal permits seemed a little over the top to me yesterday. Read less […]
Clem says: “I think Sen. Rockefeller is making a fundamental miscalculation.”
Maybe the Senator is indeed “fundamentally miscalculating” on the actual future role of coal under climate legislation — even with all the help he can give it.
But, like Clem, my crystal ball is cloudy, so I wouldn’t pretend to know with any certainy where anyone is going to be in 10-15 years.
But — in terms of “fundamentally calculating” what kind of support for coal is necessary for the Senator to be able to vote for climate legislation, I think Rockefeller, an expert politician, is very likely right on the money.
We shall see.
A couple of things to consider …
First, Mike Morris, CEO of AEP, has said he will continue to support 17 percent by 2020, as included in the House bill.
Second, the United Mine Workers union has not identified what 2020 reduction level it would find acceptable — but doesn’t support the 14 percent Rockefeller said he backs.
Previously, the union supported an 8 percent reduction by 2020…but I must admit that I’m not sure what the base year for that is, and that is pretty important.
I’m hoping to do a longer post in the near future on these targets and what they do and don’t mean.
Ken.
Are they rapids or rabids? Rockefeller calls environmentalists rabid. That should play well.
Don’t forget poor Alaska, West Virginia. After all, on the front lines of energy production and the facing the actual effects of climate change, these folks have everything to loose.
Oh to be a freshman Democratic senator from Alaska right now. What you could wring from the climate bill in exchange for your support. Open up more Arctic drilling? More leases on the federal lands west side of Prudhoe Bay? Not only ninety percent of the royalties from federal lands, but ninety percent from federal waters, too, including anything that ever comes out of the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge? Federal money to develop all the coal up there? (And there is a whole lot of coal up there.) No changes to the no-bid contracting advantages for Native Alaskan corporations? EPA/Interior approval of the huge coal mine near Bristol Bay? And, of course, millions, if not billions, for climate change mitigation. Someone has to pay to move those Arctic villages and put the pipeline on a new foundation. Why should it be the Alaskans?
Oh–I missed the most obvious one–federal funding or loan guarantees for that new natural gas pipeline from the North Slope down to Valdez. (With the drop in gas prices, the oil companies really need the federal backing.)
More in from Sen. Rockefeller’s press office on this:
“West Virginians need good quality health care and mountaintop mining and Senator Rockefeller is fighting hard for both - he has never held two critical West Virginia issues hostage to each other.”
Leave a Comment