The New York Times reports this morning, in a story headlined, “No clear map for Democrats on path to new energy plan”:
Congress is unlikely, this year or next, to establish the “cap and trade” system for curbing carbon emissions that Mr. Obama and party leaders seek. Nor are world leaders at a climate conference in Copenhagen next month likely to strike a concrete deal to limit emissions in the name of curbing global warming.
The reason?
Though advocates insist that transforming energy policy will bring economic and environmental benefits alike, rising joblessness has amplified attacks from critics who deride Mr. Obama’s energy policy as a big-government “cap and tax” plan.
I don’t know if the Times is right about this one … it seems a stretch to call legislation’s fate more than a year out … but if it turns out to be correct, the underlying reasons – what’s behind these attacks on the climate legislation — are explored in much more detail in a special report from the Center for Public Integrity, “Toward a Stalemate in Copenhagen: How Industry Pressures and National Agendas Dim Prospects for a Climate Treaty.” In the project’s overview story, reporter Marianne Lavelle leads with this from the Appalachian coalfields:
In the poor, but mineral-rich mountains of the eastern United States known as Appalachia, coal millionaire Don Blankenship hosts a rally for “Friends of America” to hear country music and “learn how environmental extremists and corporate America are both trying to destroy your jobs.”
And then cites similar scenes from around the world:
On the other side of the globe, with an eye on his venture in an Australian port town known both as a gateway to the Great Barrier Reef and a smokestack industry haven, aluminum billionaire Oleg Deripaska battles that nation’s program to address climate change as “destructive for jobs, destructive for new and existing investment.”
And in China, ambitious renewable electricity plans look like an important step toward tackling global warming, but progress lags due to built-in and deeply entrenched favoritism for cheaper fossil fuel. “There’s no need for anyone to get over-excited,” says Lu Qizhou, the government appointee who heads China’s big power industry group. Change from the coal-fired energy system will be slow and won’t outpace “the market’s ability to cope.”
In summary:
Around the world the story is the much same. Wherever nations have taken the first modest steps to stave off a looming environmental calamity for future generations, they’ve triggered a backlash from powers rooted in the economy of the past. Opponents of climate action may have different methods as they pressure different capitals, but the message is consistent: Be afraid that a cherished way of life may be lost. Be afraid that a better standard of living will never be had.
So what’s the response to this from Democratic political leaders in West Virginia, here in the heart of the Appalachian coalfields?
Well, the latest is an op-ed under the name of Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., published in Sunday’s Gazette-Mail and some other state newspapers (and touted in an e-mail blast at 8:36 a.m. Sunday by Rockefeller’s Senate press office as a “Must Read”). Gazette-Mail copy editors gave it the headline, “I’ll support no bill that threatens West Virginia coal,” while Rockefeller’s PR staff called it, “A strong future for West Virginia.”
The new op-ed included its share of “be afraid” stuff:
Unless a clear and achievable path forward for coal is laid out, our coal heritage and coal jobs are at risk of being left behind. Instead, we must defend our way of life, and make sure that if a plan does become law, it actually works for West Virginia and invests in coal.
Senator Rockefeller previously made some strong statements, just a week ago, that the coal industry needed to stop pretending that climate change wasn’t real:
A lot of people and some operators I run into fairly frequently say it’s all a hoax. Well, it isn’t. It is of course, real, and we have to do something about it.
The question is do you want to produce coal, or do you want to sit back and be scared of some government program. Coal miners can’t be afraid of the future. They’ve got to look at this and say, ‘That’s the future.’
In today’s op-ed piece, Rockefeller had this to say about climate change:
Whether or not we all agree, the consensus in this country about climate change and greenhouse emissions is settled. And opportunities always follow the consensus, which means every day we spend fighting with each other about the underlying science is a day we are not fighting to secure our future.
OK … this is kind of the standard line from a variety of folks in West Virginia who have decided to engage in the policy debate over climate legislation, instead of — as Massey and Don Blankenship have done — try to pretend the problem doesn’t exist. The sound bite goes something like: Well, whether you think global warming is real or not, Congress thinks it’s real, so we better try to make sure the bill is written in as coal-friendly a way as possible.
You can understand Rockfeller, the United Mine Workers, American Electric Power and others not wanting to start trying to explain global warming science to coal miners and others in the coalfields. It’s complicated. It doesn’t fit into a neat soundbite. And, as Upton Sinclair said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
But the NY Times piece and the Center for Public Integrity project seem to suggest that this strategy — just tell coalfield residents that a climate bill is inevitable, so we need to try to craft it to help coal as much as we can — just isn’t working.
So you have to wonder if folks like Rockefeller might not want to start using their op-ed pieces, public appearances, and meetings to do more than just cheerlead for coal.
Why not start making the case for why action is needed to avert catastrophic climate change? You don’t hear much from West Virginia’s Democratic political leaders about the impacts of a warming world, about how cheap it is to deal with the problem, or how the cost of inaction is much greater than the cost of doing something.
And while they’re at it, why not start being honest about the “external costs” of the coal industry, and proposing policy changes that would internalize some of those costs?
In his new op-ed, for example, Rockefeller writes that, among the “most immediate threats to coal” are “environmental impacts.” He writes of “a disturbing number of Republicans and Democrats in Congress who oppose surface mining altogether,” and of “preventing excessive EPA regulations.”
Lots of things aren’t mentioned, though … There’s the WVU study that found coal costs Appalachia more in premature deaths than it provides in economic benefits. Or maybe the $62 billion in annual “hidden costs” caused by air pollution from coal-burning power plants. Perhaps the emerging scientific consensus about the damage mountaintop removal is doing to the region’s forests, streams and communities.
When efforts by Congress to limit greenhouse gas emissions are depicted as some troublesome “threat to coal,” instead of a response to a serious problem, it’s no wonder the idea doesn’t get much support from coalfield residents, let alone the coal miners among them. When permit reviews aimed at reducing damage from surface mining are seen as “excessive EPA regulation,” it’s no wonder hundreds of miners turn out to oppose the idea.
Maybe the Democratic elected officials from West Virginia honestly don’t think climate change deserves to be addressed. Maybe they think burying hundreds of miles of streams with waste rock and dirt from coal mining is not something EPA should be concerned about. Perhaps they’re not interested in $62 billion in “hidden costs” or conducting a true cost-benefit analysis of this industry.
But what would happen if they started talking about those things, and then proposing solutions?
Subscribe to the Coal Tattoo
Well, Don Blankenship has gone on record with his belief that coal combustion greenhouses contribute to global warming.
As a friend just pointed out, tweets are admissible in court. Is Mr Blankenship just being honest, or he is being cute? I for one request clarification!
cute
Excellent post, Ken.
The bill is going no where because next year is a election year. The democrats in congress are running scared because of last weeks elections in Virgina and New Jersey. As I have said before, MTR and coal are not going anywhere. The powers that be in washington know that right now no other energy source can provide electricity as cheap as coal. I wouldnt be surprised if the EPA releases all 79 of the pending permits soon. In a recession jobs trump enviromental regulation. The president and leaders in congress know that cap and trade is a tax and that the american people will not stand for a new tax in this economic enviroment.
Ken asks: “Why [aren't our leaders and elected representatives] making the case for why action is needed to avert catastrophic climate change?”
Great question, Ken.
You would think that these smart and basically decent people would think more about how their grandchildren — as they grapple with a planet in the throes of ecological catastrophe — will curse the short-sighted delay and inaction that their grandparents are enabling today.
Thomas Jefferson’s famous quote — “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever” — makes the same kind of point. The laws of nature are quite clearly going to punish our descendants mightily if we delay doing what is necessary to protect the biosphere that our species evolved in.
Bob Dylan had a quote, too: “When you gonna wake up — and strengthen the things that remain?”
[...] Blogs @ The Charleston Gazette – » NY Times: No climate bill likely ‘this year or next’ blogs.wvgazette.com – view page – cached The New York Times reports this morning, in a story headlined, “No clear map for Democrats on path to new energy plan”: [...]
Yes Ken, a very good question. And we can wait for an answer from our representatives if we want to, but we really know the problem. Our political leaders do not want to loose their jobs either, and its looking like the coal industry pressure campaign is working so far. There are currently far more people afraid of the current economic situation than of the looming climate catastrophe. This makes it easy for the coal industry to vilify the environmentalist as extremists even though a strong scientific consensus exists that urgent action is now needed. It looks like any action taken by congress will be to little, to late, to have any effect on carbon emissions due to their fear of the coal industry lobby.
So there we have it; an industry that is essentially operating outside the law, not only controlling the courts, but controlling the highest levels of government, preventing any action on an issue what most of us know is growing more serious by the hour.
I wonder what Thomas Jefferson would think about this. Certainly this is tyranny, and some sort of revolt is justified. Otherwise we are condemned to sit by and watch the planet slowly (at least at first) heat up and become all but inhabitable for our species.
At what point does this become our fault for standing by and just watching?
Ken, the NYTimes didn’t report that so much as make it up. Not a single source, just the reporter stating his opinion as fact. I never put too much stock in one reporter’s opinion.
I guess we better not despair of “fits-and-starts” democracy too much — for one thing, there is no alternative!
And, concerned people are not “standing by and just watching!” For example, lots and lots of us worked hard to elect Obama — and he is pushing hard on the climate issue every day, with many smart people on his team.
Here in WV, nearly every day I see great letters to the editor and op-eds, refuting the deniers. We also have blog posters like TheGreenMiles, reminding us that one reporter’s opinion does not make something true.
It’ll be interesting to see how things progress on the climate legislative front, after health reform legislation passes. I have hopes that civilization itself will also be “too big to fail” — and therefore get the bailout it needs!
I’m really interested in Rockefeller’s choice of words in talking about the need to “defend our way of life.” Is that supposed to inspire the people in Prenter whose water has been contaminated with toxic coal waste? People who are suffering astronomical rates of cancer and other disease – who don’t have clean drinking water – are concerned about more than preserving their way of life. And the vast majority of West Virginians who do not work in the coal industry are increasingly aware that they aren’t going to freeze in the dark, or harm their way of life in any way (quite the contrary) if mining companies and utilities are forced to deal responsibly with their own waste.
For those who missed the last 4 or 5 comments I’ve made on this blog, I’m going to point out that West Virginia came in dead last on Gallup’s “well-being” rankings this year. That is as good of a success measure as any for a politician that has been in office for 25 years. And for his constituents whose well-being was ranked lowest in the nation, they would benefit from leaders that are aiming a little higher than preserving their way of life.
Oh, and nobody, Republican or Democrat, is proposing any legislation or rule that would end all strip mining – nothing even close. You’ve got your hands full these days, Ken, but following up on this little piece of NMA-generated misinformation would be helpful for readers at some point. Shameful that Rockefeller’s peddling it.
It’s completely true that nothing has been proposed or introduced that would eliminate strip mining in Appalachia. The Clean Water Protection Act won’t do it and the EPA won’t do it. But MTR is no way to get the coal and we should end it. And if its ended, no, folks won’t freeze in the dark.
Matt, you are right that the politicians need to make changes that will improve the well-being index for WV. If you compare the states with high well-being indices with the states that are rated by Forbes as the best places to do business, you will find a correlation. States like UT, WA, & CO rank high in both and WV does not. Interesting to note that WY produces 3X WV’s coal production and 40% of the nation’s production (almost exclusively surface mined) and is ranked 3rd in well-being.
So the real problem in WV is the business climate. Perhaps if there was adequate dialogue from a two-party system then this would change. If politicians and leaders truly lead and voters are informed on what is relevant, then maybe this can change but mining is not the problem.
Casey — According to your logic, the coal industry would still be a culprit. “The business climate” in West Virginia has been dominated by extraction industries for the last century… that’s the heritage of coal mining we keep hearing so much about. Not for nothing, Wyoming has historically had a much stronger agricultural industry than WV and only recently became a dominant coal producer.
I predict a climate bill will happen in 2010. One reason is the EPA is moving forward with regulation of CO2. (See: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/9/802609/-EPA-sends-CO2-endangerment-finding-to-White-House- ) The scientific evidence is mounting and existing laws make it difficult to avoid regulation.
Ultimately, there are a lot of players who prefer the certainty of a legislative solution rather than the uncertainties of what a new EPA regulatory regime might look like.
Casey,
It’s not surprising that the Forbes rankings and the Well-being rankings tend to correlate, but it would be far more interesting to see how they line up if Forbes broke it down by Congressional district the way Gallup does. What’s so telling in the Gallup rankings is that Rahall’s district ranked 432nd out of 435, Boucher’s district in SW Virginia ranked 424th and Hal Roger’s district in Eastern Kentucky ranked dead last at 435th. Those are the three districts where nearly all mountaintop removal coal mining occurs.
I don’t mean to imply that the correlation with low scores in the well-being index results from coal mining per se – I don’t think the correlation is going to hold well outside of Appalachia. The difference in Appalachia is that all the easy to get coal seams have long since been mined out and, in Central Appalachia, we’re down to blowing up 20 tons of mountain for every ton of coal to get at whats left.
A 2005 report from the Appalachian Regional Commission on “economic distress” makes clear the correlation (just replace the words “Central Appalachia” with “the region where mountaintop removal occurs”):
“Of all the regions in this analysis, Central Appalachia has been one of the poorest performers in relation to the ARC’s economic distress measure over time. Furthermore, and unlike all other regions in the U.S., current and persistent economic distress within the Central Appalachian Region has been associated with employment in the mining industry, particularly coal mining.”
Note the correlation is different in Central Appalachia than in “all other regions in the U.S.”.
’nuff said. Unless, like Rockefeller and big Appalachian coal companies, your “way of life” depends on ignoring the fact that you’re destroying everyone else’s “quality of life.”
Clem, the business climate is not created by operating businesses but determined from a state’s policies, laws, and general status as perceived by enterprise. Extraction businesses have to operate where the minerals are located but many other businesses can be located almost anywhere.
Some industries have located here despite our business climate due to our attractive electrical rates from low cost coal. But WV needs more than that especially in light of the expensive infrastructure costs associated with the steep slope terrain. The some steep slopes that allow access to coal seams providing at least one major employment industry.
I think a reason for a low ranking for well-being is related to a high age population due to young folks moving away for employment from the lack of a better business climate in WV. We can “Promise” an education but not a business climate to allow employment.
Casey — You are coming so close to connecting the final dot and… stopping. Did you read about the meeting today that Gov. Manchin called? Has there ever been a meeting like that for any other industry other than coal?
The coal industry has long had THE major political power in the state… they are the ones dictating “the business climate.” You just pointed out that the industries that have been attracted to the coal fields are the ones that happily co-exist with coal. Not many business will put up with coal dust, trucks constantly running through the center of town, or constant blasting.
The arguments about expensive infrastructure and steep slope don’t quite add up, either. Other parts of Appalachia with similar terrain and no coal have performed better economically than those counties with heavy coal mining.
But, really, rather than arguing about all this what we really need to do is come together to talk about how to move forward. That’s what is so disappointing to see. Our political leaders are continuing to divide instead of inviting those who are working hard to identify new employment opportunities to the state a seat at the table, too.
I appreciate this dialogue, which to me shows good insights from several perspectives.
Personally, like Casey suggests, I’ve always had the feeling that geography weighs even more heavily than policy. I wonder if the probably more “pro-business” regulatory/legal “climate” in Virginia or Kentucky can be shown to create big differences in “well-being” from West Virginia in those states’ most mountainous and coal-bearing counties.
Of course, if there are noticeable differences, it could be that those states have a majority of their land in far more forgiving terrain, and the flat land can subsidize the steep sections to a greater extent.
I am old enough to remember the huge battles in England, decades ago, when their aging and inefficient (and very socialized) coal industry was closed down in large measure, prompting huge outcries about the destruction of a “way of life” for England’s coal miners.
As my late friend Larry Harless said, “Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ may be invisible, but it sure isn’t intangible.”
Casey,
I know a bit about Colorado and Wyoming. They are both big states. You can visit Wyoming year after year and never see a coal mine. The economy of Colorado is urban and diverse. The geographies, the populations, labor histories, economies are so different from West Virginia that I don’t think a comparison ‘business culture’ rankings offers much useful insight.
I did a little study myself a few years ago, in which I looked up which counties in WV, KY, PA and VA had produced the most coal over the last century, and then which counties were the poorest, going by per capita income and unemployment rate. The correlation wasn’t perfect but it was awfully close.
But I think most of the commenters here are missing a key point. Yes, coal miners will rally and shout–and shout down environmentalists at THEIR rallies–in an effort to protect jobs. But that’s not why WV politicians stand up for the interests of the coal industry. Did you see them raising Cain when the substitution of machines for men reduced the mining jobs from 100,000 to 15,000 over the past few decades? No, but they’re happy to point to mining JOBS as the reason they relexively oppose anything that could have a negative effect on the industry. ..even if the legislation is vitally needed to prevent catastrophic environmental collpase likely to result in the deaths of billions in coming decades–even in the face of that, they stand with coal interests. They point to jobs–but the real rea$on they oppose climate bills and strip mining control bills is $omething el$e entirely. The solution they see, given the overwhelming consensus among scientists that something must be done to reduce emissions, is to get the taxpayers as a whole to spend an enormous sum to create the infrastructure for sequestering carbon dioxide. It isn’t a reasonable solution–it’s much too expensive and uncertain. It may not be impossible, but there are much better, simpler, cheaper options. But from the point of view of WV politicians, the options are weighed with an assumption that we must come up with solutions that involve mining and burning coal–no matter what. I guess if you’re a senator from Iowa, you can dismiss this idea–but insist that we must continue to subsidize corn ethanol, no matter how inefficient it is, no matter what it does to food prices, no matter that poor people in the third world will starve to death in bad years because so much of the crop is being diverted. It doesn’t matter how few family farmers are left in Iowa–it’s the headquarters of agribiz interests, and they can lead Iowa pols around on a leash made of money.
We do not have a working democracy. To describe this system as democracy is to redefine the word.
Ken, what is the chemistry involved in the carbon dioxide removal process? Is AEP using a nonvolatie amine to capture the gas temporarily and then recycled?
Thanks
Steve,
Check out this link for more on AEP’s process:
http://www.aep.com/environmental/climatechange/carboncapture/docs/ChilledAmmonia9-22-08.pdf
Ken.