We must continue to stand up for our coal miners and their families! We are not asking for a handout. All we’re asking for is the permission to work!
That’s the take-home message as far as coal is concerned from West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin’s 2010 State of the State address, which wrapped up just a little while ago down the street at the Capitol.
(The exclamation marks were actually in the prepared text distributed by the governor’s office.)
It’s obviously not especially surprising, given the strong — and sometimes over the top — stance Gov. Manchin has taken as the state’s mining operators try to fend off any effort by the Obama administration to more closely police mountaintop removal.
But I wonder why Manchin didn’t make even a tiny step toward the environmental community (and the growing scientific consensus about mountaintop removal’s negative effects) … He could have easily done so by talking a little bit about the new effort over at his Department of Environmental Protection to step in and come up with some new limits on the downstream water quality damage strip-mining is allowed to do. A mention by the governor might have emphasized to the Obama administration and EPA that WVDEP Secretary Randy Huffman is serious about embracing the future.
Instead, the governor stuck to his previous themes, with statements like this:
Despite the fact that half of our nation’s electricity is generated by coal, and that our national economy depends on this abundant, reliable and affordable energy, some want to villainize this resource that helped us win two world wars and built the greatest country in the world.
And with his focus on the b-word (balance):
We are reaching new and better ways to use our coal. There is a balance to be had between our economy and our environment and West Virginia is leading the way in finding that balance.
What does he mean by balance?
Well, the governor touted his energy bill, passed last year by the Legislature:
Our alternative and renewable energy portfolio requires one-fourth of the energy used in our state to come from alternative or renewable energy sources by the year 2025. A progressive law such as this is already paying off.
We have more than 1,000 megawatts of wind power in service or in development – that’s enough to power more than 250,000 homes! And we have the third-largest wind capacity of any eastern state.
He didn’t mention that, as we’ve been over many times before (see here, here and here, for starters), the legislation defines “alternative and renewable energy” so broadly that it’s not clear it’s going to really accomplish much.
Manchin rightly praised American Electric Power’s major carbon capture and sequestration demonstration project at the Mountaineer Plant in Mason County (though he stumbled over the term, but did a nice job making fun of himself for it).
But then he had to go and tout that Mingo County coal-to-liquids plant — going so far as to say:
Through this technology, West Virginia coal will be our primary energy source as we make the transition to the fuels of the future.
Manchin didn’t bother to mention that this project has no plans on capturing its carbon dioxide emissions, meaning it’s going to essentially double the CO2 that would created by just using plain old petroleum fuels.
Then, of course, the governor talked about his post-mining land use bill, also passed last year:
Last year, we also passed a post-mining land use bill that requires surface mine operators to have a plan for how the land they want to mine will be restored. Those plans include highways, industrial parks, schools, recreation facilities, farms and other renewable and alternative energy projects.
This law is about creating more jobs.
We’ve been over this before on Coal Tattoo as well … Existing law already required coal operators to come up with plans for developing the mine sites they flatten — it’s just that state and federal regulators have never really bothered to enforce those requirements. See previous posts here, here, here and here.
Bill Raney, president of the West Virginia Coal Association, was understandably happy with the coal portions of Manchin’s speech:
The governor has been very helpful. I think they’re probably doing everything they possibly can to get the federal government’s attention.
Don Garvin, legislative coordinator for the West Virginia Environmental Council, was unimpressed, but not especially surprised:
It’s a continuation of his mantra … against the review of mountaintop removal by EPA … it was basically a big rallying cry …
I wish he had a future vision, instead of a vision of the past, because the burning of fossil fuels is old technology, and it’s coming to an end.
Subscribe to the Coal Tattoo
WV has an abundance of natural gas; the governor never mentioned any fuels but coal. Natural gas is replacing coal at a rapid pace, to generate electricity. It is much cleaner environmentally, as it has only about one half of co2 emissions as coal usage As Sen. Byrd pointed out, the easy to mine coal is nearly all gone, and the future looks bleak unless WV decides to create jobs with alternative energy.
Shelby, Gov mentioned wind projects and also said “with new ways to recover massive natural gas reserves from the Marcellus Shale, we are poised to power our nation for the next century.”
The cost competitive, dense shale gas reserves in the U.S. are a game changer in the energy mix. But enviros are concerned with the impacts of this source just like they are fighting wind projects (on shore and off), fighting coal (surface, deep, CO2, coal ash, etc), fighting solar (desert land use), fighting nuclear, fighting hydro dams, fighting power lines, etc. etc.
I’m not sure what is acceptable to the green community. Maybe each business and home needs to be independently powered by wind, solar, geothermal and/or bicycle generator. Would that minimize impacts? What would that do to the economy? What is the “vision of the future” that provides acceptable impacts, reliable energy, acceptable costs, that allows the U.S. to remain a world power that promotes individual freedoms?
Some unmentionables, I’m sure.
http://www.register-herald.com/local/local_story_013224530.html
Coal production plummeted in the past four quarters by some 13 percent below levels set in 2008. Spot coal prices fell from $145 a ton in the summer of 2008 to $45 last summer, and natural gas prices likewise took a hit.
Output in mining is forecast to stay flat this year, ultimately jumping to 148 million tons by 2014 — up from the 140 million last year, he said. Last year’s losses were attributed largely to less demands in the global market for both electricity and steel.
However, Hammond acknowledged that a change in environmental regulations could adversely affect coal production — in particular, if Congress approves cap-and-trade legislation. A colleague is preparing results of a study to be available soon on cap-and-trade’s ill effects on West Virginia’s mining industry, he told lawmakers.
—-
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100113/NEWS02/1130425/
Under a December legal settlement with the U.S. Justice Department and the Environmental Protection Agency, Duke is considering converting two of its four coal-burning generators to gas.
[...] Blogs @ The Charleston Gazette – » Gov. Manchin urges W.Va. to ’stand up for coal’ blogs.wvgazette.com – view page – cached We must continue to stand up for our coal miners and their families! We are not asking for a handout. All we’re asking for is the permission to [...]
I just couldn’t bring myself to watch the State of the State address. Manchin turns my stomach to even look at him let alone listen to him blathering on and on about coal. I could pretty well imagine what the whole thing would be like. I didn’t need to listen to it.
Casey, CRMW has been fighting to bring wind projects to WV. I am sure that you are aware of the Coal River Wind Project that we have fought hard for. It seems that our state government would rather ignore it than embrace it. We are not against wind power. I think all of us who are fight MTR would much rather have wind power than MTR sites all over the place.
I don’t understand why we (and “our leaders”) aren’t talking about what this is really about. It’s not about jobs. It’s about the state’s dependence on the revenues that the tax on coal provides, and the ongoing failure of our elected officials to develop a phase out plan to replace this money with something else, and/or cut government dramatically. If we are unwilling to talk about the real issue, we are doomed.
“some want to villainize this resource”
Nice try, governor. It isn’t the resource, it’s the method as well as the industry’s total lack of regard for exisiting regulations.
It appears that the governor is trying to ‘villainize’ anyone who wants to have clean air and water.
In a capitalist system, why do we expect an industry in high demand, such as the coal/energy industry, to simply stop utilizing the least-expensive means of production? We can argue external/true costs as much as we like; politics/argument bodes well for those wishing to maintain the status quo. The cause for MTR is not crack-pot businessmen, it’s an unyielding demand for energy; they’re not gonna stop producing the power that WE PAY FOR..
We use four times more energy per capita than our euro counterparts.
Conservation is the first component of transitioning to renewable energy, and it is the first step in ending this irrevocable damage. We will have to do it at some point; we might as well do it while the mountains are still standing. After all, they don’t mine the coal and take it home; it is used to power our TVs, football stadiums, all-night grocery stores, etc. In a real sense, the movement starts in our homes.
Perhaps a better request of the Gov’t is to provide a clear path to rendering MTR unnecessary, and I’m not talking about 10% in 2015 (passing the buck); what can we do now to end it?! IF we keep using it, they’ll keep mining it. Organized conservation is part of the solution. It can make it possible for people everywhere to be the change our mountains need.
Nanette, I don’t think the Gov will ignore any business development wind project that is proposed by a group interested in actually investing in the state. I may be wrong but CRMW did not have any financial backing but was just a creative attempt to stop a surface mine and try to move WV forward with alternative energy at the expense of property rights.
I think if you want to reduce coal, you would need to develop the alternative energy generation first and push it out, not try to pull it. But as I stated, seems like the greens aren’t together on this and tend to fight every project.
I have to say, the thing I am most surprised that the Governor didn’t address was the utilization of nuclear energy. I feel fairly confident in saying that anyone who knows a little about energy and how our nation chooses to create it, knows that the only real “saving grace” is nuclear. Yes, nat gas burns cleaner and yes, we have just discovered quite a bit of it in the Marcellus Shale, but it is still a fossil fuel and therefore finite. Whenever this debate comes up, there are always two seperate arguments that get tangled within each other. 1. stoping MTR and coal mining, and 2. working toward alternative\renewables for our energy future. Though these aren’t mutually exclusive debates, they aren’t one in the same either. If John Amos were to start burning wood instead of coal (hypothetically of course) do you really think that would stop coal companies from mining coal? No, they would just ship it over seas like they are already doing now. So I think it is fair to say that utilizing other energy sources will not stop coal mining and MTR in its tracks. Look, Im not in favor of MTR….I don’t ” heart” coal, nor do I “heart” mountains, what I do “heart” is economic development in WV. And this land use master plan legislation has the ability to allow development in this state that would have never been possible without it. Prior to this legislation, to get a variance from reclaiming a mine site back to AOC (approx original contour) the county had to say exactly who\what was going to be on the property before mining ever started….in many instances that was 15yrs in advance. Now counties, coal operators, and government agencies are working together to create alternative post-mine land uses to utilize the most endangered species in all of WV….flat developable land!
Casey, your posts here show that you usually try to look at things in an evidence-based way.
Maybe doing that would cause you to revisit the assumption that people raising “environmental” concerns constitute a monolithic group or “community.”
For example, developers and vacation home owners and long-time rural residents, faced with giant wind turbine installations, who are properly concerned about their local landscapes and property values, have different interests than people living next to strip mines.
Another example — many people opposed to strip mining have been enthusiastic for more underground mining. But talk to people who care about Dunkard Creek, or their wells and streams in Taylor County, and you’ll see very different views of underground mining.
Another example — people concerned about climate change, who see all non-CCS coal burning as a threat to humanity’s future. Many of these folks are now getting rather pro-nuclear (I’m one, but more for political reasons, which is the one big reason I’m for big-time CCS development).
It seems like it might be a little unfair to try to lump these folks together for purposes of making the argument that they can’t “agree” on what “they” want. They are groupings of people, with different (but sometimes overlapping) interests.
Make any sense?
Cow manure powers town
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2010/01/12/take.a.look.at.this.01.12.cnn.html
(If WI can to it, WV should be able to too)
Tom,
Great point.
I will say that folks in my business (myself included) don’t do much to help with this problem. We lump and label people every day — “environmentalists,” “coalfield citizens” etc.
Julian Martin of the Highlands Conservancy used to hate it when I called him an “environmentalist” in stories. And some coal miners have rightly wondered why they aren’t also called “coalfield residents” … and in fact, as anyone who follows the coal industry knows, there are many, many different views of various issues among those who own and run coal mines.
It’s a tough thing, but a good point you’ve made.
Ken.
I’d like to note that the term “environmental justice” deals with the impacts of pollution on low-income communities and communities of color–people, not frogs or salamanders, which many people read into the term “environmentalist.”
Also, most of the opinion among those of us opposed to MTR is that we’re opposed to CCS and cap & trade as false solutions. The extra energy needed (and therefore more coal), extensive pipeline system, hazards of containment, and other costs make CCS a very expensive way to keep the coal industry operating in its last couple of decades. That money would be much better spent on renewables and efficiency. And if we can’t keep sludge in the dam or out of people’s wells, how can we trust the same mentality to keep a pressurized, refrigerated gas safely contained?
Casey ; I like nuclear power also ; but it takes an awful lot of water to run those nuke plants. I dont believe WV has enough water to keep those nuke plants going cool. Nuke plants work well near the coastlines, Great Lakes, as has been proved.
An interesting note … here’s what Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear said about coal last week in his State of the Commonwealth address:
I will also continue to vigorously support the production of Kentucky coal to fuel this
nation’s industrial might. Coal is critical to the security of our country, and it can be mined
and will be mined in Kentucky in an environmentally acceptable and safe manner.
http://www.governor.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/C150188C-B9AE-4EE0-8077-F8B9544B4E5A/0/20100106SCAddress.pdf
Ken.
This is really a complex problem, as we all know. How do you deal with the fact that coal produces a vast amount of revenue for the state but that the rest of the world will be moving away from coal. Instead of actually addressing the issue many have decided to change the argument to the epa, permits, etc. and by doing this they do not address the reality that coal is a prime source of state revenue but will be increasingly harder to market and probably of finite duration. This will leave the complex problem to others at a later date when matters are worse. The governor’s speech reminds me of what was probably said 100 years ago by the buggy whip manufacturers. They had a viable business, cars were unreliable, horses worked well, it was unrealistic to think that the whole country would pave their roads inorder to allow cars to travel, and there may have been a “war on horses” at least in their minds. The result will be the same.
The whole world is waking up to the fact that coal is slowly killing all of us. A broad consensus is developing that its use must end, or at least be drastically curtailed. That is the future. And add to that that most people believe that Coal companies are not interested in obeying the law, and refer to any critics as the enemy of life, liberty and the American Way. This attitude will only make matters worse for all of the people of West Virginia, not just the miners and their families. West Virginia’s political leaders must prepare their constituents for a future that is certainly coming, not just fight a hopeless war against it, and to do this they must convince them that a coal free future can be beneficial to all. It will save them money, improve their health, protect their water and forests and will go a long way to address climate change. They should be demanding new programs to put people to work right here in West Virginia. It worked in Detroit, it could work here, but do they have the vision or the courage?
pmm: great comments!
Here are recommendations made last year by the Pew Center for US policy on coal and climate change. I think they are something that many people in the coalfields could get behind, and my personal view (I could be wrong) is they would help move us to where we need to be:
“(1) We need to conduct some 10-30 demonstrations, at scale, of commercial-scale coal plants of a variety of configurations capturing and storing their CO2. We also need multiple demonstrations of CO2 injection in a variety of geological formations in a variety of geographic regions across the country.
“(2) We need a national, economy-wide policy such as “cap and trade” that requires greenhouse gas reductions from all sectors, including electric power. Most recent estimates indicate that a price of at least $25 to $30 per ton of CO2 would be needed to drive coal-based electric power plants to install CCS.
“(3) We need a requirement or incentive that will result in demonstrations of CCS at power plants within the next 10-15 years, and we need clear regulations governing injected CO2. Because states have substantial authority over electricity generation and environmental protection, they can play an important role in demonstrating, incentivizing and requiring CCS. However, they are no substitute for a nationally consistent program that promotes CCS for all large sources of emissions.”
I agree with many of the posters here, and Senator Byrd, that neither markets nor laws are likely to radically curtail coal production in the near future — whether by strip mining or deep mining. However, I do think we will see investors moving away from investing in new coal-fired power generation, and regulators taking actions that have the effect of imposing greater costs on coal production and use, to better reflect the negative sides of coal (like putting CO2 into the air, destroying streams, etc.) Likely reduced competetiveness and continued mechanization will drive employment down, too.
For areas that are heavily dependent on coal mining for employment and tax revenue, this is not a pretty picture; and I think it may be a mistake to suggest that there are attractive alternatives “ripe for the picking” that will avoid real economic difficulties and suffering.
In that vein, Roselle, I don’t understand what “it worked in Detroit” means. As I understand it, Detroit is a mess due to the economic changes they have gone through. What are you referring to?
That evidence strongly suggests that at the moment, West Virginia political leaders cannot speak entirely candidly about the challenges that coal faces, without being completely marginalized. That’s one reason why I value the candid discussions on this blog. Keep it up, people!
Tom, good points and I understand, especially NIMBY. But do you or perhaps others ever lump the pro-coal people in one group when they are as different as the individuals?
It is easy to talk the talk but there are a lot of opinionated people out there that would like to dictate what others do that need to walk it. I respect you having lived off the grid and I respect your viewpoint. Thanks for the feedback.
PS: I think KY is removing a ban on nuclear plants.
The rest of the world is not turning away from coal, rather it is embracing it as the life line to improve their standard of living through affordable electricity. Here is a quote from an official at the World Bank last year: “Coal is the cheapest and most secure way to deliver electricity. Frankly, it would be immoral to say we are not going to touch coal.” Coal has been the fastest growing fuel globally over the last six years–37%–more than nuclear (1%), oil (9%) and natural gas (19%) combined. The International Energy Agency projects that global coal use will grow 55% over the next 15 years. New coal power plants under construction over the next 5 years include China with 71 GigaWatts (GW), India 59GW and even Europe with almost 20 GW to name a few. China’s poverty level has dropped substantially (about two-thirds fewer people living in poverty)over the past 20 years as it has built out its coal fueled electricity fleet that now supplies 70% of its electricity. Well over 3 billion people around the world live without any or adequate access to electricity. The connection between electricity and improvement in quality of life is indisputable–the developing world will not be denied.
To Thomas Rodd’s points–all on the mark—most studies (MIT, National Academy of Sciences, International Energy Agency) all conclude that we will need a full portolio of technologies to meet our energy needs and to address climate change concerns successfully All of these studies point to two critical needs to be successful in the most affordable/efficient way–advanced nuclear; advanced coal and carbon capture and storage (CCS) for both coal and natural gas. IEA says that without coal and CCS, the cost of climate change will be 71% higher. In the US, the Electric Power Researcah Institute has found that for the electric power sector trying to meet a 80% emission reduction target by 2050 with only renewables, conservation, natural gas would cost 62% more than if the US used a full portfolio of technologies that included advanced nuclear, advanced coal and CCS for coal and natural gas. That seems to track the IEA global estimate of overall costs for all sectors of 70% more costly.
None of the options for addressing climate will be inexpensive and those that suggest that it can be done cheaply–for example for the cost of a postage stamp a day for each household–are doing as much of a disservice to advancing real solutions as those who are dimissed as climate deniers.
“The connection between electricity and improvement in quality of life is indisputable–the developing world will not be denied.” FactsFirst states the reality of the importance of coal in the energy mix. The U.S. must take the lead in CCS for the sake of world implementation if there are concerns about CO2.
FactsFirst: Quote from an official at the World Bank last year: “Coal is the cheapest and most secure way to deliver electricity. Frankly, it would be immoral to say we are not going to touch coal.” When the benefits of coal are ignored by studies such as Dr. Hendryx’s, this misinformation jeopardizes their credibility and widens the gap for common ground among the stakeholders.
Just a little info for those who are for nuclear power but against coal and MTR. The fuel that powers nuclear reactors is Uranium. It has to be MINED! If you think a slurry pond is toxic then just research abandoned uranium mines in Montana and you will see just what contaminated really means.
My reaction is that both Casey and Factsfirst are making valid points about the need to fairly recognize and incorporate into one’s views both the global inescapability and real benefits of coal use.
But, also inescapable and real are not only the terrible and terrifying effects of atmospheric CO2 emissions from coal-burning, but also the real negative long-term realities in the coalfields — whether directly or indirectly resulting from coal mining — that are shown in studies like Hendryx’s.
I have suggested in other posts that there may often be a built-in pressure for the people who own coal reserves and the companies that mine those reserves to prevent, roll back, resist, work around, and avoid accountability for long-term environmental or human welfare costs.
Why? Perhaps such a tendency may be a feature of extractive industries in general.
In this vein, do “nice guys finish last” in such industries? That crude exaggeration is belied by the many excellent people in the coal business. But the example of Don Blankenship does loom large as supporting evidence for the flip side of this proposition: “Not-nice guys come out ahead.”
Your thoughts?
Thomas I think that the sort of inertia you bring up is inherent in all dynamic systems and is more or less a restatement of Fisher’s theorem of natural selection.
Nowhere in this discussion is it considered that perhaps some fraction of those 3 billion do not wish to have electricity or so-called modern amenities. Ironic that this sort of cultural determinism pervades a discussion about what is best for the most.
Jason, in light of your post, you really should check out (if you haven’t read it) Ivan Illich’s “Tools for Conviviality”:
http://clevercycles.com/tools_for_conviviality/
A classic little book about culture, limits, and technology — that was written at a time when a different path really seemed to be available for many of those 3 billion.
This book had a profound effect on my thinking. It’s very readable, and if you like it, some later work by Illich might also interest you.
Addiction to comfort and convenience, thats why the mountains are being blown up. I do understand how most ignore they role we all play, more importantly, the role we don’t: changing our lifestyles for the better of our children. Good luck to you all arguing about how to get you energy fix. Better luck to your children.
amen, andrew.
T-Rodd, I’m not exactly sure of your definition of nice but the most successful enterprises in a region will most likely be the largest and the most visible. Extractive businesses are no different than other businesses in that they attempt to primarily serve the shareholders. This goal, along with executive personalities and the business environment, would dictate their actions.
So do “nice” guys finish last in the extractive industry? I’d say the management that fails to successfully execute the management of safety, cost control and legal compliance after securing a dominant position in a region, finish last. Poor management and poor execution in a highly regulated industry fail and leave behind messes.
You may be implying that the successful companies ignore regulatory laws and get people hurt and pollute the environment because it is more profitable to do so. That may be a short-term benefit but that would not allow a successful company to serve its shareholders by being an on-going concern.
Companies like Massey have acquired many failed, bankrupt mining properties that would have been environmental liabilities to the state but are now being privately funded which has made Massey larger, more visible and with more environmental exposure. Large successful companies like Peabody have left the state to purse more attractive places to serve the shareholders.
Casey, I think we agree that most all heavily regulated businesses tend to for natural reasons operate at the margins of regulatory and other legal restrictions and conditions.
My simple definition is that “nice” businesses are ones that tend to “err” in the direction of “inside the margins,” and also don’t constantly try to change and push the margins in their favor.
“Not nice” businesses, on the other hand, are ones that tend to err in the direction of outside the margins, and are constantly trying to push the margins in their favor.
My hypothesis is that the “nice” approach has a harder time succeeding in extractive industries that move around a lot, etc., as opposed to say the chemical industry. The Massey remark was just a cheap shot.
Here’s what Virginia’s new governor, Robert F. McDonnell, said in his inaugural speech earlier this week:
We will make Virginia the “Energy Capital of the East Coast.” By growing the natural gas and coal industries, expanding the use of nuclear power, and promoting new energy technologies like wind, solar and biomass.
http://mcdonnellinaugural.com/
Ken.
[...] material for anyone who cares about the future of the Appalachian coalfields, and especially for elected officials who keep hoping that the next coal boom is just around the [...]