Tom Witt of WVU, right, and Cal Kent of Marshall University discuss the coal industry economic impact study they performed for the West Virginia Coal Association. The study was released this afternoon at the annual Coal Symposium, an industry meeting in Charleston, W.Va.
A while back, the West Virginia Coal Association retained business research centers at West Virginia University and Marshall University to “provide an economic impact analysis of the coal industry in West Virginia.”
Today, Tom Witt of WVU and Cal Kent of Marshall released the product of their work during the annual Coal Symposium, a coal association meeting here in Charleston. Here’s how the report (available online here) describes itself:
The purpose of the study is to provide the public and policy makers an unbiased and reliable determination of how important the coal industry is to West Virginia.
OK … It might have been nice — especially since Witt and Kent promote themselves as academics — if they had made it a little more clear what they weren’t going to do. Because this study is pretty one-sided, looking only at positive impacts of coal — jobs, tax revenues, etc. — and totally ignoring any potential economic costs of this major industry. It’s hardly a cost-benefit analysis and it most certainly is not what Kent called it — the “definitive study on the coal economy in West Virginia.”
More on that in a moment … first, here’s the summary of what Witt and Kent report:
– Coal provides more than 63,000 direct and indirect jobs
– Coal provides a total business volume of $25.53 billion
– Total employee compensation from coal was nearly $3.6 billion
– Total value added was $7.6 billion.
Bottom line?
Preliminary estimates released by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis indicates that for 2008 mining, which includes coal mining, oil and gas extraction and support activities for coal, accounted for $5.7 billion or 9.2 percent of GDP in West Virginia.
Updated: With a link to a Gazette print story on the study.
The report concludes:
Probably there is not another industry more vital to West Virginia’s economy than is coal. This report documents that statement. As it spread throughout the state, the loss of coal production or even its substantial reduction in use would have serious consequences.
West Virginia is a low income state. Reduction in the use of coal would worsen an already bad situation particularly in those areas which are most in need of jobs and income. At the same time, the demands placed on state government would accelerate for public assistance, support of schools and medical services. But the reduced income received by the state would leave it without the fiscal resources to respond.
And, the report outlines what it calls the major threats to West Virginia’s coal industry: Legislation to limit greenhouse gases and deal with global warming, efforts by the Obama administration to reduce the water quality and other damage from mountaintop removal coal mining, and EPA’s proposal to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.
If you read the report, and if you listened to Witt and Kent describe it to their coal industry clients at today’s meeting, you would think environmentalists or other enemies of coal are about to shut down all mining. Kent, for example, after rattling off coal’s financial contributions to local little leagues, schools, fairs and festivals and other community projects said all of that “would disappear if coal were to disappear.”
But oddly enough, talking to reporters after the formal presentation, Tom Witt made this remark:
Coal is not going to leave this state. We’re not going to have a shutdown tomorrow of the coal industry in West Virginia.
And perhaps that’s what is most disappointing about this major report from respected economists at West Virginia’s two major institutions of higher learning … it falls into the same old trap, setting up a straw man argument, violating Sen. Robert C. Byrd’s rule that West Virginia leaders should act as “honest brokers” on coal issues in order to forge a future for the state and its people.
At the end of the report, Witt and Kent wrote:
It was not our intention to make the coal industry appear to be more important than it is. But its value to the state should not be underestimated.
OK, I got the part about not underestimating coal’s importance But by totally, completely and blatantly ignoring any and all negative impacts, Witt and Kent have certainly made coal appear to be more important than it is. You can’t do a cost-benefit analysis without working the costs in there somewhere.
You have to wonder why some other things weren’t at least mentioned in the study …
– The work of WVU’s Michael Hendryx (which — unlike Witt and Kent’s report — was published in peer-reviewed journals) to document the fact that coal costs Appalachia more in adverse health-impacts and premature deaths than it provides in economic benefits.
– The recent study (also published in a peer-reviewed journal) that documented the scientific consensus that mountaintop removal’s environmental impacts are “pervasive and irreversible.”
– Another study (not peer reviewed) commissioned by the Sierra Club that found that limits on mountaintop removal would not shut down the entire West Virginia coal industry or kill the state’s economy.
– A study in Kentucky that concluded coal there takes $115 million more annually from the state in services and programs than it contributes economically.
– A National Academy of Sciences study that documented $62 billion in hidden costs — in the form of health impacts — from the nation’s coal industry.
I asked Cal Kent after the meeting why the report didn’t include any discussion of these sorts of things … here’s what he said:
There are other issues that may be related to coal production. That was not what we were asked to do.
Subscribe to the Coal Tattoo
If that’s not what you were asked to do, but yet is something that is required in order to tell the whole story, then you report is far from the “definitive” study on coal’s impact on the WV economy. If anything, it defines only half of the economic impact, if that.
The study does not look at the economic status of the coal-producing counties or describe how they rank near last in socio-economic indicators when compared to the rest of the country. It also hardly describes how future economic benefits may decline due to the pending production declines the report itself notes.
The first statement of the summary has a major disconnect between the presented figures and the conclusions. It reads: “Probably there is not another industry more vital to West Virginia’s economy than is coal. This report documents that statement.”
That statement is not supported by the report. It’s not even something the report tries to figure out one way or another. It order to say that coal is MORE VITAL than any other industry the authors would have to analyze other industries, too. They did not. They only analyzed coal (with some oil and NG figures mentioned, too).
It’ll take me some more time to read the entire report in close detail, but seeing an exaggeration like that undermines my confidence that the rest of the report is unbiased and reliable.
Did Hendryx capture all of the economic benefits of coal mining in WV that the economists Witt and Kent conservatively documented?
Per Hendryx “The coal industry generates a little more than $8 billion a year in economic benefits for the Appalachian region.”
Per Witt and Kent just for the state of WV:
“When one adds these two sets of total economic impacts, one finds that coal has the following total economic impact:
• Total number of jobs created was over 63,000.
• Total business volume generated was $25.53billion.
• Total employee compensation was nearly $3.6 billion.
• Total value added was $7.6 billion”
If Dr Hendryx underestimated the benefits, is it possible that he overestimated the costs? Inquiring minds want to know.
Casey,
I think if you read Hendryx study you will see he admits he has not captured all economic benefits. He is up front about that, and his study uses the cautious language of an academic. Witt and Kent use much more absolutist language — that of a booster almost. It is not something, based just on the word choice, that would be published in an academic journal.
Also, Hendryx does not come close to including all negative impact of coal.
I would encourage readers to compare the wording of the two papers.
Wonder why Coal Assoc did not ask Witt and Kent to measure negative impacts too…
Ken.
Casey — The two studies measure different things: benefits and impacts are not the same thing. Not all impacts are beneficial.
When you measure GDP, for example, it goes up when money is spent on treatments for black lung disease for coal miners who had workplace exposure. That is an economic impact of coal mining but hardly a societal benefit.
You’ve mentioned before about including the impact of economic activity powered by coal-fired electrical plants. From my quick read, Witt and Kent do include something along those lines. I need to reread that again, because I don’t understand the rationale for including it.
I may be wrong about how they’re calculating those numbers, but it seems to me if those coal powered plants sat on the other side of the WV/OH border, or were powered by NG, hydro, wind or solar instead of coal they could still provide electricity to the exact same businesses.
No doubt we’re coming at this report from different perspectives, but I’m really curious… what in the report leads you to say “Witt and Kent conservatively documented” the impact of coal?
Ken: I have not read the report and can’t get to it today. Does the “Total value added of $7.6 billion” include the $400+ million in UMWA retiree health care and pension benefits payments that annually goes into the WV coalfield economies?
And, is there any reason to dispute the other three items in the summary of their report, as purely stand-alone numbers:
“– Coal provides more than 63,000 direct and indirect jobs
– Coal provides a total business volume of $25.53 billion
– Total employee compensation from coal was nearly $3.6 billion”
too bad they didn’t net out the cost o major floods
Clem, my macro days are long past so I’m not sure if your statement is correct regarding GDP and black lung. There’s different ways to measure GDP but I think in sum it’s the value added by enterprises.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product
It’s interesting to note that there’s a direct correlation to GDP and coal consumption. Burn more coal and GDP increases, and GDP increases the wealth of citizens and raises the standard of living. Something WV needs. Witt and Kent also noted that as the coal employment has decreased over time that the coal economy in WV has actually grown.
The “conservatively documented” comment comes from their repeated statements as such during their presentation. I did not quote their study results on tax contributions made but they just looked at the severance tax, corporate income tax, sales and use tax and personal income tax from just the top 10 coal producers in WV and arrived at $488MM for 2008. That excludes workers comp, special reclamation tax, Coal Resource Transportation tax and others. They stated that extractive industries in other states are not as highly taxed as in WV.
Phil,
On your question regarding the UMWA fund … I don’t see that specifically mentioned, but the report does say that it attempts to include employee compensation, which it defines this way:
“Wages and salaries plus employers’ contribution for social insurance (social security, unemployment insurance, workers compensation, etc.) and other labor income (pension contributions, health benefits, etc.).”
Perhaps if Tom Witt and/or Cal Kent are reading, they could answer your question in the comments section of Coal Tattoo …
A couple of interesting things that they do include –
Workers comp taxes and special reclamation taxes … To me, this is interesting to include as a “positive benefit” as both are to pay to compensate or reclaim the state (either workers or the land) for damage done by the industry in the form of deaths and injuries or mining that did not restore the land. Not sure how you count those as benefits without also looking at the damage done to families and the environment …
In addition, to your other question … I don’t doubt that Witt and Kent added up their numbers right. But the real issue in these kinds of studies is not the math, but in what you include in the columns you’re adding up.
And there are some interesting questions about what they decided to add up … for example, this part:
“Preliminary estimates released by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis indicates that for 2008 mining, which includes coal mining, oil and gas extraction, and support activities for coal, accounted for $5.7 billion or 9.2 percent of GDP in West Virginia.”
Not sure why “oil and gas extraction” is included here, and they don’t really explain it very well.
In any event, I wonder why they didn’t include the massive costs to coal-mining families from the loss of lives to mining accidents, black lung disease, etc. Those are costs that can be calculated, but they didn’t even try.
Ken.
Casey,
By the way, I asked them a question just for you … I asked why they didn’t include positive economic impacts from steel that is made using W.Va. met coal. They said such data is hard to come by, making this something they decided not to try to calculate.
Ken.
This whole dueling studies thing is like watching a bad “he said, she said” afternoon soap opera. But I do have to wonder about the “objectivity” of this most recent study.
Ken: Thanks for the reply. While I don’t necessarily disagree with what you’re saying, especially with regard to the costs of dealing with mining fatalities and black lung, I would counsel caution in what color of glass one uses to look at this report.
As with the other reports you have cited above, there is always the tendency for people on one side or the other to say, “well, this is b.s. because you didn’t include the data/questions/facts that I think you should include, and that [to me and others who think like me] are clearly relevant. So therefore, your conclusions aren’t valid.”
I think you may fall into that trap when you say, “I don’t doubt that Witt and Kent added up their numbers right. But the real issue in these kinds of studies is not the math, but in what you include in the columns you’re adding up.”
Is that the real issue? I think before some folks just trash this report as not objective (and, given who commissioned it, it may not be — same for some of the reports you list above) I think it’s worthwhile to look at it solely for what it is, and not what it is not.
Clem states “undermines my confidence that the rest of the report is unbiased and reliable” and Monty states “I do have to wonder about the “objectivity” of this most recent study”. Now that sounds like me commenting on Hendryx/Ahern.
Ken, your blog reports the financial backing for the Witt/Kent study but your Hendryx blog did not for that study. Also I don’t think the funding source was reported for the individual studies that comprised the Science article either.
Why did the print edition headline read “Coal study details benefits, ignores costs” rather than “BLOCKBUSTER STUDY ESTIMATES WV BENEFITS AT $25 BILLION AND 63,000 JOBS FROM COAL”? Too long?
Thanks for asking about the steel benefits from coal. That and electricity are obvious benefits from coal and are important since coal is not the end product. I guess the calculation is difficult since the “data is hard to come by” but maybe not impossible if further funding was provided.
Clem & Casey, interesting recent article on the problem with GDP, which validates the point Clem is trying to make (IMO):
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911/mcardle-gdp
“In any event, I wonder why they didn’t include the massive costs to coal-mining families from the loss of lives to mining accidents, black lung disease, etc. Those are costs that can be calculated, but they didn’t even try.”
I think that was because of what they were tasked to do. They were not asked to look at ANY negatives on this report … they were only asked to look at positives if my understanding is correct (think of this as being asked for a gross total instead of a net total … if that helps)
Casey — I stand by my statement on GDP measuring things that are not a societal benefit. From the Wikipedia article you linked to:
“Externalities – GDP ignores externalities or economic bads such as damage to the environment. By counting goods which increase utility but not deducting bads or accounting for the negative effects of higher production, such as more pollution, GDP is overstating economic welfare. The Genuine Progress Indicator is thus proposed by ecological economists and green economists as a substitute for GDP. In countries highly dependent on resource extraction or with high ecological footprints the disparities between GDP and GPI can be very large, indicating ecological overshoot. Some environmental costs, such as cleaning up oil spills are included in GDP.”
Likewise, economic activity like the medical costs of treating black lung disease are included in GDP.
I think the correlation between GDP and coal usage is because of the overall tight correlation between economic activity and energy usage. It’s not so much that coal usage leads to GDP as it is that more economic activity in general leads to more energy use.
As long as coal has had a favored status in government energy policy–including ignoring the full costs of extracting, processing and burning–coal usage will follow overall economic activity.
Contrarian — Thanks for that link. I didn’t see it until after I’d posted my comment.
Phil — If I follow you correctly, I agree with your general sentiment. I don’t think this report is so much wrong as it is incomplete. There are some potentially useful things to draw from it. I don’t view it as a competing study to Hendryx as much as a study that asks (and answers) different questions. Together they provide a richer picture than we’d have from just one or the other.
Still, I think it is important to understand the limitation of these studies and even more important to point out where the authors fell down on meeting their self-stated objectives.
Casey — There is a huge difference between a “think tank” study like this and a peer reviewed paper. They are written for different audiences, have different levels of rigor, and different standards of evidence.
There are multiple statements in this study that would not make it through a thorough peer review. That’s what makes me wonder about the objectivity of the authors–they’ve made several conclusions that go well beyond the facts presented in the study.
They can say over and over in a presentation that the study was a “conservative estimate” but there’s nothing in the study itself to suggest that. The language they use is as generous as possible to the view that “coal is awesome.”
Here’s a minor example from pg. 32 talking about coal exports, “These sales bring money into the State that reduces the nation’s significant balance of payments problem as well.”
Okay–putting aside if, where or when coal company profits get reinvested–that statement sounds true enough… but when I run the numbers I find that WV coal exports were a mere 0.31% of the US trade deficit in 2008 (2.1 billion in exports compared to a 673.3 billion trade deficit).
You may feel otherwise, but touting the contribution of one third of one percent doesn’t look so “conservatively documented” to me.
Wow … lots of comments on this today. Thanks, folks.
On the funding issue … Casey, most all peer-reviewed journals require authors to disclose any funding sources that might create a conflict of interest — and they include any note about that in the publication. So if you go look at those individual studies, you can get that information. Rest assured, I believe in disclosing such information and if I’m aware of a report I write about being funded by an environmental group or a coal company — or anybody who has an axe to grind — I report that.
Also to Casey — why didn’t the coal study get the kind of headline the Science paper did? Well, Science is probably the most widely read and most respected peer-reviewed journal in the world. For it to publish an article that so clearly outlines the damage from mountaintop removal amounts to a blockbuster. For the coal association to hire a couple local professors to write a report touting coal’s jobs, tax revenues, etc., well — that’s simply not as big of a story. That’s my judgment as a news reporter and blogger. You’re welcome to disagree.
To Phil — yes, I think the “real issue” is indeed what was and wasn’t included in the report. To me, the major issue isn’t even that the coal lobby paid for it or whether Kent and Witt are objective (they’re not). Sen. Byrd has wisely suggested that leaders of our state by “honest brokers” on coal issues. I’m sure the UMWA does not disagree with him on that, right?
So, it’s a matter of how much this particular study should be considered by policymakers (and the public) who are struggling with these issues. Are the jobs, tax revenues, etc., part of what policymakers should consider. Of course they are. But they are only part of the picture, and any “honest broker” needs to look at a lot more information than this study provides.
But my hunch is that we’re going to hear a lot of lawmakers who don’t talk much about the negative impacts of coal citing this study up at the statehouse. So, it’s important for me — and hopefully others in the media — to point out how it’s really just one part of the picture.
Ken.
No matter how much, or how politely this study is debunked, you can bet we will be hearing a whole lot more about it in the future. You probably won’t be hearing many West Virginia politicians lift quotes from the Hendryx study.
My take on the summary presented is that since none of the negatives are presented it is not a true cost-benefit study. What it is… a sales pitch paid for by the coal industry. Will the decision makers in Washington, Charleston, Frankfort, Richmond, and Nashville see it the same way? I doubt it. They will use it as an excuse to continue the destruction of our mountains.
At least for the time being I wish all reports could focus on mountaintop removal mining and not coal in general. If I was a worker in the coal industry I would be scared thinking that the treehuggers might take my job away. While I believe coal will one day be replaced, I’m realistic to admit that for the short term it will continue to be a major source of energy for this country and revenue companies and states. I’ve been an opponent of surface mining since my college days in the ’60s. I’ve seen small steps achieved, but the fact is coal has the upper hand (full of dollars) in congress and the regulatory agencies. As a result more and more of the once beautiful Appalachia has been destroyed. Our focus should be halting MTR, that’s mountaintop removal, and supporting any and all alternative development as soon as possible.
The discussion on this “research report” as on the recent books by Prof. Sobel indicate to me that it would be appropriate for the new WVU President to review the ground rules for paid studies. In the final analysis it is the reputation of his University that is at stake, not just the individualauthors.
Dirty energy has got to go – reclamation of all the mountains, streams and the health of the people dwarf the modest inflated propaganda pushed by the coal industry – sorry fellas – you look as old as your business model – you can’t survive without government subsidies, you are putting people out of work, destroying their homes and ruining any tourist, vacation or second home markets you might have once had – don’t let the door hit you on the way out!
Paul Burke
Author-Journey Home
Subsidies mean taking money away from healthy industries togive to the ailing. That’s against separation of Church and State and worse than real health care. It will bankrupt the state all the faster.
Edward makes a great point (comment 21). Think about it this way: Suppose Philip Morris or R. J. Reynolds came to Kent & Witt & said, “We’ll pay you to do a study on the economic impacts of tobacco, but we want you to include only the *positive* impacts, and none of the negatives.”
Is there a difference? And 20 years ago, I don’t think this would have been outside the realm of possibility.
I *don’t* think faculty should be allowed to do such studies that look at only one side. It makes the institution look like it can be bought, like politicians.
My study can whip your study. That’s about all we’re going to get out of this.
SAS, your are correct but getting the the complete story from only one study which is typically financed by just one side of an issue is tough. Now Hendryx attempted a cost/benefit analysis but it was obvious even to me that several things were left out on the benefit side. Per Hendryx “The coal industry generates a little more than $8 billion a year in economic benefits for the Appalachian region.”
Kent & Witt, two economists, estimated a much larger benefit just for WV. They stayed within their area of expertise and were conservative in their analysis. My questions are:
Are Kent/Witt’s benefit estimate accurate?
Did Hendryx over estimate the costs?
I’d like to see Kent/Witt show a range of numbers that included a more aggressive estimate, as well as some estimate of the benefit of coal as it relates to the benefit of electricity and even steel. I’d also like to see a study funded from the coal side or a neutral group try to duplicate the Hendyrx results on the cost side. And if there actually is higher mortality rate in coal mining areas of Appalachia versus non-coal (after accounting for all non-coal factors) then the link(s) needs determined so it can be addressed.
To SAS and Casey: My feeling is that a good University doesn’t take money from either side to support either side. The private sector can do that. WVU should find independant funding to study the issue without being beholden to a side, as I think they are now. The cigarette analogy is very apt, thanks. I would suggest that WVU should be the independant, seeking only to advance a factual study to shed light where there currently is little. The suggestion that we weren’t paid to look at that side coming from a University research department is a shame.
Casey –
Not to beat a dead horse here, but just ’cause the study authors used the word conservative in a presentation doesn’t make it so. Can you please explain how this study is “conservative in its estimate”?
I’ve pointed out multiple places where the study’s conclusions go beyond its facts and figures. The study authors themselves say they left out–at the request of those helping to fund the study–any negative impacts. Also, there’s a big gulf between coal impacts and coal benefits the study completely ignores.
Regardless, my takeaway from the study is that last year coal contributed at most somewhere about 9-10% of West Virginia’s GDP. (That’s not far off from my estimated 10-year average for’ 99 to ’08 of 6.7%.) http://www.flickr.com/photos/wvablue/3909495168/
Either way, I’m wondering when the other 90+% of the West Virginia economy is going to wake up and decide it’s tired of having that < 10% in the driver’s seat.
Clem,
The other 90% GDP have a big stake in the coal industry since the direct and indirect jobs are over 60,000. Check out page 37. The study concluded “Probably there is not another industry more vital to West Virginia’s economy than is coal. This report documents that statement. As it spread throughout the state, the loss of coal production or even its substantial reduction in use would have serious consequences.” The authors note that the loss of property tax revenue would be fatal to some local governments.
The study was conservative due to the following:
• The economic impact of the transportation of coal was limited to rail and water transportation due to insufficient data for truck, belt, and local transportation.
• Total property taxes on all coal property totaled an estimated $91 million. This figure is very conservative as only the land and buildings owned by the 10 major coal companies was included. Nor was the property taxes paid by their subsidiary corporations included. Also omitted were property taxes on coal related businesses such as transportation and electric generation.
• For 2008 total sales and use taxes attributed to coal mining companies exceeded $3.6 million. It was impossible to determine the sales taxes paid by other coal related companies as that data is not available. This figure is considered very conservative.
• Estimating the amount of personal income taxes paid by coal industry employees is problematical. No data exists which would allow for a precise estimate. Using the methodology described in Appendix VI, the PIT was estimated to be $46 million. This is a conservative estimate.
• Funds collected from the Abandoned Mine Land Program were not added to the total amount of taxes paid by coal companies and the amount was also not included in the economic impact of taxes paid by coal mine companies.
• Another additional economic impact comes from the transmission and distribution of electricity produced by WV coal by WV power plants. These additional impacts can be significant; however, they are not estimated within this report.
• Also Non-Quantifiable Economic Impacts on West Virginia that weren’t included in the study include the multiple uses for reclaimed mine sites and a magnitude of activities, donations, partnerships and sponsorships in which West Virginia coal companies participate.
Casey — Thank you. That’s exactly the kind of detail I was looking for. That is very helpful.
A couple of thoughts.
1) If you read back earlier in these comments, the statement you quote: “Probably there is not another industry more vital to West Virginia’s economy than is coal” is one I pointed out as not being supported by the study facts or figure. (The statement after, “This report documents that statement”, is flat out false.) There is no way the study could conservatively reach that conclusion as it did not present research about any other industries–that’s a clear example of the authors expressing an opinion well beyond the data in the study.
There’s no way of determining if another industry is “more vital” than coal because no data is provided about any other industry. For all we know manufacturing, retail, or hospitality are more important industries–there’s absolutely no way to tell from this report.
In order to make that assertion you would need to study all of the major industries in the state and determine what the marginal impact would be (including substitution effects) of any single one of them experiencing a decline (or elimination).
2) I don’t think the items you mention add up to that much in comparison to what was measured. My guess is at the very, very most they might provide an additional 10% – 20% of economic impact from coal. (They certainly don’t double the number.)
So, I suppose we can just agree to disagree on this one.
My conclusion remains that this report is about as pro-coal a spin as you could devise for an economic impact report. The bottom line is it reports as many economic impacts as can be easily estimated with no attempt to calculate net benefits (even when off-setting negative effects could be easily estimated).
Rephrasing what I said earlier – the “balance” in this study is that it took one faculty member each from WVU and MU. If it had been subjected to any kind of peer or institutional review prior to being issued, many of the concerns about data gaps and unaksed or unanswered questions would have been resolved prior to its being issued. Since the two professors in question were acting as paid consultants to a private company, none of the usual institutional safeguards apply – and this is the kind of result you get.
Is it an objective study? No. And it was not intended to be. But I think it would be fun to see what kind of reception it got if Witt and Kent did try to submit it to a journal like “Science.”
The West Virginia Coal Economy is a report developed to provide “an unbiased evaluation of the role coal plays in the state’s economy by examining the historical and 2008 employment, wages, production, and tax payments of the industry.” It did not have a hypothesis that it tried to prove as a scientist might but was an economic report, done by four highly qualified economists (three PhD’s) and a research assistant:
http://www.be.wvu.edu/faculty_staff/tom_witt.htm
http://www.be.wvu.edu/faculty_staff/randy_childs.htm
http://www.marshall.edu/cber/staff/key/kentc.htm
http://www.marshall.edu/cber/staff/index.htm
http://www.marshall.edu/cber/staff/info/rischc.htm
I’m not sure who funded the report but it was partially funded by the WVCA. Obviously a lot of work was involved but for the most part it was merely reporting on publicly available data and taking a conservative approach. I’m no sure what specific deficiency that you have with the report given the objective, author qualifications and methodology.
Casey,
OK … both my post and a number of commenters have pointed out serious flaws with this report … and we’ve explained who requested it and who funded it. It was requested by the Coal Association and funded by the Coal Association, and as I reported, the Coal Association asked them to look only at positive benefits, not anything negative.
This report absolutely had a hypothesis … and it was picked by the Coal Association.
You’re losing a lot of credibility by refusing to acknowledge those deficiencies.
You’re more than welcome to defend the report and its authors, but please don’t just ignore other comments that point out specific deficiencies in the methods used.
Thanks, Ken.
[...] Mannix Porterfield at the Beckley Register-Herald continued to promote the coal industry line, with this story touting the WVU-Marshall “study” of coal’s economic impacts. The story makes no mention of the report’s major shortcoming, which were addressed previously here on Coal Tattoo. [...]
[...] major driver behind the state budget (not the mention the overall state economy). That’s the argument consistently put forth for years by the industry, its friends in political office, and by various economists working for the mining [...]
[...] way to squelch anything that smells of real discussion of the negative side of the industry. They love anything that promotes coal, and will jump up and down and scream if anyone even tries to provide a balanced accounting of the [...]