Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
THE COAL TRUTH.
Barack Obama has been ramping up his conversation on climate change of late, in part as a way to draw a clear distinction between himself and John McCain (whose "green cred" I've debunked here and here). Of course there is Obama's $250,000 Super Bowl ad that focused on just two subjects: ending the war and stopping global warming. Climate and energy were also strong features of his victory speech in Houston, Texas Tuesday night, and over the past week he's been calling out McCain for not supporting an auction-based method of dispersing carbon credits in a cap-and-trade plan, which is what both he and Hillary Clinton have called for. An auction-based system would require polluters to pay for the carbon they emit, whereas climate plans that McCain has indicated support for, like the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, give away a significant portion of credits, resulting in a loss of trillions of dollars in revenue that could be invested in renewable energy, weatherization, or green jobs programs -- projects that would further the goals of cutting emissions and weaning us off oil.
Obama has also pledged that he won't wait until Jan. '09 to start working on climate change: "The moment I secure the nomination, I want to bring together experts in this area to start putting together the U.S. position ... what we're going to be doing internally, what we can agree to with other countries," he told a crowd recently. Of course, part of the ramping up might be an effort to play down past poor choices on the environment like voting for the 2005 energy bill, or his multitude of missteps on coal in the past. But putting these issues at the center of his campaign now demonstrates both his commitment, and his willingness to take some political risks.
The Wall Street Journal is positing that Obama's increased green rhetoric will hurt him in coal states like Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, West Virginia and Wyoming, which have yet to vote. But he's already done well in coal states like Kansas, as well as, of course, Illinois. Chances are the people in those states, unlike a lot of the rest of the country, realize first-hand the problems associated with mining and burning coal -- the environmental, health, and safety hazards abound -- and see the writing on the wall. While the industry provides much needed jobs now, it won't be a cheap, abundant energy source for much longer, and will need to be replaced with jobs in a green economy. Which is exactly what the Democratic candidates have proposed – energy plans that make polluting industries pay and then invest those funds in creating new technologies and new jobs. The death knell is sounding for coal and other old, dirty energy sources. The question is no longer if we will adapt, but how -- and how to do so in a way that provides new opportunities for coal staters.
That said, let this serve as the kickoff to what will be a recurring feature on TAPPED exploring the role of coal in American life, the 2008 election, and the nation's energy future. It's one of the biggest underlying subjects in all discussion of climate and energy, and merits a much closer examination than it's often given.
--Kate Sheppard
COMMENTS (6)
Speaking as an Obama supporter, here's hoping he gives up the giant corn Ethanol scam as well, which is massively inefficient, drives up food prices and gives massive taxpayer subsidies to giant agribusiness.
Posted by: Jimmy Jazz | February 21, 2008 2:00 PM
Kansas isn't a coal state. Used to have a fair amount of oil, but that was decades ago.
They still have quite a large natural gas production facility, I think.
Posted by: Brautigan | February 21, 2008 2:08 PM
Neither Michigan nor Wisconsin are significant coal-mining states. They have power plants that burn coal, but in neither are the plants anywhere near as dirty (in air emissions) as in the IL-IN-OH-KY-WV belt.
Coal doesn't and won't affect any meaningful number of votes in either MI or WI.
Posted by: Steady Eddie | February 21, 2008 3:16 PM
"Chances are the people in those states, unlike a lot of the rest of the country, realize first-hand the problems associated with mining and burning coal -- the environmental, health, and safety hazards abound -- and see the writing on the wall."
As an eighth generation West Virginian, and the author of a novel titled THE MINER'S DAUGHTER, I wanted to agree that people who live in coal areas do see the writing on the wall, but it isn't the conclusion the Kate draws. They know they are about to have their entire way of life stripped (pun intended) from them without any recourse at all.
In states like West Virginia, you cannot overstate the importance of coal, and the culture it has created for over 100 years. Yes, it's a "dirty" culture (in every sense of the word). It killed my cousins in mine explosions. It killed my grandfather with black lung. It destroyed part of a family farm from strip mining. But it is still the lifeblood for thousands of people.
I'm not advocate for the coal companies (far from it). 21st environmentalism needs to move well beyond the models we currently hold, including coal. But that doesn't mean I can let a post like this one simply go unanswered. In speaking so nonchalantly about "the people in THOSE STATES" (emphasis mine) we are writing off thousands of people who have done nothing more than put their lives on the line every day to provide the coal to power the computers so we can dismiss them with a few keystrokes.
Posted by: Gretchen Laskas | February 21, 2008 3:35 PM
"The Wall Street Journal is positing that Obama's increased green rhetoric will hurt him in coal states like Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, West Virginia and Wyoming, which have yet to vote."
Wisconsin has yet to vote? I guess I must have been dreaming earlier this week. Well, when they do vote, I guess Obama doesn't have a chance, does he?
Posted by: bucky | February 21, 2008 4:16 PM
So, Gretchen, what you're saying is that although coal mining and burning is poisoning the environment, ruining our climate, killing lots of miners (including several members of your own family), and a doomed industry anyway; we've got to keep it going as long as possible to avoid ruining the "coal mining culture" of the mountain states? Are you serious?
Look, I'm not in favor of making miners destitute either. But it's not like coal mining or starvation are the only choices here. We need government investment green energy - why not expend these funds in WV? Lots of good jobs could follow.
But keeping on with coal for cultural reasons? Seriously, WTF?
Posted by: Sean Peters | February 23, 2008 10:39 PM