Coal Industry Will Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night
In this article from SmartGridNews, we see what anyone could have predicted from the incumbent industries in response to U.S. President Obama’s speech on climate policy: instant attack, including the threat of litigation. Of course, the concept that the content of any speech will translate directly and quickly into action that negatively affects a powerful interest is really a fantasy.
From the article:
Jo Ann Emerson, CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), was having none of it: “Electric cooperatives oppose President Obama’s proposal to use the Clean Air Act to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. America’s rural communities depend on coal-fired generation for affordable electric power and would be disproportionately penalized by this scheme.” NRECA pledged to fight Obama’s strategy “at the agency level and in the courts if necessary.”
and…
John Pippy, CEO of Pennsylvania Coal Alliance, defended the coal industry’s record and efforts to reduce pollution and said in a news release that the president’s plan is “shortsighted and destructive to the nation’s fragile economic recovery.” He added, “There are tens of thousands of good-paying jobs at stake here.”
Yes, John, there are tens of thousands of good-paying jobs at stake, but there are also seven billion people with lungs, and an entire biosphere threatened by climate change, ocean acidification, loss of bio-diversity, etc.
It seems to me that the whole problem is the undue influence of these large corporations on our elected officials. Campaign finance reform seems to be our best solution to this and most other counter productive legislation. Come on people GET ANGRY AND SPEAK OUT.
funny about the jobs. I would say this will increase well paid jobs because they will have to develop and install efficient filtering sistems in the remaining units, as well as the jobs generated for the alternative energy systems
So far, there are no proven or tried ways to clean coal burning. It simply cannot be done at anywhere near current costs. A shift to solar and wind produced power using gas as an off peak backup for most generation must be incentivized with no time to loose. The states that have adopted SRECs, for example, have moved energy production big time into solar. Tampering with the various guides in the program have tanked most SREC programs. The WDC program is still going strong. Maybe because our reps and senators have second homes there. I don’t know for sure. A national mandate for an additional 45¢ or 50¢ per KWh would go a long way to make solar electricity mainstream. It’s very simple and the rules have been established.
It’s interesting how “other” interests are always in the way. When an idea is attacked by “other” interest’s (fossil fuel) it’s always a sign of “we are going in the right direction. We have heard: “First they won’t pay attention, then they will deny, then, they will attack. In the end, we will win.” What can we say? We are in the right direction, keep pushing!
A lump of coal, or a ton, makes for a very poor villain. Minerals, by their nature lack agency. This has always left the anti-coal campaign looking foolish. Open fire combustion, devised and operated by people, would qualify.
Gasification, utilizing old abandoned oil wells for injection, in the MidWest , among other places would address the issue and still provide power.
For our part, Futura Solar sees EE/RE as one answer among many. Low-profile buildings, indeed all buildings, collect sunlight. We have already determined that by noting that the roof gets hot. Bringing that energy into commercial buildings, in usable form, reduces power drawn from the grid and fuel consumption in both locations (locally and at the power plant).
American policy has long been multi-fuel, or multi-source. It has been a good policy. We might ‘solarize’ our building stock and ‘hybridize’ our vehicle fleet to improve our situation.
Kind of like “Guns don’t kill people….?” I don’t know; I’ve never bought that.
What is the problem and how do we fix it? The problem is a World problem, not a US problem. If the US population stopped using all energy tomorrow, the future would not be a whole lot different.
It is political double talk to think we, US, can make a significant difference in World Global Warming by reducing CO2. If US is stupid enough to go ahead with this, we are going to massively effect US competitiveness since industry uses some 30% of the coal power energy. So where will these jobs go, probably China; who is the absolutely greatest user of coal. Almost 70% of their electricity comes from coal and talk about dirty coal power plants. A significant amount (20%) of particulate in the air in CA comes from China.
So how do you fix this? The true answer is, we are the problem. Energy consumption per person has gone up 13x since 1950 in the US. We are energy addicts and wasters.
If you want to solve this problem correctly, start taxing all energy and for electricity, set standards for coal fired power plants and set a tax structure that would favor zero emission sources like water, nuclear, wind, solar, geo thermal (which BTW is only 13% of our electricity US EIA).
People will have to reduce their energy use and start practicing energy conservation because otherwise they will suffer greatly.
I read a comment by an climate scientist who said what Obama is suggesting would change overall World-wide CO2 by less than a .01%. So who is kidding who?
Would Obama suggest conservation and sacrifice? Never because it is politically unpopular and he prefers to pick on industry which provides better, more meaningful jobs than Big Government could ever create.
Congress needs to shut the President down on this hard and have meaningful discussion.
I don’t agree with all this, but I certainly agree that there is no political will for pain/deprivation. You’re 100% correct that we need to use less energy, and that this is not popular.
Marks, you and other conservatives say POTUS “must be shut down on this”, but you have NO constructive offerings other than business as usual, head in the sand (money pile), full speed ahead. We, as a competitive marketplace are already loosing out on a world level. That is why we have a huge military budget. The USA would rather fight than do right. It is obvious egotistic subservience. The national future is dimm indeed. Fear leads the way, and to more disasters.
Craig,
If we do this right, there will certainly be more jobs created than jobs destroyed, and more net economic gain than pain.
The two sides have to start speaking TO one another rather than just shouting loudly (and absurdly) past one another. Most of the republican rhetoric relies around denialism… which is unabashed stupidity and worthy of nothing but contempt and dismissal. But some republicans are more sensible, and they mention that if the cost of energy is increased here, that would make manufacturing less competitive, and drive more manufacturers to places that offer cheaper and dirtier energy…
So the obvious answer is to point out that in high wind regions, wind energy is cheaper than coal energy… and the cost of wind energy is front-loaded manufacturing and installation labor, while the costs of coal are mostly land devaluation, diesel, and health insurance…
But regions in the Midwest that have seen high wind penetrations have seen rapidly LOWER prices on electricity. This in fact is what causes the coal-power plants to whine and sob. So if introducing clean energy is LOWERING electricity prices, wouldn’t the natural response then be to make manufacturing more competitive and result in more manufacturing coming from other countries to the U.S.?
🙂
The same can be said for efficiency upgrades – as our electrical infrastructure is in place and paid for, so reducing demand results in excess infrastructure and competition would result in lower costs.
It’s only when you bother fighting over the expensive stuff – solar panels in Northern or rainy states, micro-wind projects, electric cars, etc… that you have trouble answering the non-idiot republican talking points (of which there are unfortunately quite few).
I agree with Doty, we are wasting our time and breath shouting to oneanother, we should start to speak to oneanother. We should also start to see what the other side has and try to put ourselves in their shoes. I also think that wind has made a point on costs, it just depends on the region and the specific size of turbines; in one region hydro would be a better investment, in another, solar, and still in another, biomass, and so on, but it all depends on what you have as a resource; why argue, just concentrate on the strengths of each system and try to “regionalize” each one, I am certain that we will come up with a solution for each one of them.
When we talk about fossil fuels we always end up with health problems and environmental contamination, the power industry talks about jobs (and don’t mention their huge profits, which also says something about why so big profits), that’s the problem:
One side is about jobs vrs. the other: health and climate change. There’s something here that doesn’e match.
If we close down coal and oil, but we open up more solar + wind + wave + tide + etc. + etc., I think we will have a lot more jobs, not fewer jobs, so what’s the problem, we all win!
(Well, not them, but they could invest their huge profits in renewable energy!)