3 ms·

The Democratic Party Presidential candidate in the last election openly boasted about plans to "put the coal companies out of business" after she would be elect

The Democratic Party Presidential candidate in the last election openly boasted about plans to "put the coal companies out of business" after she would be elected, so it's not entirely a straw man to say that there are people who would kill coal at a rate faster than what competition would achieve.

nate_meurer 9y ago
Yes, it's a strawman. Coal's present predicament has exactly nothing to do with political disfavor. Coal remains heavily subsidized [1], under-regulated [2], and enjoys entrenched support at all levels of government. And yet it still can't compete with newer more efficient alternatives. Note that the Trump administration is now pushing to give coal massive new subsidies in the form of forced extra payments to coal-fired power plants. Also note that the money will be taken directly from us, the ratepayers; they will be charges added to our electric bills. 1. For example, the federal government has long arranged the bidding and royalty system in a way that ensures the lowest possible lease rates for coal mining, and coal companies are allowed to self-bond, so that when they go bankrupt, the public has to pick up the bills for cleanup and remediation. 2. See the TVA's recent coal ash disasters for a prime example of an under-regulated industry. Other examples abound.
- fencepost 9y ago
  There's also the factor that those coal jobs are GONE. Even with increased demand if the Trump Administration is able to really push that through, automation and changes in mining mean that all those jobs as coal miners aren't coming back, and the people who were told that they are coming back were simply lied to.
  - Frondo 9y ago
    There's also the fact that there just aren't that many coal jobs to begin with. Here's one link, you can find lots more: www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/31/8-surprisingly-small-industries-that-employ-more-people-than-coal/ Coal gets a lot of attention because it's visible, distinctive, and I think a lot of people see it as a stand-in for any blue-collar job, i.e. the stuff that's all being automated or obsoleted out of existence.
- thehardsphere 9y ago
  You've missed the point I and the GP are making completely. GP is making an argument about what is happening to displaced people, not about what is happening to the coal industry. The claim in the GP is _not_ that coal "is dying to political disfavor", the claim is that political disfavor of coal exists and is not helpful _to the people who used to mine it_, for whatever reason those people were displaced. It really doesn't matter if coal is dying because alternatives are better or if it's the Illuminati doing it, because that doesn't change the fact that politicians are not doing anything to address the effects of it and in some cases are being explicitly callous towards people who used to be employed mining coal.
  - nate_meurer 9y ago
    Yes, I get it, you really don't like what Hillary said. Neither does she; in her new book she calls that statement one of her biggest mistakes. But one politician's ill-considered indulgence in the heat of a campaign does not make your case that "politicians are not doing anything" to help coal miners. Quite clearly, the opposite is true. Coal miners are America's most fashionable symbol of blue-collar righteousness, and politicians on both sides of the aisle are tripping over each other to be seen "doing something" for them. In both state and national politics, this has given coal miners influence way out of proportion to their constituency, and far beyond that of any other jobless group such as former steel-workers or loggers or out-of-work retail store workers. Invoking the bogeyman of coal-hating elites is nothing more than a way to keep a political football inflated.

nate_meurer 9y ago

Yes, it's a strawman. Coal's present predicament has exactly nothing to do with political disfavor. Coal remains heavily subsidized [1], under-regulated [2], and enjoys entrenched support at all levels of government. And yet it still can't compete with newer more efficient alternatives. Note that the Trump administration is now pushing to give coal massive new subsidies in the form of forced extra payments to coal-fired power plants. Also note that the money will be taken directly from us, the ratepayers; they will be charges added to our electric bills. 1. For example, the federal government has long arranged the bidding and royalty system in a way that ensures the lowest possible lease rates for coal mining, and coal companies are allowed to self-bond, so that when they go bankrupt, the public has to pick up the bills for cleanup and remediation. 2. See the TVA's recent coal ash disasters for a prime example of an under-regulated industry. Other examples abound.

fencepost 9y ago
There's also the factor that those coal jobs are GONE. Even with increased demand if the Trump Administration is able to really push that through, automation and changes in mining mean that all those jobs as coal miners aren't coming back, and the people who were told that they are coming back were simply lied to.
- Frondo 9y ago
  There's also the fact that there just aren't that many coal jobs to begin with. Here's one link, you can find lots more: www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/31/8-surprisingly-small-industries-that-employ-more-people-than-coal/ Coal gets a lot of attention because it's visible, distinctive, and I think a lot of people see it as a stand-in for any blue-collar job, i.e. the stuff that's all being automated or obsoleted out of existence.
thehardsphere 9y ago
You've missed the point I and the GP are making completely. GP is making an argument about what is happening to displaced people, not about what is happening to the coal industry. The claim in the GP is _not_ that coal "is dying to political disfavor", the claim is that political disfavor of coal exists and is not helpful _to the people who used to mine it_, for whatever reason those people were displaced. It really doesn't matter if coal is dying because alternatives are better or if it's the Illuminati doing it, because that doesn't change the fact that politicians are not doing anything to address the effects of it and in some cases are being explicitly callous towards people who used to be employed mining coal.
- nate_meurer 9y ago
  Yes, I get it, you really don't like what Hillary said. Neither does she; in her new book she calls that statement one of her biggest mistakes. But one politician's ill-considered indulgence in the heat of a campaign does not make your case that "politicians are not doing anything" to help coal miners. Quite clearly, the opposite is true. Coal miners are America's most fashionable symbol of blue-collar righteousness, and politicians on both sides of the aisle are tripping over each other to be seen "doing something" for them. In both state and national politics, this has given coal miners influence way out of proportion to their constituency, and far beyond that of any other jobless group such as former steel-workers or loggers or out-of-work retail store workers. Invoking the bogeyman of coal-hating elites is nothing more than a way to keep a political football inflated.