Coal: There is no war on it. (cc photo: eyeweed)
It’d be nice if newspapers covered policy fights as if reality mattered. But corporate media generally prefers to cover politics as a form of public relations—which involves the creation of a reality that you think will help your side win.
For Republicans, this means discussing Barack Obama’s environmental policies as a “war on coal.” And in today’s New York Times (7/2/13), reporter Trip Gabriel covers that story not as someone trying to explain reality to readers, but as someone helping to make the Republican case.
“GOP Sees Opportunity for Election Gains in Obama’s Climate Change Policy” is the headline, and Gabriel explains that after Obama’s recent climate speech, green groups “rejoiced.” But, wouldn’t you know it, “many Republicans were just as gleeful.” Why? Because they believe that this will cost Democrats some support in the next election cycle:
Elected officials and political analysts said the president’s crackdown on coal, the leading source of industrial greenhouse gases, could have consequences for Senate seats being vacated by retiring Democrats in West Virginia and South Dakota, for shaky Democratic incumbents like Mary L. Landrieu of energy-rich Louisiana, and for the Democratic challenger of Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader.
Now, the assumption here is there is a serious Obama “crackdown on coal.” To many environmentalists, his policies have been anything but war-like when it comes to the coal industry. And after the speech, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz sent the message very clearly that the administration “expects fossil fuels, and coal specifically, to remain a significant contributor for some time” (Reuters, 6/30/13).
But to the New York Times, the GOP’s political posturing and rhetoric matter more than this reality. “Republicans immediately went on the attack against Democratic House members in mining states,” readers learn. According to one person quoted, Obama “was already the most anti-coal president we’ve ever had, and now he’s doubled down.” It’s not until deep into the article that Gabriel indicates that the premise of the whole argument could be a little shaky:
Despite repeated accusations that the Obama administration uses environmental regulations to wage a “war on coal,” the steep decline in mining jobs in recent years has also been driven by powerful market forces—mechanization of mining and the conversion of coal-fired plants to cheaper natural gas.
In other words, it’s not so much that the Obama White House that has declared a war on coal as it is the natural gas industry.
The New York Times‘ Trip Gabriel
The Times piece is remarkably similar to a GOP press release (6/26/13) on the very same issue, sent out right after the Obama speech. In it you see an array of industry-friendly Democrats and Republicans taking aim at the White House. And both the GOP and the Times cite the same obscure factoid about how the new regulations will kill thousands of jobs.
Here’s how the Times put it:
Environmental groups applauded the initiatives even as one report said 37,000 jobs at coal-fired plants were threatened.
Wow—applauding the destruction of 37,000 jobs!
But what is “one report,” exactly? The research comes from the American Action Forum, a conservative think tank started by former Republican Sen. Norm Coleman. The current director is former McCain adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who has also done stints at the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation. The group has a 501(c)(4) arm, the American Action Network, that spends millions of dollars on campaign ads for Republican politicians. Donor lists for the Forum appear to be confidential; the Network has reported receiving $4.5 million from the pharmaceutical industry, among other corporate donors.
In other words, this is information you might want to know if you’re trying to figure out where this “report” is coming from.
Why would the Times not reveal the source of this critique of environmental regulations—to not even name the group that produced the research? And if that factoid was important, why not point out that the coal industry accounts for thousands of deaths every year? That would be reality-based, which is evidently less important than partisan posturing and GOP election strategy.
Featured image: Coal (cc photo: Oatsy40)
I guess it makes sense that corpress coverage of coal
Would be nothing but blowing smoke.
In reality Obama said nothing of substance on coal (or any other subject) and republicans are twisting his words and attacking him. I say Republicans are doing Obama a favor since they make him look like as if he has a principled stand.
Mirza–Exactly…the dance continues between both parties as they try to convince people they aren’t two wings from the same bird.
To this and previous Administrations, prove to us you actually have a plan to reduce the usage (need) for more harmful fossil fuels by coming up with a realistic alternative for our energy needs (hopefully market orientated rather than crony capitalist oriented). The “environmentalists” really need to take some responsibility on this front too…it’s not enough to keep preaching to everyone the dangers of our energy sources when you haven’t provided a workable alternative plan to create that energy. they rely so much on BIG GOV solutions when the 100 lb gorilla in the room (IMHO) has always been to create a plan to decentralizes the power creation and grid…subsidizes individuals who invest in making their own homes energy efficient utilizing alternative energy sources on micro levels appropriate to the climate/geography of the area where those homes are. If you had stand alone power in individual homes you also negate the dangerous consequences of blackouts and such in urban areas.
If you are a coastal community, start implementing tidal power generation…in the desert, solar…plains use wind locally (so you don’t lose the energy transferring it which is a huge problem with the more passive generation of power), etc. etc. Then if small areas need to use coal it’s really not that big of an idea. Each of these “alternative” sources have their own issues (solar=the mining requirements for silver conduction, wind=high cost, low transferability and still questionable animal impacts, etc.). But the environmental community seems hell bent on a one size fits all model dictated by the federal bureaucracy…and yeah, that’ll get things done well and have have no negative externalities…I sometimes wonder what planet they are living on?
GEOLOGY’S WAR ON COAL
Thanks Peter for your good analysis of the “echo chamber” claim (driven by Republican operatives…) about Obama’s War on Coal.
The truth is, the coal industry is facing serious financial challenges not because of politics, but because of geology–Who would have thought!
The easily accessible coal has been mined and now the coal companies are left with coal which is more difficult and expensive to mine. As production costs rise, so do sales prices and coal becomes less economically competitive and profit margins get squeezed and ultimately turn negative.
Here is a Washington Post story on rising production costs
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-10-24/business/35501942_1_coal-reserves-buchanan-mine-powder-river-basin
David Roberts at Grist wrote a good blog with telling graphs
http://grist.org/climate-energy/big-coal-in-big-trouble-as-coal-production-costs-rise
Darren Epps at SNL has also written some telling reports on this phenomenon.
Clean Energy Action will issue an extensive report on this issue later this year. Be in touch if you’d like to see some of the other data before then.
The concept that it is “Geology’s War on Coal” doesn’t excite the Republicans, but that is the underlying dynamic for the ailing US coal industry.
Leslie Glustrom
Clean Energy Action
Boulder, Colorado
303-245-8637
lglustrom at gmail
Just wait until the President approves the construction of the Tar Sands pipeline–industry hacks and pundits will applaud his bold move to slap down his radical base, acting as if there ever was some chance the President wouldn’t approve the thing.
BTW did anyone do a click on the Picture? This is the caption on the photo!
Part of the coal loading facility at Kooragang Island, NSW Australia.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eyeweed/5966257389/in/photostream/
So does that mean Obama Declared War on Australian Coal? That could be real awkward moment at the “Leaders of the World buffet and luncheon”; aka the GB summit meetings.
Any moron who inhibits in any way the supply of our energy to the people is a fool.Especially for the hoax know as global warming.
Hello there, just became alert to your blog through Google,
and found that it’s really informative. I am going to watch out for brussels. I’ll be grateful
if you continue this in future. Numerous people will be benefited from your writing.
Cheers!
Global warming’s a hoax, eh?
Your style is unique in comparison to other people I have read stuff from.
Thank you for posting when you’ve got the opportunity, Guess I’ll just bookmark this blog.
Tim Global warming can be put in one little box….and here it is.Al gore speaking told the people of a beach community that their houses would be under water within a few short years(10).He blamed Global warming and the flooding that would follow it.Six weeks later he bought an 8 million dollar home on that beach.Have you ever seen such a liar?Remember the glaciers in iceland-Greenland and the himalayas that were melting ,and were the key to every GW model?Well they have rebounded and are now at 120 percent.But you hoaxers dont blink.Back to the drawing board you go to try to sell another ball of wax.Another reason to be allowed new taxation.Hoax……?YOUR DAMN STRAIGHT IT IS
This post provides clear idea designed for the new people of blogging, that truly how to
do blogging and site-building.
Look at coal from the investment standpoint. After Obama’s recent EPA remarks i watched many coal companies loose another 24% of total value. This comes after the 2008 coal stock disaster while companies are still trying to piece everything together. You say Obama isn’t fighting coal and yet he instructs the EPA to detail a draft proposal to limit coal-fired carbon emissions by June 2014. The EPA will simply further limited coal use. If the press and republicans are just blowing smoke than why are mutual funds/investors pulling out of coal? Bottom line is that American coal will still be burned. It will be mined and exported abroad. So the EPA will essentially accomplish nothing but increase Americas dependence on foreign energy.