Obama’s war on coal is projected to cost us 125,800 jobs and $650 billion

posted at 8:01 am on November 25, 2015 by Matt Vespa

Obama’s war on coal has hit communities hard. We all know that. In fact, there is “visceral disgust” for Obama’s environmental policies in the Appalachian counties that have long-supported Democrats since the New Deal. The shift towards the Republican Party was seen in Kentucky when Mitch McConnell easily won re-election over Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes last year. McConnell was able to outperform his 2008 numbers in these coal counties, which contributed to his landslide victory. That trend continued when Matt Bevin, McConnell’s 2014 primary challenger, was elected governor earlier this month, becoming the second Republican to hold that office in four decades.

West Virginia, another coal-producing state, has also gone solidly Republican after decades of being a Democratic bastion. Their energy costs are expected to go up 40 percent under Obama’s Clean Power Plan (CPP), which sets to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 32 percent by 2030 from 2005 levels. It’s a regulatory nightmare, a job killer, and a policy that Hillary Clinton plans to continue if she’s elected. But have no fear coal counties; she plans to set aside $30 billion to help these people after she supported polices that have killed off the means in which they make a living.

The American Action Forum has crunched the numbers for the butcher’s bill for coal. The power plant provisions alone will gut 125,800 jobs and the total GDP loss over a ten-year period is $650 billon [emphasis AAF]:

The final rule for the Clean Power Plan (CPP) was released by the Obama Administration this past August and is a direct attack on the coal industry…the final plan, supported by Sec. Clinton, will shutter 66 power plants and eliminate 125,800 jobs in the coal industry. All of these figures are based on EPA data. The same study shows that using the 2012 baseline for coal generation and projections for 2030 output, the industry could shrink by 48 percent.

[…]

If 125,800 of these jobs are cut, wages lost will be over $9.8 billion dollars per year. The one-time $30 billion relief fund is a drop in the bucket and unless another industry picks up the slack that means over $90 billion in lost wages over the next 10 years.

[…]

The coal industry contributes nearly $65.7 billion to national GDP. As [sic] evidenced by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, the U.S. is not in a place to lose that type of contribution. Over 10 years, the U.S. will see a loss of over $650 billion dollars.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board added that unemployment in coal-producing eastern Kentucky is over 8 percent, it’s in double-digits in southern West Virginia, and coal production has decreased 15 percent since 2008, with the loss of 50,000 jobs between 2008-2012. They noted that the shale boom has contributed to this decline, but the Obama Environmental Protection Agency’s CPP policy will deliver the deathblow to the industry, along with the notion that it will needlessly destroy American jobs over the non-threat of global warming:

To make up for the job losses, there’s money for high-speed broadband, roads, bridges, water systems, airports, public health centers and renewable energy. Her plan also includes tax credits for investors, funding for arts and culture programs, as well as local food and agriculture businesses.

Her political goal is to staunch Democrats’ leaking support among blue-collar communities. Last week Republicans took the Kentucky governorship for only the second time in 44 years. In 2014 the GOP picked up Senate seats in Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Iowa, Colorado, West Virginia, Montana, North Carolina, South Dakota and came close in Virginia. Next year Republicans are defending Senate seats in Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Illinois—states President Obama won in 2012 but save for the Land of Lincoln may be in play in the presidential election.

So here we have the progressive policy arc made clear: First destroy coal jobs to please affluent liberals over climate change, then tax all Americans more to buy the support of the workers who had those jobs. How about not destroying the jobs in the first place?

The CPP has targeted rural America, fixed-income seniors, and could gut millions of jobs from the black and Hispanic communities. Americans generally are resigned to the fact that it will increase their electrical costs. At the same time, over half the states are suing the administration over the policy.

Editor’s Note: This was cross-posted from Townhall.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Hey liberals.

Can you pass some kind of law that will get rid of the newspaper business and then put 30 billion aside to help support the journalist who are out of work.

I could use some free money.

Walter L. Newton on November 25, 2015 at 8:04 AM

And yet Illinois – from which I moved two years ago and never looked back – which is I think the third largest coal producer (who knew?) keeps electing Durbin to the Senate who is more anti-coal than Obama, and elected Obama who declared his war on coal before being elected.

Lance Corvette on November 25, 2015 at 8:08 AM

Airports. High speed broadband. Very useful for people who are desperate just to put food on the table.

What next, Killary offers free wall-mounts for 80″ flat screen tv’s?

Bishop on November 25, 2015 at 8:09 AM

The Climate Commando is really taking it to those “death to America” scum now.

antipc on November 25, 2015 at 8:10 AM

Aren’t the coal minters unionized?

Seems to me this would be a perfect opportunity to counter-protest and demand $15/hour minimum wage for coal miners – force Obama to fight his own rhetoric.

Skywise on November 25, 2015 at 8:12 AM

Democrats doing there thing.

albill on November 25, 2015 at 8:12 AM

Largest fraud in global history.

airupthere on November 25, 2015 at 8:18 AM

although Obama’s policies don’t help the biggest coal killer is CHEAP natural gas.

exporting coal will be coals salvation

gerrym51 on November 25, 2015 at 8:18 AM

Appalachian counties that have long-supported Democrats since the New Deal.

…hillbilly gun-clingers?

JugEarsButtHurt on November 25, 2015 at 8:21 AM

And yet Illinois – from which I moved two years ago and never looked back – which is I think the third largest coal producer (who knew?) keeps electing Durbin to the Senate who is more anti-coal than Obama, and elected Obama who declared his war on coal before being elected.

Lance Corvette on November 25, 2015 at 8:08 AM

Actually, Illinois was once the #1 coal-producing state…. about a hundred years ago. Its one-year peak production (in 1918) is the second-highest of all the states, but since that high, Illinois coal production has dropped more than 80%. Currently, Illinois ranks 4th, trailing Wyoming, West Virgina, and Kentucky.

Humphrey on November 25, 2015 at 8:23 AM

Scientists told us that global warming was responsible for Hitler in the 1940s.

Claims from just one single news article in 1941:

‘Increasingly warmer temperatures throughout the world may produce a trend toward dictatorial governments’

‘The rise to power of Adolf Hitler in German and Benito Mussolini in Italy may be due in part to the gradually warming temperature of the world.’

‘People are more docile and easily led in warm weather than in cold’

How on earth the new generation of climate scientists have been allowed access to government policy is beyond me. These people have been recycling the same claims in the name of global warming/cooling for over a hundred years. Some scientists have even had the pleasure of being on the scientific certainty bandwagon for both global cooling and global warming.

Everything stays the same except the scientific certainty.

Scientists say global warming/cooling is happening and man is causing it.
Scientsits say that the only way to stop it is to reduce the population, stop burning coal/gas, stop cutting down trees, stop consuming so much.

The difference this time is that politicians are actually implementing those solutions that will do absolutely nothing except end up destroying the world as we know it.

airupthere on November 25, 2015 at 8:24 AM

Obama’s war on coal is projected to cost us 125,800 jobs and $650 billion

Small price to pay for rebuking the terrorists. /

Happy Nomad on November 25, 2015 at 8:26 AM

although Obama’s policies don’t help the biggest coal killer is CHEAP natural gas.

exporting coal will be coals salvation

gerrym51 on November 25, 2015 at 8:18 AM

Not if the greens get their way.
It’s the new “keep it in the ground” campaign.

EPA will eventually have a new rule that clamps down on mining operations and it will be the final nail in the coffin of the domestic coal industry. This will likely happen after they essentially outlaw fracking.

Fracking will be the next one to go bye-bye, then they go after coal mining if they are still around.

airupthere on November 25, 2015 at 8:26 AM

“Piker.”

— Jonathan Gruber

ShainS on November 25, 2015 at 8:28 AM

Airports. High speed broadband. Very useful for people who are desperate just to put food on the table.

What next, Killary offers free wall-mounts for 80″ flat screen tv’s?

Bishop on November 25, 2015 at 8:09 AM

Hey, my cousin just made $5000 from home last week alone by going to some website!

Why do you hate poor people??

CurtZHP on November 25, 2015 at 8:35 AM

Congress and 3 Presidents are to blame in addition to the current zealots at EPA who come up with this tripe.

Richard Nixon
485 – Remarks on Signing the Clean Air Amendments of 1970.
December 31, 197
Ladies and gentlemen:

On the last day of the year 1970, I think it would be appropriate to make a very few remarks with regard to this piece of legislation that I will now be signing, the clean air act of 1970.

And I see in this room a few who were present in San Clemente on the first day of 1970 when I said that this would be the year of the environment, that it was now or never if we were to clean up the air and clean up the water in major parts of the United States and to provide the open spaces that are so important for the future generations in this country.

The year 1970 has been a year of great progress in this field. In February, you will recall that I submitted the most comprehensive message on the environment ever proposed by a President of the United States. During the year, there have been some administrative actions, some legislative actions.

Time, however, has been required for the Congress to consider the proposals of the administration and, finally, to agree on the legislation that will be sent to the President for signature.

This is the most important piece of legislation, in my opinion, dealing with the problem of clean air that we have this year and the most important in our history.

It provides, as you know, for provisions dealing with fuel emissions and also for air quality standards, and it provides for ‘the additional enforcement procedures which are absolutely important in this particular area.

How did this come about? It came about by the President proposing. It came about by a bipartisan effort represented by the Senators and Congressmen, who are here today, in acting. Senator Randolph, Senator Cooper, and Congressman Springer represent both parties and both Houses of the Congress.

And I thank the Congress, and the country owes a debt to the Congress in its closing days, for acting in this particular field.

I would say, however, that as I sign this piece of legislation, it is only a beginning, because now comes the enforcement and that allows me to comment briefly upon how we in the administration are set up to handle the problems of the environment in the years ahead.

We have, first, the Environmental Quality Council under the chairmanship of Russell Train. That Council advises the President on the policies which should be recommended to the Congress and to the Nation. And consequently, as I submit new recommendations, and there will be very significant new recommendations submitted to the Congress early in the next session on the environment, those recommendations will be the result of the actions that the Council has taken and its studies and its proposals.

And then there is the Environmental Protection Agency, which has been established by the Congress, where Mr. Ruckelshaus is the man responsible. And that is the enforcement agency. He enforces those proposals that, first are recommended by the Council, submitted by the President to the Congress, enacted by the Congress, and then become law.

So, we have the enforcement agency on the one side. We have the policy agency on the other. We have the legislative branch of the Government, both parties represented here, and, of course, the President in the primary role of having to submit the legislation and then backing up those who have the responsibility for enforcing it.

If I can summarize briefly, I think that 1970 will be known as the year of the beginning, in which we really began to move on the problems of clean air and clean water and open spaces for the future generations of America.

I think 1971 will be known as the year of action. And as we look at action, I would suggest that this bill is an indication of what action can be, because if this bill is completely enforced, within 4 years it will mean that the emissions from automobiles which pollute the environment will be reduced by 90 percent.

And the problem of automobile pollution, as we know, is one that not only now plagues my native area of southern California but all the great cities of this Nation, particularly those which have heavy automobile traffic, and most of the great cities of the world have similar problems.

So, what we are doing here is, first, by signing this legislation, to provide the tools through which we can have action to avoid the dangers that continuing air pollution by automobiles and through other methods will be going forward.

So, it seems very appropriate that in this room, the Roosevelt Room, a room that is named for both Roosevelts, Franklin Roosevelt and Theodore Roosevelt, but particularly in view of the fact that Theodore Roosevelt, who was the man most remembered in American history for his interest in conservation, his interest in the environment, that this bill is being signed here; this, it seems to me, is most appropriate.

And I would only hope that as we go now from the year of the beginning, the year of proposing, the year 1970, to the year of action, 1971, that all of us, Democrats, Republicans, the House, the Senate, the executive branch, that all of us can look back upon this year as that time when we began to make a movement toward a goal that we all want, a goal that Theodore Roosevelt deeply believed in and a goal that he lived in his whole life. He loved the environment. He loved the clean air and the open spaces, and he loved the western part of the United States particularly, which will be greatly affected by this kind of action.

And if, as we sign this bill in this room, we can look back and say, in the Roosevelt Room on the last day of 1970, we signed a historic piece of legislation that put us far down the road toward a goal that Theodore Roosevelt, 70 years ago, spoke eloquently about: a goal of clean air, clean water, and open spaces for the future generations of America.

airupthere on November 25, 2015 at 8:40 AM

Employment in the coal industry is being hit on three fronts.

(1). Obama’s war on coal.

(2). Lowering of costs for extracting natural gas.

(3). Automation.

Number three gets over looked sometimes. I am in the evil business of owning an engineering company that presents automation solutions to displace/eliminate/reduce workers in another industry.

The last bit was for full disclosure.

HonestLib on November 25, 2015 at 8:40 AM

Jimmy Carter
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 Statement on Signing H.R. 6161 Into Law.
August 8, 1977

I am pleased to sign into law H.R. 6161, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977. This act is the culmination of a 3-year effort by the Congress to develop legislation which will continue our progress toward meeting our national clean air goals in all parts of the country. The issues involved in amending the Clean Air Act have been difficult and the debate lengthy. However, I believe that the Congress, under the leadership of Senator Muskie and Representative Rogers, has adopted a sound and comprehensive program for achieving and preserving healthy air in our Nation.

The automobile industry now has a firm timetable for meeting strict, but achievable emission reductions. That industry now knows with certainty what is required and can devote its full-time energies to designing cars which will further our clean air goals while continuing to improve fuel efficiency.
This timetable will be enforced.

With this legislation, we can continue to protect our national parks and our major national wilderness areas and national monuments from the degradation of air pollution. Other clean air areas of the country will also be protected, at the same time permitting economic growth in an environmentally sound manner.

The act provides us with a new tool to help abate industrial sources of pollution by authorizing use of economic incentives to reduce noncompliance. By directing the Environmental Protection Agency to establish monetary penalties equal to the cost of cleanup, those industries which delay installing abatement equipment will no longer be rewarded in the marketplace.

These three major provisions, coupled with the other authorities of H.R. 6161, provide the statutory framework for the Environmental Protection Agency to implement a firm, but responsible program for meeting and maintaining air quality standards which are necessary to protect the health of all of our citizens.

airupthere on November 25, 2015 at 8:40 AM

George H.W. Bush
Statement on Signing the Bill Amending the Clean Air Act
November 15, 1990

Today I am signing S. 1630, a bill to amend the Clean Air Act. I take great pleasure in signing S. 1630 as a demonstration to the American people of my determination that each and every American shall breathe clean air.

In July of 1989, I sent to the Congress a proposal to amend the Clean Air Act of 1970. My proposal was designed to improve our ability to control urban smog and reduce automobile and air toxic emissions, and to provide the enforcement authority necessary to make the law work. It also proposed new initiatives to cut acid rain in half and to promote cleaner automotive fuels.

As a result of that proposal, the 13-year legislative logjam has now been broken. S. 1630 contains all of the essential features of my original proposal and will lead to the achievement of the goals I originally set out. The bill I am signing today will permanently reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by 10 million tons below 1980 levels. It will cut NOx emissions by two million tons from projected year 2000 levels and reduce air toxic emissions by over 75 percent.

The bill will allow the Nation finally to meet air quality standards in every city; and, in total, almost 30 million tons per year of dangerous chemicals and noxious pollutants will be prevented from fouling the air.

The result of this new Clean Air Act will be that cancer risk, respiratory disease, heart ailments, and reproductive disorders will be reduced; damage to lakes, streams, parks, crops, and forests will greatly be lessened; and visibility will be notably improved. As an added benefit, energy security will on balance be enhanced as utilities and automobiles switch to cleaner burning alternative fuels.

The innovative use of market incentives in the bill represents the turning of a new page in our approach to environmental problems in this country. The acid rain allowance trading program will be the first large-scale regulatory use of market incentives and is already being seen as a model for regulatory reform efforts here and abroad. The acid rain program is based on some simple concepts — that we should set tough standards, allow freedom of choice in how to meet them, and let the power of markets help us allocate the costs most efficiently.

By employing a system that generates the most environmental protection for every dollar spent, the trading system lays the groundwork for a new era of smarter government regulation; one that is more compatible with economic growth than using only the command and control approaches of the past. Other provisions to increase flexibility include increased opportunities for emissions trading and performance standards for fuel refiners to encourage alternative fuel reformulations. In all, these path-breaking features allow us to implement the legislation in a way that achieves my environmental goals at an acceptable cost. The result will be the dawning of a new era in regulatory policy, one that relies on the market to reconcile the environment and the economy.

To address the serious concerns raised by the cost of this legislation, I am directing Bill Reilly, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to implement this bill in the most cost-effective manner possible. This means ensuring that plants can continue to use emission trading and netting to the maximum extent allowed by law; that the Administration’s proposed policy on WEPCO is implemented to the extent allowed by law as quickly as possible; and that the permit program is phased in over time in an orderly, nondisruptive manner. This Administration will also pursue the use of more realistic assumptions when estimating risk. These implementation strategies will help keep unnecessary costs and job losses down, while ensuring the achievement of the environmental goals of this bill in the most efficient manner possible.

Unfortunately, I must note several provisions of the bill that raise serious constitutional concerns. I strongly object to the bill’s restrictions on removal or review of the Chemical Safety Investigation Board. Although the Board’s principal functions are investigatory and advisory, it has also been given regulatory and enforcement authorities clearly assigned by the Constitution to the executive branch. As such, the provisions purporting to limit my authority to remove Board members and provide them with policy guidance raise serious constitutional questions. Accordingly, although I believe that these provisions are severable, I am directing the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to submit curative legislation in the next session of Congress insuring that the Board’s activities are consistent with the Constitution. This legislation will also address the serious constitutional concerns created by those provisions relating to the Board that invade the deliberative processes of the executive branch. Similarly, because the Urban Air Toxics Research Center created by the bill exercises executive grant-making authorities, the provision of the bill vesting appointment of part of its Board in Members of Congress violates this principle. This defect must also be rectified by curative legislation.

In addition, there are certain aspects of the bill’s enforcement provisions that raise constitutional questions. I note that in providing for citizen suits for civil penalties, the Congress has codified the Supreme Court’s interpretation of such provisions in the Gwaltney case. As the Constitution requires, litigants must show, at a minimum, intermittent, rather than purely past, violations of the statute in order to bring suit. This requirement respects the constitutional limitations on the judicial power and avoids an intrusion into the law-enforcement responsibilities of the executive branch. I should also note my interpretation of the provision permitting courts to order that civil penalties be used in beneficial mitigation projects consistent with the Act and enhancing public health or the environment. Because the Congress may not impose on courts responsibilities inconsistent with their judicial function, I do not interpret this provision as imposing administrative responsibilities on the courts.

Even before the signing of this bill, the American public has begun to respond to the environmental leadership it embodies. In response to the direction we have signalled in this legislation:

— Cleaner reformulated gasolines are being produced by our leading refiners and are eagerly being sought out by consumers.

— Cleaner natural-gas-fueled trucks, electric vehicles, and flexible-fueled vehicles are or will soon be manufactured by domestic auto producers.

— Commitments have been made by the chief executives of leading chemical industries to reduce voluntarily their air toxic emissions by as much as 90 percent.

The speed with which companies and the public are voluntarily getting a head start is testimony to the need and timeliness of the measures I proposed and the Congress has now passed.

Passage of this bill is an indication that the Congress shares my commitment to a strong Clean Air Act, to a clean environment, and to the achievement of the goals I originally set forth.

George Bush

The White House,

November 15, 1990.

airupthere on November 25, 2015 at 8:41 AM

Worlds largest most lie made tax and spend commie fraud.

Stand the ground for truth and sanity.

Use facts.

http//www.wattsupwiththat.com:

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 25, 2015 at 8:59 AM

http://www.wattsupwiththat.com/

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 25, 2015 at 9:00 AM

When will these idiots start to realize how bad these policies are? When their power goes out in deep January and they realize those 66 power plants were built for a reason and there is not enough power generation to go around. If one is going to shutter 66 power plants then one should have a plant to supply the grid with the power that is lost….

supersport667 on November 25, 2015 at 9:02 AM

…has this dooooshbag lowered the rising seas yet..??

Pelosi Schmelosi on November 25, 2015 at 9:04 AM

Given that, according to the National Mining Association (“the official voice of U.S. Mining”), only 80,000 people actually work in coal mines, the idea that the bogus “war on coal” will cost 125,000 jobs is ludicrous. Additionally, the study assumes that all jobs from closed power plants will be lost for good, rather than the actual scenario in which, given the need for power, the closing of a power plant results in the opening or expansion of other plants. Similarly, cola jobs will continue to move to natural gas or other energy sources. The study quoted above also assumes 3.7 additional jobs lost for each coal job lost — I can imagine the reaction here were I to multiply direct job losses from a Republican policy move by 4 to get a scary figure to throw at you.

In particular, Appalachian coal mines have been losing jobs for decades as the industry shifts to less labor-intensive extraction methods (mountaintop mining) and western operations undercut their prices — it’s much cheaper to mine coal out west. Similarly, aside from Obama, the shift from coal to cheaper, cleaner natural gas undercuts the demand for coal.

This study is BS from top to bottom. The War on Coal is just another effort by Republicans to make the black guy in the White House a scary dude.

urban elitist on November 25, 2015 at 9:10 AM

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah…Actually, I blame God. If He hadn’t have made all of that nasty organic material, we wouldn’t be in this fix. Just too damned much energy out there, most of it hot air from DC.

vnvet on November 25, 2015 at 9:13 AM

While I don’t agree with what Obama and the EPA are doing, you can hardly blame a democrat for doing what democrats do.

The best way to reign this in is to go back to the authorizing legislation and modify or repeal it. In this case, it is the Clean Air Act.

Fighting Obama and the EPA is a good fight and it should be done. They are entirely stretching the original text and intent of laws to suit their needs, but this is what they do. It should not come as a surprise when they do what is in their nature.

This needs to be used as a lesson to republicans in the future. No matter how well meaning your legislation is, if you are not black and white specific about what the agency/administration can/cannot do, then they will always creep toward more power for themselves and their agenda.

The days of large expansive legislation with 1000s of “the secretary shall determine…” lines needs to be over. That is the root cause of this problem.

Congress began passing legislation allowing the Executive to create and implement rules. Congress needs to quit giving up their rule making authority.

airupthere on November 25, 2015 at 9:15 AM

urban elitist on November 25, 2015 at 9:10 AM

The “blck guy” in the WH IS a “scary dude”.

vnvet on November 25, 2015 at 9:15 AM

iirc these losses do not include employment cutbacks on the rail end either.
bnsf/up not as hard hit as they haul from powder river area but csx and NS took quite a hit.

dmacleo on November 25, 2015 at 9:17 AM

This study is BS from top to bottom. The War on Coal is just another effort by Republicans to make the black guy in the White House a scary dude.

urban elitist on November 25, 2015 at 9:10 AM

…mental Left-Tardation in full view…

*applause*

Pelosi Schmelosi on November 25, 2015 at 9:27 AM

This study is BS from top to bottom. The War on Coal is just another effort by Republicans to make the black guy in the White House a scary dude.

urban elitist on November 25, 2015 at 9:10 AM

No, the war on coal is a real tangible thing.

Sierra Club rebranded their “war on coal” to the “beyond coal” campaign: http://content.sierraclub.org/coal/
After taking heat from true environmentalists they finally stopped taking money from the natural gas industry for these efforts.

They were tied at the hip for awhile in terms of funding.

Fancy that. The natural gas industry was sending money to the Sierra Club to support their attempts to attack coal.

Currently the Sierra Club is boasting that they have retired 200 coal power plants.

Now the natural gas industry is kicking themselves, because as soon as they cut off the spigot of funding to attack the coal industry through the Sierra Club, the Sierra Club fired up their “Beyond Natural Gas” campaign: http://content.sierraclub.org/naturalgas/

These people are well funded. These people are serious. These people are intimately tied to the Obama Administration and EPA.

The Sierra Club was directly involved with writing the Clean Power Plan and had unprecedented access to the rulemaking process.

Sierra Club’s influence reached straight to the head of the EPA:
EPA Staffer to Sierra Club:

“Is it possible for you all to put together a summary of the arguments the Sierra Club made on why GHG [greenhouse gases] are currently regulated under the CAA [Clean Air Act]? Gina would like to get a copy.”

This isn’t some bogus attempt to support the coal industry by Republicans. The real world effects of changing our electricity generation will be felt for decades. The impacts to poor people will be devastating. Democrats don’t care, because they will be earn votes through offering subsidies for electricity bills.

I do like your points that the country was already making a natural market-based switch from coal to natural gas. It really helps emphasize the point that they clean power plan rule is purely political. If the industry was going away on its own, then why do we need the rules to force them out of business? Why does the Sierra Club need a “Beyond Coal” campaign if the industry was already collapsing on its own?

airupthere on November 25, 2015 at 9:28 AM

Obama’s war on coal has hit communities hard. We all know that. In fact, there is “visceral disgust” for Obama’s environmental policies in the Appalachian counties that have long-supported Democrats since the New Deal.

You wouldn’t know that here in Kentucky if all of your news came from the Lexington Herald newspaper. The Liberals through the MSM are still trying to figure out how a Republican Governor got elected. They claim there is no Obama war on coal and coal is dying here because of other issues.

Johnnyreb on November 25, 2015 at 9:29 AM

Obama’s war on coal is projected to cost us 125,800 jobs and $650 billion

…when 94 MILLION Americans out of the workforce and $18 TRILLION in debt just isn’t enough…

…I’m telling you these people are retarded…this is no other explanation…

Pelosi Schmelosi on November 25, 2015 at 9:30 AM

this there is no other explanation…

Pelosi Schmelosi on November 25, 2015 at 9:30 AM

Pelosi Schmelosi on November 25, 2015 at 9:31 AM

The War on Coal is just another effort by the black guy in the White House urban elitist on November 25, 2015 at 9:10 AM

We agree on this part anyway. ( I’m practicing to be a journalist for the MSM)

aceinstall on November 25, 2015 at 9:43 AM

Where is Richard Trumka?

He’s the President of the AFL-CIO, but he was the President of the United Mine Workers from 1982 to 1995.

He’s been strangely silent.

He’s probably now a captive of the Beltway and really, really doesn’t care for those nasty, dirty mine-workers.

He wouldn’t be the first to forget his roots and background. Traitor!!!

patch on November 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM

Coal Stock performance under President Obama:
Peabody Energy (BTU): -95% since January 2009.
Arch Coal (ACT): -99% since January 2009.

August 2015:
George Soros, who has pumped over a billion dollars into the battle against climate change, purchased at least a million shares of Peabody stock and at least 500,000 shares of Arch Coal.

He isn’t buying them to shut them down and lose money.

airupthere on November 25, 2015 at 9:57 AM

I’ve been yelling about this since 2008.

According to Wikipedia,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining_in_the_United_States#Coal_mining_areas

Twenty-six states produce coal. The major coal-producing states are (in descending order as of 2000, with annual production in thousands of short tons):

Wyoming (338,900)
West Virginia (158,257)
Kentucky (130,688)
Pennsylvania (74,619)
Texas (49,498)
Montana (38,352)
Illinois (33,444)
Virginia (32,834)
North Dakota (31,270)
Colorado (29,137)
Indiana (27,965)
New Mexico (27,323)
Utah (26,656)
Ohio (22,269)
Alabama (19,324)
Arizona (13,111)

Total United States: 1,437,174

The Republicans have missed a chance to peel away a key part of the Democrat union infrastructure. Support the coal miners and they will die for you.

President Obeyme just takes them for granted.

patch on November 25, 2015 at 9:58 AM

Global Warming Double Dipper Enriches Family With Tax Dollars

The Competitive Enterprise Institute and Cause of Action filed a complaint asking the IRS to revoke the exempt status of the Institute of Global Environment and Society Inc. — a global warming advocate that has received over $60 million in federal grants.

The nonprofit’s founder and president is George Mason University Professor Jagadish Shukla, who was also the lead signatory of a Sept. 1 letter urging President Obama to investigate fossil fuel companies for deceiving “the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.”

Pelosi Schmelosi on November 25, 2015 at 10:02 AM

Where is Richard Trumka?

He’s the President of the AFL-CIO, but he was the President of the United Mine Workers from 1982 to 1995.

He’s been strangely silent.

He’s probably now a captive of the Beltway and really, really doesn’t care for those nasty, dirty mine-workers.

He wouldn’t be the first to forget his roots and background. Traitor!!!

patch on November 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM

Trumka has moved on to pushing for the Keystone XL Pipeline construction to support pipe workers and welders under his current role. I don’t know that he learned his lesson after the fall of coal, but at least it appears he may be coming around.

Trumka abandoned coal workers during Romney’s run for the oval office:

Today, Romney says he will be a “coal” president. But he is actually anti-coal. It wasn’t too long ago that he stood in front of a coal-fired power plant in Massachusetts and said, “Coal kills people. Shut this down.” Now, he goes into the field and says there is a war on coal….Mitt Romney is a political chameleon who will say anything he thinks people want to hear.

He [President Obama] has appointed people who are enforcing safety laws, these are the real regulations coal operators don’t want enforced….MSHA [Mine Safety and Health Administration] is enforcing the laws and now coal operators are not able to get away with violations like they did before, especially high violators.

Mitt Romney says coal country is his country. Well, he’s wrong—it’s ours….Mitt Romney doesn’t know about getting his hands dirty, and he sure doesn’t know anything about coal mining.

Trumka fell into the same trap that union bosses have fallen into for the last 50 years. If there are no jobs, then there is no place for unions. His demands on safety are irrelevant if the miners are out of jobs. To have job safety, you first must have jobs.

airupthere on November 25, 2015 at 10:04 AM

Pelosi Schmelosi on November 25, 2015 at 10:02 AM

Steve McIntyre had an excellent summary of those shenanigans:
Shukla’s Gold

airupthere on November 25, 2015 at 10:06 AM

Trump will not let China win.

China produces and consumes almost as much coal as the rest of the world combined

Chinese production and consumption of coal increased for the 13th consecutive year in 2012. China is by far the world’s largest producer and consumer of coal, accounting for 46% of global coal production and 49% of global coal consumption—almost as much as the rest of the world combined. As a manufacturing country that has large electric power requirements, China’s coal consumption fuels its economic growth. China’s gross domestic product (GDP) grew 7.7% in 2012, following an average GDP growth rate of 10% per year from 2000 to 2011.
The top 10 coal-producing countries supplied 90% of the world’s coal in 2012. China produced nearly four times as much coal as the second largest producer, the United States, which had a 12% share of global production. China has accounted for 69% of the 3.2 billion ton increase in global coal production over the past 10 years.
The top 10 coal-consuming countries consumed 85% of the world’s coal in 2012. Eight of the 10 largest producers are among the top 10 consumers. China is the largest coal consumer, accounting for 49% of the world’s total coal. The next largest, the United States, consumed 11% of the world’s total. China’s coal consumption increased by more than 2.3 billion tons over the past 10 years, accounting for 83% of the global increase in coal consumption.
Coal accounts for most of China’s energy consumption, and coal has maintained an approximate 70% share of Chinese consumption (on a Btu basis) since at least 1980, the starting date for EIA’s global coal data. By way of comparison, coal was 18% of U.S. energy use and 28% of global energy use in 2012.

airupthere on November 25, 2015 at 10:09 AM

He made no bones about it and yet a majority of voters elected him…twice. Democracy may not be pretty but you get what you vote for. The rest of us just have to embrace the suck the idiots stuck us with.

jnelchef on November 25, 2015 at 10:10 AM

Obama and the dems are total control freaks…now they think they can control the weather, too. Unbelievable. All it takes is redistributing money (ours) and they will control the weather. Sounds like an old James Bond movie plot.

NJ Red on November 25, 2015 at 10:10 AM

This study is BS from top to bottom. The War on Coal is just another effort by Republicans to make the black guy in the White House a scary dude.

urban elitist on November 25, 2015 at 9:10 AM

Sorry, but Democrats own racism, not Republicans.

Republicans formed out of the Whig party because leadership wasn’t moving fast enough in pressing for the abolition of slavery.

The Democrats are the historic party of slavery, segregation and racism. Democrat party leaders funded the KKK with the purpose of hunting down black Republicans and terrorizing them.

You made a poor attempt to project your party’s failures, and your support of them, onto the party that ended slavery, ended segregation and passed Civil Rights.

Perhaps you should have chosen “urban idiot” as your username. It would be far more accurate.

Have a great day!

dominigan on November 25, 2015 at 10:23 AM

Democratic motto: “Grab ’em by the wallet; their hearts and minds will follow!”

It worked with Black people.

Who doesn’t like “free” money?

Until it runs out.

GarandFan on November 25, 2015 at 10:34 AM

Obama and the demos are control freaks but this is what I don’t understand. They are all for importing extra people from all over the world especially muslims. They want most of latin americans to move up here as well. Don’t all these extra people put pressure on the environment and our precious ecology balance???????.. Is Obama going to eliminate all the older white folks by obama care to make up the difference. Why is this man wrecking everything that is good in this nation. I have heard that during extreme storms and extreme temperature lows that it puts great pressure on the grid system to keep everybody warm with electricity. I don’t understand why that stupid sen. majority leader doesn’t do or say something. The GOP just lays there and sleeps. What is obama going to do with all the coal mines in China,,, does he think his powerful enough to stop them????.. Seems he only fights his domestic enemies and he surely hates them.

garydt on November 25, 2015 at 10:43 AM

The War on Coal is just another effort by Republicans to make the black guy in the White House a scary dude.

urban elitist on November 25, 2015 at 9:10 AM

I suggest you at least attempt to gain some insight into what is going on. These policies are going to damage this nation for decades, you can start with Politico for a good primer:

Inside the war on coal
How Mike Bloomberg, red-state businesses, and a lot of Midwestern lawyers are changing American energy faster than you think.

By MICHAEL GRUNWALD

airupthere on November 25, 2015 at 10:46 AM

REMEMBER, The Union and Miners supported obama in 2008!

hardrock230 on November 25, 2015 at 11:14 AM

the coal industry is dying, for good reason.

trying to boost the coal industry would be nothing more than corpprate welfare for an outdated product.

there are all sorts of new energy sector jobs – much more than the number of coal jobs lost – in natural gas and renewables.

and the fear mongering about rising energy bills is just that. coal plants have been steadily being replaced with cleaner energy for a good decade or two now, and it hasn’t raised prices one little bit.

the only ones hurt here are the coal companies.

everdiso on November 25, 2015 at 11:43 AM

Do the Miners still love obama?

garydt on November 25, 2015 at 11:47 AM

the coal industry is dying, for good reason.

trying to boost the coal industry would be nothing more than corpprate welfare for an outdated product.

there are all sorts of new energy sector jobs – much more than the number of coal jobs lost – in natural gas and renewables.

and the fear mongering about rising energy bills is just that. coal plants have been steadily being replaced with cleaner energy for a good decade or two now, and it hasn’t raised prices one little bit.

the only ones hurt here are the coal companies.

everdiso on November 25, 2015 at 11:43 AM

Exporting of coal is a big business. Coal is still king in developing nations. Now, hold off on environmental issues as you were yapping about the business model of coal extraction.

New energy? Do you mean new ways to extract fossil fuels? Renewables are not adding significant jobs now or are they expected to in the near future. Right now, do to increasing inventories, oil and natural gas production jobs are seeing some losses.

Green energy is only here due to being subsidized by us, the taxpayers.

HonestLib on November 25, 2015 at 11:57 AM

Exporting of coal is a big business. Coal is still king in developing nations. Now, hold off on environmental issues as you were yapping about the business model of coal extraction.

it is still big business, yes. but a dying one.

New energy? Do you mean new ways to extract fossil fuels? Renewables are not adding significant jobs now or are they expected to in the near future. Right now, do to increasing inventories, oil and natural gas production jobs are seeing some losses.

Green energy is only here due to being subsidized by us, the taxpayers.

HonestLib on November 25, 2015 at 11:57 AM

there are are twice as many solar jobs as coal jobs in the US.

everdiso on November 25, 2015 at 12:09 PM

the coal industry is dying, for good reason.

trying to boost the coal industry would be nothing more than corpprate welfare for an outdated product.

there are all sorts of new energy sector jobs – much more than the number of coal jobs lost – in natural gas and renewables.

and the fear mongering about rising energy bills is just that. coal plants have been steadily being replaced with cleaner energy for a good decade or two now, and it hasn’t raised prices one little bit.

the only ones hurt here are the coal companies.

everdiso on November 25, 2015 at 11:43 AM

Shows how little you know.

Do you know what else you can do with coal other than burn it?

You can extract thorium from it. Thorium can power reactors that are safer than uranium ones, producing little waste, and the waste they do produce can’t be used for weapons.

But what do you do with the rest of the coal? You turn it into petroleum like Germany did in WWII, and convert it to gasoline and diesel, those “outdated” fuels that move 99.9% of American transportation.

Go educate yourself. This article is from 2011.

I also remember an article that came out about the same time that explained how researchers working at a university in Texas were able to get the Fischer-Tropsch process running and producing gas around $1 per gallon.

Now I know how much you LOVE high gas prices, but the rest of us love low gas prices, especially the positive impact reliable low prices have on the economy!

dominigan on November 25, 2015 at 12:10 PM

gas prices are low.

everdiso on November 25, 2015 at 12:15 PM

Gas prices maybe low but it doesn’t help the Grid System incase we have severe winter weather.

garydt on November 25, 2015 at 12:37 PM

I love it.

there are are twice as many solar jobs as coal jobs in the US.

everdiso on November 25, 2015 at 12:09 PM

Source, little man? Or is your source PDOOMA (Pulled Directly Out Of My Ass)?

Specifically,

What constitutes a coal job? At what average pay? vs What constitutes a solar job? At what average pay?

Then there’s another bit of PDOOMA:

gas prices are low.

everdiso on November 25, 2015 at 12:15 PM

Source? Average gasoline per gallon by region? vs alternative fuels (e.g. Fischer Tropsch, which BTW I am not a huge fan of and would like to see if someone could actually produce gasoline at a wholesale cost of $1/gal, but I digress)…

Or do you just parrot Democrat talking points like a good little baby bird, digesting vomit from its mother?

Wanderlust on November 25, 2015 at 12:45 PM

the only ones hurt here are the coal companies.

everdiso on November 25, 2015 at 11:43 AM

Sez the idiot who’s not a miner.

antipc on November 25, 2015 at 12:52 PM

and the fear mongering about rising energy bills is just that. coal plants have been steadily being replaced with cleaner energy for a good decade or two now, and it hasn’t raised prices one little bit.

everdiso on November 25, 2015 at 11:43 A

Maybe you can explain why power companies in CA are forced to buy more expensive power for the highly subsidized green energy sector then.

antipc on November 25, 2015 at 12:54 PM

BREAKING:

Deciduous trees determined to contribute to global warming; decomposing leaves release CO2 and methane; WH preparing EO ordering the US Forest Service to cut them down.

BobMbx on November 25, 2015 at 1:40 PM

gas prices are low.

everdiso on November 25, 2015 at 12:15 PM

Giving Obama credit for that, eh?

BobMbx on November 25, 2015 at 1:42 PM

I didn’t bring up gas prices.

but if you guys are going to bring them up, you should know what they are.

everdiso on November 25, 2015 at 2:01 PM

Source, little man? Or is your source PDOOMA (Pulled Directly Out Of My Ass)?

Specifically,

What constitutes a coal job? At what average pay? vs What constitutes a solar job? At what average pay?

i dunno. these are labor bureau stats. last time i checked it coal and wind were at about 70k jobs each and solar around 170k.

everdiso on November 25, 2015 at 2:08 PM

everdick is notorious for pulling facts out of his butt

Younggod on November 26, 2015 at 12:41 AM

i dunno. these are labor bureau stats. last time i checked it coal and wind were at about 70k jobs each and solar around 170k.

everdiso on November 25, 2015 at 2:08 PM

Think he nailed it on those first two words.

My point earlier was, “Job” can mean anything – from minimum wage, low skilled, all the way through to high skill, high risk blue collar or white collar C-suite.

Therefore number of “jobs” in and of itself doesn’t mean dick, other than to proclaim the number of people working.

Whatever passes for the education this guy has, is an embarrassment.

Wanderlust on November 26, 2015 at 2:39 AM