West Virginia Blue
The Best Blogging Community in West Virginia Democratic politics, progressive policies, the good life and free living in Wild, Wonderful West Virginia.
Congress is heading back home for the August recess this week. Apparently our Senators need to rest after they failed to take up both a clean energy and climate bill and an oil spill bill.
Legislative inaction must be more tiring than I realized.
Still, I don't view this month as a cooling off period. If anything, it's time to turn up the heat.
Over the next few weeks, Senators will be holding "town hall meetings" in their states. Last year, these meetings came to define the health care debate. This year, they could help us reshape America's energy policy.
If you are like me and you are still stunned that the Senate refused to pass a bill that would have created nearly 2 million new American jobs, put our nation at the forefront of the clean energy market and helped end our addiction to oil, then go to a town hall meeting and tell your lawmakers what you think.
Tell them that it is in America's best interest to embrace clean energy now.
And while you are at it, please tell them to block attempts by some Senators to weaken the Clean Air Act-the 40-year-old law that has saved hundreds of thousands of lives-in an effort to further delay reductions in global warming pollution.
Some naysayers claim that voting on visionary legislation is a risky proposition when we are this close to an election. They are wrong, and history proves it.
As I wrote in a recent blog post, 13 of the most powerful environmental laws were passed during the fall of an election year or in the lame duck sessions following elections.
We can pass comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation this fall, but only if we demand it of our lawmakers.
Use this August to make your voices heard. You can find your Senators' schedules by checking their Senate websites, as well as their candidate websites - Republican or Democratic.
Yesterday, the NRDC Action Fund launched a campaign featuring a powerful new ad by renowned environmental activist and celebrated actor, Edward James Olmos. In the video, which you can view here, Olmos explains what makes people - himself included - "locos" when it comes to U.S. energy and environmental policy. Now, as the Senate moves towards a possible debate on energy and climate legislation, we need to let everyone hear Olmos' message.
Hi, I'm Edward James Olmos. They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I guess that's what makes Americans "locos." We keep yelling "drill baby drill" and expecting things to turn out ok. But the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is nothing new. The oil industry has been poisoning our oceans and wilderness for decades. It's time to regain our sanity. America doesn't want more oil disasters. We need safe, clean and renewable energy now. Think about it.
Sadly, Olmos' definition of "insanity" is exactly what we've been doing for decades in this country -- maintaining policies that keep us "addicted" to fossil fuels instead of moving towards a clean, prosperous, and sustainable economy.
As we all know, dirty, outdated energy sources have caused serious harm to our economy, to our national security, and of course - as the horrible Gulf oil disaster illustrates - to our environment. In 2008 alone, the U.S. spent nearly $400 billion, about half the entire U.S. trade deficit, importing foreign oil. Even worse, much of that $400 billion went to countries (and non-state actors) that don't have our best interests at heart.
As if all that's not bad enough, our addiction to oil and other fossil fuels also has resulted in tremendous environmental devastation, ranging from melting polar ice caps to record heat waves to oil-covered pelicans and dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico.
As Edward James Olmos says, it's enough to drive us all "locos."
Fortunately, there's a better way.
If you believe, as we passionately do, that it's time to kick our addiction to the dirty fuels of the past, then please help us get that message out there. Help us air Edward James Olmos' ad on TV in states with U.S. Senators who we believe can be persuaded to vote for comprehensive, clean energy and climate legislation. If we can convince our politicians to do their jobs and to pass comprehensive, clean energy and climate legislation this year, we will be on a path to a brighter, healthier future.
The good news is Don Blankenship may finally be on his way to Federal Court.
The bad news... it's for the wrong reason.
The Charleston Daily Mail's Ry Rivard reports that Massey Energy is suing the U.S. Mine Health and Safety Administration (MSHA) for allegedly violating due process rights because they feel there is not an adequate process to challenge MSHA decisions.
The suit does not mention the Upper Big Branch (UBB) disaster specifically, but references issues related to mine ventilation, which are at the forefront of the ongoing UBB investigation.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the coming weeks. It seems like Massey is using the courts as part of its public relations strategy and attempting to shift the debate from their culpability to some complexities about regulations.
It reminds me of the advice my departed grandfather used to offer, "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."
The Interior Department is writing new regulations for mountaintop-removal coal mining that would expand protection for waterways and require the restoration of dynamited areas.
Christopher Holmes, spokesman for Interior's Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, said the agency is rewriting its "stream protection rule" to boost environmental safeguards.
The proposal being drafted, Holmes said, would:
* Establish a clear standard for restoring dynamited mountaintops. The 1977 Surface Mining Reclamation and Control Act requires that mountaintops be restored to their "approximate original contour," but defining the term has been left to individual states.
* Yank the right of state regulators to grant exceptions to the contour-restoration requirement. Federal authorities currently allow states to set their own standards for granting exemptions, and state standards vary widely.
* Set a federal definition for "material damage" to watersheds beyond permitting areas. The surface-mining law prohibits mountaintop-removal mines and other above-ground coal operations from damaging watersheds outside areas covered by mining permits, but the requirement has been difficult to enforce because "material damage" has never been defined.
* Require companies applying for mining permits to collect more information on the environmental health of watersheds where they intend to work and to monitor conditions during and after mining. Mines that inflict environmental damages beyond what is permitted would be required to change their operations or close.
* Clarify that seasonal streams and temporary streams are covered by the regulations, even when the streambed is dry.
The changes under consideration would apply to new applications for surface coal mining permits and would not apply to existing coal mines, Holmes said.
This is just one step in a long process as the new stream protection rule writing is on-going and far from final. The Office of Surface Mining is still working on the assessment of the proposal's environmental impact. OSM officials will be meeting with folks in impacted states over the next month for a round of feedback on the proposed rule changes.
The proposed rule is due for publication in February, 2011. Then a lengthy public review process occurs with a final rule update not due to go into effect until 2012.
The head of British Petroleum doesn't think much about coal:
The United States isn't going to get "beyond petroleum" anytime soon, but the chief executive of oil giant BP says it's time for the nation to start thinking beyond coal.
The nation should not be trying to save coal jobs at the expense of cleaner fuel industries, Tony Hayward, head of BP PLC, told a Washington think tank audience yesterday, adding that there is no reason to keep building coal-burning power plants here.
"We've got to find a better way to create jobs than preserving coal jobs," Hayward told his audience at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Hayward's comments reflect an increasingly bitter political rift between two of the largest elements of the country's energy industry - coal and natural gas.
Gas executives are irritated that authors of the House climate bill last year built significant protections into the legislation to protect coal industry jobs and coal-state lawmakers. If lawmakers want to cut carbon emissions, they say, they should look more to natural gas, which emits about half as much carbon as coal. They say gas should be the "bridge fuel" to a low-carbon future or, even better, a permanent fixture of a diverse approach to lowering emissions.
"The coal sector was disproportionately favored in the first go at this," Hayward said. "It's about creating jobs."
BP is one of the world's largest producers and refiners of oil and gas. But it has little or no stake in coal, a fact that the coal industry highlights in challenging Hayward's assertions.
I had the pleasure of attending the West Virginia Young Democrats State convention last weekend in Shepherdstown. The Environmental Caucus met, which got a lot of people renewing their thoughts about Mountain Top Removal (for brevity MTR). MTR has unfortunately plagued this state for a number of years, so I though that naturally there would be a general consensus that it was indeed a bad thing. For the most part I was right, but the idea was met with some opposition.
When expressing their dismay about MTR, one young fellow persisted to defend its importance to the state saying "we should all just accept it as a part of our state and the state's economy as a whole
Personally, I oppose MTR. It wreaks havoc across the state and is an environmental nightmare. Just ask the distinguished environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. about it. He has visited the state on numerous occasions, championing the expulsion of MTR as a way of mining.
I realized after this brief encounter with an opposing view in the Democratic party arena, that maybe there isn't unanimous dissent of this mining method. I, however, still oppose MTR on the grounds of what it is doing to the state.
Today a mixed bag of WV state senators sponsored legislation to create a governor's commission to "Seize the Future of Energy for America." What could have been a step forward for america's energy independence and West Virginia's economy looks to be just another give-away to the extraction industry.
You know, I'm not surprised when I see misleading information in constituent emails from Rep. Shelley Moore Capito. Take this section from last week's letter (the first sentence alone gets two things wrong: one minor, one major):
WVU Report on Cap-and-Trade
Also on the topic of energy - this week, professors at West Virginia University released a report on the full-impact of cap-and-trade. In highlighting the prospect of severe job loss and population decline, their view is a bit different than the President's.
Of particular note, Dr. Randall A. Childs and the university's Bureau of Business and Economic Research suggest that the state could lose more than 20,000 jobs over the next few decades and see a $1.8 billion decline in state domestic product. These are troubling numbers and we must remember them as the conversation continues.
So, I went, looked, and found where a report authored by Dr. Childs was released (it is available for download; warning, large PDF). This report is such a hit, at Gov. Manchin's request the West Virginia legislature has even written some of its findings into law:
Whereas, The Act calls for the establishment of a national cap and trade program that, if effected, would reduce West Virginia's gross domestic product by an estimated $750 million by 2020 and by an estimated $1.75 billion by 2030; and
Whereas, West Virginia would lose up to 10,000 jobs by 2020 and up to 22,000 jobs by 2030 if the proposed cap and trade program is enacted;
Amazingly, Rep. Capito's newsletter is more accurate than the legislature's resolution! (There's a sentence I never thought I'd write.) Rep. Capito at least says "could" whereas the resolution says "would".
I share Rep. Capito's view that these numbers are troubling--but not for the same reasons.
Talking about Change
Now, before I go into details about the report itself, I want to remind you about a diary I posted a few days ago on talking about change. Here's a key chart:
What about that WVU BBER study?
Okay, fine... what's that got to do with the WVU Bureau of Business and Economic Research (BBER) study? Well, as it turns out, Childs' study focuses exclusively on just half of the decision making picture.
It says West Virginia has some good stuff right now--mainly, coal mining jobs and revenue along with electricity rates below the national average. Then it calculates how much less of the "usual" good stuff we would have if the House bill become law without any further changes and if we assume we were going to have all the same good stuff in 2030 as we have now.
In other words, it only looks at the stuff in the Resistance to Change column. No wonder the folks who like the status quo--the most resistance to change--have fully embraced this study.
What the report doesn't include
The WVU BBER report does not note that global climate change is a problem that needs to be addressed. (In fact, in the first footnote of the study, it gives credence to debunked claims of climate change denialists).
The WVU BBER report does not say what the costs of doing nothing are (it ignores the bad stuff now and in the future)--the significant costs to West Virginia of climate change. (To be fair, neither do the national government studies it relies on for much of it data.)
The WVU BBER report assumes that West Virginia's current relative electricity costs advantages will remain constant in the absence of climate change legislation. This is a difficult assumption to justify.
We're already seeing West Virginia utilities ask for large rate increases due to the drop in state industrial demand and a drop in out-of-state demand for coal-generated electricity. Multiple forecasts show a drop in Appalachian coal production in the next 20 years. Nearby states are making aggressive investments in alternative energy. Projecting the "usual" good stuff forever is an unrealistically optimistic comparison case.
Also, the WVU BBER report does not include any of the different good stuff that will result from addressing climate change. Quoting from the study itself:
The provisions excluded from EIA's analysis include: Clean Energy Deployment Program; Strategic Allowance Reserve; regulations covering HFC emissions; GHG standards for activities not covered by cap and trade; allowances to coal merchant plants; efficiency standards for transportation equipment; and, investment in energy research and development. The omitted programs and regulations, while albeit important, are not likely to significantly change the underlying results of this study.
Investments in conservation, efficiency, and alternative energy all provide benefits to the West Virginia economy. These benefits are not included in the study.
Finally, the WVU BBER report makes no attempt to include less bad stuff. A more thorough study would include the positive impacts of reduced coal usage (something that the MACED and Dr. Hendryx studies both provide a reasonable starting point to estimate).
In other words, when Rep. Capito says this is a "a report on the full-impact of cap-and-trade," that's just not true. It's a report on some of the impacts of cap-and-trade with an almost exclusive focus on the most negative impacts.
Resistance to Change
If you set out to create the most pessimistic view possible of addressing West Virginia climate change you might well end up with a study quite similar to this one. I have no reason to believe Dr. Childs' started his report with that idea in mind, but the end result is the same.
It's no wonder that Rep. Capito and Gov. Manchin are trumpeting these figures to justify their resistance to change. This is a disservice to all West Virginians.
Head in the sand on climate change. The WVU BBER report assumes the West Virginia economy will feel no effects from global climate change if it goes unaddressed. This is a reckless view to perpetuate.
All pain, no gain. The WVU BBER report assumes that West Virginia will get no benefits from the House climate bill. No new clean energy jobs. No new coal carbon-capture and storage R&D jobs (with associated increased coal demand). No retraining, tax credits, or other directed benefits to aid Appalachia in moving beyond coal.
"Good" stuff forever. The WVU BBER report assumes the status quo of coal today will be here forever. That's at odds with what the coal industry itself is saying. A real public service would be to create a more realistic baseline scenario based on all known information about coal supply.
Bad stuff never. The WVU BBER report completely ignores the documented negative externalities of the coal economy. Reductions in coal mining, processing, and burning will also have positive effects on West Virginia GDP and population numbers (along with numerous quality of life indicators).
In summary, the WVU BBER paints an unrealistic set of scary figures.
A silver lining?
As incomplete as this study is, there may be one small silver lining. While I think the WVU BBER study is misleading and inaccurate, it does demonstrate the necessity for West Virginians to constructively engage in the legislative process regarding energy and environmental policy.
It is important that climate change legislation aids West Virginians and other Appalachians who face disproportionate impacts in moving to a post-carbon economy. West Virginia political leadership--our Congresspeople and those in the state house--ought to quit demagoguing these issues and start offering real solutions.
Mining and burning the small amount of coal remaining in West Virginia even faster is not a solution to climate change in West Virginia and it doesn't address the long-term challenges our state faces to replace our dwindling coal-based wealth.
Several folks have posted about the exchange between Republican Rep. Shelley Moore Capito and Pres. Obama and the GOP retreat last week (h/t JB). If you haven't watched the video, here it is.
Here's how I look at this exchange. The basic assumption in Capito's question is in this part:
I represent the state of West Virginia. We're resource rich. We have a lot of coal and a lot of natural gas.
Towards the end of his response President Obama reminds her that's not the full picture.
So what I want to do is with West Virginia to figure out how we can seize that future. But to do that, that means there's going to have to be some transition. ... what does that industry look like in the next hundred years?
How would you answer the question for West Virginia--what does coal mining look like in the next 100 years?
The first thing I think about is, 100 years from now--probably just 50 years from now--there's not going to any coal mining to speak of going on in West Virginia--all the coal will be gone. Just looking out 30 years from now, there's a whole lot less coal mining than today. So, what about 20... or 10 years from today?
This is the twilight of coal wealth for West Virginia... its heyday is in the past... we're in the final lap. The President is responding to Capito--West Virginia doesn't have 100 years worth of coal--and reminds us all we need to do even more to prepare for what comes next.
Stripped to its essence, it's the most pressing question I take away from the Q&A between Capito and Obama.
To prepare for the next 100 years: what economic development do we as a state want to promote that is not coal-related?
New Report Warns of Decline of Central Appalachian Coal Argues for New Focus on Economic Diversification and Renewable Energy for the Region
MORGANTOWN, WV - As the legislative season begins across Central Appalachia, a new report by Downstream Strategies details future challenges to coal production in the region and argues that policy-makers should strongly support renewable energy and the development of new economic opportunities for coal-producing areas.
"Coal has contributed significantly to local and state economies in Central Appalachia, but production has fallen substantially over the last 12 years as other coal basins and sources of fuel have become more competitive," said lead author Rory McIlmoil. "This trend is expected to continue as mining costs increase due to the depletion of the lowest cost coal reserves, and as new environmental regulations are implemented. As this happens, local and state economies will need new sources of jobs and revenue to replace coal mining jobs and taxes."
According to the report, Central Appalachian coal production is projected to fall by nearly 50% within the next ten years. Central Appalachia includes the coal-producing counties in southern West Virginia, eastern Kentucky, southwest Virginia, and eastern Tennessee
The report points to renewable energy and energy efficiency as two sectors where new jobs and tax revenues can be created, as the region has a wealth of clean energy resources. The report concludes that losses related to the decline of the coal industry can be recaptured by gains from wind, solar, low-impact hydro, and sustainable biomass production, and from a strong focus on energy efficiency improvements.
To support the diversification of the regional energy economy, the report outlines a series of policy instruments, including requiring each state to provide 25% of their energy from renewable sources; the provision of grants, tax credits, clean energy bonds, or low-interest loans to support renewable energy development and manufacturing; the implementation and strengthening of net metering laws; and the development of workforce programs aimed at providing the skills and knowledge required for renewable energy industries. The study also argues for strong incentives for local ownership of energy development, to help maximize the local economic benefits of renewable energy projects.
"Given that coal production is projected to decline significantly in the coming decades, diversification of Central Appalachian economies is now more critical than ever," said co-author Evan Hansen, President of Downstream Strategies. "State leaders should use this legislative session to increase support for new economic development across the region, especially in the rural areas set to be the most impacted by a sharp decline in the region's coal economy."
In December 2009, West Virginia Senator Robert C. Byrd stated, "West Virginians can choose to anticipate change and adapt to it, or resist and be overrun by it. The time has arrived for the people of the Mountain State to think long and hard about which course they want to choose."
According to McIlmoil, "The same is true for all of Central Appalachia, and we hope this report helps policy-makers understand the changes that are coming so that they can support new industries. The renewable energy sector offers one of the greatest opportunities for economic development."
Downstream Strategies is an environmental consulting company in Morgantown, West Virginia, with program areas in environmental policy, environmental science, and geographic information systems. The company provides science, research, and tools to organizations, businesses, and agencies. It offers clients an alternative to mainstream environmental consulting by combining sound interdisciplinary skills with a core belief in the importance of protecting the environment and linking economic development with natural resource stewardship.
Groups Put Massey on Notice for Over 12,000 Clean Water Violations Company Has Pattern of Illegal Pollution
January 11, 2010
Charleston, WV: A coalition of groups, including the Sierra Club, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Coal River Mountain Watch, and the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy took action today to hold coal giant Massey Energy accountable for over 12,000 violations of the Clean Water Act and surface mining laws associated with their mining operations in West Virginia. Massey continues to illegally dump pollution into Appalachian waterways despite a massive $20 million fine already placed on the company for thousands of previous violations.
"Massey has operated outside the law for far too long. There is a history here, not only of Massey ignoring the law, but of state officials ignoring Massey's violations," said Judy Bonds of Coal River Mountain Watch. "Massey needs to be held accountable for these very real crimes against the people of Appalachia."
Massey has a long history of environmental and social irresponsibility-including one of the largest slurry spills ever to take place in the United States and a $1.5 million fine from the Mine Safety and Health Administration. In 2008 the company was fined $20 million for Clean Water Act violations, similar to those cited by the coalition, after the federal government documented over 4,600 cases of pollution being illegally dumped into local waters by Massey and its subsidiaries. Incredibly, Massey's violations have increased in frequency since its settlement with the federal government.
"Massey seems to think that poisoning water by consistently ignoring laws is an acceptable business practice. The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection seems to agree, as they continue to allow these violations. We are forced to do the agencies job, to hold Massey accountable," said Diane Bady of the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition.
"Massey has both a legal and moral obligation to protect streams and drinking water supplies in the communities where it operates," said Jim Sconyers of the Sierra Club's West Virginia Chapter. "Their permits are not just pieces of paper - they are solemn commitments to protect the waters and people of West Virginia. Unfortunately the company has shown time and again that it is unwilling to take its obligations seriously."
Massey and its subsidiaries operate dozens of mountaintop removal and other large-scale surface mines in Appalachia, using some of the most environmentally devastating types of mining, flattening the landscape and burying miles of streams. Close to 2,000 miles of streams have already been lost and new proposed mountaintop removal permits could destroy more than 60,000 acres of the remaining forest.
I'm only making one New Year's Resolution this year: I resolve to reduce my carbon emissions by 10% in 2010.
This is going to be one of the trickier resolutions to pull off--it will require a year's worth of effort, buy-in from the rest of my household, and some real changes in behavior.
Because any New Year's Resolution is easier to stick to if you have friends joining with you, I'm also going to ask each of you reading this to join with me. Will you also resolve to reduce your carbon emissions by 10% in 2010?
Here are ten ideas to help get us all started.
#1> Learn Read up about carbon emissions and the environmental impact of the choices you make--big and small--in living, eating, and transportation. Use a carbon footprint calculator. Here's are some websites you can check out if want to learn more: ACT on CO2, 10:10 UK, and Earth Hour.
#2> Save energy. Saving energy is all about conserving (using less) and being more efficient (using what you use better). You can conserve energy by turning off the lights when you're not in the room. You can be more efficient by buying compact-fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) that create the same amount of light with less energy. The same principle applies to the big stuff, too. The Energystar website provides lots of good information for household energy efficiency. (Visit here for West Virginia specific info.)
#3> Reuse and Recycle When you buy things, purchase items with less packaging or packaging that can be recycled. If you are lucky enough to have curbside recycling, use it--otherwise, learn where the nearest recycling center is and make a habit of taking your recyclables there--to make it even easier, talk to your neighbors about combining trips (Recycling in W.Va.)
#5> Enlist Help Reach out to family, friends, and co-workers. Reducing our carbon footprint is a community effort. Talk with other members of your household about how to reduce your emissions. Talk with your friends about ways to share resources. If you are a member of an organization--a church or civic organization--discuss ways it can save money on energy bills and other non-renewable resources it uses.
#7> Grow your own fruits and vegetables. When you grown your own food you'll enjoy fresh, high quality food. You can also grow varieties you won't find in a supermarket and you'll know exactly what the food has or has not been exposed to.
There are many guides on how to grown your own fruits and vegetables. You can start small, team up with your neighbors, or--for city dwellers--even start with a view potted herbs. Growing food in your own neighborhood cuts carbon emissions considerably compared to food shipped hundreds or thousands of miles to your door.
#8> Buy local food. Join a CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) and shop at farmer's markets. Local Harvest has a wonderful directory of US local food sources.
#9> Fly Less. Yes, this is a hard one, but consider:
Planes get a respectable 43 passenger miles per gallon (pMPG), but they cause 1.9 times as much climate change per gallon of fuel burned, by virtue of their being up in the sky. So when we consider climate change, the plane's efficiency is more like 22.6 pMPG. That's worse than most cars. And if there are two people traveling in the car instead of flying, then the pMPG of the car is doubled, while the plane is stuck at 22.6 pMPG, because we're already figured the plane's pMPG on a per-seat basis. The only time that flying is better than driving for a given trip is if there's only one person in the car, and/or we're assuming a very low-mileage car.
If may be unavoidable to fly sometimes, but if you're considering you next vacation option, you might think twice and decide for the spot that is driving distance away.
I've got a long list of "things I've been meaning to write about." Here's a link drop for a quiet Sunday afternoon.
* This is quite simply, unacceptable. In a just world, this would the major topic of discussion in the January legislative session... Andrew Clevenger notes 1 in 6 West Virginians living in poverty:
More than 300,000 West Virginians lived in poverty in 2008, according to new data from the Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates released by the U.S. Census Bureau yesterday.
::::
The data can also be broken down by county and school district. Staggeringly, an estimated 46.3 percent of people under the age of 18 in McDowell County lived in poverty. This is almost two times higher than Kanawha County (23.5), three times higher than Monongalia County (15.2) and four times Jefferson County (11.1, the lowest percentage of all 55 counties).
If this deal is approved by the West Virginia Public Service Commission, West Virginians can expect Frontier to cut, not add jobs. On Nov. 4, in an interview with Bloomberg News, Wilderotter finally admitted that Frontier "plans to cut jobs" -- as part of its effort to achieve cost savings of $500 million a year. Up until that interview, Frontier management maintained the fiction that the deal would mean more, not fewer, jobs. Cutting jobs isn't in the public's best interest.
The deal also will make our telephone utility in West Virginia weaker financially.
* I don't know if Sens. Byrd or Rockefeller will have a chance to ask Bernacke questions during his (re)confirmation hearing, but I'd sure like to see Bernacke get some follow-up grilling on this. Bernacke gets Feds mandate wrong (emphasis mine):
Yesterday, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke referred to the "our dual mandate, which is growth and inflation." In fact, the dual mandate is full employment (defined as 4.0 percent unemployment) and price stability. Presumably Bernanke had unemployment in mind when he said "growth," but it striking that he would not use the right term. The two are of course not synonymous.
Because of the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Works Progress Administration, Americans can go just about anywhere in this country and see FDR's hand on the landscape. These programs weren't flawless, but they were smart, effective, pragmatic. To hear some Party of No politicians and rightist pundits tell it, however, this particular use of the public sector was just short of a Bolshevik coup. So, obviously, anything with a whiff of New Deal scent about it is going to set off another round of patented GOP sulking and barking amplified by our ever-helpful national media.
Let them bark. The White House should press for a direct job creation program anyway.
The CCC put millions of young men to work planting trees, curbing erosion, and generally nurturing the National Park System. Nine years the program lasted. Much of the work done still lives today. A Clean Energy Conversion Corps would not only create jobs but also provide a massive public investment with an impact reaching decades into the future.
* CNN Money has a fascinating article about the new found resistance energy companies are finding to exploration efforts as they move closer to more populated areas: The Domestic Drilling Backlash (thank you to the reader who emailed me this story!)
Most Americans still support increased oil and gas drilling. But opposition is growing, especially when that drilling nears more populated urban areas. Currently there are natural gas booms happening around New York City, Dallas-Fort Worth, Western Colorado, the Midwest, and elsewhere. Opponents fear this new drilling will ruin the drinking water for millions of people, among other concerns.
And energy companies, accustomed to dealing with rural populations familiar with drilling and eager for jobs and lease royalties, are increasingly finding themselves at odds with a more educated and wealthy populace wary of energy development.
::::
In Western Colorado, public awareness of drilling and the potential dangers has increased as wealthy people from nearby resort towns have become interested in the cause, said Theo Colborn, president of the Endocrine Disruption Exchange, a group studying the effects of drilling chemicals on humans.
Colborn recounted the story of a nearby town where the local officials were considering allowing more drilling. Soon after, residents had their cars leafleted with pamphlets describing the associated dangers. Turns out, a local resident had hired a public relations agency to come in and run the campaign.
"A lot of wealthy people have been affected, and they can afford the lawyers or PR firms to come in and do stuff like this," she said.
::::
...the days of this industry operating in relative obscurity and with little federal oversight are likely numbered.
What are you reading today?
Eastern Box Turtle in Morgan County, West Virginia
I love hearing stories where people make positive change. It's easy to just complain and stick your head in the sand but I'm always inspired when I see how many folks are out there quietly doing the groundwork for the big changes we need.
SEED volunteers help with construction of a community center building in Rock Creek, WV
And change is undeniably upon the coal industry again. The increased use of mountaintop removal mining means that fewer miners are needed to meet company production goals. Meanwhile the Central Appalachian coal seams that remain to be mined are becoming thinner and more costly to mine. Mountaintop removal mining, a declining national demand for energy, rising mining costs and erratic spot market prices all add up to fewer jobs in the coal fields.
These are real problems. They affect real people. And West Virginia's elected officials are rightly concerned about jobs and the economic impact on local communities. I share those concerns. But the time has come to have an open and honest dialogue about coal's future in West Virginia.
::::
The greatest threats to the future of coal do not come from possible constraints on mountaintop removal mining or other environmental regulations, but rather from rigid mindsets, depleting coal reserves, and the declining demand for coal as more power plants begin shifting to biomass and natural gas as a way to reduce emissions.
::::
Change has been a constant throughout the history of our coal industry. West Virginians can choose to anticipate change and adapt to it, or resist and be overrun by it. One thing is clear. The time has arrived for the people of the Mountain State to think long and hard about which course they want to choose.
Some grassroots activists in West Virginia have been already been thinking "long and hard" about which course they want to choose. They want a way forward for their community that includes clean, safe, homegrown jobs.
I think there are other options beyond coal because coal's not gonna be here forever - our grandchildren and great-grandchildren, what are they gonna do when coal's not here? There needs to be some kind of other jobs besides coal. I think there's a lot of smaller businesses that would like to be in this area, but they're scared off because of the mining. If you can get a few things started, you can get a few people to work - you can even employ these high school graduates. There's not a lot of young people; what ones are here, they leave or they go in the mines because that's the only thing to do, and by the time they're 30, they're half-dead.
Unfortunately, since too many politicians remain focused on bringing large-scale coal-based development to Appalachia we still need a hand-up for communities ravaged by coal-mining, not yet another hand-out for coal mining companies.
These grassroots activists need our help
Like any volunteer effort, the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development project cannot be sustained by sweat equity alone. It needs your help. There is an immediate need for anemometers to measure wind feasibility, then there are additional costs associated with the purchase and installation of wind turbines in the Coal River Valley.
Sustainable Energy and Economic Development is a community organizing project connecting residents of the Coal River Valley to one another and to the outside resources they need to make their small business and renewable energy ventures a reality. We began by meeting with twelve families in the valley over the summer and fall, and identified three inspiring projects to pursue. Two families are in the beginning stages of a community owned wind development project. One group of woodworkers are building a wood kiln to dry and increase the value of sustainably forested lumber. The SEED Community Team formed as a group of locals generating new ideas for community revival and economic diversification in monthly meetings. In their latest meeting, they resolved to build a community owned greenhouse and plan to break ground on the project in the winter. The entrepreneurial spirit is spreading!
Sustainable Energy and Economic Development is structured to ensure accountability to community members. It begins with listening to community members, and the Community Team ensures that project organizers do not veer off course in the collaborative process of small business development.
Organizers are working on two wind development projects in the the valley. They need to start raising funds today to be able to purchase and install a 100 kilowatt wind turbines as soon as possible and stake the community's claim on the toe of Coal River Mountain. This single-turbine installation lays the groundwork for larger wind development in the future.
I, too, am frustrated with Washington these days. The solution, however, is not to tune out but to work locally, "where you can celebrate victory," in the words of Cindy Sheehan.
Copyright 2009 West Virginia Blue
Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
This site exists thanks to financial support from BlogPAC, the tireless efforts of volunteer contributors and continued participation from this community. The views expressed at West Virginia Blue belong soley to their respective authors.
