Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiDemocratic Candidates Play Up "Clean Coal"
CLEAR FORK, West Virginia - Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are talking more about "clean coal" and less about global warming as they woo voters in West Virginia and Kentucky -- two states that sit at the heart of the nation's coal economy.
In a bid to draw voters ahead of Democratic primaries in West Virginia on Tuesday and Kentucky on May 20, both candidates are playing up the ascendant role of commercially untested and so far economically nonviable ways of converting America's plentiful coal supplies into electricity without spewing massive quantities of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.
"We need some big investments right now in figuring out how to capture and store carbon dioxide from coal," Clinton told a rally in the rural town of Clear Fork on Monday.
To get there, she took a windy road through the Appalachian Mountains that passed at least four big coal mines cut into the mountainside.
Not to be outdone, Obama's campaign has distributed flyers in Kentucky stating that "Barack Obama believes in clean Kentucky coal." The flyers show a picture of giant barges carrying coal down the Ohio River.
Coal-fired power plants generate about half of U.S. electricity supplies, and account for about 40 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions -- the biggest single industrial source.
Clinton has a plan to require U.S. industry to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, but she hasn't brought that up in numerous appearances in West Virginia and Kentucky in recent days.
But America has 250 years worth of coal, and will likely remain the backbone of its power generation system for decades. "I know how important coal is to West Virginia," Clinton said last week in the state's capitol rotunda in Charleston. "Coal is not going anywhere for the foreseeable future."
Candidates' support for clean coal indicates a tension between their need to bring along delegate-rich coal states like Pennsylvania and Illinois and their global warming platforms.
"There is no such animal as clean coal," said Brent Blackwelder, president of the environmental group Friends of the Earth. "We shouldn't be placing our bets on coal to bail us out. We need to be looking at getting rid of coal plants."
Among Eastern U.S. states, West Virginia and Kentucky lead the pack in coal production and employ about half of U.S. coal industry workers -- about 39,000 people.
Both candidates support legislation that could be debated by the Senate this summer that would require U.S. industry to cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than 70 percent by 2050.
Coal states don't hold the same clout as Farm Belt states who control about a quarter of U.S. Electoral College votes and have pushed for higher government mandates to boost U.S. consumption of ethanol -- made mostly from corn.
But "Big Coal" states are not to be ignored on the electoral map. And as the Democratic presidential process comes down to the wire, coal plays prominently in three of the six remaining primaries including Montana on June 3.
Coal industry officials said U.S. electric utilities are willing to embrace carbon-reduction strategies but cannot simply shut down coal-fired plants without a massive increase in electricity prices.
"The U.S. doesn't just have an environmental problem -- it has an energy supply problem," said Luke Popovich, spokesman for the National Mining Association. "We simply cannot zero out coal use because it is not pristine."
Not all environmental groups take such a hard line on the clean coal, pointing out that it's only natural for politicians to craft their message to their audience.
"The candidates appear to be following a tried and true tradition which is telling the audience what they want to hear," said Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, a nonpartisan environmental group. "It's politics as usual."
Even Al Gore, who has become a spokesman for the dangers of climate change, steered clear of talking about global warming when he campaigned in West Virginia ahead of the 2000 presidential elections, O'Donnell said.
The deletion did not pay off for Gore in the end -- West Virginia cast its lot with Republican George W. Bush instead.
Editing by David Wiessler
© 2008 Reuters
35 Comments so far
Show AllSorry to keep posting, but-
If anyone from Southern Illinois, western Kentucky or eastern Missouri is reading this-
please come to a presentation on mountain-top removal on Friday, June 6th, at 7pm at the Big Muddy Media Center, 214 N. Washington in Carbondale. Discussion will follow
My son-in-law went to a logging hearing. It was full of unemployed loggers who didn't care about the earth, just wanted jobs. They sided with the logging company, because they thought that they would then be employed.
When they opened the sawmill, it took 2 people to operate it. One to load the logs and one to operate the computer that operated the saw.
jclientele, I didn't think you were for destroying the earth to create jobs. It seemed that some other posters didn't believe that coal miners would want to reopen coal mines because it's a lousy job. I was just trying to point out that people will do anything for a good paying job with benefits.
I come from a coal mining family, also. I remember my Dad's cousin telling him that his son had quit coal mining (because he hated it) and got a job at a grocery store, but it didn't make enough money, so he went back into the mine. My Dad grew up in a coal camp in Utah, which is now gone, but he didn't go into the mines because of the depression and WW2. Of the kids in his immediate family, only one stayed in the mines, and he had the best material life. One of my uncles never did have running water or electricity. One lived in the projects in East Los Angeles. One lived in a single wide in Sacramento.
I actually attended a meeting called by the EPA here in Southern Illinois. A coal company, I think it was Peabody, wanted to open a mine-mouth production plant without using the coal washing technique. (This was a few years ago). So I went tripping up there with my Sierra Club and Green Party comrades to testify against it. You should have seen the parking lot. Half pickup trucks and half Volvos.
The meeting was a farce, as are most public hearings. They let you speak your piece and then they go with the corporation. I've been to a lot of these things.
Anyway, the place was full of unemployed coal miners. They didn't seem to care about the mercury pollution, except one guy who said he was torn between wanting a job and wanting to be able to kill deer without contamination. There was a public health official from Maine, who spoke about the pollution that blows into Maine from Illinois. No one seemed to care much about Maine. (The Sunni-Shiite division we always hear about is nothing compared to the south-north thing we've got going on).
I couldn't believe that coal miners, who I expected would have solidarity with other people on the bottom, would screw others so that they could have a job. But, there it is.
At least Barack didn't take West Virginia too seriously--he gave it to Clinton. Now I understand why. Tradition is a powerful force. However, a story is being left out here, as there is a strong grass-roots movement against the environmental destruction caused by coal mining there.
Where's Michael Moore when you need him?
Then I would ask, where is all of this Christian Faith this nation is suppose to be made up of? Have the American people been lulled into a belief that all God has to offer us is a life in a black mine, and/or a devastated environment, leaving us with no water worth embibing and no wilderness to convene with? Where is the natural wonder for beauty, truth, life and God's abundance? We are a depressed nation needing an injection of real faith and reverance.
Danna
greenerthanthou - perhaps my first post gave the impression that I want to continue the way it is with coal mining jobs. Actually I agree with you. Coal mining should be going away, especially they method that blows the tops off mountains.
My grandfather was a coal miner in western PA and died in a mining accident leaving 5 children, so I am always 100% behind miners from USA to South Africa. Can't help it, but they are automatic heros to me like firefighters.
I believe that we must convert to wind, solar and other truly clean forms of energy. It is also very important that these new enterprises not be the playthings of super rich, leaving out those who have worked and died and suffered accidents and lung diseases to provide this country with energy for so many years. Rank and file miners should be meaningfully included in every stage of developing, building and running these new technologies.
Anything less - ignoring the environment or ignoring the miners or claiming that coal can be clean - is pandering.
The generic problem with all high tech high energy carve up the earth solutions, uranium, coal, and oil from tar sands, is they do not encourage or enable a fast enough shut down carbon based civilization to make a significant difference to increasing growth rate of atmospheric CO2 and methane.
All these solutions increase or prolong the duration and intensity of this high energy civilization, or should I say, high on energy mindset, trying to support the science fictional aspirations of hungry billions. The longer the delusions are kept up with greater effort and complexity, the more sudden and complete will be the final collapse and Gaia's revenge. Surrender the high life while you still can.
"The only excuse I can imagine for burning the damn DIRTY stuff would be to serve as starter energy for a photovoltaic industry." chlorocardium, thank you
I wrote my Master's Thesis about the potential of wind power in Sweden (if Sweden gets its act together, 50% of their energy can be provided by wind, while the other 50% is already hydro). I must say that oil and coal have given us the building blocks to develop energy sources which keep on giving (Wind, Solar). Our parents generation used the fuel to build up a new world, where things like flying were possible, unfortunately, we have come to find that it is dirty and therefore, our generation's greatest challenge is to clean up what our parents created.
Heavy taxes on fossil fuels contribute to Sweden's ability to find alternatives, because when gas is 8 dollars a gallon, the level has been more than reached to give incentive to find other and better uses for petroleum than burning it.
We need to use our gifts which are still viable to build up the massive infrastructure that is needed to provide us with ongoing energy in the future. I do wish that the 3 trillion dollars George W. Bush has wasted (Stiglitz, p. 1) on keeping the production of oil in control and low in Iraq (see Palast p.121 (promoted through sacrifice from don't tase me bro)), would have been used to build up the infrastructure that is needed in order to keep us running at our current energy levels.
I cannot say it better than startthestop, "The problem the politicians have with these forms of power is that they are decentralized and thus would empower the people to no longer have to rely on these clowns and their monopolized grids to "govern" and to "provide energy" for us."
I wrote my thesis for the energy company here in Sweden, though I regret not having written my original thesis which was to be a study about the viability of decentralized, individualized wind energy creation. Point is, we can allow the power companies to create their great wind turbines, and when they have developed the technologies, we can convert that into simple individualized energy solutions. According to my findings, Wind energy has long term marginal costs of 9.1 cents per kWh (cost of building one more turbine), well within what people are willing to pay for electricity these days. This is a conservative figure using 30% effectivity. Wind energy is unpredictable and therefore, it would need to be balanced out by sources such as hydropower, and unfortunately even coal for now, but we should be trying to get away from this.
I will be coming back to the States soon, been in exile for ten years, decided to stay away when I saw what happened in Florida.
Jean jean made a machine
Joe joe made it go
Shell shell sent it straight to ...
Bush bush said what's the rush
Then Jean said, The original machine I made was clean, stop being tyrants and work with us. I wish the wealthy would realize that the wealth of others in no way takes away from the wealth of the individual, in fact, it enhances it.
BRING ON THE ELECTRIC CARS, DECENTRALIZE THE WORLD.
There are a lot of Americans who will fall for the "jobs, jobs, jobs" mantra. Probably the same ones who fall for the "freedom, freedom, freedom" one. I always laugh at the talking heads on the local news who push one or the other for the ruling class agenda. But it's not really funny.
Clean coal used to mean low sulfur. Then they developed a way of pre-washing it to remove some of the mercury. Now they want to burn the coal and pipe the carbon dioxide hundreds of miles and pump it under the ground. You can't make this shit up! This, in the crazy capitalist society we live in, is considered viable. Conserving and using alternative energy is called unrealistic!
Yes, coal miners do support opening more coal mines. This is because, thanks to my grandpa and other UMW activists, union coal mining is a well paid job with good benefits. The thing is, the mines that are opening now need many fewer workers and they are NON-UNION. They get unemployed UMW people to support the mine opening and then they don't hire them as union workers. But coal miners don't usually like the job itself. I'm guessing that they would prefer jobs making solar panels, or putting in geothermal more, if the pay was the same.
250 years of coal is nothing compared to billions more years of solar energy.
The people of West Virginia know that coal mining is not clean, and I don't know anyone who seriously believes that coal burning can be made clean. But I wouldn't worry too much about the candidates' pandering to coal-state voters and coal interests. The real energy policy will be formulated after the election.
The oil companies have been in controll of our foriegn policy since the 1900's. Standard oil destroyed Henry Ford's car's that was designed to run on alcohol and ethonal. They bought up all of the distilleries to destroy industrial production of alcohol while the Robber Barrons use their corrupt politicians to jack up the taxes on industrial production of alcohol. Standard oil bought out the sugar kane fields in Cuba to destroy America right to alternative fuel. Alternative fuel was a wonderfull first born child of the mother of energy that was murdered in the womb by the Rockefellers,DuPonts, and Andrew Mellon and by the modern day Robber Barrons President Bush and his crime family
What is shocking to me is that the science gets more and more dire everyday, and yet we continue to have conversations as if burning coal in any form whatsoever is anything less than a death sentence for the planet - which is exactly what it is, and our civilization will go along with it.
More energy hits the planet every hour in the form of sunlight than we burn every year in fossil fuel. That's what we should all be screaming about, along with wind and other forms of truly renewable energy. That's what we need to convert to, now.
Gordon Clark
www.clarkforcongress.net
Clean Coal. Bull. I.e. a load. Of CO2. A S***load of CO2. Who really thinks that much exhaust can be kept under the ground indefinitely? Really? Uh Huh.... The only excuse I can imagine for burning the damn DIRTY stuff would be to serve as starter energy for a photovoltaic industry.
igmoarnt fucks, shoot them now
all the same, only engineers should rule
and........................
only HEMP is the answer for the American FARMER,
duh gringos, how do you eat?, idiots
food, come from.................farmers, duh?
'sheeples' abound
you are what you eat, except where here all can go to burger king at 3 pm and get drive thru
pitiful
"I also love the political message from 'iammyself' that we should all just accept lying and pandering politicians."
Fine, Samson, don't accept it. You'd better be prepared to sit out the next election, and the next, and the next, and...
Or, you could try this: Vote for the pandering politician who most seems to represent your beliefs and values, then work YOUR ass off to create the changes you want to see.
"What do you call 'the right bacon'? Are you saying if your local congresscritter 'brings home' a new coal-fired power plant and puts it right next to your house that you'll lead a celebration for it?"
No (chill a little, will ya?). I'm saying that if, say, Obama is elected despite his pandering (which all candidates do - shockingly!), and he is able to mobilize the People and Congress to do some of the things we progressives have been screaming for, we will forget the pandering. Well, maybe the less than perfect amongst us will...
I also love the political message from 'iammyself' that we should all just accept lying and pandering politicians. This is the myth that the people who buy off the politicians want you to accept. They want you to accept that your representative government doesn't represent you. They instead want you to treat as absolutely normal that your 'representatives' are bought off by corporate interests. They put out myths like the one's in the post above that act like no one should be surprised by this.
Here's what you should really be looking for in who gets your vote.
1) A commitment to represent ordinary people, not corporations.
2) Long-term consistency in that, and a proven track record of ACTIONS (not words, but verifiable ACTIONS) that they do this.
3) A candidate that panders should be shunned. They just told you that they are a liar and can't be trusted. If they change their message to suit their audience, or to suit a big contributor, then they've just told you that they are a liar with no character. That means you should never choose them as YOUR representative.
When you find these people, its kinda like good art ... you'll know it when you see it. And one big hint is that you'll almost never find them on the TV set. A good rule of thumb is that the candidate on the TV set is going to represent the money that got him\her on TV in the first place. Anything they say to try to get your support is almost always a lie.
The people I've heard from in WV and KY absolutely HATE mountain-top removal methods of mining. They've been the ones organizing against this for years and trying to get it stopped. If the rest of us are aware of it nowadays, its mostly because of all the work these people have been doing in trying to save their part of the planet.
"I can guarantee you that if the right candidate wins and brings home the right bacon, we'll be damn glad they pandered."
What do you call 'the right bacon'? Are you saying if your local congresscritter 'brings home' a new coal-fired power plant and puts it right next to your house that you'll lead a celebration for it? Or, if the wonders of 'mountain-top removal' comes to a hill near your house that you'll cheer it on?
The only people who'd be glad about this 'pandering' would be the stockholders in the coal companies. How much coal company stock do you own? Everyone else gets screwed by this deal. Everyone else gets stuck with energy that isn't clean, but for which we'll be charged a premium price because its billed as 'clean'. The only winners are the stockholders in the coal companies.
About 10 seconds on Google found this website of what people in the Appalachians think about mountaintop removal mining. Check out the "My Connections" portion of the site for what looks like lots of other groups in the region also organizing against this.
http://www.ilovemountains.org/
What!? Political candidates pandering? I'm shocked, I tell you - shocked!
I can guarantee you that if the right candidate wins and brings home the right bacon, we'll be damn glad they pandered. Shocking, isn't it?
If you want to best value for the society then you have to embrace the most efficient modes of production that deliver the most outputs for the least inputs. "Clean coal" is about as poor value as it gets. A ridiculous amount of high-energy processing is required to remove the various pollutants, requiring huge amounts of chemical inputs. These chemical inputs have their own heinous costs as we can all guess. And guess where all the "clean coal" waste products go? Your guess is as good as theirs.
When progressives talk about "full costs in retail prices" we mean systematically adding up the full costs in each alternative mode of production and putting that sum in the retail price so the consumer can make a choice between competing modes of production that minimizes the social and environmental costs of each mode. In this scenario, "clean coal" would be shown to be far too expensive compared to renewable energy modes and everyone would be satisfied that another terrible idea is put to rest.
Not only is coal ridiculously expensive to "make clean" but there are also the mining costs that our "fine Demoks" plan to push off on Appalachians. Not to mention the mass dependence of Americans on small groups of greed-stricken capitalists for both employment and energy. The social cost of this one is "priceless".
The capitalists are not interested in finding the most efficient mode of production that would deliver best value, the greatest benefit to the society at the least expense. The capitalists choose the production that 1.) keeps them in control of the commodities (energy, food, etc), 2.) maximizes economic activity (yes even if it means wasting gargantuan amounts of resources), and 3.) keeps the people working stupid jobs and addicted to capitalist-controlled commodities to help keep them dumbed down, obedient, and eternally grateful for "capitalism".
We throw off the chains of capitalist control by "voting third party progressive" in the economic and civic spheres, in the elections and in all of our individual exchange/association. The rewards are 15 hour work weeks, self-determination, healthy environment, bodies and minds. The correct choice is obvious.
How do those folks in coal mining towns love the mountain top removal? The landslides of mud pouring into the once fish-populated rivers? The loss of tourism revenue due to such environmental destruction?
Coal....clean??? alternative energy?????? Yeah, and Democrats are the party of the "people"! R I G H T !!!!
VOTENADER.ORG
startthestop: great post. So true, the powers-that-be have always manipulated our power resources, to maintain control... The scientist Nikola Tesla (1856-1943) had the technology over 100 years ago for (non-toxic) "free energy", but the "robber barons" of his era discredited/blacklisted him, and so he didn't have the funding to realize his dream for humanity. That 100 years since has been really sh!tty for the planet and its inhabitants.
There are scientists today facing the exact same hindrance as Tesla: lack of funds, thanks to the greedy corporate monsters in control and their collective refusal to help fund meaningful sustainable technologies research. Truly, the ones that DO fund the research stand to make a lot of money, but they want to make ALL the money.
It's not that we don't yet have the answers- the answers are there, many have been around for decades, but no matter how brilliant the technology, it will be thwarted.
It really does seem, more and more, that the only way the rest of us can get the Save-the-Earth message across is by distancing ourselves (as painful a transition as this may feel- at first), from this well-oiled machine controlling our world. As suggested in an above post, we may very well have to try to convice ourselves and others, that all this STUFF we think we need is just so much STUFF, and is this STUFF worth dying for, or worth depriving our descendants any kind of future. For me, it is easier to imagine my grandkids living simply, and more compatibly with nature (with less worthless STUFF), rather than in the destroyed future that awaits them, if one exists at all.
Politicians must be whores. Direct democracy, no politicians.
No such thing as 'Clean Coal'
It's bad for the environment, bad for the scenery, bad for those that live around the mines and mountain top removal sites.
The only thing that it's good for is greedy corporate fat pigs.
I remember a movie "The Arrangement" with Kirk Douglas, Deborah Kerr, and Faye Dunnaway.
An advertising wizard was given the task of reassuring smokers that they need not worry about cancer. He did. The copy went something like "Zypher, the clean one. Your time to live. Live your time to the fullest with Zypher, the clean one."
Ever notice how much the Bush social programs sound like advertising copy? "Clean skies" "No child left behind" "Social Security reform"
Iraq, Viet Nam: I would be willing to hear the truth about myself if I never had to hear another lie.
TheLorax: I think the whole 'Clean Coal' thing is another one of the laughably ironic misnomers brought to us by the same crowd that calls clear cutting the forest down as the 'Healthy Forests Act'--forest fires and diseased dying trees? No problem, cut them all down and problem solved! You are correct that until the mining issues are resolved, coal is never going to be 'clean' no matter how much they do to it.
As has been noted above, even if they do develop 'clean coal' technologies that are viable and affordable, the environmental destruction attendant to the mining of it--i.e., mountain top removal is unsustainable and a gross insult to the Earth, the environment and the people that have to live nearby.
Coal isn't clean. Neither is natural gas. They play on the word 'clean' to try to sway your opinion. It's far from that. It's polluting our air and destroying our environment.
Clean is renewable. They go together. Geothermal, solar, wind, hydroelectric, etc. THESE are 'clean' energy sources. They are just as easy to exploit as non-renewables too. Strip mining and ripping the guts out of the Earth to burn them up is a terrible waste.
Clean. Not even close.
I'd be even sorrier if the People in these states actually fall for this.
Do they WANT to work in coal mines?
Man, If I lived in West Virginia I'd be demanding the mines and "mountaintop extractors" be shut down so they'd stop ruining the beuatiful natural landscape.
I'd be voting for Prez'es who would support industries that work with the land and improve it, not destroy it. I'd be voting for Prez'es who would support legislation that would create jobs that are fulfilling to our Human needs (even if it is mining), not destructive to our Spirit.
-matti.
I am sorry to see the Democratic candidates fall for this. Perhaps they deserve the benefit of the doubt when they say that they support "clean" coal, which is not yet a reality, but may be someday become one. So, until that day, we should not move in the direction of coal-based energy.
Funny that Reuters leaves out two crucial facts about coal:
1)modern coal extraction, enhanced through a Clean Water Act "loophole" engineered by the Bush Junta/Government, removes entire mountaintops (at least 250 so far,) and has destroyed 1,000 MILES of rivers, leaving pollutants that will wash into American and world waters disastrously through the end of time, pollutants the coal industry has not even begun to tally. See the website ILOVE MOUNTAINS.ORG and the film Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining from Micahael O'Connell for the whole story and please please get involved!
2) There are alternatives to coal that are less costly, including using sugarcane and mixed in food crops as part of the ethanol solution (which big oil is demonizing by purposely driving up the food prices through economic machinations,) geothermal, compressed oxygen and solar.
The problem the politicians have with these forms of power is that they are decentralized and thus would empower the people to no longer have to rely on these clowns and their monopolized grids to "govern" and to "provide energy" for us.
I call them clowns because they are destroying nature and future generations when it is not even necessary. I call them clowns because DC is the murder capital of the world and Congress cannot even manage violence in their own community. Why should we let them have any say about how we manage our communities?
Politicians are all bought. Laws are ignored, negotiated away in "settlements and agreements" where government delays the prosecution" of their "corporate friends" until either the people forget and/or the money they might have been fined is hidden or simply spent.
This DC government is a sham and needs its privileges revoked per James Madison:
The two vital characteristics of the political system of the United States are, first, that the Government holds its powers by a charter granted to it by the people; second, that the powers of government are formed in two grand divisions — one vested in a Government over the whole community, the other in a number of independent Governments over its component parts. Hitherto charters have been written grants of privileges by Governments to the people. Here they are written grants of power by the people to their Governments.
Supplement to the letter of November 27, 1830, to A. Stevenson (Madison, 1865, IV, pages 138-139)
People who care about ecology and mountains and quality of life and justice and a beautiful future for themselves and their planet should stop using electricity Friday nights through Saturday nights and Wednesday nights through Thursday nights and at other times enough to show the "energy companies" that we don't need the 50% of energy they use coal for. Start the boycott! See StarttheStop.org, coming in June, and let's get this party started, because it's time to save our lives and our planet and that means communicating with the corporations through the only languages they understand: money!
You will enjoy taking these two days off and it will renew your soul, and refresh your mind. In the meantime, ready up on Geoffrey Lawton and the Permaculture Institute of Australia, the Northeast Permaculture Association or your local permaculturists, read up on your biome, Rudolf Steiner's Threefold Economics from Gary Lamb, and start a couple colonies of red wiggler worms and honeybees for good measure, cool stuff to do with the kids when you're not watching movies or the computer. We CAN save our planet, once we get the "governments/corporations" out of the way. We have every right to. Little by little. We have to speak their language, however, and begin to disengage from the shellgame of politics, war and media which only distract us from the basics: love thy neighbor and get off the grid/dle pan!
For peace, social and economic justice, and human rights. www.carolmillercongress.com
Yeah, and McCane is worried about Global Warming, as he spoke in Oregon yesteday, a "green conscious" state.
Uh huh
Its called pandering.
First, this is called pandering. Its exactly the same thing as going to Iowa and announcing your support for Ethanol. If you like character in your candidates, you should be disappointed to see this.
Second, follow the money. www.opensecrets.org shows that coal industry contributions to Democrats has more than tripled since the 2004 election cycle. As always, the Democrats do anything for money.
The key point is that they don't give a damn if the coal is clean or not. It sounds good, it might get them some votes in WV, and it makes the people with the money happy. So, all sorts of bs about clean coal is going to come pouring out of their mouths.
Jobs for coal miners! But how about a shift over to new kinds of jobs researching (yes, coal miners and their children have brains - despite Tennessee Ernie Ford's song) building and maintaining wind, solar, and other forms of clean power.
Kentucky, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio and places in the west need to have education targeted to bringing the next generation of miners into the clean power industry. And there had better be an clean power industry set up to employ them. This could be an exciting time, if the will and backbone to stand up to oil, coal and corn interests is there on the government level.