[Politics] Ending 'War on Coal' Unlikely to Bring Jobs

[Never]

In May, President-elect Donald Trump stood on the stage at the Charleston Civic Center in West Virginia, put on a miners helmet and pretended to shovel coal.

“If I win we’re going to bring those miners back,” Trump said at the rally. “…These ridiculous rules and regulations that make it impossible for you to compete … we’re going to take that all off the table, folks.”

With Trump’s election and Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress, many in Kentucky are now waiting to cash in on the Republican promise of more coal jobs.

U.S. Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, though, wasn’t making any promises Friday.

Source

Unsurprisingly, politicians swear they'll help blue collar workers who are watching their livelihood vanish, and then promptly walk back on their promises the day after election. McConnell has gone on and on about how the loss of coal jobs is due to Obama's environmental policies, but now that Trump is elected, it's because natural gas is so cheap and abundant.

Meanwhile, there will be no effort to help struggling communities or stimulate new jobs, and Kentucky's educational system remains in shambles because the next generation can - I don't know - work at Wal-mart?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It was a war on all energy. But this particular bit of argument is fallacious by the lie of omission.

That coal would go to China which invalidates the premise that it would create no US jobs because of natural gas. China still has a coal economy and needs copious amounts of and will continue to do so for many years into the future.

 

[underguy1]

It was a war on all energy. But this particular bit of argument is fallacious by the lie of omission.

That coal would go to China which invalidates the premise that it would create no US jobs because of natural gas. China still has a coal economy and needs copious amounts of and will continue to do so for many years into the future.

Kentucky coal would go to China eh?

Tee hee.

 

[Conager]

Kentucky coal would go to China eh?

Tee hee.

Ships are a thing, now. It's how the Chinese get the coal from their own us mining interests over to China. Remarkable, I know.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It already does dumbass...


And many, many other countries. We are a net exporter.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

To be fair, he's probably never equated the Ohio as leading to the Mississippi leading to the Gulf; they might not teach American geography or the history of the barge down where he lives...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/12/Donna_York.jpg/316px-Donna_York.jpg

A barge hauls coal in the Louisville and Portland Canal,
the only artificial portion of the Ohio River.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Hey underwear guy, which state is Louisville in?

 

[phrodeau]

The less coal gets burned, the less climate change will occur, and the better off Kentuckians will be.

 

[underguy1]

Ships are a thing, now. It's how the Chinese get the coal from their own us mining interests over to China. Remarkable, I know.

Yes that's how Australia gets its much cheaper to mine coal to China without having to ship via the Panama canal.

 

[Wrong Element]

Shockingly, electing a Republican president hasn't done a single thing to make coal more economically viable. Imagine that.

 

[neci]

barges and barges and barges of coal. one huge train with hundreds of cars. one plant half a day. where is coal dick sucker trysail to get the correct numbers. how many train cars full of coal does it take to run a crude oil processing plant along the gulf for one day? oil brought in via the bodies of dead native americans.

http://www.api.org/~/media/Oil-and-Natural-Gas-images/Pipelines/2014-Pipeline-Maps/Liquid-Pipelines-map-530.jpg?h=382&w=530

they want new pipelines when these are already in existence and failing us. yes it is safer than transportation, although i would argue environmentally over ground leaks are easier to contain and less damaging than leaks into the ground.

sorry. tangent from hand.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

We can ship from San Fransisco if we want to avoid the canal. Coal moves west on rail and south on river. Where it goes is fungible, i.e., Kentucky coal may not go directly to China, it may be going to Amsterdam or South America, but that frees up western coal to go to Asia...


I thought you said you were an economist.


Do you know nothing of America?

 

[underguy1]

We can ship from San Fransisco if we want to avoid the canal. Coal moves west on rail and south on river. Where it goes is fungible, i.e., Kentucky coal may not go directly to China, it may be going to Amsterdam or South America, but that frees up western coal to go to Asia...


I thought you said you were an economist.


Do you know nothing of America?

Really?

You do realise that the world supply of coal is way beyond what the world demand is likely to be don't you?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

That is why it should be burned...



... and will be burned because it remains cheap. You sure you know economics?

 

[underguy1]

That is why it should be burned...



... and will be burned because it remains cheap. You sure you know economics?

Your comment looks as fungible as a used condom in a car park.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

That's the sort of reply we expect from someone who supports Fascism to deliver 2% unemployment and full-time jobs for everyone who simply desires one.


Is fungible yet another word you do not understand?

 

[Never]

It was a war on all energy. But this particular bit of argument is fallacious by the lie of omission.

That coal would go to China which invalidates the premise that it would create no US jobs because of natural gas. China still has a coal economy and needs copious amounts of and will continue to do so for many years into the future.

The 'War on Coal' narrative is that the lack of demand for coal is because too stringent environmental regulations prevent use of coal for power in the USA. Those regulations have nothing to do with selling coal to China, so removing them isn't going to create jobs.

China's demand for coal may increase in the future. That isn't going to help people in Kentucky and Virginia who are seeing a steady loss of jobs right now.

Trump and McConnel both told coal workers that they were going to help them economically. They need to do something.

The less coal gets burned, the less climate change will occur, and the better off Kentuckians will be.

Clean air is awesome. Having a job is also awesome.

Living in an area where everyone is losing their job, where there are few to no alternative prospects, no social net, and no re-education services is far from awesome. And Kentucky has some of the poorest areas in America. 'I'll just move to someplace with work' isn't an option for a lot of people.

 

[Conager]

Yes that's how Australia gets its much cheaper to mine coal to China without having to ship via the Panama canal.

That's nice for Australian miners that means that they're going to have a higher profit margins. Something that you abhor, of course. But coal still has value and if you can get it out of the ground and on a ship to China and still turn a profit...you still turned a profit.

In Arizona is about the 5th largest Copper mine in the world. The copper ore that they dig out of the ground on average is .01% copper. Their richest deposit, now gone, was only 1% copper. It's really low grade stuff. They are using expensive equipment and expensive American labor. In Africa, the same company-owns a huge mine that averaged 4% copper. They operate both mines. The African Mine turning an even bigger profit doesn't mean that the mine in Arizona is not profitable. Because- math, and cost accounting.

As far as the OP:

Not using bogus science to shut down relatively clean-burning coal-fired power plants in the USA will in fact help them even more but it is a fact that they can economically get coal to China.

The coal that we do not burn efficiently will be burned inefficiently in China and we breathe the same air China does. Cutting our own throat economically to the benefit of China is economic suicide. We have available a resource for abundant inexpensive energy. Inexpensive energy is the key to being an economic powerhouse.

the Obama administration's all of the above energy policy just like the Affordable Care Act was a misnomer. And on purpose. What it really was was a policy of how can we make all forms of energy more expensive so that people will use less.

If we send all of our manufacturing out of the United States we will definitely use less energy. Doesn't have any effect whatsoever on the amount of energy used worldwide and in fact it increases it because you have to use energy to bring the goods back to the United States.

 

[underguy1]

That's nice for Australian miners that means that they're going to have a higher profit margins. Something that you abhor, of course. But coal still has value and if you can get it out of the ground and on a ship to China and still turn a profit...you still turned a profit.

In Arizona is about the 5th largest Copper mine in the world. The copper ore that they dig out of the ground on average is .01% copper. Their richest deposit, now gone, was only 1% copper. It's really low grade stuff. They are using expensive equipment and expensive American labor. In Africa, the same company-owns a huge mine that averaged 4% copper. They operate both mines. The African Mine turning an even bigger profit doesn't mean that the mine in Arizona is not profitable. Because- math, and cost accounting.

As far as the OP:

Not using bogus science to shut down relatively clean-burning coal-fired power plants in the USA will in fact help them even more but it is a fact that they can economically get coal to China.

The coal that we do not burn efficiently will be burned inefficiently in China and we breathe the same air China does. Cutting our own throat economically to the benefit of China is economic suicide. We have available a resource for abundant inexpensive energy. Inexpensive energy is the key to being an economic powerhouse.

the Obama administration's all of the above energy policy just like the Affordable Care Act was a misnomer. And on purpose. What it really was was a policy of how can we make all forms of energy more expensive so that people will use less.

If we send all of our manufacturing out of the United States we will definitely use less energy. Doesn't have any effect whatsoever on the amount of energy used worldwide and in fact it increases it because you have to use energy to bring the goods back to the United States.

That's just another crazy rant that makes no sense.

 

[Conager]

That's just another crazy rant that makes no sense.

Just another brilliant refudiation on your part.

You're basically just Hashpipe with a better accent. You just feel important when you're involved in some form of argument even when you have no argument to advance.

 

[underguy1]

Just another brilliant refudiation on your part.

You're basically just Hashpipe with a better accent. You just feel important when you're involved in some form of argument even when you have no argument to advance.

If you want people to think you make sense, you have to make sense.

You can't do that.

 

[Conager]

If you want people to think you make sense, you have to make sense.

You can't do that.

Perhaps you should consider leading by example.

 

[ishtat]

China is by far the worlds largest producer of coal from its own resources. It also buys metallurgical (coking) coal for steel making from Indonesia and Australia.

The cost to transport steaming (power station) coal from their mines in Northern China is actually greater than it is from Australia or Indonesia, largely because the major rivers in China flow east west and the coal has to travel overland across old bridges from the Northern mines to industry in South China. China produces 50% of world annual production, all for its own use.

Indonesia and Australia are the worlds largest exporters of coal with about 53% of the export market between them. US has about 8%

North American coal like most Northern hemisphere coal has a significant Sulpher content which is absent in Southern hemisphere coal. It is thus easier to use and 'clean' the Southern product, obtained from Indonesia, Australia, India and South Africa.

There is not much chance of major US coal exports without raising selective tarriffs against the existing major exporters.

Coal mining doesn't create many jobs - it is capital rather than labour intensive.

Upsetting the current export market would be politically tricky. Indonesia is the largest exporter, the largest Muslim nation by far, and is a strong US ally. Breaking into that market might have unforeseen repercussions.

 

[juttjaw]

Wind is now powering a huge portion of the Midwest. Coal has been reduced to the supporting act for these massive wind farms. A power plant that burned a train load of coal a day (roughly 18,000 tons) 8 years ago, is now using that much in a week. This might not be the case on the coast or southern states, but I do know the once thriving coal industry has been chopped Bigly. It's not that it's needed and just not getting shipped, it's the demand is dwindling, and the demand isn't going back up.