Save Our Pit
This past weekend I saw Billy Elliott, which was excellent but got me thinking about some of the challenges involved in energy policy. The story takes place against the backdrop of the British coal miners’ strike in response to the Thatcher government’s attempt to shut down many of the mines, and while there’s a certain ambiguity in the way the show presents some of the issues relating to the strike, it’s pretty clear that the miners are being presented as the “good guys” trying to save their jobs and their town’s economy, while the “scabs” and the police are the “bad guys.”
That’s all well and good in the context of the show and the story, but it does point to some of the potential difficulties in attempting to shift away from dependence on coal. This particular event was mostly about labor rather than environmental issues (the government certainly had no intention of phasing out the use of coal entirely), but any policy today that attempts to discourage the use of coal and encourage cleaner fuels would likely meet a similar reaction in coal-mining areas, which are still quite numerous in the US. This is why we’re not going to be seeing any West Virginia politicians supporting cap-and-trade or a carbon tax, for example. The politicians are often in the pocket of the coal companies, of course, but there’s no avoiding the fact that moving away from coal would be an economic disaster for the miners themselves, a much more sympathetic group to much of the public. The fact that the United Mine Workers is one of the most prominent and successful unions in the country adds another complicating factor. It’s just very unlikely that unionized coal miners laid off when their mines close are going to be able to find new jobs that are anywhere near as good.
The environmental movement in the US has increasingly been focusing on coal, which makes sense since in a lot of ways it’s awful stuff. Not only does it emit more carbon dioxide than any other fossil fuel, thus contributing heavily to global warming, it also has a bunch of serious local environmental effects that make it a pretty easy rallying point for people who might not be as inspired by the more abstract global threat of climate change. Coal companies are also so manifestly greedy and irresponsible that they make excellent villains in this drama. I think it’s really important to note, though, that while ending our reliance on coal is a very good idea overall it would inevitably cause a lot of very real economic pain to a lot of people who are poorly situated to deal with it. This isn’t a reason to give up on the anti-coal campaign, but I do think activists should acknowledge the reality of these concerns and come up with plausible ways to at least mitigate the damage. The extent to which more stringent environmental regulation would lead to economic damage has been wildly overblown, but that doesn’t mean there would be no damage at all. Not everything can be win-win for everyone.
