Showing posts with label Conservative voices. Show all posts

Robert Byrd, U.S. Senator from West Virginia: Coal Must Embrace The Future

Coal Must Embrace The Future

by U.S. Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Metro News of West Virginia, December 3, 2009

The following text is an opinion piece U.S. Senator Robert Byrd issued on Thursday.  It appears below in its entirety.



For more than 100 years, coal has been the backbone of the Appalachian economy. Even today, the economies of more than 20 states depend to some degree on the mining of coal. About half of all the electricity generated in America and about one quarter of all the energy consumed globally is generated by coal.

Change is no stranger to the coal industry.  Think of the huge changes which came with the onset of the Machine Age in the late 1800s.  Mechanization has increased coal production and revenues, but also has eliminated jobs, hurting the economies of coal communities. In 1979, there were 62,500 coal miners in the Mountain State. Today there are about 22,000. In recent years, West Virginia has seen record high coal production and record low coal employment.

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.

Let’s speak the truth. The most important factor in maintaining coal-related jobs is demand for coal. Scapegoating and stoking fear among workers over the permitting process is counter-productive.

Coal companies want a large stockpile of permits in their back pockets because that implies stability to potential investors. But when coal industry representatives stir up public anger toward federal regulatory agencies, it can damage the state’s ability to work with those agencies to West Virginia’s benefit. This, in turn, may create the perception of ineffectiveness within the industry, which can drive potential investors away.

Let’s speak a little more truth here. No deliberate effort to do away with the coal industry could ever succeed in Washington because there is no available alternative energy supply that could immediately supplant the use of coal for base load power generation in America. That is a stubborn fact that vexes some in the environmental community, but it is reality.

It is also a reality that the practice of mountaintop removal mining has a diminishing constituency in Washington. It is not a widespread method of mining, with its use confined to only three states.  Most members of Congress, like most Americans, oppose the practice, and we may not yet fully understand the effects of mountaintop removal mining on the health of our citizens. West Virginians may demonstrate anger toward the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over mountaintop removal mining, but we risk the very probable consequence of shouting ourselves out of any productive dialogue with EPA and our adversaries in the Congress.

Some have even suggested that coal state representatives in Washington should block any advancement of national health care reform legislation until the coal industry’s demands are met by the EPA. I believe that the notion of holding the health care of over 300 million Americans hostage in exchange for a handful of coal permits is beyond foolish; it is morally indefensible.  It is a non-starter, and puts the entire state of West Virginia and the coal industry in a terrible light.

To be part of any solution, one must first acknowledge a problem. To deny the mounting science of climate change is to stick our heads in the sand and say “deal me out.” West Virginia would be much smarter to stay at the table.

 The 20 coal-producing states together hold some powerful political cards. We can have a part in shaping energy policy, but we must be honest brokers if we have any prayer of influencing coal policy on looming issues important to the future of coal like hazardous air pollutants, climate change, and federal dollars for investments in clean coal technology.

Most people understand that America cannot meet its current energy needs without coal, but there is strong bi-partisan opposition in Congress to the mountaintop removal method of mining it. We have our work cut out for us in finding a prudent and profitable middle ground – but we will not reach it by using fear mongering, grandstanding and outrage as a strategy. As your United States Senator, I must represent the opinions and the best interests of the entire Mountain State, not just those of coal operators and southern coalfield residents who may be strident supporters of mountaintop removal mining.

I have spent the past six months working with a group of coal state Democrats in the Senate, led by West Virginia native Senator Tom Carper (D-Del.), drafting provisions to assist the coal industry in more easily transitioning to a lower-carbon economy. These include increasing funding for clean coal projects and easing emission standards and timelines, setting aside billions of dollars for coal plants that install new technology and continue using coal. These are among the achievable ways coal can continue its major role in our national energy portfolio. It is the best way to step up to the challenge and help lead change.

The truth is that some form of climate legislation will likely become public policy because most American voters want a healthier environment.  Major coal-fired power plants and coal operators operating in West Virginia have wisely already embraced this reality, and are making significant investments to prepare.

The future of coal and indeed of our total energy picture lies in change and innovation. In fact, the future of American industrial power and our economic ability to compete globally depends on our ability to advance energy technology.

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.

Fortunately, West Virginia has a running head-start as an innovator. Low-carbon and renewable energy projects are already under development in West Virginia, including:  America’s first integrated carbon capture and sequestration project on a conventional coal-fired power plant in Mason County; the largest wind power facility in the eastern United States; a bio-fuel refinery in Nitro; three large wood pellet plants in Fayette, Randolph, and Gilmer Counties; and major dams capable of generating substantial electricity.

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.


Link:  http://www.wvmetronews.com/index.cfm?func=displayfullstory&storyid=33928

James Murdoch: Clean energy conservatives can embrace

Clean energy conservatives can embrace


by James Murdoch, Washington Post, December 4, 2009

Conservatives champion the essential characteristics of America: liberty, enterprise and ingenuity. As world leaders consider how to transform the way we make and use energy in the face of a changing climate, it's time for an energy policy true to that spirit -- and it shouldn't be anathema to the American right.

Conservatives have a robust tradition of principled concern for the environment. It was, after all, Teddy Roosevelt who created five national parks and signed the Antiquities Act. It was Richard Nixon who established the Environmental Protection Agency, and George H.W. Bush who ushered in one of the greatest environmental success stories, the 1990 cap-and-trade plan to take on acid rain.

Today, Americans of all political persuasions want to see their country on a path toward an economy powered by energy that is clean, safe, secure and stable. With climate legislation pending and a binding global treaty being negotiated, conservative leadership is critical because the only way to get the job done is with broad bipartisan agreement.

How can they do it? By establishing a Red-Blue-Green agenda on whose principles conservatives, Democrats and independents can all agree. Which Americans would argue against energy that meets the following principles:

-- Freedom from national insecurity. The Western world's dependence on oil means transferring billions of dollars to nations whose interests are at odds with democratic ideals. This makes for geopolitical instability and forces the United States to compromise its role as a beacon of freedom just to secure traditional fuels.

-- A return to economic strength. Ultimately, the question is: Which countries will lead the world to a clean-energy future -- and reap the benefits? The United States is already falling behind. It has lost its dominance in solar manufacturing and ranks 22nd in energy efficiency. The Chinese market for clean tech is forecast to grow to as much as $1 trillion per year. America cannot afford to cede new markets and the jobs they create without even trying.

-- New employment, with lower long-term costs. Much of the U.S. debate focuses on the short-term costs associated with the transition to a clean-energy economy without considering its long-term benefits or calculating the costs of continuing business as usual. The wave of innovations around clean energy will not only create new industries and jobs but also allow businesses to have increasingly efficient -- and therefore more profitable -- operations.

-- Cleaner, healthier communities. Republicans once played a leading role in cleaning up our air and water, and conservatives of all stripes should champion that role again. The manufacturing booms that built cities such as Detroit and Cleveland left environmental degradation in their wake. Good climate legislation will bring jobs back to hard-hit areas, but this time factories will not pollute the groundwater or make the air unsafe to breathe.

-- Competition trumps regulation. A sensible clean-energy policy should free, rather than constrain, markets. Smart policy corrects market failures and provides certainty, stimulating investment in the technology and infrastructure necessary to build an economy based on clean energy. Washington must ensure that such investment will be rewarded. The government shouldn't "pick winners" -- it should unleash competition, ensuring that the cleanest businesses thrive and the dirtiest are held accountable. A well-crafted federal law to limit pollution is better than unfettered regulation by the EPA or ever-changing regulation by the states.

The seeds of these opportunities have already been planted. And companies that have taken the lead are prospering. At News Corporation, we have saved millions by becoming more energy-efficient, overhauling a range of systems from the production of such shows as "American Idol" and "24" to energy usage in our buildings around the world. This has yielded savings that help us invest more in talent and has inspired us to look for further opportunities to improve.

You do not need to believe that all climate science is settled or every prediction or model is perfect to understand the benefits of limiting pollution and transforming our energy policies -- as a gradually declining cap on carbon pollution would do. This is the moment to champion policies that yield new industries, healthy competition, cleaner air and water, freedom from petroleum politics and reduced costs for businesses.

Through market-based incentives we can achieve clean energy at the lowest cost and with the strongest incentives for innovation -- ensuring that the energy solution will help, not harm, the economy. Republicans such as Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) get this and are working across party lines to build support for new legislation. Previously conservation-minded conservatives are missing in the heated partisanship of today's politics. It's time they found their voice again.

The writer is chairman and chief executive, Europe and Asia, News Corporation.

Link:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/03/AR2009120303698.html