John Edwards' bid for union support seems to finally be paying off for him -- yesterday, his campaign won the support of the steelworkers and mine workers unions. Which raises an important question: To what extent is Edwards' support for mine workers (and their support for him) incompatible with his climate-change platform? Edwards was the first of the Democratic hopefuls to put forth an ambitious climate-change plan (perhaps inspiring slightly more ambitious offerings from Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson), and he remains the only one of the three leading contenders to have made addressing climate change a priority -- we've heard standard platitudes from Hillary Clinton, and a series of confused and incrementalist proposals from Barack Obama.
So I asked the Edwards campaign if supporting coal miners is at odds with supporting the human race (of which coal is an enemy, as we at Grist are fond of reiterating). They sent me the following statement:
John Edwards is gratified by the support he has received by mineworkers, who have helped give him the largest bloc of union support -- combined, more than 1.8 million members and retirees -- among any of the presidential candidates so far.
John Edwards remains committed to his ambitious goal of ending global warming by reducing greenhouse gas pollution by 80 percent by 2050. The reality is that coal is going to be an important source of American energy for decades to come, and we need to find a way to use it without heating the planet. He has called for a moratorium on new coal plants unless they are compatible with efforts to capture and permanently store their emissions underground. He has also proposed a historic, $1 billion a year effort to develop and implement feasible technology to do this as quickly as possible.
This is, I suppose, significantly better than Obama's plan to subsidize both sequestration and liquid coal research and Clinton's generally coal-friendly history in the Senate. But it's also a fascinating move by the miners themselves. It's possible to read this any number of ways. Perhaps they've accepted the fact that coal is a dangerous old dinosaur, and have thrown in their lot with the most generally labor-friendly of the front-runners (unlikely). Or perhaps they believe their industry has become so indissoluble from the American political system that even the most environmentally friendly politician in the top tier won't be able to change things. If that's the case, then it makes sense for them to posture a bit (more likely). Whatever the case, it's worth noting that a union comprised largely of mine workers has endorsed a candidate who's called for a moratorium on the construction of new coal plants.
Another coal plant bites the dust
Blowing up our clean energy future
Comments
View as Flat
David Roberts Posted 8:51 am
04 Sep 2007
Translation: IGCC plants, where the CO2 is separated and (theoretically) easier to capture.
This is very, very different from a moratorium on coal plants without actual sequestration. It's going to be no help at all to the climate if we get a bunch of IGCC plants across the country and then have to wait 10-15 more years for scalable sequestration.
grist.org
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 9:36 am
04 Sep 2007
I can see why you say that, but I disagree. Practically speaking, mandating only the construction of IGCC coal plants means that new coal will be MUCH more efficient, so fewer will need to be built, and much more expensive, and thus probably more costly than wind. It would mean an end to the old-style cheap-and-super-dirty plants, which is what has allowed coal to enjoy such an enormous capital cost advantage for so long.
Is it everything we want? Of course not. Is enough? Probably not. But is it something? Oh, very much yes.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 9:40 am
04 Sep 2007
Or, translated to normal human being language, he's making it sound like he won't allow any more coal plants that cause global warming. But that's not what he's really saying at all.
grist.org
Permalink
okamichan13 Posted 1:42 pm
04 Sep 2007
See the more detailed press release from a while back:
http://www.johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20070326-cleane ...
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 2:42 pm
04 Sep 2007
The "required technology to capture their CO2 emissions" so they can "store their carbon emissions tomorrow"?
Still sounds like IGCC and a wish and a prayer for CCS to me.
grist.org
Permalink
jeffgoodell Posted 2:20 am
05 Sep 2007
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 3:12 am
05 Sep 2007
Yeah, well, being slippery is what he does. He's a politician, after all.
OTOH, if you believe that his real position is to mandate IGCC, then you could turn this around: he's winning the support of the miner's union based on supporting the continued use of coal, but he's attaching a condition that would make it economically unattractive to do so, but that subtlety is probably lost on the average union worker.
On the gripping hand, Jeff Goodell is right: there are ways, at least in theory, to capture carbon from old-style plants. So it's important to clarify exactly what Edwards is talking about here. If he means IGCC + hypothetical future carbon capture, that's at least something. If he means purely theoretical future carbon capture from any old coal plant, then he's really saying nothing at all, and is just painting green over an old black heart.
Permalink
okamichan13 Posted 11:05 am
06 Sep 2007
http://www.umwa.org/pressreleases/sep07/090307.shtml
note the paragraph related to climate change
seems to be the beginnings at least of a workable coalition here if its done right. And note that the press release is also focused on saftey and how the industry has been regulated. And Edwards yesterday released a plan on mine safety:
http://www.johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20070905-mine-s ...
Its important to keep in mind that the coal industry isn't monolithic - unions and mining executives aren't going to be on the same side on a lot of these issues. And it seems very doubtful Edwards is going to get much support at all from the corporations themselves especially with his outright rejection of liquid coal subsidies. To me that's a good thing and indicitive of where Edwards is going with this. Seems like he's getting ready for a big fight if can win.
So his language regarding CCS might be a bit slippery, but keep in mind he isn't saying things that most coal enthusiasts are going to be too thrilled with. In fact just the opposite on a broad range of issues.
Permalink
mihan Posted 11:38 pm
06 Sep 2007
Permalink
ldasteelworker Posted 9:01 am
07 Sep 2007
There is a lot of educating necessary on this and other environmental topics concerning both the public and labor.
Which is why I continue to despise the perpetuation of the industry's Jobs vs. Environment myth in the media without any facts to support their claims/threats nor any countervailing evidence ever being presented to "balance" the stories...
See Also:
The Blue/Green Alliance
( http://www.usw.org/usw/program/content/2650.php )
What is the Blue/Green Alliance?
( http://www.usw.org/usw/program/content/3589.php )
The 11th Hour - documentary
( http://www.usw.org/usw/program/content/4151.php )
Permalink
okamichan13 Posted 6:19 am
09 Sep 2007
Permalink
stopwar Posted 3:57 pm
13 Sep 2007
I don't understand how IGCC works, or doesn't, or hasn't been proven to, but it seems that if coal (and the UMW)have a future it has to be through some new technology. So why not support the candidate who is most strongly calling for that, especially if that candidate is also strongly pro-labor?
(From my perspective, I worry less about the candidates who are hoping that IGCC works, or at least works better, than I do about those who are willing to build new nuclear plants and hope "American ingenuity" comes up with a way to deal with the waste.)
Permalink