Coal Is Being Killed By Overregulation: That's a Myth

For a while now I have been listening to Republicans talking about how the coal industry is being devastated by government regulations that have been implemented - by evil liberals. They talk about bringing jobs back by reducing regulations. Unfortunately, people take political sound bites as the truth.  Since The Donald was making speeches about bringing back coal jobs, and he has his own version of reality, I decided to do some research.

Before starting my research, I was under the impression that the coal industry had been devastated, maybe producing a quarter or half as much as it once had. I knew that many coal jobs had been eliminated; I figured that some of it was due to productivity improvements, but that most of the jobs were lost because of coal being phased out. It turns out that I had been duped by conservative politicians, as many people still are.

At the height of coal mining employment there were about 800,000 coal miners.  That was in ….. 1920. Coal mining employment has decreased steadily since 1920 (except for the period from 1970-1980 when employment actually increased by 50%).  Currently there are about 66,000 coal miners. That means that coal mining employment has dropped by 92% since its height. The coal industry must be in far worse shape than I thought, so let’s take a look at the overall coal industry.

Coal production went down from 1920 until about 1940, which we would expect since employment went down during that period. From 1940 until 1950, coal production went up a bit, probably due to the war effort and subsequent rebuilding.  During that period, the coal mining employment … decreased.  In 1950 coal production resumed its slide. However, in 1960, as Americans started adopting consumer appliances and electronics, electric usage started climbing steeply. Coal is cheap, so as electric usage increased so did coal production. Coal usage kept increasing until 1970 when the Clean Air Act was passed. The Clean Air Act of 1970 is what initiated serious regulation of power plants, and, thus, coal.  Surely the Clean Air Act must have dealt the death blow to this industry that’s been devastated by regulations.  No. Production of coal in this industry that’s been devastated by regulations kept increasing through the ‘70s.  In fact, it kept increasing all the way until 2006.  If you’ll remember, 2006 was near the end of the Bush administration, which furiously cut regulations.

Several things have led to the decrease in coal production since 2006, primarily electric usage and natural gas.  Electric usage, which had been increasing ever since its introduction, has roughly leveled off. Furthermore, since 1988, utilities have been steadily increasing the use of natural gas to fuel power plants.  In fact, on November 14^th, the Wall Street Journal ran an article about how natural gas is displacing coal as the fuel of choice for power plants. In the article, Rebecca Smith says that power plant investors prefer natural gas over coal because natural gas plants can be built faster, cost less to operate, and are more efficient than coal plants.  Furthermore, shale gas has made copious quantities of inexpensive natural gas available well into the future. The truth is, only coal miners and coal companies want coal burning power plants.

For years, Republications have been telling coal miners that they’re losing jobs due to excessive regulation. That’s far from the truth. The number of coal miners was decreasing, even while coal production was increasing. What’s the actual reason that the number of coal miners has decreased 92% from its high in 1920? Pickaxes. In 1920, miners used pickaxes to mine coal, but modern coal miners use large, powerful equipment to mine coal. Esentially, as the need for coal increased, so did coal mining productivity. Modern coal miners produce 15 times as much coal as their counterparts did in 1920. It simply doesn’t take as many miners to mine coal as it used to. 

The Donald promises to add “millions” of jobs to the energy sector – including coal mining jobs. America currently has about 66,000 coal miners to produce all the coal it needs. If America added 66,000 coal miners, coal production would be doubled. We would have to build a large number of expensive, inefficient new coal plants - and billions of unneeded light bulbs to use up the extra electricity.

Note:

Most of the data from this post came from the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s Annual Energy Review: https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/showtext.php?t=ptb0702 and the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s Coal Data Browser: http://www.eia.gov/beta/coal/data/browser

The Victims of the Boston Marathon Bombing are Lucky (for now)

The victims of the Boston Marathon Bombing are lucky (for now).

The victims of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing are actually very lucky.  I know that sounds strange, but their lives after the bombing would have been far worse if the bombing had happened just a few years ago.  Although the emergency medical care that they received right after the bombing is much better than it would have been even 10 years ago, that’s not what I’m referring to.  There’s a term for amputated limbs and for organs that have been repaired: pre-existing conditions.  Yes, their health insurance would have cover treatment for their injuries (to a point).  However, if they were covered by medical insurance through their employer, and they had to leave their employer for some reason - maybe they couldn’t perform their job anymore due to their injuries, or their employer closed, or they wanted to start a company of their own (the engine of prosperity), they would have a problem.  If they tried to purchase private health insurance on their own they would have had a very hard time finding an insurance company that would cover them.  If they were able to get health insurance on their own or through an employer with a mediocre insurance plan, they would have had another problem; their preexisting medical condition would not have been covered.  If they needed a new prosthesis, well, tough it’s a preexisting condition that wouldn’t have been covered – it would be time to go back to a wheel chair.  If they had a problem with a liver that had been damaged in the bombing, well, it’s a preexisting condition; it would be time for them to go home and die. 

Fortunately, the bombing happened last year rather than a few years ago.  The evil Obamacare guarantees the bombing victims the opportunity to get medical insurance, and if the victims get medical insurance, that insurance will cover their preexisting conditions.  However, Congress has tried to derail Obamacare at every opportunity.  So far Congress has voted to block Obamacare more than four dozen times.  So, if you see one of the Boston Marathon victims back in a wheelchair … thank your conservative congressman.

House Republicans Admit that Barack Obama is a Good President

In a surprising turn of events, Republicans admit that Barack Obama is actually a pretty good president. 

Coming off of a blistering defeat during the debt limit and government shutdown battle, House Republicans were hunting for payback.  Unfortunately, they weren't able to find anything significant, like evidence that the President, under false pretenses, knowingly plunged the country into the longest and most expensive war the country’s history.  They couldn't even find anything titillating, like the President [really, really] enjoying the company of an intern in the Oval Office.  The Republicans had to settle on … wait for it … wait for it … a website that  didn't work properly when it was first released. 

When a broken webpage is the worst thing that you can find against your mortal enemy, a man who runs over puppy dogs for fun (sorry, wrong person, that was Dick Cheney), then it’s a pretty strong endorsement of that person.  So, you see, the Republicans have finally admitted that Barack Obama is a pretty good president.

I Want a Rocket Launcher

I find it interesting that the NRA, and many gun owners, are making such a fuss about regulating assault rifles and large magazines.  They insist that weapons bans are a breach of the Second Amendment.  This is interesting because there have been limitations on weapons for many years.  In 1934, Congress passed the National Firearms Act (NFA), in response to the gangster violence that grew out of Prohibition.  The NFA put tight restrictions on machineguns (their wording) and various sawed-off weapons.  The NFA was rewritten in 1968 in response to a court case.  The rewrite extended the act to include “destructive devices” (bombs, missiles, poison gas, etc.).  The Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.  However, it doesn't specify that people have the right to own any arms they desire or the right to bear those anywhere they so choose.  The Supreme Court has, on several occasions, upheld laws that regulate arms.  An assault weapons ban would simply be a matter of degree.  If an assault weapons ban would infringe on the Second Amendment, then you can argue that bans against fully-automatic weapons (machineguns), grenades, and cannons also infringe on our Second Amendment rights.  In fact, if the Second Amendment guarantees our right to own any weapon we desire, then, taken to its logical conclusion, the Second Amendment gives us the right to own nuclear missiles; it's just a matter of degree.  Personally, I just want a rocket launcher so I can eliminate slow drivers that insist on driving in the fast lane of the highway.    

A Different Perspective on Gun Control

First, some background.  I’m not a member of the NRA.  I do own a gun, but it’s never been fired.  In fact, I haven’t fired a gun since I went to summer camp when I was 12.

A trip to Switzerland after college convinced me that while guns are related to gun violence (duh), they are not the cause of gun violence.  In a Swiss train station I was surprised to see several men carrying assault rifles, and while I was out in the countryside, I heard gunshots.  I was told at the time that the men were simply going to target practice as part of their military service.  I did some research when I got home, and found out that Switzerland doesn't have a regular army, but that Swiss men are required to serve in the militia (National Guard).  To make it harder for an enemy to concur Switzerland, the men keep their weapons at home rather than keeping them in central armories that could be easily captured.  Therefore, many men in Switzerland have either an assault rifle or a handgun at home.  Despite the very high ownership of assault rifles and handguns, there is actually a very low incidence of gun crime in Switzerland.

Many people say that we should outlaw assault rifles because they don’t serve any useful purpose in normal life.  That’s true, but I believe that citizens should have a way to keep governments in check if they become oppressive.  I once heard that no oppressive governments allow citizens to own guns.  That may not be absolutely true, but I know that oppressive governments have a history of taking weapons away from their citizens.  Can assault rifles and hand guns stand up to modern weapons?  Not really, but the Vietnamese didn't have nearly the firepower that America had during the Vietnam War, and they prevailed.

I do believe in a waiting period to purchase firearms because I believe that waiting periods give people who attempt purchase a gun in anger time to calm down and think more rationally. (Yes, a person could stab another person in anger, but ask yourself, in a moment of anger would you be more likely to grab a knife from the kitchen and stab someone or to pull a gun out of a drawer and shoot them?)  On the other hand, I believe that while gun control laws will prevent law abiding citizens from purchasing guns, I know that there are enough guns in America that criminals will find a way to get guns despite gun control laws.