Not claiming it to be correct, but even thought the coal industry has been in a decline for some time, Obama did come out and say that he was waging a war on coal. I think that is what is sticking in people's mind.

There's no way to quantify it because most people won't be that forthcoming about how and why they vote the way they do, but I would bet a large sum of money that more people voted against Obama because of his skin color than voted for him, simply based on population demographics.

 

No argument from me.

To clarify, votes based on race happen both ways. Not sure which way the pendulum swings but people did and didn't vote for Obama because he was black. Regardless, the coal industry and it's workers have had a pretty long time to realize that coal is less and less depended on.

 

#whiteguy

Demand for coal dipped as diesel replaced steam locomotives and the steel industry began switching away from metallurgical coal to electric arc furnaces - but rural electrification and increased demand for electricity boosted the demand for coal. Coal consumption, despite Obama's war on coal, remains near record levels.

 

It is true that increased mechanization has boosted productivity in the coal industry, which in turn has reduced manpower requirements. However, the rate of productivity gains has slowed over the years because short of replacing miners with robots, the mining cycle will always require a certain number of workers.

 

I have read a lot of misleading information in multiple threads that would have us believe that the demand for coal has suffered a steady decline. The number of miners has declined with increased productivity but coal consumption has generally increased at a fairly steady rate.

 

Obama's declaration of war on the coal industry has done heavy damage to the industry and promises to do much more damage if Democrats manage to maintain control over the U.S. Senate and the EPA is allowed to continue escape meaningful Congressional oversight.

 

I have also read erroneous claims that Chins's dependence on coal is diminishing. Nothing could be further from the truth, as the graph below shows. China's consumption and production of coal has increased rapidly for years.

 

Not claiming it to be correct, but even thought the coal industry has been in a decline for some time, Obama did come out and say that he was waging a war on coal. I think that is what is sticking in people's mind.

 

That's all fine and dandy, but I'm extremely skeptical about the premise that anything Obama has done negatively to the coal industry has been been of greater impact than the fact that all the good seams in EKY have been mined out, and what's left is too expensive to get to without massive destruction of the landscape.

Not claiming it to be correct, but even thought the coal industry has been in a decline for some time, Obama did come out and say that he was waging a war on coal. I think that is what is sticking in people's mind.

The coal industry was not in decline before Obama took office. What was in decline was the industry's ability to economically extract the thin seam reserves in parts of eastern Kentucky and other parts of Appalachia. Once the seams being mined drop below 30 inches, it becomes much more difficult to mine them. The seam thickness widely used to calculate recoverable "minable and merchantable" coal reserves has remained in the 28 to 30 inch range for decades. (There are some notable exceptions, such as the Blue Gem seam in SE Kentucky.)

 

However, production from other areas of the country has increased to offset the production decline in parts of the central Appalachian coal field. Unfortunately, Obama's war on coal knows no bounds and the thicker reserves in western coal fields and in high sulfur coal reserves in other areas like the Illinois Basin (including western KY) and the northern WV are also under assault. The coal from these areas are generally inferior to low sulfur coal in the central Appalachian coal field but it can be burned cleanly with the installation of scrubbers to remove much of the sulfur.

 

Carbon sequestration is not an economically viable technology, at least not yet, so Obama's EPA is just setting CO2 limits below the practicable levels for coal-fired power plants.

 

The coal industry is declining under the heavy hand of the federal government.

That's all fine and dandy, but I'm extremely skeptical about the premise that anything Obama has done negatively to the coal industry has been been of greater impact than the fact that all the good seams in EKY have been mined out, and what's left is too expensive to get to without massive destruction of the landscape.

You are partially correct, Jim, but Obama's war on coal is not limited to eastern Kentucky. There are many natural hurdles to mining coal in eastern Kentucky and the thickness of many of the seams is one of them. The industry has enough problems without having a U.S. president declaring war on it and unleashing the environmental extremists that have come to dominate the EPA over the past few years.

Being somewhat of an environmentalist, I am not a big fan of coal. However I see how reduction of dependence on coal has been handled very differently than the reduction of dependence on petroleum. Reduction on coal has been heavy-handed while reduction on petroleum is, if even existing, is mostly rhetoric and token incentives. Are people in the petroleum industry more important than people in the coal industry? Is coal a larger environmental threat...possibly, but I believe there are arguments both ways.

Being somewhat of an environmentalist, I am not a big fan of coal. However I see how reduction of dependence on coal has been handled very differently than the reduction of dependence on petroleum. Reduction on coal has been heavy-handed while reduction on petroleum is, if even existing, is mostly rhetoric and token incentives. Are people in the petroleum industry more important than people in the coal industry? Is coal a larger environmental threat...possibly, but I believe there are arguments both ways.

I think that it is easier for average Americans to understand their dependence on oil than coal. Even people who drive Chevy Volts who consume electricity generated from nuclear or gas powered utility plants will be impacted by Obama's war on coal.

 

It was no accident that coal came to be this country's primary source of electricity. It has been relatively cheap and efficient for decades. Reducing reliance on coal for power generation because Obama has unilaterally decided that CO2 is a pollutant that must be controlled will increase most Americans' utility bills. If the current war on coal is won by Obama and the environmental extremists it will only be the beginning. Natural gas will be next on the hit list because any power generation method that produces CO2 will be fair game now that so many people have been convinced that CO2 is a pollutant.

 

Contrast the Obama administration's assault on coal to their continued support of the increased use of ethanol. Ethanol can damage engines, produces toxic exhaust, and drives up the cost of food. Yet, the misperception of ethanol as a safe, clean alternative fuel that has been propagated through a federal propaganda program funded by big agribusiness lobbyists persists.

 

Coal has an image problem and its supporters, including Kentucky's representatives in Congress, have done a poor job representing people who depend on coal for their livelihood and reasonable utility bills. I cannot imagine Mitch McConnell engaging in a filibuster to bring attention to the war on coal and its impact, direct and indirect, on all Americans and Kentuckians in particular. It is one of the many reasons that Kentucky should ditch Mitch.

There's no way to quantify it because most people won't be that forthcoming about how and why they vote the way they do, but I would bet a large sum of money that more people voted against Obama because of his skin color than voted for him, simply based on population demographics.

 

I didn't vote against him, I just voted for someone else….but mostly because he wasn't a citizen :clap:

I didn't vote against him, I just voted for someone else….but mostly because he wasn't a citizen :clap:

 

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If Obama truly isn't a United States citizen then not one single person in our country should have any complaints about our government ever since our entire government allowed a non U.S. citizen to run for office and then eventually be elected.

To clarify, votes based on race happen both ways. Not sure which way the pendulum swings but people did and didn't vote for Obama because he was black. Regardless, the coal industry and it's workers have had a pretty long time to realize that coal is less and less depended on.

 

#whiteguy

As was the case why some didn't vote for Romney and McCain because they were white and running against a black man.

As was the case why some didn't vote for Romney and McCain because they were white and running against a black man.

 

True. I do know some black republicans who voted for Obama because he is black.

 

Black democrats weren't voting for Romney or McCain nor would they vote for a black republican.

As was the case why some didn't vote for Romney and McCain because they were white and running against a black man.

I voted for Romney and McCain because they're white.

Contrast the Obama administration's assault on coal to their continued support of the increased use of ethanol. Ethanol can damage engines, produces toxic exhaust, and drives up the cost of food. Yet, the misperception of ethanol as a safe, clean alternative fuel that has been propagated through a federal propaganda program funded by big agribusiness lobbyists persists. Mitch Rapp

 

I agree, and I think this is further evidence of the old saying "an ounce of image is worth a pound of performance".

Lot's of viewpoints in this thread, here's one from somebody who lives in the heart of the area the article was written about.

 

Yes, there is a lot of opposition to Obama in EKY. Places like Jackson, Harlan, Pikeville, Martin, McCarr, Whitesburg, etc. who rely almost solely on coal, have seen the industry all but dry up in the last few years. The perception, right or wrong, is that the blame falls on Obama, due to his policies. The EPA has strangled the coal industry by locking up the permitting process and regulating them into submission. Obama gets the blame for that from the people who have earned their right to blame whomever they want, they coal miners and their families.

 

So environmental policy against coal is the official rallying cry against the POTUS... but

 

Racism? It is alive and well in this area. I wish it weren't but that is a fact. Many people in my daily acquaintance have a very serious bigoted, racial dislike for our President. Maybe even hatred. And that was true before he declared war on coal. Maybe now they have a better reason to voice it, a more legitimate focal point.

 

It isn't true of everybody, there are some wonderful people in EKY who are salt of the Earth. But there is an undertone of racism that runs pretty deep and I can tell you it is a pretty big part of the reason that Obama is disliked. If you could be a fly on the wall and listen to a few good ole boys in any of the aforementioned places having a conversation about Obama, you might be surprised as to how many of them would prove it.