NEWS

Dems tweak ‘green energy’ messages for coal-state primaries

03/26/2008

Alex Kaplun, Greenwire reporter

Heading to critical coal-state primaries, Democratic presidential hopefuls Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama are trying to appeal to mining interests while promoting climate-friendly agendas.

So far, coal industry officials say they like what they are hearing, but they question whether either candidate has their interests at heart. And environmentalists say they are frustrated by what they see as candidates’ pandering to industry.

Coal states will be important in November. Democrats managed to carry two in the last two presidential elections, Pennsylvania and Illinois. Most painful was George W. Bush twice carrying West Virginia—a Democratic stronghold that had gone into the Republican presidential win column only three times before.

The stakes are high for Clinton and Obama, who are in a neck-and-neck race for their party’s nomination. The nation’s fourth largest coal-producing state, Pennsylvania, is the biggest remaining primary, with 188 delegates at stake April 22. It is followed by contests in three other big coal producers—Indiana, West Virginia and Kentucky.

Voters in those states are anxious about how federal efforts to address climate change might affect their industries, experts say. Yet polls show independent voters nationwide want candidates to provide solutions to climate change and promote the development of "green" jobs and businesses.

With that in mind, Clinton and Obama have tweaked their stump speeches to mention "clean coal" alongside wind and solar energy when they outline plans to address climate change.

Clinton promised in Charleston, W.Va., last week to be an advocate for clean coal research and called for 10 major demonstration projects, including one in West Virginia. Asked during a radio interview that day about mountaintop-removal mining—fiercely opposed by environmentalists—the New York senator said, "It’s a difficult question because of the conflict between the economic and environmental trade-off that you have here."

Campaigning yesterday in Western Pennsylvania, Clinton promised to invest in clean coal technology and vowed not to "turn our back on coal."

And Obama in West Virginia late last week not only said the United States must invest heavily in clean coal technology but included clean coal jobs among the 5 million "green" jobs he promised to create with his energy agenda. As a senator from Illinois, Obama has been a steadfast supporter of clean coal on Capitol Hill.

"I really think what you’ve seen the last few days is equivocating—really walking on the fine line and not angering either side too much," said Mary Anne Hitt, executive director of the environmental group Appalachian Voices.

The presumed Republican nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain, who backs a U.S. effort to curb heat-trapping emissions, is expected to face similar problems when he campaigns in coal-mining states before the general election, experts say.

Clean coal opportunity

Observers say one reason Clinton and Obama might avoid the pitfalls that tripped up two previous Democratic candidates, Al Gore and John Kerry, is support from both parties for "clean coal."

Clean coal—a general term for technology that attempts reduce heat-trapping carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from coal-burning power plants—was not a big part of the discussion in 2000 or 2004. So coal was seen then as an all-or-nothing proposition, and the Democrats’ support for mandatory emission reductions was viewed by many in coal country as a direct threat to their economies.

Groups funded by the coal industry ran ads in Appalachian swing states in the last two presidential elections warning voters that supporting Democrats would lead to further job losses in their communities.

But supporting clean coal gives Democrats an opportunity to continue to pledge action on climate change while assuring coal-state voters that their jobs will not be sacrificed in the process.

"Because of the evolution of technology, that’s a conversation that can be had that couldn’t be had in past elections," said Joe Lucas, executive director of the coal industry group Americans for Balanced Energy Choices.

Lucas’ group has not taken sides in the presidential race, but it intends to spend tens of millions during the campaign cycle on ads and outreach to ensure that coal issues are on the radar.

And coal industry officials acknowledge that messages from both campaigns have been largely successful, as neither candidate has made any comments on the campaign trail that raised a red flag for the industry.

"The great news is none of the candidates, regardless of where they’ve been, have said anything thus far that they would need to take back," Lucas said. "Nothing along the lines of, ‘I said in California we need to do away with coal, now that I’m in West Virginia I have to take that back.’"

Likewise, Bill Raney, president of the West Virginia Coal Association, said industry officials and workers so far are largely satisfied by the message coming from all the campaigns.

"The most encouraging thing to hear, you can talk about dealing with climate change and coal being part of the energy mix in the same sentence," Raney said. "We went through a period where people said you have to eliminate coal to deal with climate change."

But Raney said neither the Democratic candidates nor McCain have sold coal-state voters and industry officials. They are looking for more concrete commitments as well as signs they understand the industry’s concerns.

"The two things that are important is that everybody that’s mining can continue to work and that everybody who is using electricity can continue to pay for it," Raney said.

"And when you’re dealing with the source that makes more than half the electricity in this country, you’ve got to treat it with some respect," Raney added. "For whoever is in the White House to turn around and express a little pride in the coal miner means a whole lot. President Bush did that all the time."

‘The most skeptical people’

Environmentalists, however, question whether a clean coal message will resonate with coal-state voters, who remain skeptical of Washington-led efforts to make their industry cleaner and question the very notion of "clean coal."

"People who live surrounded by coal mining every day ... are the most skeptical people you will ever meet about the feasibility of coal being clean," said Hitt, the leader of the Appalachian Voices group.

But she added that many coal industry workers fear that they will be the "collateral damage" in federal efforts to regulate greenhouse gases. "If there’s a promise of some far-off and distant technology that may keep these jobs in the community, of course people are going to want to jump on that as some sliver of hope," she said.

Some environmentalists say candidates’ support for coal may alienate voters who care about global warming.

"These comments raise serious questions about whether the Democratic candidates are as committed to clean energy as they claim to be," said Brent Blackwelder, the president of Friends of the Earth Action. "These candidates need to stop pandering and start being leaders. We’re in the midst of a global warming crisis and we need a president who will push for real solutions."

Many environmentalists have long been critical of the clean coal concept, saying that even under the best conditions coal is dirty and its continued use will only hinder efforts to limit emissions.

The comments from the candidates in recent days have made their way onto liberal blogs, where bloggers have likewise attacked Clinton and Obama for pandering to an industry and moving away from the message that they have espoused for much of the campaign. Major national environmental groups—such as the Sierra Club and League of Conservation Voters—have yet to chime in on the issue, but Hitt said there is some degree of dissatisfaction with the two candidates among advocacy organizations.

"I think many environmental groups have been disappointed by what they’ve heard from both Clinton and Obama," Hitt said. "At the same time, they’ve left the door open to do the right thing."

‘Very politically germane’

There is also disagreement about how much coal issues will weigh on voters’ minds. Most acknowledge that in West Virginia in particular—and Kentucky to a slightly lesser extent—a candidate that is viewed as "anti-coal" could have a hard time winning in November.

In other coal states—Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana—the picture is less clear, as the coal industry is no longer the dominant political or economic force that it once was.

John Hanger, president of the environmental group PennFuture, said with the industry becoming automated, there simply are not as many people employed in that sector as in decades past. In particular, he pointed out that roughly 10,000 people are employed by Pennsylvania’s coal industry, less than those employed by the state’s major universities.

"If it’s just a calculation about where the votes are, adjusting one’s message in Pennsylvania would be very stupid politically," Hanger said. "You are not going to carry the Philadelphia suburbs and where the votes are in this state without a strong pro-environmental message."

He added, "There are more votes to be had in protecting public health than there are in chasing after the few thousand votes in mining."

Jerry Schuster, a political scientist at the University of Pittsburgh, also said that while the coal industry, both in mines and at power plants, continues to be a major employer, he has not seen candidates reach out directly to those voters. "They both address the energy crisis and trying to clean up the environment," he said. "The environment has been an issue, but addressing the specific aspect of coal, no."

But Lucas, of the industry-backed Balanced Energy Choices group, pointed out that even the candidates themselves appear to have tweaked their message on coal, starting with the Ohio primary on March 4, a clear indication that they believe there are votes to be had by supporting coal.

"When you look at traditional swing states in the fall election—Pennsylvania, Ohio—and you add to that states that could be swing states—West Virginia, Kentucky," he said, "you’ve got this sort of path along coal country where this conversation has become very politically germane."