Boston Globe reveals Obama's 'War on Coal' is illusory given his administration's promotion of coal

President Obama's announced goal of significant reductions of emissions of CO2 was seen as a fatal blow to the American coal industry. But long standing federal policies that promote and subsidize the production, export, and burning of coal remain in place. Things like leasing Federal land for a pittance to promote coal mining are at odds with the President's stated goal of GHG reductions.

In mining country, ‘war on coal’ hard to see

By Michael Kranish

But here in the Rockies and across much of the West, Obama may be the coal industry’s critical, if unlikely, ally. The administration has rejected calls to place a moratorium on leasing public land to mining firms — even though such leases account for 40 percent of coal mined in the United States. Nor is the administration much interested in blocking exports of coal from such leases to countries where it could be burned without antipollution controls. Or in significantly raising the price of the billions of tons of publicly owned coal now sold at what critics consider bargain rates.

This is war?

Hardly, said Senator Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who early this year called on the administration to place a moratorium on the coal leases. It is instead, he said, the story of “contradictory energy policies undermining the larger goal of having a reduction of greenhouse gases in America. The American taxpayer is subsidizing the coal industry.”

It is here in the Rockies where the contradiction may be most clear. In a key case involving land around Somerset, a federal judge ruled in June that the Obama administration, allying itself with the nation’s second-largest coal firm, had failed to even take into account the “social cost of carbon” when calculating the value of the coal lease. He put the lease on hold, and environmentalists promptly prepared lawsuits designed to stop the entire lease program.

Now, as the administration decides whether to appeal the case, the pressure on Obama is intense. Environmentalists want Obama to take action ahead of his appearance at the UN climate summit. But the administration is reluctant to take another major move against coal before November’s midterm election for fear of hurting coal-state Democrats.

The conventional wisdom discounts taking action on Global Warming as a motivating factor in boosting Democratic turnout. All too often I hear disaffected young people say there's not enough of a difference between the parties to make it worth their while to go to the polls and vote. We need a clear distinction between the parties on Global Warming.

Five Keystone XLs: The Carbon in Northwest Fossil Fuel Export Plans

It can only work to Democrats increasing advantage as time goes on and the negative impacts of Global Warming become ever more evident, to take a strong stand on the right side of science and history.