Obama Rolls Over for Coal
Our roly-poly President has rolled over yet again for one of the most violently destructive forms of environmental degradation, mountain-top-removal coal mining. Robert Kennedy Jr. has summed up the damage in a current editorial for the Washington Post....
Highly mechanized processes allow giant machines to flatten in months mountains older than the Himalayas -- while employing fewer workers for far less time than other types of mining. The coal industry's promise to restore the desolate wastelands is a cruel joke, and the industry's fallback position, that the flattened landscapes will provide space for economic development, is the weak punchline.They have demolished 500 mountains -- encompassing about a million acres -- buried hundreds of valley streams under tons of rubble, poisoned and uprooted countless communities, and caused widespread contamination to the region's air and water.
Obama promised science-based policies that would save what remains of Appalachia, but last month senior administration officials finally weighed in with a mixture of strong words and weak action that broke hearts across the region. The modest measures federal bureaucrats promised amount to little more than a tepid pledge of better enforcement of existing laws.
Meanwhile, White House officials issued yet another version of the same old excuses...
Mountaintop mining "is allowed under current federal law," said Nancy Sutley, who chairs the White House Council on Environmental Quality. "And until that changes, we have to use the tools that we have."Sutley declined to say whether she will seek to have mountaintop mining banned. "We're still early in that discussion," she said, adding: "We don't make the laws."
As outlined yesterday, the administration's agreement is more like a promise than a policy, pledging better scrutiny of the mines but providing few specifics about how that would work in practice.
Sutley, for instance, said she could not estimate how much the new policies would reduce the scale of mountaintop mining.
Much ado about nothing. While I understand the nature of your urgency, the administration is correct. They don't make the laws.
It will take at least most of his first term to change things like this. I think the overwrought hyperbole cheapens what should be an on-going effort on the part of progressives. We need to convince our representatives to change, via direct action or via the polls.
Either way, pronouncing the whole thing a sham rather than working to convince the reader of a reasonable course of action seems a waster of pixels to me.
July 6, 2009 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obamabots like jason keep promoting the myth that writing letters to Congress and so on can somehow turn Obama into a real progressive, instead of the sold-out phony who was inaugurated January 20.
This myth gives Obama a free pass for doing almost nothing about almost anything, because he's only the President of the United States, which as we all know is a virtually powerless little sinecure, especially when the President's party controls both houses of Congress and even disposes of a filibuster-proof 60-vote majority in the Senate.
Poor little Obama!
He needs our help! Write a letter to Congress, put a sign on your lawn, make mean faces at Republicans in your neighborhood!
Power to the people!
And don't forget to say a prayer for...
Poor little Obama!
Maybe jason and the other local Obamabots could take up a collection, and send poor little Obama some powdered milk and a new pair of shoes.
Harharharhar!!!
July 6, 2009 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perfect example of ideology trumping logic. No wonder liberals have been so bad at getting progressive changes over the last forty years or so. It's not about writing letters, which will have limited effect without direct action at the polls every two years and certainly not with average turnout for primaries remaining in the teens.
I have plenty of criticism for Obama but rarely is it independent of what WE must do to make things different across the many facets of reality that don't fall into your black and white interpretation of events. Until Americans change out Congress, nothing Obama does will last beyond whatever time he spends in office. I am not looking for an Obama administration to be the liberal equivalent of George Junior's reign.
By all means, create caricature's for any idea that doesn't mirror your own. That is sure to be every bit the winning strategy it was the neocons. It won't actually help the country evolve, but that never seems to be the point for partisans. It is the ideological war that gives you meaning, not trying to actually fix the problems.
July 6, 2009 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Before you give Obama and company a free pass take a look at what LBJ and George W. Bush did.
I had hoped that Rahm Emanuel might have similar ability but apparently not.
July 6, 2009 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Each killed a million brown people far from our shores?
July 6, 2009 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Give the Big O a chance - he's been in less than 6 months, and he's already pushing up troop efforts for Afghanistan & Pakistan, while his VP's giving Israel a free pass to bomb Iran.
July 6, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no doubt of our continued ambitions toward Empire absent huge movement from the grassroots. The sheep are too satiated with high fructose corn syrup and high-definition cable to be of any immediate use on this or just about any other issue.
July 7, 2009 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
And then there is the myth that Obama has this Democratic Congress that will just do anything he asks them to do. I am thankful the Dems are not like the lock-step Repubs of the Delay years. What Obama is facing is closer to what Jimmy Carter faced, where he has to struggle continuously to herd the cats of his party, while getting almost no cross-over from the just say no Repubs.
So for many of the Obama defenders, it is not about "poor little Obama," rather it is perceiving the situation that appears to exists inside the beltway and judging Obama accordingly. You can perceive it differently and judge accordingly.
July 6, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, you are an Obamabot. Lost my coffee on that one.
July 6, 2009 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Makes about as much sense as calling me a typical republican, but I get that one too.
July 6, 2009 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
About the cop-out that you share with the media: I'm getting attacked from both sides so I must be doing something right. Have you considered that you would get the same results if you were doing everything wrong?
July 6, 2009 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
About the cop-out that you share with the media: I'm getting attacked from both sides so I must be doing something right. Have you considered that you would get the same results if you were doing everything wrong?
July 6, 2009 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I am being criticized by the political extremists of both parties, the last thing I would assume is that I was getting everything wrong. In fact, I would more likely assume I was reaching the silent majority. Something no president has done in decades.
July 6, 2009 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's wrong with both! Let's get in Obama's grill that he needs to do more, like get the EPA in the region, AND go after the Congress to stop the devastating practice.
The one thing that WILL bring the practice to a halt is creating an alternative. If Wind is the replacement, and I do not understand why water would not also be a replacement, build a few dams already, they are at leasst less damaging then MTR. You buld a dam, you get a lake, you MTR, you get a flat pile of rocks, which is preferable? I know, neither, but again, what are the alternatives? Can wind and solar really replace what we lose without coal? I hope so. Right now, we need to advance those alternatives so coal can no longer say, if not coal, what else can we do? Evidently, we can do a lot.
July 6, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that we should seek to encourage everyone to be vocal both with regards to pushing the White House and Capital Hill at the same time. I just don't think it is a reasonable expectation to see this stuff change overnight nor do I think it is reasonable to expect Obama to wave a magic wand and solve the problem independent of Congressional action.
July 6, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
As is Obama by conducting war in Afganistan and promoting a civil war in Pakistan?
Both LBJ and W were very good at twisting legislators arms to advance their objectives (if you really need it spelled out for you.) The jury is still out on Obama on that but the EPA lady is counter productive.
As to the last thing you would assume it's a matter of logic: if you were getting everything wrong both sides would criticize you so getting criticized by both is no proof that you are doing anything right.
July 6, 2009 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Writing letters, putting pressure on reps and senators DOES work. Look at health care. Keeping up pressure on those that are on the fence about a public option will work.
Rutabaga, you're free to express yourself anyway you want--personally, I'd rather see someone outraged about this than completely unmoved-- if your thing is to frame it like Obama is rolling over, so be it.
People are smart enough to make that judgment for themselves.
But what can we do specifically about this? What is a realistic path to change the policy or law?
Here's a link to a post Daryl Hannah wrote about this mountain top removal issue, on Huffingtonpost. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daryl-hannah/why-i-was-arrested-in-coa_b_224531.html
July 6, 2009 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama can twist arms to get votes needed for decent policies. Having administration officials surrender in advance does not help a progressive agenda. For example, she could have been saying -- we will strictly enforce the laws that we have and the administration is working hard with like-minded legislators to get some decent legislation. Instead we get the well it's not our fault and we'll get around to working on it.
Contrast this with the immediate application of help for Dodd. That can be run in reverse if legislators are not satisfactory.
Obama's policy towards bipartisanship also seems to be all carrot and no stick.
Much more important to him to be loved than to save the planet.
July 6, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're exactly right, AJM, and your crystalline little formula also suggests another peculiar question that hadn't occurred to me.
It's probably true that in our heart of hearts, almost all of us would rather be loved than save anything, much less an entity as hard to fathom as the planet, but I also know from long personal experience that picket-lines and demonstrations are among the best of all places to look for love.
Seriously!
There's nothing like a little tear-gas to demonstrate when you and that intriguing apparition of your personal gender-preference really are on the same wavelength.
So why did Obama choose to look for love in the fog of unending compromise, instead of the crucible of shared commitment?
July 6, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
His mother was an anthropologist.
July 6, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
To strictly enforce the laws on the books means one has to have the budget for it. Guess who has the purse strings. But in the end, the problem is that the devastation that is occuring is done legally. So it is not about enforcement.
Maybe at this juncture, the outrage should be directed at Congress and not the Obama administration. And it is one thing for an administration to put the pressure for a Congressman to vote one way or the other on legislation, and whole another thing to twist their arms to create legislation.
Once Congress pushes through the legislation, then it is up to Obama's administration to ensure it enforced.
Sometimes it seems the ones who claim to not believe Obama is The One who can save the world with one swoop of his hand expect him to do just that.
July 6, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also.
July 6, 2009 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could you post a link to your gripe about the Congress not outlawing this type of mining? I am having trouble locating it, and I am sure you wrote one.
July 6, 2009 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Damn that Congress for not outlawing mountain-top-removal coal mining!
July 6, 2009 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
And here's the link that Karl the Marxist asked for.
July 6, 2009 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I read Robert Kennedy Jr's WP editorial with some alarm at the lack of adequate enforcement Kennedy demands. I don't have all the facts, but my guess is that the Administration could do more than it has already done to stop further damage, and perhaps the editorial will help.
Having said that, I also believe the following is relevant. First, Obama is strongly committed personally as well as politically to environmental preservation. Second, the Waxman-Markey climate bill that just passed the House faces strong opposition in the Senate from coal state senators. Like the President, I believe that ultimate passage into law of this type of legislation, designed to mitigate global warming, is one of the greatest imperatives, if not the greatest, we face as a nation. The bill is too weak, but for it to fail would be a disaster in terms of our own climate change mitigation efforts, and even more because it would discourage other nations from acting effectively.
I suspect that the President sees himself as forced to balance some immediate environmental concerns against the need to achieve the larger objectives on climate change, which will require some sacrifices on the part of coal interests, given that coal is the worst fossil fuel offender when it comes to global warming potential.
July 6, 2009 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Fred Moolten has probably made about the best case for Obama that can be made on this issue, so I'll make an exception to my usual slash-and-burn counterattacks on Obama's defenders, and just say...
Thanks for adorning my diary with your thoughtful and well-written comment, Mr. Moolten!
July 6, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe many of those who defend Obama don't see him The One can do no wrong, but like Jason above attempt to put some dose of realism into the discussion, as in the administration doesn't write the laws. And given everything Obama has had to deal with since coming to office, it might be a tad unreaslist to expect him to use his political capital on the Hill in short time he has been in office to push for Congress to redo this legislation. And if so, using this an example of Obama being a "sold-out phony" might not be that effective in convincing someone that he is such.
Given all the problems and issues we face, and to which we hope the Obama administration addresses, we need to work constantly to put such important issues like hilltop mining or Dont Ask Dont Tell on the front burner. We shouldn't deny our frustration, but it should be tempered with a patience based in a realistic assessment of the current political climate, culture, and conditions.
July 6, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
What JEM said.
Also, who thought Obama was an environmentalist? Did he ever say anything that made anyone think he was "for" anything other than being President?
July 6, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know, how about the amount of political capital he is spending right now on pushing climate change legislation through Congress? Does that work for you?
July 6, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Waxman-Markey bill is a joke. I'm okay with that, not being a climate change "hawk" anyway, and moreover having reviewed the numbers...
...its pretty clear that climate change isn't going to be stopped by incremental changes in our Co2 output.
But.
Waxman-Markey won't substantially reduce emissions in the United States; it isn't intended to. It's a "Climate Change Bill", but it is compromise legislation, not something someone spent political capital on.
July 6, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Global warming mitigation requires reductions in everyone's CO2 output. The U.S. contribution under Waxman-Markey would be a 17% emissions reduction below 2005 levels, which is far from adequate but far better than nothing, particularly since our failure to act would discourage all other nations from doing anything meaningful.
The compromises in Waxman-Markey are multitudinous, and in many cases unconscionable, but what they change is the distribution of costs among consumers, energy interests, farmers, etc. They don't change the target levels for CO2 curtailment.
July 6, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except that the bill, in addition to requiring only a 17% target number, allows that number to be bought off with "credits" purchased abroad and has a safety valve provision that weakens the targets if energy gets more expensive... which it will if the system is meaningful at all.
That's practically the point; to make carbon sources less cost-effective.
So now Congress declares victory without actually doing anything except creating a new massive, expensive bureaucracy designed specifically to make sure that every part of the energy industry functions about the way it does now... only with another regulator looking over their shoulders.
In my view, anyone who takes climate change seriously should oppose this bill as a whitewash; anyone who takes fiscal solvency seriously ought to oppose it as a needless waste of government money (in a bill that was promised to bring -in- money).
July 6, 2009 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trying to scuttle this bill would be an absolute disaster. The 17% reduction was in the bill from the beginning and was not diluted. If this bill fails to become law, the consequences will be extremely unfortunate because of its enormous symbolic value for other nations. No-one, including those who have already taken meaningful steps toward carbon mitigation, will move forward if the world's worst contributor to the problem fails to do even its minimal share.
Of all the legislation likely to face the Senate this year, including health care reform, none is more important than what will be the Senate's version of Waxman-Markey. The imperative will be to ensure that it isn't weakened, but a unified effort is needed to be sure it isn't defeated.
July 6, 2009 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am so tired of the flame-throwers who are bitching that Obama "rolled over" on their issue, because theirs isn't the first, fifth or tenth ne that he tackled. Bush backed the shit truck up, dumped it on our country, poured gasoline on it, and set it on fire. It's going to be a while before all of that can be put out. He's as busy as a one legged man at an ass-kicking contest, OK? He'll get to all of it as soon as he possibly can. Take a Midol.
And, yeah, mountain-top removal coal mining should be illegal, now and forever.
July 6, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now, I don't happen to think mountain-top removal coal mining should be illegal; it's a technique that has its place. Still, I don't think your statement meets the point raised.
So far, Obama isn't just not getting around to "dealing" with the "mistakes" of the Bush era. So far, he's been actively continuing them, posthaste. Waxman/Markey gives nearly as much free cash to industry as Bush's last energy bill.
And let's leave Afghanistan aside, shall we?
July 6, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I'm more than a little surprised to see the argument here and the direction it has taken.
West Virginia, where a big part of this is occurring, is without a doubt one of the most beatiful and scenic areas of this country. That mining interests are just raping it isn't right.
Then there is the devastation to the water supplies and aquifer of the region. That is a resource that people rely upon.
Next is the health impact on residents of the region. The rates of various cancers are higher than national averages. This is upside down because in an area such as this, very rural, the normal condition would be rates nominally lower than national averages.
Lastly if you want to point a finger at persons who are responsible for screwing up some of the most pristine ares of this country you need first to direct your attention to the mining interests, then the State of West Virginia, then Congress and then Obama. That is the proper and logical order of responsibility.
July 6, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
But Ruta, I thought it was "clean" coal. Are you telling me it isn't "clean"?
Hey, and don't forget the other "clean" energy form: nuclear! Obama is all for that too. Generations a thousand years from now will curse us all if we begin building more nuclear plants..
July 6, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, but it won't take a thousand years.
I am personally hoping for a really radical response from the next generation after the "youth vote" that voted for Obama.
Maybe they can appropriate the pensions of all previous generations to finance some climate-change legislation that isn't just a joke...
"You pigs who destroyed the planet with your selfishness can die in the street for all we care!"
July 6, 2009 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly Ruta, I don't think we have time for the next generation to act. What is required is for the endlessly selfish baby boomers to get off their relatively affluent fat asses and take some action. As a boomer I feel it's okay to call the generation out. A handful of us for a few years pissed and moaned about Viet Nam and a few more of the white ones did some good work on civil rights, but the "radicals" quickly morphed into money grubbing everyman Americans just about the time the draft disappeared. Since then we have allowed things to grow more and more unequal, more and more inequitable and more and more unAmerican. It's on us grownups to act now. By the time the "next" generation is in a position to act it will be far too late and the republic along with the environment, the dream of peace and prosperity will be gone.
July 6, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, but if most of the boomers sold out before they were 30, what chance is there that they will suddenly develop some commitment at 65?
(I'm not aiming that remark at you, oleeb, or the relatively tiny fraction of the boomer demographic who retained some commitment from the Sixties, or somehow became engaged somewhere farther down the road.)
July 6, 2009 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I completely understand your point and agree to a degree. What I am hoping is that the boomers who are now anywhere from late 40's to mid 60's (a vast number of people indeed)will look at their children and grandchildren and feel some obligation. I know I do. My kids are now all teenagers. There is nothing I wouldn't do to secure a peaceful and prosperous world for them to live in. That has to be the motivation. The wealth and power the boomers still retain is enormous. It would be nice if our alleged political leaders would attempt to rally the people for some action besides their re-elections. But since that won't happen we have to do it ourselves by whatever means we can. Hopefully those in a position to have a highly visible platform will begin to lead. I've no doubt people will follow if just someone in a position to lead will do so. Many thought Obama would be that person. I think they are realizing how little leadership he is willing to offer and so they will be on the lookout for a real leader who is willing to lead when things are difficult and not just when things are easy on the campaign trail.
July 6, 2009 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nail on the head. That's the whole problem, that's the trigger for this "Obama Rolls Over" commentary.
Obama won't lead (he never has led, he never promised to lead, and he never will lead), and when the Republicans finally figure that out (and they will), they'll steal the ball and run like hell.
July 6, 2009 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for than grim but aphoristic prognosis. I think you're probably right, and this is the first time I have seen that particular prediction anywhere.
July 6, 2009 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
It won't take a thousand years. Nuclear power is a net-warming technology. It releases massive amounts of heat - previously locked in physical form. One study shows that with a 1% increase in energy consumption per year, in less than 100 years direct thermal forcing would overtake any positive benefits from elimination of CO2 emissions.
According to this study(.pdf):
July 6, 2009 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your comment.
I follow nuclear power fairly closely, although it isn't one of my primary concerns, and the information in your comment was completely news to me.
There's apparently no way we can continue to consume energy at anything like the current level, but how can we convince most of the pollyanna American public to accept this unpleasant truth and force politicians to act in accord with it?
I don't know.
July 6, 2009 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's apparently no way we can continue to consume energy at anything like the current level, but how can we convince most of the pollyanna American public to accept this unpleasant truth and force politicians to act in accord with it?
By increasing the price of energy. I'm as cynical as anyone at times, but I believe it's a tribute to the Administration, the House that approved Waxman-Markey, possibly a Senate the NY Times believes may find 60 votes for it with some maneuvering, and a public willing to tolerate all this, when there is universal agreement that energy costs will rise. The only disagreement is how much.
There's still hope for us.
July 6, 2009 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well isnt that the idea behind cap and trade system. It slowly makes it more and more expensive for dirty energy thus making it more profitable to go to clean.
July 7, 2009 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink