Coal & Dirty Jobs win, clean jobs & environment lose

Predictably, the politicians caved in to Bucyrus in the face of the prospect of lost jobs. Read my previous post on this by clicking here. Today’s story in today's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is all about the great effort made by the Bucyrus CEO, Tim Sullivan, in his successful effort to save his company from the loss of a contract to build coal mining equipment for India. Sadly, there is no attempt by the newspaper to question the larger issues of coal production and use that are at stake here, nor any suggestion that dirty jobs in the coal industry can be (let alone should be) replaced with clean jobs in renewable energy.

For a very thorough and eye-opening analysis of this critically important issue, however, it is worth revisiting an excellent story that was published in Milwaukee Magazine last fall: King Coal.

Coal is a dirty word except when jobs are at stake

In the US jobs usually trump care for the environment. Therefore, it's no surprise that Wisconsin incumbants across the political spectrum have joined a chorus criticizing the Obama administration for its decision to deny loan guarantees for a coal-fired plant being built in India.

Nevermind that there are long-term benefits to cutting the use of coal as an energy source and long term prospects for job creation in the green energy sector. Environmentalists agree that there is no such thing as "clean coal." Obama has guts to take a position that seems to pit him against jobs, but he is to be applauded for taking the moral stand. It has to begin somewhere.

Bucyrus and other contractors that will lose jobs if coal production and use declines will need to change sooner or later to adapt to greener technologies. Sooner would be better. It's in their best interests.

Read the article from Sunday's Journal Sentinel: U.S. agency puts up to 1,000 jobs at risk.