Trump Claim Of Increasing Coal Jobs By 50,000 Is A LIE

Shortly after announcing the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris Agreement on global climate change, Donald Trump (and EPA director Pruitt) both claimed that 50,000 new jobs had been created in the coal industry thanks to their efforts. That was a ludicrous lie.

As the bottom chart shows, there are only 51,000 current jobs in the coal industry as of May 2017 (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics). If Trump's claim was true, that means he created 50,000 of the total 51,000 coal jobs just since he was elected.

It is true that 50,000 jobs have been created in mining and extraction industries -- but the vast majority of those jobs are in logging and the extraction of oil and natural gas. Even if you just consider mining jobs, you must remember that coal is not the only thing mined in this country.

There have been about 1200 jobs created in the coal industry since May of 2016. Almost all of them due to the opening of a new mine (with 800 employees) approved during the Obama administration -- not the Trump administration.

While Trump has probably done serious damage to the fight against global climate change, the truth is he has done almost nothing in creating new coal industry jobs (400 jobs at the most). His claim of creating 50,000 new coal industry jobs is simply NOT true.

Also not true is his claim that President Obama hurt the coal industry. As the chart above shows (from The Atlantic), the problems in the coal industry started long before Obama became president. In 1986, there were 178,000 coal industry jobs. When Obama was sworn in that had already dropped to 86,000.

The coal industry is not going to rebound, regardless of anything Trump might do. Coal is the dirtiest of the fossil fuels (and "clean coal" is just a myth). America is going toward using clean and renewable sources of energy because that's what the people want. As these sources become cheaper all the time, the coal industry will continue to decline.

Trump's On Track To Be Worst Environmental President Ever

Since becoming president, Donald Trump has virtually declared war on this country's environment (and on the fight to curb global climate change). He put a man in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that doesn't believe in environmental regulations (and who has sued that agency at least 11 times to have regulations curbing fossil fuel pollution removed). Then he put the head of one of the world's largest oil companies (Exxon) in place as Secretary of State -- assuring that this countries global policies will benefit fossil fuel production.

That wasn't bad enough. He then started issuing executive orders. The first ones nullified a regulation that kept surface mining operations from polluting our rivers and streams, and set aside a rule that would have resulted in fossil fuel producers paying more in royalties to the federal government.

Now he has issued a far more sweeping order. The new order lifts a moratorium on coal leasing, and removes the requirement that federal officials consider the impact on climate change when making decisions. This will increase production and use of coal (the dirtiest of the fossil fuels), and allow all fossil fuels producers to increase production without regard to what that does to the environment or to global climate change.

Trump seems determined to trash the environment for the benefit of his buddies who produce fossil fuels. And his actions send a signal to the rest of the world that the United States has no intention of honoring its agreement to curb actions that increase global climate change.

As the charts below show, the United States is the largest user of energy produced by oil and gas, and is second only to China in energy use from coal. But while China is trying to curb its use of coal, Trump is taking this country in the opposite direction.

One has to ask, why should the rest of the world meet their obligations to curb global climate change? And even if they did meet their obligations, would it matter (since the U.S. is by far the largest user of fossil fuels energy)?

The Trump administration is proving to be a real boon for the oil, gas, and coal industries (and other polluters) -- but it is a real disaster for human being (and the planet they live on).

About 15% Of Texas Energy Is Now Supplied By Wind

(This chart shows the 2016 energy sources in Texas.)

Although coal and natural gas still provide most of the electricity for homes and businesses in Texas, wind energy is growing fast. In 2016, it has provided nearly 15% of all energy. The following article is by Katherine Tweed at Green Tech Media.

First, some definitions:

Megawatt -- unit of power equal to 1 million watts.

Gigawatt -- init of power equal to 1 billion watts.

1 Megawatt will provide enough energy to supply the needs of 400 to 900 homes (depending on the time of year and location of those homes).

Tweed writes:

Texas grid operator ERCOT announced a new record for wind on Monday. For the first time, wind provided more than 15,000 megawatts of electricity to the state on a single day. 

The record wind on Sunday supplied an average of 41 percent of electricity throughout the day. But it was not an all-time record for wind in Texas. On one day in March, wind supplied more than 48 percent of load during one hour.

It is not the hour-by-hour records that are impressive, however.

Texas is already the clear leader in wind power in the U.S., and that lead is widening. Texas has more than 18,000 megawatts installed and another 5,000 megawatts under construction, according to the American Wind Energy Association.

Wind power made up an average of 11.7 percent of electricity in 2015 in Texas, a figure that will be at least 14.7 in 2016, according to ERCOT.

The final tally of wind power’s contribution to the Texas electric grid will likely be slightly higher, as the wind blows harder in winter and therefore wind power contributions to the power mix usually go up.

Of course, the growing share of wind is still half the amount of coal in Texas and about one-third of natural gas generation.

Coal and natural gas may dominate in Texas, but the investment the state has made in transmission and improving renewable energy forecasts could allow for even more wind and solar in the future.

The wind power in Texas is coming from across the state, including the Texas Panhandle, the west and the south. Texas’ success with wind power is largely due to its Competitive Renewable Energy Zones, which were identified mostly in West Texas and the state's Panhandle region. A key to the project was about $7 billion in transmission lines to carry the wind power where it is needed.

With wind power flowing across the state, solar power is now starting to catch on to take advantage of the transmission lines. In 2015, ERCOT did not even list solar as a fuel source on its annual demand and energy report.

In 2016, the figures are still very small -- but they're growing. ERCOT reports about 685 megawatts of solar will be on-line in Texas in 2016, up from less than 300 in 2015. For the first time, solar energy received its own designation as a fuel type in ERCOT’s annual demand and energy report.

Large-scale solar could grow quickly in Texas, but will not even come close to wind. By 2020, ERCOT expects 2.5 gigawatts of solar on its system, compared to more than 28 gigawatts of wind.

Public Supports The EPA's New Rules For Power Plants

(This cartoon image is by Adam Zyglis in The Buffalo News.)

It has become obvious in the last few years that the Republicans will do nothing to stop global climate change (commonly called global warming). They have rejected science as a party, and were long ago bought and paid for by corporate America -- and those two facts combine to make up their total disregard for this country's environment (present and future). It has also become evident that they will use their majority in the House to block any environmental legislation proposed by the president or congressional Democrats.

President Obama has finally realized that he can no longer wait for this do-nothing Congress to act, and instructed the Environmental protection Agency (EPA) to do their job (and enact new tougher emissions rules) -- and last week the EPA did just that. They issued new rules for cleaning up power plant emissions in their Clean Power Plan -- a plan that will lower power plant emissions by 30% (over 2005 levels) by 2030.

This is not a plan that places an onerous burden on U.S. power plants. Each state is allowed to come up with its own plan for meeting the new goals, and the plants have 16 years to come into compliance. There is no legitimate reason why they should not be able to do that -- and do it without undue cost or loss of jobs.

Of course the national Chamber of Commerce (which never met a coal, oil, gas, or energy company it didn't love) immediately began to scream (and churn out propaganda about how this will devastate the nation's energy system). And they were joined by the coal industry (who knows that the dirtiest power plants in the country are coal burning plants).

But these entities are out-of-line -- and out-of-step with the wishes of the American population. Americans know that something must be done, and if Congress won't act, then the EPA must do so on its own. A whopping 70% of Americans say the federal government should require states to limit pollution due to the production of greenhouse gases from power plants. And 63% say this should be done even if it results in a $20 a month higher electric bill.

The survey also shows that the public is starting to come around and realize that global climate change is a problem that must be dealt with. About 57% of the public now sees global warming as a big problem for the United States.

The charts above were made from information contained in the latest ABC News /Washington Post Poll -- taken between May 29th and June 1st of a random national sample of 1,002 adults (with a margin of error of about 3.5 points).

Dirtiest 1% Of Power Plants Producing 33% Of Power Plant Carbon Pollution

(This image of a coal-fired power plant is from ecology.com.)

The title of this post may sound amazing, but it is true. The United States has more than 6,000 power plants, but a tiny fraction of less than 1%, the dirtiest 100 plants, produce about 1/3 of all the carbon pollution produced by all of the nation's power plants. And even more amazing, they account for about 1/5 of the nation's carbon pollution from all sources. That means that just closing those 100 power plants, and doing nothing else, would cut the carbon pollution of the United States by 20%.

Another statistic is even more revealing in showing just how dirty some American power plants are. If you just take the 50 dirtiest power plants in America, they would account for 2% of the entire world's carbon emissions (equal to the emissions of about 120 million cars) -- and in fact, those 50 power plants produce more carbon emissions than all but six of the world's countries (China, United States, India, Russia, Japan, and Germany).

And what is the biggest offender in those plants. It is their burning of coal. All of the dirtiest 50 power plants, and 98 of the dirtiest 100 power plants, burn coal to produce their energy. Unfortunately, this is not likely to change since the United States has a huge supply of cheap coal -- which we are not only using in our own plants, but also shipping to China (the only country producing more carbon pollution than the United States).

The EPA has proposed limiting carbon emissions from power plants to 1,000 lbs. per megawatt-hour (a cap that all of those 100 power plants currently exceed -- averaging 3,000 lbs. per kilowatt-hour). This cap has not been approved yet, but it should be -- and all of those 100 dirtiest power plants should be closed.

NOTE -- If you would like to see a list of those 100 dirtiest power plants, you can go to this website. Ten (10%) of those plants are in the state of Texas (which has demonstrated no desire to control any pollution).

Unethical Behavior By Coal Producer

You may well have seen an image like the one above. It is being used in campaign commercials for Willard Mitt Romney (aka Wall Street Willie). It is obviously an attempt to counter the impression most people have of Willard -- that he favors the rich. The ad gives the impression that Willard is a champion of working people and that workers, like these coal miners believe Willard has their interests at heart.

The truth is that those miners did not attend that rally for Willard because they all loved him. They were ordered to attend by the executives of Murray Energy -- and they knew if they refused there would be repercussions, possibly even costing them their jobs. Even worse, although they had to take off for part of the day (on company orders) to attend the rally, they were not paid for the time they spent at the rally (meaning they lost several hours of pay to act as campaign props for Willard).

That would have been bad enough, the the executives of Murray Energy have taken their unethical behavior much further. They are "suggesting" that workers should donate a part of their pay to fund the company's political PAC (which is used to fund the campaigns of Republicans -- especially those who deny global climate change and support increased use of fossil fuels). And this, like the rally attendance, is expected (even demanded) by company executives.

Workers know that a failure to contribute to the company's political PAC would result in being overlooked when it came time for raises or promotions -- and could even mean the loss of their job. Here is how Think Progress puts it:

The accounts of two sources who have worked in managerial positions at the firm, and a review of letters and memos to Murray employees, suggest that coercion may also explain Murray staffers’ financial support for Romney. Murray, it turns out, has for years pressured salaried employees to give to the Murray Energy political action committee (PAC) and to Republican candidates chosen by the company. Internal documents show that company officials track who is and is not giving. The sources say that those who do not give are at risk of being demoted or missing out on bonuses, claims Murray denies.

The Murray sources, who requested anonymity for fear of retribution, came forward separately. But they painted similar pictures of the fund-raising operation. “There’s a lot of coercion,” says one of them. “I just wanted to work, but you feel this constant pressure that, if you don’t contribute, your job’s at stake. You’re compelled to do this whether you want to or not.” Says the second: “They will give you a call if you’re not giving. . . . It’s expected you give Mr. Murray what he asks for.”

According to the New Republic, Murray employees have donated $1.4 million to Republican candidates. This year alone, they have provided Willard with at least $120,000. Now I don't have any problem with any employee donating money to a political PAC, whether it is a company, union, or independent PAC. I do however, have a big problem with a company demanding an employee donate to a PAC (and keep track of those who gave and those who didn't give).

This is nothing less than worker abuse. Every penny a worker receives in pay for their hard work should be spent as the worker wants -- and the company has no right to demand or "suggest" any of it should be spent as the company wants. This may not be illegal (although it should be if it is not), but it is certainly both immoral and unethical.

A Small Bit Of Good News About Energy

The coal industry has been running some rather disingenuous television ads recently that tout "clean coal" energy. But anyone with even a small bit of knowledge about energy knows that there is no such thing as "clean coal". Coal is the dirtiest of all the fossil fuels, and when burned produces more particulate matter and other pollutants (including the greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change). And while the newest coal-powered energy plants pollute less than older coal-powered plants, they still produce an unacceptable level of pollution.

But here in the United States, we have a huge supply of coal and it is very cheap. For that reason, the United States still produces a large amount of the electricity generated by burning coal (and both the coal and electric industries are spending tons of money to make sure that doesn't change). They put their corporate profits before both the public's health and the preservation of the environment.

But there is a little bit of good news on this front. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) is reporting that the generation of electricity by burning coal is down this year. In the first quarter of 2011, about 44.6% of electricity generated was from the burning of coal. In the first Quarter of 2012, that has dropped to about 36%. That's a 19.3% drop in coal generation. It represents an 8.6% drop in coal generation's portion of total electric production (a figure that EIA expects to grow to about 14% by the end of 2012).

The major reason for this is the reduction in price for natural gas. The portion of total electric production done by burning natural gas has increased by nearly the amount coal generation has decreased. Natural gas is not a completely clean electricity producer, but it is much cleaner than coal and will result in less total pollution. Taking old coal plants off line and increased use of renewable sources of energy are also contributing to less coal generation. Here is how Think Progress sums up this situation:

The U.S. coal industry is facing major headwinds. The current drop in generation is mostly due to competition from natural gas. But there are other factors that will assist in pushing coal out of the electricity mix: An aging fleet of plants, cost-competitive renewables, new clean air regulations, and a strong anti-coal movement are working together to reduce the attractiveness of coal. Since 2010, plant operators have announced 106 retirements of coal facilities — representing 13 percent of the U.S. fleet, according to the Sierra Club.

The continued decline in domestic coal generation is good news for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon dioxide emissions from the fossil fuel sector are expected to decline by almost 3 percent this year — continuing the 1.9 percent decrease seen in 2011. Emissions from natural gas will rise by 5.5 percent, while emissions from coal will fall by almost 12 percent.

Obama And Romney Policies On Energy

If you've wondered why Big Oil and Big Coal have already poured over $16 million into helping the Romney campaign, the chart above (from Think Progress) should answer your questions. President Obama has increased fuel efficiency, protected government lands, passed new regulations to reduce pollution, supports funding for clean energy and creation of green jobs, and wants to eliminate many of the unneeded subsidies for the energy industry.

Romney (aka Wall Street Willie) would do just the opposite. He would turn Big Oil and Big Coal loose to destroy the environment and create more health problems from pollution. He would also cut funding for clean energy and oppose new fuel efficiency standards, while protecting the tax subsidies for these giant corporations.

There is really no comparison here. While the president is following a sane energy policy (although more could be done to stop global warming), Romney would just turn the country over to the giant corporations (who care only for their bottom line -- not the environment or the people).

Only A Partial Solution

(Cartoon above is done by Michael Ramirez in the Investor's Business Daily.)

Don't get me wrong. I'm not opposed to electric cars. I think they're probably a good idea whose time has come. If we put enough of them on the road, we probably can reduce our dependence somewhat on crude oil. But we need to stop thinking that electric cars are the way to end pollution in the United States.

I'm not saying that the use of electric cars will make no difference in pollution levels -- only that the difference they would make is much smaller than most people think. The truth is that the electric cars have a carbon footprint also, and currently that carbon footprint is not a whole lot smaller than that of a gasoline-powered auto.

How can that be? Two reasons. First, gasoline-powered autos are much cleaner than they used to be (and at least the newer ones don't pollute nearly as much as autos used to do). Second, the electric cars must get their electric power from somewhere, and that is usually from a dirty coal-powered energy plant.

If a proliferation of electric cars simply results in the building of more dirty coal-powered energy plants (and there is no such thing as a "clean" coal-powered plant), then little or nothing would have been accomplished toward cleaning up air pollution. The EPA has already told us that nearly 70% of the pollution produced in this country now comes from energy plants -- and the worst violators are the coal-fired plants.

Electric cars are a start, but they are only a small part of the solution we need to combat pollution. Far more important is cleaning up energy-producing plants -- and that must be done by finding new clean and renewable sources for energy production. Coal producers like to brag that they have hundreds of years of supply and their product is cheap. That might be true. But isn't planetary survival more important than a cheap dirty fuel? Can we really afford to continue building coal-powered plants? I think not.

EPA Cracks Down On Pollution

The nation's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finally taking some needed action to control the pollution that one state sends to another. The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule will affect power plants and similar polluters in 27 states that have been identified as polluting other states. It is estimated that the affected plants will have to spend about $800 million to come into compliance with the new law, but it is estimated that it will save the country around $280 billion in health benefits.

Some of the expected health benefits of the new EPA rule are (starting in 2014):
* Protect 240 million American from smog and soot pollution.
* Prevent up to 34,000 premature deaths.
* Prevent 15,000 non-fatal heart attacks.
* Prevent 19,000 cases of acute bronchitis.
* Prevent 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma.
* Prevent 1.8 million sick days a year.

The fact that all of the above is preventable but has not been accomplished to date because of corporate greed and governmental foot-dragging is inexcusable. How can anyone justify putting corporate profits above the health of American citizens? Are the deaths and medical problems of hundreds of thousands of Americans just to be considered "collateral damage" in the drive for ever-fatter corporate bank accounts?

The new rule, which will go into effect on January 1st, will save between 670 and 1,700 premature deaths in Texas alone each year. But that has not prevented the Republican leadership in Texas from condemning the new rule. Governor Rick Perry said it "is another example of heavy-handed and misguided action from Washington, D.C., that threatens Texas jobs and families and puts at risk the reliable and affordable electricity our state needs to succeed." Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) joined the governor in expressing that sentiment.

Frankly, that attitude, though expected from Texas Republicans (who sold out to corporate interests years ago), is utterly ridiculous. These polluting plants should have been forced to clean up their act many years ago. They should never have had the right to put the health of Americans (in any state) in danger so they could save a few corporate dollars.

In fact, the state leadership in Texas are the last people who should be complaining. Texas has long led the nation in the amount of pollution it produces. There are only six countries in the entire world that produce more pollution than the state of Texas (and one of those countries is the United States).

This is a very good rule that is long overdue. I agree with regional EPA director Al Armendariz who said, "I think this is one of the most important rules the agency has ever published."

We can now expect the House (and Senate) Republicans to do everything in their power to overturn this new rule. Their recent actions (favoring corporate tax cuts while slashing programs that help ordinary people) have shown that they care a lot more about corporate bigwigs than the health and/or financial security of regular American citizens. We'll just have to hope the Democrats and the president have enough backbone to stand up for the new rule.

Worker Deaths Are Just A Corporate Business Expense

Last year (on April 5, 2010) there was an explosion at the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia. This coal mine disaster killed 29 miners, and has still not been reopened for mining operations (and is now probably going to be sealed off and not reopened). In addition to losing the mine the company (Massey Energy) also settled with the families of the dead miners for $3 million apiece.

A reasonable person might think that losing a producing mine and paying out about $87 million to the families of fallen miners would have taught Massey Energy a valuable lesson -- that putting mine safety first would save both dollars and lives. But it looks like that lesson didn't register on Massey Energy. Forcing miners to work in unsafe, even dangerous, conditions is just the way they normally do business -- and the payouts resulting from that are just considered the cost of doing business.

It turns out that in the year before the mine explosion (2009), Massey Energy had been fined a total of $382,000 for serious and repeated mine safety violations. And in the month before the explosion the mine had been cited for 57 separate safety violations. It seems that paying fines for making miners work in dangerous conditions was just considered a cost of doing business for Massey Energy -- a cost that was cheaper for them than actually making the mines safer. This willingness to pay repeated fines rather than clean-up their act is what eventually resulted in the deaths of 29 of their miners. (And believe it or not the Massey CEO received a $2 million bonus for the company's exemplary safety record for 2010.)

Have they changed now that 29 of their employees were killed? Not even a little bit. Federal investigators from the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) showed up at another Massey facility recently -- the Randolph Mine in Boone County, West Virginia. The MSHA investigators found multiple safety violations that were "nothing short of outrageous" and posed a "serious risk" of fire and/or explosion.

Joseph Main, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health, said, "Despite the tragedy at Upper Big Branch last year. . .some still aren't getting it." He's wrong. They "get it". They just care more about their profit margin than about the safety or lives of their workers. They'll mouth the expected words about safety, and then continue to worry only about the bottom line (ever growing profits).

And Massey Energy is by no means the only corporation that cuts corners in safety to increase corporate profits. Another prime example is the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico caused by Transocean/BP cutting corners. That not only dumped millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf, it killed 11 oil workers when the rig exploded. The management of Transocean also received huge bonuses for "the best year in safety performance in our company's history". That's corporate-speak for their huge profits are more important than the lives of 11 workers. Do any of us doubt both these companies are still cutting corners in safety to get bigger profits?

Far too often both the politicians and the general public buy into the public relations material put out by corporations -- the stuff that says corporations have a heart or soul and wants the best for their workers and their communities. None of that is true. Regardless of what the Supreme Court may think, corporations are not people and they don't have a heart. They are a cold and calculating entity with only a bank account, and the only thing they care about is making that bank account ever larger (regardless of how that affects their workers or anyone else).

Right-wing politicians would have us believe that the government and unions just get in the way of warm-hearted corporations, and if they were eliminated the corporations would be able to make a better world for all of us. They are paid to say that by the very corporations they defend, but that does not make it true. The truth is that they care only for profits, and they will not share those profits with workers or spend any of it to create safe working conditions until they are forced to do so.

That is why government safety inspectors (OSHA, MSHA, and others) and strong unions are both necessary. These are the only organizations that can protect American workers. They are the only organizations that can and will put pressure on corporations to insure safe working conditions.

Too often unions are portrayed as only caring about getting their workers large salaries, and it is true that getting workers a decent and livable wage is one of their functions. But equally important are two other functions -- insuring workers are treated fairly and insuring workers have safe working conditions. Government is necessary and does what it can, but unions are also needed to protect workers.

Corporations have the right to make a good profit, but they don't have the right to do it at the expense of worker safety (and community safety). There is a happy medium, and it is the function of government and unions to help find it.

An Embarrassment To The Democratic Party

West Virginia has a new Democratic senator -- well, he calls himself a Democrat. Truth be told, he is a "blue dog" conservative who has been bought and paid for by the coal companies (which makes me wonder what nincompoop thought he should serve on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee). He will probably vote with the Republicans as much as he does with Democrats.

Yesterday Senator Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) made his first speech before the U.S. Senate, and I'm sure Democrats all over the country wish C-SPAN hadn't broadcast the speech. Because in that speech, Manchin showed that he can tell a giant whopper of a lie as well as any Republican in the Senate. Maybe, like the Republicans, he thinks he can say anything and the American people will believe it. While that may work with teabaggers, Manchin needs to learn that the Democratic base expects a speech to be backed up with some facts.

In his initial Senate speech, Manchin decided to carry some water for the coal corporations. That would have been bad enough, but in doing so, he had little regard for the truth. He lamented the "fact" that while all other sources of energy get government subsidies, the poor coal companies don't get a penny. He said, "What I don't understand is the subsidies. The subsidies of energy, whether it be to oil, gas, wind, solar, biofuels, ethanol. The only energy source -- which is the greatest source that we have so far as we're dependent on -- is coal. It doesn't get a penny of subsidies."

Now some of you may be thinking that he just might not know the coal industry is subsidized by both state and federal governments, but that would be even worse. He served as the governor of West Virginia before being elected to the Senate. He'd have to be a complete idiot to not know the coal industry is subsidized. Unfortunately for Manchin, it didn't take Think Progress long to come up with a pretty long list of coal subsidies. Here they are:


Credit for Production of Nonconventional Fuels ($14,097)- IRC Section 45K. This provision provides a tax credit for the production of certain fuels. Qualifying fuels include: oil from shale, tar sands; gas from geopressurized brine, Devonian shale, coal seams, tight formations, biomass, and coal-based synthetic fuels. This credit has historically primarily benefited coal producers.


Characterizing Coal Royalty Payments as Capital Gains ($986) – IRC Section 631(c). Income from the sale of coal under royalty contract may be treated as a capital gain rather than ordinary income for qualifying individuals.



Exclusion of Benefit Payments to Disabled Miners ($438) – 30 U.S.C. 922(c). Disability payments out of the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund are not treated as income to the recipients.


Other-Fuel Excess of Percentage over Cost Depletion ($323)- IRC Section 613. Taxpayers may deduct 10 percent of gross income from coal production.


Credit for Clean Coal Investment ($186)- IRC Sections 48A and 48B. Available for 20 percent of the basis of integrated gasification combined cycle property and 15 percent of the basis for other advanced coal-based generation technologies.


Special Rules for Mining Reclamation Reserves ($159) – IRC Section 468. This deduction is available for early payments into reserve trusts, with eligibility determined by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act and the Solid Waste Management Act. The amounts attributable to mines rather than solid-waste facilities are conservatively assumed to be one-half of the total.


84-month Amortization Period for Coal Pollution Control ($102) – IRC Section 169(d)(5). Extends the amortization period used in calculating the deduction from the generally applicable 60-month period available for other types of pollution control facilities.


Expensing Advanced Mine Safety Equipment ($32) – IRC Section 179E. The costs of qualifying mine safety equipment may be expensed rather than recovered through depreciation.


Black Lung Disability Trust Fund ($1,035)- As industry excise tax payments did not sufficiently cover early benefits payments, the BLDTF was given “indefinite authority to borrow” from the U.S. General Fund, and bailed out for $6.498 billion, 13 percent of which is relevant to the 2002-2008 period.


Financial support for the World Bank and other international financial institutions that finance fossil fuel use and extraction. Since 1994, these institutions have provided $137 billion in direct and indirect financial support for new coal-fired power plants.


U.S. Treasury Department’s backing of tax-exempt bonds and federally subsidized taxable Build America Bonds for use in the electric sector. $81 billion in tax-exempt debt was issued between 2002 and 2006 for electric power, most for coal plants.


U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service provision of loans, loan guarantees, and lien accommodations to public power companies that are investing in new or existing coal plants.


Tax credits, loans, and loan guarantees through the U.S. Department of Energy. In 2009, DOE issued $5.9 billion in loan guarantees for advanced coal projects.

Furthermore, cash-strapped state governments give millions of dollars in subsidies to coal, including $115 million from Kentucky, and $26 million from Virginia. In 2008, then-Gov. Manchin himself offered Appalachian Fuel $200 million in subsidies for a liquid coal plant.

Coal-Powered Plant Is Nearer To Approval

There is a proposal to build a new power plant near Corpus Christi on the Texas Gulf coast.   The plant will be powered by coal -- one of the dirtiest and polluting methods of producing energy that exists.   Texas already pollutes the air more than any other state in the Union (and more than all but six countries), so it is really amazing that the energy industry wants to build even more coal-powered plants in the state (which is already exceeding EPA standards for air pollution).

Environmentalists have opposed the building of the plant because they say it will pump more medically-unsafe "particulate matter" into Texas skies.   On Wednesday, a panel of administrative law judges agreed with the environmentalists.   They recommended the plant not be granted a permit.

The panel said the developers of the project could not "ensure that emissions from the proposed facility would not contribute to air pollution."   They believed the facility would not meet federal standards of the Clean Air Act.

Now that may sound to some like a roadblock has just been thrown up that would prevent the building of the polluting plant.   Not so.   Remember, this is Texas -- where the Republican-controlled government is a friend to energy producers and other polluting corporations.   This just means the plant is one step closer to being built.

The proposal will now go to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), and the TCEQ is under no obligation to follow the recommendation of the administrative law panel.   The TCEQ has the authority to approve the plant and give it a permit regardless of what anyone thinks.   And since the TCEQ is little more than a government front for the energy industry, the odds are that this new plant will soon be dumping pollutants into the Gulf coast air.

For those of you who doubt this, remember that the TCEQ has already approved the dumping of radioactive waste in West Texas -- in an area directly over the Ogallala Aquifer, which supplies clean water to at least seven states.   The driving force behind TCEQ decisions is corporate profits and not citizen safety.

Oil And Coal Money Flows To Capitol Hill

When the gulf oil disaster occurred a few months ago, Republicans were quick to jump to the defense of BP and the other oil companies. Two of the biggest defenders were Texans. Senator John Cornyn backed up the Texas governor on his "accidents will happen" nonsense and fought every effort to make BP and Big Oil more responsible. Rep. Joe Barton was even worse -- apologizing to BP for President Obama's efforts to make them pay for the damage they had caused.

It should come as no surprise then that Cornyn and Barton lead all members of Congress in donations from big energy companies (and a third Texan, Kay Bailey Hutchison, is in the top six). Here are the six members of Congress receiving the most money from energy giants (mostly oil and coal companies) and the amount of money they have received:

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas)..........$1,863,310

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas)..........$1,707,173

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky)..........$1,147,558

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma)..........$1,123,006

Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Virginia)..........$1,094,811

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas)..........$1,004,514

Our Republican U.S. Representative here in the Panhandle, Mac Thornberry, has also been grabbing as much oil and coal money as he can also. Thornberry, who has one of the safest Republican seats in the nation (since he doesn't even have a Democratic opponent this year), has received $265,800 rom the energy companies -- 84% of it from oil companies and 16% from coal companies.

If you'd like to know how much money your own senator or representative has taken from the energy companies you can go to this site and just type in your zip code in the search box at the top of the page. You might be surprised (and horrified) at the amount -- especially if you are represented by a Republican.

Here are the top six energy companies donating to politicians and the amount they have given:

1. Koch Industries (oil)..........$4,382,491

2. Southern Company (coal)..........$4,057,724

3. Exxon Mobil (oil)..........$3,947,840

4. American Electric Power (coal)..........$2,724,662

5. Valero Energy (oil)..........$2,477,100

6. Chevron Corporation (oil)..........$2,460,946

Panhandle To Get Coal-Fired Power Plant

It looks like the Texas Panhandle will be getting a coal-powered energy plant. The Celanese Corporation has sold its Pampa plant to the Australian investment firm of Babcock & Brown. The plant currently produces various chemicals, but the investment firm plans to convert it into a power plant using coal as its source of energy.

Celanese said the plant, which has been operating since 1952, was outdated and had much higher operating costs than their other more modern plants. The 225 employees can hire on at the future power facility, or transfer to other Celanese plants. Chemical production at the plant should cease in early 2009.

After chemical production ceases, the plant will be converted to a coal-burning power plant capable of producing about 800 megawatts (one megawatt can provide electricity for 250-300 homes). The company also plans to use wind energy to produce another 1000 megawatts.

Nothing was said in the news release about using the most modern technology to minimize the amount of pollution normally produced in a coal-burning power plant. I hope the company doesn't believe such precautions are not needed in the wide-open spaces of the Panhandle.

We currently enjoy clean, healthy and breathable air here in the Panhandle, but it wouldn't take very many coal-powered plants with yesterday's technology to destroy that.