
The Future of Coal Country - ptrptr
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/07/03/the-future-of-coal-country
======
philipkglass
_Shutting the mine could eliminate more than seven thousand jobs, in a county
of thirty-seven thousand people. “Greene County will become a ghost town,” the
neighbor wrote._

Isn't that the normal fate of towns built around resource extraction after the
resource is economically exhausted? The American West is littered with ghost
town remnants around depleted mines. It doesn't make much more sense to stay
in a coal mining town in Someplace, Appalachia after the coal is gone than to
stay in a silver mining town in Someplace, Colorado after the silver is gone.

I saw similar grievances from dying logging towns when I was growing up in the
Pacific Northwest. The flashpoint was government action to protect the
remnants of old growth forest that the endangered Spotted Owl lived in. The
underlying problem was that loggers were exploiting old growth forest faster
than it could regenerate. Deregulation wasn't going to make their way of life
sustainable. You can't extract what isn't there any more.

If the residents of these coal-centered towns can find a way to reinvent the
local economy to _not_ depend on declining mines, that's great. I wish them
luck with that. But most probably won't. We need to prepare to help people
transition to other regions and other opportunities when the mines are no
longer making money and the towns around them no longer prosper.

~~~
opportune
I'm originally from an area not in coal country, but right by it and heavily
influenced by it. I couldn't agree with you more. Both my home state and the
federal government are already essentially subsidizing these people to live in
these communities simply because it's where they were born. There is no
infrastructure for jobs because there are no industries other than coal and
growing marijuana / making moonshine (although these are done on either an
amateur level or highly consolidated).

I am normally a big fan of welfare and similar social services, but especially
when they empower recipients to get back on their feet. There are plenty of
communities in appalachia with sky-high unemployment and a huge percentage of
their residents essentially draw SSI for most of their lives. They need to
move, because they and their children will just draw welfare in perpetuity at
the expense of everyone else.

Of course, there aren't a whole lot of ethical ways to get them to move.
Forcing them to move is obviously a terrible idea. Making welfare/SSI
contingent on moving could work, but will be absolutely terrible for those
with all their wealth tied up in their house. It's a hard problem to solve,
especially since a lot of these people are okay with / used to just making
enough to get by.

~~~
ticviking
How is this different from the narratives of "welfare dependence" and "inter-
generational poverty" advanced by republicans to advocate for deep cuts to
urban welfare?

If there are more people in a city than it provides opportunity for it seems
to me to be a similar cruelty to incentivize them to stay in one place because
they have "roots" there or something equally vague.

~~~
hiram112
Good point.

I know folks on the right screamed about the 'welfare queens' living on the
tax payers' dime in the inner cities for generation after generation. In
reality, this was a coded attack against blacks, and the majority of the
claims were hyperbole.

But now the left has begun making the same mean-spirited attacks on uneducated
whites from Appalachia, the Midwest, and the south.

Both types of stereotypes are annoying to hear repeated again and again.

~~~
philipkglass
I agree that people should remain compassionate. I understand why some people
experience schadenfreude when it's rural Republican voters failing to "pull
themselves up by their bootstraps" after hearing that advice given to urban
Democratic voters, but tit-for-tat shaming is not humane. These people largely
don't vote how I vote but they are still my fellow citizens. They have
dependent children and elders. Some degree of suffering is probably
unavoidable, because relocation is painful and many of these towns don't have
long term futures. I don't want their residents to experience unnecessary
suffering as some sort of lesson. We should try to help the people transition
to better opportunities in other regions.

If the residents refuse that sort of help and instead demand that the
government somehow make the old mines profitable again, _then_ one may indulge
in some exasperated eyeball-rolling and mockery, but I'm trying not to do that
preemptively.

~~~
rayiner
Shaming is an important part of society. It's how we incentivize positive
behaviors and discourage negative ones.

~~~
cmurf
Like slut shaming, gay bashing, nerd bullying? Or maybe you'd like to better
qualify or narrow your assertion? Because multiple generations did this, for
exactly the reasons you state: it was good for society.

~~~
themacguffinman
Except for the crucial difference that progressives generally don't think
sluts, gays, or nerds are engaging in negative behaviour.

~~~
cmurf
The point is that society can be confused on what is positive and negative
behavior, and end up scapegoating. And it is effective only in a reptilian
brain context.

It'd be similarly ignorant to praise murdering your enemies. Sure no doubt
about it, it's really effective. Doesn't mean it's legal or ethical.

These things are brute force hammers. If you really think shaming has value,
read the Scarlet Letter.

~~~
themacguffinman
Of course shaming can be abused or misguided, just like almost everything in
this world we live in. The idea that we shouldn't use something just because
it can possibly be abused is ridiculous. Like everything, it has a degree of
risk that we weigh and judge as moral agents.

And we all live in a "reptilian brain context". I'm not sure what other
context there is. It makes no sense to reason about society as if we weren't
all half a chromosome away from a chimpanzee.

~~~
cmurf
Your idea of shaming works only because you've had success bullying weaker
opponents who back down, and appear to learn the "lesson" you're generously
handing out.

Find an on par opponent and you'll get escalation of shaming, get your ass
handed back to you with wit, or the person will just ignore you.

So I refuse that it's effective. It's perhaps been effective for you, self
selective bias. You probably don't shame people you've sized up who won't
respond to shaming the way you want.

~~~
themacguffinman
In case you've forgotten, this discussion thread is about societal shame, not
individual bullying as you seem to imply. Societal shame isn't individuals
engaging other individuals in some kind of shame battle. It actually consists
of collective exclusion and isolation. Society (and the institutional
structures that comprise it) doesn't get its "ass handed back" by people who
buck its pressures; at most, these pariahs ignore society and get ignored in
return.

But yeah, I totally only believe this because I'm a successful bully (◔_◔)

------
jdmichal
So, when I look at what Norway has done with its oil money, I wonder what
prevented communities like these from doing the same thing. Removal of the
coal from the ground generated excess value, otherwise the mines would have
lost money and been closed already. Where did this excess value actually flow?
Did the community actually capture enough of the value flow to change its
fate? Or did it only capture enough to survive, and now since that value flow
is ending so does its survival?

~~~
mmanfrin
That excess value was captured by a select few, rather than by the government
(as in Norway).

~~~
digi_owl
And Norway was basically warned about the problem by an Iraqi that had
experienced it once before.

Not that the oil fund is perfect. Using it can drive the currency haywire.

~~~
mandevil
The problem is that extractive industries drive Dutch Disease. A Sovereign
Wealth Fund can fight it, but Dutch Disease will have an effect. (The other
thing that can be done is to have the entire country save more, by running a
budget surplus and encouraging individuals to save more as well. This is...
somewhat hard to do, in practice, without incredibly strong social cohesion.)

~~~
vkou
It's a lot easier to do when important sectors of your economy aren't addicted
to consumer credit. People don't buy tankers full of oil on credit cards, but
they do buy Fords.

~~~
ThrustVectoring
Blaming debtors for indebtedness is like blaming heroin addicts for drug-
running. It's a two-sided market, and savings gluts can and will drive down
the price of credit until the market clears.

------
woodandsteel
Trump says he is going to bring back coal as a part of his program to make
America great again.

But the reason America was so great is that it was at the leading edge of
technological change. That is relevant because in the 19th century, coal was
the hot new technology. It was used for powering factory machines, electric
generators, railroads and steam boats, heating, and producing steel.

But technology continued to advance, and coal has gradually been replaced. It
survives today only for steel production and part of electric generation, and
even there it is being replaced by gas and renewables.

So when Trump wants to revive coal, he is going backwards technologically, and
that would mean losing out in the global economy, too.

Any Trump defenders want to disagree?

~~~
briantakita
I wouldn't say we are going technologically backwards if you take a systemic
look at energy, manufacturing, & infrastructure.

Steel is needed to rebuild existing infrastructure (roads, bridges, railroads)
that have been falling apart over the years.

Steel is also needed to new infrastructure (buildings, electrical grid, solar
panels (including those which will line the Mexican border wall), walls,
housing, equipment, manufacturing).

Coal power is also inexpensive, transportable (power generation can be
localized), & cleaner than ever. There's also a lot of coal left to be mined
(> 260 bn short tons; 200 years).

[http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Energy.html](http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Energy.html)

Coal can also be converted to diesel allowing states to create their own
energy & reducing our need for foreign fuel sources. This will have
geopolitical ramifications. Even if we decide to move toward renewable
resources, having this coal stockpile in our back pocket will give leverage in
acquiring the rare earth minerals needed for batteries & solar cells.

Also note that China & India burn a lot of coal, even though they could leap
frog to a new energy infrastructure, giving more evidence that there must be
compelling reasons to do so.

~~~
andygates
"Cleaner than ever" still ain't clean.

"I murdered fewer people last year!" would be a terrible defense for Jack The
Ripper.

~~~
briantakita
> "Cleaner than ever" still ain't clean.

Ok, less dirty. Happy?

> "I murdered fewer people last year!" would be a terrible defense for Jack
> The Ripper.

By that logic, solar & wind are not clean either. You still have to mine for &
process rare earth minerals for solar cells & batteries. Not to mention the
poor Chinese workers who process the electronics in poor working conditions.
How about the extra infrastructure needed to support solar cells & wind
turbines everywhere, as you have power loss with power transmission over a
distance.

Neither is fission clean. Perhaps Thorium is relatively clean?

> China and India burn a lot of coal... because they have a lot of
> inhabitants. But they have also got much more renewables than the US.

China & India are also building infrastructure, which uses steel. I don't
think there's any qualms about using renewables in the US. It's a matter of
letting the technology mature in the free market & reducing the Federal Budget
& lowering taxes. When renewables are more mature, the US will adopt them
more.

Note that there are several alternative technologies being developed. Thorium,
Biogas, Fusion, etc. When these technologies mature, we can use them all in
combination; taking "the right tool for the right job" approach.

