Plangwal 1

Natipong Plangwal
Professor Cassel
English 1201
December 3, 2015

War on Coal Myth

In recent months, a lot of political rhetoric from the right has been about a War on Coal
waged by liberal politicians. These folks argue that President Obama and the Left has an agenda
against coal and is the primary reason the industry is in decline and suffering. They argue that
liberal environmental policies, like emissions regulations, kill the industry. This begs the
question, are liberals systematically waging a war on coal or is this just political posturing and
simply a myth? The War on Coal is, in fact, a myth that has been created and perpetuated for
political reasons. First and foremost, it is important that we understand the claims that are made
about the War on Coal. They are twofold. First, it is stated that coal employment is declining
because of liberal policies. Second, it is stated that coal as an industry is being attacked by
liberal politicians. Both narratives are false. Economic analysis and study of historical coal
employment and production trends show that coal has been in decline for much longer than the
Obama years and that the decline has spanned across both Republican and Democratic
presidential administrations.
The common War on Coal story holds is liberal agendas kill coal sector employment .
Historical employment data shows the opposite. The graph below shows industry employment
levels in Kentucky and West Virginia across five presidential administrations of varying political
parties all the way back to Reagan.

Plangwal 2

The graph is interesting for two reasons. First, it shows employment has fallen historically,
without regard for the Presidents party affiliation. Employment has fallen in both Democratic
and Republican administrations. Second, it shows that the biggest drops in coal employment
were under Republican presidents, looking at Reagan and G.H. Bush on the graph. This shows
that political parties, particularly Democratic, dont drive coal employment down. So what
does? The answer lies in technological change and basic economics.
The following graph answers the question:

Source: Kentucky Division of

Mines and Minerals

Plangwal 3

Like car production used to be, mining used to be very labor heavy. This meant it took a
lot of men to mine coal. Over time technological change allowed more machines to be used in
place of men. Production became less labor intensive. The graph above shows that even as coal
employment fell, production was kept high because labor was substituted with machines.
Ohios own coal history provides a representative case of historic industry trends. I
found information about Ohios coal history from Douglas Crowells History of the Coal-Mining
Industry in Ohio. There are two primary mining methods in coal production: underground and
surface (strip). From 1800 until 1948, coal was primarily extracted from underground mining.
This process was labor intensive. Come World War II, surface mining began to grow rapidly.
The war sent experienced and skilled mine workers across the Atlantic leaving coal companies
with a production problem. Placing inexperienced and low skilled workers in underground
mines increased production costs. Soon coal companies deployed new machinery and surface
mining to maintain production levels. The result was a historic trend of technological
unemployment coupled with sustained high levels of production. The development of large and
efficient earth-moving equipment, such as the Mountaineer and Big Muskie shown below, was a
cost-saving substitute for labor. As a result, the number of labor-intensive underground mines
tumbled by 90 percent between 1950 and 1970.

Plangwal 4

In 1956. The Mountaineer was the worlds largest power shovel and boasted a 100-ton
capacity bucket. The machine was capable of moving 7,200 tons of material per hour, shattering
the capacity of a traditional labor force. The Big Muskie, with a 325-ton capacity bucket, moved
4.5 million yards of material a month. Today, ultra-large power shovels have been replaced by
smaller, more efficient, hydraulic front-end loaders and power shovels, depicted below.

It is worth noting that technological advances in underground mining also displaced

labor. Despite the near disappearance of underground mines in Ohio since 1950, underground
production has actually decreased very little. Crowell notes in 1993, nearly 11 million tons were
produced from nine total underground mines, compared to 15 million tons produced in 1950
from over 500 mines. This illustrates an enormous productivity gain.
Another reason coal is in decline as an industry is because of increased competition from
other energy sources. The shale gas revolution, or more commonly known as fracking, has made
natural gas very cheap and that can be used to produce electricity instead of coal. Natural gas
production boomed in the 2000s. In 1990 approximately 16 trillion cubic feet (tcf) was produced
but in 2010 over 22 tcf was produced (Tomain 2013). The greater supply means natural gas is
cheaper and competitive with coal. This has allowed natural gas to take some of the market away

Plangwal 5

from coal. In the electricity generation market, natural gas has 30 percent of the, and coal has
fallen from 50 percent to 42 percent (Tomain 2013).
The analysis of coal history and economic competition from natural gas shows that coal
is in decline for apolitical reasons. This is not to say that politics has no influence in the coal
industry, but the industry has been declining for decades no matter who the president was. This
suggests that the War on Coal is just a myth and that Obama is not killing the industry. This is
an important finding because communities that once relied on coal employment are losing work
and it is not because of politics, it is because of normal economic forces and technology. They
should acknowledge this and adapt for the future rather than blame Democrats.
Moving forward, I think the coal communities and politicians should discuss how coal is
becoming obsolete as other power sources become more viable. In doing so, they can decide
how to move forward so the people in these communities dont get terribly hurt by the collapse
of coal. Conversations could be held about making coal cleaner rather than blaming people
about killing the industry, which we know is untrue. Other conversations could be held about
using the skills the people in the coal industry have already in other industries and sectors. The
real discussion should not be about blaming people for coals problems, but it should be about
how we can help coal country survive in the future.

Work Cited

Plangwal 6

Crowell, Douglas. 1995. History of the Coal-Mining Industry in Ohio. Ohio Department of
Natural Resources
Singh, R. D. Principles and Practices of Modern Coal Mining. India: New Age, 2005. Print.
"The Impact of Coal on the Kentucky State Budget." The Economics of Coal in Kentucky:
Current Impacts and Future Prospects. Web.
<http://www.maced.org/coal/exe-summary.htm>.
Reis, Patrick. "Coal Country's Decline Has a Long History." National Journal. 31 Oct. 2013.
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/new-energy-paradigm/coal-countrys-decline-has-a-long-history-20131031>
Tomain, Joseph. "Shale Gas and Clean Energy Policy." Case Western Reserve Law Review 63.4
(2013): n. pag. Web.