Why in the world would they do this? If you’ve ever seen streams impacted by coal mines you’d know what a disaster it is. Is this supposed to create more jobs by easing regulations? If so, how? I suspect Trump bathed in these steams as a kid (and maybe still does) and likes the orange tinge it leaves on anything unfortunate enough to fall in.
I think this is just the case of reversing all of these last minute regulations that Obama put in place during his final days in office. It’s not like this regulation has been in place and now we’re going to have all this new pollution because companies have less regulations to follow. This thing was just put in place less than one month ago.
Yes, when the Interior Department studied the impact of the rule before publication they predicted it would cost 7,000 coal mining jobs which is 8.5% of the total coal mining jobs in the country.
Why would you expect them to do anything else? This is a no-brainer for the House GOP: It’s a chance to screw over Obama AND make things easier for businesses, and the only cost is massive environmental damage.
Of course they claim that eventually the coal companies will restore the place where the coal mine is located. Not much confidence on that.
Well, yeah, I would think that burying streams is not quite protecting those streams.
As for the jobs one would protect, there is evidence that automation and new machinery leads to less jobs regardless if the coal companies get what they want.
The analysis does indicate there would also be an increase in jobs related to compliance aspects, but those would likely be at a higher skill set than the impacted jobs. Competing analysis from what appears to be industry pegs the job loss figures much higher but I think that should be taken with a grain of salt.
Are those job numbers worth rolling back the rule that has not yet been fully implemented? I think that’s a policy question but it certainly is more nuanced than wanting to screw over Obama, cause massive environmental damage, trying to make people get sick and die, or other silly caricatures.
People where coal mining is done tended to vote for Trump.
They knowingly voted for the candidate that they knew, or should have known, would allow their water to become polluted, and who promised to take away their access to health care for black lung disease.
I get the impression as well that people in coal country care more about their jobs than about their environment. If this is really the case then I think eff 'en is a reasonable response. Democrats offer job retraining so they won’t be dependent on coal. Instead they just want to keep going back to he Republicans, Mr. Peabody and his coal.
This is not accurate at all (nor was puddleglum’s). You have completely misunderstood what you quoted. The figure that you quote is for the baseline scenario…i.e., how many jobs will disappear just due to the shrinking of the industry (or at least labor needed in the industry), independent of this rule change. The rule change itself is estimated to cost around 300 jobs (although with a large error bar…), which is less than 1/2 percent of the 75,000 that you quote. Here is the relevant quote:
NPR (I think it was On Point) had an interesting interview with a few coal miners in I believe West Virginia that had black lung. If I am remembering correctly, one person straight up said he’s fine having black lung as it is part of the job he accepted. Having a job and keeping a traditional job of his area alive was more important to him than his health.
Assuming I am paraphrasing him correctly, I’m honestly unsure how to approach people who value their life so little. How can you value other people’s lives if you don’t even value your own above a specific job or tradition?
I understand caring about your job. I understand wanting to provide for your family and the dignity that goes along with doing that through hard work.
But when your job is literally killing you… really and truly actually killing you (and you have seen it kill your family members and you have seen it kill your neighbors) and you’re barely sharing in the profits from your death (someone is getting rich, it isn’t you) - I don’t understand going for the side that says “we will kill you quicker, but you keep the same job” rather than the side that says “let’s find a less lethal job.”
Perhaps it’s a case of “staying with what you know.” Maybe staring black lung in the face is easier for some than rolling the dice on a job that might be less lethal but might not provide as well for your family in the long run. Even then, I’d try rolling the dice. Yes I’d be gambling with the livelihood of my family, but I’d also be gambling that I’d be around longer to be with them in the ways they hopefully care about more given the normal social needs and responses of humans, particularly family members.
Well, at least no conservatives are offshoring jobs. I mean, can you imagine President Butthurt Snoflake buying his steel and aluminum from China, or having his clothing line made in China, Bangladesh, Honduras, Vietnam, India, South Korea, and Mexico, or his furniture line made in China, hotel products made in China or Taiwan, or his vodka made in The Netherlands? Nah… Conservatives would never do that! And certainly, not the Scamster-In-Chief! Oh, wait a minute… He does.
Well, then, having no health insurance is just another “tradition” that they can keep practicing. The problem of the first tradition is “solved” by the second tradition.
Actually they do, or at least do so more than Conservatives. All movements towards international workers rights and environmentalism that I have seen have been very much on the liberal side of the American political spectrum. I welcome any cites that suggest otherwise.