TPMDC

Coal-Fired Politics Fuel Kentucky Senate Race


A coal miner in Kentucky, and the US Senate candidates from that state, Jack Conway (D) and Rand Paul (R).

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

In the battle to replace the retiring Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY), don't expect either candidate to run afoul of Big Coal. Kentucky is one of the nation's largest producers of environmentalists' least-favorite fuel source, and both Republican nominee Rand Paul and Democratic nominee Jack Conway have made it clear that when it comes to energy policy, coal comes first.

"I'm going to judge any energy legislation by four criteria," Conway told me in an interview over the weekend. "Number one: does it do the right thing by Kentucky coal?"

The other criteria are mostly related to coal's influence on things in Kentucky, too. Conway wants an energy bill that he says will protect the state's historically low energy rates, which he claims helps draw business into the state. On cap-and-trade, the phrase du jour in energy policy, Conway says he's worried by a plan that allows "fat cats" to get rich trading pollution credits without much real benefit. He's also concerned by an energy law that doesn't produce a "level playing field" with other polluters around the globe.

In short, Conway is no, say, Barbara Boxer when it comes to energy policy. But that doesn't mean Paul won't try to paint him with a hemp-green brush anyway. Paul is making a huge issue of cap-and-trade, which he says Conway supported before he opposed it. Conway takes issue with that, claiming he's been consistent on energy all along.

At Fancy Farm last week, Paul supporters walked around carrying flip-flops with "cap-and-trade" printed on them to highlight what they say is Conway's shifting views on the subject. A Conway campaign staffer came up to me at the event to assure me that despite what Paul says, Conway does not support the cap-and-trade legislation that the Congress tried to enact this year. The staffer wanted to make it very clear that I knew that.

This is Kentucky after all.

It's a state where, as I chatted with locals last weekend, I was told that Paul's recent statement that mountain-top removal mining improves the land by making it flat for development is a pretty common view. Coal seams run deep in Kentucky, and I don't just mean in the ground.

This is not to say that Conway doesn't support alternative fuel production, or any of the other largely theoretical carbon-reducing techniques politicians on both sides of the line have mentioned on the campaign trail in recent years. In our interview, he spoke of "switchgrass" energy and "clean coal" technology. Conway said he hopes that Kentucky's coal production know-how means the state "can go on the offense" and take the lead in making coal cleaner.

"Who knows where technology is going to take us in 15 years?" he told me. "[Coal] is a domestic energy source, and we need to invest in it."

Even with Conway's true-blue (or, I guess, true-sooty black) support for coal production, it appears unlikely that the coal industry will get behind him in the race against Paul. Last month, plans for a consortium of huge coal producers to get together and target "anti-coal" candidates with spending allowed by the Citizens United decision leaked. Conway was on the list of candidates the industry hopes to defeat.

But there's another side to the industry, of course -- coal miners. Conway's campaign says his strong support for coal production can leverage workers to rally around him this fall. They point to other comments Paul made recently suggesting that the federal government has no business regulating coal mines as evidence the when the time comes, coal miners will turn out for Conway.

In the meantime, though, expect both Paul and Conway to sound basically the same on the trail when it comes to the issue of regulating what Kentucky's coal industry pulls out of the ground in the Bluegrass State.

The TPM Poll Average shows Paul leading Conway 46.3-41.0. Full coverage of the race here.

Comments (23) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (0)

August 13, 2010 10:04 AM   

It's certainly not unexpected that a state rich in coal resources wants to take advantage of that to improve the lives of their residents. This is where environmentalism meets the wall of employment possibilities in a region. What can you add, Evan, to our collective understanding of this issue? So far, you have added nothing.....

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 14, 2010 3:23 AM    in reply to stlounick

Maybe he's "added nothing to our collective understanding", but at least he's good in bed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 15, 2010 9:45 PM    in reply to Caitlinn Bree

Everything is true!
Go in look look: http://www.bizboysell.com
Believe that you may need.


&&%&&^^%*^*%%^*))*&&)**&)&*)(__(*_(*_(*_(*(_**_(**(_

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 13, 2010 11:05 AM   

Rand Paul is also in favor of letting the mines regulate themselves.

People really are dumber than dirt.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 13, 2010 1:02 PM    in reply to susanthe

That is a lie. He thinks Federal government has a role but thinks most regulation should be worked out at the local level where miners and those regulated can better actually carve sensible solutions for their industry.

What is your huge attraction to regulation being centralized?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 13, 2010 1:25 PM    in reply to sailingaway

Actually, you're the one who is fibbing, sparky. Paul believes that miners would choose not to work in dangerous mines, which would cause mine owners to behave.

It hasn't ever worked that way, but don't let that stop you from swallowing the teabaglitarian line.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 13, 2010 6:32 PM    in reply to sailingaway

There is no way it could be regulated locally without it being a complete farce. Every one of the local and state politicians are in the bag for the coal companies. Coal is paying the bills for everyone so there is no way to protect workers, the low man on the socio-economic totem pole, in this environment. Regulating it federally is the only way for working families to have any chance at all. Even then it'll still probably suck. Just not as bad.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 13, 2010 11:39 AM   

Paul's statement that mountain top removal improves the land is, in fact, not uncommon in East Kentucky. Deep in, it's damn near impossible to build a town there without blowing the crap out of some mountains to get enough flat land to put up a fire station and a Wal-Mart.

But the view tends to be somewhat less popular among the people who own the mountain (often their great, great grandparents sold the mineral rights for about a hundred bucks sometime back around the turn of the last century) and/or bottomland where the coal companies shove the rubble that used to be the top of the mountain. And nowhere near enough of them get that just having a place flat enough to build a factory isn't going to lead to economic development if you turn the local watershed into toxic waste to get it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 13, 2010 1:05 PM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

You guys don't get that Rand Paul would be absolutely against anyone dumping or polluting anything at on on someone else's property. Unlike the EPA, he thinks you have NO right to do that unless the property owner approves the action. Some posters here are so used to seeing a 'left says this - right says that' argument that you automatically assume he falls into one of those categories. That makes it very difficult to find new, needed solutions, I hope you know that.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 13, 2010 2:05 PM    in reply to sailingaway

See, he would say he's against such externalities; after all, that's the only self-consistent economic-libertarian position. But the problem is that he actually supports policies that directly contradict such a view. Mountaintop removal is a perfect example of this: it dramatically pollutes huge areas around the mountain and devalues lots of property that the miners don't own. Paul has come out strongly in favor of it, and has said nothing at all about compensating those harmed or taxing the producers to offset the externality.

You can go on and on about how pure Paul is in his libertarianism. But his positions on the issues show he's just another laissez faire Republican.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 13, 2010 3:13 PM    in reply to sailingaway

You don't have to actually dump it on someone else's property. If you dump tons of loose dirt and rubble in a valley on your property, it will inevitably wash down onto other people's and render the waterway useless. That's why you can't just do anything you want with your land, because it will impact other people.

The fact that I have to explain something this self-evident to you is an indication of the pathetic simple-mindedness of libertarians.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 14, 2010 11:32 AM    in reply to sailingaway

Do you honestly think coal production, as it's performed today in the US, doesn't pollute? Would you purchase property downwind of a coal fired plant? Would you want your the well your kids drink from to be downstream of a mine or a coal ash dumping ground? Do you think exhaust burned in coal use stays on the owners property?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 13, 2010 1:29 PM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

But what about the rest of the abutters? Is that guy going to own that property forever? What if he gets foreclosed on? Who pays for clean up.

That corporate polluters never do the right thing without being forced to is something that the Randians blithely overlook.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 13, 2010 12:13 PM   

Just yesterday, it was reported that the big banks (the four largest in the U.S.) no longer want to finance MTR (mountain top removal) mining due to the environmental damage it causes, especially the water pollution that results. I think this could be a huge factor. It is one thing for the government to regulate, politicians to fight, but when the money is pulled, the industry is in trouble. Ah, Kentucky. They have Mitch McConnell, the cheapest cigarettes in the U.S. and mountian top mining. Sounds like paradise.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 13, 2010 12:19 PM    in reply to xargaw

Played a gig once in Louisville [I'm a musician]. Afterward, some people from the group that hired us took us to a Shoney's to show some hospitality [which, even though it was Shoney's, I appreciated]. The place was so smokey you almost couldn't see across the room. So... trying to make conversation, I said to the lady, "What's your biggest industry here in Louisville?". Without missing a beat, she said "Tobacca and Health Care"...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 13, 2010 3:40 PM    in reply to xargaw

The industry has been in trouble for quite some time and that's not new to the region. First the lumber barons, then the coal barons, and now the kill the environment barons. Let's try not to sneer at the folks who live there--the Appalachian region has been one of the poorest areas of the country for quite some time. Read about some of Eleanor's travels.... The saddest part about the folks living in this region is the overwhelming numbers who show up for 3-day free clinics and get dental, vision and medical work done that was put off for decades.

That said...this area is physically beautiful (except for the MTR areas and the kudzu vine areas). Same thing applies to the Oazards here in Missouri and in Arkansas.

And it's damned hard to get votes for liberals in this regions when the person asking is sneering at the same time....

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 14, 2010 7:39 PM    in reply to stlounick

Because "sneering" is so much more fucking terrible than exploiting, destroying and polluting, amirite?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 13, 2010 12:24 PM   

On the issue of safety, there was also the "Sometimes, accidents happen" remark that Paul made in the days following his primary victory, when he was trying to let BP off the hook in the Gulf and used deadly recent mining accidents in Kentucky as an example where he considers "What are you gonna do?" the appropriate response.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 13, 2010 3:17 PM   

Don't forget, deep mining is labor intensive, which is why the companies like to strip mine instead. Removing mountain tops reduces the number of coal mining jobs.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 13, 2010 3:32 PM    in reply to fafner1

Deep mining is also a lot more dangerous.....

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 13, 2010 7:31 PM    in reply to stlounick

With modern continuous mining technology, there aren't all that many jobs in a deep mine either, compared even to a couple of decades ago. Labor costs are the least of the "savings" they get by raping the mountain.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 14, 2010 10:49 PM   

As a libertarian, I presume that Paul endorses the harm principle: The government ought not interfere in any activity unless somebody is unwillingly harmed. As JS Mill put it in the classic libertarian text On Liberty: "That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." This is why there's such a huge climate change denial obsession especially among libertarian leaning Republicans. Negative externalities like pollution clearly fall under the harm principle and ought, even by generally anti-regulatory libertarian ideology, to be regulated as harms. A principled libertarian who faces up to the facts that CO2 pollution traps heat, is changing the climate, and does harm to people has no ideologically principled ground to stand against government intervention to stop the harm. They can't deal with the cognitive dissonance, so they go with the science denial. It's sort of sad to see how gripping the conspiratorial psychology can be, because a lot of the time these guys are generally scientifically minded. I looked through Anarchy, State, Utopia a few years ago to see how Nozick deals with externalities and (if memory serves) I think he payed the issue some lip service but seemed to think positive and negative externalities would sort of cancel each other out.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 15, 2010 6:19 PM   

I live in the heart of KY coal country. There has been a huge push by the industry in the last 3-4 years to fire up the public via astroturf campaigns, and it's been very successful at creating an "us vs. them" attitude. Utter a word about the need to rein in the excesses of the coal industry or the possible long-term environmental impact of MTR, and you're Against Coal, and you might as well be taking food out of a miner's baby's mouth.

The idea that MTR is good because it creates flat land is not just common; it's practically gospel. (Dan Mongiardo likes the term "mountaintop development".) The response to the recent deep mine disasters was that if they'd let us do more surface/MTR mining, we wouldn't have to do so much dangerous deep mining.

In this binary world, it makes no difference that Conway basically supports the industry. He's a Democrat, so he might as well be Julia Butterfly Hill.

The wild card is Rand Paul's statement about the drug problem in EKY, which at the very least shows that he doesn't understand the region. I think people understand that we count on a lot of federal dollars around here, so Paul's blanket principled opposition isn't in our best interests. If Conway is smart, he'll make sure people know that.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on