September 8, 2008
The 2008 presidential politics of mountaintop removal coal mining:
An opportunity for Obama or McCain, but not both
Paul Ryder, Organizing Director
Ohio Citizen Action
Mountaintop removal is a radical form of coal mining which has so far leveled 470 mountains in West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee. What’s left is a moonscape, contaminated streams and rivers, dangerous coal slurry dams, and devastated communities. The topsoil is gone, so reclamation is impossible.
In 2002, the Administration found a way to get around the Clean Water Act so that coal companies could legally extract coal by decapitating mountains. The next president can stop it by using their executive authority, or by signing a legislated ban, as in H.R. 2169.
On the merits, this issue is as clear as issues get.
There are no mitigating economic arguments. It is not a significant source of energy; only 4.8% of the nation’s electricity is generated by coal extracted by mountaintop removal. And because it is almost entirely mechanized, it’s a job killer.
Wouldn’t it be great if banning mountaintop removal were good presidential politics, too?
It turns out it is. A nationwide poll found that wider use of mountaintop removal was opposed by a majority of all Americans, and among each subgroup: Democrats, Independents, Republicans, women, men, and residents of all regions. When informed that 700 mountains could be leveled in the next ten years, the level of opposition rose sharply (Opinion Research Corporation, September 2007).
The survey, however, didn’t capture the pitch of opinion. This year, Ohio Citizen Action has canvassed door-to-door all over the state on this issue, including Appalachian counties on the Ohio River. The gut-level reaction from people of all walks of life has been more intense than on any other issue we have worked on in the last three decades. Most see it as an atrocity, an attack on one of the nation’s greatest treasures, and a spiritual transgression.
So far neither Senator McCain nor Senator Obama have pledged to ban this odious practice. Why not?
Both campaigns think that the issue is only politically relevant in the hardest hit states -- West Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee. In these states, top officials of both parties are owned by or cowed by the coal companies. The fear of layoffs keeps the few remaining miners in line behind the owners. The political atmosphere is poisonous. Furthermore, neither candidate considers these three states as battlegrounds, and neither is concentrating on them. The Cook Political Report currently rates all three as “solid” for John McCain.
According to this logic, there is no advantage to either campaign in bringing up the subject.
The opportunity for presidential campaigns, however, is in states just beyond the hardest hit area: Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia.
-
According to the poll cited above, awareness of mountaintop removal
is 45% nationally. It stands to reason that awareness would be higher
in Appalachia, or in areas settled by Appalachians. The four states
listed above include large numbers of people of Appalachian origin, and
three of them include large areas of Appalachia itself: 665,000
Virginians live in Appalachian counties, 1,455,000 Ohioans, and
5,820,000 Pennsylvanians.
- Since mountaintop removal mining is not
occurring in Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania, the issue could be
addressed without the job-loss fear and intimidation present in West
Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee.
-
Virginia is a little different,
since some mountaintop removal is going on in the southwest. The bulk
of the voters, however, live in the Piedmont and Coastal Plains. Many
have ties to Appalachian Virginia, and visit there regularly. Most
Virginia voters, then, are in a similar position to Appalachians in
Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
- These four states -- IN, OH, PA, and VA -- total 65 electoral votes, or 36% of all the battleground electoral votes.
Enlarge map.
Why is this an opportunity for Obama or McCain, but not both?
Whichever candidate takes this position first will have helped define themselves to the voters as someone who is not afraid to make a clear choice between right and wrong, and as someone worth taking seriously.
Once that happens, the other candidate can -- and probably would -- match it, but that would just be defensive positioning, a way of protecting his flanks. It will lessen the loss of votes, but not gain any.
The advantage will go to the candidate who speaks up first.
Notes:
- More background
on the issue.
-
Opinion Research Corporation, September
2007 opinion
survey.
- On August 12, the Obama campaign released
its list of 18 battleground
states totaling 199 electoral votes. On September 5, the Associated
Press reported that the Obama campaign
had trimmed its battleground list to 16, and that they had dropped
advertising in Georgia. Presumably, Alaska was the other state dropped.
That would leave NV, MT, ND, CO, NM, IA, MO, WI, MI, IN, OH, PA, NH,
VA, NC, FL, with a total of 181 electoral votes. The four states
discussed above -- IN, OH, PA, and VA -- totaling 65 electoral votes,
is 36% of this.
- The Republican National Committee recently bought
television time in 14
states, 13 of which are on the Obama battleground list (the 14th was
Minnesota), so the two major parties don’t dispute which states are up
for grabs.
- Data map by Jane Sandlin, Ohio Citizen Action, based
on county-level
Democratic primary results from CNN and mountaintop removal information
from Appalachian
Voices.
Non-profit and non-partisan, it was founded in 1975.
Ohio Citizen Action
3055 North High Street, Suite 300
Columbus, Ohio 43202
(614) 263-4600
(614) 263-4640 fax
pryder@ohiocitizen.org