While I agree with much of what you said in your post, assuming you mean the coal workers, I think you are forgetting something. The coal industry in the U.S. is dying.
http://climatenexus.org/learn/energy...-united-states
Climate-related regulations have played a SMALL part in the decline as the article states and Clinton's objective was to retrain the coal workers in other fields such as software development. Clinton made it clear that as coal mining jobs disappeared it was her intent to train displaced workers for alternate careers.
"Success stories of coal communities working to diversify their economies are beginning to emerge. For example, BitSource, a software and development company in Kentucky, trains and employs former coal miners."
And if anyone thinks that Trump will be successful in bringing those coal mining jobs back, most opinions differ.
http://e360.yale.edu/features/why_us...ot_coming_back
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/01/27...ne-2017-ieefa/
Let's see how effective Trump is at stopping the disappearance of coal mining jobs. More than likely another broken promise.
Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
I am quite familiar with the economics of coal. The industry is declining, not dying. Last time I checked we were still generating 1/3 of our electricity from coal. I don't deny the fracking boom and resulting flood of cheap natural gas is a major driver behind coal's recent decline. This is ironic since the same environmentalists who want to shut down coal production also want to stop fracking. Longer term, the use of new mining techniques and labor-saving machinery is responsible for much of the drop in coal jobs. As an economist, I applaud the fact that it takes fewer and fewer workers to produce a ton of coal. That's called productivity gain. So I agree with you that those coal mining jobs won't be coming back, certainly not in the numbers we enjoyed as recently as a decade ago. At best, Trump's actions will stabilize employment or produce a modest uptick.
Having said that, it's silly to look back and claim the impact of Obama's EPA rulings and regulations would have been negligible. If hildebeest had been elected, they would have stayed on the books, overcome legal hurdles, and
accelerated coal's market-driven decline. She told us that herself when she boasted
“We're going to put a lot of coal companies out of business.” Look, I don't have a problem if coal loses ground because natural gas and/or renewables are becoming more competitive. But I have a big problem when the federal government steps in and tilts the playing field in favor of one energy source and against another.
When it comes to reducing coal plant emissions, most of the low-hanging fruit has already been picked. Acid rain is much less of a problem than it was 40 years ago. The newer EPA standards applied to CO2 would have effectively mothballed many coal-fired power plants well before the end of their useful economic lives. This would have resulted in stranded costs, the recovery of which would push up electricity rates throughout areas that are already economically depressed.
I find it hard to criticize Trump for shamelessly pandering to voters in coal mining states, when he did so in response to hildebeest's shameless pandering to environmentalists. And no one in those states trusts the government to create the so-called jobs of the future. I'll be happy to applaud any success stories you can point to whereby coal communities are diversifying, but I am tired of hearing those cavalier libtard talking points about how job training and welfare will make any transition easy. Unemployed coal miners don't want handouts. And real practical job skills are usually acquired on the job with private employers, not taught by government.
By the way, I read your links before posting. Good stuff, even though I might dispute some of it. Too bad the fascist libtards in this forum are too rigid, closed-minded and ignorant to read my links.
