Conservative media outlets love to describe climate policies as a 'war on coal,' but what does that phrase even mean?

Fox News loves to declare wars. Wishing someone 'happy holidays' is a War on Christmas. Support for marriage equality is a War on Marriage. And trying to limit carbon pollution to preserve a livable climate for future generations is now a War on Coal.

Recently, President Obama's Environmental Protection Agency administrator Gina McCarthy went on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher. Maher asked if the EPA's new regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants could be described as a 'war on coal,' as some conservative media outlets have called it. McCarthy responded:



Actually, EPA is all about fighting against pollution and fighting for public health. That’s exactly what this is. Exactly.





Facebook Twitter Pinterest Gina McCarthy on Real Time with Bill Maher

That's an accurate description – the regulations were implemented to fight against carbon pollution and to protect public health. Coal isn't the only target, but it is the source of about a quarter of America's carbon pollution.



The problem we face is that if we want to limit global warming to no more than 2°C above pre-industrial temperatures – a level that represents significant risks, but is the lowest target we can feasibly achieve – we have to leave about 80% of proven coal, oil, and gas reserves in the ground. If we burn all available coal, oil, and gas, we'll cause high-risk and potentially catastrophic climate change.

Calling these legally mandated and important regulations a 'war on coal' is a rhetorical strategy. The phrase evokes images of government attacks on noble coal miners. While coal mining is a difficult and extremely dangerous job, it's also an uncommon one. Employment by the coal industry has been dropping in the USA since the late 1970s. The industry now employs under 80,000 miners, less than one-third its peak numbers 35 years ago thanks to a rise in strip mining and other machinery use. It represents just 0.06% of the American work force.

On the other hand, employment in the renewable energy sector has been growing rapidly, in large part because low-carbon energy tends to be more job-intensive than fossil fuel energy. For example, a 2004 UC Berkeley study concluded,

"Across a broad range of scenarios, the renewable energy sector generates more jobs than the fossil fuel-based energy sector per unit of energy delivered (i.e., per average megawatt)."

The study found that investing in various types of renewable energy would create about twice as many jobs in the USA by 2020 as investing in coal and natural gas. Joining in the rhetorical games, the EPA greenhouse gas regulations could easily be called a 'war on unemployment.'

In fact, a recent REMI study found that a revenue-neutral carbon tax would create jobs, increase personal disposable income, and grow the economy even in coal-heavy American regions (with the exception of the oil-heavy region of Texas and neighboring states). Those who fear the economic impact of EPA greenhouse gas regulations could support its replacement with a revenue-neutral carbon tax or some other type of free market solution.

Business as usual just isn't an option anymore. Coal and other fossil fuels have been getting a free ride for over a century, pumping billions of tons of carbon pollution into the atmosphere for free. That pollution has inescapable costs through the damages it causes via climate change, committing us to about $1 trillion in costs every year, globally. Fossil fuel industries don't pay these costs – we do. They're effectively a massive subsidy, government welfare on steroids.

Regulating or putting a price on carbon pollution is a no-brainer, and long overdue. Even contrarian climate economists agree on this. It's not specifically a war on coal, but it is an effort to hold fossil fuels accountable for their full costs.



We also need to face the fact that to mitigate global warming risks, we need to leave most existing fossil fuel reserves in the ground. There are ways to accomplish the transition to low-carbon energy sources while maintaining economic growth. Playing rhetorical games is not constructive; we need all parties to come to the table and participate in crafting the best possible climate policies. Otherwise we'll just be stuck with government regulation of carbon pollution – an imperfect solution, but an important step towards solving this critical problem.

