http://www.nationaljournal.com/
Within hours of President Obama’s sweeping climate speech last week, Republican campaign committees reignited the charge that the president has declared “War on Coal.” They blasted inboxes and airwaves with “War on Coal” talking points, now aimed squarely at Democrats running in Senate and House races in 2014.
The “War on Coal campaign” failed to unseat Obama in the 2012 presidential campaign. And despite the potency of the rhetorical attack, it’s unlikely to have much impact on the 2014 races.
It’s true that President Obama’s plan takes direct aim at the U.S. coal industry. At the heart of the plan are new regulations slashing carbon pollution from new and existing coal-fired power plants. It could well put thousands of coal miners out of work.
But it’s not a given that it will cost Democrats politically.
Here’s why: As National Journal reported last week, the political power of coal has fundamentally weakened, a shift laid bare by last year’s elections. Between 2008 and 2012, the coal industry nearly quadrupled its political contributions, directing 90 percent of its money towards Republicans. But Obama still won comfortably in the four key swing states that produce the most coal: Virginia, Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.
Thanks to a recent boom in cheap natural gas—which has brought with it a boom in domestic manufacturing—coal is a smaller piece of the economy than it once was. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are only 84,000 people employed in the coal-mining industry—a number that just isn’t enough to make a difference in a national election.
And it may not be enough to make a difference in the midterms, where Democrats are chiefly focused on holding on to their four-seat majority in the Senate and where most political analysts say they’re unlikely to muster enough new seats to reclaim a majority in the House.
As it happens, the four most vulnerable Senate Democratic incumbents—Sens. Mark Begich of Alaska, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana—don’t hail from major coal-producing states. They do, however, represent states in which natural gas is, or could become, a major part of the economy. In the House, there is only a single Democratic incumbent from a major coal-producing district: Rep. Nick Rahall of West Virginia.
Obama’s climate plan was a shot across the bow to coal. But it was also a valentine to natural gas—a cheap fuel that has just half the carbon pollution of coal. The climate-change regulations, by freezing production of coal, are expected to further drive the market toward natural gas. “We should strengthen our position as the top natural-gas producer because, in the medium term at least, it not only can provide safe, cheap power, but it can also help reduce our carbon emissions,” Obama said.
“The bottom line is natural gas is creating jobs.” And in Alaska, Arkansas, and Louisiana, natural gas is creating far more jobs than coal. In North Carolina, the state legislature is hoping to get a similar taste of the action.
There is just one coal mine apiece in Alaska and Arkansas, according to Energy Department data. There are only two coal mines in Louisiana. In North Carolina, there are none.
For the rest of this article, click here: http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/why-the-war-on-coal-campaign-will-likely-fall-flat-again-20130702?mrefid=mostViewed