Read on Twitter
Some thoughts on this thread from @drvolts. It is absolutely the case that the coal worker (typically the traditional idea of a white male miner) occupies an outsized, even mythical space in the American conscious and dialogue around economic transition.
It's also true... (
) https://twitter.com/drvolts/status/1351619570318995456
It's also true... (
) https://twitter.com/drvolts/status/1351619570318995456
...that communities concentrated around energy/natural resources have unique challenges and regional economic weight. That's not some new thing that has emerged in climate debates (see TAA for Farmers or Secure Rural Schools for forestry).
IMO, that leaves us with two related questions: First, as @drvolts asks later in the thread, shouldn't we care about all workers affected by economic change? Then, do coal and other energy producing communities still warrant more tailored policy support?
Yes and yes!
Yes and yes!
The tendrils of economic transition are constant and pervasive. Even if we just take the effects of, say, automation in energy, you can picture concentric circles rippling out from miners to roughnecks to millions of linemen and mechanics and gas station employees across the US.
The only way to address these challenges in a timely and comprehensive manner is through a strong, universal social safety net.
That's how you start to make good on a promise that everyone deserves health care and a livable income, even as their industry changes around them.
That's how you start to make good on a promise that everyone deserves health care and a livable income, even as their industry changes around them.
IMO, one reason the white coal miner occupies such an outsized role in our political imaginations is that plenty of people don't actually believe that everyone deserves health care and a livable income... but that *certain* people do.
I'll let you decide why that might be.
I'll let you decide why that might be.
This leads to a political dynamic where decision-makers prefer to pass policy to address the challenges faced by select segments of society rather than universal supports. And perhaps even many policymakers who prefer universal mechanisms feel constrained to tailored solutions.
But even if you know the image of a coal miner is warped in the American imagination (cc: @jnoisecat), and even if expansion of universal benefits becomes politically achievable, there still will remain a need for explicit just transition policy. https://twitter.com/jnoisecat/status/1351614097037664259?s=20
For one, the regional economic gravity of fossil fuel production is so significant that a decline in activity leaves holes in local and state budgets, and ripples throughout other services and industries. The nature of the work - location, skills, health impacts - make local...
alternatives tough to come by. The environmental effects of mining & drilling require huge investments to return the land/water to economic use. And the perception of environmental regulation as the driver of change, whether fair or not, demands a policy response.
So, I agree with @drvolts that solely caring about coal miners reveals some prejudices.
But the solution is to think about just transition as BOTH universal benefits AND tailored policy for energy communities. Actual energy communities. Not some uniform national idea of them.
But the solution is to think about just transition as BOTH universal benefits AND tailored policy for energy communities. Actual energy communities. Not some uniform national idea of them.
