THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume XI, Issue # 4, January 5, 2009
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
SAVING LIVES WITH COAL: THE BENEFITS OF COAL-GENERATED
ELECTRICITY ARE TOO OFTEN INNORED IN PUBLIC POLICY DEBATES
By Paul K. Driessen
THE BENEFITS OF COAL-GENERATED ELECTRICITY: THE FREQUENTLY MISSING INFORMATION NEEDED TO GUIDE
PUBLIC POLICY DECISIONS ON CRUCIAL ISSUES RELATING TO ENERGY, THE ECONOMY, THE ENVIRONMENT, & HUMAN
HEALTH -- THE DISINGENUOUS, UNETHICAL, & HARMFUL PROPAGANDA DISSEMINATED BY THE ENVIRONMENTALIST
MOVEMENT
FULL STORY:
There is no such thing as “clean coal,” environmentalists insist. Burning coal to generate electricity emits soot particles that
cause respiratory problems, lung cancer and heart disease, killing 24,000 Americans annually, they argue.
It’s the kind of claim that eco-activist Bruce Hamilton says “builds the Sierra Club,” by generating cash and lobbying clout
for his and similar groups.
It’s also disingenuous, unethical, and harmful.
Since 1970, unhealthy power plant pollutants have been reduced by almost 95% per unit of energy produced. Particulate
emissions (soot) decreased 90% below 1970 levels, even as coal use tripled, and new technologies and regulations will nearly
eliminate most coal-related pollution by 2020, notes air quality expert Joel Schwartz.
Moreover, the vast bulk of modern power plant particulates are ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate. “Neither substance
is harmful, even at levels tens of times greater than are ever found in the air Americans breathe,” Schwartz says.
The alleged death toll is based on speculative links between pollution and disease, and unwarranted extrapolations from
responsible estimates to levels that grab headlines and prompt contributions.
Coal helps keep American homes, businesses, factories, airports, schools, and hospitals humming, and provides myriad
benefits that never get mentioned by anti-coal factions. Even if we accept these groups’ assertions as fact, the benefits of
coal should be considered in any policy debate, just as we acknowledge (and strive to reduce) motor vehicle deaths, but
recognize the value of transporting people, products, and produce.
Coal generates half of all U.S. electricity, and 60-98% in twenty-two states, according to the Energy Information
Administration. Modern, state-of-the-art, low-pollution coal-fired generators have replaced both antiquated power plants
and monstrous industrial furnaces that were the backbone of our nation’s steel-making and industrial might just two
generations ago. They build and power thousands of products that improve and save millions of lives.
Imposing excessive new regulations, or closing coal-fired power plants, would produce few health or environmental
benefits. But it would exact huge costs on society, and bring factories, offices, and economies to a screeching halt in states
that are 80-98% dependent on coal: Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
Coal’s reliable, affordable electricity creates millions of high-paying jobs, and thus provides health insurance, rent and
mortgage money, nutrition, clothing, and retirement benefits for countless families. It keeps people warm (and alive) on
freezing nights, and comfortable during Summer heat waves like the 2003 scorcher that killed 15,000 elderly French citizens
who didn’t have air-conditioning.
Thanks to coal-based electricity, CT scans, x-rays, colonoscopies and other examinations detect cancer, heart disease and
other health threats, saving numerous lives every year. Life-saving and enhancing surgeries are performed because doctors
have lights, lasers, computers, and sterile operating rooms and equipment. Premie wards and life-support systems carry
people through critical illnesses.
Children and adults get vaccinations that remain viable because of dependable refrigeration. Millions avoid deadly
intestinal bacteria, due to refrigerators and freezers, and water that is sterilized and piped in large measure because of
electricity.
American families live in houses that are built from stronger materials and to higher standards, because of electricity. Tens
of millions have been warned of natural disasters, and given time to flee, thanks to radios and televisions.
Environmentalists talk glibly about replacing America’s 600-plus coal-fired power plants, and the 2 billion megawatt-hours
of electricity they generate annually. But with what?
Most Greens detest nuclear power as much as they hate coal. They want to dismantle dams, not build new ones. They
oppose drilling for natural gas that could partially substitute for coal, and fuel essential backup generators for wind farms.
They support geothermal energy in theory, but rarely in practice.
They oppose construction of new state-of-the-art coal-fired plants that America needs to supply more baseload power, to
serve a growing population and electricity-hungry products and equipment of every description. Most do support wind
energy, and it must also play a role.
However, right now, wind turbines provide a mere 1% of all U.S. electricity. Wind power leader, Texas, gets just 2% of its
electricity from breezes – versus 36% from coal. On blistering Summer afternoons, when they most need reliable
air-conditioners, Texans can count on wind turbines to generate at only 9% of their installed capacity, because that’s when
the wind blows least. (Compare that to 80-95% reliability for coal, gas, and nuclear.)
How exactly will Texas replace 36% of its electricity with renewable energy? How exactly will Indiana and North Dakota
replace the 94% of the low-cost electricity that they get from coal?
What happens to all those benefits when coal power is legislated, regulated, litigated, priced or cap-and-traded to the
sidelines? To lives that are improved and saved with that electricity?
A little specificity, moral clarity, and social responsibility would help here. We generally can’t expect it from environmental
activists, who excel at denigrating and opposing energy, but do little to generate anything but hot air and political power.
However, we should expect, and demand, clear answers from judges, elected representatives, and unelected government
regulators. That’s the essence of ethics and social responsibility.
If we are going to end this recession, retain American jobs and living standards and rejuvenate our economy, we will need
vast quantities of electricity from coal – and every other source – now and for decades to come. The rest of the world also
needs coal, to lift people out of poverty and save lives.
In impoverished countries, two billion people rarely or never have electricity. Four million infants, children, and parents die
every year from lung infections – caused by smoke, soot, and other pollutants from open fires that heat their homes and
cook their meager food, because they don’t have electricity. Two million more perish from intestinal diseases, caused by
unsafe water and spoiled food, because they lack refrigeration, sanitation, and water treatment.
Radical environmentalists trumpet the exaggerated death count from producing electricity here in the United States. But
they callously battle every proposal to build coal, gas or hydroelectric projects in economically undeveloped and destitute
countries.
24,000 speculative deaths versus six million very real deaths is hardly a fair tradeoff.
As we usher in 2009, may America and all nations resolve to implement policies that honestly reflect the costs, benefits,
and power-generating capabilities of traditional and alternative energy options that exist in the real world.
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
Political Environmentalism Versus Human Progress & Prosperity:
Policy Issues Relating to Energy, Environment,
& Natural Resources
Science, Ethics, & Human Health: Human Health & Public Policy
Political Economy -- Philosophies, Systems, & Public Policies:
Government, the Economy, & Economic Prosperity
Paul K. Driessen is Senior Policy Advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Center for the Defense of
Free Enterprise, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power · Black Death.
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume XI, 2009
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues
Conservative Government Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity