Noon: Clinton's vision puts people out of work
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent campaign gaffe — “we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business” — made her goals clear. Surprisingly, her comments were not made at Tom Steyer’s San Francisco fundraiser. They were made in Ohio — coal country, where coal production in 2015 was down 22 percent — at a nationally televised CNN town hall and just hours before the state’s primary election.
US News reports that Democrats in the coal states have tried to “distance themselves from Clinton’s comments.” Former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, a Clinton ally who handily won his party’s primary election for Senator, called her slip, “unartful.” Senator Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who, last April, endorsed Clinton, took issue with her comments and contacted her campaign.
Facing the backlash, Clinton sent a letter to Manchin: “Simply put, I was mistaken.”
But was she? I don’t think so.
Though her comments may have been “unartful” and, arguably, poorly timed, I believe they reflect private conversations and campaign strategy. It may be no coincidence that rumors of President Obama’s tepid support for Clinton — though the White House denies endorsing her — surfaced after her killing coal comments.
Clinton needs President Obama’s endorsement. She needs him to generate excitement for her lackluster campaign.
He also needs her — his legacy hangs on her election. Because so much of what he’s done has been by executive action, his legacy can just as easily be undone.
Following the voluntary climate agreement in Paris, Politico stated: “Barack Obama wants to be remembered as the president who saved the world from climate change.” For this legacy to stick, all of his anti-fossil fuel policies must stay intact.
While Obama frequently claims to support an “all of the above” energy policy, actions speak louder than words. From his 2009 stimulus bill throwing billions at speculative green energy projects, his killing coal efforts, his stand that we can’t drill our way to low gas prices, his rejection of the Keystone pipeline, his threat to veto a bill to lift the oil export ban, and flipping on Atlantic oil exploration — just to name a few — he obviously meant “none of the below.”
Clinton’s anti-coal comments got all the press. But she didn’t stop there. Almost under her breath, a few sentences later, she added: “We’ve got to move away from coal and all of the other fossil fuels.”
But how realistic is the Democrat’s goal of moving away from coal and the other fossil fuels?
“Unlikely,” according to new research from the University of Chicago. Like Clinton, and Obama, they believe fossil fuel use is driving “disruptive climate change” that will lead to “dramatic threats to human well-being” and a “dystopian future.” Reading the 22 pages of the report on their findings, one can almost feel their dismay.
While the authors support “activist and aggressive policy choices ... to drive reductions in the consumption of fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions,” they reluctantly admit the proposed solutions are not apt to be the answer they seek. “Even if countries were to enact policies that raised the cost of fossil fuels, like a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions, history suggests that technology will work in the opposite direction by reducing costs of extracting fossil fuels and shifting their supply curves out.”
Perhaps, before Clinton — who accuses anyone who doesn’t agree with her climate alarmist view as ignoring the science — makes mistakes, like declaring that she’ll put coal miners and coal companies out of business, she should check the science behind her claims to “move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels.”
The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc., and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy. She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy — which expands on the content of her weekly column.