 First, let me just say that I like Creigh Deeds, find him to be a thoughtful and intelligent man, someone who cares deeply about people and who is in politics for all the right reason. In conversations I've had with him, he's also seemed sincerely concerned about protecting our environment. In that context, Sen. Deeds' Blue Commonwealth interview is particularly disappointing. Here are the relevant excerpts with my comments.
Blue Commonwealth: One of the more vexing environmental problems is obviously coal.
Creigh Deeds: Right.
Good, Sen. Deeds admits that coal is a "vexing" environmental problem. That's a start. Let's see where he goes with this.
Blue Commonwealth: And what makes it vexing is you have on the one hand the environmental impact of coal and the fact that for some communities in our state it's an economic lifeline. How do you balance that, not just looking at policy for this year or next, but when you look out 10 years from now, or 15 years from now, what would you like to see?
This is a question, not Creigh Deeds' answer, but I would sure hope that Sen. Deeds would disagree with the assertion that coal constitutes an "economic lifeline." For an alternative view, how about we ask Jim Webb what he thinks about this (from his book, "Born Fighting").
The people from the outside showed up [in Appalachian coal country] with complicated contracts...asking for "rights" to mineral deposits they could not see, and soon they were treated to a sundering of their own earth as the mining companies ripped apart their way of life, so that after a time the only option was to go down into the hole and bring the Man his coal, or starve. The Man got his coal, and the profits it brought when he shipped it out. They got their wages, black lung, and the desecration of their land...Coal made this part of Appalachia a poverty-stricken basket case while the rest of the mountain region remained mired in isolation.
Yeah, that's some "economic lifeline" there. For "the Man," that is. Also, as we've pointed out here previously, coal represents only 6% of jobs in Southwestern Virginia, let alone in the Commonwealth as a whole, where it constitutes a much, much smaller percentage (99.95% of Virginians are NOT employed by coal mining). In other words, so much for that theory. Now, back to the Deeds interview.
Creigh Deeds: The other vexing point is this. More than 50% of the electric power we have in this country comes from coal.
What I'd like to see in the future is alternative sources of energy developed. I also want to make sure - you know, some people say there's no such thing as clean coal. Well, perhaps there isn't.
Huh? First, Sen. Deeds doesn't correct the "economic lifeline" assertion. He then appears completely confused on the issue of "clean coal." There is such a thing, there isn't such a thing, who knows. Coal's a problem, we need to develop alternatives, or not. Maybe there's "clean coal." Etc., etc. With all due respect, does anyone have any idea what Creigh Deeds is getting at here? I'm lost. And does anyone who knows anything about energy believe that large-scale carbon capture and sequestration (necessary for any hope at "clean coal") will be technologically and economically feasible anytime in the next 15-20 years? Nope, didn't think so.
Creigh Deeds: It's clear to me we cannot burn coal in the future as we did in the past and continue to exist as a people, as a planet. I think it would be irresponsible for us not to consider clean coal technologies. And frankly, those people that say you can't do it, I mean, this is the country where an airplane was developed; this is the country that developed both the wartime and the peaceful uses of nuclear power; this is the country that put a man on the Moon. The only barrier to what we can't do is our imagination and the creativity and the genius of the American mind, so I'm not willing to concede that we can't develop clean coal technology. I'm not willing to concede anything.
OK, so we can't "exist as a people, as a planet" with coal, but we're not "willing to concede anything" in terms of using coal? Is your head starting to spin yet, along with the frantic political spin?
Creigh Deeds: I know this. I know we can't exist if we continue to burn coal the way we have. We have to find ways to reduce our carbon footprint. We have to find ways to reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses. That's why we have to continue to look for ways to develop alternative and renewable sources of energy.
But the key to our energy future, it seems to me, is that we can't afford to take any tool off the table. We have to consider everything. We have to consider all of our alternatives and let the science govern what works and what doesn't.
Back and forth...can't continue with coal, but must use coal. [image of "The Scream" painting comes to mind] Then, to top it all off, comes my favorite line of all, that we "can't afford to take any tool off the table." In other words, we're back to coal again. But why? I mean, if it's expensive and dirty, economically and environmentally ruinous to the region where it's mined, why can't we take it off the table? Uhhhhhhhhh. [cue sound of crickets chirping]
Blue Commonwealth: I'm kind of embarrassed. I don't know your position on off shore drilling and exploration.
Creigh Deeds: My position is that, like coal, you can't take it off the table. If we can get royalties, if we can do it in a way that protects our environment, if we can do it a way that does not hamper naval or other military operations offshore - military operations are a huge part of our economy in Hampton Roads in Southeast Virginia, if we can do it a way that doesn't affect our fisheries in a negative way, if we can do it in a way that doesn't affect our tourism industry, which is also a huge part of our economy all over Virginia, then by all means we ought to explore off-shore drilling.
Ugh, here we go again with the "can't take it off the table" evasiveness and/or code language. Let's see: we can't take offshore oil drilling off the table, UNLESS of course it harms fisheries, tourism, the military, etc. Which it almost certainly will (the navy, for instance, is dead set against it). Is that clear?
Creigh Deeds: I think I've got the same position as Jim Webb. In fact, I know it's the same position because we've talked about it. I think my position is probably the same as Mark Warner's, and as far as I know if very close to the position of Tim Kaine.
And the relevance, Sen. Deeds, of your position on offshore drilling supposedly being close to other politicians is...what exactly? How about just stating your case, clearly, and let the voters decide what to make of it, without hiding behind all these popular politicians?
Blue Commonwealth: So, it's fair to say that if off-shore drilling couldn't happen with all those conditions -
Creigh Deeds: Then it wouldn't happen. I just don't think it's fair to say, "Never. Never can we do that." If certain qualifications are met, yeah, yeah, we ought to consider it.
OK, so offshore drilling won't happen...unless it will. Or not. Or something. Again, is that all clear? Maybe clear as mud, or clear as a coal ash spill, or clear as an oil slick on Virginia Beach... |
