Coal jobs on the comeback since 2016

[ClimateSanity]

https://m.townhall.com/columnists/st...eback-n2314519

Kmoney was telling me coal was never coming back. I guess his MSM sources forgot a few pertinent details.

Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app

[The Barbarian]

From the link:
Since the low point in October 2016, and following years of painful layoffs in the mining industry, the mining sector has added 35,000 jobs.

What a turnaround. Liberals have been saying that Donald Trump was lying to the American people when he said that he could bring coal jobs back. Well, so far, he has delivered on his promise.

So good, he can go back in time and make things better, um?

Not very likely. The increase in jobs is almost entirely in the West not Appalachia. And by shutting down EPA rules, Trump has made it easier to just remove mountaintops, to get at the coal, a process that is much less labor-intensive than mining underground. There was a spike in employment when EPA required that the land be remediated when mountaintop removal was done, making underground mining more economically attractive.

A bounce in US coal production won't help many coal country Trump voters

U.S. coal production is forecast to rise slightly in the first two years of Donald Trump's presidency, but many Trump voters in coal country will not see job gains.

In fact, the Appalachian region — which Trump carried handily — could lose more than 1,000 coal mining jobs in the next two years, according to one analysis. Meanwhile, a small part of Wyoming is likely to reap most of the labor gains.

Failure to stem the bleeding in coal country could be a liability for Trump. The president has vowed to put miners back to work, but has not presented a plan B in case his policies — which focus on killing regulations — cannot counter the market forces behind U.S. coal's long, steady decline.

One of those forces is surging supplies of cheap, cleaner-burning natural gas, which has eaten into coal's market share.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/09/a-bou...mp-voters.html

Even if they wanted to move to Wyoming, they wouldn't have the skills necessary for the jobs available there. This is why even coal company executives warn that Trump can't keep his promise:

Top US coal boss Robert Murray: Trump 'can't bring mining jobs back'
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...n-donald-trump

[ok doser]

So good, he can go back in time and make things better, um?

was that one of his campaign promises, um?

[ClimateSanity]

From the link:
Since the low point in October 2016, and following years of painful layoffs in the mining industry, the mining sector has added 35,000 jobs.

What a turnaround. Liberals have been saying that Donald Trump was lying to the American people when he said that he could bring coal jobs back. Well, so far, he has delivered on his promise.

So good, he can go back in time and make things better, um?

]

Trump said he could bring coal jobs back. The skeptics said it was impossible. It can't be impossible is 35,000 jobs came back since 2016. Trump was running for president in 2016 and made it a major campaign theme. Regardless of whether his campaign made an impact or nor, evidently it's not impossible to bring back the coal industry. The 35,000 since 2016 is impressive and the 11,000 in March is huge. That right there proves the critics wrong.

I will add to this post as time permits, It takes way too long to format the post so as to respond to all points on this android.

Barbarian said "
The increase in jobs is almost entirely in the West not Appalachia. "

I guess you think this means all future gains in jobs will not be in Appalachia? Proof?

Barbarian said "And by shutting down EPA rules, Trump has made it easier to just remove mountaintops, to get at the coal, a process that is much less labor-intensive than mining underground. There was a spike in employment when EPA required that the land be remediated when mountaintop removal was done, making underground mining more economically attractive."

Are you saying that shutting down EPA rules made underground mining more attractive and contributed to the 35,000 increase in jobs since 2016?

If not, what's your point?
Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app

[ok doser]

CS - i don't know if you've had the pleasure of meeting barbie, widely recognized as the most dishonest poster on the site and a troll par excellence

[ClimateSanity]

CS - i don't know if you've had the pleasure of meeting barbie, widely recognized as the most dishonest poster on the site and a troll par excellence

Yes. I'm Voltaire. I thought you knew.

Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app

[ok doser]

Yes. I'm Voltaire. I thought you knew.

if i did, i've forgotten

did we play nice together in the past?

[ClimateSanity]

if i did, i've forgotten

did we play nice together in the past?

I thought you were strange and a troll. But like glorydaz, I now understand you better. We really never had much interaction when I was Voltaire.

Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app

[ok doser]

I thought you were strange and a troll.

very perceptive of you

[The Barbarian]

I see Voltaire hasn't changed much. When the facts don't fit his narrative, he falls back into his troll mode. Let's see if we can keep him honest this time...

Trump said he could bring coal jobs back. The skeptics said it was impossible.

As you just learned, coal executives said it wasn't going to happen.

It can't be impossible is 35,000 jobs came back since 2016. Trump was running for president in 2016 and made it a major campaign theme.

So Obama changed the rules to make it better? I don't think so. And as you learned, most of the increase was in Wyoming, and the skills needed aren't those traditional miners have.



Barbarian said "
The increase in jobs is almost entirely in the West not Appalachia. "

I guess you think this means all future gains in jobs will not be in Appalachia?

It means that the increase in jobs is almost entirely in the west, not in Appalachia. This kind of thing is exactly why you have a reputation for dishonesty here.

Proof?

See above. You completely misrepresented what I said (which is from the source I linked).

Barbarian said "And by shutting down EPA rules, Trump has made it easier to just remove mountaintops, to get at the coal, a process that is much less labor-intensive than mining underground. There was a spike in employment when EPA required that the land be remediated when mountaintop removal was done, making underground mining more economically attractive."

Are you saying that shutting down EPA rules made underground mining more attractive and contributed to the 35,000 increase in jobs since 2016?

Read the source. Above-ground mining is more difficult to do within EPA rules. Hence, underground (and more labor-intensive) mining became more economical. Remove those rules, and you cut jobs.

On the other hand, Trump has signed off on continuing Obama's clean coal projects, which might eventually make coal a desirable energy source again. On the downside, Trump wants to pull restrictions from natural gas fracking, which will make natural gas cheaper, and have the effect of further disadvantaging coal, taking away more coal-mining jobs.

The real world is a lot more complex than your talking points. Come and see someday.

[ok doser]

This kind of thing is exactly why you have a reputation for dishonesty here.

haven't changed a bit, have you?

[The Barbarian]

haven't changed a bit, have you?

(The Evil Barbarian is resorting to facts, again)

[ClimateSanity]

(The Evil Barbarian is resorting to facts, again)

......and selective facts at that.... facts that distort the whole story......try putting things in context...try not leaving any important facts out.

Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app

[ok doser]

(The Evil Barbarian is resorting to facts, again)

i wouldn't call you evil, barbie

but i would agree with knight's assessment of you:

The Barbarian is a jerk ...

[ok doser]

I'm sad to hear that Knight would like to permanently ban me, and maybe it's time for me to close out my time here.

you should have stuck with plan A