Skip to main content

War on Coal Is War on Red States

Share This article

Here's today's political quiz question: What do these five states -- Rhode Island, Vermont, California, Oregon and Maine -- have in common?

Yes, they are blue states ruled by Democrats, but that's not all. These are the states that use the least amount of coal -- less than 2 percent -- for electric power.

In fact, almost all of the states that are politically liberal and vote unfailingly Democratic ?are low coal use states.

Washington, New York, New Jersey and Connecticut are also in the top 10 states least reliant on coal. Only conservative Idaho is a red state with low coal consumption.

Meanwhile, the heavy coal using states bleed red. West Virginia, Kentucky and Wyoming are all states that get about 90 percent of their electric power from coal.  Missouri, Utah, Indiana, and North Dakota also get 75 percent of their electricity from coal. (See table at the bottom of the page.)

President Barack Obama announced last week the toughest environmental regulations ever against coal. This is part of the president's war on coal that he announced when he was running for president in 2008.

He has long admitted these policies to reduce emissions from coal burning electric power plants by one-third below 2005 levels by 2030 will "bankrupt" the coal industry.  ?It's working.  Coal towns are being vaporized across America and coal companies are going out of business.

But the pain from the new EPA rules won't be ?evenly distributed across America -- far from it.

The coal producing states, like West Virginia and Wyoming, will see massive job losses and increases in electric utility costs. The nationwide costs will be about $100 billion a year eventually or a reduction in GDP by about one-half percentage point, the Heritage Foundation finds.

But for heavily impacted states -- Republican areas in the Midwest, South and mountain states -- the costs will reach about $1,200 a year to average families. Obama's policies that have had such a crushing effect on middle income family finances are about to get a whole lot worse.

The liberal coastal states will feel only modest effects because they don't use much coal.

Would Barbra Boxer of California and Sheldon Whitehouse from Rhode Island, two of the biggest cheerleaders for the new regulations, be so euphoric if their voters were paying these massive costs for their green agenda?

But the East and West Coast green snobs can live with raising costs and unemployment in "fly over country."

It's time to label the Obama green policies what they truly are: steep taxes on red state America. By the way, many purple states, like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Virginia, also get hammered by Obama's climate change agenda.

The de facto tax that Mr. Obama wants to impose on American coal is doubly dastardly because its impact will be felt hardest in relatively poorer states. And because Census Bureau data confirms that poor households spend four times more of their income on energy than rich families, the Obama policy will make income inequality much worse.

But of course the upper crust Manhattan liberals, who fund the Sierra Club and Obama and profess to care so much about the ?poor, can live with that. So much for "environmental justice."

Maybe all of this pain would be worth it if somehow these policies were going to reduce global carbon emissions and stop global warming as Mr. Obama assures us they will. They won't.

New data from the Energy Information Administration and other sources tells the opposite tale. China and India are adding coal plants on a massive scale. Worldwide at least 1,000 new coal plants are planned.

I did the rough calculations. For every reduction in BTUs burned from coal in the U.S., China and India alone will burn 10 to 12 more BTUs.

Even if the U.S. cut coal use to zero over the next 20 years, global emissions from coal will rise sharply. So the Obama plan is all pain no gain. It would be like trying to reduce unwanted pregnancies in the Third World by having Americans use more birth control. Stupid.

But back to the Obama assault on red and purple states. Let's hope the voters get the message that Mr. Obama's green energy policies are directed at their jobs and their paychecks. Most people in blue states and the workers around the rest of the world won't feel a thing. This is fair?

*Stephen Moore is a CBN economics contributor and an economst at the Heritage Foundation.


The Red State Tax

Coal Use for Electricity

Top 10 States

1.       West Virginia  95%

2.       Kentucky          89%

3.       Wyoming         88%

4.       Missouri          79%

5.       Utah                  78%

6.       Indiana             75%

7.       North Dakota  74%

8.       New Mexico    63%

9.       Colorado          62%

10.   Ohio                   62%

 

Bottom 10 States

1.       Rhode Island  0%

2.       Vermont         0%

3.       Oregon            0%

4.       California        0%

5.       Idaho               1%

6.       Maine               1%

7.       Washington     2%

8.       New York        2%

9.       New Jersey       4%

10.   Connecticut        4%

Share This article

About The Author

Stephen
Moore

Stephen Moore is a contributing author for CBN News. He was a senior economic advisor to the Trump campaign and is chief economist at The Heritage Foundation, a position he has held since January, 2014. Previously, Moore wrote for The Wall Street Journal and was also a member of The Journal'’s editorial board. As chief economist at Heritage, Moore focuses on advancing public policies that increase the rate of economic growth to help the United States retain its position as the global economic superpower. He also works on budget, fiscal and monetary policy and showcases states that get fiscal