“Nuclear is bad because it will take out jobs” – Coal Miners
August 27th, 2008
|
| Share |
Here’s a scan of an advertisement in Australia which I clipped from Rod Adam’s excellent site “Atomic Insights.” Rod calls it the “smoking gun” of the real motive behind much of the anti-nuclear movement. Well, I think he’s right in a sense, but I’d consider it to be just as much a whiny confession.
Believe it or not this is an actual advertisement being circulated in Australia by the coal industry. The message is pretty straight forward, actually I’m even a bit surprised they’d just come out and say it: Nuclear energy is bad and must be stopped because it will endanger the coal industry. The thing I especially like about this is that it singles out nuclear as a threat to coal. Wind? Solar? Oh those are no threat. Build as many wind turbines as you want. Build solar plants. That has no affect on the job security of coal miners.
Also, it apparently is becoming harder and harder to lie about the facts regarding nuclear power’s economics or safety. So what’s left? Just try to cry for sympathy and be a little more honest, stating that the real reason is that the opposition has a vested interest in a competing and inferior power generation method, I guess.
A little reality check:
Industries fold when something better comes along. That’s the way it is. Technology becomes obsolete and that’s fine because in the end it benefits us all far more in the long run. Yes, being laid off from a good job inking typewriter ribbons or sending telegrams is certainly a bad thing for the individual, at least in the near term, but that’s hardly enough to justify keeping society in the stone age.
Aside from that I wonder how much individual coal workers are really threatened and how much of this is actually based on the fears of coal companies and unions at the potential loss of power and profit. A country like Australia doesn’t go nuclear over night. Even if they build reactors as fast as they can, it’ll still be a few years before coal plants start shutting down. That’s plenty of time to give the older coal miners early retirement options and to allow the work force to start shrinking simply by not hiring as many new workers. Considering that many countries outside Australia will continue to be using coal for some time, so exports will be able to continue for some time. Between coal exports and the fact that even if ground breaking for new reactors started today there would be many years before they completely take over from coal fired units. That should allow most older and middle-aged miners to finish out their natural careers before the mines start shutting down.
As for young miners or those in families with mining traditions – maybe they should consider that a tradition worth breaking. Coal mining does pay relatively well, but that has a lot to do with the fact that it’s a filthy, back-breaking line of work which is extremely hazardous. Mine accidents are not that unusual and although modern coal mining is safer than past mining, many still die in accidents. There are also numerous chronic conditions associated with coal mining. The use of water to reduce dust and modern safety measures has helped cut down on cases of conditions like “black lung” and “miners consumption” but they certainly have not been eliminated, and neither have the chronic back problems associated with years of crouching and extremely hard labor.
There are, of course, other opportunities that coal miners could take. The obvious one would be uranium mining. Uranium mining doesn’t generally require the same kind of dirty operating conditions and hazard of fire and explosion that coal mining does. The quantity of ore is much smaller and it is usually a hard rock, not a dirty soft substance like coal. Australia is blessed with some of the best uranium deposits in the world. Another possible job for miners would be to work at the former coal mines cleaning up the massive mess that has been made and trying to at least partially repair the ecological disaster that is a coal mine.
Given the time table for a coal phase-out, it seems that there should be plenty of time to take care of those who depend on coal mining jobs and assure they have an alternative career path or a secure pension or retirement plan.
But what if this same argument had been applied to other fields???
This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 27th, 2008 at 4:58 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Enviornment, Just LAME, Nuclear, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
August 27th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
I love the send-up you did on the ads. Perfect!
Quote Comment
August 27th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
If you permit me to be lazy I’ll repost my comment on Rod Adam’s blog to his article on that pic:
“job destruction” is absolutely vital for society and the source of almost all our wealth.
Consider that a few hundred years ago over 90% of people were farmers. If anyone today bemoans the fact that we “destroyed” these lousy, back-breaking jobs they get laughed at. It didn’t lead to any chronic job shortage; we freed these people up to do more productive thing in society and we are all richer for it.
Getting laid off is painful; but we should strive to make the transition as pleasant as possible, not cling on to the past.
To coal miners I would like to add many other jobs that are completely superfluous; e.g. do we really need grown men riding around on bikes hand delivering spam through slots in our doors and boxes outside our houses? Wouldn’t it be better to handle this electronically?
Do we really need an entire army of intelligent, highly trained professionals whose only purpose is to find loop-holes just barely on the side of legality in ridiculously convoluted tax codes(the US federal tax code is 44 000 pages long)? Couldn’t we have a simple flat tax; no deductions, no posibillity of arbitrage from redistribution onto different entities/funds?
There’s no end to the work that needs to be done and it’s particularly wasteful to have intelligent, capable people working menial or unnecessary jobs instead of becomming engineers, scientists, doctors, programmers, entrepreneurs…
Quote Comment
August 27th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
I love the vacuum-tube mock-up.
Quote Comment
August 27th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
That ad was current prior to the federal election last November.
Interestingly and annoyingly, as I sit here typing this before going to work, an article on ABC News Radio speaks of a pledge by the Premier of Western Australia to ban uranium mining in that state if his government is re-elected. Also interesting is the extreme annoyance of one of the local WA aboriginal land councils, who are frustrated by the lack of consultation from the state government on this issue, seeing as they do a potential revenue stream for their people if a uranium mine is developed on their territory.
Quote Comment
August 27th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Though the ad pictures traditional coal miners and is designed to evoke sympathy for the hardworking, long suffering Men of the Deep the overwhelming bulk of thermal coal in Australia comes from open-cut mines. Hard Coking Coal, which if anything would be in even higher demand for steelmaking in a nuclear building program is mined there underground. Also some 75% of the coal mined in that country gets exported into SE Asia and China, and I suspect that Peking could care less what an Australian miners union thinks – so the whole things real out of their hands.
Quote Comment
August 27th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
“Nuclear power will kill the coal industry.” Wouldn’t that be nice. It would be really sweet if all it took was one little vote to kill the coal industry.
Quote Comment
August 27th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
I mean, it’s coal mining for ****’s sake. It’s a famously terrible job. Hell, it might be THE famously terrible job.
Quote Comment
August 27th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
If you wrote a novel with this, nobody would believe it.
Quote Comment
August 27th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Plenty of similar jobs have been lost)
~Asbestos Miners
~Lead Miners (lead is still mined but now much less so and not used in paint, and also its commonly recycled)
~ The whole iceblock industry that used to cut up lake ice in the winter and then pack it in ice houses and deliver it to homes or ship it south.
~ Every job associated with the very labor intensive steam locomotives like fireman, mechanics, water tower tenders
~ Railroad breakmen how about that one? Every train used to have a bunch of guys who rode between the cars clinging to the side and when they came to a turn and needed to slow down or came to a stop the these guys hand to run up and down on top of the cars turning mechanical break wheels. It was considered a great thing when the automated air breaks from westinghouse put an end to this horrible and trecherous job.
~ The whole trans-oceanic passenger ship industry. The only ocean liners around are just for pleasure travel for people who want a cruise but once there were many really large liners in operation with lots of workers.
~ Coal shovelers. Once in ships and power plants guys actually had to shovel the coal into the furnace before they all got automated feeds.
~ What about phone operators? How many lost their job when direct dial long distance came around?
~ What about telegraph and telegram delivery? Once there were lots of people employed typing telegrams and delivering them.
This is the most idiotic argument I’ve ever seen. They want a certain job sector preserved just for the sake of that job sector? Bull****.
Quote Comment
August 27th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
“Though the ad pictures traditional coal miners and is designed to evoke sympathy for the hardworking, long suffering Men of the Deep[...]“
Sounds like a perfect reason to put them out of their missery instead of prolonging their suffering.
Quote Comment
August 28th, 2008 at 12:47 am
Dumbest thing Ive ever seen. I almost wouldn’t have believed it.
So what it basically says is “coal doesn’t benefit you. There’s no reason for it to be used except to give us our jobs.” They are saying people should be so sympathetic and generous to one sector of the population that everyone else shoots themselves in the foot? That’s so goddamn stupid it’s beyond words! “yeah we know you don’t need us but keep up things and sacrafice the better way because we want to keep being paid.” THE NERVE! The reason anyone should get respect for their job is that they help and provide the greater good!
How many coal miners are there in Australia? I’m sure a large number but is it enough to justify having everyone else cop out for one group? That’s it? Destroy the land. To hell with the acid rain and the Co2 we want to keep our job!
That’s not a salary, that’s a donation. That’s disgusting. We don’t owe the coal industry ****. They destroyed the firewood industry and now they want a free pass to work that’s hurting everyone else!
Quote Comment
August 28th, 2008 at 12:49 am
Also, I should add that I agree with the doc’s post that even if they did introduce nuclear power it would never replace coal fast enough to put everyone on the street. If they wanted to be fair they could lobby for some kind of a program to make sure that an eventual phase-out goes smoothly and uses early retirement or alternate job placements and makes sure they get a decent severance package. That is MORE THAN GENEROUS. It’s actually more than they’re really entitled to, but I’d agree that there’s no reason nuclear power means mass unemployment for coal miners. The timetable and exports considered, there’s no reason that any one miner needs to fear it. IT IS THE INDUSTRY!
Quote Comment
August 28th, 2008 at 2:43 am
I’ve often suspected that one reason why many leftist organizations opposed nuclear power was to protect the jobs of the coal miners which they romanticize.
The other reason being is that some of these organizations were KGB fronts, and therefore wanted to protect Soviet natural gas exports (one of the USSR’s few reliable hard currency sources).
Quote Comment
August 28th, 2008 at 5:29 am
When the ad was running before the election last November, it was more than a little disingenuous. Most of Australia’s coal is sold overseas. No matter how fast they build up nuclear capacity, India and China are going to need coal for a considerable time to come. As long as they have to use it, they might as well use the highest quality coal available (less pollution and CO2 emission per unit of power generated), and Australia boasts some of the highest grade coal in the world.
Quote Comment
August 28th, 2008 at 9:05 am
I’m an Australian and while I agree entirely with the point made in this article I feel there’s one very pertinent fact that’s being left out.
This is an election ad.
If a political party thought they could gain a percentage of votes by telling us they enjoy eating cow turds they would do it in a second. The political climate of the time was such that me major issue dividing our two major political parties was a workplace relations act (I will spare you the tedious details). Any position that showed the labor party supporting jobs equated to votes for them. I don’t honestly believe they really thought nuclear power would single handedly destroy the coal industry.
The sad fact is that, in this country, people are very poorly educated regarding nuclear power. The information taught in schools is accurate and up to date and I’m sure all 6 people in my high school physics class understood it, the other 150 odd students in my year alone were left out in the cold to be misinformed by groups with conflicting interests such as the coal industry and misguided environmentalists.
It’s unfortunate but I don’t see the tide ever turning pro-nuclear fission in Australia. I dare say we’ve missed the boat on this one. Hopefully we can make the change away from coal when a more ’socially acceptable’ power source comes around (fusion anyone).
yes, I know, we aren’t seeing commercial fusion anytime soon…but a boy can dream.
Quote Comment
August 28th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Dalyn85 said:
I disagree. I’ve actually found that the majority of people I’ve spoken with about this from all age groups are in favor of nuclear power. The ones who aren’t tend to be much louder about it, but they are a minority, at least from what I can see.
I have a hope and suspicion that the current government is waiting for a politically opportune time to revise its position.
Quote Comment
August 28th, 2008 at 9:33 am
The Luddites destroyed the new machines because they took the jobs of the workers. Modern-day Luddites try to get the State to do the destroying.
Quote Comment
August 28th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Finrod said:
I REALLY hope you’re right and I’m wrong. Not just because I’m a nice bloke who cares about the environment and all but because it might mean a better chance at a job when I finish my Physics degree….
In fact I think we need another ad “Coal Mining is destroying our Nuclear Industry” It’s costing nuclear workers jobs.
Quote Comment
August 28th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Dalyn85 said:
Ha! Join the club! I’m just glad to hear that the US is not alone in our ignorance. Believe me, people here in general don’t know the first thing about nuclear energy and many people are scared of it. That’s considering that the first nuclear reactor was built in the US in 1943 and we here have a longer history of commercial nuclear energy deployment than any other country – all the way back to the first prototypical nuclear plant deployed at Shipping Port Pennsylvania.
The sad thing is that in the 1970’s the anti-nuclear energy interests managed to gain a foothold and become the dominant force in that area, completely destroying the hopeful progressive image that had been around in the 1950’s and into the 1960’s.
My friend, you’re in the same boat as many. We have nuclear power here in the US but just try to expand a plant or build a new one and prepare for a BIG BIG fight.
Quote Comment
August 28th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
This is a major weakness with the practice of division-of-labor.
To be sure, divying up the tasks such that people each do one different thing and trade goods and services with each other, as opposed to each individual trying to make and do everything he needs himself, is necessary for having any standard of living to speak of.
However, this problem, of people finding niches in the system which seem comfortable to them, and fearing losing these niches and being forced into less desireable roles or situations, needs to be addressed. Largely because it’s not entirely unjustified, at least in the short term. People oppose progress because it reduces the number of man-hours required to run the civilization, which ought to be a *good* thing; except that the working world still seems to be hung up on 40+ hour weeks. This of course results in fewer people being needed, and stacks of resumes on personnel directors’ desks in response to a single advertized position.
My quick fix: Impose a hard cap on the allowable work week. Say, 20 hours. (You need more man-hours, hire more people!) Leave the rest of the economic rules the same. Adjust the hours-per-week cap as needed to compensate for further improvements in productivity.
Quote Comment
August 28th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
George Carty said:
Wrong tense. It’s not “were” it’s “are”. See the current, and increasing, dependency of Europe on russion gas. It already shows its effects politically in the current occupation of Georgia by russian tanks. Europe is powerless and can’t even mount a real protest, as their gas supply can be cut off at a moments notice if they speak up too loudly. Has happened before in the last few years.
Especially German wind-power, combined with the threat of nuclear phaseout and protests against new coal plants means the electricity supply is extremely dependent on russian gas.
The German situation today is similar to Californias in 2001, where scrupulous gas suppliers milked Californians for money. The Russians do that today for political gain.
And Russias foreign policy arm, Gazprom, is buying green politicians with promises of lucrative jobs when their term ends.
Quote Comment
August 28th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
A must read from Nuclear Notes – “Energy Killers” Watch Out
“Roy Innis, chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality, has come out swinging against “elitist” environmentalists, politicians, and the nonprofit foundations that fund them for promoting “energy racism” by cutting off access to fossil fuels in the US and pushing up energy prices. “They cause poor families to lose their homes. They make life tougher for families who’ve worked, struggled, and sacrificed to join the middle class. Then they throw out crumbs that make us beggars at the American banquet,” Innis said in his book Energy Keepers-Energy Killers: The New Civil Rights Battle, published by Merril Press. “The fight over energy is the critical civil rights battle of our era,” said Innis. “Simply put, energy transforms the civil rights enshrined in our Constitution into civil rights we enjoy in reality.”
…
People “who produce energy for everything we do, everything we buy, everything we dream of,” Innis designates as energy providers. The “Bull Connor” energy killers, he said, “are people who try to stop them: activists and politicians against oil and gas drilling, against coal mining, against nuclear power, against all energy production, choking off the abundant, reliable, affordable American resources we need.”
…
“Sometimes I think environmentalists would rather see you jobless, homeless, or even dead than to support fossil fuel use, even the best, cleanest, and most abundant,” said Innis. “The fear and loathing that some have for oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear power is no excuse for us, our policy makers, or our courts to ignore energy reality and widen our energy gap by promoting renewable illusions and closing off access to the real energy we need.”
-from Roy Innis’ latest book Energy Keepers-Energy Killers: The New Civil Rights Battle. RedOrbit Books
Quote Comment
August 28th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
I know all about Schroeder’s treason, but I was talking about when CND first began campaigning against nuclear energy…
Quote Comment
August 29th, 2008 at 3:27 am
By the way, why would European lefties want to jump in bed with today’s Russia? The Soviet Communists I could understand, but Putin isn’t very left wing…
Quote Comment
August 29th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
George Carty said:
The Soviets really weren’t either. It was always communism this and that, but it was more of a police state than a workers paradise. I’m not even sure if you can really define it as left or right because it had the both in there.
Why would they go with Putin’s Russia? They’ll go with anyone who offers them what they want: cushy jobs, money, support and political favors, money and also money.
Quote Comment
August 30th, 2008 at 5:39 am
If it’s pure corruption rather than ideology, wouldn’t the right be in on it too though?
Quote Comment
August 30th, 2008 at 7:31 am
Excellent post and I hate to quibble but it is actually true that wind and solar are no threat to the coal-mining industry – because they are useless for base-load power generation.
So they did get one thing right.
Quote Comment
September 29th, 2008 at 9:40 am
You load sixteen ton, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
St Peter don’t you call me cause I can’t go
I owe my soul to the company store
Mixed emotions about this really. Being in the pro-nuclear camp I see this ad as amusing, reassuring, and frightening at the same time.
- Amusing because it’s so silly; like tobacco industrialists opposing smoke bans on account of job security.
- Re-assuring because it proves arguments for coal are running out.
- And frightening because some people will take that crap to heart and believe it’s a valid argument…
Quote Comment
October 7th, 2008 at 8:17 am
I don’t think that drbuzz0’s sendups are completely accurate for one significant reason.
Note that the original ad said “Protecting Mining Jobs and Communities“.
Manufacturing industries have a reasonable degree of choice of location, but coal mining (or any other extractive industry) has to be located where the resources are found. The closure of such an industry can therefore be devastating because it deprives entire towns of their raison d’etre. My own region has one of the highest unemployment rates in Britain, because it used to be dominated by coal mining.
Perhaps this argument is more forceful where non-Americans are concerned, as Americans (with their history as a nation of immigrants) have less problems with “moving to where the work is”…
Quote Comment
October 7th, 2008 at 9:21 am
George Carty said:
So what are we to do then for those mining communities where the resource has been depleted? Do they have a lien on the rest of us too?
Quote Comment
October 7th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
George Carty said:
I don’t know about that. There are other industries that support communities and have left the areas without much of an employment base when they left. For example, the “rust belt” of Pennsylvania is where there once were many steel mills and related jobs (some were mining but most were industrial) and when the mills consolidated into larger ones and many went overseas, it left the area depressed.
There are areas of the Northeastern US where they have had a lot of trouble getting the community back on its feet after loosing a major textile mill or other manufacturer. Europe and the US have areas that were badly affected by the closure of a ship yard or military base.
I used to live in upstate New York and there’s a town there called Schenectady which is really in sad shape. It’s become very poor and areas are blighted. It was once very rich because it had an enormous presence in General Electric. GE is still there but they’ve reduced their employment by a lot and have closed a few divisions, including locomotive manufacture and they’ve outsourced most of their small item manufacturing.
It happens. It’s too bad, but you can’t expect to hold an entire country back out of a desire to keep things as they are and prevent any painful realignments of industry.
Quote Comment