Cross-posted at Dispatches from Life, Alex Krogh-Grabbe’s blog.
At Grist Magazine, they like to refer to coal as the Enemy of the Human Race. And, while that’s a bit of a rhetorical flourish, it’s true that coal is unavoidably one of the dirtiest ways possible to produce energy. If you’re interested in finding out more about the entire process of using coal for energy, I encourage you to read Big Coal, by Jeff Goodell.
But what I want to write about today is inspired by a Huffington Post article by Jesse Jenkins, of The Breakthrough Institute and It’s Getting Hot in Here. I’m generally pretty skeptical of Shellenberger & Nordhaus’ thinktank, but I met Jesse at Powershift, and this article is pretty good. Its overall message is the same as everything out of their thinktank; in order to be successful, environmental messages need to be framed around things that people care about more, like jobs and the economy. Specifically, the article runs down what it dubs the “Technology Fifteen”, i.e. fifteen “moderate” senators from the interior of the country who have banded together to have a voice on climate issues.
So, I thought I’d look a little further into specifically the geography of coal as it relates to politics. I put up a Google Docs spreadsheet with my data. All my data’s from the Energy Information Administration, the government office whose job it is to make public this sort of stuff. For my findings, see below the fold.
Essentially, I ranked all the states by 1. Percentage of energy supply that comes from coal, 2. Number of people in the state employed by the coal industry, and 3. Coal production. Theoretically, members of congress from these states would be less inclined to support legislation aimed to breaking America’s coal addiction. This metric is likely even a more significant factor than their ideology. Anyways, here is the list of states:
- West Virginia
- Wyoming
- Kentucky
- Pennsylvania
- Virginia
- Illinois
- Texas
- Indiana
- North Dakota
- Montana
- Utah
- Colorado
- Alabama
- New Mexico
- Ohio
So which senators represent these states who might be of interest? Well, a few of the states are represented by very conservative senators, and we can be pretty sure how they’ll vote on energy legislation already. Some others have a League of Conservation score of 100% for 2008, so we can be fairly sure that they will vote well. And what do you know, taking out those two bunches leaves us with just fifteen senators. Here they are, starting with those from the coal-iest state, West Virginia:
- Byrd (D)
- Rockefeller (D)
- Dorgan (D)
- Conrad (D)
- Specter (R)
- Webb (D)
- Warner (D)
- Burris (D)
- Lugar (R)
- Bayh (D)
- Udall (D)
- Bennet (D)
- Udall (D)
- Voinovich (R)
- Brown (D)
Burris and Bennet have not heald a seat in congress before, so LCV has no rankings for them. Otherwise, these senators are ranked by coal-iness and then by LCV ranking.
So what does this mean? Well, Obama and Senate Democrats are looking for moderate Republicans to vote with them in order to break filibusters. Voinovich, Lugar, and Specter are identified by Nate Silver as in the top five prospects for this, along with the two Maine senators. I would suggest that the three of them might be less likely to flip on anti-coal legislation than they might be otherwise.
On the other side, Nate recognizes Dorgan, Conrad, Baucus, Tester, Byrd, and Webb as potential problems for Obama, but not as big problems as four conservative Democrats from non-coal states.
So, we’ll see. Keep an eye on these senators when energy bills come to the senate.
Subscribe by Email!












Excellent analysis Alex. Thanks for posting it. I’m curious on your thoughts about how best to make the kind of things we want to see a winning proposition for the 12 democratic senators you identify and at least a few of the five potential swing Republicans that’d be needed to get over 60 votes?
We dubbed our slightly different set of 15 Democratic Senators the “Technology 15″ because among their concerns is a concern that they have yet to see a serious effort to invest heavily in the clean energy technologies their states (and the nation) will need to replace the coal they now rely heavily on, and to make such technologies affordable enough so as to not slam their already weak, often manufacturing-heavy economies with higher energy prices.
Some of them (perhaps the folks from WV) may be simply too tied to the dying coal industry to embrace a new energy future. Others though, like Sherrod Brown (D-OH) or Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), are probably more interested in the health of their states’ manufacturing sectors (and the cost of electricity they use) than the coal industry. How can we convince them this is a win-win situation for them, and not about sacrificing their state’s economic well-being in the interest of climate objectives advanced by “coastal-state interests” (as it’s no-doubt all to easy to perceive the folks in charge of key committees now, i.e. Boxer, Markey and Waxman)?
No doubt it will take a strategic combination of public pressure and organizing muscle and the right policy design that looks attractive enough to these middle America states to be worth taking a shot at passing. Solve that riddle and we may be in business.