{"id":18478,"date":"2019-11-04T16:17:08","date_gmt":"2019-11-04T16:17:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/?p=18478"},"modified":"2019-11-06T15:23:03","modified_gmt":"2019-11-06T15:23:03","slug":"as-the-coal-industry-shrinks-miners-deserve-a-just-transition-heres-what-it-should-include","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/as-the-coal-industry-shrinks-miners-deserve-a-just-transition-heres-what-it-should-include\/","title":{"rendered":"As the coal industry shrinks, miners deserve a just transition \u2013 here’s what it should include"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ann Eisenberg<\/a>, University of South Carolina<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Murray Energy, one of the biggest private U.S. coal companies, has become the fifth coal company to file for bankruptcy in 2019<\/a>. Union leaders and many elected officials worry that in addition to the 7,000 miners on Murray\u2019s payroll, this step could threaten the solvency of the United Mine Workers of America pension fund, which supports over 100,000 retired miners and fully vested workers<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Whether people support or oppose the Trump administration\u2019s efforts to prop up the coal industry<\/a>, one point of agreement is that shifting from coal to cleaner fuels threatens struggling coal-dependent communities<\/a>. Murray Energy\u2019s bankruptcy is the latest reminder that it is past time to discuss a just transition for coal miners.<\/p>\n

My legal scholarship<\/a> examines environmental decision-making processes, with a focus on law and the urban-rural divide. In my recent research, I\u2019ve dug into the origin and meaning<\/a> of the idea of a just transition for workers.<\/p>\n

My findings suggest that there is a strong ethical case for pursuing just transitions through policy. The challenge is to ensure that these policies nurture programs and institutions with lasting effects, rather than merely offering short-term band-aids.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
More than half of the U.S. coal mines operating in 2008 have closed.<\/span>
\nEIA<\/a><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

What is a just transition?<\/h2>\n

There is no single definition of a just transition, but in the coal context it generally means finding alternative ways to support struggling communities that are losing their traditional livelihoods.<\/p>\n

The concept was popularized in the 1970s by progressive labor activist Tony Mazzocchi<\/a>, who worked in the auto, steel and construction industries before becoming an organizer. He believed that workers who had contributed to the public welfare through hazardous work deserved help in transitioning away from their difficult jobs. He first called for \u201cfull income and benefits for life\u201d<\/a> for such workers, but eventually changed his demand to four years of income and education benefits. Even then, his efforts met substantial opposition.<\/p>\n

Mazzochi had ties to labor and the environmental movements, and his activism blended these concerns<\/a>. Today scholars are embracing the idea that government should consider the economic impacts<\/a> of transitions such as the shift to low-carbon fuels, especially when workers are displaced by public initiatives.<\/p>\n

In my view, it\u2019s unfortunate that it has taken so long for mainstream attention to focus on the fate of coal workers. For communities dependent on fossil fuels, particularly in regions like Appalachia with few other major industries, today\u2019s job losses are just the latest phase of a long decline<\/a>.<\/p>\n

No simple formula<\/h2>\n

There is no road map for transitioning communities away from coal, but there are lessons from history. For example, American workers faced losses from international competition when the U.S. joined liberalized trade agreements in the second half of the 20th century.<\/p>\n

In response, Congress passed legislation in 1974 that established the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program<\/a>, which still operates today. It provides aid primarily to factory workers who can show that they have lost jobs or wages because of increased international competition. Eligible workers petition the U.S. Department of Labor for benefits administered through state agencies, including cash payments, retraining and assistance with relocation and job searches.<\/p>\n

However, research shows that even with this support, affected workers were substantially worse off than they had been before the shift in trade policy. Scholars have criticized trade adjustment programs as an ineffective band-aid<\/a>. In 2008 one of the program\u2019s directors called it \u201ctoo little assistance too late to those in need<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n