Editor's Page
Coal: one view of its problems Carl E. Bagge, president of the National Coal Association, spoke earlier this month at the dedication of the first coal-fired power plant in south Texas. Here, verbatim, is part of what he had to say. The coal industry is confident that it can meet the demand for its product in the next decade. We have an ample supply of problems, but we can handle the ones where the solution is in our hands. We can recruit more miners and train them sufficiently. We can find the capital, if something extraneous does not interfere. The problems that really concern us lie outside our grasp, beyond our capacity to manage them. These are the problems of government policy. Our confidence in an increased demand for coal and our faith that we can increase coal supply are tempered somewhat by the fact that the government is prone to tinker with the law of supply and demand, substituting its own dubious wisdom for the workings of the marketplace. For example, the present Administration has talked of manipulating policy to determine the regions in which coal production will expand. In this and other Administrations, wholly unnecessary restrictions, chiefly concerning environmental causes, have restricted the mining and use of coal. After President Carter sent up his environmental message last spring, the coal industry suggested that some of the environmental laws he advocated were unnecessary and would conflict directly with his energy goals. I do not believe that energy and environmental concerns are always necessarily in conflict, nor that energy must always win out if such a conflict occurs, but I do believe that we should look at specific cases as well as lofty objectives. Ringing slogans, such as "nondeterioration" and ''return to original contour" have a way of being transferred into hard-and-fast laws which have drastic and unforeseen results. And some of these unforeseen effects are directly concerned with the availability of coal. We need to make reasoned judgments on scientific evidence and the needs of public policy, we must not act precipitately, carried away by emotion or demagoguery. The issue is too serious for such tactics. I believe we should be honestly concerned about the growth in the scope and the power of the federal government. As our life grows increasingly complex, government in the very nature of things is destined to play a larger part. On the other hand, we must be vigilant that the role of government does not become overpowering. Government gives extraordinary powers to ordinary men; unfortunately, it cannot also give them extraordinary wisdom. Government cannot always run the economy better than the forces of the marketplace. Government econometric models cannot always foretell what will happen in the intricate relationship of the nation's energy structure. It cannot adequately and intelligently direct and control that structure and all of the side effects of government actions. Yet I remain an optimist. I believe there is indeed an energy crisis. The government has not succeeded in convincing the public of the depth or seriousness of the problem that confronts us. And I fear that government is attempting to control our choices in the wrong ways, and for the wrong reasons. But I believe that in the long run the good sense of the American public will prevail, that we will indeed find ways to free our vast supplies of coal from unnatural constraints and use them for the benefit of the nation. We have a supply of coal sufficient for centuries. We have technology to use it with adequate protection for the public in most areas of the U.S. What we lack is the will to put our knowledge to work, to make realistic decisions, to be no more restrictive than necessary in our government policies. But America is still responsive to the voices and desires of its people, and I believe with all my heart that the American people will see to it that the riches of coal are put to use for the national good. •
C&EN editorials represent only the views of the author and aim at initiating intelligent discussion.
Sept. 12, 1977 C&EN
5
