The G7 Failed To Conclude with an End Date to Coal Production. You’ll Probably Hate To Hear Why.

Photo by Ina Fassbender / Getty Images

I was thinking this morning about outsized influence. We see it in many contexts, but I want to focus in particular on the coal industry, which came under scrutiny at the G7 because of the growing threat of climate change. “Coal power generation is the single biggest cause of greenhouse gas emissions,” the seven nations warned, adding that “continued global investment in unabated coal power generation is incompatible with keeping 1.5°C within reach.”

And yet…. Despite the urgent need to cut emissions, leaders at the G7 failed to set any firm end date for the use of coal, that “single biggest cause” of global warming. This failure occurred despite a hard push by the U.K, with support from the E.U., to phase out coal completely in the 2030s. Instead, the leaders simply settled for language promising to “accelerate the transition away from unabated coal capacity”—which means precisely nothing.

Climate activists were left stunned and angry. “It’s very disappointing,” said Jennifer Morgan, executive director of Greenpeace International. “This was a moment when the G7 could have shown historic leadership, and instead they left a massive void.” Critics pointed out that the leaders’ statement today was even weaker than the May 2021 ministerial communique, which had pledged an “overwhelmingly decarbonized power system in the 2030s.” While the G7 leaders had agreed to end international funding support for coal projects that fail to capture and store carbon dioxide emissions, this still left in place existing plants which will continue to contribute disproportionately to the climate crisis.

The U.S. appears to be among the countries that hesitated to commit to a firm date for the end of coal. This reluctance is curious given that coal production isn’t a big factor in our economy and the industry actively employs relatively few people today. By one generally recognized count, the number of coal workers in January 2021 was just 44,100 in the U.S., down by 6,800 from prior years. Solar energy by contrast employs over five times as many people, with one industry estimate putting the figure at 231,000 solar power workers. So why the slow roll when it comes to coal? Why all this hand-wringing over 44,000 jobs?

The sad answer likely is politics. There is a cultural narrative around coal towns and coal workers being a bellwether, however unrealistic, for popular sentiment and prosperity. In a key swing state like Pennsylvania, coming out against coal is a commonly understood no-no for politicians, even though that state only has about 5,000 people employed in coal production today. There is a widely held belief that the loss of coal jobs will drag down the small businesses that depend on them, even though the math simply doesn’t support this fear. Candidates are still so concerned about bad press stories about the loss of coal jobs that they will spend valuable stage and press time to assure that any job losses in coal will be offset by job training and clean energy jobs to replace them. Ironically, their bending over backwards on this matter only contributes further to the perception that we are talking about hundreds of thousands or even millions of jobs in Pennsylvania, and not merely 5,000 in the state.

Another state where coal retains a near-mythological status is West Virginia, which was once heavily dependent on the 100,000 jobs that industry provided but now employs fewer than 14,000. Unlike Pennsylvania, West Virginia is not a swing state, but it has something else that gives it outsized influence—Sen. Joe Manchin’s 50th vote in the Senate. The Biden Administration is attempting to hammer out an infrastructure deal that will need Manchin’s sign-off in order to pass, and the White House likely does not want to ruffle his feathers on coal right now. The senator’s statement to the New York Times noted, with apparent satisfaction, that “projections showing that fossil fuels, including coal, will be part of the global energy mix for decades to come” even as he praised the Biden White House for addressing the need to develop clean energy alternatives. 

Observers could not help but wonder whether efforts to stay in Manchin’s good graces lay at the heart of the failure of stronger goals at the summit. As Alden Meyer, a senior associate at E3G, a European environmental think tank, noted, “Once again, Joe Manchin is casting a heavy shadow.”