Sometimes I wonder if the attachment to certain industries and jobs is hidden in the psychology of men who were once boys.

You were talking about "rails lines". I remember living in a coal town like you're describing and it was fascinating how much the coal terminal seemed like a massive Tonka Truck set. Big trains, cars and ships coming in out and constantly and the men who were fascinated by all of it. Those who owned and operated it, like a huge toy train set. I mean it was interesting.

Most people who worked there just loved the coal industry and what it was about, comradery, big shiny trucks etc.

I'd actually love to know if anyone has actually found any research on the euphoria and attachment people have to fossil fuel industries and if that has anything to do with part of their ongoing popularity and support for mining jobs (obviously asside from just the money part).

It honestly seems like some people would feel like a part of them were dead if it's all shut down. I did once see a documentary on post coal mining depression in some places in the UK and it's real.

Renewable energy doesn't really have the same kind of boyish appeal I guess.

That might be a factor, but I doubt it really matters much. I think the real reason there is so much attachment is that change is hard, and ending coal means that coal miners (and lots if other people working in related industries) will have to basically restart their entire life. They'll also lose a lot of their wealth.

Coal mining towns would become ghost towns, coal miners homes will lose most value (who wants to live in a ghost town), they'll have to move for new work, losing their friends and community in the process.

A lot of coal miners and oil workers (probably most) only have a high school diploma. You get rid of coal and oil you get rid of some of the last well paying jobs that don't require college.

Finally, this doesn't just effect the coal miners. This effects railword workers, suppliers, the people working at the gas station where miners buy their coffee, who'll soon be out if a job when the gas station closes, etc. Literally the entire town, except those who are retired or close to, will be forced to move and will lose a lot of their wealth in the process, lose friends, etc.

In Wyoming for example, this will also impact other parts of the state. When coal was doing poorly a few years ago, the loss in state budget caused layoffs at the University of Wyoming, for example. The impact will be far reaching. It makes sense that politicians that work to avoid that are popular in these areas.

While we should definitely be helping these communities to transition as smoothly as possible, this concern strikes me as somewhat hypocritical in the country built on Manifest Destiny and sacking/building highways through non-white neighborhoods. I think, in the back of their minds, people realize this; they're fighting so hard because they know that they're on the side that generally gets steamrolled over.

That's exactly right, but just because we treated these people like dirt in the past doesn't mean we should continue to do so in the future.

> get rid of some of the last well paying jobs that don't require college

I think this is a myth that desperately needs quashing. There are still tons of trades that pay well especially in home construction like electricians and plumbers. Getting more people into these fields could also help alleviate some of the housing crunch by increasing the number of houses we can build at once.

I think what you're describing is a real thing, but the strange thing about Newport News is it's much more known for shipbuilding, and that employs about two orders of magnitude more people: https://www.dailypress.com/business/newport-news-shipyard/dp...

...if anything, I think the coal export terminals run under the radar of the local community. The people who live close to the terminals are too poor and lack enough power to do much about them, and the terminals are basically ignored by everyone else. There's also a lot of other port traffic in Hampton Roads, including shipping containers and vehicle carriers as well as a lot of military vessels, and that accounts for more traffic and far more revenue than the coal terminals. If anything, Hampton Roads is known for its military bases (all branches of the military) and ship building.

The thing about coal is it's still very cheap and so is responsible for very small amounts of revenue given its enormous environmental footprint. Oil produces over ten times the revenue per unit energy than thermal coal (and generally has lower economic footprint per unit energy since it's more gravimetrically energy dense and has lower ash and carbon content per unit mass) so is more economically important for a given environmental cost.

Additionally, what's odd about these facilities is they're for metallurgical coal exports, meaning they're contributing to the off-shoring of the US steel industry.

While oil does have an advantage over coal in energy density, coal has an advantage over oil in its mobility. Environmentalists don't protest the railroad that's carrying coal as much as they protest pipelines.

It's also about power. There's a good book called carbon democracy about how coal naturally led to the upsurge of democracy because it was labour intensive - he who can interrupt the flow of energy controls society and coal required a LOT of people to function.

Apparently the original shift to oil (started by churchill before ww1) was done in large part because it was far less labor intensive and so it took political power out of the hands of coal miners.

I can imagine how it felt to have income, camaraderie, identity and political power stripped from you all at the same time. Not great.

Now the coal industry is incredibly automated and mechanized, so I think the opposite is true today. Dump trucks with 400 tons capacity require just one operator, and even they are being automated in some ore mines with self-driving technology. If you look at aerial pictures of incredibly productive coal mines (in the Powder River Basin, for instance), there's just a few of these massive machines (which can be operated by one person) among many square miles. The coal industry only employs about 80,000 people in the US, in spite of the US accounting for a tenth of the world's coal production. That's less than a tenth the number employed in the 1920s when US coal production was about half of what it is today.

Mechanization and automation already did far more than eliminating the rest of the coal industry would.

Sounds like a milder type of conspiracy theory to me. Compared to coal, crude oil has higher energy density, provides better fuel to operate machines, and was less labor intensive to extract - isn't it quite enough for oil to expand into coal territory? Without some special political decision? Also, as we know democracy happened to places without mining industries at all.

I always get a bit sad when a chunk of land that was once used to produce something (e.g. an old research plant), gets converted into something to consume something (e.g. a mini mall). Several of the vestiges that existed when I was a kid of what gave silicon valley its name are now gone and replaced with shopping centers.

The wind energy industry does have some pretty fun trucks too though: https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a... (and uses some of the biggest mobile cranes in existence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvAZu81oooE )

Perhaps if these kinds of videos got more popular attention the industry would feel more "fun"...

Speaking from a uk perspective, the town serviced the coal mine, the town wouldn't exist with the coal mine. Mining is a dangerous dirty activity so you do get a camaraderie that comes from that.

So if the mine goes, everything goes, you lose your job, the people you know lose their job, but you also lose who you are. If you work in a coal mine, you are a miner in a way that working in a supermarket doesn't make you a check out assistant.

I'll agree there is some appeal to clanking machines, but its missing most of the point to reduce it to that.

Ps IMHO a massive wind turbine can hold its own with any steam engine or tonka toy any day of the week.

Yes, I remember listening to the BBC radio ballads with interviews with men who'd worked in mining and heavy industry. These were genuine communities; pretty everyone you socialised with would be people you worked with. And there was a lot of culture - people talked about learning about poetry and being introduced jazz music from older colleagues in a ship yard.

But the thing that really stood out to me was this: men who had worked in the mines were happy with their lot and had lots of positive things to say about their working lives, but when they were asked if they would want their children to work in mines their answer was a definite no.

Look at the Bevin Boys: from 1943-1947 once a week the minister would pull out a digit from 0-9, and all men liable to report that week whose registration numbers last digit matched the minister's pull were sent off to be coal miners. While soldiers viewed this as a way to escape the dangers of the front, the men themselves faced the dangers of coal mining without a guaranteed job to come back to (unlike with soldiers, who could not lose their job due to government service).

But that was the only way that a Britain at war could get enough coal miners. Conscripting them

I get that same boyish joy seeing the HUGE wind turbine blades heading down I10 in Texas.