Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

How Obama Can Win Appalachia and the Nomination

By Jeff Biggers, Huffington Post. Posted March 28, 2008.


Appalachia could provide Obama an historic opportunity to move beyond our racial politics with a truly new vision -- a green one.
Advertisement

In the eyes of most pundits, the upcoming primaries in Appalachia -- including western Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Kentucky and West Virginia -- will most likely deal a blow to Sen. Barack Obama's ability to transcend the brewing racial quagmire in presidential politics. Didn't Sen. Hillary Clinton score a landslide victory among white voters in rural and Appalachian areas of Ohio? Conventional wisdom says Obama will never have a chance in "redneck" Appalachia, even among the Democrats.

Perhaps. But Appalachia could also provide Obama a historic opportunity to move beyond our racial politics with a truly new vision. Instead of offering worn out ideas for poverty relief, like Clinton, or succumbing to the anachronistic schemes of the dying coal lobby, Obama should shatter these artificial racial boundaries by proposing a New "Green" Deal to revamp the region and bridge a growing chasm between bitterly divided Democrats, and call for an end to mountaintop removal policies that have led to impoverishment and ruin in the coal fields.

Beyond race and rednecks, another dynamic is simmering as an undercurrent among blacks and whites in this struggling region: Obama's urban campaign and youthful environmental activists have failed to make any inroads with labor's last generation in the Rust and Energy Belts.

Truth is, Obama has a lot in more common with Appalachia than he knows, nor he is the only groundbreaking African American figure in the region's history. For starters, Black History Month founder Carter Woodson emerged out of the coal fields of West Virginia, as did Booker T. Washington, the most important African American spokesman of the 19th century. Pioneering black abolitionist Martin Delany walked out of West Virginia to alter Pittsburgh's destiny.

Woodson, Washington and Delany also understood one of the best kept secrets about Obama's adopted state of Illinois: Slavery was legal and incorporated into the state's constitution in 1818. Making an exception for the laborers in the salt wells in southern Illinois, which generated a considerable portion of the new state's tax revenues, the Illinois legislature -- and the American Congress -- willingly overlooked legal slavery in this so-called anti-slavery northern state. Slavery in the guise of indentured servitude and the kidnapping of free African Americans remained in the area until the 1850s.

Despite their glorious calls for emancipation, the Illinois legislature committed one of the most egregious acts in American political history: They declared the economic benefits of the salt (and future coal) industry outweighed the acts of inhumanity and destruction that supported this economy.

With all Democratic Party eyes now focused on the Big Coal state of Pennsylvania, Obama would be wise to ponder his state's darker history and its implications today for the Keystone state and its energy policies linked to the divisive coal industry in the wider Appalachian region.

Woodson and Washington also had first hand experience with the worst kept secret about Obama's state: A vast coal bed stretched across those salt reserves in the hilly and forested region of southern Illinois with its own cursed wealth.

While Obama likes to declare that he comes from a coal state, as if somehow identifying with rural Appalachia, he rarely mentions the fact that the shortsighted economic interests of the coal industry have subjected the bottom tier of Illinois to nearly two centuries of economic helter skelter, racial conflicts and environmental ruin.

"The rape of Appalachia," Harry Caudill wrote decades ago in his classic text on stripmining and poverty, Night Comes to the Cumberlands, "got its practice in Illinois."

Caudill was referring to the first commercial stripmine in eastern Illinois in the 1860s. By the 1920s, plundered for their coal and unable to compete with the non-union labor in Kentucky and West Virginia, the southern Illinois coal towns had turned into deforested and eroded wastelands, and were depicted by one government report as a "picture, almost unrelieved, of utter economic devastation." Southern Illinois lay claim to the highest infant mortality rates in the nation.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: clinton, obama, election08, coal, clean energy, mountaintop removal, mining, appalachia

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Good idea
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 28, 2008 3:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The coal mines must be closed and soon to save us from H2S and
the other effects of climate change. The details need to be
worked out. Creating green jobs in Appalachia is easier said than
done. I hope Obama can do it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Good idea Posted by: cassidy
» RE: Good idea Posted by: AsteroidMiner
Hillary's energy plan is outstanding
Posted by: PaulC on Mar 30, 2008 9:40 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have not seen one by Obama, and I felt sucker-punched when I heard him pander to a W.Va. audience about promoting "clean coal" - repeating it several times.

Not only is carbon capture an unproven technology but it represents a ticking time bomb - storing millions of tons of pressurized CO2 liquified gas underground and praying it doesn't erupt to the surface causing a calamity of epic proportions, or cause earthquakes or god knows what.

Worse, the process of liquification consumes 50 percent or more of the energy content of the coal, meaning already destructive mining would need to DOUBLE JUST TO MAINTAIN PRESENT LEVELS OF ENERGY OUTPUT!

What a nightmare! And the real tragedy is that wind power is just sitting there waiting to be used - the technology already in place - no fuel, no mining, no pollution, a gift of nature begging to be utilized.

What a terrible waste. What a terrible crime. What the hell is Obama thinking? Why is Hillary able to come to the right conclusions on this but Obama is not?


peace,
Paul

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wind energy without new tech batteries requires:
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 1, 2008 9:07 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wind energy requires that Direct Current [DC] be transmitted
over enormous areas [more than one continent] to provide
continuous power because wind varies from minute to minute.
Direct current is required because the voltage and frequency of
AC would change minute by minute with wind speed. Long
distance DC transmission requires superconducting cable. DC
just doesn't go far otherwise.
Reference:
http://www.terrawatts.com: Liquid nitrogen is still required.
http://www.alternet.org/environment/69888

Following the http://www.terrawatts.com lead, you arrive at the
statement that the "high temperature" superconductor will be
cooled by liquid nitrogen. See:
http://www.azom.com/details.asp?
ArticleID=942#_When_will_HTS
The need for liquid nitrogen is the achilles heal of this scheme. It
isn't really a "room" temperature superconductor. Any accidental
warming brings the grid to a halt. Energy is required to make
liquid nitrogen. Dry nitrogen must be cooled to 77 degrees
Kelvin to make it a liquid. The cable has to be thermally
insulated and cooled its entire length. The cable also must be
physically separated into "out" and "return" wires, and the force
between the 2 wires will be large. As stated in the article, it won't
be cheap.

Any warming above the superconducting temperature or too much
magnetic field will cause the cable to quit superconducting at that
point. The cable will instantly melt, creating an electric arc. All
of the energy that was flowing through that spot will instead be
dumped there, creating an explosion. The power grid will be
disabled for some time since repairing a superconducting cable is
not as easy as splicing a wire. Is this the kind of electric service
you really want? We really don't have the technology yet.

What about storing wind energy as compressed air? Check the
efficiency, the availability of leak proof caverns, etc. Storing
wind energy as compressed air is a pie in the sky. What about
storing wind energy in batteries? We can't make that many
batteries. Another pie in the sky.

Wind energy wastes energy because the wind varies so much that
a "spinning reserve" is required in most locations. If you are
running the steam powered generator at the spinning reserve rate,
you may as well use the steam as your energy source and forget
about the wind. Wind turbines are decorations, not sources of
energy for the grid until we have room temperature
superconductors. There are special locations and circumstances
where wind energy is useful, but wind cannot replace coal and
nuclear any time soon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama's education is the problem
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 1, 2008 9:35 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama's undergraduate degree is in Political "Science." Obama's graduate degree
is in Law. That means Obama is innumerate, which means illiterate of science.
Obama needs a good scientist consultant advisor. The problem is that Obama has
no way to decide who is a good advisor because Obama doesn't have the education
required to decide. This is a standard problem with politicians. George W. Bush
used oil company people as his energy "experts." The only solution is for Obama
to go to school and learn science and math for himself. It isn't going to happen.
We can hope that Obama finds a better method of finding expertise than George
W. Bush did. Since it would be hard to find worse advice, there is hope, but not
much. Hillary doesn't know anything about it either and Hillary's plan is worse
than Obama's. Since Hillary is paranoid about nuclear, she will make no progress
against global warming.

To change this situation for the future:
FIRST: A degree in anything has to include at least the Engineering and Science
Core Curriculum, and preferably a degree in science. Why? Because everybody,
including politicians, need to be able to sort out who the liars are. That requires
contact with reality. Contact with reality happens in laboratory courses in
engineering and science and nowhere else.
SECOND: A high school diploma has to require [of everybody] enough science
to make good citizens of a high technology civilization. A high school diploma
has to require 4 years of Physics, 4 years of Chemistry, 4 years of Biology and 8
years of Math at the high school rate of learning.

Nature isn't just the final authority on truth, Nature is the Only authority. There
are zero human authorities. Scientists do not vote on what is the truth. There is
only one vote and Nature owns it. We find out what Nature's vote is by doing
Scientific [public and replicable] experiments. Scientific [public and replicable]
experiments are the only source of truth. [To be public, it has to be visible to
other people in the room. What goes on inside one person's head isn't public
unless it can be seen on an X-ray or with another instrument.]
Science is a simple faith in Scientific experiments and a simple absolute lack of
faith in everything else.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Amazing! Other Counties Do It!
Posted by: Andie927 on Apr 1, 2008 12:55 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Finland, and several other countries, have no problem with Wind Power!

Oh yea, this country is too stupid to learn from things that work in other countries, particularly if their close to/or in Europe!

Like Single-Payer/Non-Profit Universal Healthcare! God forbid, it might cost less, and work better!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More on Europe,
Posted by: Andie927 on Apr 1, 2008 1:07 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In Germany, almost every house has Solar Panels, I think almost 40% of their power comes from Solar! How? Government sponsered low interest loans, plus a guarenteed return!
(Power Co. Told to pay a full price for power produced, unlike here where they can pay as little as 40% of what they charge)

Farmers are starting to operate, small plants that produce natural gas, from animal wastes!

Our government, and in particular, Obama won't do anything that doesn't help big business make big bucks off you and me!! He knows where, and who butters his bread!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Do not be so quick to jump on Obama folks
Posted by: paula.c on Apr 1, 2008 1:41 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
out there. He is smart and can learn. Wind power sounds like a real winner. Too bad our U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy is blocking the proposed wind farm in Nantucket Bay. It would be barely visible on the horizon but the wealthy say NIMBY. And that includes the Senator. Shame on all of them!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How Disappointing
Posted by: maggzilla on Apr 1, 2008 6:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That Alternet has endorsed Obama.

People want to see another MLK or JFK except they are missing one of the most important things about those two fine leaders they are likening to Obama --THEY DID SOMETHING WITH THEIR LIVES!! It's called walking the walk where Obama just talks--and has close personal relationships with crooks and racist ministers.

We have just spent the last 7.5 years with a President that told a few good stories and had the gift of the gab for lying--please, I can't take another 4 years of an amateur at the helm

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As I said, there ARE places where the wind blows steadily, but:
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Apr 1, 2008 9:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But those places don't happen to be everywhere.
And they don't happen to be in convenient places.
And the wind doesn't blow hard enough for the power required
HERE. Notice that Finland doesn't need air conditioning.
Neither does Germany. Look on a globe and see
how far north they are.
And Finland may not have as many people who object to any
change, like Senator Kennedy. So just because it works in some
other place that happens to be a special case is no indication that it
will work here. But don't believe me. Go invest YOUR OWN
money in a wind power project and go broke. If you get rich
instead, fine. But put your money where your mouth is. If you
expect other people to invest their money, the numbers have to
work first. Remember that climate and political conditions and
culture have an impact on whether wind energy will work in a
given place. Europe also has gasoline prices that are twice what
they are here, due to taxes on gasoline. $8/gallon gas just
wouldn't work here, without causing a revolution. Solar panels in
Germany have a government subsidy, and energy requirements in
Finland and Germany are very different than here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]