Alpha Natural Resources CEO Kevin Crutchfield gave a major speech yesterday at the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce’s meeting over at The Greenbrier. The Beckley paper reported:

“It’s not easy times to be in the coal business. I mean, as most of you know, adding to the normal business challenges we face on a global basis, coal is under attack — a direct, frontal assault by opponents who think that we’d be better off without coal,” Crutchfield said. “It’s almost as if they want to kill the goose that laid the golden egg when, in reality, coal is one of the major contributors to what made America and this state the great places that they are today.”

From the media coverage (West Virginia Metro News also had a piece), there was a lot of unsurprising jingoism, talk about how coal is a vital part of our nation’s future:

Crutchfield said without a doubt, coal will be as much a part of the nation’s future as it was of its past.

“Coal will continue to fortify our structures and electrify nations for years to come,” he said.

There are several reasons, Crutchfield said, that coal will continue to dominate energy markets, but most obviously, is its price tag.

“Because it’s reliable, it’s abundant and it tends to cost less,” Crutchfield said. “In many cases, much less.”

There was no mention, as best I could tell, of what happens over the next decade, as coal production from Central Appalachian enters a major, major decline.

This part of his talk was especially interesting:

Crutchfield emphasized coal is an essential ingredient in the recipe for affordable energy.

“Killing coal, as some would like to do, would be to deny hundreds of millions of people around the planet access to affordable electricity and the better life that comes with it,” Crutchfield said.

“If we really care about the less fortunate with lower incomes, here at home and abroad, shouldn’t we support the increased use of coal to generate electricity?” Crutchfield asked. “The answer, I think, is yes, perhaps.”

Crutchfield pointed to studies that link electricity and energy access to positive lifestyle indicators. He mentioned numerous advantages, such as clean water, better literacy and other factors that are greatly improved in correlation to energy access.

“Electrification is essential for improving public health, providing education and information, and saving people from subsistence living,” Crutchfield said.

I have to say, when I heard those quotes on the radio this morning, it seemed that Crutchfield was sounding a bit more like former Massey CEO Don Blankenship that he probably wants to … Recall Blankenship’s comments in this regard (see direct link here):

If you support democracy in developing countries, you must support coal. It gives them economic freedom. Denying coal keeps them in poverty.

I didn’t attend the Chamber event, and so far Kevin Crutchfield just hasn’t been able to make time for an interview with the Gazette.

But perhaps he’s referencing some of the studies we’ve talked about before here on Coal Tattoo (see here and here) about coal’s impacts in developing nations.  But he seems to be cherry-picking the findings quite a bit.

For example, coal use in some developing nations happens in a way that is quite unhealthy, especially for children:

“Use of coal for indoor heating is widely prevalent in some countries, exposing millions of people to indoor air pollution from coal smoke,” the authors write as background information in the article. “Coal combustion emits chemicals such as fluorine, selenium, mercury, arsenic, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide into the indoor air, and these chemicals may form residues on household surfaces and food. Often, exposures are prolonged owing to inadequate ventilation.”

And it’s true that when coal is developed in a more mature energy source in those countries, it can have positive benefits:

The study starts with the notion that some serious environmental and public health problems related to contaminated water and poor sanitation improve with access to a reliable energy source. And, access to electricity also reduces in-home burning of inefficient and polluting fuels such as coal, wood and animal dung.

But that’s not where the story ends, as Crutchfield seems to suggest, as the paper in Environmental Health Perspectives explained:

… Depending on how electricity is generated, new health hazards can be created, including exposure to particular matter, sulfur oxides, nitrous oxides, volatile organic compounds, and carbon monoxide emitted during power generation.

In this study, researchers used models to examine 40 years of data on infant mortality, life expectancy, electricity use, and coal consumption in 41 countries. They found that electricity use improved infant mortality rates, but only in countries where rates were relatively high in 1965. Also, life expectancy did not appear to be affected by electricity use, but increasing coal consumption was associated with reduced life expectancy and increased infant mortality.

It’s true that developing a reliable and affordable energy source is key for developing nations, and in some cases moving from burning coal indoors to burning it in a power plant is an advancement for those places in the world. But once you start developing a major economy based on coal-fired power, the industry’s impacts become much different.

To be fair, Crutchfield also said this:

“Coal may be the low-cost fuel, but its market cost does not reflect all of its environmental or social costs,” Crutchfield added during his presentation. “From a social public policy perspective, we have to pause before we say it is the fuel of choice.”

Crutchfield cited three major issues.

First:

One is “potential environmental health and aesthetic externalities” associated with the extraction and use of coal that “need to be mitigated or accounted for in choosing between coal and other fuel options.”

The second hurdle, Crutchfield said, is that some of the most promising technologies for addressing coal’s impacts are not yet “commercially mature.”

The last challenge, Crutchfield outlined, is the cost of applying those technologies, which may offset the cost advantage of coal. Addressing all three challenges, he said, will require a “balanced discussion.”

Potential environmental health and aesthetic externalities?

Come now … What’s he talking about?

The $62 billion in hidden annual health costs outlined by the National Academy of Sciences?  The “pervasive and irreversible” damages from mountaintop removal outlined by the respected journal Science? The $42 million in annual costs to West Virginia’s state government in excess of coal’s benefits, outlined by Downstream Strategies and the West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy?

Maybe Crutchfield is talking about the findings of West Virginia University’s Michael Hendryx, as I outlined here:

The coal industry generates a little more than $8 billion a year in economic benefits for the Appalachian region. But, they put the value of premature deaths attributable to the mining industry across the Appalachian coalfields at — by a most conservative estimate — $42 billion.

Maybe … but not surprisingly, it doesn’t sound like Crutchfield is willing to follow that sort of research:

“We should take a more careful look before we leap in that direction,” Crutchfield said in regard to those calling for an end of coal. “There are irrevocable consequences if we lead blindly forward as some would have us do.”