In recent days, President Obama has touted his platform on clean energy which ranged from unprecedented solar and wind power investments to increased nuclear power, oil and coal production. He even received a standing ovation from the Republicans at the SOTU for this policy (one can assume this was due to the mention of nuclear energy, coal and oil production not renewable energies like solar).

Not everyone is welcoming this news though. Activists in West Virginia continue to apply pressure to the government and big energy companies to stop the destruction of Mountain-Top Removal Mining, which will surely be up for debate as to its place in this energy policy, while miners and their respective bosses continue to apply pressure to the EPA to allow more permits for Mountain-top Removal. Most recently, a federal judge has sided in favor of coal producer Massey Energy in barring protesters from their properties. But the buck doesn’t stop there, the Obama administration has yet to address this issue in detail, leaving the future of the Appalachians in jeopardy. The closest the president has come to responding directly to the issues of MTR was at the Republican Retreat Q & A session last Friday, in response to Rep. Capito’s (R-WVa) assertion that :

“Miners and the folks who are working and those who are unemployed are very concerned about some of your policies in these areas: cap-and-trade, an aggressive EPA, and the looming prospect of higher taxes. In our minds, these are job-killing policies.”

It is clear that this assertion is in response to the EPA’s approval of only 48 out of 175 proposed Mountain-Top Removal mines. Obama’s response was that of diffusion and redirection, stating:

“We can’t operate the coal industry in the United States as if we’re still in the 1920s or the 1930s or the 1950s. We’ve got to be thinking: What does that industry look like in the next hundred years?”

Why didn’t he make the argument specifically and concisely that, the negative consequences of MTR both environmentally and economically outweigh the benefits of its self-proclaimed efficiency, and that such a practice has no place in the energy policy of a 21st century America. This argument fits neatly within his narrative of making tough decisions that are not ideological but practical.

This issue receives practically no national attention, and its media scope is generally limited to regional or local outlets. I will be following the development of this story as it is sure to evolve in the coming weeks.