With a new presidential cabinet in place, the issue of coal in the U.S emerges where prevoiusly there was a policy of moving away from it left over from past administrations. The new administartions stance on coal is that instead of limiting it there should be an uptike in production of coal and it should be expanded. This comes from the concern that other energy sources are too expensive along with the number of jobs lost as a result of cutbacks to the coal mining industry would be devestating to areas where coal mining makes up a significant portion of jobs available. However, the U.S shouldn't go back to relying on coal for energy as the benifits of more jobs and its low-cost will be short lived as more of the work is automated, cleaner …show more content…
Additionally, the coal mining sector doesn't employ as many people as its output of energy would suggest compared to one of its competiters, solar energy which produces less than 1.5 percent of energy in the U.S, yet it offers over twice the jobs that coal does (Frazier). If the solar industry offers more jobs than coal why is there a push from the the miners to keep thier jobs rather than making the jump to the solar energy sector. Some hurdles that keep miners from switching is that the location where they live isn't close to solar jobs meaning they'd have to uproot their family. If they do switch they'll face lowered pay from their average of $35 an hour to $20 to $25 as renweable energy jobs pay much closer to the average income than coal mining jobs do (Frazier). Despit these chalenges, miners should be on the look out for other jobs as the ones they have will not last long from the threat of automation and jobs outside of coal in other energy sectors are much safer so the lowered pay is more comparable to coal workers when you don't have to worry about paying medical bills for black lung or life threatining accidents from working in the