Letter: Coal crisis: market fallacies, short-term subsidies, energy policy
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: The Government should not be forced into providing a subsidy to the coal industry as a result of its PR failure ('MPs throw lifeline to pits', 26 January). Neither should it consider a subsidy because one is given to the nuclear industry. A subsidy should only be given if the economic considerations justify it.
It can only be justified if the measure is short term, to enable restructuring to take place, thereby creating an industry that can compete in world markets and flourish in the private sector. Any subsidy whose sole purpose is to preserve jobs by supporting uneconomic industry without tackling the cause cannot be justified. Such an approach may be politically expedient in the short term, but will merely store up existing problems and create long-term nightmares for the industry and the country.
If it is concluded that the industry can be modernised to enable it to compete on a level playing field, then subsidies should be welcome. They should however be accompanied by an acceptance of new working practices.
Intervention in any other form would be viewed sceptically. Restricting imports will smack of protectionism and could lead to retaliation. Restricting competing sectors may give the wrong impression and discourage investment for the future and in itself lead to job losses.
Yours faithfully,
ANDREW WILLIAMS
Walsall, West Midlands
26 January
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments