Canada Seminar

Date: 

Tuesday, February 20, 2024, 12:00pm to 1:30pm

Location: 

Weatherhead, CGIS Knafel Building, Bowie Vernon Room (K262), 1737 Cambridge Street, Cambridge

Why is Coal Still Mined? Insights from Asbestos and the Structures of Risk Invisibilization

Gabriel Levesque, Department of Sociology, McGill University

Chair: Antonia Maioni, William Lyon Mackenzie King Visiting Professor of Canadian Studies and Professor of Politics, Science, and Public Policy, McGill University

Cosponsored by the Politics and Social Change Workshop, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs

In person. Light lunch served. Please register here to attend.

Gabriel Lévesque is a PhD student in Sociology and Tomlinson Doctoral Fellow at McGill University. He studies regulatory politics and the role of science and expertise in political processes. His dissertation investigates controversies over toxic substance regulations in Canada and the United States.

The deleterious human and environmental consequences of coal mining are well known, but only slight attention has been paid to the most egregious of all: black lung disease. The recent resurgence of the disease in the U.S. sheds light onto the persistent inadequacies of regulations to effectively mitigate coal risks. Nonetheless, black lung has consistently been an afterthought in discussions around coal, and voices seeking the fading out of coal mining based on health concerns are scarce. Why is this the case? In this study, I interrogate the factors that have hindered the public salience of black lung through a comparison with asbestos mining in Quebec, Canada, which was ceased in 2012 due to similar health concerns. The asbestos comparison challenges the power of economistic explanations in important ways. As an alternative, I argue that the trajectory of U.S. coal results from comparatively greater risk invisibilization. Three structures of risk invisibilization ultimately led to the divergent path of coal: labor’s cooptation of health activist groups, the bottom-up formulation of federal regulations, and the local embedment of perceived health risks. This study contributes to specifying the conditions that allow certain regulatory issues to become salient and lead to reforms, while others remain unaddressed.