Don't they have to be? It's inconceivable that the huge ripple effects of eliminating all coal as an energy source would only cost jobs in the low-six-figures and wipe out so tiny a fraction (~0.5%) of GDP. Unless they're limiting their analysis to just the coal industry itself:
The final rule for the Clean Power Plan (CPP) was released by the Obama Administration this past August and is a direct attack on the coal industry…the final plan, supported by Hillary Clinton, will shutter sixty-six power plants and eliminate 125,800 jobs in the coal industry. All of these figures are based on EPA data.
Ah, there's another part of the puzzle, since the EPA numbers are doubtless vast underestimates.
The same study shows that using the 2012 baseline for coal generation and projections for 2030 output, the industry could shrink by 48%....
If 125,800 of these jobs are cut, wages lost will be over $9.8 billion dollars per year. The one-time $30 billion relief fund is a drop in the bucket and unless another industry picks up the slack that means over $90 billion in lost wages over the next 10 years....
The coal industry contributes nearly $65.7 billion to national GDP. As [sic] evidenced by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, the U.S. is not in a place to lose that type of contribution. Over ten years, the U.S. will see a loss of over $650 billion dollars.
Multiply these numbers by the aforementioned economic ripple effects of runaway energy costs, which means runaway transportation costs, which mean runaway EVERYTHING costs, and the corresponding depressionary effects in terms of inflation and layoffs and lost jobs and the true impact of the CPP starts coming into focus. And with the U.S. economy already in a permanent economic depression, this would be the coup de grace, at least for "coal country". Which helps explain why that region of the country has been turned ever "redder" over the last few election cycles.
And that Hillary Clinton-proposed thirty billion dollar "relief" fund for the economic damage deliberately inflicted by the Obama anti-energy policies? Think of it as the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 in miniature:
To make up for the job losses, there’s money for high-speed broadband, roads, bridges, water systems, airports, public health centers and [no] energy. Her plan also includes tax credits for investors, funding for arts and culture programs, as well as local food and agriculture businesses.
Her political goal is to staunch Democrats’ leaking support among blue-collar communities. Last week Republicans took the Kentucky governorship for only the second time in forty-four years. In 2014 the GOP picked up Senate seats in Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Iowa, Colorado, West Virginia, Montana, North Carolina, South Dakota and came close in Virginia. Next year Republicans are defending Senate seats in Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Illinois — States Barack Obama won in 2012 but save for the Land of Lincoln [will] be in play in the presidential election.
So here we have the [communist] policy arc made clear: First destroy coal jobs to please affluent liberals over "climate change", then tax all Americans more to buy the support of the workers who had those jobs. How about not destroying the jobs in the first place?
Couldn't put it better myself.