There's an interesting front-page article at Daily Kos, How to Save the Coal Industry. It's quite good from a policy-wonk perspective, but a couple of things jumped out at me as a libertarian.

First, the author (Devilstower) encourages Coal Industry executives to embrace regulations as a barrier to entry:

Eliminating mountaintop removal will increase the cost of mining, yes, but by raising the cost of entry and restricting mining to more specialized equipment, it will mean that the dilettantes (who also happen to be those most likely to dodge environmental and safety rules) will be forced from the industry.

The author also encouraged the mining companies to encourage/tolerate the growth of unions among their workers. He advocated this on the basis of maintaining a good workforce, but he could have also mentioned that unions can make workers feel more connected to their industry, and help them advocate for government favoritism towards the industry: this is especially important for a shrinking industry.

The last thing I noticed, is that many of the proposals dealt with the health of the industry, rather than individual companies. I wonder to what extent this is necessary -- for many aspects of business, this does seem important. Political influence is often wielded by industries, not individual companies. Workers invest in training based on the employment opportunities in the industry in general, not so much based on individual companies. Public relations (even outside of politics) often delivers benefits to the industry, as do market-expanding technologies (such as electric-cars). This issue is really just a special case of the public-goods problem.