Science & Technology

Rant

Science or Corporate Interests?

Posted 25 months ago|13 comments|747 views
VIDEOS
Written by
Altruist
Eugene, OR
A recent scientific review of dozens of studies entitled: “Mountaintop Mining Consequences“, was conducted by members of the National Academy of Sciences and is being published in the prestigious journal Science. The review concludes that it causes “pervasive and irreversible” damage to human health and the environment.

“…the authors outline severe environmental degradation taking place at mining sites and downstream. The practice destroys extensive tracts of deciduous forests and buries small streams that play essential roles in the overall health of entire watersheds. Waterborne contaminants enter streams that remain below valley fills and can be transported great distances into larger bodies of water.”

Mountaintop removal mining, is a type of surface coal mining that uses huge amounts of explosives to blast away the tops of mountains to expose coal seams. The resulting debris (aka the former mountain) are typically disposed of through a practice known as “valley fills,” where tons of mining debris are dumped into neighboring valleys, burying miles of headwater streams and valley ecosystems.

Mountaintop removal mining has already buried more than 800 miles of Appalachian streams and destroyed hundreds of square miles of woodlands in one of America’s biodiversity hotspots.

In a recent interview the President told the political news organization, Politico, “It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient-especially when it’s inconvenient.” Yet last year, the Obama Administration released a multi-agency plan that called for more strict enforcement of laws regulating mountaintop removal but stopped short of prohibiting the practice.

The Coal companies mounted a campaign to resist even these minimal controls saying that it will cost jobs and increase energy prices. Mountaintop mining is a process that was developed to cut costs but it also reduced jobs. There are only a fraction of the miners and operators needed for the huge machines that remove the coal, compared to tunnel mining. The nation would be better off moving to other energy sources that do not destroy the environment removing it, or pollute the air burning it.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
25 months ago: Mountain top mining is a tragedy on so many levels. It costs people not just jobs but lives and economy's as well. It destroys ecosystems and air quality. The values of homes in those areas drop down. People die! It is a noose around the economic, ecologic and health of those people and their communities and it is a sin against God. It is a crime against man and nature and our government needs to put a stop to it. That is why even if they could come up with a clean and harmless way of carbon sequestration there still would be no such thing as clean coal. It needs to stop. Plain and simple!
25 months ago: Welcome back Siempre.

Mountaintop or strip mining as it was once called is one of the most environmentally irresponsible acts that there is.

Does anyone stop to think about the amount of energy that it takes verses the amount of energy gained from the operation? Then there is the pollution and hazardous wastes generated by the project. Not just from the project site, but from the production of the equipment needed to support the project. Surely we have long surpassed the point of diminishing returns.
25 months ago: I think that the companies that do this type of mining are not doing it for free. They are making money otherwise they would have to be getting money from somewhere else and since the rich only desire to get richer, cutting costs is how they do it.

Another method or another source of energy would be fine by me.
25 months ago: Japan leveled 3 mountains to build an airport. In crowded Japan, the leveled mountain landscape is valuable real estate.

On the other hand, where we have beautiful natural scenery, and that wild habitat is a premium and not bountiful, then we might use other thinking.

The point is, use of resources in a developed culture is going to be a different story from an undeveloped culture. These are decisions by and for the people who use and live with the results. Therefore, we should develop processes beyond what we have today.

Today, our "mining development" processes, mostly, are in the hands of a few appointed officials. Rather than in the hands of public opinion.

We need a different and new process put in place, designed to deal with how we use our resources. For situations like mountaintop mining.
dramaticsoul
dramaticsoul
Pittsburgh, PA
25 months ago: I often wonder when I read news like this what can be done about it? what do you think will bring about a real positive change?
25 months ago: First I will re state my previous comment. I should have said: Mountaintop or strip mining, without a good primary objective (ie...airport, reseviors, Rail roads or highways), is one of the most environmentally irresponsible acts that there is.

There are many such "mining" sites like Yeager Field (Kanawha airport), Charleston, WV, Bath County Va Pump Storage Power Station and all Interstate Highways systems (at one point or another) to name just a few. And then there are these examples , some of which serve good purpouses like TVA projects, Hover Dam, Wind Farms and even Solar Arrays.

While few can agree, all of these scared the earth in one way or another And all have both negative and positive impacts.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
25 months ago: Welcome dramatic soul. What can be done about this is to first of all institute a carbon tax so the cost of coal reflects the true environmental cost. Then clean burning renewable energy sources can be developed and will be economically viable. Most coal plants produce electricity. To offset that, every rooftop in the South should have photovoltaic panels, there should be windmills on hilltops, run of the river turbines that don't require dams, and wave generators and tidal turbines in the ocean. To provide oil we need algae farms that can generate 100,000 gallons per acre per year.
25 months ago: Altruist, many of your postings make sense. But let us examine a "carbon tax".

- so the cost of coal reflects the true environmental cost.

I do not believe this is possible because no agency on Earth is capable of knowing the "true environmental cost".

If we level a mountain and therefore have more area that homes and cities can be built, have we bettered the environment, or worsened it? No agency on Earth can make this decision without dissenting opinion. Therefore the "true environmental cost" can not be determined in any absolute way. Therefore a quantity of "carbon tax" can not be levied.

But, even if that were possible, to whom does the carbon tax go?

I'll tell you where it goes. It goes into the hands of a selected business who holds it (as money) and redistributes that money.

Where do they distribute that money? Then do NOT put that money into research to develop better, cleaner energy. There is no mechanism in place that takes "carbon tax" and usefully spends that money. And this is the blind spot, the brick wall.

Until there is a useful way to spend "carbon tax" that will lead to better, cleaner energy, we should not punish and stop our present success just because our planet's ice is melting.
25 months ago: Terryeo, the tax money will go into the same cofers that most money goes into that is collected as profit from the general populations of all countries. A very few cofers. And that money will remain there never to be shared or distributed to the masses that so need it to purchase the renewable energy devices that will reduce the need for carbon producing energy sources.

Al, your "solution" is great for the rich, what do us poor people do for heat and transportation in the mean time?
25 months ago: Al.
Quit calling it a carbon tax.
Why don't you call it a freedom tax?

Global warming...er...uh...global cooling...er...uh...climate change is over.

You need to move on.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
25 months ago: A carbon tax would tax all fossil fuels that produce carbon dioxide/monoxide as a by product of combustion. A good Carbon tax would be revenue neutral. The tax would be passed on to the people with higher energy prices and revenue generated would be given back to the people so they wouldn't end up spending more - on average.
What it would do is make these fossil fuels more expensive relative to the renewable alternatives. It is clean, simple and effective. Most companies would prefer it because it makes it easy to plan for the future.
The cap and trade system that the industry lobbyists and Wall Street came up with, would allow the power companies to continue to pollute, It is complicated, inefficient, encourages corruption, and mainly makes a lot of corporations, lobbyists, and politicians rich, at our expense. The cap and trade that Obama proposed, at least would auction off the pollution credits and then that revenue could be given to people to offset higher fuel prices and also to be used for helping the alternatives, but the current bill would give away 85% of the pollution credits to the polluters.
Most scientists and economists prefer a carbon tax, but the politicians who have been bribed by industry would either prefer things as they are (pollution) or a system that allows the industry to cheat and get rich. Politicians don't do what is best for the people and the planet.
25 months ago: Al, "The tax would be passed on to the people with higher energy prices and revenue generated would be given back to the people so they wouldn't end up spending more"

How do you (or they) propose to make it not cost more just to live? Do you plan on giving people who can not afford to go out and buy a new electric car a check for the difference in gas prices? We aren't talking a few cents here; this is dollars more per gallon. When gas passed $4 a gallon not so long ago, our fuel expense nearly doubled but our actual living expenses more than doubled, not just because of the direct fuel cost but because everything else went up too and in higher proportion.

Just where do you think industry is going to get that money to buy those carbon credits? Surely you don't think they are going to take it out of their own pockets. Just look at what they did with retirement packages for their workers. (This is the financial industry) Over 40BILLION to executives in stock and stock options and bonuses, at the same time they put 39BILLION in to ALL THE EMPLOYEES pension funds, just think of it this way: there are 10 executives for every 1000 employees, now calculate the percentage of what each gets of the billions. Those numbers are made up as an example so the actual 1 to 100 ratio may be off, probably on the low side. And to make it worse, the executives get their money yearly (or within 5 years) while the employee has to wait 20 or 30 years. To answer my own question, they are going to pass the entire cost of carbon credits on to the consumer while tacking on a charge payable to themselves for "pass through" costs.

25 months ago: My income is fixed, my wife's earnings are not very high, our debt is very high due to low income while in the military, sending children to college and because I was laid off at a very bad time and couldn't find a job for a long enough time to destroy our finances. Now I'm disabled and can't work at what I'm trained to do and another job that pays enough to offset my disability payments requires retraining/college degree, and that doesn't come cheap nor does it put food on the table or pay the debts already owed. I could afford to live with the increased costs if someone would pay off my 120K worth of debt that is getting larger because of interest and fees.

Politicians always do what is best for politicians.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.