"Lost Mountain - A Year In The Vanishing Wilderness", a must read for all!
Discussion
20 replies
Posted by Jerry Greer on December 17, 2007 at 12:42 PM
Guys & Gals,
I've been reading, over the weekend, a great book titled "Lost Mountain - A Year In The Vanishing Wilderness". This is a must read for all Americans! The book is about mountaintop removal coal mining; a radical form mining that is devastating the mountains of the southern Appalachians. The author’s webpage is http://erikreece.com and there's tons of info on the site. Everyone that turns on the light switch should read this book, PERIOD!
Jim, if this is posted in the wrong forum feel free to move it but I feel that everyone should have a chance to see this post. Again, anyone that flips on a light switch (or computer) should read this book. We are connected to this form of mining in some form or another!
--
Jerry Greer
Greer Photography
www.jerrygreerphotography.com
Posted by Carl Donohue on December 17, 2007 at 3:37 PM
Hey Jerry
I agree, this issue is yet another huge one. And just to second the book, the foreword is by Wendell Berry, one of, if not THE great environmental writers today.
I think I would re-word your last sentence though, Jerry. "We" aren't the driving force behind this kind of so-called 'mining' - don't put their abuse of the land on me, or anyone else other than those profiteers who choose how they shall tear at the earth. LIke Wendell said "And so the Appalachian coal fields most spectacularly, but in fact every one of our economic landscapes, have been put at the mercy of a class of economic aggressors whose aim is to convert the natural world into money as quickly as is technologically possible and at the least possible cost. If that least cost is the total destruction of the land and the land’s communities, that is understood as an acceptable cost of doing business."
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Jerry Greer on December 17, 2007 at 5:01 PM
Carl,
Actually, every time we/you turn on the lights we are indirectly part of the reason for this practice. Over 50% of the electricity we enjoy today IS produced by coal. Cheap energy is the driving force for strip/mountaintop removal mining and we all want cheap energy. So yes, in a since, we are all in it up to our necks. Even though we do not condone the way the coal is extracted we are still a driving force with our heavy energy consumption.
65% of all coal production is from surface mining! The reason for this is it’s cheaper and faster to mechanize and move mountains than to pay miners to go underground. The mechanization of coal mining from mountaintop removal has had a direct affect on the employment in the coal industry. There has been a 47% decline in employment within the industry over the past 15 years but the overall production has increased.
Maybe my statement is harsh but I dare say that maybe 10% of the photographers here have ever heard of mountaintop removal mining! I’d say that some might not even care once they are enlightened on the practices of big coal. At least, with this book one can become enlightened about these appalling practices and maybe, just maybe, we can use our photographs and our power to vote and try to stop this.
Go here to see your connection with big coal! http://www.ilovemountains.org/myconnection/ Just put in your zip code and the database will show you exactly how you are connected. Even California uses Appalachian coal!
Posted by Matt Dallos on December 17, 2007 at 7:15 PM
The entire topic of mountaintop removal is enraging. I checked out a copy at the library today and ended up reading the entire thing without putting it down.
Jerry is right..a must read for everyone.
Posted by Lee Robinson on December 17, 2007 at 7:51 PM
I can't imagine the damage being done by that type of mining.
The strip mining being done to southern Wyoming's lunar landscape is not very pretty either.
At least here in Utah, some folks don't mind so much when the underground coal mines collapse on top of miners visiting from Mexico.
Posted by Jerry Greer on December 17, 2007 at 8:24 PM
Matt,
You're in PA right? I'm going to visit the Kayford Mountain site near Cabin Creek, WV. It's about 40 minutes southeast of Charleston, WV. Are you interested in meeting up there? I'll make all the arrangments.
The coal companies offered Larry Gibson 1 million per acre for his 50 acre tract and he told them to stick it! He's fighting them like a madman! This is the place where we can visit and photograph the mining as it happens.
Jerry, Thanks for the book suggestion and Matt's thread about reading it, too; I'm going to go find a copy and read it. To me, the route you're going with environmental photography is THE wave of the immediate future, so I appreciate a heads up on a way to become better informed on this topic.
Nancy
Posted by Carl Donohue on December 17, 2007 at 9:39 PM
Hey Jerry
I'm not disputing that electricity is produced by burning coal, nor that we use electricity. I know what you're getting at, and I agree with that - we all should do what we can to use less (and I don't say that dismissively), but I think it's important to point the finger where the problem lies: the CHOICE made as to how that mining is enacted I have nothing to do with. I don't drive those choices. Profiteers who decide short-term cash is more important than the health of the world we live in (and hence our own and their own health) make that choice, not you or I. I'm no more responsible for the method they choose to mine for coal than I am for the actions of, say, soldiers in Iraq. Sure, I pay taxes and those taxes go toward the military, but I don't agree I'm the driving force behind something like Abu Ghraib. I don't make decisions to clearcut forests - there are alternative methods of forestry that are far less harmful, and infinitely more sustainable - the driving force behind those choices are the people who choose profits over the environment. While ever they're able to continually externalize the real costs of their business, while they're able to avoid any real transparency and/or accountability, and while ever they answer only to shareholders, they'll continue to choose A over B.
Corporations CHOOSE how to conduct their business, just like you or I do. I would never say my business ethic is driven by my customers; it's driven by me, and what I deem to be ethical or not - that's generally a function of many influences, but ultimately it's my choice. It'd be cheaper and faster" for me to get some wolf photos by heading to a zoo or Triple D, but that's not something I believe to be fair trade. And I'd operate the same way if I was the head of some mining company (God forbid) and someone suggested mountain top removal is the cheapest and fastest way to extract coal - that's probably one reason why I'll never be head of a mining company. The responsibility for that decision is squarely, IMO, on the heads of the board who made that decision.
The underlying premise of what you're saying is that there's no alternative means of producing electricity to blowing the top off a mountain, and that if I want electricity (I do), mountain tops will be blasted. There are many alternative methods, and there are even alternative methods of mining coal - someone (not me) made a decision that this is the method those corporations are going to use. Their motivation is not to provide you or I with electricity, it's not to provide someone in California with electricity; it's not to provide anyone with electricity, or certainly not to provide anyone with "cheap electricyt" - it's to maximize their return on investment. They do this by lowering their cost. In doing so, they get to choose whether they mine for coal, whether they blow the top off a mountain, and so on.
The statistics you point out about loss of jobs are an example of exactly the same thing (and something that is used against "environmentalists" all the time) - board members/managers/staff/etc CHOOSE to cut personnel and replace them with machines - jobs are way, WAY more often lost because of economic decisions made internally than because of environmental activism. Logging jobs are lost a thousand fold more often through introducing new machinery than through any environmental activism, yet "jobs" is the first thing these corporations cry when someone proposed they shouldn't clearcut a forest - remember, somebody chooses to cut job numbers because it's more profitable to use such and such machines - you and I don't make those choices, bruh.
What I would suggest is that we can be the driving force behind changing the situation, and forcing those people to make different choices. I'd propose that we have a responsibility to do that. But I wouldn't agree that we're the driving force behind the completely immoral and totally unethical business practice of dynamiting mountain tops.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Jerry Greer on December 17, 2007 at 11:30 PM
Carl, you're reading too much into this, way too much!
You wrote, "The underlying premise of what you're saying is that there's no alternative means of producing electricity to blowing the top off a mountain, and that if I want electricity (I do), mountain tops will be blasted."
Carl, you have a real warped mind if you got this from the five or six sentences that I wrote!
BTW, did you go to the website and punch in your zip code? If you're still in Atlanta you are for sure using Appalachian coal. Spend some time on the website that I listed above, send letters to your power company, congressman, and all politicians.
I'm going to be a real pain in the ass for our power company! I really want people to know what is going on in our mountains. I truely believe that the majority of the population has no idea what's really going own with energy production. Did you have any knowledge of mountaintop mining before I posted this? The media has just overlooked the problems in the southern Appalachains. The nation's largest man-made environmental disaster east of the Mississippi was in 2000 in a town called Inez, Kentucky. A coal slurry impoundment broke through an underground mine shaft and spilled over 300 million gallons of black, toxic sludge into the headwaters of Wolf Creek and Coldwater Creek. This spill was almost thirty times the size of the Exxon Valdez disaster. There wasn't much even said about this in the news. There are over 650 of these ponds in the mountains of Appalachia. Just think what could happen if a major earthquake hit the area!
Posted by Carl Donohue on December 18, 2007 at 1:52 AM
Hey Jerry
You wrote, "The underlying premise of what you're saying is that there's no alternative means of producing electricity to blowing the top off a mountain, and that if I want electricity (I do), mountain tops will be blasted."
Carl, you have a real warped mind if you got this from the five or six sentences that I wrote!
Well, I have a warped mind, I wouldn't dispute that.
Actually, I got that premise not from the 5 or 6 lines lines you wrote, but from one single line; "We are the driving force of this form of mining! "
Jerry, just to be clear - I'm not at all disputing the disaster that this form of mining constitutes. Nor am I disputing that something SHOULD well be done about it. Nor am I disputing that we have a responsibility to pressure these people into ending this form of mining (if not all mining). I simply disagree that this form of mining is driven by folks like and me. It's not. It's driven by people in power who choose this form of mining over others - that's NOT a function of customers wanting electricity, that's a function of corporate decision-making policy.
And yes, I'm well aware of this situation - Mountain top blasting has been going on since the 70's, but becoming more and more common. There was an article about it in the NY Times back in the summer sometime I believe. I've not read this particular book about it. And I commend you totally on the work you do, and on what I'm sure you'll do in this situation. I've written to Chambliss AND Isakson countless times on this and other issues (I'm no longer in GA).
Jerry, too often I see discussions around what we call environmentalism absolve corporate decision-makers of their responsibility by laying the blame for unethical business practices on consumers - we ALWAYS want to point the fingers 'downhill', at those lower on the totem poles of power, rather than at the actual perpetrators. Consumers are responsible for consuming too much. But the problem here lies NOT with simply the amount of coal extracted, but the means by which it's being done - and THAT is not in any way the fault or the responsibility of consumers - the responsibility for that decision lies completely with the mining companies. It's like saying BP or Exxon oil spills are the fault of people who drive cars, and if we drove cars less, Valdez wouldn't have happened, or the big BP spill in the arctic last year wouldn't have happened, that WE are the driving force behind BP not maintaining proper care on their oil lines. In fact, this is the very line that BP used to say it wasn't their fault - the old "we're simply trying to keep up with demand" bs.
This form of mining is, IMO, unethical. Companies like Tampa Energy Company (TECO) and Massey obviously feel otherwise - my whole point is this: Decision-makers at TECO and Massey are the ones who are the driving force behind their ethical decisions, not me. And while it may come across as splitting hairs, I've seen too many times these kinds of people get away with all kinds of BS because too often people, including well-intentioned activists, say consumers are the reason for unethical business practices. They're not - CEOs and shareholders and management are the reason for it, and those are the people we ought be pointing fingers at for this kind of thing, not consumers.
Good luck with it man - I'll be sending my letters to the GA senators (again) and the AK senators in the morning. I'd also add letters to local papers as well as the politicians.
If anyone wants further information on this issue, good resources (including what to include in your letters) are I Love Mountains. and Mountain Justice.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Jerry Greer on December 18, 2007 at 11:24 AM
Hey Carl,
After the holidays I'm thinking of making a trip up to Kayford Mountain, the most accessable MT mining site, for a visit. I'm looking at doing some photography and video. Matt is interested in meeting, are you? I'll make the arrangements! I'm thinking of an over-nighter. You can head up here to JC (4 hours) and then we can go form here (about 3.5 hours).
Posted by Jerry Greer on December 18, 2007 at 11:27 AM
Carl,
I just noticed that you're not in GA! Where the heck are you?
Posted by Mel Ladewig on December 18, 2007 at 11:34 AM
The ilovemountains website is a bit out of whack I think.
For reasons that are not at issue here, I happen to know where the coal for my local power plant comes from (zip code 80901, Colorado). The website shows it coming from Appalachia and a nearby coal mine that also conducts mountaintop removal mining in other areas. Unless these Appalachia facilities are shipping coal to Wyoming to be mined again, this is incorrect. Most of our coal comes from Wyoming (which isn't shown), likely from companies that do mountaintop removal and some comes from local sources. To my knowledge, there is no coal traveling the 1600 mile distance from Appalachia to our powerplant as there is no need for the expense when the is a plentiful supply of easy strip mined coal in the region.
Anyways, I do agree that the mountaintop removal process is excessive and leaves a terrible scar on the land. But I also see it as a safer way to get coal, requiring less loss of human life. Its a terrible choice to make. But I agree that the scarring of the land is not a worthwhile trade.
I'm glad I'm not in the mining business.
Posted by Jerry Greer on December 18, 2007 at 11:43 AM
Carl,
I just noticed that you're not in GA! Where the heck are you?
Posted by Jerry Greer on December 18, 2007 at 11:55 AM
Mel wrote: "The ilovemountains website is a bit out of whack I think.
...The website shows it coming from Appalachia and a nearby coal mine that also conducts mountaintop removal mining in other areas. Unless these Appalachia facilities are shipping coal to Wyoming to be mined again, this is incorrect. ...
Mel,
If you'd read further you'd see this:
Coal suppliers to your grid are not mountaintop removal mines, but are owned by companies that operate mountaintop removal mines in Appalachia.
They have done their homework and are not so whacked are they? If you go further in to the info you can even see the 2 power plants that are operated by the Springs.
Posted by Jerry Greer on December 18, 2007 at 12:34 PM
Mel wrote: "But I also see it as a safer way to get coal, requiring less loss of human life."
Mel,
Yes, fatal accidents have decreased to less than 25 per year for workers. Directly connected non-worker accidents/deaths due to mountaintop removal are on the rise. Unlike underground mining, which only really threatens its workers, mountaintop removal directly affects 100’s of communities and 1000’s of families that are not employees of the mines. The Buffalo Creek pond break killed 125 residents and left over 4,000 people homeless.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on December 18, 2007 at 8:18 PM
If you'd read further you'd see this:
Coal suppliers to your grid are not mountaintop removal mines, but are owned by companies that operate mountaintop removal mines in Appalachia.
They have done their homework and are not so whacked are they? If you go further in to the info you can even see the 2 power plants that are operated by the Springs.
Like I said in my original post, I think that the negative impacts of mountaintop removal outweigh its benefits. Mountaintop mining is not new knowledge to me. I went to college at the Colorado School of Mines and although neither my degree nor my employment are in the field of mining, I am familiar with many of the techniques and processes associated with mining not just for coal, but for minerals and metals as well. There are significant environmental dangers with any type of mining that employs tailing ponds and massive surface removal. The fact that the companies responsible for this type of mining have been allowed to proceed unchecked in modern times is concerning, especially considering the proximity to Washington DC. But we all know that special interests, especially those with economic impact hold considerable sway.
Jerry, I did read the statement on that site in its entirety. They list the two power plants in Colorado Springs and they are correct. They show the West Elk mine in black, which is consistent with my knowledge of coal sources for these power plants, but I also know that coal is brought in from Wyoming. It shows the three Appalachia suppliers in red and indicates that they are providing coal to our power grid. The ones in black indicate that they are owned by companies that conduct mountaintop removal, which I could absolutely believe. To my knowledge the two red facilities are not primary suppliers, in fact I've never heard of a situation where the local utilities could not have its coal needs met by the regional supplies (especially since Wyoming produces a greater volume of coal than Appalachia). As I mentioned, I understand that much of our coal is coming from strip mines in Wyoming and none are represented in this illustration. I can't say that strip mining is any better than mountaintop removal and considering the general attitude of the people of this town, I can't imagine that the voting masses here care. They do want cheap everything and generally don't care where it comes from or at what cost.
I know a bit about the power plants here because I once worked for the local utilities and I currently work for the city. The city and utilities were once a joint operation, but due to TABOR issues, the utilities now exists as a separate publicly owned enterprise whose directors happen to be the same people who are the City Council.
I'm just suggesting that you should check the facts and double check if they seem questionable. I'm suggesting that the data they collected is suspect. They show West Elk mine as existing in Wichita Falls, Colorado, yet I don't know of a Wichita Falls here and can't find reference to such a town in this state. When I check another power plant in Colorado I strangely get the same three sources of Appalachia coal as I get with my current zip code, despite the fact that these plants are owned by a different company (Xcel Energy) and also get the majority of their coal from Wyoming (though this time the map does at least illustrate one Wyoming coal producer). I know that Wyoming has the largest coal production output of any state in the US, but few Wyoming coal producing sites are shown on the map probably because they don't support the argument of the cause. And perhaps the rise of coal production in Wyoming is a contributing factor to the economic downturn in WV coal mining communities.
I know that I need to use less electricity, although with no air conditioning on my house, I'd say that I'm well ahead of the curve. I'm still looking into solutions to further reduce electricity consumption. My appliances are energy star approved (for whatever that is worth). I find CFL bulbs to be an unacceptable compromise due to the strange color shifts they can produce. They also don't work well where directional lighting is required. They might produce an overall warm white balance, but they do it by producing spikes at the various wavelengths corresponding to the coatings or elements in the gaseous mix and still produce a significant spike in the green range. The same is true for mercury vapor and HID/metal halide bulbs though the spikes can occur at different wavelingths. An incandescent or halogen bulb on the other hand creates a distribution of wavelengths across a somewhat broad curve. LEDs lamps are appealing, but at $60-80 per light bulb replaced they are a significant investment especially since the technology doesn't seem to be mature. I'm planning to order a sample pack of these soon to see how they perform. I'm not sure they're ready for prime time, but I'm willing to take a chance on a few of them and I'll definitely watch this technology as it matures. Other than that, I have few other options to reduce electricity consumption.
Posted by Carl Donohue on December 18, 2007 at 8:18 PM
Hey Jerry
Thanks for the offer bruh, I'd love to take you up on it - but yeah, I'm not down in GA right now .. I'm in Anchorage, and headed to McCarthy, AK, in a coupla weeks. McCarthy. I should have a picture of my new home online in a month or so, I hope - it's a little cabin about 12' x 14' or so. At this point it doesn't look like I'll be in GA again for at least a year -depends how cold it gets in the cabin.
Mel, adding to what Jerry pointed out, I'd also note that much of the change in number of deaths from mining is simply because the mining companies have only more recently been forced into giving a da** about the folks who trudge down into mine shafts.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Josh Anderson on December 19, 2007 at 9:43 AM
Jerry, when are you going to the mt mining site in WV? I might be interested in meeting up with you there?
Posted by Keith Anderson on December 19, 2007 at 3:10 PM
Mining, mmm I would have though a HOT TOPIC subject but anyway....
I use my electricity the way I feel, just like everyone else..hell at this rate I'll be walking around in the dark and not be able to use my computer.
Australia is one of the biggest mining countries in the world for coal..why its all to do with profit and export. Hydro electricity or wind farms make no profit for the country and cost to much to set up but if we dig the earth up and export it we make money.... Do you think any government on the planet would not mine coal..
It will never change until it runs out. Greenies in Australia have been trying for years to have things changed but there is just to much money in it
I'm about 3/4 of the way into the book. Thanks for the recommendation, but it a deeply disturbing read. I guess that is as it should be though. To get an idea of the extent of mountain top removal, I checked a satellite image of the area surrounding Rowdy, KY (a small town near Lost Mountain). That was a truly sobering exercise. I know the satellite image shows only one dimension of this hugely destructive practice, but, wow. Those vast, gray scars in the Appalachian mountains are scary reminders of the real cost of coal power. I've always been dismayed that 100% of my electricity comes from coal (we get an annual report from Duke), now I'm even more dismayed.
As a professor at a university in a big coal state, the author of Lost Mountain has balls to write that book.
Discussion
20 repliesI've been reading, over the weekend, a great book titled "Lost Mountain - A Year In The Vanishing Wilderness". This is a must read for all Americans! The book is about mountaintop removal coal mining; a radical form mining that is devastating the mountains of the southern Appalachians. The author’s webpage is http://erikreece.com and there's tons of info on the site. Everyone that turns on the light switch should read this book, PERIOD!
Jim, if this is posted in the wrong forum feel free to move it but I feel that everyone should have a chance to see this post. Again, anyone that flips on a light switch (or computer) should read this book. We are connected to this form of mining in some form or another!
--
Jerry Greer
Greer Photography
www.jerrygreerphotography.com
I agree, this issue is yet another huge one. And just to second the book, the foreword is by Wendell Berry, one of, if not THE great environmental writers today.
I think I would re-word your last sentence though, Jerry. "We" aren't the driving force behind this kind of so-called 'mining' - don't put their abuse of the land on me, or anyone else other than those profiteers who choose how they shall tear at the earth. LIke Wendell said "And so the Appalachian coal fields most spectacularly, but in fact every one of our economic landscapes, have been put at the mercy of a class of economic aggressors whose aim is to convert the natural world into money as quickly as is technologically possible and at the least possible cost. If that least cost is the total destruction of the land and the land’s communities, that is understood as an acceptable cost of doing business."
Cheers
Carl
Actually, every time we/you turn on the lights we are indirectly part of the reason for this practice. Over 50% of the electricity we enjoy today IS produced by coal. Cheap energy is the driving force for strip/mountaintop removal mining and we all want cheap energy. So yes, in a since, we are all in it up to our necks. Even though we do not condone the way the coal is extracted we are still a driving force with our heavy energy consumption.
65% of all coal production is from surface mining! The reason for this is it’s cheaper and faster to mechanize and move mountains than to pay miners to go underground. The mechanization of coal mining from mountaintop removal has had a direct affect on the employment in the coal industry. There has been a 47% decline in employment within the industry over the past 15 years but the overall production has increased.
Maybe my statement is harsh but I dare say that maybe 10% of the photographers here have ever heard of mountaintop removal mining! I’d say that some might not even care once they are enlightened on the practices of big coal. At least, with this book one can become enlightened about these appalling practices and maybe, just maybe, we can use our photographs and our power to vote and try to stop this.
Go here to see your connection with big coal! http://www.ilovemountains.org/myconnection/ Just put in your zip code and the database will show you exactly how you are connected. Even California uses Appalachian coal!
Jerry is right..a must read for everyone.
The strip mining being done to southern Wyoming's lunar landscape is not very pretty either.
At least here in Utah, some folks don't mind so much when the underground coal mines collapse on top of miners visiting from Mexico.
You're in PA right? I'm going to visit the Kayford Mountain site near Cabin Creek, WV. It's about 40 minutes southeast of Charleston, WV. Are you interested in meeting up there? I'll make all the arrangments.
The coal companies offered Larry Gibson 1 million per acre for his 50 acre tract and he told them to stick it! He's fighting them like a madman! This is the place where we can visit and photograph the mining as it happens.
Nancy
I'm not disputing that electricity is produced by burning coal, nor that we use electricity. I know what you're getting at, and I agree with that - we all should do what we can to use less (and I don't say that dismissively), but I think it's important to point the finger where the problem lies: the CHOICE made as to how that mining is enacted I have nothing to do with. I don't drive those choices. Profiteers who decide short-term cash is more important than the health of the world we live in (and hence our own and their own health) make that choice, not you or I. I'm no more responsible for the method they choose to mine for coal than I am for the actions of, say, soldiers in Iraq. Sure, I pay taxes and those taxes go toward the military, but I don't agree I'm the driving force behind something like Abu Ghraib. I don't make decisions to clearcut forests - there are alternative methods of forestry that are far less harmful, and infinitely more sustainable - the driving force behind those choices are the people who choose profits over the environment. While ever they're able to continually externalize the real costs of their business, while they're able to avoid any real transparency and/or accountability, and while ever they answer only to shareholders, they'll continue to choose A over B.
Corporations CHOOSE how to conduct their business, just like you or I do. I would never say my business ethic is driven by my customers; it's driven by me, and what I deem to be ethical or not - that's generally a function of many influences, but ultimately it's my choice. It'd be cheaper and faster" for me to get some wolf photos by heading to a zoo or Triple D, but that's not something I believe to be fair trade. And I'd operate the same way if I was the head of some mining company (God forbid) and someone suggested mountain top removal is the cheapest and fastest way to extract coal - that's probably one reason why I'll never be head of a mining company. The responsibility for that decision is squarely, IMO, on the heads of the board who made that decision.
The underlying premise of what you're saying is that there's no alternative means of producing electricity to blowing the top off a mountain, and that if I want electricity (I do), mountain tops will be blasted. There are many alternative methods, and there are even alternative methods of mining coal - someone (not me) made a decision that this is the method those corporations are going to use. Their motivation is not to provide you or I with electricity, it's not to provide someone in California with electricity; it's not to provide anyone with electricity, or certainly not to provide anyone with "cheap electricyt" - it's to maximize their return on investment. They do this by lowering their cost. In doing so, they get to choose whether they mine for coal, whether they blow the top off a mountain, and so on.
The statistics you point out about loss of jobs are an example of exactly the same thing (and something that is used against "environmentalists" all the time) - board members/managers/staff/etc CHOOSE to cut personnel and replace them with machines - jobs are way, WAY more often lost because of economic decisions made internally than because of environmental activism. Logging jobs are lost a thousand fold more often through introducing new machinery than through any environmental activism, yet "jobs" is the first thing these corporations cry when someone proposed they shouldn't clearcut a forest - remember, somebody chooses to cut job numbers because it's more profitable to use such and such machines - you and I don't make those choices, bruh.
What I would suggest is that we can be the driving force behind changing the situation, and forcing those people to make different choices. I'd propose that we have a responsibility to do that. But I wouldn't agree that we're the driving force behind the completely immoral and totally unethical business practice of dynamiting mountain tops.
Cheers
Carl
You wrote, "The underlying premise of what you're saying is that there's no alternative means of producing electricity to blowing the top off a mountain, and that if I want electricity (I do), mountain tops will be blasted."
Carl, you have a real warped mind if you got this from the five or six sentences that I wrote!
BTW, did you go to the website and punch in your zip code? If you're still in Atlanta you are for sure using Appalachian coal. Spend some time on the website that I listed above, send letters to your power company, congressman, and all politicians.
I'm going to be a real pain in the ass for our power company! I really want people to know what is going on in our mountains. I truely believe that the majority of the population has no idea what's really going own with energy production. Did you have any knowledge of mountaintop mining before I posted this? The media has just overlooked the problems in the southern Appalachains. The nation's largest man-made environmental disaster east of the Mississippi was in 2000 in a town called Inez, Kentucky. A coal slurry impoundment broke through an underground mine shaft and spilled over 300 million gallons of black, toxic sludge into the headwaters of Wolf Creek and Coldwater Creek. This spill was almost thirty times the size of the Exxon Valdez disaster. There wasn't much even said about this in the news. There are over 650 of these ponds in the mountains of Appalachia. Just think what could happen if a major earthquake hit the area!
Well, I have a warped mind, I wouldn't dispute that.
Actually, I got that premise not from the 5 or 6 lines lines you wrote, but from one single line; "We are the driving force of this form of mining! "
Jerry, just to be clear - I'm not at all disputing the disaster that this form of mining constitutes. Nor am I disputing that something SHOULD well be done about it. Nor am I disputing that we have a responsibility to pressure these people into ending this form of mining (if not all mining). I simply disagree that this form of mining is driven by folks like and me. It's not. It's driven by people in power who choose this form of mining over others - that's NOT a function of customers wanting electricity, that's a function of corporate decision-making policy.
And yes, I'm well aware of this situation - Mountain top blasting has been going on since the 70's, but becoming more and more common. There was an article about it in the NY Times back in the summer sometime I believe. I've not read this particular book about it. And I commend you totally on the work you do, and on what I'm sure you'll do in this situation. I've written to Chambliss AND Isakson countless times on this and other issues (I'm no longer in GA).
Jerry, too often I see discussions around what we call environmentalism absolve corporate decision-makers of their responsibility by laying the blame for unethical business practices on consumers - we ALWAYS want to point the fingers 'downhill', at those lower on the totem poles of power, rather than at the actual perpetrators. Consumers are responsible for consuming too much. But the problem here lies NOT with simply the amount of coal extracted, but the means by which it's being done - and THAT is not in any way the fault or the responsibility of consumers - the responsibility for that decision lies completely with the mining companies. It's like saying BP or Exxon oil spills are the fault of people who drive cars, and if we drove cars less, Valdez wouldn't have happened, or the big BP spill in the arctic last year wouldn't have happened, that WE are the driving force behind BP not maintaining proper care on their oil lines. In fact, this is the very line that BP used to say it wasn't their fault - the old "we're simply trying to keep up with demand" bs.
This form of mining is, IMO, unethical. Companies like Tampa Energy Company (TECO) and Massey obviously feel otherwise - my whole point is this: Decision-makers at TECO and Massey are the ones who are the driving force behind their ethical decisions, not me. And while it may come across as splitting hairs, I've seen too many times these kinds of people get away with all kinds of BS because too often people, including well-intentioned activists, say consumers are the reason for unethical business practices. They're not - CEOs and shareholders and management are the reason for it, and those are the people we ought be pointing fingers at for this kind of thing, not consumers.
Good luck with it man - I'll be sending my letters to the GA senators (again) and the AK senators in the morning. I'd also add letters to local papers as well as the politicians.
If anyone wants further information on this issue, good resources (including what to include in your letters) are I Love Mountains. and Mountain Justice.
Cheers
Carl
After the holidays I'm thinking of making a trip up to Kayford Mountain, the most accessable MT mining site, for a visit. I'm looking at doing some photography and video. Matt is interested in meeting, are you? I'll make the arrangements! I'm thinking of an over-nighter. You can head up here to JC (4 hours) and then we can go form here (about 3.5 hours).
I just noticed that you're not in GA! Where the heck are you?
For reasons that are not at issue here, I happen to know where the coal for my local power plant comes from (zip code 80901, Colorado). The website shows it coming from Appalachia and a nearby coal mine that also conducts mountaintop removal mining in other areas. Unless these Appalachia facilities are shipping coal to Wyoming to be mined again, this is incorrect. Most of our coal comes from Wyoming (which isn't shown), likely from companies that do mountaintop removal and some comes from local sources. To my knowledge, there is no coal traveling the 1600 mile distance from Appalachia to our powerplant as there is no need for the expense when the is a plentiful supply of easy strip mined coal in the region.
Anyways, I do agree that the mountaintop removal process is excessive and leaves a terrible scar on the land. But I also see it as a safer way to get coal, requiring less loss of human life. Its a terrible choice to make. But I agree that the scarring of the land is not a worthwhile trade.
I'm glad I'm not in the mining business.
I just noticed that you're not in GA! Where the heck are you?
...The website shows it coming from Appalachia and a nearby coal mine that also conducts mountaintop removal mining in other areas. Unless these Appalachia facilities are shipping coal to Wyoming to be mined again, this is incorrect. ...
Mel,
If you'd read further you'd see this:
Coal suppliers to your grid are not mountaintop removal mines, but are owned by companies that operate mountaintop removal mines in Appalachia.
They have done their homework and are not so whacked are they? If you go further in to the info you can even see the 2 power plants that are operated by the Springs.
Mel,
Yes, fatal accidents have decreased to less than 25 per year for workers. Directly connected non-worker accidents/deaths due to mountaintop removal are on the rise. Unlike underground mining, which only really threatens its workers, mountaintop removal directly affects 100’s of communities and 1000’s of families that are not employees of the mines. The Buffalo Creek pond break killed 125 residents and left over 4,000 people homeless.
Like I said in my original post, I think that the negative impacts of mountaintop removal outweigh its benefits. Mountaintop mining is not new knowledge to me. I went to college at the Colorado School of Mines and although neither my degree nor my employment are in the field of mining, I am familiar with many of the techniques and processes associated with mining not just for coal, but for minerals and metals as well. There are significant environmental dangers with any type of mining that employs tailing ponds and massive surface removal. The fact that the companies responsible for this type of mining have been allowed to proceed unchecked in modern times is concerning, especially considering the proximity to Washington DC. But we all know that special interests, especially those with economic impact hold considerable sway.
Jerry, I did read the statement on that site in its entirety. They list the two power plants in Colorado Springs and they are correct. They show the West Elk mine in black, which is consistent with my knowledge of coal sources for these power plants, but I also know that coal is brought in from Wyoming. It shows the three Appalachia suppliers in red and indicates that they are providing coal to our power grid. The ones in black indicate that they are owned by companies that conduct mountaintop removal, which I could absolutely believe. To my knowledge the two red facilities are not primary suppliers, in fact I've never heard of a situation where the local utilities could not have its coal needs met by the regional supplies (especially since Wyoming produces a greater volume of coal than Appalachia). As I mentioned, I understand that much of our coal is coming from strip mines in Wyoming and none are represented in this illustration. I can't say that strip mining is any better than mountaintop removal and considering the general attitude of the people of this town, I can't imagine that the voting masses here care. They do want cheap everything and generally don't care where it comes from or at what cost.
I know a bit about the power plants here because I once worked for the local utilities and I currently work for the city. The city and utilities were once a joint operation, but due to TABOR issues, the utilities now exists as a separate publicly owned enterprise whose directors happen to be the same people who are the City Council.
I'm just suggesting that you should check the facts and double check if they seem questionable. I'm suggesting that the data they collected is suspect. They show West Elk mine as existing in Wichita Falls, Colorado, yet I don't know of a Wichita Falls here and can't find reference to such a town in this state. When I check another power plant in Colorado I strangely get the same three sources of Appalachia coal as I get with my current zip code, despite the fact that these plants are owned by a different company (Xcel Energy) and also get the majority of their coal from Wyoming (though this time the map does at least illustrate one Wyoming coal producer). I know that Wyoming has the largest coal production output of any state in the US, but few Wyoming coal producing sites are shown on the map probably because they don't support the argument of the cause. And perhaps the rise of coal production in Wyoming is a contributing factor to the economic downturn in WV coal mining communities.
I know that I need to use less electricity, although with no air conditioning on my house, I'd say that I'm well ahead of the curve. I'm still looking into solutions to further reduce electricity consumption. My appliances are energy star approved (for whatever that is worth). I find CFL bulbs to be an unacceptable compromise due to the strange color shifts they can produce. They also don't work well where directional lighting is required. They might produce an overall warm white balance, but they do it by producing spikes at the various wavelengths corresponding to the coatings or elements in the gaseous mix and still produce a significant spike in the green range. The same is true for mercury vapor and HID/metal halide bulbs though the spikes can occur at different wavelingths. An incandescent or halogen bulb on the other hand creates a distribution of wavelengths across a somewhat broad curve. LEDs lamps are appealing, but at $60-80 per light bulb replaced they are a significant investment especially since the technology doesn't seem to be mature. I'm planning to order a sample pack of these soon to see how they perform. I'm not sure they're ready for prime time, but I'm willing to take a chance on a few of them and I'll definitely watch this technology as it matures. Other than that, I have few other options to reduce electricity consumption.
Thanks for the offer bruh, I'd love to take you up on it - but yeah, I'm not down in GA right now .. I'm in Anchorage, and headed to McCarthy, AK, in a coupla weeks. McCarthy. I should have a picture of my new home online in a month or so, I hope - it's a little cabin about 12' x 14' or so. At this point it doesn't look like I'll be in GA again for at least a year -depends how cold it gets in the cabin.
Mel, adding to what Jerry pointed out, I'd also note that much of the change in number of deaths from mining is simply because the mining companies have only more recently been forced into giving a da** about the folks who trudge down into mine shafts.
Cheers
Carl
I use my electricity the way I feel, just like everyone else..hell at this rate I'll be walking around in the dark and not be able to use my computer.
Australia is one of the biggest mining countries in the world for coal..why its all to do with profit and export. Hydro electricity or wind farms make no profit for the country and cost to much to set up but if we dig the earth up and export it we make money.... Do you think any government on the planet would not mine coal..
It will never change until it runs out. Greenies in Australia have been trying for years to have things changed but there is just to much money in it
As a professor at a university in a big coal state, the author of Lost Mountain has balls to write that book.
Pete D.