One other thing I wanted to point out from the NYT piece on Bush's new mountaintop removal mining rule:
A spokesman for the National Mining Association, Luke Popovich, said that unless mine owners were allowed to dump mine waste in streams and valleys it would be impossible to operate in mountainous regions like West Virginia that hold some of the richest low-sulfur coal seams.
...
Even with the best techniques and most careful reclamation, surface or underground mining will always generate mountains of dirt and rock, he said.
"There's really no place to put the material except in the upper reaches of hollows," the [Interior Department] official said. "If you can't put anything in a stream, there's really no way to even underground mine."
Now, some folks might hear these sentiments and conclude, "well then, we can't mine for coal in the Appalachian mountains. We'll have to do without that coal."
That conclusion is never discussed, much less seriously considered. Everyone -- not just the Bush administration -- seems to take the continued operation of the coal industry in the Appalachians as the immutable starting point of the debate. If mining companies can get the coal without destroying the landscapes, cultures, and economies in which they operate, that's great. But if not, well, that's life.
Why, though? Can you imagine another industry that destroys land in order to sell a product that poisons people and threatens to make the earth uninhabitable not only being allowed to operate, but having its continued profit taken as a kind of national imperative? It's bizarre.
This is why I'm on a jihad against coal. Its present status among policymakers and the public goes beyond the canard of "cheap electricity" (itself a lie). Coal has a quasi-mythic hold on the American imagination.
It's time to take that myth on directly. Coal's free ride needs to end. If nothing else, I want to beat the drums enough to at least raise the question of whether we "must" mine for coal, so that in the next NYT article about MTR mining someone, at least, is quoted saying, "We've got to shut these fuckers down. It's not worth the damage." At least get the option on the table.
A milestone: 100th coal plant stopped
McCaskill says House climate bill will sink in Senate
Coal-nundrum and Ex-gas-peration
Comments
View as Flat
precipice Posted 8:54 am
25 Aug 2007
These national delusions
We live in crazy times in a crazy land. But right fucking on, David. Cheering for coal is only one of the ongoing stupidities that should have been smother many years, billions of dollars and millions of lost lives ago. But the continuing deification of coal has by far the highest stakes in terms of the extinction of our species.
This is nuts. So, in the most practical terms, how can we put a halt to the coal insanity?
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 12:30 pm
25 Aug 2007
The irony being
The "Well because it's economical" arguement doesn't hold water anymore now with Clean Air Act compliance.
And the "Well because it's there we should use it" arguement doesn't hold much weight when you consider how many thousands times more renewable energy there is to be had.
http://greyfalcon.net/greenenergy.png
Even the energy independance arguement is a tad silly.
http://greyfalcon.net/dilbert2.png
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:35 pm
25 Aug 2007
Sounds good
"This is why I'm on a jihad against coal."
Coal, the new melange.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:54 pm
25 Aug 2007
"melange"
Frank Herbert ought to be considered one of the most over-rated sci-fi authors of all times.
Nevertheless, that one sole creation of his, the Guild Steersmen or Navigators, fascinates me. They are apparently a new species evolved from human origins, on account of constant high exposure to the spice, "melange," and need to remain in an environment of spice-gas. And even better, their hallucinatory "prescience," never explained, enables them to travel in space; and so they are responsible for all space-travel in the "Dune" universe.
Unfortunately, Herbert is otherwise not a story-teller of the most recommendable sort ...
And I am afraid, BioD, that I cannot quite see how "coal is the new melange."
Or do you mean, we believe, falsely, unwholesomely, destructively, that coal is the substance that is necessary for our survival, and the survival of our society, and so we must do everything we can to ensure that we always have it and use it? OK, that, I get.
Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!
Permalink
Its GEtting Hot in Here Posted 1:37 am
26 Aug 2007
Hey, Harry Reid can be quoted on it now!
There's not a coal-fired plant in America that's clean. They're all dirty. - Harry Reid
Harry Reid Says No New Coal
http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/08/19/harry-reid-says ...
Check out dispatches from the youth climate movement: http://www.itsgettinghotinhere.org/
Permalink
Sage Posted 2:06 am
26 Aug 2007
Jobs
In some parts of Appalachia, coal mining is responsible for up to 15% of employment.
That's why it's treated as so important that the mining industry continues. Its demise means putting tens of thousands of people on the streets. If you want coal mining to be treated with less deference, your interests would be better served by pushing to diversify the economies of places in coal-rich areas. More people working outside the mines means less resistance to ending coal use.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:18 am
26 Aug 2007
OMG IT CREATE JOBS SO WE NEED SUBSIDY
A similarly related jobs versus subsidy issue:
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 2:25 am
27 Aug 2007
For what it's worth
Submit comments on the MTR rule via Environmental Action here.
Permalink