When the shouting is over, a sad fact remains about Appalachia during this presidential primary season: When Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton, trundled their liberal stop-global-warming bandwagons into the coalfields of West Virginia, eastern Kentucky, southwestern Virginia and eastern Tennesse, they blew off one of the biggest crimes against nature, and American citizens, in our modern times.
Mountaintop removal, as Al Gore recently pointed out, is indeed a crime and "ought to be treated as a crime."
Gore's frankness begs the question: How could Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton come into this region and simply gloss over the fact that more than 470 mountains and some of our nation's most diverse and ancient forests -- an area the size of some eastern states -- and the adjacent communities of American citizens and their water supply and health care (and any attempts at a diversified and sustainable economy) have been destroyed and continue to be destroyed by this bizarre form of stripmining?
Let's be clear: No one is calling on Obama to reject the reality of coal in our current energy policy or call for an end to coal. Of course not. (Likewise, it would be nice of Obama to call for better mining safety measures for our nation's coal miners.)
UPDATE: During his campaigning in West Virginia and Kentucky, Obama made an admirable call for protecting waterways and enforcing the Clean Water and Air Acts, but, to the consternation of many Appalachians, he failed to take the next step of directly coming out against mountaintop removal or including such a vision in his campaign platform.
But just as Obama could go to the Cuban American community in Miami and call for looser travel restrictions and money transfers to Cuba, and tell the Cuban American community, "I won't stand for this injustice; you will not stand for this injustice, and together we will stand up for freedom in Cuba," it's too bad Obama didn't have the audacity of courage to distinguish between the illusory "clean coal" slogans of the coal lobbyists, the difference between underground mining and surface mining, and the machinations of a handful of coal operators in the specific crime of mountaintop removal in central Appalachia.
Is Barack Obama so beholden to King Coal that he can't single out this particular tragedy?
I hope not.
Mountaintop removal is not an Appalachian issue. It is a national issue, and above all, a civil rights issue that transcends any narrow debate of jobs versus trees by clearly showing that the environmental devastation has gone hand in hand with economic decline.
Mountaintop removal leads to poverty and dispossession, in every sense. (In West Virginia, for example, there are less than 500 United Mine Worker union jobs related to mountaintop removal.)
Barack Obama's extraordinary and inspiring campaign of hope needs to come up to the mountains and recognize this. In fact, every American needs to listen to the words of author Wendell Berry, one of our nation's most insightful philosophers, that we don't only need a vision of a "better future," but "an increase of consciousness and critical judgment in the present," and this begins with mountaintop removal.
Every time you flick on your light switch or attend a lit-up evening baseball game this summer -- from the sun-drenched city of Phoenix, Arizona to the Midwestern back warrens of St. Louis and Chicago, to the eastern seaboard states like North Carolina, to the neon billboards in Times Square in New York City -- a large portion of your electricity will come from coal-fired plants that utilize coal from mountaintop removal sites in central Appalachia.
Check out Ilovemountains.org to see your connection to mountaintop removal.
Perhaps in the fall campaign Obama will deal with his own connection to mountaintop removal.
In the meantime, I urge you to take a few minutes to view these important new film documentaries, among many others:
What this boils down to is alternatives to coal use. Coal produces around 50% of the electricity in America. We could dam up EVERY river in America to produce more hydroelectric power. Build more nuclear power plants. Reportedly 78% of electricity in France is nuclear.
Instead of removing mountain tops, we could remove the forests and convert all available acerage to corn fields for ethanol, and top off every mountain with wind farms. We could pass laws that all new homes constructed in America must have solar panels incorporated in their roofs.
Limit electricity usage. Air conditioning is a relatively new user of electricity. The human race did well for thousands of years without air conditioning. Perhaps this is a luxury which should be discouraged by placing prohibitive tax on its use, or banning it all together. Eliminate purely decorative use of electricity such as Christmas displays, outdoor advertising using electricity, illumination of buildings, bridges, and monuments, etc.
Electricity is like sausage and democracy: Those who enjoy these items should avert their gaze while it is being generated.
http://www.kentuckyelection.org/president/barack-obama
(Note: both Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama were asked these and other questions, Senator Clinton did not respond to any of the questions).
1. Over the past few years, mountaintop removal coal mining and the related valley fills has become a widely debated public issue. What is your position on filling valleys with rock and dirt from coal mining and whether more should be done to protect Kentucky’s streams from mining impacts? What policies would you propose or support?
The mining industry plays a critical role in the Kentucky economy, and provides the nation with an important energy resource. The evidence is pretty clear that the practice of mountaintop mining can have a negative impact on the environment. So I have very serious concerns about this practice. I believe that we must find new ways to engage in mining that have minimal effects on the environment. The traditional “either-or” approach is that we can become energy independent or protect the environment. I think we can do both. But that means investing in new technology and addressing these questions now, instead of kicking the can down the road, when we know those effects will be far more difficult to address.
There are more questions and answers at the link. (Posting them here runs over the submit limits)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xOvZ0RUGKno
I'm not sure what's more disturbing---his open support for the "clean coal" sham of the coal lobbyists (clean coal technology will not exist for another 15-20 years, and coal extraction will always be dirty and dangerous, just ask a coal miner), or his hesitation to come out against mountaintop removal for what it is, a crime.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/19/105837/690/142/479900
Senator McCain's position seems rather changeable.
That enough damage for you?
Can I offer you some Kool-Aid courtesy of the Barack Obama campaign?
If ethanol will not work, then we should move on and stop talking about it, notwithstanding Iowa.
Clean coal is still a fossil fuel, and strip mining mountain tops is still destroying the environment.
What I do HOPE, is that the power of the office will empower the person to make the right choices. So basically I am judging the heart to be in the right place.
On the other hand I do realize that not all battles can be won in one swipe.
That is the last time you mention Hillary Clinton in this article.
Does that mean that you, like the Obama supporters have moved on to the general election? Or does it mean that, like the Clinton supporters, you are only concerned about Obama's shortcomings on this issue.
I am an Obama supporter, and I agree that this and other energy issues are important, but so many of them have fallen by the way as we slog through this endless campaign. (and yes I know that it is not even June, but because of the horrible current administration, this campaign began in ernest well over a year ago) It's time to roll up our sleeves and get to work on the things that affect us and our lives.
Obama has so far been responsive to the issues that we show to be important to us. I trust that he will also respond to this. I will be calling for action on environmental and energy issues and I will also be willing to do my part to make sure there is progress made.
One of the things I've appreciated about Obama is the feeling I get from him that he expects and welcomes these challenges, this LEGITIMATE pressure on things policy (not things partisan).
I'd be naive to think that he adopts every issue that I hold close to my heart as policy, but I do expect him to listen to reasoned arguments from reasonable people.
I have read half a dozen moronic articles today (like the ones about oil prices and Gordon Browns oil shock insight). But this one just seems to beat them all.
Let me be clear: yes, it is an enormous problem (but is it really worse than what the Canadians doing to mine oil sands or what is happening in the Amazon?) BUT it is not an issue that has anything to do with this particular election or these two candidates. Let's do first things first and restore the US presidency as an institution that can do positive things for the nation. Then we can talk about stopping these mining practices.
What? Are we only allowed to talk about two or three issues in the campaign? Sorry, this is a national campaign and energy use, civil rights, and the environment are national issues. As the writer says, check out YOUR connection to mountaintop removal.
This may not be an issue for YOU, but just as money exchanges and travel arrangements are an issue to Cuban Americans and Obama found time to discuss it in his campaign in Miami, mountaintop removal is a HUGE issue to the Appalachian region and ALL Americans who care about our energy policy, and civil rights for those living in the coal fields.
This is a HUGE issue in Appalachian states like WV and KY and now TN, and to overlook it or avoid it is really a shame. As the author says, it should be a huge issue in all of America.
Obama really needs a lot of education about the true cost of coal for those in the coalfields.
"I can't do this by myself."
A big reason we have the mess we're aware of - because I'm sure there's more we haven't uncovered yet - is the lack of engagement by the voting public. 2006 was a good start, but it's time the votes came with a voice.
I would fully expect Obama will be far more open an ear to the average American that GWB - or Bill Clinton, for that matter. And for whatever the value of Washington experience is supposed to be, it seems that Clinton and McCain can't get out of their own way - or they're making tactical shifts to contend with Obama.
From the beginning, he's stayed true to his commitment to stay above the current standard for "politics as usual". And I would love to hear anyone argue how he isn't the more impressive candidate as a result.
Ready on "Day One"? He was ready long before then....
That is 500 families. UMW jobs probably pay a lot better than any other jobs in the vicinity. Those workers need to be part of the solution.