Blood Coal, Not "Clean Coal"

It shouldn't go unnoticed that today, while the tragic aftermath of the mine collapse in Utah continues to unfold, the Bush Administration is unveiling new regulations making it easier for companies to remove mountaintops and strip mine for coal in America's heartland. The industry is claims that such coal is safe and green. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, the coal industry, like an 80s celebrity desperate for a realty TV show comeback, is trying to reinvent its image as the nation wakes up to the fact that pollution is passé and conservation is the next big thing. Thus, introducing "clean coal". Which is to dirty coal what New Coke was to old Coke. Which is to say, not different at all. And that's the point.

If that wasn't obvious just on the basis of cynicism -- that the coal industry would do everything it could to seem green in terms of the environment in order to continue to make green in terms of cold, hard cash -- the events of recent weeks should alert us to the reality that big corporations often locate their best interests in their own pockets, not the lives and health of people.

The classic example is the Ford Pinto. In the 1970s, the Ford Motor Company learned that when the Pinto was hit from behind, there was a very good chance the gas tank would explode in a deadly fireball. Ford calculated that repairing each engine would cost $11. But they figured not every car would get in an accident and catch fire and, for those that did, not every wrongful death lawsuit would proceed. They calculated that paying out the successful lawsuits would cost less than repairing all the cars. So they kept the defect quiet. In all, 27 people died in Pinto fires.

When the owners of the Crandall Canyon mine in Huntington, Utah, proposed to resume operations in other sections of the mine as soon as possible while the community was still grieving less than a few days after the mining deaths, even federal regulators confessed they were "shocked that the subject was even brought up." But in an industry that makes its money by placing workers in extremely dangerous conditions, decimating our land and polluting our air, are we that surprised that they would put profits first and people last?

Meanwhile, on the other side of the country, mining companies have found a "safer" way to extract coal from the earth. They blast off the tops of mountains in Appalachia, literally removing entire tops of mountain ranges to scrape at the coal that lies beneath. The leftovers are then dumped. The New York Times reported that a spokesman from the National Mining Association plainly stated 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." Naturally, the Bush Administration is easing federal regulations today to make that pollution easier. So then the coal companies can generate more pollution in order to get more coal that they can put in their coal plants and generate more pollution.

Meanwhile, throughout communities in Appalachia -- some of the poorest rural communities in the United States -- coal dust settles like a blanket everywhere. Researchers have proven that children living in these regions have abnormally high rates of asthma, diarrhea and vomiting. For instance, in the town of Rock Creek, West Virginia, the elementary school lies just 200 feet away from a 165-foot storage silo containing 2.8 billion gallons of toxic mining waste. In 1972, not too far from Rock Creek, a similar structure collapsed entirely, killing 125 people.

Coal isn't about electricity. Native American reservations in North and South Dakota alone have enough wind capacity to meet one-third of America's energy needs. Wind, solar and other technologies we have today are viable alternative sources of electricity, and conservation efforts could dramatically reduce our electricity demand in the first place. But to the coal industry, alternative energy is the real disaster. So the coal industry will do anything it can to procure coal as quickly and cheaply as possible, slapping a fresh coat of green paint on top to try and distract us from the harm caused to mine workers, Appalachian children and air that all of us need to breathe.

The trail of blood coal streaks bright red across the globe -- from Appalachia to Hungtingon, Utah, to Xintai, China, to Sago, West Virginia. We must reduce our consumption of electricity overall. And to meet our remaining energy needs, we must prioritize sources of energy such as wind and solar that don't place lives in danger. Coal is a dying industry, withering even faster than the planet and the communities it has infected. To relax mining standards at a time when the whole world is reeling from the tragedies of mining is a move that the Bush administration should be ashamed of and all of us should vigorously oppose.

Comments

[ImmanuelGoldstein]

The fact of the matter is that there are no meaningful replacements available for coal for quite some time. Windmills and switchgrass won't do it. We can only work to reduce the environmental costs and do what we can to make it safe as possible, maybe coal minining will be almost completely automated in the future.

But coal as well as fossil fuels are destined to be part of our energy mix for at least another century. All we can do is employ every possible effort toward efficiency and conservation.

[joebhed]

I have to agree with this writer.
This is a do-able task for America and the world.
Of course, it may take a political and then regulatory revolution.
But it will worth it for many generations.
We must do what is needed to clean up the mining and extraction to make it both as safe and sound as possible. Whatever it takes.
This will take years and it will make coal much more expensive, maybe double its current mine-head costs.
In addition, we need to be able to operate new coal plants in a way that as close as possible eliminates its contribution to climate change.
This will again increase coal costs so that ultimately I see coal power costing between two to three times its current price.
However, more importantly AT THE MOMENT.
If we want to really do something about that climate-change curve, we need to get our head out of the clouds, and insist that ALL of the "grandfathered" stinkpots from the 1970's CAA be forced to close ASAP.
These must be replaced IMMEDIATELY with new IGCC technology plants.
This is the best, quickest and most assured means of doing something about coal pollution NOW.

[BeNice]

Bad analogy.

New Coke was very different than old Coke.

[Giglawyer]

Yes. New Coke was terrible.

[yellowdogSC]

Presumably "safer" means "cheaper".

Does that mean that 1) including payoffs to cover up deaths, and 2) paying lobbyists to destroy safety legislation,

STILL results in a lower cost? Or what exactly?

[BornSkeptic]

I thought strip-mining was outlawed in the 70's?? Did I just dream that, or was it one of the things that was reversed with the elction of the Great (Corporate) Emancipator, Ronald Reagon?? It seems we're having the same conversations we had 30 years ago regarding the environment (and war and...). Deja-vu all over again.

It finally occurred to me recently the reason Big Energy has no interest in solar (and to a lesser extent, wind power) is because its a decentralized system. With the right setup, you don't NEED them. In fact, they have to buy your extra enegy. Solar panels on houses, barns, businesses, and virtually everywhere else does nothing for their bottom line.

"If we use fuel to get our power, we are living on our capital and exhausting it rapidly. This method is barbarous and wantonly wasteful. A far better way would be to avail ourselves of the sun's rays." - Nikola Tesla

"I'd put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don't have to wait 'til oil and coal run out before we tackle that." - Thomas Edison

[GoodwithWood]

Wow! Way cool quotes, could you provide some sources??

GWW

[yellowdogSC]

Try Bartlett’s Quotations. The site has a decent search ability

I'd help, but I HAVE to do some stuff, and soon.....

[Postive]

#1. The number of violations has declined which means safety has increased dramatically.
#2. Coal mining does not cause global warming; Combustion of coal causes global warming.
#3. He who owns the most mines over time would have a higher percentage of mines.
#4. The report indicates Murray' combined quanty of violations exceeds the national average; by how many percentage points? Who owned the mines that had the "substantive and signficant violations"
#5. (a) What does "substantive and significant" mean? (b) What does it mean with

[yellowdogSC]

Pos,

You have GOT to be joking. (Right? A joke?)

Except for: "(b) What does it mean with "

THAT, at least made a LITTLE sense.

Thanks.

[Annette]

No coal mining does not cause global warming, only the burning of it does, So why is it mined perhaps to burn??
According to reports mines owned by Murray had their violations increase after he bought them.
Coal mining is dirty, dangerous, destroys miners health, no, black lung is still happening. I personally am happy to pay more on my retirement income to get less filthy electricity than that created by coal.

[indypete]

"#1. The number of violations has declined which means safety has increased dramatically"

Correction, dude (or dudette, whichever the case may be)... The number of violations has declined which means regulation has been relaxed in order to maximise profits.

[maya90]

Coal mines belong in the dustbin of history...
I found out only now, with this terrible tragedy in Utah, how deep they dig for coal.. that's simply crazy... nobody's going to convince me it's "safe" for miners to work 1-2 miles underground...
Would I be willing to pay more for energy if it means abolishing coal mines and all the evils associateed with them (described very well in this article)?? YOU BET....

[Giglawyer]

But would you support nuclear energy?

[yellowdogSC]

Gig,

Good point.

Personally, I'm partial to solar, wind, hydro and tide.

How much more might we need, do you think?

Thank you.

[QueenMaedb]

I grew up in the Pennsylvania coal region, and I'd like to point out that pollution of groundwater, bad as that is, is not the only danager presented by strip mining.

Strip mining promotes erosion. A soaking rain in a strip-mined area can wash away a whole town.

Abandoned strip mines fill in with water. They're tempting places for kids to cool off on long, hot summer days. Leaving aside the fact that the water contains coal waste, mine pools are deep, cold and trecherous. I knew several kids growing up who drowned in them.

If you're into Tolkein, take a drive through the back roads of Schuylkill and Carbon counties. Abandoned strip mines, tailing mounds and pools always reminded me of Mordor.

[GoodwithWood]

Robert Murray does kinda remind me of Galum and his obsession with his “precious” coal.

GWW

[yellowdogSC]

Physically similar.