Say No to expansion of "mountaintop removal" mining

[MH1]

From EarthJustice.org:

On August 24, 2007, the Bush administration proposed repealing a longstanding environmental protection law in its relentless campaign to allow the coal mining industry to continue "mountaintop removal" mining.

In mountaintop removal mining, coal companies actually blow up entire mountaintops and dump millions of tons of waste into nearby streams, burying them forever. This parting gift from the administration to its coal industry friends would allow coal companies to continue their assault on the forests, streams, and communities of Appalachia.

The Buffer Zone Rule of 1983 prohibits coal mining activities from disturbing areas within a 100-foot "buffer" of an intermittent or perennial stream. The buffer zone rule states that coal mining activities cannot disturb these sensitive areas unless water quality and quantity will not be adversely impacted.

The new rule would allow companies to dump massive amounts of waste directly into streams -- nearly 2,000 miles of mountain streams in Appalachia have been buried by mine waste, wiping out these streams and causing flooding and destruction in the surrounding communities. The Bush administration's failure to enforce the buffer zone law led to an additional 535 miles of stream impacts nationwide between 2001 and 2005. Thus, the repeal of the buffer zone rule would allow more than 1,000 miles of streams to be destroyed each decade into the future.

...(more at link)

You can take action here to send a comment to the Office of Surface Mining.

If you think this is a worthy effort, please K & R and spread the word. Thanks!

[pnwmom]

1. No mountain top mining for environmental reasons.

No underground mining for worker safety reasons.

So what's the solution? No mining at all?

[MH1]

3. This is to stop expansion, of mountaintop REMOVAL mining.

You remember that song, "Almost flat, West Virginia"? It might have been a little different when you heard it years ago (something like "almost heaven") but this is how they're singing it now.

I don't think this action aims to stop all coal mining - it is just to keep current (sensible) limits on one type of mining - and more specifically, the pollution generated by that mining practice.

To meet the current rules will cost the mining company more than if the rule relaxation goes through. So, on the one hand you get cheaper energy but people living in WV and neighboring states suffer more health problems due to the pollution. Then there are the long term environment effects which may impact us all.

Hmmm, cheaper energy for me & you, and screw the people who suffer the impacts of bad practices....or we pay a little more of the true cost of the energy, and other people are a bit healthier and the environment is a bit healthier.

Is it really a difficult choice?

[pnwmom]

4. So is there a type of coal mining that is better? How is it done?

[PhD]

5. My grandfather was a coal miner

His company conducted strip mining. I'm sure the environmental movement doesn't approve, but the mines he worked at have filled in as beautiful ponds that have become highly sought after real estate developments.

[pnwmom]

6. Welcome to DU, PhD! n/t

[PhD]

7. Thank you

I'm not really new though. Just a new account name.

[MH1]

10. I'm not sure if there is any "acceptable" coal mining or not, but this is about harm reduction.

I'm not sure why I'm finding this so hard to explain. Sure, coal power is BAD in many ways. Ideally, we would all use some form of clean energy. (Just have to figure out what that is. I don't think there's any "good" way to mine uranium, either, come to think of it.)

But this is about the POLLUTION that comes from the handling of waste from one type of mining known as "mountaintop removal" mining. The Bush administration wants to relax rules and allow more water pollution than is currently allowed, so that such operations can mine more cheaply. That's a bad thing, right? It seems very bad to me.

Now, just trying to understand the point of your posts: are you suggesting that this is a pointless exercise, just let the Bush administration do what they will because you think "nothing matters unless you ban coal mining altogether"?

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I am just trying to understand. I don't see where in my posts that I advocated for coal mining at all, so I don't understand your post.

The point of the action in the o.p. is to at least hold the line on this particular bad effect of coal mining. That is all.

[MH1]

11. And actually, I remember having a conversation with folks who have been miners.

Yes, there are "better" and "worse" methods. Every method of energy production has drawbacks, and coal might well be worse than the rest, but within the various methods of mining coal there are more harmful methods, and less harmful methods. I'd have to defer to the experts to explain the various methods and relative harms.

There has been recently a lot of progress on robotic mining techniques, I believe. Of course, that will put a lot of people out of jobs...

[backwoodsbob]

8. almost flat?

I understand making a point but come on...almost flat?

[MH1]

9. Well, it's sarcasm

It's not meant to be taken literally.

I have family in WV and this is what they've been telling me ever since mountaintop removal mining started taking off.

[tabasco]

2. I can't hate the Bush administration more.

They are the scum of the Earth.