Crosspost: Two more dead W. Va coal miners.

[NNadir]

This is not sexy, like a discussion of how tritium "could" cause cancer and birth defects. It's just fucking real.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2215312

[DBoon]

1. Non-union, right?

These bastards really would waste a few human lives to make some bucks.

[NNadir]

2. Probably.

[Hand]

3. One was, one was UMW.

UMW is helping with the investigations on both cases.

[NNadir]

4. The story is not being covered anywhere, as far as I can tell.

Too bad it isn't a radiation leak. Even if that injured no one, it would generate some excitement, and all sorts of news articles.

[NNadir]

5. Whoops it is.

Six sentences in the NY Times:

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) -- Two workers were killed in separate accidents at underground coal mines in West Virginia on Friday, bringing the state's mining fatalities for the year to 18.

A miner was killed when he apparently was caught and pulled into a conveyor system at a Mystic mine near Wharton, said Amy Louviere, a spokeswoman for the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Mine-Fatals.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[dcfirefighter]

6. I would bet the unions there aren't fighting for safety

nearly as much as they're fighting to keep the mines open

It's the nature of union Locals. Most people in WV and southwestern VA LOVE the coal mines - it's the best paying gig in town, union or no

[NNadir]

7. I'll bet you're right.

It's kind of the tobacco farming of energy.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x49219

[struggle4progress]

8. UMW convention: Maintaining safe mine working conditions tops agenda

Sunday, April 09, 2006
By Cindi Lash, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Staying vigilant about mine safety is a daily issue for miners.

Persuading lawmakers and people who use the coal, metals and minerals they mine to share those concerns will be high on the agenda when members of the United Mine Workers of America hold their constitutional convention this week in Las Vegas.

The four-day gathering, which begins tomorrow at the Riviera Hotel, has drawn about 525 delegates representing 65,000 current and 30,000 retired miners in the United States and Canada.

The union holds constitutional conventions every five years to develop policies for members to follow and leaders to pursue with industry and government leaders, spokesman Phil Smith said. This year, UMW leaders will strive to maintain public awareness of mine hazards, heightened this year by accidents that have killed 18 miners -- including two Friday -- in West Virginia and another five in other states. <snip>

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06099/680821-85.stm

[dcfirefighter]

10. Good for the International

I wonder how serious they are about upgrading mine equipment in marginally profitable mines - mines that would likely close if the LOCAL pushed the issue?

Does the UMW allow miners from one mine to keep their seniority at a new mine if their mine closes?

[struggle4progress]

11. UMW has a democratic structure, driven by the locals. eom

[dcfirefighter]

13. Answer my question

If the mine in Smalltown, WV is closed due to the fact that it's barely profitable and to update equipment would make it unprofitable, to the senior miners at that mine get to move down the road to Anothertown, PA and displace their more junior workers?

I'll bet not.

I'll bet that the miners in Smalltown, WV know damn well that if they raised a big stink about some 'piddling' safety rules, they'd be out of a job. They may raise their voices for major safety issues, pay, etc., but I doubt they're very aggressive with every measure the International advocates.

Mostly because the miners in Smalltown don't have any better employment options.

[struggle4progress]

14. Please provide links when making accusations. You've accused ..

.. the union of not caring about worker safety, and when I refuted that, you then try to suggest that the UMW doesn't represent the locals, a suggestion that indicates some ignorance about the UMW, a union traditionally driven by rank and file membership.

Consider directing your feelings about coal at mining company practices and the behavior of the consuming industries, rather than sneering about how little you think the miners value their own health and safety ...

[NNadir]

16. In failing to answer his questions you have miscontrued what he said.

He asked you if the UMW lets workers carry their seniority around when mines are closed because it is not economic to make them safe. As usual, you just changed the subject.

I don't believe that coal mining can ever be made safe under any circumstances, by the way.

Here are some statistics that bear me out:

http://www.msha.gov/MSHAINFO/FactSheets/MSHAFCT2.HTM

The UMW has not made mines without risk. I understand that your criteria for energy is that it be completely without risk, which is why every loose bolt in a nuclear plant draws such breathless attention from you.

If just one of these people killed in a mine had a steam burn from working in a nuclear power plant, you'd be all over the internet with protest, thread after thread here, even if they recovered fully. You'd prattle for hours on how they might get cancer some day. But dead bodies of miners? Oh you want to tell us that this can be addressed by praising the Union. But now you're here trying to pretend that it is in the power of the UMW to make mining safe, but you don't bother to address what the entire coal industry does to everyone else on the planet. You offer no consideration whatsoever to the victims of air pollution. Does strengthening the UMW address one whit of that?

My Dad trusted in his Union. We went without food during strikes. Just before his pension was to kick in, his company shut the doors. Nobody wanted that retiree expense. The Union guys drove off in their limos, saying "too bad." Information about where the union pension fund money went disappeared with Jimmy Hoffa. There's nothing magical about unions. Some did some good things but some were simply an avenue for screwing workers in new and different ways.

This line of nonsense is a QED that you are basically a supporter of the idea that coal is acceptable. It isn't. Given that you are in complete denial of this reality, I shouldn't be surprised to learn that you are, in fact, a UMW bureaucrat, one who has never been in the mine and at the end of the day, hasn't the slightest concern about what the entire coal fuel chain means.

I refer you to figure 9, page 35, in the following link. http://www.externe.info/expoltec.pdf

The little red part on the bar is the risk to the miners. The huge blue bar is the risk to everyone else, i.e. the rest of us.

[struggle4progress]

17. He claimed the union wasn't serious about safety and about upgrading ..

.. mine equipment.

[struggle4progress]

18. Vide #15 infra eom

[NNadir]

24. Referring to vague nonsense is still vague nonsense.

You haven't said anything about making coal safe. You can't do it because you don't know how.

[dcfirefighter]

23. I have not.

I did not say that the union did not care about worker safety.

In fact, I'll bet the national union cares far less about the jobs of individual workers than it does about the safety of the majority of workers. This is how a democratic organization would work.

But, in those cases where safety and employment are mutually exclusive due to marginal economics, I will bet, without referencing any outside data, but rather based on my knowledge of working people, that the miners themselves will not voice displeasure over what they percieve as minor safety violations.

I'm a member of a union. I've worked as a safety engineer - I've seen the dissonance between what professionals consider safe and what workers consider safe. How many people don't wear seatbelts? This same attitude pervades many working people. It's my impression that Miners are far more safety conscious than the average tradesman, but I'm sure that when it comes to replacing the conveyor in pit #12, they'd rather just stay out of the exposed rollers than force their life-blood employer to upgrade to an uneconomic but compliant model.

The topic isn't mining company practices. Like miners, they do what they have to do to get by, except without the benefit of a soul or conscience.

The question remains: If one Local forces it's employer to make the decision to uprgrade or terminate operations, and the employer makes the economic decision to terminate operations, do the layed-off miners get to carry their seniority to another mine?

[struggle4progress]

9. Better federal enforcement would be a good thing.

One of two miners identified in deadly W.Va. accidents
Sunday, April 09, 2006

By The Associated Press

... Robert Runyon, 48, of Belfry, Ky., was the victim of an accident at Jacob Mining Company Inc.'s No. 1 underground mine near Naugatuck ...

The Jacob Mining operation has received 14 citations from MSHA since Feb. 2. One alleged violation involved guards on mechanical equipment that protect workers from the machinery, according to MSHA's Web site.

Other alleged violations involved ventilation controls, firefighting equipment and dust sampling ...

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06099/680838-85.stm

[NNadir]

12. Not quite as good as ending coal. The coal still kills when it gets out

of the mine, even if it doesn't kill in the mine.

When one looks at the external cost of coal, mining is only a tiny percentage of the external cost. Most of the people who are killed by coal are killed by the practice of burning the coal. This is true when one ignores the global climate cost and focuses only the costs of sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides and particulates.

When one does include global climate change, heavy metal aerosol and water borne pollution, the cost of acid leachates, and the cost to live stock and crops, the situation is even worse.

The miners want their jobs of course, just as people involved in the tobacco industry want their jobs.

But it is a lie to pretend that the effects of these jobs can be made safe. Even if every coal miner could be made infinitely safe - and of course this is not possible - it is impossible to prevent the loss of life from the use of coal.

There are many people, of course, who apologize for coal use, who ignore it's risk or pretend it can be ignored. These people are pretty much on the moral level of tobacco excecutives.

[struggle4progress]

15. You want to reduce coal use? Then there is a political-economic ..

.. problem to solve, which (under our present system) cannot be addressed without affecting the cost of coal.

Without legislation against mountaintop removal, without strong worker health and safety enforcement, without meaningful emissions restrictions on burners, prices remain artificially low. So absent such appropriate political-economic changes, it matters not how many alternative energy options develop: coal will still be mined in quantity.

Meanwhile, of course, people still work in the mines. You, apparently, adopt the position that it is acceptable to use their injuries and deaths to propagandize for nuclear power, while simultaneously denouncing any step towards their health and safety as a pretense "that the effects of these jobs can be made safe." It seems an inhumane ideology ...

[NNadir]

19. I am aware that you are unaware of what inhumane means.

You cannot make coal safe. It can't be done technically and it can't be done with platitudes.

As for nuclear power, I am merely comparing the relative safety of the two approaches.

Again, if you didn't get in the last thread, it is graphically available so that even a fifth greader can understand it: Page 35, figure 9, http://www.externe.info/expoltec.pdf

I am not going to let up on the fact that coal has the highest external cost of energy on the planet, nor am I going to pretend that vague blather about "political-economic changes" whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean, changes a whit of it. I certainly would never trust so vague a line of bull shit to substitute for a policy. That's why I would never have dreamt of voting for George W. Bush. He says that meaningless kind of crap all day long too.

How about a law that reads: "The use of coal for power production in the United States is prohibitied." That would save lives. I favor that law. No mountain tops would be removed. No black lung. No billion ton slag heaps. No rain of 10 micron particles. No sulfuric acid drops raining on our gardens. No nitric acid eating our lungs. No air pollution of any kind, not even carbon dioxide. No mercury laden fish. No new acid leach pits.

And I know how to do it too, and I write about it all the time. Ten years to phase out coal and substitute nuclear. Massive subsidies to do it, bonds to be paid off in energy. "Manhattan Project 2, the Peace Project," we might call it. We'll put you in charge of whining about bolts and making easily mocked reports from pixilated reporters, something to keep our senses of humor all fired up. An enormous investment in a clean future. Massive training for new nuclear technicians, engineers, scientists. Building electrified infrastructure, new electric railroads, and yes, some windmills, and where we can do it affordably, solar stations. Safe work practices.

A fucking conservative is someone who thinks we should stick to the old ways. Fuck conservatives, they're useless. Coal needs to be gone and gone soon.

If you knew about what is and is not humane you would not dare issue bureaucratic mumbo jumbo in response to these deaths. I note a few weeks ago, when the dead were mexican miners you had nothing to say whatsoever, even though you can wax romantic for hours on Chernobyl.

Everything you say is full of shit.

[Dead_Parrot]

20. "political-economic changes"...

...means (to me) getting those who favour getting thier power from 20% renewables, 80% coal to shut the fuck up and start paying the 200 trillion dollars to scrub excess CO2 from the atmosphere and stop the fucking icecaps from melting.

What it means to S4P is anybody's guess.

[struggle4progress]

21. Too complicated a question? I'll try again. The issue I'm raising ..

.. is really not very complicated, and the problem should look pretty much the same no matter where one stands on nuclear power.

Social groups spontaneously develop a "consciousness" that tends to justify and reinforce existing practices, independent of objective facts. Because of this, large organizations and large social structures tend to reproduce themselves continually until conditions intervene: not only corporations, but macroeconomic processes regenerate themselves in this manner. The associated "consciousness" will be a collection of social and political ideas that "explain" why existing behavior is the most "reasonable" under the circumstances (whether the behavior is objectively reasonable or not). Without changing material behavior, it is difficult or impossible to change the "consciousness" underlying the behavior; but the "consciousness" itself produces an inertia, "justifying" unchanged continuation of the behavior.

So, with particular reference to burning fossil fuels, I ask: what timely political-economic changes could actually affect this cycle? Exhaustion of the resource will clearly affect the behavior and "consciousness," though (of course) at a high cost; merely providing more and more energy sources, on the other hand, does nothing to affect underlying behaviors and hence is unlikely to change "consciousness."

I do not see that this can be done without increasing the cost of energy use, for example, by requiring improved worker safety and reduced emissions. Worker safety is an issue with a natural constituency -- namely, the workers themselves and their families -- hence represents an area where there is some prospect for success. Similarly, anti-emissions groups are organizable. In the same vein, since transportation accounts for about 20% of US CO2 emissions, automobile use must be decreased: it is credible that demand for public transportation could be developed, since current reliance on automobiles limits the freedom and mobility of youth, the poor, and the elderly.

Absent a collection of politically feasible changes that will impact behavior, and hence "consciousness," no amount of mere rhetoric or empty theorizing will have real impact. On the other hand, when behavior changes, "consciousness" also changes, reducing inertia and making further change possible ...

[Dead_Parrot]

22. Ahh, you mean, "people are stupid"...

I think we can all agree on that. :) I also suspect you, me, and NNadir would agree on a carbon tax as a good first step towards shifting us in the right direction: Unfortunatley, because people are stupid, people won't vote for anyone who'll hit them in the wallet.

Pricing coal out as an option by operational (safety) legislation might be an feasible, but it might just result in coal being produced elsewhere (ie, Mexico) and shipped in - resulting in no change in CO2 output, increased electricity prices, and an increase in dead Mexicans.

To be honest, I think the scale and urgency of the problem are far outside of the realm of normal market pressures - we need something more dramatic.

[NNadir]

25. Your middle lines are the most telling.

Pricing coal out as an option by operational (safety) legislation might be an feasible, but it might just result in coal being produced elsewhere (ie, Mexico) and shipped in - resulting in no change in CO2 output, increased electricity prices, and an increase in dead Mexicans.

It's the perfect NIMBY solution.

Struggles talks about "consciousness," already a suitably vague and pretty much meaningless concept, but what people really strive for is unconsciousness. Nobody gives a rat's ass for the social policies (or the state of the wetlands) in Nigeria when they fill up the Hummer.

[dcfirefighter]

26. A Carbon Tax...

as mentioned, would work, if passed.

It may get passed if it's revenue were to offset taxation, especially low bracket income taxes (the ones that just about everyone pays).

I think it would be even more likely if the revenue were merely returned to the populace in equal shares. Call it an energy credit, but give it back with no strings attached: you can use it to conserve, consume, invest, or squander as you see fit. I think the MOST likely way to get a carbon tax is to start with the ENERGY CREDIT and pay for it with the carbon tax.

[Dead_Parrot]

27. Very true...

Most people may too many taxes already (in their mind, at least): Allocating everyone a 'carbon bank account' with say, 12 tons of carbon per year that could be spent on petrol, saved up for a long-haul flight or sold for cash would be a lot more popular than an outright tax. Of course, once it's up and running you can start reducing the yearly allocation to nudge people towards conservation.

One of the nice things about this is wouldn't hit the poor to hard: If you're down at the level where you have to catch a bus because you can't afford a car, it would just be an added source of income...

The downside is the rich wouldn't like it, therefore the lobbyists wouldn't like it, therefore the politicians wouldn't like it, therefore it would never happen. :(

There's a BBC article on the idea here for anyone who missed it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4479226.stm

[dcfirefighter]

28. Put it to the common man

Do you want to pay taxes on your earnings or your burnings?

[struggle4progress]

29. No, I don't mean people are stupid.

I said that people tend naturally to produce for themselves a false consciousness to justify their own current behavior, whatever that behavior is.

In my experience, intelligent people often produce such justifications more easily than less bright folk.

[NNadir]

32. Is the word "consciousness" supposed to have some kind of meaning?

What exactly is "false consciousness?" Unconsciousness?

I am conscious that the most unconscious people are precisely those who talk vaguely about consciousness as if trying to consciously assert that they are talking about something when they are talking about nothing.

I'll get more specific. I think it is stupid to make big representations about what could happen in a putative imaginary nuclear disaster while ignoring the reality of fossil fuels.

[Dead_Parrot]

33. I think he means "false reality"

While I'm here, I should clarify: as far as I'm concerned, "stupid" is best defined as "lacking, or marked by lack of, intellectual acuity"

Sums homo sapiens sapiens up nicely, if you ask me.

*sigh*.

homo sapiens sapiens. Oxymoron incarnate. (or maybe just moron incarnate - take your pick)

[NNadir]

34. "False reality, eh?"

Beats real reality, I guess.

Now partially real reality depends on how real the false reality is, or really, the quality of the unreal reality which is really unreal.

[Dead_Parrot]

35. I'm gonna drink 15 cans of Export Gold and get back to you. nt

[struggle4progress]

36. Not much of a social or political theorist? *sigh*

Yes, "consciousness" is a technical term, and so is "false consciousness" ...

Social groups share certain ideas about what is real, about what is important, about how members are defined and distinguished from others ...

Some of these ideas are more or less correct and technically useful, some are vacuous but harmless, some blunt perception by providing illusions and mystifications instead of facts and insights, some serve as anaesthetics, some serve as motivators ...

These collections of ideas do not spring from nowhere: they are produced by self-justification of existing practices, they are reproduced by being handed down as tradition (in which case they are often out-of-date, since they refer to an earlier, perhaps no-longer-existant circumstance), they are installed as propaganda through the mass communication industry or through the instruments of state or corporate power, or they arise as scientific ideas through critical examination of contexts ...

Evidently, a number of people atop the corporate and political worlds believe such a thing as "consciousness" exists, or they would not have devoted to much energy to eliminating requirements for diversity of voice in commercial broadcasting and would not have been so busy with their careful construction of Swiftboat stories etc ... Presumably, a number of people at DU believe the same thing or there would be less effort involved in constructing refutations and counter-claims ...

[Dead_Parrot]

37. For myself: No

My degree is in astrophysics, not political science. I tend to think of "the truth" as being something that is real, measurable, still there tomorrow, solid, and reliable: Given the choice between Duverger's law and Newton's laws, I'll go for the latter.

I would, however, suggest you re-read your post, then look at some of the things you have posted. There may be a truth in there after all: Think "installed as propaganda".

[struggle4progress]

39. Or perhaps I could examine ..

name-calling posts since that is a standard propaganda technique. It's true that was earlier Victorian scientific practice, but I had thought the self-styled scientific crowd might have moved away from the sort of polemic that Liebig once used to wreck the careers of younger competitors ...

[Dead_Parrot]

40. OK, but what should I call you?

I like to be positive about life, so it rules out anti-nuke-boy, because that's a negative. Coal-boy? Solar-boy? wind-boy?

You can call me Nuke-boy if it helps. :)

[NNadir]

42. Clear writing is generally an expression of clear thinking.

I wasted all of 50 seconds trying to decipher if your post means anything.

It doesn't.

[struggle4progress]

30. Of course, market pressures won't solve such problems, nor did I claim ..

.. they would.

I raised the specific question: How can one begin to affect behavior in order to create conditions that begin to force changes in consciousness? In the political-economic context of our current society, I do not believe consumption patterns can be changed without changing the market context.

Of course, NAFTA-style mobility of capital and commodities needs to be re-examined. Opponents of NAFTA and like agreements pointed out more than a decade ago the environmental damage and depressed wages that such agreements produce.

[struggle4progress]

31. I have no objection to a carbon tax except that it seems politically ..

.. impossible, so discussion of it is pointless.

[Dead_Parrot]

38. Any thoughts on the carbon account?

(see #26).

[dcfirefighter]

41. What is politically possible?

What are you advocating? Why is what you're advocating politically possible?

I believe that people would be completely willing to stop paying for the right to work (wage and income taxes) and start paying for the right to burn carbon-based fuels.

If Carbon were taxed, and Labor untaxed, we'd use less Carbon and more Labor. Our power would come less from Carbon based energy (Coal, Oil, Gas) and more from Labor and Capital based energy (Wind, Solar, Nuclear).

That is what I advocate. Less pollution, higher wages.

[struggle4progress]

43. Your proposal to replace income tax by carbon tax would have ..

.. the following perverse effect: it would ensure that government encourages carbon use, that having become government's major revenue source.

On the other hand, on the political side, I suppose you could naturally form an alliance with the rightwing troglodytes who want to amend the Constitution and return to the pre-income-tax era: they're still about (I actually ran into an organized group of them about two weeks back), but their views on most issues don't suit my tastes, and I'd have a hard time workiung with em meself.

[dcfirefighter]

44. That's a risk I'd take.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that any means the government took to maximise revenue from Carbon would be a very good balance between economic needs and ecological need. Set the tax too high and the economy crumbles and little revenue is raised. Set it too low, and too little is raised as well. At the 'just right' maximum revenue spot....

As for the income tax: The sooner progressives realize that an income tax isn't progressive the better we'll be.

Tax wealth.

But only tax that wealth that wasn't made by labor.

Pretty much ends up looking like an ecological footprint tax.

Looks a lot like what economists call 'rent'. Currently Rent in the US is $4-5 Trillion, and this is despite $3-4 trillion in harmful taxes on labor and labor built wealth. Remove those and Rent jumps up to an easy $6 Trillion. Even if we continued to spend the ridiculous $4T that fed, state, and local governments spend now, this leaves a nearly $7,000 a year per person surplus. A surplus based on socially and naturally created wealth, wealth that no individuals have a legitimate claim to ownership. Share that socially created wealth, and we ALL win. We reduce environmental consumption. We employ everyone. We don't need a strong central authoritarian government. We don't need foreign energy. We don't NEED foreign trade, but we'd ALL benefit from free trade (with a carbon tax on imports, of course ;) ). And working people would enjoy good wages and working conditions.