Obama on Mountaintop Removal: "We're tearing up the Appalachian Mountains because of fossil fuels"

[Dems Will Win]

Obama is against Mountaintop Removal, while Hillary won't say she'll stop it and touts the economic benefits.

He said the country also needs a forward-thinking energy policy, and he alluded to his disapproval of the coal mining process of mountaintop removal.

"We're tearing up the Appalachian Mountains because of our dependence on fossil fuels," he said, sparking loud applause.

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/27/obama_fires_up_crowd_in_lexing.php

When Appalachian Voices asked Senator Obama about MTR, and whether he supported or opposed strip mining, he (Obama) said:

"Strip-mining is an environmental disaster!"

The telegenic Presidential hopeful did not stop there. He went on to adress mountatintop removal by saying:


"We have to find more environmentally sound ways of mining coal, than simply blowing the tops off mountains."

PLEASE RECOMMEND IF YOU ARE AGAINST MOUNTAINTOP REMOVAL

[malaise]

1. He's right!!

Save the mountains!

[me b zola]

5. You bet he is!

I've sen a couple of documentaries on the effect of mountain top removal. Not only does it destroy the environment, but it also has devastating effects of the communities surrounding the decapitated mountain.

[underpants]

2. Do you know what you DON'T need to do mountaintop mining?

Miners and with no miners no Unite Mine Workers union.

[thevoiceofreason]

4. I really didn't know that. Could you elaborate so I can spread the word?

[Muttocracy]

6. I think the argument is it's more automated - fewer workers

Is there some loophole or situation where they can hire nonunion workers - or is it different companies?

I'd like to hear more too.

[Divernan]

18. It took one miner one day to deep mine 16 tons; w/mountain top machines: 60 tons in 5 minutes

Back in a sec with the link.
On edit: (this one's for you, grandpa!)
My grandfather was a coal miner in Kentucky, starting in the 1920's. He fought to establish a union (UMW) for the miners. There was a rich and vital culture in his community.

As the author of this piece noted: In the l940's, it took one miner all day to load 16 tons of coal out of a deep mine. Today, one man behind the wheel of a loader can, in FIVE MINUTES, fill a truck with SIXTY tons of bituminous rock.


www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_2006040/ai_n16142368

"Meanwhile, problems have accelerated, Reece says. Coal-related employment in Kentucky has dropped 60 percent in 15 years. Almost 2,000 square miles of Kentucky -- an area the size of Delaware -- has been mountain top mined. At least 95 percent of Kentucky's headstreams have been impaired by surface mining, and 47 percent of streams and rivers are too polluted for drinking. fishing, or swimming -- a 12 percent rise in the last four years alone.

An end to destructive mining would actually lead to the reduction of poverty in Appalachia, he says. Reforestation would bring a new generation of workers to Appalachia, including woodworkers, hydrologists and soil experts.

"People in urban areas are connected to Appalachia, even if they don't think so," he says. The solutions for people who will never even see the region can be as simple as replacing regular light bulbs with fluorescent ones or replacing old appliances with Energy Star efficient ones.

"This can't just be a regional issue. But we all have to act now."

AND:
"Reece cites case after case of damage the mining has done: drinking and bathing water is unfit because of toxic runoff, asthma and cancer rates skyrocket as a result of the coal dust and sulfur dioxide, mud and water from the bare hillsides washes away buildings and sometimes entire towns, falling rock from the blasting crushes people, house foundations crack.

Companies do not figure these factors into the cost- effectiveness of their methods, Reece says. Economists refer to these factors as "externalities."

"Externalities, like the woman who committed suicide because her garden was flooded repeatedly and she needed to grow crops to live, or the 3-year-old crushed in his sleep when a rock hit his house -- the human costs. So, no, coal extracted that way is not cheap," Reece says. "

[underpants]

11. Okay maybe not NO miners but certainly less

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/28/us/28mountains.html

The coal industry asserts that mountaintop removal is a safer way to remove coal than sending miners underground and that without it, companies would have to close mines and lay off workers.

Luke Popovich, a spokesman for the National Mining Association, a coal lobbying group, said that by fighting mountaintop removal religious groups might find their priorities colliding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountaintop_removal_mining#_note-5

Historically in the U.S. the prevalent method of coal acquisition was underground mining which is very labor-intensive. In MTR, through the use of explosives and large machinery, more than two and a half times as much coal can be extracted per worker per hour than in traditional underground mines <10>, and thus greatly reducing the need for workers. The industry lost approximately 10,000 jobs from 1990 to 1997, as MTR and other more mechanized mining methods became more widely used.<11> In addition, because MTR sites employ fewer miners per amount extracted, labor unions have less representation, and the United Mine Workers of America have charged that anti-union practices are often associated with MTR. They have also called for additional legal measures to protect communities from the degradation and destruction that results from nearby blasting.<12> The coal industry asserts that surface mining techniques, such as mountaintop removal, are safer for miners than sending miners underground.<13>

[thevoiceofreason]

12. Excellent work.

I appreciate the find. Hopefully, the word on this will get out to the United Mine Workers.

[catgirl]

3. Kentucky mountaintops have been destroyed as well

I wonder if this will come into play with their elections. It should.

[mac2]

20. The ruining of our enviornment is an important issue

and most Americans are very concerned over it. Talking about preachers and sex scandals is all a smoke screen to discuss things like "coal".

China has a huge thirst for coal. I wonder who ownes these companies and where does that coal go.

Most important why isn't Bush and Congress all over this issue? They sell us off to be rapped of our resources (trees, mountains, mining of minerals, oil, etc.).

[Petrushka]

43. CONSOL is the largest exporter of coal in this country. CONSOL, however, has the most . . .

. . . UNDERGROUND mines and is major competition to MTR coal operators. Consol uses shield-support longwall mining/intentional subsidence methods . . . and wants the government to back coal-to-liquids . . . as does two of West Virginia's super-duper delegates--Sen. Jay Rockefeller and Rep. Nick Rahall--who both endorsed Barack Obama.

In 1975, when Consolidation Coal Company introduced a Soviet system of shield-support longwall to the U.S., their execs boasted that they needed to employ only 7 miners per shift to break production records at a longwall face. Rumour has it that, today, they need only 3 miners per shift. The UMWA didn't/doesn't complain about the loss of members due to longwall. Instead, the union touts safety aspects of shield-supports protecting miners.

Mountaintop removal mining or longwall mining: When it comes to either one being able to produce more & more coal by using fewer & fewer miners, I suppose they're both pretty efficient at what they do. :sarcasm:


FWIW: Longwall mining methods are used in Obama's own Great State of Illinois, The Nation's Breadbasket. Although I don't know the name of the coal company using longwall there, its intentional longwall subsidence technique is having an adverse effect on natural water sources/supplies. So . . . :shrug: . . . who said anybody ever needed corn in the first place? Like: Vote for Obama! Vote for billions of taxpayer dollars for corporate welfare to your/his/our friendly underground neighbors--longwall coal operators--and CTL on the sly?

[Muttocracy]

7. can you post a link to the statements from HRC?

This is very important to me and I'd appreciate being able to directly compare the two. Thanks.

[Dems Will Win]

26. Go to my other thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5160397

[RestoreGore]

8. Then why hasn't he called for a moratorium on new coal fired power plants?

And more sound ways of mining coal? We need to wean ourselves OFF COAL. Perfect time to talk about solar , wind, etc. and he didn't. Why is he for the coal lobby? If you are against mountaintop removal you should then also speak out against what coal does to health and the environment when it is burned as well. Why can't he do that?

[Divernan]

23. You're right in the long run, but I'm glad to start with getting rid of Mountaintop removal.

[redqueen]

25. Good questions. I'd also like to know why Hillary is loud about her objection to clean coal

but quietly supports MTR.

[cascadiance]

30. Both candidates should support NEITHER of these practices! 1 in 6 women may have birth defects...

... from mercury that is in large part due to coal strip mining.

I hope that Obama can at some point tell the liquified coal lobby to take a hike. There really isn't a clean solution with using coal for energy. Now we are still using it to keep up with our existing energy usage, but it is an energy resource that we shouldn't be putting in newer investments to keep using. We should be weaning ourselves off of it completely. Liquified coal may address some of the concerns (carbon pollution of the air, etc.), but still doesn't address a lot of the other concerns that it raises:

RFK Jr. has made a heavy effort to keep reminding people of the horrible effects of mercury and other toxins going in to our water supply and the environment in general. Just taking it out of the air by "liquifying" it doesn't help if there is still strip mining that screws up the mountain sides that allows for the water supplies to get messed up with no more natural ecosystems that are taken away that would break it down and also prevent flooding, etc.

From:

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2004/07/13/griscom-kennedy/

The Bobby Lobby
An interview with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., environmental advocate and Bush basher
By Amanda Griscom
13 Jul 2004



...

Q. You are an avid fisher and president of Waterkeeper Alliance. Do water issues hit home for you even more than air issues?

A. They hit home quite literally. It's now unsafe to eat any freshwater fish in Connecticut because of mercury contamination. The New York City reservoir system is so contaminated with mercury that no fish in them can be safely eaten. Most of the fish in New York state can no longer safely be eaten. All the fish in 17 states can no longer safely be eaten because of mercury contamination.

I have so much mercury in my body right now, having tested it recently, that if I were a woman of childbearing years, my child, according to Dr. David Carpenter, the national authority on mercury contamination, would have cognitive impairment -- permanent IQ loss. I said to Carpenter when he told me this, "You mean might have?" He said no, the science is very certain on this. She would have. One out of every six American women of childbearing years now has so much mercury in her body that her children are at risk for permanent IQ loss, kidney and liver damage, blindness, and possibly autism because of the mercury. And this of course is connected to air issues, too. Half of the mercury emissions in our country are coming from those coal-burning plants in the Ohio Valley.

...

[redqueen]

31. I completely agree.

[defendandprotect]

9. How absolutely sickening . . . as if Congress didn't know --- !!!

[mac2]

14. During election time they do.

[RestoreGore]

15. And that's exactly why he mentioned it now.

Is their primary soon? Does he realize how long this has been going on?

[mac2]

16. I'm sure he does...he and Durbin have been supporting

energy coal bills, etc.

http://obama.senate.gov/news/050629-senate_energy_bill_contains_go/

[Muttocracy]

10. here's a NYTimes story on the subject last summer - and Bushco. role in it

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/us/23coal.html

Has a diagram of how it works for anyone who doesn't know (one major problem is dumping fill into valleys, wrecking homes and towns and water supplies downstream)


edit to add - this has some stunning visuals too
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/28/us/28mountains.html

[mac2]

13. Wait a dang minute!!

Wasn't it Obama and Durbin who supported "clean coal" plants? I being a Illinois person know of their coal agenda. Where do you suppose the coal comes from Senators? I did ball them out over it (called and sent an e-mail more than once).

Is this another election lie?

We drove through this area about twenty years ago. All the mountains were still there. You could see row after row of blue mountains in the distance. It was breath taking.

Most people don't know this is going on. Thanks for posting it. We still have to find out what the deal is with the Senators regarding the rapping of the mountains...god's mountains.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPixjCneseE youtube video.

[redqueen]

17. I don't like the clean coal thing either... but coal doesn't have to be

extracted by destroying mountaintops.

[mac2]

21. According to environmentalists there is no such thing as

clean coal.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=us-cancels-clean-coal-plant Congress put a cabash on it. Carbon Dioxide would be pumped deep into the earth. Ooops don't dig there!! Whoos..

Even if we sell it to China and third world countries those plumes of pollution and debris go around the earth causing acid rain, etc.

Pollution problems have been felt on the NW coast of our country from China. A big gas cloud coming across the Pacific has been seen from space. It was in the Wall Street Journal.

[redqueen]

24. Yes, which is why I said it's not something I support.

I would love to understand why Hillary comes out so strongly against clean-coal, but supports MTR.

[Buzz Clik]

19. I'll be damned. One of the candidates took an environmental stand. Hillary soon to follow, and ...

she'll blame mountaintop mining on Obama.

[mac2]

22. He had an energy bill supporting coal burning and mining..

so Hillary doesn't need to make it up.

[Buzz Clik]

35. Link.

Also, show me how that bill relates DIRECTLY to mountain top mining. Avoid the rank bullshit, if you please.

[tabasco]

27. How can anyone condone this destructive practice?

There is not much unspoiled land left in the Appalachians.

I suppose it was only a matter of time before they destroyed our beautiful mountains.

I hate any politician who supports this destruction, including Robert Byrd.

[redqueen]

28. "How can anyone condone this destructive practice?"

If it benefits them financially?

[tabasco]

33. Only those without souls can destroy beauty for financial gain.

What will our great-grandchildren say when we leave them with mountains of tailings and pine barrens of reclaimed strip mines?

[mac2]

29. Fly away Byrd...

Time to leave office Senator. One day he was on CSPAN. He was talking like he was drunk. I suppose it was his medications.

He has been a defender of the Constitution and then turns around and votes against it. Go figure. He might be too old now.

[tabasco]

32. I always loved him but he lost me on the mountaintop mining.

I live in these mountains.

[Dems Will Win]

34. It's the Mountaintop Removal, Stupid!

[mac2]

40. Be a bit kinder OK?

So he didn't use the exact words. Is this important?

[Dems Will Win]

39. 470+ Mountains gone -- but that's OK with Byrd and Clinton

[meow mix]

36. K&R

[stop the bleeding]

37. SHAME on all who do not come out against this - SHAME

and that means you Hillary - god for fuck sakes :argh:

[Dems Will Win]

38. Unbelievable!

[Johnny__Motown]

41. K&R

[VotesForWomen]

42. reality: until there are viable alternative energies, mining is essential and supported by most loca

local residents. it's called job, and good jobs at that.

[Dems Will Win]

45. Obama will institute his "Green Deal" and creat a green-collar class.

[Petrushka]

47. Obama's "Green Deal" proposes to spend a whopping $150-billion in greenbacks . . .

. . . (over a 10-year period) to not only create green-collar jobs, but to provide lotsa corporate welfare to the coal industry in the form of "clean coal" subsidies.

Trouble is: Clinton's green-energy job creation plan would cost a piddling $50-billion (over a 10-year period)--1/3 as much as Obama's plan--because ALL of that $50-billion would be devoted to clean, GREEN energy . . . with no subsidies for "clean coal".

Oh, well . . . :shrug:


(Sorry about the words in all caps . . . I don't know how to use the HTML code to underline or italicize, etc.)

[Raine]

44. GOOD for Obama

I'm proud of him for this stand among many others that he takes! :thumbsup:

[Dems Will Win]

46. Exactly

[Dems Will Win]

48. kick

[PM7nj]

49. Will this help in in W Virginia?

I would assume most West Virginians are against MTR? Am I wrong? If so, why is Hillary so far ahead there?

[Dems Will Win]

50. kick