Two years ago I had the opportunity to be a part of a student delegation that met with Virginia Tech President Charles Steger that led to the creation and passage of the Virginia Tech Climate Action Commitment and Sustainability Plan. Since that meeting, I’ve seen countless community members have their hand in the research and planning associated with establishing that commitment, and I am extremely proud of our university taking a step in the right direction toward a sustainable future.
Last week I had the honor to be present at another meeting with members of the university administration with Virginia Tech Beyond Coal, a campus group with a campaign that asks for our university to: 1) stop burning coal from mountaintop removal sites within one year; 2) begin co-firing as much sustainably sourced biomass without major retooling of our power plant’s boilers by 2015; and 3) to end our use of coal in the central steam plant by 2020, five years ahead of the planned boiler replacement. While administrators acknowledged that “(the university does) want to work towards (sic) that ultimate goal,” they said that this plan “aggressively evolves” the VTCACSP and goes against the work of those that were involved with it. Administrators claimed they would only continue this conversation if we, as students, work on changing our behavior regarding energy consumption.
Now, not only do I respectfully disagree with what was said of working against those involved with the planning of the VTCACSP, I also am disappointed with the fact that our administration, with the defined motto of Ut Prosim and slogan “Invent the Future,” has to rely on the students themselves to put forth such a challenge to our university community. Shouldn’t it be the other way around?
We’re currently faced with enormous challenges in the world, and as a leading research institution, I feel it is our duty to step up to these challenges and take them head on. West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd, a long advocate for the coal industry, said in a recent speech, “To be part of any solution, one must first acknowledge a problem. To deny the mounting science of climate change is to stick our heads in the sand and say ‘deal me out.’ The greatest threats to the future of coal do not come from possible constraints on mountaintop removal mining or other environmental regulations, but rather from rigid mindsets, depleting coal reserves and the declining demand for coal.”
I have been heavily involved in the environmental movement and have seen it grow exponentially in the last several years. I know solutions aren’t as simple as flicking a switch, but Appalachia has already passed peak coal, meaning regional coal supplies will likely dwindle to nothing in the next few decades as costs continue to skyrocket. As companies begin to abandon already struggling communities, I find it the duty of our university community to advance alternative energies to create new green jobs, preserve the values of our land and work with communities as we pursue a carbon neutral and sustainable future.
President John F. Kennedy challenged our country to reach the moon in a decade, something deemed impossible. We did it. Now we are faced with another challenge with the same deadline, and we don’t have to go to the moon to achieve it. This is our challenge, and as a community let’s have newfound collaboration in our pursuit of creative solutions. Let’s Invent the Right Future. Let’s work together and move beyond coal.
Bryce Carter
senior
humanities, science and environment major
Leave a comment 67 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
Wow. That was powerful, Bryce. I am proud to call you a friend.
Reply to this Top
http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/11396/editorial-sga-must-own-up-to-past-mistakes-and-plan-for-reform
There you go Brandon, you were all for defending a law that tainted the student voice...because it put you in office.
Reply to this Top
Do you realize that was written the year before wr ran for office? If you have a legitimate concern, send me an e-mail at brandoncarroll@vt.edu and we'll sit down.
Top
We don't need to sit down, the concern is simple taking away votes. If you want to do something about it do the right thing, all of you that didn't win should resign and give your office to the people we voted for.
Top
No I won't email you and here is why, because my problem is simple.
Answer this question honestly. Do you agree with the law that allows the student voice to be reduce by removing votes?
That is all I want to know, the answer seems to be yes from your actions, and that is why I have a problem with you. If it is no then you should darn well be doing something about it in order to fulfill your duties as a class representative.
I await your carefully plotted political response but I won't take anything but a yes or a no.
Top
That election was the year before this year....the re was no issue with the voting in this past election.
Top
It doesn't change the facts you were still involved, secondly 2008 is one year away from 2009 I wasn't talking school years.
Top
I was not on the ballot or had any part in the voting methods that year.
Top
1) You advocated for it all over the article I posted.
2) You still didn't answer my question.
Stop avoiding the question.
Top
There should be a write in option for every election. No votes should ever be removed. The process for students to be able to vote should be as easy as possible.
Top
It's a shame you didn't stick to that belief when it mattered. you're track record shows that you either lack a will to stick to your principles when it's time to do so or only after profiting from that decision do you decide to do what's right.
Top
WHy in the world are you attacking Brandon Carroll? He commented on a friend's article, and you launched an ad hominem attack. I assume, based on one of your comments, that you also attacked him in another column. Using anonymous comments to attack someone is inappropriate and, in this case, defamatory.
Top
not if it's true
Top
Wow, did you bother to check any coal reserve statistics. The average estimates of our coal reserves project that the U.S. domestically has over a 1,000 year supply of coal. Secondly there is still substantial debate to be had over climate change especially given the recent email revelations where it admitted that test data had been cherry picked. Coal is an important part of Appalachia and for Robert Byrd to discredit it shows how out of touch he is as a politician. If it wasn't coal West Virginia would have a GDP per capita of a Sub-Saharan African nation. The reason you fail to convince people to support your cause is you still haven't figured out this problem economically. You have yet to convince us why we should switch from a cheap, plentiful, and reliable resource to one that will cost millions to start and will supply less electricity for a higher cost.
Reply to this Top
And not just economically. They can't even prove man-made global warming without altered data. Go look up the infamous hockey stick graphs and all the information conveniently left out.
Reply to this Top
Yeah and I call you a douche for taking away my SGA vote.
Reply to this Top
What are you talking about?
Reply to this Top
you forgot about last year that quickly
Reply to this Top
He didn't forget, in politics its called "Skeletons in the closet"
Reply to this Top
Vegetarians are killing this planet. Year after Year these sly people hide behind a mask of humaneness and allow the cow population to grow rampent and release harmful toxins into the atmosphere. Do what is right for the future, do what is right for Americans. Stop vegetarians and start eating steak!
See anyone can make a grandstand political statement with the words, "Do what is right" in it and sound good.
More expensive, less reliable energy does not equal progress, progress would be cheaper, more reliable then coal. Until you solve THAT problem, Ill stay on coals side of the argument.
Reply to this Top
I am confused about why there is such blind support for coal at this school.
Even Senators Byrd and Rockefeller of WV have spoken out against the coal industries recklessness and refusal to change course away from dangerous and unpopular practices like Mountaintop Removal. If these men who owe all their power to supporting coal companies have come to their senses and spoken out against it then it seems clear the political climate in this country has shifted towards a responsible energy policy that does not see profits as the only thing worth fighting for.
Reply to this Top
Blind you say? Just because one supports coal does not mean they wish for no change, or that they love blowing up mountains. I personally do not like MTR either but it is necessary, 5% is a lot of energy.
Stop acting like its black and white and you are for coal or against it. I want change in energy but it is just not the time, coal is reliable and cheap so it is in right now. If nuclear/biomass/wind/solar/whatever becomes the reliable cheap source I will back that.
Top
Ask the people of Coal River, Kayford mountain, Wise county, and Black Mountain who aren't part of the 1% of the workforce involved in MTR if coal is cheap and safe and I'm certain you'll hear some new opinions. These people have been forced out of their homes by coal dust, cracked foundations from use of explosives, flyrock injuries, flooding, overloaded speeding coal trucks, poisoned wells, and increased rates of cancer and developmental disorders. The only reason coal is cheap right now is because the conglomerates are not paying the real cost, they simply exploit a community and pack up and move on when it is no longer profitable, taking all the jobs and money with them.
Top
You can't let the actions of a bad company ruin an entire practice. MTR is cheaper and safer for the workers than using tunnels to mine. If a company isn't following the regulations set down by the government then you take legal action against the company. If they are following the rules than there isn't an issue.
Top
Blind? VT gets maybe half a million dollars from the coal people! Follow the money.
Top
So, you disagree that the problem is not the students or the general consensus that americans consume extraordinary amounts of energy per person, you feel that the problem is simply coal. They are right that the students need to change their mindset. Adults, too. How many of you sit in front of the TV in the living room with your laptop on searching the internet or doing homework, while the light in the kitchen, your room and the bathroom are all on? The concept of people doing their part is as important to climate change as removing toxins from the atmosphere. It is a two way street.
Reply to this Top
There is nothing wrong with wasting energy, you know why because we are America. We been winning wars for centuries and that entitles us to do what we want. The strong do want they want while the weak accept what they must, that's how the world works. I'm not sorry for anything America did to get it's power and I'm not going to apologize for living like I'm in a superpower because I am.
Reply to this Top
You're a super genius for saying that. Coal is only cheap because its price doesn't reflect the negative impacts it has on society (global warming, pollution, health problems, mercury etc.). If these costs were factored into the price of coal, we would see renewables take off. That's exactly what congress is trying to do right now and it should be supported. Tech needs to move beyond coal, well said Bryce Carter, you have a bright future ahead of you.
Top
That's not what we're talking about. It's not a discussion of the externalities of coal mining.
Top
Global Warming? Not Proven, shouldn't factor in.
Pollution? Clean Coal research has made great strides in pollution reduction, shouldn't factor in.
Health Problems? Should we also pay $3.00 for a double cheeseburger instead of $1.00? Shouldn't factor in.
Mercury? Well that fits in pollution doesn't it? But nice try at finding more reasons to make your list look bigger. Shouldn't factor in.
Coal is cheap because it is priced like everything else in the market, based on supply and demand and based on production/shipping/processing/etc. You know REAL business terms? Not pollution and global warming.
Top
You cant talk about coal mining without considering externalities. Yes, coal is cheap and reliable, but it also has undeniable negative impacts that shouldnt be dismissed just because they aren't as obvious.
And Chris, can you prove that global warming isn't happening? You cant dismiss it so easily- there's evidence for both sides of the issue. Right now world leaders are convening in Copenhagen to discuss climate change- do you think that would be happening if it wasnt seriously an issue? And while all the facts may not be known, what is known is that burning fossil fuels like coal emits CO2 and contributes to temperature increases. And clean coal? If you argue using coal is cheaper, dont bring up clean coal research its very expensive, it would take many years to replace the existing plants with clean coal plants, and its not guaranteed to work. And health risks from coal plants- asthma & lung cancer affect many people every year. As for mercury, coal plants are the countrys largest sources of mercury emissions. This doesn't even consider the health impacts that mining has on local communities- contaminating drinking water, slurry impoundments, and fly ash ponds.
Yes, coal seems like the best option right now. But we have to step back and look at the consequences, we have to consider long-term health effects. Obviously its no quick switch off coal, but we must begin the transition- and our campus should be a leader in the movement.
Top
I agree with Chris global warming isn't proven it shouldn't factor in. You want proof that it isn't happening ok, how about the fact that scientists had to alter data to support the idea of global warming. Look up the now infamous hokey stick graphs. How about the fact that scientists still aren't sure if we are going to cool down or heat up if we do anything. Also you can't use an idea's popularity as evidence for it's validity, there was a time when the popular belief was the world was flat the fact that it was popular didn't make it correct. Our campus shouldn't be a leader in this movement because it's illogical to waste millions of dollars to build a less efficient and more expensive energy plant. When it is time we will switch it's extremely foolish to do so now especially when it wouldn't change a thing environmentally.
Top
You're right Chrissy and you seem to agree with me. Coal is not a quick switch, but it has to be done eventually. Where we disagree is timeframe and reason.
No one can prove global warming or disprove it, that is why it shouldn't be a factor. CO2 is less then 1% of greenhouse gasses, water vapor is 98%, stop listening to Al Gore! Clean Coal is highly misunderstood. It is not just in the coal plants it is in the coal processing as well. And it IS being implemented in coal processing facilities, I know I work in one.
Lastly health factors SHOULD NEVER NEVER NEVER be considered in price and economics, which is the driving factor in a capitalist society. Again I repeat, we should not pay more for coals harmful affects, just like we should not pay more for a McDonalds burger because of its affects.
Im glad to see you have some rationality about the situation though, not many people on your side do.
Top
Pardon my bad english, effects not affects*
Top
God bless 'Merica land of the unempathetic and ignorant
Top
That's what our power gives us, the freedom to not have to care. If you don't like it leave.
Top
No no you have it wrong! That's the power China gives us! Don't you know? They own us!
It's a trick to get us complacent! Then the full billion of them will come repossess us!
Top
China is our lap dog, we allow them to invest in our country and they in turn use slave labor to make cheap goods for us. We are the dominant partner in the relationship because at the snap of our figures we can cripple their economy by refusing to trade. They on the other hand can threaten us with debt but they have no means to force a collection. America is the country that trades the most but is least dependent on trade that's part of the reason why we are the sole superpower.
Top
The administration is totally going against our motto and the slogan we paid good money for. As an engineering university that is supposed to innovate and inspire, their words are ridiculous!
The question we need to ask is this. Would be easier to convince these people to make the changes we need? Or would it be easier to replace them with people who will?
If they can stand by and do nothing while the university reputation is tarnished. The students should stand up and tarnish their careers and reputation.
Reply to this Top
Reputation tarnished?
Please provide me a legitimate source that says, "VT at the bottom of the list of good schools when it comes to sustainability."
Reply to this Top
If you read these reports, the reason our grade changed was because of students pushing the administration to pass a climate commitment. The university passed it but the question is how will it get implemented? The university cannot depend on the students in that aspect. Without people who want these initiatives to work in charge, the university will not be able to move forward. That is how we will end up at the bottom of the list of good schools when it comes to sustainability.
Campus Sustainability Report from 2008 *C-
Campus Sustainability Report from 2010 *B
http://www.greenreportcard.org/
The students can only do so much without the direct support of the administration.
And as this video from the last climate summit says "If you're not willing to lead, then get out of the way."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqbV0myiibQ
Our administration should step up, or step out.
Top
So if we disagree we are to be removed from the debate?
Who said that Russia? Sounds like Putin lol
Top
I'm surprised nobody cares about the people living in upper quad being exposed to carcinogens from the coal fired power plant a few hundred yards away.
Thanks for not caring about the people being trained to protect us everyone!
Reply to this Top
They're fine, if it's safe for the workers it's safe for them.
Reply to this Top
In the older days of mining (Before MSHA and strict air quality codes) it wold take a person 7-10 years to develop serious health issues from the coal dust in the mine.
Unless you live in Thomas (Is that the one?) for 10+ years you will be just fine.
Reply to this Top
Tell that to the students who are suffering with asthma already.
In Russell County, Virginia, there is a coal truck weight station next to a small neighborhood. Everything from the inside of their homes to their grass is covered in coal dust from the trucks that drive by. In just this one holler, a list goes on with dozens and dozens of residents who have had cancer and died of cancer. Many die before the age of 50. The coal industry should be held accountable for this, beyond buying them pressure washers like they did.
Top
Lots of people die of cancer, it kills over half a million people a year. Just saying lots really doesn't say much. How many would you say got cancer. Also can we determine if it was because of coal, maybe a lot of them smoked.
Top
People do tend to overlook the other factors when trying to push an agenda, especially against coal.
It seems that rural, coal-type, areas are also high in smoking, tobacco use, and alcohol consumption. But you're right it is ONLY coals fault.
Top
Also, if you want the coal company to be acountable for something like this, then I want everyone who lobbied against the Alaskan Oil to be accountable for all the money I lost paying for foreign gas prices.
Top
You do have a good point Chris, in that areas with coal mining have high concentrations of drug abuse and physical abuse too. Those areas also have the highest rate of suicide in the nation on top of some of the highest cancer rates.
I must ask, where are you from? Surely if you were from Appalachia you would be familiar with these things.
On the Alaskan comment, American's don't pay the real price of gasoline. It's subsidized by our taxes. If we did we would be paying two to three times the amount that we do. Plus the reserves in Alaska will only fuel our dependency on oil for a couple years at most at a time where with the rise of China we're going to face oil shortages on a wide scale.
You may not appreciate the inherit values of habitat, but the permafrost is perhaps one of the most endangered with climate change occurring and should be protected. This is a considerable argument, whether you agree with the stance or not, that isn't going away.
Global climate change aside, why are you so against the idea of giving new, clean jobs to those in Appalachia and elsewhere and having America release its dependence on foreign fuels?
Top
The Alaska comment was meant as a metaphor to represent a sarcastic response to a silly argument. A coal company should not be responsable for these diseases, are cigarette companies responsible for those who die of lung cancer? (Serious question). The people have a choice to live where they want, don't tell me they don't because anybody can move if they feel threatened people will just make excuses. If they were forced to live there then maybe I would see your point.
No I didn't grow up in Appalachia, but I am a mining engineer and have worked and been to these types of areas. About 90% of the current workforce at my quarry either smokes a lot or chews. And all of them drink. Now if they develop cancer I will not go straight to blaming silica. The point of that comment was to show how people want to blame coal but fail to recognize other factors. You can't bring emotion into the argument. If you feel bad for the people help them move to a better location.
Top
I argue in this debate because I like debate and I hate emotional arguments. Getting rid of coal because of health risks and dangers in mining is just silly and unreasonable, thus the point of the Alaska comment (I certainly understand the oil economy and politics well enough to know Alaska was a stop-gap that would have been a short-term waste of time). When renewable energy is viable, I will be all for it. Nuclear would be a good substitute for coal right now, but the "Tree Huggers" or environmental extremists don't like that either.
I would also like to point out that just because I am a miner, does not automatically make me anti-environment. I do not want to kill the planet but to be honest, I don't see fault in the ways of mining right now. I am not convinced by the arguments of Global warming or climate change either. Too many of those arguments seem to leave data out to make a point. The planet has been around for a long time and I feel it is actually arogant to believe that humans could impact it so significantly.
Top
If you want America to get off foreign fuels than we need to switch to coal and nuclear power. They are cheap reliable and we have massive stocks of coal and uranium. That's how we get off foreign fuels, wasting our resources on less efficient and more expensive pie in the sky power sources will only hurt us in the long run.
Top
I would rather see mountains kept pristine and energy prices skyrocket then keep poverty striken people working in coal mines. I would rather preserve the forest and force these people to move deeper into poverty. They deserve it for helping those coal companies destory the planet. I want all of the coal companies to pay full reprimand to mother nature and I will laugh as I watch the only economy parts of Appalchia has go away in the blink of an eye and be proud to say, "I helped preserve the Earth by ruining those peoples lives."
Reply to this Top
That may be the best comment on here lol
A bit extreme yes, no one really thinks like that, but the point is solid.
10/10 for perfect sarcasm
9/10 for a great point that was slightly exagerrated.
Reply to this Top
A 1000 internets to you good sir
Reply to this Top
What about when the coal is gone?
Reply to this Top
That will be about 1000 years into the future.
Top
Prove it.
When looking at Appalachia, it only a couple decades of coal reserve left. Ignoring this is what really ignores the people of Appalachia and their future. We need green jobs now!
"Sufficient high-quality, thick, bituminous resources remain in [Appalachian Basin] coal beds and coal zones to last for the next one to two decades at current production." -USGS in 2000
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/30/02451/772
Top
http://www.nma.org/pdf/c_reserves.pdf If you look here you will see that West Virginia is a leading coal producing state with ample reserves much more than a couple decades worth. The numbers are in millions of tons.
Top
Also recognize the difference between resources and reserves as well. In 10-20-30-40 years technology will improve making more resources into reserves.
Top
Another note is to really read into the article posted. He claims that the price of AP Coal is going up, leading to the conclusion that we are getting less coal so it costs more.
That is not true, the AP coal have very high BTU's and as such cost more money. Better quality product = more money. You have to burn less of it to gain the same energy so the per ton price goes up but the overall energy costs stay generally the same. This is why blogs can't be taken as fact so quickly.
Top
This may be one of the best letters to the editor of the CT in recent history. VT administration needs to prove with their actions that Invent the Future is not just an empty PR slogan. It's too bad students have to shame them into it. At least we know VT students are leaders, even if VT administrators are not.
Reply to this Top
The Administration for once is doing what is needed. Coal is apart of the future energy demands of the United States. Until renewable technology improves and we can get cheap and reliable sun and wind energy the solution is coal.
Reply to this Top
As a research institution isn't is our duty to improve renewable technologies?
Top
No, that's like saying as a research institution isn't it our responsibility to cure cancer, make flying cars, and develop holographic technology. It's our responsibility primarily to educate the people that will later discover these technological improvements.
Top
If that is truly the case, I propose we change our slogan from "Invent the Future" to "Stagnating the Future".
Top