Few issues have garnered so much public attention as the debate over coal mining and specifically mountaintop removal mining. The debate has riled communities in the coalfields of Southwest Virginia and across the commonwealth. Weighing in on the divided public interest, the Virginia Senate Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources held a public hearing last week for Senate Bill 564 — The Stream Saver Bill. A summary of the bill follows:
“Coal Surface mining, refuse control. Prohibits the issuing of a permit for coal surface mining operations unless the applicant affirmatively demonstrates, and the Director finds in writing, that no spoil, refuse, silt, slurry, tailings, or other waste materials from coal surface mining and reclamation operations will be disposed of in any intermittent, perennial, or ephemeral stream.”
Notwithstanding what various parties believe the intentions of this bill are, at least one thing is true: Mountaintop removal mining is destructive to the natural environment where it occurs and has serious economic, social, and environmental implications in the areas surrounding its practice. Proponents of the bill applaud it as a first step to solving the myriad problems created through mountaintop removal mining. Opponents, namely those in the coal mining industry, believe the bill will completely eliminate all coal mining in Virginia. Here are some facts.
This bill is not intended for shutting down all coal mining in Virginia because a pending amendment would exclude underground mining operations. Surface mining has resulted in the decline of miners employed from hundreds of thousands in the 1950s to tens of thousands today across Appalachia. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, Appalachian coal will begin to see a permanent decline in available coal reserves within the next 10 years, resulting in further job losses. Although coal mining is touted as the “lifeblood” of Southwest Virginia, this region continues to experience chronic public health problems and economic depravity. Surface mining proponents claim that all surface mining operations are reclaimed to their natural state or for economic development purposes. However, many old surface mining sites remain infertile or undeveloped.
Supporters of coal mining say opponents offer no alternatives, but alternatives are already here. In 2008, employment within the wind industry (85,000) was comparable to that of coal mining (87,000) and there is still a huge potential for the growing renewable energy sector. Even if Senate Bill 564 does not pass, its consideration and the heated public hearing for it show that Virginia is starting to look toward a more sustainable future. As an institution at the gateway to Appalachia, Virginia Tech should push forward in providing opportunities for the communities of Southwest Virginia as we move away from coal. Let’s invent the right future.
Bryce Carter
senior
humanities, science, and environment major
Matthew Ward
senior
environmental policy and planning major
A version of this article appeared in the Feb 18 issue of the Collegiate Times.
Leave a comment 7 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.
A few issues here. Did you really look critically at that US Geological Survey? I mean it says that there will be a permanent decline in reserves! I have an idea lets not take that out of context without further investigation, I mean there is a permenant decline in how much is left of my cheeseburger every bite I take. Every time a piece of coal is removed its a permenant decline, so lets try and use facts instead of assumption.
Second the employment in wind power is comparable to Coal mining, and yet we get exponentially more power out of coal then wind meaning that the money is being spent exponetially more efficiently in coal to keep electric prices down, what a novel business concept.
Lastly you say surface mining wrecks the land, so if we got rid of surface mining then you start to lose A LOT of things you are used to having, here's a few: roads, buildings, cars, computers, wire, electricity, TV's, Walmart, cooking implements, eating utensils, PS3/XBox...you get the point.
Reply to this Top
You forgot to point out that the windmills actually require lots of things from surface mines to make as well, including coal!
Reply to this Top
Hi Chris,
Check out page 18 of this USGS report: http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1625f/downloads/ChapterH.pdf
The fact is once that permanent decline starts we're going to see the amount of jobs in the region decline and coal rates go up. What we're trying to say is that as a research institution at the gateway of Appalachia we need to lead the way in providing opportunities for citizens of Southwest Virginia and Appalachia so that when these jobs are lost there will be other opportunities. Otherwise these communities will die out altogether.
Of course there are the negative environmental and social externalities of the mining process, but for now let's stick to the jobs argument. SB 564, which has now been killed in committee, was a great step in the right direction and would have only affected about 15% of the coal mining industry in Virginia that performs mountain top removal, or about 1,500 jobs. Personally I would have loved to see an amendment that would allow for funding to train these miners for green jobs and have the state provide a stimulus to kick start the market, but certain legislators refuse to see the big picture.
Reply to this Top
By the way, our title for the editorial was "Senate Bill 564 A step in the right direction away from coal" but the CT changed it.
Top
Do you realize how much 15% really is? I know the number sounds small but it isn't when viewed in context, for example: Ill create a drug that will only kill 15% of the worlds population, not so bad it's only 15% right? Right until context is applied and ive now killed about a billion people...oops!
So apply that now! 15% of coal represents about 299 billion kWh's of electricity (based on 2006 consumption couldn't find earlier). Not so bad? You say switch them to wind to get that 15% back! Simple! Wait no hold on wind produced 30 billion kWh's of electricity so to regain what would be lost from that oh so measly 15% you would have to increase wind production by 997% whoops shouldve thought of that.
I am all for renewable energy, when it's feasible. People like yourself like to throw these numbers around and pretend like we can hop skip and jump out of where we are so easily but never scrutinize your own arguments.
Lastly I feel like you (you = people on your side of the argument) don't fully grasp the concept that mining is the backbone of our economy and the more regulations you fight for, the more expensive things are going to become. Economy 101 would never tell you that making things more expensive is the fastest way out of a recession.
Top
Logic is the killer of most good arguments, round 1 to Chris.
Reply to this Top
<a href="http://www.pskiller.com/">Photoshopped Image Killer</a> is a very useful application to get detailed information of a JPEG image as for whether it has been Photoshopped. PSKiller opens and decodes your JPEG file, then several image statistics features are analyzed to see whether some of them are abnormal compared to those of untouched images.
Reply to this Top