Collegiate Times

I'm not going to put the time into making a counter argument when she clearly didn't put the time into forming her stance. There needs to be some minimal effort done on her part.

I don't think you know what concise means and all you have to do is look at other submissions in the opinion section to see several better written articles that lay out a strong argument for the position they are advocating. Julia isn't some savvy journalist, she's ignorant, lazy or a combination of the two.

Do the folks at "Beyond Coal" reap all the benefits of electricity provided by coal? I'd like them to stick to their principles and not support "Big Ancient, Dirty Coal" and not use electricity from a carbon-based source. Biting the hand that feeds them is all they are good for. Fake kids wanting to be "for a cause" when they are giving money to their enemy.

Finacially? Proof?

Puppies poop more then kitties.

See I can make up things too!

You're right. Just because this exact campaign has worked at:
Cornell University
Penn State University
Case Western Reserve University
Ohio University
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
Clemson University
Oberlin College
University of Louisville
Western Kentucky University
SUNY-Binghamton
Eastern Illinois University
Western Illinois University
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Missouri University of Science & Technology
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Miami University of Ohio

...means it couldn't possibly work at Tech? It's not as if UNC is also near coal country and has our same student demographics. It's not like the whole country is working to find new energy solutions. It's not as though any of the schools on that lists are also big schools with huge energy needs. It's not as if coal costs us billions in detrimental externalities. It's not as if Appalachian communities and students matter.

Yeah, you're right. It's totally impractical. We'll never get off of coal.

I am sure their student bodies weren't lazy, useless, whiners that just said, "someone fix it." They probably had people willing to make changes.

What are they using now by the way? Completely solar? Completely wind? Nuclear? Have they said they are going to change it and done nothing? Do they even have a solid plan to change it that doesn't result in thousands upon thousands of dollars worth of increases felt by the students?

By the way, UNC...near coal country? hardly. I grew up less than 10 miles from UNC and coal was not a word in anyone's vocabulary. Here is a link to UNC's off coal campus electricity: http://www.unc.edu/community/cogeneration_plant_sup.html

In addition, Clemson has said they are moving off coal, by 2030. That is a much more realistic goal than 2020. Make your goal more realistic, with solutions, and maybe someone will listen. Change doesn't happen overnight, just ask Obama.

Clemson: http://www.clemson.edu/facilities/energy-awareness/consumption.html

It was the same campaign, the same people calling for change. You're right that the other schools had people willing to step in and fix the problem. Virginia Tech doesn't, not because we are so dependent on coal that it would be ridiculous -- or expensive (JMU managed to do this and defray the expense by calling for private industry to take over the plant and create the solution) -- to change, but because the university is unwilling to work with student groups since we are so politically dependent on coal. Look at the plaque hanging up in the GLC, and you'll see how many energy companies donate tons to the university to build our massive construction projects. So yeah, it's hard to make headway without having the support and resources needed to do so. That's why activism matters. That's why grassroots campaigns that make people aware of an issue, so enough are stirred up about it that the university cannot ignore them. Making something a public issue is important.

Tech has listened to the anti coal rants for years. Tech has also deemed it unrealistic for the university to switch off coal until better sources are available, which people are currently researching....at Tech. It is not that Tech won't listen, Tech just won't listen to people telling them to do all the work to find a new and viable source and to figure out how to implement it themselves.

Come up with a solution that is at least half way viable and I'd bet Tech may listen more.

The administration has asked Beyond Coal to do its own research, which we have. We have the research, the petitions, and even backing from many professors, but its not enough. What we really need is more student support, more people willing to speak out against coal in order to make this university better.

I've got it fellas, lets get rid of our power plant on campus and get on AEP's grid. That would work, they get their power from coal.... oh never mind. As for all of the students who have a problem with coal I would like to know what they think once they get off daddy's money and start paying their own power bills. Maybe then cheap energy would make more sense. Also they talk about the environmental impacts but seeing as how China, India, Russia... well pretty much every county not in Europe or North America could care less about the environment, your issues with "global warming" (acknowledge by environmentalists as a global issue by this name)your efforts will only help to cripple America and make us even less of a world power than we are already becoming. If my previous point still confuses some of you in the theater department (didn't actually know that was a real major here) it has to do with GDP and the over all production of goods and services.

Agreed. Although I am not personally a big fan of biomass, it seems to be the most cost effective solution here at tech. We would not have to change a lot of infrastructure and we could use the pipes already in place. Currently, according to the research tech students have done, this is the best alternative against coal.

The truth is, I don't take lightly the fact that the tops of 500 mountains in Appalachia have been permanently destroyed. We blasted to bits what thousands of years had built up, and in doing so, we literally did destroy communities. HUGE amounts of damage have been done to the people who live in valleys near mountaintop blasting, from poisoning their water supply, to destabilizing the land and permanently altering the weather patterns and climate, to even depopulating entire towns. Here at Tech, we feel removed from this destruction, yet our connections to coal make us only a few degrees of separation removed from causing these issues. It doesn't seem disastrous or terrible to us in this environment, but it is for others. It is absolutely wrecking havoc on many communities, and by participating in coal, we enable it.

Again, I want to see real numbers and not hyperbole. I find it hard to believe that there are 500 mountains currently being "blasted to bits". What happened in the past, no one can change, so the 500 mountains and things that happened decades ago is rather irrelevant now. And changing entire weather patterns and climates? Get real. If you are talking about global warming, that debate is pretty much at rest. Have you ever been to these entirely depopulated towns? Most of the depopulated towns that exist due to coal was not due to the mining, it was due to the stoppage of mining and no work left to be done.

Sure, some communities have sick people in them, and they sued coal companies for it. Short of an accidental disaster (which no one will deny has happened too many times in the past), there is no proof that everyday coal mining does even a remote amount of the damage on the human body as you state.

Again, you can play on emotions with completely exaggerated statements, or you can show real numbers and actually convince level headed people. With all your claims, those mountains will be built back up before you can prove what you have said.

Need some numbers? How about these:

1,200 miles of streambeds filled in
400,000 acres of land blasted
More than 100,000 person job loss in the Appalachian
Millions of galloons of toxic slurry
75% of West Virginia rivers polluted
300,000 acres of hardwood forests JUST in WVa destroyed

Read for yourself,
http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/earth/surface-of-the-earth/when-mountains-move.html

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/razingappalachia/mtop.html

A student that lived in Thomas Hall had to get her tonsils removed because of tonsilitis aggravated by the coal dust inhilation. After her tonsils were removed she continued having headaches... after she moved to Eggleston hall these headaches stopped. Dozens of Thomas Hall residents have experienced abnormally high rates of asthma, night respiratory, and sinus infection issues.

I can't release the student's name because it's a private medical manner. This story has been told to the Administration at VT who have done nothing to reduce the risk of dust pollution and inhilation for Upper Quad students.

What part of "someone from Thomas" don't you understand?

400,000 acres is a whooping 625 square miles. In comparison, one, count it, one devastating wildfire, ravaged and pillaged 625 square miles in a week, miaming and destroying hundreds of trees! (maybe hyperbole will help get my point across). Same goes for the 300,000. Please don't forget the hardwood forests and blasts used for stores, towns, and other things!

75% of the rivers polluted is a big number, only problem is that does not single out mining and other industry, such as the large plant explosion outside of Charleston that polluted the Kanawha River.

Millions of gallons of toxic slurry....that is entirely confined in EPA approved (past or present depending on when it was made).

100,000 job loss, just imagine the unemployment without coal mining!?!?

1,200 miles of stream bed is a lot filled in? Did you know that a channel of rain water is considered an Ephemerial stream? I bet a squirrels nuts for winter can fill that bad boy in.

"What happened in the past, no one can change, so the 500 mountains and things that happened decades ago is rather irrelevant now."

Mountaintop removal started decades ago, is happening NOW, and is increasing in frequency. It's faster & cheaper than older methods used to access coal & other minerals. Thus, it's become popular with industry. At the most basic level, mountaintop removal is bad for the local economy (eliminating jobs) and the environment (eliminating mountains).

Additionally, some of the mountains in WV could have been put to good use as a wind farm, generating clean energy & income for the region. Alas, after mountaintop removal, the profile is too low. Regardless of what industry says, it's not possible to restore the top of a mountain.

If you are curious, here is some information about the mountaintop removal process.
http://www.ilovemountains.org/resources/

Did you seriously just cite a source as "I Love Mountains"? How is that even remotely not biased? That would be the equivalent of me citing a source such as "Coal Mining, The Only Future".

As far as mountain top removal goes, where are you getting that it is happening even more? I do believe that there has only been a handful, if that, MTR permits granted in WV.

In addition, wind farms without the removal of some portion of the mountain is not applicable for most mountains in WV. They are either too steep, do not have enough land to put the entire foundation of a mill on, or wind would be blocked due to other mountains.

Overall, nothing you said can have merit when you cite Ilovemountains.org. A website such as that will only present information that is relevant to their side of the discussion. Do you honestly believe Ilovemountains.org would ever say MTR is a good practice or helps in anyway what so ever?

In response to "Really?" :
you commented that a single wildfire will destroy 625 square miles within a week. This is simply not factual. In 2009, wildfires resulted in 5,921,786 acres being burned from a total of 78,792 fires. The average acreage burned from each wildfire is 75.15 acres per wildfire, which is about 0.117 square miles PER fire in 2009. (source: US Govt FEMA Statistics, Wildfire)

Now, I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you did some sort of research when you pulled out this statistic in order to refute general hyperboles. However, it seems that even if we take into account the largest recorded wildfire in California (which was the Cedar Fire in San Diego, Oct. 2003), your statistics still come up short. In total, the LARGEST fire in recorded history of the state, and also one of the largest in the history of the United States burned in total 426.95 square miles. (http://www.fire.ca.gov/communications/downloads/fact_sheets/20LACRES.pdf)

This is not, as you put it 'a whooping 625 square miles per week'.

In addition, the difference between mountain top removal for the procurement of coal is a process that destroys the ecosystem in it's entirety. Wildfires on the other hand, while devastating, still allow a natural habitat for vegetation and plant life to regrow.
I'll leave you with a link to a short read from the University of Nevada's case study about vegetation regrowth. (http://www.unce.unr.edu/publications/files/ho/other/fs9640.pdf)

-- Austin.

My comment about wildfires, was in fact mean't to just show how stupid the arguments presented previously were. There was very little research done to get that number, much like everything stated by the previous writer. But good for you, I am glad you did research - not many people on this board do that.

Here's some statistics for you:

Jobs? Mining jobs have decreased steadily over time. It's not the END of mining that takes these jobs away, it's that increased technology WITHIN mining has replaced human labor. Mining is still very prevalent. http://www.coaleducation.org/Ky_Coal_Facts/default.htm

Ecological devastation? Forestland, water supply, biodiversity, air quality: All of these are affected drastically by mining. Info is here -- http://www.epa.gov/region03/mtntop/index.htm

Health issues? Here's just one example of how the people are affected:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110623090001.htm

And a study on cancer rates:
https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/3h175p782691j628/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=knae0gv45rywwu452fnwjc45&sh=www.springerlink.com

Another health study:
http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2011/05/10/latest-wvu-study-finds-more-health-problems-among-residents-near-mountaintop-removal-mines/

This activist group did, indeed, find 500 sites of mountaintop removal:
http://www.nrdc.org/media/2010/100517.asp

I realize that some of these sources are not "unbiased," but many interested in doing studies on this issue are the people who are passionate about it.

Just because a source only presents one side of the story doesn't mean the information is wrong.

Read the EPA's very sterile description of "Mid-Atlantic Mountaintop Mining." http://www.epa.gov/region3/mtntop/

It's as pro-mining as it can get w/o outright stating coal companies made significant contributions. The environmental impact descriptions are full of hedge words, such as: sometimes, may, tend to, generally, etc. The last environmental impact description on the list isn't even about land, air, flora, or fauna. The statement, "there may be social, economic and heritage issues," refers to people; people whose lives have been negatively impacted by MTR.

Since industry has influenced the government's legal description of MTR, I figured a more realistic version was appropriate to post. If you have a coal industry site, you'd like to share, please do.

You all love your mountains so much, but in reality MTR is not very different from standard Open Pit Mining.

Where is the Iloveflatlands.org? I'm sorry that Earth decided to place coal at the tops of mountains but it is what it is. We here where I work get limestone from what used to be farmland because, well that is where the limestone is.

Don't blame the companies for going to the product, blame Mother Nature, or God, or whoever for placing the coal at the tops of your beloved mountains.

Mining will be here forever, you need to get over that fact. EVERYTHING you use in your daily life has some connection to mining, unless you shaped a rock from your back yard into an axe and used it to slay animals for food cooked over a wood fire that you cut down while living in a wood hut with leaves for a roof in a field somewhere with no human contact...

It's called survival of the fittest.

That isn't a counterpoint to the argument for removing a coal plant - I fail to see how this comment makes an argument makes a case against the goal to seek an alternative energy source. If you would like to write an editorial about making roads and motor vehicles safer, go ahead.

Your line of thinking is amusing, but in my opinion, flawed. Getting rid of an entire industry is not the same as getting rid of one factor within an industry. Eliminating the automotive industry in it's entirety would apply as a comparison if Julia, and also I, were suggesting that we do away with power plants in general. Fact is, we cannot simply toss the modern wonder of electricity into the garbage can.
The great thing about pollution coming from cars is the fact that the auto industry recognizes it and is taking strong and very public steps forward in the direction of producing cars that pollute less.
Fuel efficiency is a very popular measure of a car's capability to conserve gas, save money, and create less polution. If you look at the current marketing and ad campaign that's being put forth by GM, you'll notice that they're pushing their new Chevy Volt as the new breed of efficient and innovative car that the current market needs. BMW has a huge electric car program, as does Lexus; and these are just the few that are currently in the public spotlight for both efficiency and use of electric power.
(...continued)

(...continues)
Yes, a world without cars would be a world with less pollution; as would a world without power plants. However, completely getting rid of them both isn't a realistic goal. Julia is proposing that we move towards more efficient and cleaner alternatives to Coal, just as the automotive industry is moving towards more efficient and cleaner alternatives to petroleum.