Eli Would Like To Air Himself A Grievance

The following is a guest grievance from the brother Vandelay...

The Bush administration is set to issue a regulation on Friday that would enshrine the coal mining practice of mountaintop removal. The technique involves blasting off the tops of mountains and dumping the rubble into valleys and streams. NY TImes, Aug 24, 2007

MTR stands for mountain top removal, an insidious practice that the coal industry has used for the last 40 years, mostly in the mid-Atlantic Appalachian states, that has never been legalized but only tolerated because the industry shells out such enormous sums of cash to the campaign coffers of prominent politicians in those states. MTR entails planting thousands of tons of explosives into the peaks of mountains, setting them off, waiting 2 weeks for the dust to settle, and then tearing the rest of the mountain apart looking for coal. One by one up and down the range until you run out mountains.

President Bush-shit, in typical low-life cowardly fashion waits until all provisional laws that regulate mining in these states are 2 days from renewal and then orders the Dept of Interior to change the rules in favor of allowing the coal industry to continue this practice indefinitely. No hearings, no debates- or if there were good luck finding out through the USELESS-ASS American crap media.

The Appalachian mountain range is one of the oldest and most exquisite ranges on the planet. It is home to an incredible diversity of plant and animal life that is integral to the health of the entire eastern seaboard. Yes, even fat, disgusting, beer-sucking, retarded hairless apes benefit from not drowning in massive floods or starving from desertification. The place still holds its wonder and awe after 150 years of relentless pummeling from industry, railways, damns, highways, developers, energy plants, chemical plants and general overuse and neglect. But over 60 percent of its former glory is destroyed beyond recovery. The Great American chestnut tree is extinct, as well as over 750 species of birds, fish, and ground dwellers combined.

Animals and plants aren’t the only losers here. The explosions dislodge entire foundations, sewer systems, telephone lines, pools, and anything else that is in the vicinity. The refuse that is dug up is dumped in the nearest stream or valley. This material contains arsenic, sulphur, mercury and a host of other underground toxic elements including radioactive material. Yes, traces of uranium and plutonium that have been buried for millions of years are excavated and found in the slough. The dust from the explosions and mining operations travels hundreds miles filling the air across the land. So you have enormous human health risks everywhere these operations take place.

In 2002, for instance, the Environmental Protection Agency rewrote clean water regulations in a way that magically added mine waste to the list of materials that can be used to fill in streams for development and other purposes. In 2004, confronted with yet another obstacle — the so-called stream buffer zone rule prohibiting any mining activity within 100 feet of a stream — the administration decided that the rule only required companies to respect the buffer zone “to the extent practicable,” in effect green-lighting further dumping. The new rule not only reaffirms the 2004 rule but also seems specifically to authorize the disposal of “excess spoil fills,” a k a mine waste, in hollows and streams. -NY Times, Aug 27, 2007

So what’s the downside to all this, you ask. Well, without reiterating what I’ve already posted I’ll let you read straight from the horse’s ass. The EPA, no friend of the environment, puts it like this. You know we're living in really fucked-up times when the President not only shits all over the country he vows to protect, but even all over himself.

Comments

[puddy]

Brother vandelay,

You are an ill-informed lout, so far as I can tell. You can be pissed off at Bush all you want; I couldn't care less.

To generalize mining companies as lobbyists who fill the coffers of politicians...just the same as any other industry that wants something, is absurd. That argument is junk.

MTR is the worst form of surface mining, to be sure, but it is also not the happy-go-lucky raping of the land like you say. No one blasts the top of a mountain off just "looking for coal."

Did you ever hike in the hills of Eastern Kentucky? Neither did most of the people that now play golf on several courses that now sit on former MTR sites. Or work at prisons and industrial sites that formerly had no place to be built because so much of the Appalachia is unusable land, thereby creating jobs where none were for people who needed other alternatives than coal mining.

Did you ever live in a town that had MTR approximately 2 miles from your house? And, in living in that town, did you ever experience absolutely no problems whatsoever from said mining in the first 18 years of your life?

Did you ever live in a community that was filled with lots of well-meaning good people who worked at places that were supposedly ruining the local land that they should cherish? Did you ever say "I know those people in the (Northeast/West/Washington) probably mean well, but they've never been here and can't possibly begin to understand what mining means to this region, and unfortunately MTR is an ever-decreasing part of that industry?"

ANd your posts about dumping bad refuse and water are junk, too. Trust me on this, no one gets away with this anymore. That might have been a valid argument 35 years ago, but when SMCRA was passed the scrutiny was amplified greatly. Try getting an MTR permit, and you'll understand.

Mining has its faults; MTR is certainly not exempt. It also has its benefits. Not the least of which is that yours and everyone else's power bills are somewhat manageable each month.

You can have your opinion, but realize that there are others out there who feel just as strongly as you do, in the opposite direction.

I'm not saying MTR is good for the environment; I would never be so ignorant as to suggest that. I am saying that there is a lot more to the story that you do not, and most likely could not, understand.

[Schmoopie]

I will disagree vigorously with puddy and give Mr. Vandelay an "amen, brother."

[Jack Klompus]

The irony of this all is that the practice of MTR was accelerated by the Clean Air Act Extension of 1970. Sulfur-level regulations on coal emissions forced miners to explore for low-sulfur coal -- which just happens to be found easily by blasting off mountain tops. Way to go, EPA.

[SL22]

Then put the prison next to the mountain, prick. Are we out of land or something?

[SL22]

I believe it, Klompus. That's how everything seems to work. Alanis Morrisette could write another song about it. People try to do something good and f things up even worse.

[SL22]

(But I still think there's gotta be a better solution than blowing up mountains)

[Itchy]

I have zero love for the coal mining companies. None. Even though they employed most of the men in my home town.

But they also screwed them. Layoffs. Selling the mines when several men were close to retirement. Claiming bankruptcy to avoid paying out hefty retirements. All sorts of lovely shifty behavior.

And, due to the lovely renovations that mining does to the lay of the land my entire hometown was underwater in 2001. Homes and businesses have YET to return.

The roads are a disgrace. The rivers are disgusting. It's an ugly and depressing place to visit. And yes, it is all because of the mines. So any good that the mines may do, makes no difference to me. None. For I've seen the harm first hand.

So, you'll excuse me if I don't click through all the links for facts in regard to this...I don't need to be any angrier than I already am...

[Art Vandelay]

Puddy, what happened when you turned 19?

[Jack Klompus]

"The roads are a disgrace. The rivers are disgusting. It's an ugly and depressing place to visit. And yes, it is all because of the mines. So any good that the mines may do, makes no difference to me. None. For I've seen the harm first hand."

If you don't like the sound of African drums, don't live in Harlem. If you don't like disgraceful roads and disgusting rivers, don't live in coal-mining Appalachia.

[Art Vandelay]

Itchy, if you don't mind me asking, what is your home town?

[Assman]

Leaving the economic and legal discussion to the side for a second....

Isn't changing the landscape of an area a terrible idea all on its own? I can't say whether or not the pollution it creates is that big of a deal or whether or not aesthetically I should give a shit, but pretty much everything I can remember about meteorolgy and earth science makes one believe that the removal of mountain tops would:

a.) alter the climate, plant life, animal life and local ecology everywhere the wind blows;

b.) make areas that are habitable or farm-capable into desert landscapes;

c.) potentially alter hurricane paths to locations that don't typically prepare themselves for that kind of weather;

d.) and pretty much screw over every other weather-dependent industry that isn't the mining business in the area?

[Art Vandelay]

If you don't like the sound of African drums, don't live in Harlem. If you don't like disgraceful roads and disgusting rivers, don't live in coal-mining Appalachia.

If you don't like cyclists, don't live in Atlanta?

[Jack Klompus]

"If you don't like cyclists, don't live in Atlanta?"

If you don't like cyclists, don't live anywhere. Not much I can do about it. They're everywhere.

And if you don't like Massholes, don't live in New England or Florida.

[Itchy]

If you don't like disgraceful roads and disgusting rivers, don't live in coal-mining Appalachia.

I don't. I left. But family remained...

[Itchy]

Itchy, if you don't mind me asking, what is your home town?

I'd rather not give that info out publicly, for I am shy and strange that way.

[M. Butler]

Who has been putting out their coals on my floor?

[M. Butler]

Itchy was the girl whose story the movie "the accused" was based on. Just outside of D.C.

[Art Vandelay]

b.) make areas that are habitable or farm-capable into desert landscapes;

My brother can probably speak to this better but I'm pretty sure we're talking about Alpine landscapes, none of which would support a farming environment. Although, I wouldn't have thought you could have a golf course at 5,000 feet above sea level either so what do I know.

[Assman]

My brother can probably speak to this better but I'm pretty sure we're talking about Alpine landscapes, none of which would support a farming environment.

Nah, not like that. I'm talking about the areas on either side of the mountain. Like, the clouds form over the mountaintops and make for rainier conditions on the inland side. A lot of the rain you get in those areas comes from wind going over mountaintops. That's the reason you have such quick climate shifts on either side of mountain ranges. Most deserts are bordered by mountains for a reason.

Our weather patterns and climates are determined by the natural borders around us. Coasts, mountains, rivers, etc. Over time, removing the tops of mountains would make a difference. Not necessarily to the folks right next to the mountain, but to the folks that depended on it being there.

[puddy]

Schmoopie,

That's not very vigorous disagreement, but you are certainly welcome to your opinion.

Art,

I moved to college, and my statements were directly about living next to them. Although, my mother still lives in the same house, and still no damage/permanent fog/bad water.

Prestonsburg, in East KY, to your question about hometown.

SL22, ever try to build a structure on the side of the mountain? There is no "next to the mountain," in most cases. I expect a little more from you, especially considering mining has played a pretty large role in PA as well as KY and WV. But hey, I'm just a prick, what do I know?

I knew there would be contradictory anecdotal evidence, as provided by itchy. There should be, and I put more stock in that than someone making a blanket statement about how ruining mountains that weren't being used for hiking/outdoorsy event and putting real jobs in its place is so bad.

This is not so different from putting up suburbs now or urban areas years ago. Greenland/grassland/trees removed from areas for structures, and absolutely no energy created from the removal.

Again, I never said "WHOO! LET'S MTR EVERY MOUNTAIN! GO MINING!" I specifically said that MTR has issues. It is the blanket statements that, to me, are the result of unfounded outrage and yes, some level of ignorance, that I take issue with.

[Art Vandelay]

Assman...Oh. I'm gonna stop pretending like I know what I'm talking about now.

[puddy]

Also, Art, 5,000 feet above sea level is a huge jump. My hometown's airport sits at 600 feet msl. The golf courses are not going to be more than 3-400 feet higher than that.

I think Denver has plenty of golf courses that are a lot higher elevations than these places.

[Eli]

"You are an ill-informed lout, so far as I can tell. You can be pissed off at Bush all you want; I couldn't care less."

First off, you've offered no statistics, articles, or any type evidence to support your claims- which, in fact, you didn't even make any other me being a lout...and thanks for the compliment.

Secondly, since when do only those citizens who are threatened life and limb by these types of circumstances have the credibility to speak out against them? If you take the time to look into the issue you'll see that the people living in these areas are constantly urging others to help them in whatever ways they can. Even the damn EPA in that last link I put in suggests as much and read the post by Itchy. You're just not on the ball.

Another thing, I have been through many of those areas affected by the coal industry and seen what it looks like. It looks a lot like any other forested area that is blown apart, bulldozed, and abandoned looks like- total crap! You don't have to travel very far outside your back door to see evidence of mismanaged development and resource acquisition projects. Your argument is pointless.

And I never suggested that these operations are "happy go lucky" as you say. In fact, they are intentional and manipulative and that is what makes them so nefarious. They have the backing of a President who thinks he now has the power to frickin' legislate and pass into law whatever he damn well pleases. Yea, I'm a little pissed off by that. I volunteer for the Appalachian Mountain Club which has around 90,000 of members. The organization is dedicated to leading conservation efforts through out the entire Appalachian region. Many of its members are corporate leaders who are also dedicated to finding ways to integrate business interests and preserving the environment. So you don't have to be on one side of the line or the other to make a difference. But I will tell right now, the coal industry does not share that view- it is a bottom line industry that is only interested in profit through resource exploitation.

When you have the congress and the executive branch circumventing the law in order to reimburse the special interest groups that helped put them in power, I think everyone who cares should be pissed. Whether you care less or not is irrelevant.

[puddy]

MTR entails planting thousands of tons of explosives into the peaks of mountains, setting them off, waiting 2 weeks for the dust to settle, and then tearing the rest of the mountain apart looking for coal. One by one up and down the range until you run out mountains.

Happy go lucky. But maybe I can't see for the dust that won't settle.

Secondly, since when do only those citizens who are threatened life and limb by these types of circumstances have the credibility to speak out against them

Certainly you have the right to speak out against them. Just be sure to remember that your opinion is no more valid than someone who does live there, and sometimes less so. Sorry, I'm having a hard time typing this because I have only one hand. I lost the other when it was smashed by flying rock when I was 14.

It's more dangerous to pick your kids up at school than to live around mining. This fear and loathing of all things mining is so short sighted it borders on complete ignorance.

Even the damn EPA in that last link I put in suggests as much and read the post by Itchy. You're just not on the ball.

I'm not talking about Itchy. Itchy has obviously had a different experience than I have, and I said that means more to me than most opinions. It is tough over here, off the ball, though.

Another thing, I have been through many of those areas affected by the coal industry and seen what it looks like. It looks a lot like any other forested area that is blown apart, bulldozed, and abandoned looks like- total crap! You don't have to travel very far outside your back door to see evidence of mismanaged development and resource acquisition projects. Your argument is pointless.

Another thing...I've lived in these places. And they are little different from small towns in say, Indiana, where maybe the farming went bad or whatever else bad happened. I can go to LA and end up in the wrong part of town and see people with severe social and personal problems, but is it fair of me to say that based on this evidence, California has these issues. You even supported my point that you can see the ill effects of industry without going further than your back door.

There are some irresponsible people out there. Some have taken advantage of the laws. You can make these statements about any industry/commercial endeavor. Singling out coal mining is folly.

When you have the congress and the executive branch circumventing the law in order to reimburse the special interest groups that helped put them in power, I think everyone who cares should be pissed

You want to make an argument about circumventing the law, that's fine, and valid. However, in taking such a stance on the regulation in question, your point is severely clouded.

[Eli]

"You want to make an argument about circumventing the law, that's fine, and valid. However, in taking such a stance on the regulation in question, your point is severely clouded."

I have no idea what your point is on the above statement. But anyway, you seem to be agreeing with me on most of the stuff I laid out- you just have a problem with my abrasive language against the coal industry. I think the damage they've exacted on the environment and their attitude towards it all is repulsive and they should be stopped from continuing MTR operations...completely. That's my belief and there's a lot folks who agree with that.

Larry Gibson, (http://www.wiretapmag.org/rights/43134/)
a West Virginia resident, has been battling the coal industry for 22 years. His family has owned hundreds of acres of land in Appalachia since 1772. He is in his seventies now and he has been shot at, a victim of arson, his dogs have been killed and he is still battling the coal companies because he will not sell his land to them and he is suing to have them stop MTR because of the damage it is causing to his property.

If you feel something is absolutely, egregiously wrong in the world then why not speak out against.