Mountaintop Removal: Is It Really Worth The Waste?

The Magic of The Appalachians

The Appalachia is a majestic mountain range named after an Indian village by Spanish explorers. For most people, Appalachia brings to mind beautiful mountainscapes; a peaceful wonderland, lively forests, old-time mountain music, and a simpler way of life. The largest mountain range in North America, the Appalachia spans approximately 1600 miles, north to south, from Quebec to Georgia.

Today, the most popular attraction for hiking and nature enthusiasts is the Appalachian Trail, a hiking trail that winds through wooded peaks from Springer Mountain in Northern Georgia to Mount Katahdin, Maine. This hike journeys through fourteen states, and could take an adventurer five to six months to traverse, start to finish.

The Appalachians are rich in coal; other resources include iron, petroleum, and natural gas. But that’s not all; the old Appalachian mountain chain has shaped the natural history and biodiversity of this continent. Its forests and treetops, moisture, and latitudinal gradients have helped protect its species during periods of climate change. The diversity in elevations helps to extend the distribution of certain species throughout the region. Species that thrive in the colder northern climate often inhabit the higher elevations of the south as well. The Appalachians are among the richest temperate areas, and includes approximately 255 birds, 78 mammals, 58 reptiles, and 76 amphibians.

Pinpointing the various (and exact) plant species is difficult due to the density and richness within the Appalachians. The count, however, is high. Kartesz and Meacham (1999) list 6,374 plant species in 10 focal states within the mapped area (AL, GA, TN, KY, WV, PA, NY, VT, NH, ME); 1,722 of which are exotic and 76 native endemics, including 6 listed as extinct.

The Southern Appalachians are also a renowned hotspot for a number of aquatic species, in part because the mountain range drains to the south and allows species to escape extermination due to their ice-cold origins. The Appalachian’s fish, mussel, and crayfish richness is extraordinary. Tennessee alone has over 290 fish species.

According to the Nature Conservancy, the mountain region including southwest Virginia, southern West Virginia, eastern Kentucky and northeastern Tennessee contains some of the highest levels of biological diversity in the nation.

The people of Appalachia have helped build its geotourism map by nominating the adventure sites and experiences they thought best represented the beauty and diversity of their homelands.

The Devastation of Mountaintop Removal

It’s hard to believe that one of the most beautiful, immense national treasures of this continent is in danger of absolute distinction. When we think of deforestation, the rainforests of Costa Rica, Belize, Brazil are the first to come to mind and we tend to forget about our own homeland. Figures from the multi-agency environmental impact statement that was completed in 2003 estimated that more than 700,000 acres in West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee had been stripped beyond restoration.

The destruction doesn’t stop on the mountaintop; the waste, also known as overburden or spoil, is pushed down into the valleys below. As a result, 6,700 "valley fills" were approved in central Appalachia between 1985 and 2001. The United States EPA estimates that over 700 miles of healthy streams have been completely buried by mountaintop removal and thousands more have been damaged. Where there once flowed a uniquely integrated system of headwater streams, now a vast circuitry of haul roads winds through the rubble. From the air, the devastation looks as if someone had tried to plot a highway system on the moon.

Mountaintop removal mining is a form of strip mining in which coal companies use explosives to blast as much as 800 to 1000 feet off the tops of mountains order to reach the highly profitable coal seams that lie beneath. The millions of tons of overburden, waste rock, dirt, and vegetation are subsequently dumped into the valleys below, burying hundreds of miles of streams, along with their aquatic life, under the piles of rubble. Mountaintop removal mining harms not only aquatic ecosystems and water quality, but also destroys hundreds of acres of healthy forests and wildlife habitat, including habitat of threatened and endangered species, when the tops of mountains are blasted away.

This practice also devastates Appalachian communities and cultures that have existed in these mountains for centuries. Residents of the surrounding communities are threatened by rockslides, catastrophic floods, poisoned water supplies, constant blasting, destroyed property, and lost culture. Mountaintop removal mining takes place in many states in the Appalachian region, with its highest concentration in West Virginia, Kentucky, southern Virginia, and eastern Tennessee.

In West Virginia, Virginia, Tennessee and eastern Kentucky, coal companies blast as much as 600 feet off the top of the mountains, then dump the rock and debris into mountain streams. Over 300,000 acres of the most beautiful hardwood forests in America have already been turned into barren grasslands. Mountaintop removal mining increases flooding, contaminates drinking water supplies, cracks foundations of nearby homes, and showers towns with dust and noise from blasting.

“You could walk through the forest. You could hear the animals. The woods like to talk to you. You could feel a part of Mother Nature. In other words, everywhere you looked there was life. Now you put me on the same ground where I walked, and the only thing you can feel is the vibration of dynamite or heavy machinery. No life, just dust.”
– Larry Gibson (http://www.stopmountaintopremoval.org/larrys-story.com)

Clean Coal Still Requires Coal

According to the Bush administration's own estimates, mountaintop removal mining in this region has already destroyed over 1,200 miles of Appalachian streams. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that at least 2,400 miles of streams will be permanently wiped out by 2013 if additional environmental restrictions are not enforced. Mountaintop removal mining has also leveled over 800 square miles of West Virginia land. If this permit approval continues, by the end of this decade 2,200 square miles of Appalachian land will be lost, an area equal in size to the entire state of Delaware.

Now let’s fast-forward to election year 2008, where energy, environment, and economics take front stage and clean coal technology has a leading role. During their recent debates, neither the presidential nor the vice presidential candidates wanted to admit that there really is no such thing as clean coal. Despite years of research and billions of dollars, not a single commercial coal plant in the United States can capture and store its greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, scientists and even coal utility executives agree that this technology is at least a decade away, if not longer. For policymakers and others concerned about climate change, the real question is not whether coal can be made clean, but whether we should even try.

Clean coal holds a different meaning to many different people. Only until recently, the phrase was used to describe various processes to reduce air and water pollution caused by mining and burning coal, such as installing scrubbers on smokestacks to reduce the sulfur dioxide emissions that cause acid rain. But biggest problem here is that coal is this country’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, period. Politicians and lawmakers use the term “clean coal” when they talk about carbon capture and sequestration; an attempt to capture an energy plant’s carbon emissions and store them underground, permanently, rather than releasing them into the atmosphere, which contributes to global climate change.

But you can’t tell the residents of Appalachia that coal is clean. Mountaintop removal coal mining has flattened 450 mountains, buried more than 700 miles of rivers and streams, and has sent hundreds of plant and aquatic species into extinction. One of the country’s most beautiful regions, the Appalachians, is in danger of irreversible deforestation by the process of mountaintop removal.

In our attempts to bring global deforestation to an end, Paradise Earth would like to remind everyone that those same efforts need to made here, in our own great nation, as the environmental damages we are causing today will be left behind for future generations.

Climate Change: Addressing the Challenge

Climate change is any long-term significant change in the “average weather” that a given region experiences. Average weather may include average temperature, precipitation and wind patterns. It involves changes in the variability or average state of the atmosphere over durations ranging from decades to millions of years. These changes can be caused by dynamic processes on Earth, external forces including variations in sunlight intensity, and more recently by human activities.

For over 200 years, the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, and deforestation have caused the concentrations of heat-trapping "greenhouse gases" to increase significantly in our atmosphere. These gases prevent heat from escaping to space, somewhat like the glass panels of a greenhouse. Simply put, global warming is one of the direct causes of this planet’s climate change. According to the National Academy of Sciences, the Earth's surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, with accelerated warming during the past two decades.

Global warming isn’t the only culprit; deforestation also plays a major role in our climate change. Deforestation has not only changed the amount of water going into and out of a given location, but we can also attribute the change in climate to the extensive human development of the landscape and the loss of plant life - plant life that naturally clears the air of dangerous carbons.

Many countries are working together to reduce, to avoid, and to better understand the risks associated with climate change. On the local front, the EPA and other federal agencies are continuously engaging the private sector and states, in partnerships aimed at addressing the challenge of global warming while, at the same time, strengthening the economy.

The Bush Administration’s current climate change policy has three basic components designed to address both near-term and long-term aspects of climate change:

1. Slowing the growth of greenhouse gas emissions;
2. Laying important groundwork for both current and future action through major investments in science and technology, and institutions; and
3. Promoting international cooperation
   

But general consensus is that this current policy is severely flawed; US climate change policy relies on corporations voluntarily reducing their greenhouse gas output. Recent research shows that pledging to cut carbon is bad for business, which is why so few firms take such minimal voluntary measures. Reducing carbon emissions will require tough regulation; will our newly elected administration get tough on global warming?

During the Vice-Presidential debate on October 2nd, on climate change, Sarah Palin was quick to say that she isn't one to "attribute every activity of man to the changes in the climate."

"There is something to be said also for man's activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet," she said.

Joe Biden disagreed, saying, "I think it {climate change} is man-made. It's clearly man-made. If you don't understand what the cause is, you cannot come up with a solution."

And it is a solution that we need; unfortunately we’ve gotten used to seeing this critical issue downplayed, or blatantly ignored. It seems as if the only time we even hear “climate control” is in the context of McCain’s nuclear power plant development plans. And though Obama claims he will stand firm on global warming and climate change issues, both candidates went soft in their debate about this crisis.

Additionally, neither seemed to make the connection between the climate crisis and global food and water shortages and how this could create more failed states.

Where do these candidates stand on climate control? Well, they both support “cap and trade”, whereas Obama has a more aggressive plan than McCain; and nuclear power is definitely McCain’s passion, as clean coal is Obama’s. Renewable energy, Obama has a clear, well sought after plan, where McCain’s standing is a bit murky. McCain is adamant about fossil fuels, and Obama encourages the use of non-food source biofuels.

More than focusing on the reduction of greenhouse gas through emissions, lawmakers need to also realize that forest conservation can play a critical role in efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and alleviate poverty.

John McCain and Barack Obama, however, vary widely in their response to this issue, leaving the American people with a choice of approaches when choosing the next president. The real question is, will either of them make the United States a leader on climate change?

Nuclear Power & Politics: Is Sustainable Living Debatable?

Energy issues and the environment have taken on a substantial role in the presidential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain; one of the more heavily debated issues, nuclear power.

Neither McCain nor Obama oppose nuclear power, their differences of opinion aren’t on the background facts of nuclear power, but on impact on the environment. McCain focuses on an aggressive expansion of nuclear power plants, while Obama focuses nuclear power playing a only a part of the overall energy portfolio.

McCain is campaigning for “cheap, clean, secure energy for America” and the need to “transform electricity” through nuclear power. Nuclear power is a proven, reliable, zero-emission source of energy, and he is campaigning that it is time to recommit to advancing our use of nuclear power. McCain also supports the idea that nuclear power is a major contender in climate control.

Obama on the other hand, is adamant about the fact that nuclear energy is not optimal. He has stated that, “there are no silver bullet solutions to our energy crises. Our economy, security and environment will be best served through a sustained effort to diversify our energy sources.” Obama has not ruled nuclear power out, but only as long as its clean and safe.

The researchers at Paradise Earth decided to take a closer look at the impact that nuclear power generation will have on, not only our economy, but also our environment. How would constructing these nuclear power plants benefit our troubled nation?

• Nuclear power technology is already in the works and operating throughout the world, so an investment in research and development won’t be necessary.

• Nuclear power generation emits somewhat low levels of carbon dioxide; the contribution of nuclear power plants to global warming is minimal.

• One single plant can produce high levels of electrical energy.
  

But at what cost?

• Radioactive waste is still an unsolved problem. The waste from nuclear energy is extremely dangerous and it has to be carefully looked after for several thousand years (10,000 years according to United States Environmental Protection Agency standards). And what happens if nuclear waste falls into the wrong hands?

• Despite extremely high security standards, it is technically impossible to build a facility that is 100% secure and accidents can still happen. The consequences of an accident would be absolutely devastating both for human beings as for the environment. The more nuclear power plants (and nuclear waste storage shelters) that are built, the higher the probability of a disastrous failure (and/or terrorist attack) somewhere in the world.

• The energy source for nuclear energy is Uranium, which is a scarce resource; its supply is estimated to last only for the next 30 to 60 years depending on the actual demand.

It is equally important to look seriously at sustainability; is nuclear energy sustainable? For several reasons, nuclear power is neither {green} nor sustainable:

• Both nuclear waste and retired nuclear plants are a life-threatening legacy for future generations. Sustainability is blatantly contradicted if generations to come have to deal with dangerous waste generated from preceding generations.

• Uranium, the source of energy for nuclear power, is available on earth only in limited quantities. Uranium is being consumed during the operation of the nuclear power plant so it won't be available any more for future generations. This again contradicts the principle of sustainability.

The debate over nuclear power plants has been going on for decades, worldwide. Politicians, activists, environmentalists and the average citizen cannot longer turn a blind eye to the consequences of our existence on Planet Earth. Our future and the survival of our natural resources depend solely on our ability to support sustainable living.

The Human Element of Environmentalism

One of the most controversial topics today is the environment; it doesn’t matter what you read or what you watch on television, the condition of our environment is being discussed everywhere. We are so focused on the deteriorating ozone layer, the heightened carbon emissions, offshore oil drilling and cross-country pipelines that we forget the human element of environmentalism.

The researchers at Paradise Earth agree that there is a need for stronger environmental policies, but also recognize that we need to find a way to help the environment without forgetting about the impact on the vast population whose survival is based on Earth’s commodities. Restrictions placed on the land and natural resources have direct impact on indigenous peoples’ lives, but not always for the better. We have forgotten that these same people have defended the land and the environment in rural areas and also in the cities throughout history.

In today’s society, environmental preservation and protection only develop after the material necessities {luxuries} of life are abundantly covered. The conflict between economy and environment does not only exist in the assault on the remaining unspoiled lands, but on the survival of its’ people.

Though a myriad of such conflicts exist, Paradise Earth has chosen three prevalent conflicts as a sampling of environmentalism versus the poor.

Environmental Solution: Reduction of carbon dioxide emissions may be obtained through local nuclear hydroelectric energy projects.

Impact on poverty and the people: Just the thought of reducing carbon dioxide emissions is exciting and legislative bodies throughout the world jumped on board. But what they didn’t consider is this; where are we to build these nuclear energy plants? They thought that the logical placement for these energy plants was in the indigenous or rural lands like the rainforests; so in our enthusiasm to save the environment we cleared tree plantations (which, by the way have been proven to naturally rid the environment of carbon emissions) placing the people who inhabit the land at risk – and taking away one of their major commodities. The native tribes of the rain forests’ survival are dependent on this land and its raw materials. What they also did not realize is just how much destructive pollution and poverty we were creating by improving the environment for other countries.

Environmental Solution: The production of Ethanol as a fuel alternative. Ethanol has become more and more popular as an alternative fuel in the United States and elsewhere due to destructive pollution and high oil prices.

Impact on poverty and the people: Mexico is in the grip of the worst tortilla crisis in its modern history. Ethanol is generally made with yellow corn…but the price of white corn, which is used to make tortillas, is indexed in Mexico to the international price of yellow corn. The dramatic rise in international corn prices, spurred by the demand for the grain-based fuel ethanol, has led to expensive tortilla production in an already poverty-stricken country. The spike in corn prices has in turn created lower sales for vendors and angry protests by customers; and if that isn’t enough, the impact that this has had on an entire country’s number one nutritional staple has been enormous. The increasingly higher demand for Ethanol fuel is directly affecting this country’s poverty level and contributing to the overall danger of malnutrition and hunger.

Environmental Solution: The increase of national consumption and demand for shrimp has brought on the introduction of shrimp farming for export. This will keep the supply-and-demand down and the prices at a lower national average.

Impact on poverty and the people: At the time, what seemed the perfect solution has now been found to be a detriment to not only the environment itself, but to the people dependant on aquaculture as a means of survival. Mangrove forests are being sacrificed for commercial shrimp farms, putting the artisanal fisherman essentially out of business. Shrimp farms not only put the fisherman out of business, but other natives who live sustainably near the mangrove forests; their livelihood depends on collecting shellfish, fishing and by making use of mangrove wood for charcoal and building materials. In addition to the livelihood of the indigenous people, the destruction of the mangrove forests for shrimp farms are threatening the ecological balance and the coastal defense against sea level rise, the loss of breeding grounds for fish, essential carbon sinks. The biodiversity of mangroves has been lost, possibly forever.

For many activists, politicians and concerned individuals, saving the environment is not only a conflict of interest, but also represents a conflict of values. We need to realize that our obligation to saving and protecting the environment should extend far beyond to protect those who have and continue to live of the lands that we have depredated.