Personal tools
You are here: Home KFTC Blog Archive 2009 June 26 Coal devastating region, U.S. Senate told
Subscribe to our blog!
RSS 2.0

Enter your email address to receive emails when this blog is updated:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Powered by Quills
Topics
Topics in Detail…
 
Archives
 
Find us on Facebook

Join KFTC!

 

Coal devastating region, U.S. Senate told

by jerry last modified June-29-2009 01:41 PM
Hearing chambers (by iLoveMountains.org)
Close to two hundred people lined up for the Senate hearing on the Appalachia Restoration Act, from both sides of the mountaintop removal coal mining issue. Only about sixty were able to fit into the main Senate Committee chamber in Dirkson Senate Building; the rest were directed to an overflow room in a nearby senate building. Photo by Jamie Goodman
 

Several experts described the significant and permanent destruction the coal industry is creating in the Appalachian coalfields at a U.S. Senate committee hearing yesterday.

In the first-even Congressional hearing focused specifically on mountaintop removal, members of the Senate Public Work and Environment subcommittee on water and wildlife were told.

"The streams that are buried when rocks and dirt are dumped over the side of the mountain into the valleys below are gone forever, and there is no evidence to date that mitigation actions can compensate for the lost natural resources and ecological functions of the headwater streams that are buried."

Dr. Margaret Palmer, a University of Maryland ecologist who has studied mountaintop removal, went on to say that the impacts of burying headwater streams were felt for many miles down stream and are permanent. She said, for example, that elevated stream levels of selenium in some cases were found "50 years out."

Two of the senators on the committee seemed to have studied the issue enough to already know those facts.

Talking across the issue part 2 (by iLoveMountains.org)
Citizens for Coal discuss the mountaintop removal coal mining issue with Cody Simpkins of Kentuckians for the Commonwealth. Photo by Jamie Goodman

"There is no denying coal's significance to the culture and economy of Appalachia," said Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), chair of the subcommittee. "However, mountaintop coal mining is a long-term assault on Appalachia's environment, economy, culture, and the health of its citizens."

Acknowledging that the Obama administration has taken some first steps toward protecting water quality,  Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) said: "The administration's decision will bring tighter scrutiny, but it is still important to pass the Cardin-Alexander legislation that would prohibit blowing off the tops of mountains and putting the waste in our streams.  Coal is an essential part of our energy future, but it is not necessary to destroy our environment in order to have enough of it."

Tennessee Deputy Commissioner of Environment and Conservation Paul Sloan encouraged lawmakers to expand that prohibition to protect the region's vital headwaters streams. He said the practice of burying headwater streams is not allowed in Tennessee because of a state law.

"Just as the circulatory systems in our bodies rely upon the healthy functioning of billions of capillaries, the nation's rivers and streams will not be healthy unless the headwaters are protected," Paul Sloan said in prepared testimony.

Marie Gunnoe of the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition testified as a coalfield citizen and urged Congress to "stop the annihilation of mountains and people by mountaintop removal" and seize the opportunity to create an new energy future for the coalfields.

Randy Pomponio, director of environmental assessment for a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regional office, said mountaintop removal buries an average of 120 miles of streams a year, and studies show valley fills not only eliminate those waterways, but also degrade water quality downstream.

The only witness who defended mountaintop removal was Randy Huffman, secretary of the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection.

Alexandar called yesterday's hearing the first of several. Dozens of coalfield residents were present for the hearing, including a KFTC delegation.

Climate Change Bill

Posted by Todd at June-27-2009 08:40 AM
Do we have anyone in the House who actually read this bill in its entirety? Forget about Coal Mining and your personal feelings. It really bothers me that our elected officials make bills so large that its nearly impossible to read! 300 pages added @ 3:00 am on Friday? I love to read and I could probably cover 300 pages in 10 to 12 hours but no way in hell im going to comprehend that much information. Especially, information of such a technical nature.

Our elected officials owe it to us, to at the very least, read something before voting yes or no. It doesnt matter what the bill is proposing. Shame on them! We are living in sad times when this becoming more and more common. To think, we put our well being and lively hoods into their hands....

Maybe this will make some more sense after I have my morning coffee... :)

Does anyone else have a problem with this type of behavior?

Todd

Report from EPA - Contridicting Global Warning

Posted by Todd at June-30-2009 09:50 AM
http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf

This is a non-issue

Posted by Taylor at July-02-2009 04:30 PM
Todd-
please note that the EPA employee who wrote this supposedly squashed report was an economist, not a climate scientist. He was in no way qualified to write a report on the science of global warming, and upon being reviewed by EPA officials who are climate scientists (which it was) they discarded the report. Just because one can produce something that is seemingly academic doesn't mean it's legitimate, which is why there is a system of peer-review in academic journals, of which none of this man's 'scientific' studies have appeared.

The EPA employee in question was no more qualified to write a 100 page report on the realities of global warming than you or I.

p.s. - the only reason average global temperatures have decreased in the past 11 years is that 1998 was the hottest year in earth's recorded history. In comparison to every other year's recorded average temperature, we're still getting warmer.

Who do we believe an Economist or Al Gore?

Posted by Todd at July-02-2009 11:12 PM
I wanted to stir the pot a little with the article. I put no more faith into that article than those put out by special interest groups. Ive read at least a dozen different reports in regards to climate change and none are the same. Why is that? Why do we have such a huge discrepancy on whats actually happening? Im having a hard time trusting these reports and its hard to distinguish between facts and bias. Do you think Al Gore is qualified to talk on Global Warming as if he is climate scientist? What separates Mr. Gore (Law School) from the author of the EPA article? Al Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change."

So whats the difference?

Todd

not one in the same

Posted by Taylor at July-03-2009 10:37 AM
Todd- I would largely agree with you that Al Gore, were he to be doing his own research on climate change, would be no more qualified than this supposedly suppressed EPA employee. There are two main differences between Al Gore and Mr. Carlin: 1) Al Gore has never claimed to produce any original scientific research on climate change. Instead, his work is recognized as being able to effectively distill the research that is already done in a way that is easily understood, and 2) the research that Al Gore uses to make his point is peer-reviewed research done by climate scientists that have been published in leading academic journals and are widely recognized for their credibility (they wouldn't be published in top peer-reviewed journals if they lacked it). A vast majority of the 'research' cited by Mr. Carlin in that report are blog posts by climate skeptics.

So were Al Gore out there trying to run his own climate models, you'd be absolutely right that he would be no more special than Mr. Carlin, you or myself. But that simply isn't the case. The key to sifting through the good and the bad in this area, if you really want to read the nitty gritty research, is to look in peer-reviewed academic publications, which won't be nearly as sensational as reading blog posts from either side of the issue which try to understand that research. But keep in mind that no individual paper you read will be able to lay out the entirety of the situation - it would require a much deeper understanding of all the research out there to really know what is going on, which I think speaks to the fact that amateurs can't really cut it on doing climate change research.

Ohio Rep. gets 3.5 billion to vote "Yes" on climate change bill

Posted by Todd at July-01-2009 12:46 PM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/01/sweetener-helped-sway-vote-on-house-climate-bill/

This is where our problems stem from. Corrupt politicians.

Todd

Following the money

Posted by Sara at July-09-2009 10:21 PM
Todd,

There's an online tool you might be interested in that "follows the coal money" to politicians. You can find the main page here:

http://coalmoney.priceofoil.org/index.php

Here're a couple quick example links (and for a nice graphic, scroll to the bottom of the page):

You can look at coal contributions to Mitch McConnell here:

http://coalmoney.priceofoil.org/federalRaceGraph.php?type=search&can=S2KY00012&v=graphs&congress_num=total

and to John Yarmuth here:

http://coalmoney.priceofoil.org/federalRaceGraph.php?type=search&can=H6KY03124&v=graphs&congress_num=total

Click on "Table View" to see the details of the contributions.

More following the money

Posted by Sara at July-09-2009 10:29 PM
You can also "follow the money" from all industries and individuals at the state level at this website:

http://www.followthemoney.org/