SENATE BILL: The Atlasian Mountaintop Removal Ban Act (Law'd)

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Statement on proposal of 'The Atlasian Mountaintop Removal Ban Act'

In keeping up with my campaign promise, I have proposed a national ban on the practice of mountaintop removal mining, taken from an earlier version of this bill that I authored as a Northeast Representative.  This particular procedure, as many of us know, is unlike traditional mining in that it involves removing the coal seams by fully removing the overbearing layer atop them, thereby exposing the seams from above.  Studies have shown that this style of mining negatively impacts the health of our environment and those who live nearby these mining sites.  When a significant portion of mountain is destroyed through this process, those areas see hunting and fishing activities vanish.  Because this is mostly done by machines and not human labor, the jobs market does not benefit from this in any way.

I urge the Senate to consider this proposal and put the needs of Appalachian residents first.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

And to quote myself from earlier:

Regular mining does not result in the damage of approximately 1,200 miles of streams, destroyed forests on some 300 square miles of land, contaminated drinking water, flooded communities, or destroyed wildlife the way mountaintop removal does.  The companies will be allowed to use other methods of mining, but not kinds that are capable of such destruction and environmental harm.  Inhabitants of places like rural Pennsylvania are directly impacted by the decisions of these coal-mining industries.

All the costs are externalized in the form of damaged health and the environment.  And, as previously stated, mountaintop removal takes away jobs.  On top of all that, hunting, fishing, and other activities flourish in these sights.  My bill would not have a high impact on jobs and, if anything, would reduce costs in the long run.  But right now, we are choosing between cheaper energy and the quality of life for Appalachian residents.

I would be very open to purchasing nature preservations if such a proposal is made.

And on top of that, residents of the states in which this method is used the most strongly oppose this practice.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

No, wormyguy.  Mountaintop removal is a very different form of mining that is more extreme and does even more damage to mountains than normal mining.  Normal mining does not result in the same amount of damage because it is less severe, even if it is used more frequently.  Please, do your research on this.  You are clearly not an expert on this in any way.

This bill will not have any negative impacts on the economy in those states because mountaintop removal is done by machines and, if anything, hurts jobs - it reduces the need for human labor and makes activities such as hunting and fishing impossible because of the environmental damage it creates.

In West Virginia alone, coal employment has dropped from 150,000 workers in the 1960’s to 15,000 today.  The fact is that the mining industry extracts coal worth several billions of dollars, but the wealth does not stay in Appalachia. The top 15 coal producing counties in West Virginia also suffer from some of the worst poverty levels in the nation, even though they produce 15% of the nation's coal.  Obviously, keeping mountaintop removal legal has not helped the jobs market in any way.  And quite frankly, there is nothing wrong with regular mining; businesses will still be allowed to produce electricity, but the environment will be better off as a whole if the extreme forms of mining are prohibited.

On the issue of costs, this type of mining has, obviously, made life more expensive for residents of these communities than helped.  The availability and low-cost of alternative energy sources- including energy efficiency, renewable sources such as wind power and low-impact hydroelectric, natural gas, and coal from other sources- would minimize any impact on electricity prices from restricting mountaintop.  Appalachia can only tap into alternative energy sources if these areas remain in tact.  State budgets are impacted by it, too.  Those costs include increased road expenditures, operating mining-specific health and safety systems, supporting training and research and development for the industry- all at the cost of the taxpayer.  And that alone doesn't include costs for healthcare, loss of home values, and the need for water treatment.

I'm not opposed to letting private landowners sue when their property is damaged, of course.  But I don't see how we can reduce such property damage if we continue to keep mountaintop removal legal.

This bill does not ban any other form of mining, which will still be in existence after this law is passed.  And frankly, if the people who live in these coal mining states really thought that this would hurt jobs, why are they solidly opposed to it?  Oh, that's right- the poll I posted is junk because you don't agree with it.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I already explained the differences.  Traditional mining, unlike MTR, does not result in such harsh environmental destruction and damage to the public health.  Both carry the same objective, but not all forms of mining involve the blowing up the mountaintops in order to expose and locate coal deposits, then filling water resources with dirt and pollutants and contaminating the air with the coal dust.  Traditional mining is never a good thing for the environment or a person's health, but it clearly isn't as detrimental and hasn't been proven to be.

Unfortunately for you, the facts disprove your claim about increases in 'efficiency'.  People are worse off because of mountaintop removal and this has been proven by the loss of jobs.  In the case with the car companies and mass-production, people did live better off, as a result.  But mountaintop removal has not improved anyone's life, health, or financial situations because the costs so abundantly outweigh the savings.  This method of mining has been one of the most profitable since the 1990s, but the workers simply haven't benefited from it and, therefore, could not invest in their communities.
And no, MTR has not been around forever because it started in the 1970s, which is around the time when West Virginia started to lose all these mining jobs.  Why are you so concerned about the competitiveness or profitability of the companies if it hasn't actually helped these communities or kept jobs?

As I have already explained, the costs have far outweighed the benefits of permitting MTR in these communities.  The payment that miners receive from the companies is not enough to cover the loss of home value, clean water, health services, and taxes that inevitably have come as a result.  Cheap energy has not balanced these costs in any way.  And I find it ironic that you're considering these communities "economically viable" when these are some of the poorest areas of the country.

Because MTR inevitably causes damage to the communities, it should not be permitted in any way.  Then there wouldn't be a need to sue for damages because those damages would have been prevented.  Also, it really wouldn't matter if the land is privately owned by the industry since people who live nearby the sight have to live with the effects whether they are the owners or not.  Valley fill impacts are especially predominant in the coalfields of eastern Kentucky where flooding has increased, and the streams near the valley fills contain high levels of minerals in water which have decreased aquatic biodiversity.

Uh, yes they did break the numbers down state by state.  And... push poll?  Do you even know what that is?  There is nothing to prove that this organization is less credible simply because it's with a cause and you are making a very weak case against it.  If support suddenly rises for the method, let me know.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

No.  You have little understanding of traditional mining, because you fail to understand the difference between the two methods or what comes as a result of both of them.  I am not trying to argue that traditional mining is, in any way, healthy or environmentally friendly because it is not.  However, it has caused nowhere near the amount of damage MTR has created.  MTR is worse for not just miners, but the inhabitants and animals nearby because it exposes more dust and thus reduces biodiversity in the air as well as. especially, the water supply, whereas regular mining does not- that is how I am proving my assertion.  Thousands of families throughout Appalachia have had their wells contaminated or dewatered due to the blasting process.

Much of the mining waste includes heavy metals such as mercury, cadmium, and nickel.  An irreversible kidney disease known as Balkan endemic nephropathy has been connected to the leaching of toxic organic compounds in groundwater, which is ingested by the local population- unlike traditional forms of mining, this affects more than just the miners themselves because this occurs at a much broader level.  One study found that children in Letcher County, Kentucky, suffer from an alarmingly high rate of nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, and shortness of breath, which are symptoms related to blue babe syndrome.  This was linked to sedimentation and dissolved minerals that have drained from mine sites into nearby streams.  This is the proof I am providing as evidence.

I'm not claiming that MTR is less efficient.  It is very efficient- in fact, despite how this method only accounts for 5% of mining activities, it's shown to be one of the most profitable methods used for the mining companies and not for, of course, the workers. I've already proven to you, however, that this came at the cost of the miners and Appalachian communities.  In comparison to several decades ago, the mining industry has lost workers over time.  You continue to bring up the auto industry in your anecdotes, but this doesn't touch the underlying issue.  Traditional mining communities have disappeared as jobs are no longer needed.  Given that dynamite is a cheaper source than miner labor, the industry of mountaintop removal does not create new jobs.  Thus, the only people that have actually profited from using this method are the ones who own the large mining industries, and no one at the bottom has seen any of it.  If any new jobs were actually being created, then West Virginia wouldn't have lost 148,500 jobs in the coal industry.  Your logic, unfortunately, simply does not apply here because the facts have proven contrary.

I also reject your assertion that the environmental regulations which were passed during that time have anything to do with this; economists as well as the Office of Management and Budget concluded that benefits of the regulations exceeded the costs by large ratios.  It is totally absurd to claim that Keynesian believe that increases in regulation hurt business, especially since facts say otherwise.  But once again, the top companies have become more profitable than ever before, even with these regulations in place, yet the miners continued to lose jobs.

You seem to believe that people in these communities should only sue for the results of MTR, not MTR itself.  I find this absurd.  Property damage is already illegal, but MTR is not and continues to be used to this day.  If the companies were truly concerned about facing lawsuits or causing the health and financial declines of people in these communities, they wouldn't be using the method at all.

The percentages may vary for population reasons, but I still don't believe that the state-by-state breakdowns are very relevant to the poll since it was specifically asked of people from the coal-mining region, not just individual states.
What "loaded question"?  There was nothing mentioned in these questions that is untrue about MTR.  Merely summarizing the process itself in the question does not make it biased.  In fact, the questioners presented both sides of the issue in their questioning and then asked if the arguments changed their minds.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The point I am trying to make with my anecdotes is that illnesses are more widespread when MTR is used than traditional mining because a broader mass of people are exposed to the effects of it.  Mining has never been, nor ever will be, a health-orientated career to pursue, but it is significant that the methods of mining which cause greater topographical changes harm more people than other methods, such as those who don't even partake in the mining.  This draws a much greater contrast; they are not equally true in any way.  I fail to see how you could reasonably depreciate these as 'appeals to emotion.'

Nice chart you got.  Here's a better one.



The fact that you posted that and claimed employment in the coal industry has gone up is laughable.  Currently, the mining industry has seen losses that haven't even remotely been recovered since MTR started being used more frequently.  Now what's funny is, both our charts show a slight increase in coal mining employment after the time those laws were passed.

Now, hypothetically, you would only be able to sue for property damage if you could provide evidence that the actions of a coal-mining industry directly resulted in said damage, a scenario that would be highly unlikely.  But basically what you are saying only proves my point; if property owners usually cannot sue on these grounds, we would be better off prohibiting activities that lead to such excessive damage so that there would not be any in the first place.

As I've already explained, the "push poll" you are referring to provided both sides of the argument and mentioned both the concerns of environmental damage as well as job loss.  To no-no a poll that gives participators a sample of both arguments of an issue is ridiculous and unfair.  However, I shall respect your decision to not discuss this further.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Again- I've already provided evidence to prove that MTR causes more harmful health and geographical effects to Appalachian communities.  There may not be numbers that compare "pollution per unit of coal" between methods, but every other statistic proves that these topographical alterations have caused greater impacts.  Coal is coal; all units release pollution (a single unit releases, I have found, 2lbs C02).  But when mountaintops are totally removed and broad plateaus are left, more coal is released into the air and water supply, thus increasing pollution, and making the land area more susceptible to floods and mudslides.  This is never reclaimed.


Here is a picture of what you don’t believe is any more damaging than traditional mining.  You cannot hunt in, breathe in, or survive in an area like this.

Now, basically you’ve proven my point that employment in the mining industry has dropped in spite of increased efficiency.  I’ve already explained how this new method created unemployment.  And I’m skeptical of your claim that private mining would simply no longer occur because of this restriction.  MTR only accounted for less than 5% of US coal production as of 2001.
The charts alone disprove your claim that this method increased employment, in any way.  Obviously, the decline started way before any of those regulations were passed, and none of these regulations have kept these industries any less profitable because facts show that they have only become more profitable.

More falsehoods.  None of these questions have any bias in them.  At all.  The questions asked if the public supported MTR, supported politicians who want regulations on MTR, and then provided two statements for and against MTR.  They also provided a brief description of what MTR is, which is factually correct.  I don’t know if you’re either trolling or are really this illiterate, but this is getting old.
Also, I thought you said you were done discussing this poll.  Trolling again, I presume.

So I guess the question the senators will be faced with when voting time comes (hopefully soon) is, what’s more important?  “Increased efficiency”, which made for cheap coal, but raised other costs and lowered the quality of life in these communities, or the workers and families who have to live in this region?

I didn't notice this in any of the posts, but I could be wrong. My question is will this effect CMM extraction? Right now, it's a fairly large portion of employment and revenue in PA, WV, and OH.

No.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Does MTR lead to the same respiratory hazards as underground mining for workers? It would seem safer to me than sending people underground.

Both are hazardous, of course.  But mountaintop removal has made health conditions in these communities worse and created a wide range of health problems, and essentially MTR leads to respiratory hazards for every person living in the communities.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I am ready to vote.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Again, I think this idea is great, but I'm looking for at least more of a clarification of the way we will differentiate "regular" mining from "mountaintop removal" mining.

Regular/underground mining does not involve the stripping of mountaintops from their surfaces and the dumping of toxins into local water as well as radical topographical alterations that make land areas more susceptible to floodings and mudslides.  I thought this was made very clear various times.

Here is a guide on how mountaintop removal is done, for those who still don't understand.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Very well, then.  I will amend this bill.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Yes.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Aye.