Will You Make Extracting Coal Clean too, Mr. President?

Surprise, surprise—the Bush administration is, again, attempting to enact environmentally devastating legislation. The proposal would rewrite a law from 1983 that prohibits coal mining companies from disposing mine tailings (waste from mountaintop removal) into “valley fills” within 100 feet of any intermittent or perennial stream if the dumping impacts the quality and quantity of those water sources. In the new proposal, companies must “minimize the debris they dump,” but are allowed to dump within 100 feet of the water source if it is impossible to avoid. This last piece is not only vague—what constitutes the inability to abide by requirements?—but also gets to the heart of just how far protective environmental policy has been gutted to support lucrative corporate policy. And obviously, coal is not the only example where this is the case. I decided to bring this up, though, because with all of the talk about “clean coal,” not one politician has mentioned how they plan to make coal’s extraction process “clean.” And if you are wondering why, the answer is that it cannot be made clean, especially when the mining companies use mountaintop removal to obtain the coal.

But let me backtrack for a minute and explain what mountaintop removal (MTR) is, and how it works: Mountaintop removal is a relatively new, cheaper, and far more destructive way to mine coal. Traditionally, coal mining was a labor-intensive process, where workers entered into coal depositories through tunnels and shafts, and used tools to break off and move coal (think “Zoolander”). But in MTR, forests are first clear-cut on the mountain, then extraordinarily powerful explosives are used to blow-off its top. Next, the loose soil, rocks, and other refuse is hauled off in trucks, or pushed into the valley below. A dragline is then used to dig deeper and expose the coal, so that other giant machines can extract it. Supposedly, the mining companies are mandated to “reclaim the land,” remaking the mountain’s ecosystem. Not only is this idea nearly impossible—the destroyed ecosystems were thousands of years old and extremely complex—but a meaningful attempt at reclamation is rare.

What usually happens is that the mining company attempts to stabilize the loose rocks, and the tailings (leftover material after the coal has been removed) are pushed into the valley where they block rivers and streams. It is estimated that over 1200 miles of streams in the Appalachian Mountains has been damned, slowed, or polluted by MTR. Erosion is a huge problem, as is the tendency for non-native species to invade and proliferate. Further, the processing of coal creates “slurry,” or “coal sludge,” which is either pumped back into the hollow mountain (where it inevitably escapes) or stored in “sludge pools” at the base of the mountain. What was once a thriving and healthy ecosystem is transformed into a wasteland.

The impacts from MTR are felt in the areas around the mountain too: sludge often leaks into local water systems, and the ponds can burst, flooding and poisoning local areas. MTR destroys important animal and plant habitats, and has extremely detrimental health implications for those living in the area, as people suffer from airborne dust and debris, flash floods from erosion, and toxic water supplies. MTR, contrary to coal company rhetoric, does not create jobs—it actually eliminates jobs because it is far less labor-intensive than traditional mining techniques.

MTR is already a horrible environmental and human rights problem, and the Bush administration’s new proposed legislation will only facilitate further damage. But what is most significant, I believe, is not the egregious behavior of the current administration (I doubt anyone is surprised by this proposal), or the lack of discussion about mining coal (clearly no politician mentions it because removing coal from mountains, by definition, cannot circumvent human and environmental damages), but the failure to mention the necessary lifestyle changes we must make as a country. Finding better ways to mine and burn coal is not the answer; the way we live, and the amount of energy we use has to change. Because I am not running for political office, I can say this outright: no amount of clean or alternative energy will solve our energy problems in the long run; we have to change the way we live.

At the end of the day, this proposal will not change much: dumping mine tailings 100 feet away from water sources still causes huge problems, and mining companies already breech the 100-foot buffer zones regularly. What must change, though, is our perception about the quality of our environment, and the role we play in it.