13 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
johndevinejr says:
by the_majesty August 13, 2009 8:00 AM EDT
For the people that don't like coal fueled electrical plants.
Just stop using electricity. Maybe that would help your cause.


Please drink some of the water that this debris is dumped in.


Thanks
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
sjc_1 says:
There jobs other than clear cutting forests or strip mining coal. We can provide all the electricity we need with hydro, renewable methane combined cycle, solar, wind, geothermal and many other renewable sources. To say you have to rape the land to feed your children is absurd. You can get jobs designing, making, installing and maintaining all the resources mentioned above, just get an education and do it, quite making false excuses.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
gramto8 says:
Clink the url below and then click the link 'see full size image'. It shows just what mountaintop mining has done to an area of formerly beautiful mountains in the Appalachians.


http://*******.com/n4wcpt
reply
gramto8 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
You can also just scroll down the page of the above link and see the picture with a comparative picture of an area that has not been ravaged.
the_majesty replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
tmittlestaed --- Why don't you just stop using electricity.
Maybe that would help.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
tmittelstaed says:
This isn't really a last-minute rule change. The regulations on stream fill are a result of a literal morass of conflicting court decisions and conflicting directives from Congress. The root of the problem is that Congress has never passed legislation that reconciles the demands of the anti-pollution laws (like the clean water act) with the demands of the people living downstream of these mountains to have the mining activity carried out in such a way that the mining doesn't create a flooding danger, and the demands of the environmental laws that disallow harm to fish and wildlife by mining activities. Many lawsuits have been filed by all involved parties that attempt to come at the problem by defining what a stream is, etc.

The so-called 1983 rule that kept coal companies from streams didn't actually do that at all. Instead, it was the result of several court decisions that happened as a result of lawsuits provoked by the 1983 rule that actually had that effect.

The federal agency charged with making these rules DID go though the appropriate public comment periods and such, but delayed implementing the results of the proposals for the simple reason that they knew that it was a waste of time since making a rule change would just give more reasons for all sides to file more lawsuits. Bush came along and told them to just issue the rule change as a way of breaking the logjam, knowing that it would just provoke more lawsuits. I'm sure the Republicans hope was that eventually this would force Congress to address the issue.

Historically, the minimg companies originally threw the fill into the streams and ponds, this caused the streams and ponds to reform to new channels, but in the process made them pretty dirty for a while. So then after people screamed about stream pollution the mining companies tried just piling up the fill outside of the streams, this caused flash flooding as rain came off the fill piles. Either solution was h e l l on the fish. So now the mining companies want to go back to throwing the fill into the streams and letting the streams find new channels.

Ultimately what needs to be decided is if the country really wants the coal more than the undisturbed land. Factually, if the land is strip mined, then reclaimed, after enough time you wouldn't be able to tell that it had ever been strip mined in the first place, other than the contours of the land would be different. But, for a couple of generations at least, the land would be pretty ugly. People also forget that Nature redraws land contours and moves streams all of the time, through erosion, ice ages, and such.
reply
KrisWhitt replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Finally, someone who took time to do some research and give a thoughtful answer, rather than sling mud and stupidity. Those of us who live in this area, have to consider more than just having fresh water for our children...we have to have jobs and money to buy food as well. We have to consider the rising cost of electricity as well. Environmental concerns are an issue, but only one of many when looking at this problem in context.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
kcits says:
Seeing as a last-minute Bush-era rule replaced the 1983 rule. Why doesn't Obama write a new rule that replaces the last minute one. One that, say, doubles or triples the distance of the 1983 rule.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
sjc_1 says:
There are more jobs than raping the land for a few minerals. It seems to always come down to an either OR decision. Either let us have our way OR we make you homeless. Grow a spine and get a real job, quit being a stooge for the extortionists.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Imadinnerjacket says:
I'm not familiar with mountaintop mining, but I find the Sierra Club repulsive. They are responsible for more loss of jobs then GWB and Obama all put together.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
formrusmcsgt says:
...a last-minute Bush-era rule that allows surface mine waste to be dumped near streams.
----
Hardly a surprise that dubya et. al. gave mining companies carte blanche to dump wherever they wish with no regard whatsoever for the rest of us....
reply
the_majesty replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Just another attempt by Obama Zombies to drive the cost of eletricity up and break the countries back. This would speed up Obama's takeover.
the_majesty replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
For the people that don't like coal fueled electrical plants.
Just stop using electricity. Maybe that would help your cause.