Column by Emily Foerster

Since I have only one chance every week to offer my thoughts, I’ll begin by offering a timely “congratulations” to the organizers and participants of Big Blue Goes Green, the sustainability exposition held on campus on Tuesday. I can say that it helped me better understand just how much UK is doing to become more sustainable. We should be proud of the progress we have made, and we should use our success as motivation to keep working toward full sustainability. Until we are 100 percent eco-friendly, there will always be new green projects to explore and implement.

UK faces a set of unique disadvantages in our quest to become fully sustainable, because our school is funded by a state whose primary source of income is coal, a non-renewable energy resource. In fact, Kentucky is among the top three coal-producing states in the nation. In a single column, I cannot possibly portray the full complexity of the coal industry’s presence here, but I can illustrate a few of the main points.

To echo Taylor Shelton’s point from his Tuesday column, UK will never achieve full sustainability while it depends on coal, whether financially or for its energy needs. With the development of mountain-top removal surface mining — the cheapest form that uses the fewest workers, whereby one worker lights dynamite to literally blast off a mountain-top, while another uses heavy machinery to gather the exposed coal — coal extraction is an extremely hazardous practice.

Our dilemma is that, while surface mining annihilates Kentucky’s land and streams, it has established itself so thoroughly as a source of our jobs and income over the last century that we disagree among ourselves about whether coal helps or harms the state. There are families in Appalachia whose livelihood depends on the coal-mining jobs that particular companies have provided for their families for three and four generations. Even as they drink mine-polluted water, these families often feel extreme loyalty to the industry because they see coal mining as one of the only economic opportunities afforded to them in the area.

Historically speaking, the coal industry has gained its advantage in the region by exploiting the disadvantages of inhabitants and strong-arming those who openly disagree with its agenda. In many cases, the industry has destroyed Appalachian families’ land with the legal help of a document called the “Broad-form deed” (if you don’t know what this is, do yourself a favor by looking it up.)

From a strictly financial perspective, I agree that coal currently offers us some attractive advantages. It creates jobs (however low-paying and few they may be), and, because of our dependence on “cheap” energy, it promises to be a steady source of income in a scary economy. But economics can only take us so far. If the coal industry were really good for Kentucky, it seems that after a century of its influence, we would not consistently rate near the bottom in every poll on education, poverty, eco-friendliness and physical health.

Why, then, are we stuck on coal? Because, while environmentalism is a noble and selfless business, it does not yet bring in money. The coal industry, on the other hand, is in the business of securing non-renewable resources by any means profitable, in the most literal sense. The industry and its supporters attempt to distract the public from reality with slogans like, “Coal keeps the lights on.” It does for now, but a solar panel can also keep the lights on.

In order to change Kentucky’s attitude and dependence on coal, we must do at least four things: we must begin to see healthy lands and communities as having real value; as a state we must begin to think about the impact of how we live; we must fervently reject the development of coal-to-liquid fuel technology; and we must work to bring new, sustainable industries to Kentucky. If we can do this, we may begin to loosen coal’s black grasp and make UK sustainable before it is too late.