Our politicians have a morbid skeleton (among others) in their closets: coal.
The U.S. burns more than one billion short tons of coal per year. That’s around 5.5 billion pounds of coal per day.
This is, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, “the single biggest air polluter in the U.S.” and is ridiculously toxic, leaving exorbitant amounts of arsenic, lead, thallium, barium, cadmium, chromium, mercury and nickel in our water and atmosphere.
In fact, according to a 2007 peer-reviewed EPA study, living next to a coal ash disposal site enormously increases your risk of cancer or other diseases, and people drinking water contaminated by coal deposits have chances as high as one in 50 of getting cancer.
And, guess what: we have two (outdated) coal plants right here on campus.
The weird thing is, you would think that as soon as scientists discovered that burning coal causes cancer (which happened in the 1770s), our politicians, those who are supposed to be watching out for the best interests of their citizens, would have quickly stopped such an exceedingly deleterious system.
But politicians (and energy executives) don’t care about your silly “science”; nor do they care about that “public health” nonsense. All they care about is money. Simple as that.
If this weren’t true, explain why, from October 2009 to April 2010, coal company executives and lobbyists held at least 33 White House meetings, three times more than any meetings that included scientists or environmentalists.
If this weren’t true, explain why, according to an October New York Times article, mining-related interests (mainly Murray Energy Corp., the National Mining Association, Alpha Natural Resources Inc. and Arch Coal Co.) have paid more than $2.8 million in lobbying just federal candidates in this election cycle alone, and why electric utilities companies (namely the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Exelon Corp., Dominion Resources, and American Electric Power Co. Inc.) have spent more than $5.9 million.
If this weren’t true, explain why Massey Energy alone, from 2005 to 2010, was cited for 38,997 violations (that’s more than 21 per day), and punished for almost none of them.
Now, some declare the answer is “clean coal” (their new favorite buzzword), but realize that this is a pure pipe dream at best — and a pure lie at worst. In July, Popular Mechanics (in absolutely no way an environmentalist magazine) published “The Myth of Clean Coal,” declaring that “mythical” clean coal makes “little economic or scientific sense,” and that “coal will never be clean.”
There’s no way around it. “Clean coal” is an oxymoron. A “clean” coal factory is akin to a lung-friendly cigarette; they don’t exist — both go against their very nature.
Yet there’s still insipid incessant dogmatic mantra. Yes, “coal keeps the lights on,” but that’s no justification. This is only the case because it’s “cheap” to blow off the top of mountains — with little regard for surrounding inhabitants — and extract it. This is only because of gargantuan government subsidies — not just overt handouts, but more clandestine tax credits and breaks. (On a federal level, this estimated around $17 billion between 2002 and 2008; on a state level, the Kentucky state government’s net subsidy to coal is $115 million). This is only because “cheap” is defined without considering any externalities, without considering that it is poisoning all of us.
When one considers the real cost of coal, one sees that it is certainly not cheap, not by any stretch of imagination.
In fact, a 2010 Harvard Medical School study found coal costs our country $500 billion per year — and $74 billion per year in public health burdens in Appalachian communities alone.
Plus, just because an aspect of our society currently relies on a system of extreme oppression and plain maleficence in no way justifies it. The argument that “coal keeps the lights on” and, ergo, we need it, is the exact same argument used by slave holders 200 years ago: “Slavery keeps the food on the table.” Slaves grew their food, prepared it, served it — the list goes on. Without slaves, they would have surely starved. Consequently, slavery should have continued, right?
WRONG. Because slavery, just like coal mining and burning, is atrocious.
And all of this doesn’t even touch on how the search for cheap coal has ravaged and raped Appalachia; nor does any of this address climate change, the largest problem of all, for it affects the survival of life on this planet — and the fact is, coal is the largest single source of greenhouse gases in the U.S.
So, what can we do? We must hold our politicians accountable. Why do they think it’s OK for filthy-rich coal executives (pun intended) to make millions of dollars per year at the expense of the people and their health and well-being? It isn’t. We must refuse to be quiet and obediently take our poison. We absolutely must move beyond coal; it’s in all of our best interests.
Ben Norton is a music, Spanish and film studies sophomore. Email opinions@kykernel.com.
Ben,
Obviously you don’t believe coal is a viable energy source. What is your realistic alternative? Certainly wind, and solar is realistically not viable. I’ll wager you would also strongly object to nuclear power plants.
I suggest you take some courses in science or economics. Also get ready to put your electric toothbrush, laptop,away and walk.
I was going to ask Ben how he enjoyed his Christmas break, but seems like someone got a big lump of coal in their stocking… I’ll try and put together a serious post later, but I doubt I’ll be able to compete with the emotions and fear mongering that’s brought up with such charged words as “rape” “slavery” and the like. But, it will be informative, perhaps most to Ben himself.
1. Of course the burning of coal causes cancer. Just about anything can cause cancer in extreme exposure, exhaust from vehicles cause carbon monoxide poisoning and can lead to death, yet in 2007 it was estimated that there were 254.4 million registered vehicles in the United States alone. My point is that in the concentration that coal is burned it is not currently hurting anyone. Especially with the newer plants that are being built that include scrubbing technologies.
2. You stated that Massey Energy was cited with 38,997 violations from 2005-2010. You stated the number was 21 violations per day but really it is 31.2 violations/day because they typically only run 250 days per year (saying this to prove to you that I want to state real facts). Now, what you don’t understand was that Massey Energy Co. was a large coal company (technically 4th largest at the time it was purchased by Alpha Natural Resources) with almost 6,000 employees, 35 underground mines, and 12 surface mines. With this in mind, that is less than one citation per mine per day (0.66 citations per mine per day). Citations can be written for the simplest of things such as not properly placing an underground toilet. My point is that it may sound like the coal companies are big and bad and don’t care about safety but the truth is that safety is their number one concern, plain and simple. Every coal company strives for excellence in safety and wants to send every single worker home safe every day. Displaying information that suggests otherwise is false. Also, to say that they were never punished for any violations is unfounded and further shows your ignorance on the workings of the coal mining industry. Any time a violation is written there is a monetary fine assessed. If the violation is not corrected, then another one could be written as a failure to abate the previous citation. In fact, MSHA developed a points system so that every violation could be allotted points and the penalty assessed according to the number of points. Some of these factors are: Size of business, history of violations, negligence, gravity of violation, and demonstrated good faith in abatement.
3. You say clean coal is an oxymoron, well I will present you with another: Green Energy. You might ask “How is this an oxymoron?”. For one example every single wind turbine that is placed in the ground is comprised of steel. Steel is made from the burning of metallurgical grade coal. So, without coal there would be no steel to make wind turbines.
4. You state that the only reason coal is in business is because it is cheap. I believe that’s the name of the game is it not? If it was expensive then it could not be produced economically and would not be produced at all. On the subject of subsidies, I do believe that the “Green Energy” sector is one of the most highly subsidized sector in the world today. For example lets look at the new hybrid vehicle the Chevrolet Volt. Every consumer who purchases a Chevrolet Volt gets $7500 back in a rebate from the U.S. Government. In the year 2011 7,671 Chevrolet Volts were sold which equates to $57,532,500 in government subsidies in the year 2011 from just the sale of the Chevrolet Volt.
Finally, to compare coal mining to slavery is a little obtuse. Coal miners make some of the highest wages for the educational experience required. Coal mining has helped food on the tables for many families in the Appalachian region, I know this because I am a member of one of those families. As someone who has lived in Eastern Kentucky and Southern West Virginia all my life I know these things from experience and ask anyone who reads Mr. Norton’s article to take a second look at the slanderous accusations being displayed.
Great response, Charles.
On the issue of government subsidies and green energy… The government needs to be subsidizing and investing in proven technologies. One that I am aware of is new coal-fired power plants.
It is difficult to forget the Solyndra debacle that the Obama administration approved…. $535 million Energy Department loan guarantee in 2009 expecting 4,000 jobs created. In 2011 Solyndra files for bankruptcy, lays off all employees, and US government forced to repay the guaranteed loan.
A proven alternative energy needs to be developed before we can even begin the discussion of replacing coal, and thus coal-fired energy.
Did you really just compare burning coal to slavery?? really? Good God can I please go just ONE WEEK without having to read some article you have written about coal and how bad it is. WE GET IT YOU HATE COAL.If you dont like coal then dont use electricity, plain and simple. The hypocrisy is that I guarantee that you are sitting in a house, using electricity, that is powered by coal and have the nerve to sit at your laptop computer which you have to charge with electricity which runs on coal to even write this article. If you hate coal so much please do us all a favor and stay off you computer. That way you can stop using coal and we can stop having to look at you insufferably stupid articles.Win Win.
Sorry this is so long, but, showing Ben the error of his ways is often such. I mean, there’s just so much info to share that contradicts his statements.
I like how you quote the UCS as coal being the single largest air polluter in the US, and then go on to make your own statement on the “ridiculous” amount of arsenic, lead etc. Nature is responsible for the vast majority of mercury emissions (70 percent), while U.S. power plants are responsible for less than 1 percent of global emissions.
But the EPA’s “peer reviewed” study says otherwise though, right? Really, the EPA’s OWN Inspector General has criticized the EPA for violating its policies on what qualifies as a peer reviewed study. You did read the study didn’t you? That it’s not a study on actual coal pollution deaths, but just a compilation of studies that show a trend for higher incidence of certain health care cases in areas around coal. Which has to be the pollution…because it couldn’t be other variables in the population like: higher usage of tobacco products, alcohol products, worse dietary nutrition, population genetic tendencies etc, all the various things real scientist have cited while poking holes in the EPA “peer reviewed” study. Lol
As for who cares more about the “public health”, is the environmentalist and their biased “science”, or the companies willing to invest their time and resources into providing jobs for the mostly rural communities. And there are REAL scientific studies that prove the correlation to economic income and access to health care being key to quality of life and life expectancy-not some pie in the sky “coal” kills people. Dr. Roger O. McClellan, a former CASAC member, has stated that “there is no compelling reason based on the EPA CASACs advice that the Ozone NAAQS be set in the range of 60 to 70 ppb”
As for why energy companies spend money on lobbying and supporting various candidates or policies, well, when you have a government that has the power to pick who wins and loses in this economy based on what laws they pass. Instead of it being about providing a product safely and affordably and that the market is willing to pay for- it’s about buying influence and having lawmakers push unwanted products or higher prices (through less competition) on the American people. Think I’m talking about coal companies? What about the half billion dollars paid to Solyndra, just the tip of the iceberg. The Dept of Energies own numbers show that as of Sept 15 of 2011 that 16.4 BILLION in loan guarantees went to companies run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers. (http://thevictorychronicles.com/2011/11/12/how-obamas-alternative-energy-programs-became-green-graft/#.Tr7PXbN09sM.facebook)
Someone else mentioned the $7,500 credit for buying Government Motors electric car, what they didn’t mention where the hundreds of millions in loans provided to the companies that make the parts for the car and the estimated $40,000 EACH battery that’s used in the Chevy Volt. It comes out to about $250,000.00 PER car. (http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/16192)
Those are direct payments of taxpayer money to various “green” energies. Coal (like oil) companies are able to deduct against their profits the costs of investments they make, which is not a direct payment of taxpayer money….hmm…those coal “tax breaks” aren’t any different than those any American business could take.
You bring up mountain top removal . What about property rights of the owners to do with their land what they want? If you don’t want them to mine the coal, well, buy their land (paying as much or more than the coal company) and preserve it. Plenty of non-profits doing this. Though, I am rather fond of the parks and lakes, the beautiful scenery of reclaimed coal mines. Good fishing and very good hunting.
As for the “externalities” of other costs such as pollution. It should be borne by the coal company. That’s why we have a court system. If land owners and those who use various water sources have had their land polluted, they have the means of showing proof of their damages and being fairly compensated. What trial lawyer wouldn’t love to tap into the BILLIONS of the coal industry with a case of some little girls life ending too early by coal pollution? (there has to be a line forming to the court house with the 30,000+ a year the EPA cites coal for…right?)
As for things like water pollution, the EPA regulations are actually more stringent on the coal companies than cities tap water. Surprised again? Due to aging pipes and gov’t regulation, the water your drinking out of the tap is probably worse for you than that of the local stream just down river from one of those “evil” coal mines.
At least 32 power plants may be closed by the EPA’s new rules, a survey by the AP determined. Dozens of others may have to shut down some generating units that don’t meet the agency’s requirements. This isn’t about facts. It’s about politics. Obama has made the calculation that by devastating the coal industry, and a few small stats with little sway in the electoral college (who probably wouldn’t vote for him anyway) he will win more votes with the environmentalist and the other regions that aren’t as reliant on coal and can’t compete with the cheap electricity, than votes he’ll lose. (If you consult USEIA data you will see CA, NY, MA. and FL have electricity rates 30 to 40 percent higher than the national average. No high energy using business can make a profit in those states, think of the aluminum smelters and manufacturing that relies on Kentucky’s cheap COAL power to compete with China)
As for banning coal to save us from the great hoax of “global warming”, er, “climate change”, I mean, it’s “climate chaos” now right? There hasn’t been any warming in the last ten years or more, the various scientific groups like the University of East Anglia, the UN’s IPCC and the like have been shown over and over again to destroy, oops, I mean “lose” their original date, misrepresent and later retract studies (most people would call that lying), repress real scientific peer review of their studies etc. “Global Warming” has become little more than a means of scaring the American and other developed nation taxpayers into parting with more of their money.
When does a newspaper lose creditably? The truth is that when you drive down south upper you can look at the coal stock pile for the central heating plant #2…The University of Kentucky burns coal and will continue to do so…
Sorry this is so long, but, showing Ben the error of his ways is often such. I mean, there’s just so much info to share that contradicts his statements.
I like how you quote the UCS as coal being the single largest air polluter in the US, and then go on to make your own statement on the “ridiculous” amount of arsenic, lead etc. Nature is responsible for the vast majority of mercury emissions (70 percent), while U.S. power plants are responsible for less than 1 percent of global emissions.
But the EPA’s “peer reviewed” study says otherwise though, right? Really, the EPA’s OWN Inspector General has criticized the EPA for violating its policies on what qualifies as a peer reviewed study. You did read the study didn’t you? That it’s not a study on actual coal pollution deaths, but just a compilation of studies that show a trend for higher incidence of certain health care cases in areas around coal. Which has to be the pollution…because it couldn’t be other variables in the population like: higher usage of tobacco products, alcohol products, worse dietary nutrition, population genetic tendencies etc, all the various things real scientist have cited while poking holes in the EPA “peer reviewed” study. Lol
As for who cares more about the “public health”, is the environmentalist and their biased “science”, or the companies willing to invest their time and resources into providing jobs for the mostly rural communities. And there are REAL scientific studies that prove the correlation to economic income and access to health care being key to quality of life and life expectancy-not some pie in the sky “coal” kills people. Dr. Roger O. McClellan, a former CASAC member, has stated that “there is no compelling reason based on the EPA CASACs advice that the Ozone NAAQS be set in the range of 60 to 70 ppb”
As for why energy companies spend money on lobbying and supporting various candidates or policies, well, when you have a government that has the power to pick who wins and loses in this economy based on what laws they pass. Instead of it being about providing a product safely and affordably and that the market is willing to pay for- it’s about buying influence and having lawmakers push unwanted products or higher prices (through less competition) on the American people. Think I’m talking about coal companies? What about the half billion dollars paid to Solyndra, just the tip of the iceberg. The Dept of Energies own numbers show that as of Sept 15 of 2011 that 16.4 BILLION in loan guarantees went to companies run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers.
Someone else mentioned the $7,500 credit for buying Government Motors electric car, what they didn’t mention where the hundreds of millions in loans provided to the companies that make the parts for the car and the estimated $40,000 EACH battery that’s used in the Chevy Volt. It comes out to about $250,000.00 PER car. (michigancapitolconfidential.com)
Those are direct payments of taxpayer money to various “green” energies. Coal (like oil) companies are able to deduct against their profits the costs of investments they make, which is not a direct payment of taxpayer money….hmm…those coal “tax breaks” aren’t any different than those any American business could take.
You bring up mountain top removal . What about property rights of the owners to do with their land what they want? If you don’t want them to mine the coal, well, buy their land (paying as much or more than the coal company) and preserve it. Plenty of non-profits doing this. Though, I am rather fond of the parks and lakes, the beautiful scenery of reclaimed coal mines. Good fishing and very good hunting.
As for the “externalities” of other costs such as pollution. It should be borne by the coal company. That’s why we have a court system. If land owners and those who use various water sources have had their land polluted, they have the means of showing proof of their damages and being fairly compensated. What trial lawyer wouldn’t love to tap into the BILLIONS of the coal industry with a case of some little girls life ending too early by coal pollution? (there has to be a line forming to the court house with the 30,000+ a year the EPA cites coal for…right?)
As for things like water pollution, the EPA regulations are actually more stringent on the coal companies than cities tap water. Surprised again? Due to aging pipes and gov’t regulation, the water your drinking out of the tap is probably worse for you than that of the local stream just down river from one of those “evil” coal mines.
At least 32 power plants may be closed by the EPA’s new rules, a survey by the AP determined. Dozens of others may have to shut down some generating units that don’t meet the agency’s requirements. This isn’t about facts. It’s about politics. Obama has made the calculation that by devastating the coal industry, and a few small stats with little sway in the electoral college (who probably wouldn’t vote for him anyway) he will win more votes with the environmentalist and the other regions that aren’t as reliant on coal and can’t compete with the cheap electricity, than votes he’ll lose. (If you consult USEIA data you will see CA, NY, MA. and FL have electricity rates 30 to 40 percent higher than the national average. No high energy using business can make a profit in those states, think of the aluminum smelters and manufacturing that relies on Kentucky’s cheap COAL power to compete with China)
As for banning coal to save us from the great hoax of “global warming”, er, “climate change”, I mean, it’s “climate chaos” now right? There hasn’t been any warming in the last ten years or more, the various scientific groups like the University of East Anglia, the UN’s IPCC and the like have been shown over and over again to destroy, oops, I mean “lose” their original date, misrepresent and later retract studies (most people would call that lying), repress real scientific peer review of their studies etc. “Global Warming” has become little more than a means of scaring the American and other developed nation taxpayers into parting with more of their money.