Mountaintop removal sp 09: Difference between revisions

From Dickinson College Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
← Older editNewer edit →
Applestc (talk | contribs)
21 edits
No edit summary
Applestc (talk | contribs)
21 edits
No edit summary
Line 104: Line 104:
As with many fossil fuels, mountaintop removal continues on such a large scale because the true social costs of doing so are not taken into account.  The report by Downstream Strategies concluded that because of the externalities involved with mountaintop removal, including the environmental and health effects, a single mountaintop removal mine will lose $600 million dollars over its lifetime.  Many of these costs may come in health and environmental costs after the benefits stop (once the mine closed).  This deficit is only the calculated costs of a single mine and it is quite apparent that if this value is multiplied times the large unknown number of MT mines in Appalachia, society if losing a great amount of money on mountaintop removal.
As with many fossil fuels, mountaintop removal continues on such a large scale because the true social costs of doing so are not taken into account.  The report by Downstream Strategies concluded that because of the externalities involved with mountaintop removal, including the environmental and health effects, a single mountaintop removal mine will lose $600 million dollars over its lifetime.  Many of these costs may come in health and environmental costs after the benefits stop (once the mine closed).  This deficit is only the calculated costs of a single mine and it is quite apparent that if this value is multiplied times the large unknown number of MT mines in Appalachia, society if losing a great amount of money on mountaintop removal.


First off, MT removal companies would have to be made to pay the full social costs of their mining.  It is only because these costs are completely ignored currently that mountaintop removal is able to continue on such a large scale.  If these costs are taken into consideration by both companies and, then in connection, by costumers, it should be enough of an incentive for MT removal to be scaled back to an efficient level.  Government could achieve this by placing a tax, which roughly equated to the social costs of a mine, on mountaintop removal.  The tax income could be used for environmental and health mitigation measures for the mountaintop removal mining which still occurred after the tax.  This way the government would make money on MT rather than losing it through damage to the environmental and to public health.
First off, MT removal companies would have to be made to pay the full social costs of their mining.  It is only because these costs are completely ignored currently that mountaintop removal is able to continue on such a large scale.  If these costs are taken into consideration by both companies and, then in connection, by costumers, it should be enough of an incentive for MT removal to be scaled back to an efficient level.  Government could achieve this by placing a tax, which roughly equated to the social costs of a mine, on mountaintop removal.  The tax income could be used for environmental and health mitigation measures for the mountaintop removal mining which still occurred after the tax.  This way the government would make money on MT rather than losing it through damage to the environment and to public health.


A point to take into consideration, however, is that a large part of the social costs of MT are health damages.  A health standard may be needed to take into consideration in this case due to ethical issues of equating a person's quality of life to the monetary value of medical costs.  If the health standard is taken into consideration, the health damages of MT should be weighed more heavily in a cost benefit analysis than just pure monetary benefits (or costs).  This may call for an even greater tax on MT removal to account for the weighted costs or perhaps a ban on MT altogether due to the high costs to quality of life.
A point to take into consideration, however, is that a large part of the social costs of MT are health damages.  A health standard may have to be taken into consideration in this case due to ethical issues of equating a person's quality of life to the monetary value of medical costs.  If the health standard is taken into consideration, the health damages of MT should be weighed more heavily in a cost benefit analysis than just pure monetary benefits (or costs).  This may call for an even greater tax on MT removal to account for the weighted costs or perhaps a ban on MT altogether due to the high costs to quality of life.


As the report Downstream Strategies report concluded that wind power would be a preferable option to mountaintop removal in Raleigh County, there is no reason why this couldn't be implemented in other parts of Appalachia.  The initial costs of set-up would most likely pose the greatest challenge in creating wind farms in place of mountaintop removal.  Thus, government could also subsidize or give tax breaks for the building of wind farms to encourage clean technology.  Wind farms could easily account for jobs lost in MT and provide a switch in the energy sector of the economy.  A tax on MT would probably encourage some cross over to clean technology, anyway, but subsidies from the government for the initial costs may help this sector get off the ground as it is an economy of scale.
As the Downstream Strategies report concluded that wind power would be a preferable option to mountaintop removal in Raleigh County, there is no reason why this couldn't be implemented in other parts of Appalachia.  The initial costs of set-up would most likely pose the greatest challenge in creating wind farms in place of mountaintop removal.  Thus, government could also subsidize or give tax breaks for the building of wind farms in order to encourage clean technology.  Wind farms could easily account for jobs lost in MT and provide a switch in the energy sector of the economy.  A tax on MT would probably encourage some cross over to clean technology, anyway, but subsidies from the government for the initial costs may help this sector get off the ground as it is an economy of scale.


==References==
==References==

Revision as of 16:17, 2 May 2009

Mountaintop Removal Mining

History

Process

Valley Fill
  1. Trees are clear cut.
  2. Explosives are used to loosen the rocks and topsoil.
  3. Huge shovels dig into the topsoil and trucks haul the topsoil away.
  4. A dragline digs into the mountain to expose the coal.
  5. The dragline and large trucks dump the topsoil and rocks into "valley fills."
  6. Land is reclaimed. [1]

Political Climate & Laws

Kelly's Part

Monetary & Job Benefits

Health Effects

Kellys Part

Ecological Effects

Mountaintop removal can have devastating environmental impacts on the ecosystem. In order to do mountaintop removal, it is necessary to cut tracts of forest. The forest may not be able to come back easily in areas that have been cut because the soils become compacted (EPA, 2009). Due to the cutting, forests can become fragmented (EPA, 2009) which is a serious problem for biodiversity in an area. Fragmentation breaks up forests into many pieces rather than keeping a large tract intact together. As a result, there is more exterior forest area rather than interior forests which can cause declines in certain species, such as songbirds, that rely on inner areas of the forest (Sustainable Forests Partnership, 2008). This can cause an overall decline in biodiversity and make ecosystems more susceptible to invasive species (Sustainable Forests Partnership, 2008). The change in ecosystem make-up on reclaimed mine land can also change the species composition. Grassland birds become more common and amphibians become less common (EPA, 2009).[2] Several bird species that rely on mature interior forests for nesting have greatly decreased in population (American Bird Conservancy, 2007).

Clean stream, right, polluted by Mining wastes, left

Mountaintop removal is also responsible to for a large amount of degradation to streams. In a 12-million-acre area in east Kentucky, south West Virginia, west Virginia, and east Tennessee, 1,200 miles of streams have been damaged by mountaintop removal (Lindsey, 2007). When a valley fill is done, they can sometimes can completely bury and destroy the stream all together (EPA, 2009). Even if when streams are not completely covered by stream fills, they can still suffer extreme degradation from the pollution of mining. Studies of impacted streams have shown an increase in many minerals such as zinc, sodium, selenium, and sulfate which can all have negative impacts on organisms in streams (EPA, 2009). Again, these minerals can decrease biodiversity by killing off more sensitive species. A study done by Pond, Passmore, Borsuk, Reynolds, and Rose found that there was a link between mountaintop removal and a degradation in the biological community of macroinvertebrates in streams. Many toxic elements can also be found in concentrations greater than government standards in streams near mountaintop removal sites (Lindsey, 2007). Valley fills can greatly increase the severity of flash flooding (Lindsey, 2007).

Sludge Dam Break in Martin County, Kentucky

Sludge dams, in which companies dump the rubble and wastes of taking the tops of mountains, can also contribute to negative environmental impacts. In 2000, a sludge dam broke in Martin County, Kentucky and miles of waterways were flooded with 300 million gallons of toxic sludge (many times more than the Valdez oil spill) (Appalachian Voices, 2007). The disaster killed all aquatic life within 70 miles of the break. There are still 45 sludge dams in West Virginia (Appalachian Voices, 2007) that are quite a high risk for breaking which could potentially be responsible for more environmental disasters such as they one in Martin County.

Usually reclamation efforts for mountain-top removal involve companies planting non-native grasses on destroyed slopes. This is not particularly effective because it changes the forest ecosystem for more of a grassland ecosystem. Birds that nest in forests, such as Cerulean Warblers, will not use these grassland areas (American Bird Conservancy, 2007). Companies could reforest this land which would probably somewhat decrease the effects of loss of biodiversity to a small degree (American Bird Conservancy, 2007). However, companies rarely do this as it is more expensive and not required by law.

Alternatives to Mountaintop Removal

While mountaintop removal mining is a one of the most profitable methods of extracting coal, there are less environmentally damaging methods of mining. The four less environmentally damaging methods of coal mining are shaft mines, slope mines, drift mines and open-pit mining. Additionally, there are numerous other forms of energy that can be substituted for coal as an energy source.

Coal Mining

There are five main types of mining operations used to extract coal from the earth – shaft mines, slope mines, drift mines, open-pit mining and mountain top removal mining. The first three types are used to extract coal from areas more than 100 feet underground [3]. Instead of mountain top mining, coal companies could extract coal using one of these four methods.

Shaft Mines
Alternative mining methods

Shaft mining utilizes two vertical shafts to reach coal deep in the ground [4]. It is the deepest form of underground mining and the most common type of mining shown in films.[5]

Slope Mines

Slope mining, usually not as deep as the other forms of mining[6], utilizes angled shafts to reach coal that has either been tilted or folded in the Earth’s crust.[7]

Drift Mines

Drift mines have “horizontal entries into the coal seam from the hillside.”[8]

Open-cast Mines

Open-cast mining, also called “open-pit mining,” involves the removal of the surface layers of mountains from top to bottom.[9]

Other Energy Alternatives

Corn-based Ethanol

While corn-based ethanol appears to be a good energy source because countries can grow it in their own “backyard,” it is not as beneficial as many people believe according to a report by Hill et. al.. Even if all US corn and soybean production went towards making biofuels, the two of them combined would only provide 12% of gasoline and 6% of diesel demanded annually. In addition, the net energy balance for corn grain ethanol is small providing only 25% more energy than required for its production. Also, according to the report by Hill et. al., as of 2005 corn-based ethanol was not competitive with petroleum-based fuels without subsidies and as a result, is not an economically efficient alternative for most consumers.

Relative to the fossil fuels corn-based ethanol would displace, using corn-based ethanol as an energy source would reduce green house gas emissions by 12%. On the other hand, corn production has negative environmental impacts such as an increased amount of nitrogen and phosphorous in the surrounding ecosystems. One of the most widely reported and negative effects of nitrogen is that in large quantities nitrogen can cause “dead zones” such as the one in the Gulf of Mexico [10].

Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Plant

According to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), nuclear power is the lowest cost producer of base load energy. Nuclear power is not subject to unreliable weather or climate conditions, unpredictable cost fluctuations or dependence on foreign suppliers. Furthermore, NEI states that nuclear plants produce nearly 20 percent of the United State’s electricity and has the ability to provide a larger share of the US energy market. While nuclear power is appealing to the NEI, environmentalist group Greenpeace is staunchly opposed to nuclear energy. In their own words, “Greenpeace has always fought - and will continue to fight - vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity.” In addition, Greenpeace has three main concerns about nuclear energy – the safety of nuclear power, the radioactive spent fuel rods and their storage, and weapons proliferation.[11].

Oil

According to the US Department of Energy (USDOE), “oil is the lifeblood of America’s economy.” Currently, it supplies the United States of America with 40% of its total energy demands and 99% of the fuel used in automobiles. Oil is considered to be plentiful and relatively affordable when compared to other energy sources available today.

On the other hand, one must also see the negative effects of oil. For example, offshore oil exploration (one of the many different types of oil exploration) can cause a variety of environmental problems[12]. Some are listed below:

  1. Discharge of toxic drilling fluids used on machinery
  2. Oil spills
  3. Operational noise that can disturb fauna
  4. Degradation of beaches
  5. Loss of habitat for floraand fauna
San Francisco Bay November 2007

According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), drilling for oil from the ground creates large volumes of water of “undesirable quality known as produced water.” Furthermore, the traditional form of drilling for oil on land masses (vs. offshore drilling) also has negative effects on ecosystems: [13]

  1. Discharge of drilling muds and solids, specifically viscosifiers, thinners and deflocculants,polymers and lubricants
  2. Accidental discharge of unrefined petroleum
  3. Negative effects on the surrounding flora and fauna


Solar Power

One of the great things about solar power is that its energy source – the Sun – is free and accessible to everyone. In 2007, solar power supplied approximately 1% of the US energy supply[14]. One of the biggest problems with solar power is that, currently, it does not provide enough energy in large cities where there are more people living in a square mile than suburban or rural areas. In addition, high installation costs and long payback time may deter some potential buyers from investing in solar power.

While solar power has been traditionally seen as more expensive than traditional energy sources, a report by the National Renewable Energy Laboratorysuggests that on a large scale (4,000 MW), concentrated solar power (CSP) plants “would be a beneficial addition to California’s energy supply." The report, "Economic, Energy and Environmental Benefits of Concentrating Solar Power in California", also states that a CSP plant in California would offset at least 300 tons of NOx emissions, 180 tons of CO emissions and 7.6 million tons of CO2 annually.

A CSP plant also provides permanent jobs, unlike the petroleum and natural gas industries. Furthermore, CSP plants “are a fixed-cost generation resource [that] offer a physical hedge against the fluctuating cost of electricity produced with natural gas” [15]. According to the report, for each dollar spent on CSP plants, there is a total impact of approximately $1.40 to gross state output for each dollar invested. On the contrary, there is a total impact of only $0.90 for each dollar invested in natural gas fueled generation [16].

Wind
Wind Turbines

The report, The Long-Term Economic Benefits of Wind Versus Mountaintop Removal Coal on Coal River Mountain, West Virginia, examined the economic benefits that wind power would have in West Virginia. It calculated the local economic benefits based on number of jobs, earnings and economic output. In addition, the study examined costs due to increased death and illnesses from mountaintop removal mining and the cost of local environmental problems in the future. In addition, it discusses that wind power is not without environmental impact and that the wind turbines will directly affect birds and bats and possibly affect the local wildlife. The report concluded that wind power is preferable to mountaintop removal in Raleigh County. The study claims that the economic benefits of mountaintop removal would end 17 years after mining operations ceased, while the environmental and social costs of mountaintop removal would continue to last. In economic terms, mountaintop removal mining provides $36,000 per year in coal severances paid to Raleigh County, whereas a wind farm would generate $1.74 million in local property taxes annually. See entire report here: Downstream Strategies report

According to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), wind power “can be harnessed to be a non-polluting, never-ending source of energy” to meet the world’s energy needs. Furthermore, the AWEA states that in good wind areas over 25 years, a large wind turbine project may offer cheaper energy than any other new power plant. In addition, concerns about the reliability of wind power are not supported with current evidence. In Demark, where over 20% of its energy comes from wind, there has been no loss of reliability of the electrical grid and there has been no need for expensive equipment or energy storage.

Suggested Economic Policy

As with many fossil fuels, mountaintop removal continues on such a large scale because the true social costs of doing so are not taken into account. The report by Downstream Strategies concluded that because of the externalities involved with mountaintop removal, including the environmental and health effects, a single mountaintop removal mine will lose $600 million dollars over its lifetime. Many of these costs may come in health and environmental costs after the benefits stop (once the mine closed). This deficit is only the calculated costs of a single mine and it is quite apparent that if this value is multiplied times the large unknown number of MT mines in Appalachia, society if losing a great amount of money on mountaintop removal.

First off, MT removal companies would have to be made to pay the full social costs of their mining. It is only because these costs are completely ignored currently that mountaintop removal is able to continue on such a large scale. If these costs are taken into consideration by both companies and, then in connection, by costumers, it should be enough of an incentive for MT removal to be scaled back to an efficient level. Government could achieve this by placing a tax, which roughly equated to the social costs of a mine, on mountaintop removal. The tax income could be used for environmental and health mitigation measures for the mountaintop removal mining which still occurred after the tax. This way the government would make money on MT rather than losing it through damage to the environment and to public health.

A point to take into consideration, however, is that a large part of the social costs of MT are health damages. A health standard may have to be taken into consideration in this case due to ethical issues of equating a person's quality of life to the monetary value of medical costs. If the health standard is taken into consideration, the health damages of MT should be weighed more heavily in a cost benefit analysis than just pure monetary benefits (or costs). This may call for an even greater tax on MT removal to account for the weighted costs or perhaps a ban on MT altogether due to the high costs to quality of life.

As the Downstream Strategies report concluded that wind power would be a preferable option to mountaintop removal in Raleigh County, there is no reason why this couldn't be implemented in other parts of Appalachia. The initial costs of set-up would most likely pose the greatest challenge in creating wind farms in place of mountaintop removal. Thus, government could also subsidize or give tax breaks for the building of wind farms in order to encourage clean technology. Wind farms could easily account for jobs lost in MT and provide a switch in the energy sector of the economy. A tax on MT would probably encourage some cross over to clean technology, anyway, but subsidies from the government for the initial costs may help this sector get off the ground as it is an economy of scale.

References

  • Pond, Gregory J., Margaret Passmore, Frank A. Borsuk, Lou Reynolds, and Carole J. Rose (2008), "Downstream Effects of Mountaintop Coal Mining: Comparing Biological Conditions Using Family- and Genus-level Macroinvertebrate Bioassessment Tools." The North American Benthological Society.


Images:

Authors

Applestein, Cara; Morgan, Arleigh; Rogers, Kelly; Vernon, Andrei

Retrieved from "https://wiki.dickinson.edu/index.php?title=Mountaintop_removal_sp_09&oldid=46401"