Hillary also indicates that she would appreciate having more objective information to assist her understanding so she may presumably reach a definitive position. Well, I'd be pleased to provide that assistance. This diary lays out some of the environmental and economic consequences of MTR based generally upon government studies, which surely should qualify as "objective."
The upshot is that the environmental, human rights and economic impacts to the local communities are devastating. There is no such thing as recovery or reclamation of destroyed mountaintops, suffocated streams or dead wildlife. The economic impacts to the mining industry of stopping MTR are insignificant. Adding up the math for Hillary's own equation equals a definitive, unequivocal, no wiggle room position to stop MTR. But, she may need some convincing, so please contact her at the numbers below. And, while Barack Obama has stated that he opposes MTR, it would not hurt to let your fingers do the talking with him as well.
1. "Economic and environmental trade-off"
Hillary's first concern is about economic and environmental trade-offs:
I am concerned about it for all the reasons people state, but I think its a difficult question because of the conflict between the economic and environmental trade-off that you have here.
Hillary is saying that MTR mining is a local economic asset that must be weighed against the environmental negatives. That is, we must make some concessions by accepting some environmental damage given that MTR is such an asset to the local economy. Looking at some of the objective statistical measurements of MTR impacts on the local economy shows that this economic necessity meme is mythical.
First, the data shows that MTR has an inverse negative relationship with local jobs: As MTR mining increases, the jobs decrease:
Labor statistics show that mining jobs have disappeared because MTR requires far fewer workers, which increases unemployment, decreases family incomes and thus decreases local revenues, which result in the closing of facilities, like schools. The bureau of labor statistics shows that 145,000 miners were employed in West Virginia in the early 1950s, and this number shrunk to 16,000 in 2004. Government records also show that while the use of MTR increased, income levels decreased for families (pdf file) causing the need for more assistance from food stamps:
Statistics from the Department of Health and Human Resources show that
the number of families receiving food stamps steadily increased from 89,446 in August 2001 to 101,561 in August 2003 at a time when the population for the state has consistently declined and when eligibility requirements have been tightened.
Second, while MTR strangles the local economy, it is also killing the once vibrant tourism industry, which is the primary alternative option to improve the local economy. As the very objective EPA noted, people will not flock to polluted or nonexistent streams for canoeing or hiking on mountains that no longer exist:
West Virginia's waterways are among the state's most valuable tourist attractions. Canoeists and fishermen come for the pleasures of rivers meandering under umbrellas of green or dancing in sunlight. The valley fills bury streambeds and contaminate streams with sediment from the mines.
The economic impact can be easily understood when comparing the difference between towns with MTR versus towns with no MTR:
Because of the booming economy built around tourism, for instance, Watauga County, North Carolina, has maintained one of the lowest unemployment rates of all 100 North Carolina counties in recent years. In contrast, the coal-producing counties to the north suffer some of the highest unemployment rates, lowest education rates, and highest poverty in the nation.
The bottom line is that MTR can not co-exist with a healthy tourism industry (pdf file), as noted in testimony by former state senator Si Galperin to a US House subcommittee:
"Both stripping and the recreation and tourist industry which employs four times as many people are today growing rapidly. But they cannot both continue to grow. One must force out the other. Either we will have a state of beauty which West Virginians and Americans can continue to enjoy at great profit to ourselves, or we will have a stripped state enjoyed by none at great profit to a few giant, absentee corporations."
Given that MTR is not a boom for the local economy, what economic advantages does MTR mining produce? The answer is that the mining companies make tons of money. MTR mining requires a shadow of the workforce required for traditional mining. So, the mining companies save money by hiring fewer workers and reducing payments for associated costs, like healthcare. Another major savings for mining companies is our government allowing MTR mining to use our streams as free waste dumps. While mining companies claim that MTR is not possible without valley fills, that is simply not true:
Studies have identified more benign, though admittedly more costly, ways to dispose of the waste, while other studies have warned that unless alternatives are found, an area larger than the state of Delaware will be laid waste by dynamite and bulldozer by the end of this decade, poisoning water supplies and leading to continuous flooding.
The coal mining industry also maintained in a government environmental impact report that surface mining, which included MTR, produces a better quality coal than underground mining and that underground coal would "not produce a marketable product unless blended with a surface mined product." However, "southern West Virginia coal is a highly marketable, low-sulfur, high volatility coal – whether mined by surface or underground methods." Moreover, statistics for 1996-2000 show that the market yielded an average price for surfaced mined coal per ton that was less than its underground equivalent (pdf file):
In 2002, the cost per ton of underground coal was $30.20 and it increased slightly to $30.72 by 2003. In contrast, surface mined coal brought $28.77 per ton in 2002 and $29.25 per ton in 2003.
Thus, the mining industry prefers MTR coal even though it yields a cheaper price on the market per ton because the industry can skyrocket its overall profits with the sheer volume of coal and the cheaper costs of a reduced labor force as well as free dumping grounds.
Another economic and human rights issue is coal haul tonnage that destroys the roads and increases the traffic deaths of local citizens (pdf file) resulting in more memorials. The "injuries and deaths caused by overburdened coal trucks are innumerable." Given the topography of the mountain roads as well as the weight and speed of the trucks, it is a misnomer to call these traffic deaths, but local prosecutors have refused to file criminal charges:
In November, in response to [the killing of two citizens by an overweight coal truck] and other overweight coal truck tragedies, Kanawha County Prosecutor Mike Clifford publicly promised to crack down on overweight trucks, looking into criminal violations from shipper to receiver. Clifford said he believed weight "has a significant impact on stopping ability of trucks."
That's the physics of this argument. But by August, Clifford changed his tune. In a written report on the Rt. 94 tragedy, a state police sergeant said it was his opinion that the weight of the coal truck was not a factor in the cause of the accident. A grand jury used that opinion to decide NOT to indict the coal truck driver.
One town was fortunate to limit coal truck trips to 20 a day. However, the problem is the "trucks careening down small, windy mountain roads" at all hours of the day. The constant truck traffic and knowledge of others killed creates a daily state of fear and intimidation when local residents drive or even are near the roads:
You really haven't been intimidated until you see a 60-ton coal truck swerve at you on a narrow road, when there's a rock cliff on one side and a 100-foot drop-off on the other. I have a friend that says the only difference between now and the 1920s [when coal companies persecuted and even killed union organizers] is that they're not shooting us on courthouse steps. They're running us over with coal trucks.
The drivers simply do not have control operating speeding coal trucks hauling such heavy loads:
Watch out for the huge coal trucks, carrying 40, 50, even 60 tons of coal – what the locals call "a graveyard hump because they can’t stop and if you’re in the way, you’re in trouble" – coming down that same road, snaking between the cliff on one side and house trailers perched on the ledge over that holler on the other.
Of course, the coal industry indicated that deadly accidents are simply a cost of doing business as the number of deaths are "no more than might be expected given the many miles that coal trucks travel each year."
In 2003, the West Virginia legislature nearly doubled the coal haul tonnage from 65,000 tons of coal for a truck weight limit to 120,000 tons. However, the coal trucks are creating substantial damages to roads and bridges (pdf file) that will need to be repaired, which is another economic cost of MTR:
Only about 600 miles of nearly 7,500 miles of southern West Virginia roads were intended to hold more than 65,000 pounds. Most of the bridges that these oversized coal trucks will travel are not equipped to handle more than 80,000 pounds, and only 150 miles of roads within the fifteen counties meet these standards.
This economic cost is not insignificant, but billions of dollars, with most of the cost falling on taxpaying citizens rather than minimal surcharges for permits to haul coal:
West Virginia Transportation Secretary Fred VanKirk noted that repeatedly exceeding this load could cause "fatigue" and "wear the bridge out." The Department of Highways, using a 1980 study, estimated that it would cost $2.8 billion to upgrade the 3,600 miles of coal haulage roads that the 1980 study had identified as needing such updates. That amount is more like $6.5 billion in today’s marketplace. It should also be noted that while passing the law to allow more tonnage in fifteen southern West Virginia counties, the legislature failed to provide any new funding for "upgrading highways and bridges in the Coal Resource Transportation System" as the targeted area has been dubbed. The law does, however, increase the amount charged for permits to haul the larger loads and is expected to generate "between $200,000 and $1 million in fees" each year, falling well below the billions needed for updating the roads and bridges.
Given the innumerable deleterious impacts of MTR, what would be the economic impact of banning MTR completely? While aggregate coal production would be reduced, a 1999 story in a West Virginia paper stated "banning MTR would cut the state's total coal production by 10 percent," according to a mining industry-sponsored study:
This study "claimed that the coal industry stood to lose about $490 million in revenues each year, based on an estimated sale price of $28 per ton of coal, and declared that both state and local governments stood to lose thirty-seven million dollars in yearly tax revenues. While these figures, admittedly, show some impact to the coal industry, they are hardly the death knell that many industry executives claim should there be a decrease or end to MTR."
2. Hillary does not have sufficient facts for "independent opinion."
Hillary needs more information about MTR before she can make an independent opinion:
I'm not an expert. I don't know enough to have an independent opinion .... . , but I sure would like people who could be objective, understanding both the economic necessities and environmental damage to come up with some approach that would enable us to retrieve the coal but would enable us to do it in a way that wouldn't damage the living standards and the other important qualities associated with people living both under the mountaintop and people who are along the streams.
Well, Hillary Clinton has attended Senate Committee hearings on MTR since 2002, so she should have a basic understanding of MTR. She also promised to take a flyover of the region, but it does not appear that she has kept that promise.
In any event, it does not take a rocket scientist to understand MTR. So, for Hillary's sake, here are some basic facts of the reality of the environmental disasters caused by MTR:
*** 
According to the EPA, during 1985-2001, "approximately 800 square miles of mountains were leveled" by bombs. To provide some perspective of this unrecoverable damage, this graphic shows what it would look like if one MTR --- the 10,000 acre Hobet MTR Complex in West Virginia --- had been located in NYC by superimposing the site in NYC to show how much land would be destroyed.
Another way to visualize this destruction is that 800 square miles of destroyed mountains is "equal to a one-quarter mile wide swath of destruction from New York to San Francisco."
***
The EPA reported in 2003 that 7% or 400,000 acres of "rich and diverse temperate forest" had been killed during 1985-2001. An EPA report also states that if there are no restrictions, "2,200 square miles of Appalachian forests — an area twice the size of Rhode Island— will be eliminated by 2012."
It would be a travesty if this deforestation occurred on this scale anywhere in the US. It is a more Herculean tragedy that occurs in Appalachia because these mountain ranges have lived for millions of years and are a topographically diverse range that provide high levels of biodiversity "unparalleled in the temperate zone." It is a confluence of factors --- such as age, north-south range alignment which allows species to easily migrate, elevation gradients of gorges and summits that allow temperature changes to protect species --- that made the mountains one of the "richest temperate areas" and one of our top biodiversity hotspots. When the mining companies kill "America's own little miniature rain forest," they are also killing the "world's most diverse temperate hardwood forest" that functions as the "carbon sinks and lungs of the East Coast."
Another direct impact of stripping away trees, vegetation and topsoil from the mountain top is to increase surface runoff which increases floods. The use of valley fills also contribute to flooding. A study by federal regulators predicted that one valley fill "could increase peak runoff flow by as much as 42 percent." Some small towns have been hit by 5 major floods in 18 months after not experiencing a major flood since 1957. In Chopping Block Hollow, "three so-called hundred-year floods happened in 10 days" in 2002.
***
During 1985-2001, 6,700 valley fills in central Appalachia killed more than 1,200 miles of valley streams by suffocating the aquatic and riparian habitat. The blasting blends together the rock and dirt from the former mountaintop with the blasting chemicals and debris, and this waste is dumped into valleys that are contiguous to the MTR site. The mining companies call this the creation of "valley fills," which is simply filling the valleys with "millions of tons" of the waste rock and dirt that may be hundreds of feet deep depending on whether 500 or 1,000 vertical feet were chopped off the moutaintop. Large mines may be surrounded by several valley fills. A "single fill may be over 1,000 feet wide and over a mile long (pdf file)."
If the stream is not buried alive, government studies show that the surviving streams "carry high levels of silt and toxic chemicals." Federal studies "found substantially higher levels of selenium, a mineral that is toxic to fish in high doses -- in rivers near the mines. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated that as many as 244 species, including several that are endangered, were being affected by the loss of forest and aquatic habitats."
A university study found that children were also "impacted" as they "suffer from an alarmingly high rate of nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, and shortness of breath -- symptoms of something called blue baby syndrome -- that can all be traced back to sedimentation and dissolved minerals that have drained from mine sites into nearby streams. Long-term effects may include liver, kidney, and spleen failure, bone damage, and cancers of the digestive tract."
Finally, Appalachia is running out of streams to be offered up as waste dumps for MTR. In the past, the mining debris was placed at the headwaters of streams with intermittent flow. In recent years, the mining companies have moved to valley fills over any stream "because smaller upstream disposal sites are exhausted (pdf file) and because of the increase in mountaintop mining activity."
***
Last year, there were 500 impoundments in Appalachia containing over one-hundred and ten billion gallons of mining sludge. After decapitating the mountaintops, suffocating streams and wildlife with mining waste in the valley fills, then the coal needs to be processed. The coal is washed and treated to remove debris and the blasting residues and the excess toxic water and black, gooey goop from this process is called coal slurry or sludge, which the mining companies store in open impoundments. According to the Sludge Safety Project, "sludge contains carcinogenic chemicals used to process coal. It also contains toxic heavy metals that are present in coal, such as arsenic, mercury, chromium, cadmium, boron, selenium, and nickel." This toxic goop is stored in open pool impoundments located on top of the flattened mountains and in some cases, the goop is pumped into abandoned underground mines, which means the goop is being released into groundwater basins.
***The toxic slurry impoundments are held back with unreinforced earthen dams that have been breached, killing the people below and creating more environmental impacts.
In 1972, a coal slurry dam failed in Buffalo Creek valley, flooding the hollow with 132 million gallons of coal waste: 125 people were killed, 1,100 injured, 4,000 people rendered homeless and 16 communities destroyed as well as over 1,000 cars and trucks.
In 2000, there was the Big Sandy River disaster, which the EPA concluded was one of the worst environmental disasters in the Southeast. More than 250 million gallons of toxic sludge breached the impoundment --- or 25 times the amount of the oil spilled in the Exxon Valdez disaster --- and poured into the Big Sandy River, ultimately reaching the Ohio River 60 miles away. The sludge was laced with poisonous heavy metals (e.g., mercury, lead and arsenic).
At some places, the thick goop was 10 feet deep and in other places 70 yards wide "swallowing backyards, gardens and driveways and annihilating fish and other aquatic life." No people were killed. But, "20 miles (32 kilometers) of stream valley would be declared an aquatic dead zone" as "fish, snakes, turtles and other species" were smothered by the sludge. The State wildlife agency estimated that 1.6 million fish were smothered in the molasseslike substance while lawns were "buried up to 7 feet deep in sludge."
In 2002, there was the Winding Shoals Hollow disaster. During a thunderstorm, the rain-saturated valley fill separated and crashed into a sediment pond, which overflowed, sending a "tidal wave of sediment-laden water churning down Winding Shoals Hollow, destroying two homes, damaging about ten others and hurtling 8-10 vehicles downstream. No one was killed, though there were some narrow escapes."
Today, there are many disasters lying in wait. For example, there is much concern about an imminent Marshfolk School disaster because another impoundment houses 3 billion gallons of toxic slurry and an elementary school is located 400 yards downslope from this impoundment. The school is located between the coal silo and football field in the lower left of this photo. Should this earthen dam breach, "there would be less than three minutes to evacuate the Marsh Fork Elementary School before the water reached 6 feet" and it is feared that the floodwaters would rise to 15 feet at the school. Even without a slurry flood, every day students are sent home sick with "asthma problems, severe headaches, blisters in their mouths, constant runny noses, and nausea" which may be related to leaks from this impoundment or to the coal silo located so close to the school.
3. Recovery of Decapitated Mountaintops
Hillary thinks there may be a way to recover decapitated mountaintops:
You know, maybe there is a way to recover those mountaintops once they have been stripped of the coal. You know, I think we've got to look at this from a practical perspective.
From a "practical perspective," the decapitated, denuded mountaintops can be used for golf courses, but not much more. Once the mountains have been bombed to flattened moonscapes, then comes the "reclamation" which the EPA says "may not occur for hundreds of years." Truth is it will never happen. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) admits that MTR precludes actual restoration (pdf file):
While federal law calls for excess spoil to be placed back in the mined areas — returning the lands to their approximate original contour (AOC) — that result ordinarily cannot be accomplished with mountaintop mining because broken rock takes up more volume than did the rock prior to mining and because there are stability concerns with the spoil pile.
The feds agreed and gave the mining companies a blanket exemption:
It was not the intent of [SMCRA], of course, to allow coal companies to walk away from their surface mines and leave them denuded. Stripped mountainsides, the law declared, must be restored to their "approximate original contour" and stabilized with grasses and shrubs, and, if possible, trees. But putting the entire top of a topped-off mountain back together again was an altogether different—and more expensive—matter. So mountaintop mines were given a blanket exemption from this requirement with the understanding that, in lieu of contoured restoration, the resulting plateau would be put to some beneficial public use.
Even if a beneficial use could be fathomed for the decapitated, former purple mountains majesty, there is no beneficial use that could outweigh the immoral, inhumane and reckless policy which permits people, communities and culture to die or that legalizes the killing of our mountains, streams and wildlife.
Please tell both our candidates that in the name of all humanity and reasoned analysis, MTR must be stopped:
Hillary Clinton's Senate contact page, with phone and fax numbers and email form.
Barack Obama's Senate contact page, with phone and fax numbers and email form.
NOTE: WattHead wrote a great diary about the same interview, Hillary Clinton Loves Her Some Coal, which shows how clearly aligned she is with the coal industry:
**Clinton says: "Coal fits in very importantly because obviously, we have a great reserve of coal."
**Coal industry astroturf campaign says: "Coal is our most abundant fuel. The United States has more coal than any other fuel. A quarter of all of the known coal in the entire world is here in America."
**Clinton says: "We get more than 50% of our electricity from coal.
** Coal industry PR machine spews: "Coal provides half of America’s electricity generation and more than twice as much as the next-highest contributor — nuclear."
**Clinton says: "The challenge is how we are going to continue using coal and meet a lot of our environmental challenges. What I have said is that we'll have a new cap-and-trade system, and we'll take a lot of the money we raise from that cap-and-trade system and invest it in ... clean coal technology."
** The coal industry reassures us: "We are committed to making coal a clean energy source. ... Today, energy companies are working with the federal government to develop, demonstrate, and deploy the next generation of advanced technologies that will make it possible to reduce regulated emissions even further (to near-zero levels) and capture and store greenhouse gases."
Jeff Biggers also wrote an excellent story, "Beyond Race: Obama's Green Opportunity," which focuses on how Senator Obama needs to do the right thing by standing up to stop MTR, which could also be politically advantageous for his campaign.
NOTE: All of these outstanding MTR photos are by Vivian Stockman of Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition.
Yesterday, faithfull reported on Hillary Clinton's interview (audio link) where she stated her position on mountaintop removal (MTR). In short, Hillary did not flat out reject or denounce MTR. Rather, Hillary believes that the mythical economic necessity of MTR means that we need to accept environmental trade offs. Hillary also implied that somehow decapitated mountaintops can be recovered. Well, "All the King's horses, And all the King's men, Couldn't put Humpty together again" for the same reason that we can not grab all the soil and rock blasted from the mountaintop and simply glue it back together as if nothing happened. The mountaintops are physically gone. The answer is to stop the bombing of our purple mountains majesty.