It seems as though "free marketeers" would have a tough time with this problem. But digging a bit deeper (pun intended) into this problem seems to show that a market with less restrictions could solve the situation.
Mountaintop removal was implemented to mine lower sulfur coal as well as provide a safer alternative to underground mining. And mountaintop removal only accounts for about 5% of coal for power plants. Government agencies such as the EPA made it EASIER for coal companies to fill in valleys and hollers by allowing for permits to be obtained to create gently rolling surface topography.
From Environmental Law Resource
"A permit is required under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) in order to discharge dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States. The permit is issued by the USACE using the guidelines developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)"If the government is the one allowing for coal companies to pollute our streams and rivers and watersheds, why should we think that giving them more authority to make rules and govern would create a solution? An Austrian view would be to eliminate the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act and allow for citizens and property owners to file civil suits against big coal for any infringements. Having a smaller government would mean that coal companies would have a tougher time flexing their large budgets to scare away these suits and influence politicians.
On a final note, coal companies have invested more than $50 billion in clean coal technologies, and the first truly clean coal plant went online in Germany with facilities to clean the emitted gasses and convert the produced carbon dioxide into liquid form to be stored.
Well said. People are quick to point the finger at the coal industry. What needs to be remembered is that energy and environmental causes are a deep, deep topic. There is much more there than meets the eye. There is not a simple, quick, all purpose solution.
ReplyDeleteAs always, limited government is the answer. Get out of the way of private, industrious, and innovative citizens.
Yes. There is always more than meets the eye when it comes to coal. Many local communities depend on it to put food on the table, but still live way below the poverty line. Recent studies have shown the many adverse health effects of living in these communities, as you've touched on.
ReplyDeleteOne problem, big coal companies have a such a large influence on politics and a seemingly endless supply of money, that they always squash out small, civil suits. There is noted evidence that Don Blankenship, CEO of Massey Engery has influenced a number of supreme court cases and judges, in particular Judge Monaco and Elliot Maynard
Clean Coal is an oxymoron. Purfied or not, the burning of coal still contributes to global warming. Where does that liquified carbon go? Does it just sit there?
the Obama Administration has recently put a hold on many MTR permits, mandating that the Army Core of Engineers inspect the sites and plans according to EPA standards. This is a vast improvement over the last administration, who repeatedly rubber stamped the permits into action, without further investigation. While this may mean more government involvemnt, atleast time and effort is being taken to condsider the consequences of mountain top removal, before it takes place.
Recently, a permit was revoked at Spruce Mine, West Virginia. Due to the Clean Water act of 1972, the EPA can review previously permitted projects. I see this as a win. The Clean Water Act, which you site, requires a permit before waste is dumped. If no law required a permit to be sought, couldn't coal companies dump whatever they wanted where ever they wanted?
If no goverment involvment is what you seek, what keeps coal companies from ravaging the land at their leisure? Don Blankenship is a private and heavily industrious citizen, who has created mass profits at others expense. If no laws required to keep coal companies to EPA standards, what is this going to do to our environment?
To me, it seems the major problem lies with the energy grid. It is obsolete, and heavily favors nonrenewable energies such as coal and natural gas. If the grid was restructured to include solar and wind energies, we could gradually wean ourselves from coal.
MTR, while it may only account for 5% of coal for power plants, has already buried thousands of miles of streams, displaced and threatened many local species of plants and animals, and ultimately destroyed many unique areas of one of the world's most biodiverse regions.
Jonathon,
ReplyDeleteYou bring up some good points about big coal companies quashing suits that get brought against them. You ask about liquefied carbon:
Yes it is not a permanent solution, just a start, but scientists (mainly materials scientists, woot to me) are working on ways to bind carbon dioxide with spheres of around 50 aluminum atoms that are heavier than air and could be deposited into the same places that liquefied CO2 is currently being placed.
You ask about the abolition of permits and rules regarding such:
Coal companies WOULD be allowed to do anything with their land and mineral rights as long as whatever they did stayed within their property. The pollution of water and air and others' land would be punishable in both a civil and criminal case.
If a coal company filled in their own land, but a stream was diverted or even erased from the map because of it, they again would be liable for it.
My point is this:
Who gives the coal companies rights to pollute our land, water, and air? The government does. The reason the coal companies can smash civil suits brought against them is that they can bribe government officials and judges to rule in their favor. The answer is not to increase either the power or number of bureaucrats, nor to increase the number or power of legislation, because these can be bought and manipulated by these massive corporations, but the answer is to decrease these and give the power back to the people, people like you and me who care about the situation and are willing to do things to change.
Thanks for the clarification. How do you propose we "give power back to the people" ?
ReplyDeleteI'm not so sure a smaller government would do the trick, especially in heavily coal-dependent states. Elected officials don't necessarily look out for their constituents. And if the number of people in power was smaller, wouldn't it decrease diversity of opinion on the issue? If coal companies were able to buy out the few and only bureaucrats, what chance is their for an effective opposition?
That being said, I don't think we need to increase the number of bureaucrats, as you say, but I think strict and effective legislation could keep coal companies in check.
Jonathan,
ReplyDeletePassing more legislation is the wrong answer. Creating red tape merely drives up the cost of energy production thus making coal the continually easy way out as it is less expensive and readily available.
The answer is to repeal legislation, reduce the number of oversight agencies, and enable industrious citizens to develop and freely market their ideas for energy.
The effective opposition is us. We would be able to hit the coal companies on two fronts. First we could purchase an alternative form of energy, (solar, wind, go off the grid type idea) if we could afford it, damaging them financially. There also wouldn't be government backed monopolies on power, anybody could build solar or wind or nuclear or spaghetti monster power plants as long as they didn't pollute others' land or water or air.
ReplyDeleteOr if their MTR affects our health or pollutes our water (which it does if you live in Lexington) then we would have very good grounds for civil action. There would not be red tape that coal companies currently use to tie up valid lawsuits and the politicians that did exist would have no authority to impose on this area.
I guess I misspoke. It's not the number of politicians that matter, its the overall power that they wield (constitutionally or unconstitutionally). We need to reduce the power of the legislators - doing so is how we give power back to the citizens.
The point I'm trying to make is that I disagree with MTR just as much as you do, but we have two differing views on how it can be stopped.
ReplyDelete