A Survey of Arguments Concerning Mountain Top Removal Mining

For years, the State of Nevada has found the Yucca Mountain project unacceptable because of the obvious logical and scientific issues that make the site itself unsafe. Additional support for their argument is that other than being far from the nuclear waste, the repository cannot really separate itself and its dangers from the environment and humans. Even though Nevada started with just being upset about the state having the political finger pointed at them to hold the whole nation’s nuclear waste but now their argument is stronger (Adams, 2010). Not only is Yucca Mountains’ size not big enough for the entire countries nuclear waste, but geologic factors could make the waste

In addition to environmental concerns, opponents argue that government regulation is too lax and as Bahr states, “It is all too easy to mine on public lands and the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management have made it extremely easy to validate claims.” Although uranium miners recognize federal obligations to reclaim operation sites Roger Clark, Grand Canyon Program

Everyday minerals from the earth are extracted, removed and formed into something new, when you look back, to pause and ponder at what has been formed, the human mind will be amazed. "This.. Came from that?" beautiful rubies have been created from very specific minerals which are combined together, and glittery diamonds have been formed from coal which has been under great pressure, but it isn't such a magical story when the curtains are unveiled, and the truth is shown. Where are the ethical principles which hold this industry together? A shovel is dug back into the ground, the wind blows onto the small particles of dirt, revealing the business conduct of the mining industry, but the ethical principles have been crushed just like how the

Many companies have made money from the coal industry; however, the money has not stayed within the state. Big businesses have exploited the resources creating rich executives and leaving the Appalachian area stripped of its bounty. Currently, big businesses are involved in mountain-top removal to remove resources from our mountains. This leaves many of the beautiful mountains destroyed, pollutes the water systems and kills the wildlife and vegetation. The coal industry which once supported many families in the Appalachian area is now becoming the downfall of our tourist

Are you for coal or against coal? Maybe better yet, are you for the preservation of the mountains and nature or are you against it? These questions held such a deep meaning and understanding that on the surface seemed immaterial to large corporations such as the Coal Mining Industry or political leaders within the State of West Virginia. Combating Mountaintop Removal by Bryan McNeil gives us the views of what it looks like from a grassroots environmental activist within the West Virginia coal country. In the book you see how the social and moral arguments are framed from different agents such as the Ant-MTRM (Mountain top removal) organization, the Coal Miners and Union works, to the Coal Mining Companies, and finally the State through political

Can the most high-tech, compact, thoroughly monitored development still pose an unacceptable risk to the wilderness? In a situation such as this where the natural environment is at a serious risk and the public and decision makers are in a dispute, we must all turn to trained scientists in order to more precisely determine what is at risk and which outcome will serve all parties the best.

Mountaintop removal is process where the tops of mountains are removed with explosives in order to extract coal from inside the mountain. The debris created by the explosions is discarded in a valley, which is then called fill material. A loophole in the Clean Water Act reclassified the waste created by mountaintop removal waste as valley fill, which in turn greatly increased extraction of coal from mountains (225). These valleys usually contain streams which become buried underneath fill, causing much of the natural habitat to vanish and poisoning what streams are left. The older and more traditional method was to dig inside the mountain through a tunnel network which was more time-consuming and required much more personnel. Of course, when companies

The dependency on mining during the 19th and 20th centuries crippled the Upper Peninsula’s economy, causing a diaspora of migrants looking for work to head to lower Michigan, or other states. Mines began to close as ore prices heavily decreased, where Northern Michigan’s economy crumbled, towns became deserted, and the wealth the peninsula had once seen dwindled. Despite this, the Upper Peninsula’s economy has been on the rebound, as “Over the last forty years, average income per resident… has risen 71 percent, almost as fast as the national growth rate and much faster than the growth rate across Michigan. In addition the total income received by all residents together grew 65 percent in inflation adjusted terms. Jobs expanded by a third” (1). The economic sustenance from mining would only incur further economic degradation by pushing the reliance of mining onto a community still struggling from when it was taken away. Mining is still profitable for the region, and would conclude with a starting point for the Northern Michigan economies to gain income to plan greater economic outputs, where “The Eagle Mine… will pump $4 billion into Marquette County over its eight-year lifespan and employ about 300 while generating economic activity that will create 1,200 additional jobs” (2). The lifespan of a mine gives the region a timeframe of when they will expect to be forced to search for different fiscal opportunities, or give them a window of how long they have to find new generators of income to subsidize their current economic fallings. Mining reserves would be able to prolong the life of the mine, furthering the amount of time the region has to structure their economies on other sustainable means, as “unlike most goods and services, copper is an exhaustible resource” concluding that there “are therefore limits to cumulative copper production”

Sean Whaley wrote, “State to Keep Battling Yucca” for Las Vegas Review-Journal. Here we go again, Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage controversy. The most irritating part of this debate brought up within this article is that the politicians fail to tell the whole truth. As I once informed Senator Reid, “When it come to nuclear waste it is easier to scare people to vote for you than telling the truth and the advantages for Nevada.” To sum up, the article; Nevada will fight all efforts to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. According to the article Nevada will spend more than $7.5 million with a Virgina legal firm Egan and Associates. Hiring an out of state law firm is also irritating on the back of the largest tax increase passed by State

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is an agency of the great state of Wisconsin. The WDNR’s purpose is to protect, maintain, and preserve the resources of Wisconsin. We--as representatives of the WDNR--feel that the mine may not be the best way to uphold our prime directive. The negative effect that the mine will have on the environment far outway the positive effect. The creation of this mine will impact the watershed, the flora, the fauna, the human health, and the community,

Deforestation’s accompaniment is erosion. Since much of strip mined land lacks proper restoration, weather causes further loss of soil and vital nutrients needed for native vegetation to grow. “Mountain Top Mining and Valley Fills Report” published by the EPA cites KA Harper and others educated and conducting studies in the fields of biology, environmental studies, and renewable sources. According to Harper, the change in mineral content of land affected by surface mining prohibits growth of indigenous plant life and allows foreign plant life to invade, changing the areas ecosystem (Harper).

“President Obama is responsible entirely for the closure of that mine and the loses of these jobs”, Robert Murray CEO of Murray Energy Corporation told CNN after 239 men were laid off because an Ohio mine had closed. The current war on coal is not one of just and fair reasons. Coal has several positive benefits that greatly outweigh the negative environmental effects that some say it causes. The main benefit of coal is the hundreds of thousands it employs annually. However, with the strict regulations being put on coal mines these days the tradition of coal mining may be one our children will never know. It is our responsibility as Americans to beat the Obama Administration and win the war on coal.

The narrative of clean coal has been propped up by the industries primary lobbyist group, the National Mining Association, with a budget of nearly twenty million dollars a year (Coniff). Lobbying is a natural part of the political process, but the issue becomes when the lobbying is disingenuous and the coal industry has zero intentions of implementing clean coal, based on the fact that no coal plants currently in the United States make use of any of the technology. Although the technology is still being developed, there are no future plans to implement it as well. On the other side, those who speak out against coal and clean coal are naturally groups concerned about the environment, such as the Environmental Protection Agency and green advocacy groups. They recognize that coal power plants are the primary contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and thus their emissions must be controlled (Eilperin and Mufson). They also believe even though limiting coal power plants will cost a great deal of money, the American people will have a net benefit due to lower public health costs as a result of air pollution while also benefitting globally by reducing greenhouse gas fueled climate change. Essentially, clean coal is pursued by those who have a vested commercial interest in its being as a mainstay of electricity generation, while those who oppose it are against the negative health and climate effects it

Mountain top removal is surface coal mining that batters mountain tops and ridge lines. Mountaintop removal started in the 1970's. It is a new type of coal mining that started in Appalachia. Mountaintop removal is currently happening in West Virginia, Kentucky, Virginia and Tennessee. It is an extension of conventional strip mining techniques. Mountaintop removal includes six steps. The six steps are clearing, blasting, digging, dumping waste, processing, and

Did you know that mountaintop removal coal provides around three percent of our countries electricity? That does not seem like much, especially considering all the damage it causes. Large areas of wildlife habitat have been destroyed so these mountaintop removal companies can gain and make a profit. These companies do not care about the people in the communities they are hurting. Companies also do not understand that animals can become exterminated from this, and they have been.