When asked to think of coal mining, what comes to mind? A mountain with a hole cut into the side of it with a set of railroad tracks disappearing into it? Maybe an old mine car or two full of some rocks or coal, with a pickaxe and shovel leaning against it. A few guys with hard hats covered in a black powder coming walking out of the mine pushing a car or two full of coal. The technology has advanced but the process is basically still the same as well as the outcome. Coal is retrieved from underground and taken to factories to be burnt to create electricity or to fuel the steel mills.
While solving the issue of having to rely on others for oil and gas, fracking is also creating the problem of harming the environment and creating issues for residents living near the sites and the leasers themselves.
Both potential and existing competitors influence average industry profitability. The threat of new entrants is usually based on the market entry barriers. They can take diverse forms and are used to prevent an influx of firms into an industry whenever profits, adjusted for the cost of capital, rise above zero. In contrast, entry barriers exist whenever it is difficult or not economically feasible for an outsider to replicate the incumbents’ position (Porter, 1980b; Sanderson, 1998) The most common forms of entry barriers, except intrinsic physical or legal obstacles, are as follows:
I would have to say that from the reading that it can be very harmful for the coal mining chemicals to seep into the ground into our drinking water.
Threat of New Entrants - The easier it is for new companies to enter the industry, the more cutthroat competition there will be. Factors that can limit the threat of new entrants are known as barriers to entry. Some examples include:
While fracking has provided a cleaner fuel, there are many negative effects to the environment, the beef industry, human health and little positive effects. Some of these effects include; ground water being polluted with harmful chemicals, this polluted water can cause extreme sickness in humans. Fracking disrupts the habitats of animals and they have to leave the area to find clean water and a better food supply. Also it has been taking an effect on the beef industry in how farmers raise and sell their cattle. Fracking can have negative long term effects on the people living in the local area and make that area inhabitable.
Fracking effects the environment and people the toxic substances in fracking fluid and waste water and as well as air pollution from trucks, the wells themselves have been connected to health problems. Fracking requires large amounts of water that may affect the availability of water for other uses, and it can affect animals that live under water. Fracking tacks natural areas, forest, and farmland and replace them with industrial zones, well pads, roads, pipelines and other infrastructure. That is why fracking is bad for the
The types of harmful effects can vary based on different aspects. “More than 80 percent of the chemicals present can damage the skin, eyes and sensory organs, and 52 percent affect the brain and nervous system.”(Song). In more serious conditions it can cause cancer and sometimes upper respiratory symptoms (Song). If there was less fracking or even if it was banned it would be healthier for the public.
It has been presented by several researchers that the barriers to entry are significantly higher for SMEs than for bigger firms. The fundamental underlying assumption embraced by researchers is that SMEs regularly lack resources and capacities that confine the likelihood to capture business opportunities. In the meantime, Fill states that these barriers alone "are not enough to act as preventative measures to stop the firm entering and progressing through the various stages of internationalization". In any case, the target to comprehend these imperatives and to propose proper political measures has pulled significant consideration of researchers. Quite, some researchers recognize "Exogenous" or "Endogenous" barriers to entry. Exogenous barriers are identified with the fundamental market situations and firms are not ready to control these barriers. Then, endogenous barriers are made by incumbent firms through their techniques and market conduct (Korsakiene,
Dismally, it increases the potential of future oil spills, further pollutes the air and water, and can lead to calamities such as methane leaks and explosions. It can even be argued that hydraulic fracturing is worse for the environment than coal. The reason? Methane gasses. Methane is released in the process of fracking and is 100 times more potent than carbon dioxide.
You make an excellent point by mentioning the effects of the exposure on those who have conditions such as respiratory illnesses and asthma. In addition to your thoughts, the National Resources Defense Council states, “Roughly thirty percent of childhood asthma is due to environmental exposures, costing the nation two billion per year” (2014). Additionally, people who have not been diagnosed with asthma are said to develop constricted and swollen airways after environmental exposures. Taking into consideration the case that occurred in Kingston, Tennessee, I would conclude that respiratory illnesses soared directly following the incident. In your opinion, what would be the best intervention to alleviate the consequences of the coal
With that being said here are some environmental impacts of coal you may not know about. The air pollutants cause acid rain, smog ,respiratory illnesses, cancers and toxins in the environment. Coal miners can get respiratory illnesses from the coal dust while mining. If an abandoned coal mine catches fire it puts tons of mercury into the atmosphere, this happens every year and is responsible for three percent of carbon dioxide emissions globally. The second largest contributor to
Environmental problems are negative externalities because of different reasons such as: firstly, when it is consumed or happens, it adversely affects the third parties, or rather the people around. The negative externalities of consumption here make the marginal social benefits (MSB) less than the marginal private benefits (MPB). The private utility is diminished by the negative utility suffered by the third party and this can be seen in Figure 1.0. Secondly, it affects other people in different ways. In terms of the over exploitation of fossil fuels, it may have affected the people living in the area near to the place where they are digging up the fossil fuels, or even with the excessive use of fossil fuels, lead to acid rain and affect those who lessen their usage of fossil fuels. This thus leads to costs to the