The Bush administration has submitted to its minions at the BPA (Business Protection Agency), formerly known as the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), a proposal that would weaken severely a restriction on coal mining. The provision under attack is known as the Stream Buffer Rule.
Another false impression with the term “clean coal” is that coal could be more environmentally friendly, whereas the truth is that even if carbon capture and storage were implemented, it fails to address water quality or other environmental quality issues.
Since 1983 the Stream Buffer Zone has prevented coal companies from disturbing areas that are 100 feet or less from Appalachian waterways, reports Shirley Siluk Gregory. The buffer zone rule states that coal mining activities cannot disturb these sensitive areas unless water quality and quantity will not be adversely impacted – a tall order for mountain top removal mines which routinely dump the remains of entire mountains on top of stream beds in a practice known as “valley fill.”
Never mind that some 40,000 people protested loudly when the rule change was suggested last year. Never mind that many of the waterways that could be affected are home to a wide variety of aquatic life, or provide drinking water to area residents. Never mind that 1,200-plus miles of waterways have already been buried by mountaintop-removal coal mining. Coal mining companies want more and the Bush administration is prepared to give it to them.
Oh, and if that doesn’t bother you, how about the fact that the feds’ near-trillion-dollar bailout of the financial sector includes almost $2.8 billion in tax credits for coal operators?
No longer can we claim ignorance. Denial equates to death on a planetary scale.
Jesse Jenkins notes that the proposal takes the “buffer” right out of the “buffer zone” rule and allows coal companies to dump waste directly into streams. ILoveMountains.org has a great “backgrounder”, so that you can understand that The Bush Administration essentially wants to allow coal companies to bury Appalachian streams permanently beneath hundreds of millions of tons of mining waste.
As ILoveMountains explains it:
The Bush administration has already relaxed Clean Water Act safeguards that protected Appalachian mountain streams from mountaintop removal mines. Now, the administration is targeting a Reagan-era rule known as the “buffer zone rule” … Already, nearly 2,000 miles of mountain streams in Appalachia have been buried by mountaintop removal waste, wiping out these streams and causing flooding and destruction in the surrounding communities. The Bush administration’s failure to enforce the buffer zone law led to an additional 535 miles of stream impacts nationwide during between 2001 and 2005. Thus, the repeal of the buffer zone rule allows more than 1,000 miles of streams to be destroyed each decade into the future. Permanently destroying thousands of miles of mountain streams is more than irresponsible; it is insane
For more spin on this particular dastardly deed, see this editorial in the New York Times. The NY Times editorial board offers a potential explanation for Bush’s urgent rush to gut the buffer zone rule:
Both John McCain and Barack Obama have said in the last month [thanks to urging from organizers like you!] that they oppose mountaintop removal, which may explain the administration’s mad dash to rewrite the rule before a more conservation-minded administration arrives in town. Their opposition also inspires slim hopes among environmentalists that Stephen Johnson, the E.P.A.’s administrator, would withhold his approval. That would be an enormous surprise, but also enormously welcome.
Jenkins and Gregory both urge their readers to tell the EPA to strengthen the buffer zone rule, not undermine it and send a letter to your member of Congress to urge them to put back in place Clean Water Act protections that would curtail the environmental and human devastation caused by mountaintop removal. “Whichever presidential candidate is elected,” writes Jenkins, “we face perhaps the best opportunity yet to end mountaintop removal once and for all. Make sure that president has a Congress that’s with them.”
Unfortunately, this blog sees as Pollyanna-ish the urging by Gregory and Jenkins. They seem to think this is a campaign issue, a rallying point for environmentally concerned citizens. It really is a non-campaign issue and such advocacy will fail to matter. The fix is in; the election essentially already over; coal has won. This most recent travesty is really a matter of “crossing the i’s and dotting the t’s.”
Other Similar AG Posts Possibly RelatedAutomatically Generated
7 Comments
Is the eco-spin from the Gray Lady that you can vote for Chipmunk Cheeks in good conscience? Andrew Revkin has observed that both presidential candidates agree that climate change should be acted upon.
In a sense, we — Dot Earth Blog with a Smiley Face and After Gutenberg with a Mister Yuck face — are saying the same thing, i.e., “On environmental issues, it does not matter for which candidate you vote.” It’s Washington Theater, whether you turn the channel to I Spy or The Simpsons.
Speaking of Washington Theater, Mike Tidwell observes that NoVa (Northern Virginia) “gets the lion’s share of its electric power not from wind turbines or solar farms, but from coal.”
Yup, Yup, Yup, what is good for bidness is so goo-o-o-d for the country.
Were you aware that, at the same time some massive companies are relying on taxpayers for help, they have been finding ways to avoid paying taxes.
Part 2:
Part 3:
Cafferty, and his viewers, ain’t too happy about it either…
Monkeyfister is incensed.
Who was behind the threats of ‘Martial Law’ prior to the bail out?
Amerikanischfinanzreichsminister Paulson
Writing for Prison Planet, Paul Jospeh Watson says that Senator James Inhofe has revealed Henry Paulson was behind the threats of martial law prior to the passage of the bailout bill. Paulson “made such warnings during a conference call on September 19th, around two weeks before the legislation was eventually approved by both the Senate and Congress.”
The Gray Lady reports that the coal mining debris rule is approved.
Energy Secretary Steven Chu says “he will provide $2.4 billion from the economic recovery package to speed up development of technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and factories that burn coal.”
Now, just by chance, that wouldn’t happen to be the same technology promoted by the oil company that donated millions to the Stanford laboratory, which you directed before appointment as DoE Secretary? In fact, weren’t those millions targeted for research into developing said technology? My gosh, what a coincidence!
5 Trackbacks
[...] near-trillion-dollar bailout of the financial sector by the federal government of the United States included almost $2.8 billion in tax credits for coal operators. Such an evident disregard for the future survival of life as we know it has prompted responsible [...]
[...] and undue influence upon federally funded scientists. Indeed, the momentum may have change, yet denial at a federal level continues, even as the consequences become more [...]
[...] were are with convincing evidence for an even more critical reason to cut emissions. Howsoever, it would seem that greed will dictate that delay is an acceptable strategy. Ah well, another day, Washington Theater, [...]
[...] If I had been Amitai Etzioni or Chief Joseph, I might have asked how they were considering seven generations. It would seem that Barack Obama is following through upon his pledge to boost the role of science in policymaking. Unfortunately, policy analysts usually work for policy makers, and, so I posed my query with consideration for those strutting about the stage rather than those capable of factorial analysis that includes 5Es (Engineering, Encouragement, Evaluation and Planning, Education, Enforcement) and 3Es (Ecology, Economy, Equity). My question to Steven Chu, John P. Holdren, and Jane Lubchenco: What already has been embedded by those committed to environmental devastation? [...]
[...] to the RSS feed. Bye Now!Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger of the Journal Sentinel1 report that the Business Protection Agency routinely has allowed companies to keep secret new information about their chemicals, [...]