Thread: Bush's environmental brilliance at work, again

CHARLESTON, W.Va., Jan. 21 — The Bush administration is moving to revamp a rule protecting streams that Appalachian environmentalists view as their best weapon for fighting the strip-mining technique of mountaintop removal.

Over the past six years, environmental groups have used the rule, which restricts mining within 100 feet of a stream, to block or slow the issuing of state permits for mountaintop removal.

Strip mining involves dynamiting away mountaintops to expose seams of low-sulfur coal, then dumping the leftover rubble into nearby valleys and streams. Some of those valley fills, as they are known, are hundreds of feet deep and several miles long, making them among the largest man-made earthen structures in the East.

The proposed rule change by the Office of Surface Mining would make clear that filling valleys and covering streams is permitted under federal law if companies show they are minimizing mining waste and the environmental damage caused by it.

Administration officials say the proposed changes to the rule, affecting the stream buffer zone, will clarify conflicting federal regulations and thereby reduce litigation. The rule could take effect as early as mid-March.

Environmentalists and at least one federal judge say the change would be significant because the current rule forbids virtually all mining activity in the buffer zone. Coal industry officials and environmental groups agree that if the current rule was stringently enforced, most large-scale strip mining in Appalachia could be halted.

"If we lose the buffer zone, we lose the last clear-cut argument to stop these valley fills," said Joe Lovett, executive director of the Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment, a nonprofit group in Lewisburg, W.Va.

If the federal buffer-zone rule is changed, the West Virginia Legislature is expected to revise state regulations to conform to it, said Tom Clarke, a lawyer for the State Department of Environmental Protection.

The struggle over the stream buffer zone underscores how some of the most significant battles over government policy are waged on the overlooked fields of little-known laws and lesser-known regulations.

And the struggle comes as mountaintop mining has emerged as the most common form of surface mining in central Appalachia. The process produces more coal, requires fewer employees and is less costly than other forms of mining.

But opponents contend that strip mining also levels mountains, fills narrow valleys, covers streams and destroys forests. Mining companies are required to reconfigure hilltops and replant forests, but those efforts rarely approach the natural beauty of the original landscape, residents argue.

"We have beautiful, beautiful streams," said Evelyn Kelly, whose husband, Willard, is a retired coal miner. They live in Omar, W.Va., near a band of strip mines. "It's so sad. If you look up from the bottom of a valley fill, it's just dirt and rock and boulders where it used to be a beautiful hollow and stream."

The buffer-zone rule, created in 1977 and revised in 1983, says that "no land within 100 feet of an intermittent or perennial stream shall be disturbed by surface coal mining and reclamation operations" without government authorization.

Such authorization can be granted only if the operations are shown to be "environmentally acceptable."

West Virginia and other states, which issue mining permits, enacted their versions of the rule. But for nearly two decades, it was only loosely enforced by states, allowing hundreds, perhaps thousands of miles of Appalachian streambeds to be buried.

In 1998, Mr. Lovett, on behalf of residents and an environmental group, filed suit, asserting that burying streams with mining waste violated the rule. The mining industry and the state disagreed, arguing that covering the upper stretches of a stream was acceptable if downstream portions were not impaired.

In a strongly worded opinion issued in 1999, Chief Judge Charles H. Haden II of Federal District Court in Charleston agreed with the environmentalists.

"Valley fills are waste disposal projects so enormous that, rather than the stream assimilating the waste, the waste assimilates the stream," Judge Haden wrote.

...http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/26/na...26COAL.html?th

Don't like the court ruling? Change the law.

Why not? With the pace of our judicial system, his administration will be long gone by the time any serious legal challenge is brought.

Bush rules.

This is a perfect example of Bush's idea for other sources of energy to lessen the dependency on foreign oil.

I can't believe the logic that is used to allow this practice now, "covering the upper stretches of a stream was acceptable if downstream portions were not impaired ". If I used that logic on the projects I regulate and comment on I would no longer have a job.

Sorry to resurrect a dead issue, and for the hijack here, but what was the reasoning behind the pulling out from the Kyoto Protocols? The only thing I heard was the "Dead on Arrival" declaration by Condi Rice. I know it was a stupid move, but why did they do it? What part of their whoring to the energy conglomerates does it serve?

bump

Kyoto was rejected because foreign interests should not be dictating US environmental policy. That is Congress' responsibility.

Originally posted by powpig
Kyoto was rejected because foreign interests should not be dictating US environmental policy. That is Congress' responsibility.

The air and water belong to the earth not nations. If the countries of this world could just put their egos aside and consider the greater good. Sigh.............

Originally posted by Jetter
Sorry to resurrect a dead issue, and for the hijack here, but what was the reasoning behind the pulling out from the Kyoto Protocols? The only thing I heard was the "Dead on Arrival" declaration by Condi Rice. I know it was a stupid move, but why did they do it? What part of their whoring to the energy conglomerates does it serve?

The US also pulled out of the Kyoto Protocols because according to our administration it was unfairly biased toward underdeveloped nations. They felt the US was having to take the bulk of the responsibility for environmental regulations and that it would hurt american buisnesses. Since the US is the number one polluter on this planet why shouldn't we take the bulk of the responsibility.

yeah, we're the bulk of vehicle operators aren't we? and they play no small part.

which is worse, the manufacturing industry or vehicles?

also...exactly how good/bad are diesel engines? I have an F-250, and I might want whichever is better for the environment

GaperGabe is getting concerned about keeping our winters white. amazing!

Originally posted by Grange
The US also pulled out of the Kyoto Protocols because according to our administration it was unfairly biased toward underdeveloped nations. They felt the US was having to take the bulk of the responsibility for environmental regulations and that it would hurt american buisnesses. Since the US is the number one polluter on this planet why shouldn't we take the bulk of the responsibility.

Ok, I am going to nitpick. Your statement that the US is the #1 polluter is not correct. We are the #1 producer of CO2 (which is arguably not a pollutant as plants need it to live, but is a greenhouse gas). But we are not #1 (not even close) in other types of poisonous pollution like SO2.

We are also not #1 in all greenhouse gases like NO2, Chlorofluorocarbons (China consumes 89 times the CFC's the US does), or methane (though we rank high in methane – China wins this one again).

Here is a great site to let you sort by pollutant or greenhouse gas. Use the dropdown menus to do it, or the links.

Powpig is right. Additionally, Kyoto essentially caps emissions handicapping productive nations. Go to any large city in the Eastern Bloc, Asia--paricularly China, or South America. Tell me who has the polution problem. Places like Mexico City and Shanghai are cesspools unmatched by any place in the US.

Of course, we can use price controls to regulate how much we polute. you know, making energy more expensive. But I guess that would/could be construed as another tactic is Bush's grand plan to make energy companies fat and pricing the poor out of such amenities as heat in the winter and AC in the summer. But that's what you "environmentalists" want...right??

When you look at the amount of goods we produce in relation to the amount of polution we create. No country in the world compares

In the end both environmentalists and those less concerned with environmental issues will suffer the same fate. Nature cares not how you vote or what you believe.

Mother nature - the great equalizer. We can argue political stance and whose fault it is until we're blue in the face and sitting in a barren dust bowl. In the end we will reap what we sow.

Originally posted by KQ
In the end both environmentalists and those less concerned with environmental issues will suffer the same fate. Nature cares not how you vote or what you believe.

Mother nature - the great equalizer. We can argue political stance and whose fault it is until we're blue in the face and sitting in a barren dust bowl. In the end we will reap what we sow.

Werd. We pay our debts sometime, and if we don't, our kids certainly will. Fortunately I'm a treehugging stoner whose sperm couldn't find an egg in a hen house.

Originally posted by mr_gyptian

Of course, we can use price controls to regulate how much we polute. you know, making energy more expensive. But I guess that would/could be construed as another tactic is Bush's grand plan to make energy companies fat and pricing the poor out of such amenities as heat in the winter and AC in the summer. But that's what you "environmentalists" want...right??

There is a big myth out there that environmental regulations increases the cost of production. This is not always true. Many of the regulations force an initial high cost, but once the operations to conform to the regulations are going costs actually go down and performance goes up.

An example to this is the cost to power companies treatments to their plants for zebra mussels. Originally the companies would use Chlorine dioxide to treat the plant. Well the State said that this treatment method could not continue because of environmental concerns. The power company ended up using steam to heat the water in order to get a 100% mortality (incidentally the chemical did not achieve 100% mortality) to comply with the new regulations. Initial costs to build the piping system was quite high, but since then the company has save a large amount of money using steam rather than chemicals.

Originally posted by Mcwop
Ok, I am going to nitpick. Your statement that the US is the #1 polluter is not correct. We are the #1 producer of CO2 (which is arguably not a pollutant as plants need it to live, but is a greenhouse gas). But we are not #1 (not even close) in other types of poisonous pollution like SO2.

We are also not #1 in all greenhouse gases like NO2, Chlorofluorocarbons (China consumes 89 times the CFC's the US does), or methane (though we rank high in methane – China wins this one again).

Here is a great site to let you sort by pollutant or greenhouse gas. Use the dropdown menus to do it, or the links.

CO2 gas not a pollutant. I disagree. True plants use CO2 and release O2 as a byproduct, but they cannot do this fast enough to balance the amount we produce, and the amount of excess is polluting our atmosphere.

On topic:

The West Virginia mining situation is a total mess. They're basiclaly flattening the state. The pics of the areas used for this methods of mining are sickening. I'll look around for some pics to share so everyone can understand what's going on.

Originally posted by Grange
This is a perfect example of Bush's idea for other sources of energy to lessen the dependency on foreign oil.

I'm positive you're not serious about this statement as it's pretty assinine. They're mining coal, not oil. One's a liquid and it used to power internal combustion engines inefficently and the other is used to boil water inefficently at power plants for electricity production.

Originally posted by Grange
There is a big myth out there that environmental regulations increases the cost of production. This is not always true. Many of the regulations force an initial high cost, but once the operations to conform to the regulations are going costs actually go down and performance goes up.

An example to this is the cost to power companies treatments to their plants for zebra mussels. Originally the companies would use Chlorine dioxide to treat the plant. Well the State said that this treatment method could not continue because of environmental concerns. The power company ended up using steam to heat the water in order to get a 100% mortality (incidentally the chemical did not achieve 100% mortality) to comply with the new regulations. Initial costs to build the piping system was quite high, but since then the company has save a large amount of money using steam rather than chemicals.

Another example: Many large scale farming operations have been very reluctant to revamp their irrigation systems to better control damaging runoff, citing high initial costs as the reason. But it has been shown that the savings resulted from building proper containment ponds far outwieghs the initial costs. Essentially, the runoff is very rich in fertilizer and topsoil. With older irrigation systems, all of this just ran into the local waterways, destroying wetland ecosystems and estuaries, along with many coastal fishing areas. Basically the farmer not only destroyed the waterways, he also lost all his fertilizer and topsoil. With new systems topsoil and fertilizer are both retained and can be reused again and again, while only clean water is returned to the natural waterways. The farmer saves assloads of money, and I can still catch more then just turds on oppening day. A win-win as I see it.

Another example: Many large scale farming operations have been very reluctant to revamp their irrigation systems to better control damaging runoff, citing high initial costs as the reason. But it has been shown that the savings resulted from building proper containment ponds far outwieghs the initial costs. Essentially, the runoff is very rich in fertilizer and topsoil. With older irrigation systems, all of this just ran into the local waterways, destroying wetland ecosystems and estuaries, along with many coastal fishing areas. Basically the farmer not only destroyed the waterways, he also lost all his fertilizer and topsoil. With new systems topsoil and fertilizer are both retained and can be reused again and again, while only clean water is returned to the natural waterways. The farmer saves assloads of money, and I can still catch more then just turds on oppening day. A win-win as I see it.

Where exactly do you live man? Actually on my particular land we are going to put up a feedlot but it will be 100% EPA approved, they're even helping to design it. As for my dad's feedlot his is 100% self contained as it always has been for the last 50yrs of its existence. But yeah runoff is a problem, but that's why we use grasswaterways and mininum till and have practically zero erosion. Its just responsibility torwards the land and the bigger corp farmers are just concerned with the bottom $$. Anyways I just thought I'd let you know that there are good farmers out there.

The pictures say everything.

http://www.ohvec.org/galleries/mount.../007/42_tn.jpg

http://www.ohvec.org/galleries/mount.../007/43_tn.jpg

http://www.ohvec.org/galleries/mount...al/002/v59.jpg

Here's a webpage with all the bad reality you can handle:
http://www.ohvec.org/galleries/mountaintop_removal/

Originally posted by Midwestmetalman
Where exactly do you live man? Actually on my particular land we are going to put up a feedlot but it will be 100% EPA approved, they're even helping to design it. As for my dad's feedlot his is 100% self contained as it always has been for the last 50yrs of its existence. But yeah runoff is a problem, but that's why we use grasswaterways and mininum till and have practically zero erosion. Its just responsibility torwards the land and the bigger corp farmers are just concerned with the bottom $$. Anyways I just thought I'd let you know that there are good farmers out there.

No offense to you man, I'm not trying to say that there arent people out there that have been doing things the right way for a long time, I'm just saying that there is always resistence to new ideas. (or in this case old ideas that havent fully caught on yet, actually I think most of my info is pretty old and actually now applies more to third-world and developing nations then it does to most American farmers)
This wasnt meant to be a rip on farming, just trying to make a point about sustanability. Resistence to change and trying to maximise profit at the expense of others is not exclusive to agriculture, it happens in all walks of life. Its just sad that sometimes any chance of having a profitable future is destroyed for the sake of total and immediate cash. But like you said there are responsible people out there that have been doing right for a long time, and that is why they are still there making a good living, because they made sure they were set up to have a sustainable future. Props to you and yours for bieng the responsible ones that have been doing things right for the long haul.
And since you ask, I live near Pittsburgh Pa and currently go to school in Johnstown Pa (hence the handle). I did not grow up in a farming community, but I major in environmental studies and have some knowledge of what goes on out there, although I am far from an expert and I'm sure you could piont out some errors in my previous post. (feel free to)

Excellent points PaSucks. I knew you weren't lumping the entire farming industry into that post.

I ended up in the same program you're in now, except I went to a farm school. Most family farms take care of the surrounding environment. They realize that sustaining crop yields and long term cost projections are some of the keys to success. While the corporate farms are held to overhead restrictions and doing things the "company way" for the fast buck. Farming and mining aren't that far off in they're environmental considerations. Both can be done with minimal disruption and damage (in consideration of the respective industries inherent operations).

By the way, I moved to the Wasteland from PA. Washington, in fact. PA isn't that much of a hell hole - aside from the alcohol "issues" and high taxes. Good luck with your studies.

Thanks skidawg,

The handle is more about skiing then anything, although after last Saturday it might not fit anymore. (see my thread) What school did you attend, it wasnt PSU was it? cause we might have to fight if it was, everybody knows JoePa blows. Just kidding actually but if your a penn-state fan I got to give you a little Pitt lovin. And since you majored in environmental studies I'd love to hear about your career and what I have to look foreward to, although I suppose that would get us a little more off-topic.

Nah that's cool, Pasucks. No offense taken on the whole farmer thing. I just had to let folks know thst responsible farmers do exist in the U.S., lol. Actually my feedlot will be (i'm pretty sure) one of the 1st EPA approved lots of its type in the upper midwest.

Just wish it wasn't so damn flat around here, cause we just got about 8" of snow out here.