eir original state. For a more typical picture of reclamation, you might want to check out the PBS film "Razing Appalachia". And speaking of coal dollars, they appear to be benefiting our local politicians, including Manchin. As Manuel Quinones and Elana Schor pointed out:
"Senator Joe Manchin (Democrat, West Virginia) is more than just a supporter of his state's influential coal producers – he's a full-fledged industry insider. On his financial disclosures for 2009 and 2010, Manchin reported significant earnings from Enersystems Inc, a coal brokerage that he helped run before his political star rose. In the 19 months before winning his Senate seat in a hard-fought special election, Manchin reported operating income of $1,363,916 from Enersystems. His next disclosure showed $417,255 in Enersystems income."
Of course, Manchin says his investments are in a blind trust, but do you think he doesn't know that what's good for the coal industry is good for Joe Manchin? As filmmaker Mari-Lynn Evans has said of the CNN programme referred to by Keating:
"Mountain top removal mining is not an issue of jobs v the environment. It is an issue of corporate profits and corrupt politicians v the health and safety of human beings living under MTR sites in Appalachia. WVU scientists estimate over 11,000 people die in Appalachia each year because of coal. MTR mining provides less than 4,000 direct MTR jobs in West Virginia. Does that mean, for every MTR job, we must accept that those jobs will cost each of us the lives of two or three of our friends and loved ones? This is jobs v genocide. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand the story."
And the rest of us are paying, too, if not to the same extent. Air and water pollution travel past the immediate region. Social costs to the environment and health are not payed by the coal industry, and thus artificially lower the cost of coal energy and encourage its consumption. As economists Todd L Cherry of Appalacian State University and Jason Shogrenb of the Univisty of Wyoming pointed out in a 2002 study (pdf) (before the devastation of mountaintop removal had reached its current levels):
"Coal is by far the most under-priced energy resource: the price per ton of coal was about $30, but the external costs are nearly $160. Also including climate change risks, the external costs would be about $190 per ton."
And prices are further lowered by vast subsidies (pdf). And think of the opportunity costs forgone to develop cleaner energy. Interestingly, another full-fledged insider, Dick Kelly, who is retiring as chief executive officer of Exel Energy, told journalist Don Selby:
"We've got to get off fossil fuels … The quicker the better. All [that some members of Congress] are worried about is the next two or six years when they run for re-election. They just keep kicking the can down the road … I don't know how they can deny the science. I really don't … I think one of the misconceptions is that many people believe that wind is just outrageously expensive. Truth is, wind power competes very well with natural gas. The technology is getting better. We are getting a lot more kilowatts out of our windmills now. Even solar has come down 50% in the last two years … I'd be OK if there were never any more coal."
How long will our politicans favour the coal industry with subsidies and lax safety and health regulations? Consider the cost of this choice – in lives, health and damage to the air we breath, the water we drink and the land that provides us with nourishment and recreation. Wouldn't it be better for them to enact polices that support efficiency, conservation and alternative energy sources with a lower environmental impact, such as wind, solar and geothermal?
That way, we might actually get steady jobs and a healthy environment.
© Guardian News and Media Limited 2011