The Appalachians, one of the world’s oldest mountain ranges, might be gone forever sooner than we expect. It is not erosion or tectonic activity that will be the culprit, but human action.

Mountain Top Removal (MTR) is a mining process wherein literally the top of a mountain is blasted apart so as to access the coal that resides within. This is a more efficient process than the older underground mining style, requiring fewer men, less time, and resulting in higher yields. However, it inflicts catastrophic damage to the surrounding ecosystems as well as the people who live in the region. Whether it be for human health, biological diversity, or aesthetics, MTR has been the subject of an intensifying debate over the last few decades.

One of the most immediate problems caused by Mountain Top Removal is damage to rivers and contamination of water supplies. When the peaks are blown apart, many tons of rock, minerals, and sediment packed with metal materials fall into the water. In some cases, this has buried streams entirely. Often it chokes the flow of the waterway, and as journalist Eric Reece detailed, changes the chemistry of the water. This causes many fish, larvae, and other aquatic life to die. Furthermore, these contaminants find their way into the human water supply. There have been reports of contaminated wells and illnesses attributed to drinking fouled water.

Companies have sought to promote feigned silver linings in their actions. One corporation operating in Eastern Kentucky asserted that its actions, which cleared the landscape and opened up space, were in fact beneficial to the elk population there. It claims that it is an ideal habitat for “free ranging elk” whose grazing keep deer in check and maintain a balance of biodiversity in the ecosystem. This is an intentional misinformation campaign. Conservation biologists have argued to the contrary, detailing the requirements for a healthy elk population and the complicating factors of a healthy ecosystem, the vital interconnected set of relationships of which have been removed by clear cutting and a landscape thrown out of balance.

A pair of elk forage in the early morning. Courtesy of Franklin R. Halprin.

In addition to these micro-environmental concerns, there may be macro ones as well. Mountain ranges have substantial influence over weather patterns. The air barriers created by the Himalayas and Andes are vital to the thriving diversity of the rainforests in Indochina and the Amazon, respectively. Although the Appalachians do not reach such soaring heights, there is no reason to doubt that their presence as a substantial topographic feature plays into the interconnectedness and complexity of the environments there.

Most of the issues elucidated so far deal with scientifically motivated concerns; there are sociological ones as well. Many local proponents of MTR cite the Bible, wherein God said to subdue the Earth. God put the mountains there for us to mine, they argue. It is a fulfillment of our place as the favored species and rulers of the planet to do so. On the contrary, others assume a stance that God put the mountains there for us to admire. They serve a purpose of spiritual fulfillment and self betterment, and to destroy them is sacrilegious. Reece, who spent a long time in Kentucky delving into this issue referenced a local clergyman who took a middle ground on this debate. He suggested that these passages intend to promote “stewardship.” Human-environmental interactions should be balanced and reciprocal; each needs the other. Clearly, discourses of this nature can be recast so as to be appropriated toward any camp’s objectives.

Religion aside, many proponents of the practice reference the practical benefits of mountain top removal. It provides many jobs and figures substantially into the export economy of a region with a relatively low standard of living and median income. These arguments do not hold water when held under scrutiny. The towns themselves do not see much financial benefit, as profits go to the companies and the wealthy elite. Furthermore, reminiscent of fracking, the process of mountain top removal requires specialized training that is carried out by company employees brought in from the outside. The industry does not provide many jobs for local residents. In fact, there have been cases of companies buying up locals’ land, inflicting damage, then going bankrupt before distributing compensation. In this sense they impart direct harm on the people’s livelihoods.

Why is there such willingness to throw a large group of people under the bus? The term “sacrifice zone” refers to a geographic region that is used as either a physical dumping ground or a section that is allowed to degenerate in consequence of industrial and developmental activity intended for the benefit of other regions. The environment and people who live in a sacrifice zone suffer greatly. In her insightful book Removing Mountains: Extracting Nature and Identity in the Appalachian Coalfields, sociologist Rebecca R. Scott addresses shifting and contradictory ideas about the people of Appalachia in history and modernity, and their relationship to the physical environment. In some cases the people are portrayed as descendants of the British; they are an idealization of rural, innocent, white Americanness. More commonly, she argues, they are portrayed as backwards, uneducated, vile, violent, white trash. These two divergent concepts are appropriated depending on the agenda at hand. Scott provides as an example the efforts to bring home prisoner of war Jessica Lynch from Iraq. Here, the former dialogue was brought into play. It evoked sympathy and aroused humanizing emotion in favor of her return. Scott provides many perceptive revelations, but suffice it to say that the latter discourse is more common and convenient when promoting the actions of mountain top removers. It establishes all of Appalachia as a sacrifice zone for the coal industry.

Ultimately, massive human and environmental damage is being inflicted in quest of a fuel source that is less and less preferable anyway. Although it has been around since the 1960s, mountain top removal has been on the rise in the last twenty years. Resulting problems are increasing, while the benefits are short lived and the consequences are long term. The quality of our bodies and ideas about our identities are just as tightly intertwined with our environments are are wildlife and waterways. Alternatives to the process, and alternatives to the coal, are vital.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mountain Top Removal Threatens Environmental and Human Welfare appeared first on Law Street.

Let’s work backwards: there is a nuclear power plant in upstate New York called Indian Point, and it needs to be shut down.

Nuclear reactors are notorious for their cooling systems; the Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima meltdowns all occurred because of cooling system failures. Located in Buchanan in Westchester County, the Indian Point nuclear plant sits at the edge of the Hudson River. It draws in two billion gallons of river water every day in order to cool its reactors, discharging it back into the river eight degrees warmer. This has catastrophic consequences for the fish, eggs, larvae, and other aquatic life there. In fact, more than a billion of them die every year, said Paul Gallay, president of Riverkeeper, an organization devoted to protecting the Hudson River and its tributaries (read more about this important organization here).

In a process called entrainment, fish and river life are sucked into the cooling intakes and annihilated. For decades conservationists have advocated for a closed cooling system, which has not come to fruition because it would require a financial investment that Entergy, the plant operator, is not willing to make. Rather, the company has proposed installing screens at the mouths of the intakes. Researchers have revealed that this is a far cry from a solution, not doing enough to protect the river’s biodiversity. In addition, it does not address the warm water discharge.

The Indian Point Reactor, courtesy of Franklin R. Halprin

The quality of the reactor itself and its operation therein are sorely lacking as well. Security guards consistently fail mock attack tests, there is no viable evacuation plan for the surrounding region, and the reactor is deteriorating with age. The Indian Point closure debate is particularly hot right now because the site’s 40-year license is about to expire and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering granting them a 20-year renewal. The reactor provides a substantial percentage of the power used by New York City and the surrounding area; instead of shutting it down, why not repair and renovate?

In addition to closed cycling cooling, there are things that can be done in order to make Indian Point a bit safer, including fire safety measures and dry cask storage. These actions are insufficient; they do not change the underlying threats due to the reactor’s age, such as embrittlement, corrosion, and metal fatigue. Considering these problems are irreparable, why not tear it down and build a new reactor? Forty years ago, population geographies were different. Indian Point’s location is undesirable, due to its proximity to communities. Furthermore, several fault lines run through the area.

Unenforced “Keep Out” buoys, courtesy of Franklin R. Halprin

Nuclear energy is an efficient and clean means of powering our world. A controversial and provocative documentary called Pandora’s Promise (2013) makes a case for its desirability. Watch the trailer here:

One pound of uranium, the size of a person’s finger, yields as much energy as 5,000 barrels of oil. Nuclear energy does not pollute the air the way fossil fuels do. The amount of nuclear waste is overestimated: all the United States’ spent fuel rods would occupy a space no larger than a football field. Proposed “fourth generation reactors” are even more efficient and can recycle waste into another round of energy productivity. Renewables may be best for the long term sustainability of civilization, but right now, considering we continue to expand our energy demands, we need something realistic and nuclear is the way to go. These are some of the arguments the documentary presents, many of which are reasonable and worthy of consideration.

According to Gallay, Riverkeeper does not have a stance on nuclear power in general, but renewable energy and energy efficiency are two separate but interrelated things. We cannot argue that our needs for energy are increasing so drastically, while we waste 30 percent of the power we use. We can make many lifestyle changes so as to limit the growth of our demands. The idea of fourth generation nuclear plants is a fruitless quest for a Holy Grail. Rather, we should utilize the options we already have in hand. Declarations that carbon emissions in New York State would skyrocket if Indian Point were to close can be neutralized by a more wholehearted embrace of renewable energy systems. The economic infrastructure for them is more firmly established than ever, and market penetration is at an all time high. Furthermore, the sources of 650 of 2,000 potential megawatts are already in place and good to go.

These statistics are specifically in reference to New York State, but the conceptual framework is just as applicable to the United States at large and its national energy policy. Nuclear power has many advantages over fossil fuels, but it is not the ultimate answer. There are some notable outliers, such as France. Gabrielle Hecht’s The Radiance of France brilliantly chronicles the country’s national embrace of nuclear energy in the second half of the 20th century and the cultural values therein, as a means of assuaging the damage done by two world wars and as an attempt to reclaim its status as a member of the top of the geopolitical order. When the 21st century arrived, France had achieved energy independence and was even exporting its surplus to other countries. The general health of the environment and air there is notable; however, at the start of its program in the late 1940s, wind and solar power were barely in the conversation, and the state of technology did not allow for the viability of options such as geothermal energy. Just because France found success with its nuclear embrace half a century ago does not mean that the United States should pursue the same course now. We are fortunate enough to have at our fingertips a wider array of more preferable options.

It is time to make some substantial decisions regarding national energy policy and the directions in which we want to go. The Indian Point debate is a good starting point, and shutting it down would provide a great opportunity to set ourselves on a more renewable, and environmentally and socially responsible course.

—

Franklin R. Halprin (@FHalprin) holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Franklin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Nick Fedele via Flickr]

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post It’s Time to Shut Down New York’s Indian Point Nuclear Plant appeared first on Law Street.