EPA kills more jobs and prosperity in Appalachia

[uscitizen]

The massive blasting also messes up water wells and such for miles around the mining site.

And think, where does all that mountain top go? Far less than 1% of what is removed is coal.

 

[JakeStarkey]

See, these ideologues don't care how much human misery results from the consequences of their actions.

The EPA needs to be defunded.

How do you know the EPA is wrong?

We don't need any farmable land or clean water, we just need 250 jobs!

Conversely, how do you know the EPA isn't wrong?

There is no conversely, only your challenge. You must (1) often far more than what you have and (2) reveal where EPA has failed.

Thus far, you have done neither.

 

[Revere]

1962, huh?

Are you really that stupid, or do you just play a tool on the internet?

The point is, the people who actually live there are very familiar with the consequences of a history of mining and understand there are issues just as important if not more so than 250 mostly low-paying jobs when you're balancing whether something like this is a "benefit". Like the possible side effects of those jobs killing off the rest of their economy. You haven't lived it, what do you know?

I have lived in some stinky rust belt towns with similar issues.

But to compare 1962 standards for safety to today, unless you're mining in China, is a little misleading.

 

[uscitizen]

1962, huh?

Are you really that stupid, or do you just play a tool on the internet?

The point is, the people who actually live there are very familiar with the consequences of a history of mining and understand there are issues just as important if not more so than 250 mostly low-paying jobs when you're balancing whether something like this is a "benefit". Like the possible side effects of those jobs killing off the rest of their economy. You haven't lived it, what do you know?

I have lived in some stinky rust belt towns with similar issues.

But to compare 1962 standards for safety to today, unless you're mining in China, is a little misleading.

But if you had your way we would not even have standards as strict today as they were in 1962.

 

[goldcatt]

The massive blasting also messes up water wells and such for miles around the mining site.

And think, where does all that mountain top go? Far less than 1% of what is removed is coal.

Heaps of contaminated slag surrounding the towns that serve the mines, of course. Nice.

The aesthetics alone lower property values and destroy sporting tourism, which is a boon to a lot of current and former mining areas in Appalachia. Not to mention makes it unappealing to new business contemplating moving in. Lower property values lower the tax base, which affects the schools. The schools decline, the young and productive leave....it's a cycle a lot of mining areas know all too well.

Beyond the aesthetics....ever see a river or a well burn? I have.

 

[JakeStarkey]

revere will put jobs over health and safety, apparently.

 

[Revere]

Are you really that stupid, or do you just play a tool on the internet?

The point is, the people who actually live there are very familiar with the consequences of a history of mining and understand there are issues just as important if not more so than 250 mostly low-paying jobs when you're balancing whether something like this is a "benefit". Like the possible side effects of those jobs killing off the rest of their economy. You haven't lived it, what do you know?

I have lived in some stinky rust belt towns with similar issues.

But to compare 1962 standards for safety to today, unless you're mining in China, is a little misleading.

But if you had your way we would not even have standards as strict today as they were in 1962.

But we don't have those standards, do we? So now we just de-industrialize, right?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The massive blasting also messes up water wells and such for miles around the mining site.

And think, where does all that mountain top go? Far less than 1% of what is removed is coal.

Heaps of contaminated slag surrounding the towns that serve the mines, of course. Nice.

The aesthetics alone lower property values and destroy sporting tourism, which is a boon to a lot of current and former mining areas in Appalachia. Not to mention makes it unappealing to new business contemplating moving in. Lower property values lower the tax base, which affects the schools. The schools decline, the young and productive leave....it's a cycle a lot of mining areas know all too well.

Beyond the aesthetics....ever see a river or a well burn? I have.

Cuyahoga River Fire - Ohio History Central - A product of the Ohio ...Jul 1, 2005 ... On June 22, 1969, an oil slick and debris in the Cuyahoga River caught fire in Cleveland, Ohio, drawing national attention to environmental ...
Ohio History Central - An Online Encyclopedia of Ohio History - Ohio Historical Society › History › Events - Cached - Similar

 

[uscitizen]

I have lived in some stinky rust belt towns with similar issues.

But to compare 1962 standards for safety to today, unless you're mining in China, is a little misleading.

But if you had your way we would not even have standards as strict today as they were in 1962.

But we don't have those standards, do we? So now we just de-industrialize, right?

HUH?

In any case we are heading in that direction mostly due to cheaper labor in other countries.
Our economy has been based mostly on consumer spending for what a decade now?

 

[goldcatt]

1962, huh?

Are you really that stupid, or do you just play a tool on the internet?

The point is, the people who actually live there are very familiar with the consequences of a history of mining and understand there are issues just as important if not more so than 250 mostly low-paying jobs when you're balancing whether something like this is a "benefit". Like the possible side effects of those jobs killing off the rest of their economy. You haven't lived it, what do you know?

I have lived in some stinky rust belt towns with similar issues.

But to compare 1962 standards for safety to today, unless you're mining in China, is a little misleading.

Sure you have.

Come on up to hillbillyland sometime. Just do it. If you can get anyone to talk to you, you might have a real eye-opener about what folks think of mountaintop mining and what large-scale mining in populated areas does to the community. The Appalachians aren't barren flatland out in the middle of nowhere, they're pretty densely settled even in the most rural areas compared to Western mining fields. Come on up and tell folks they need to cut the tops off their mountains for their own "benefit"!

I'd pay good money to see it.

 

[Revere]

Are you really that stupid, or do you just play a tool on the internet?

The point is, the people who actually live there are very familiar with the consequences of a history of mining and understand there are issues just as important if not more so than 250 mostly low-paying jobs when you're balancing whether something like this is a "benefit". Like the possible side effects of those jobs killing off the rest of their economy. You haven't lived it, what do you know?

I have lived in some stinky rust belt towns with similar issues.

But to compare 1962 standards for safety to today, unless you're mining in China, is a little misleading.

Sure you have.

Come on up to hillbillyland sometime. Just do it. If you can get anyone to talk to you, you might have a real eye-opener about what folks think of mountaintop mining and what large-scale mining in populated areas does to the community. The Appalachians aren't barren flatland out in the middle of nowhere, they're pretty densely settled even in the most rural areas compared to Western mining fields. Come on up and tell folks they need to cut the tops off their mountains for their own "benefit"!

I'd pay good money to see it.

Did the local folks reject this, or the EPA?

 

[Revere]

But if you had your way we would not even have standards as strict today as they were in 1962.

But we don't have those standards, do we? So now we just de-industrialize, right?

HUH?

In any case we are heading in that direction mostly due to cheaper labor in other countries.
Our economy has been based mostly on consumer spending for what a decade now?

Like CFLs? Which the EPA demands we buy, but are too noxious to actually make in this country?

 

[uscitizen]

I have lived in some stinky rust belt towns with similar issues.

But to compare 1962 standards for safety to today, unless you're mining in China, is a little misleading.

Sure you have.

Come on up to hillbillyland sometime. Just do it. If you can get anyone to talk to you, you might have a real eye-opener about what folks think of mountaintop mining and what large-scale mining in populated areas does to the community. The Appalachians aren't barren flatland out in the middle of nowhere, they're pretty densely settled even in the most rural areas compared to Western mining fields. Come on up and tell folks they need to cut the tops off their mountains for their own "benefit"!

I'd pay good money to see it.

Did the local folks reject this, or the EPA?

The local folks have no say in it. It is not a ballot thing, it is a business thing.

 

[goldcatt]

I have lived in some stinky rust belt towns with similar issues.

But to compare 1962 standards for safety to today, unless you're mining in China, is a little misleading.

Sure you have.

Come on up to hillbillyland sometime. Just do it. If you can get anyone to talk to you, you might have a real eye-opener about what folks think of mountaintop mining and what large-scale mining in populated areas does to the community. The Appalachians aren't barren flatland out in the middle of nowhere, they're pretty densely settled even in the most rural areas compared to Western mining fields. Come on up and tell folks they need to cut the tops off their mountains for their own "benefit"!

I'd pay good money to see it.

Did the local folks reject this, or the EPA?

Who cares? It's a bad idea and it should never be done. Reasonable mining in appropriate locations, yes. Hacking off mountaintops and destroying the rest of the local economy as well as endangering the health of the citizens? No.

Are you familiar with the problems currently taking place in the Marcellus Shale?

 

[Revere]

Sure you have.

Come on up to hillbillyland sometime. Just do it. If you can get anyone to talk to you, you might have a real eye-opener about what folks think of mountaintop mining and what large-scale mining in populated areas does to the community. The Appalachians aren't barren flatland out in the middle of nowhere, they're pretty densely settled even in the most rural areas compared to Western mining fields. Come on up and tell folks they need to cut the tops off their mountains for their own "benefit"!

I'd pay good money to see it.

Did the local folks reject this, or the EPA?

Who cares? It's a bad idea and it should never be done. Reasonable mining in appropriate locations, yes. Hacking off mountaintops and destroying the rest of the local economy as well as endangering the health of the citizens? No.

Are you familiar with the problems currently taking place in the Marcellus Shale?

No, it's exactly the point. The EPA greenlighted it in 2007 after all the requisite discussion and study, and now they reverse it.

It's all political now.

 

[goldcatt]

Did the local folks reject this, or the EPA?

Who cares? It's a bad idea and it should never be done. Reasonable mining in appropriate locations, yes. Hacking off mountaintops and destroying the rest of the local economy as well as endangering the health of the citizens? No.

Are you familiar with the problems currently taking place in the Marcellus Shale?

No, it's exactly the point. The EPA greenlighted it in 2007 after all the requisite discussion and study, and now they reverse it.

It's all political now.

Bullshit. If it were political the EPA would have let it go through. The politicians in the company's pocket wanted the mine in place. They can't give campaign contributions to bureaucrats.

But I see you sidestepped my question.

 

[Revere]

Who cares? It's a bad idea and it should never be done. Reasonable mining in appropriate locations, yes. Hacking off mountaintops and destroying the rest of the local economy as well as endangering the health of the citizens? No.

Are you familiar with the problems currently taking place in the Marcellus Shale?

No, it's exactly the point. The EPA greenlighted it in 2007 after all the requisite discussion and study, and now they reverse it.

It's all political now.

Bullshit. If it were political the EPA would have let it go through. The politicians in the company's pocket wanted the mine in place. They can't give campaign contributions to bureaucrats.

But I see you sidestepped my question.

They did. In 2007. And now the current regime reversed it.

 

[Revere]

So it is all political.

 

[goldcatt]

No, it's exactly the point. The EPA greenlighted it in 2007 after all the requisite discussion and study, and now they reverse it.

It's all political now.

Bullshit. If it were political the EPA would have let it go through. The politicians in the company's pocket wanted the mine in place. They can't give campaign contributions to bureaucrats.

But I see you sidestepped my question.

They did. In 2007. And now the current regime reversed it.

I love how you say "regime". It rolls trippingly off troll tongue, doesn't it?

But I asked you a question. Are you familiar with the current issues taking place in the Marcellus? Not a difficult question. Yes or no will suffice.

 

[Revere]

I'll humor you and Google it.