Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.