Mountaintop Removal: An American Tragedy
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 вер 2024
- Narrated by Susan Sarandon, this video shows firsthand footage of mountaintop removal coal mining and its impacts on Appalachian mountains, drinking water and families. Mountaintop removal is a mining practice where explosives are used to blast the tops off mountains to expose the thin seams of coal beneath. Once blasted, earth and coal dust from the mountaintop is dumped into neighboring valleys and waterways. Hundreds of mountaintops have been lost forever to MTR, and according to a 2005 environmental impact statement, nearly 2,000 miles of Appalachian streams have already been buried or contaminated by the devastating mining practice. Take action today and tell banks to stop financing this American tragedy at ran.org/mtrbanks
Please note: the "Mountain State" is allowing their mountains to be destroyed - for money they'll never see. I'm from a small town in OH literally across a bridge from WV. I'm Appalachian. My county has not one, but TWO coal fired power plants. We are used to being poisoned and poor: it's a cycle we can't break because we do not control our own resources. We've been exploited for generations. The devastating part is that although I'm against coal and mountaintop removal mining, I know my town would collapse without them. It's a sickening trap to be caught in. The frightening part is no one outside of Appalachia seems to think this affects them personally - and that's because no one's ever stated the obvious, "This affects EVERYBODY because poisoned water doesn't just stay in Appalachia." And one more thing: it's "app-uh-latch-uh"
Obama and Joel Lieberman creates the federal BLM and now they control all natural resources and land in the continuous USA 🇺🇸
blame them for your dilemma
I love Appalachia. I don't live there but I spent every summer there (in PA) growing up. I love the mountains and the people who live there. I understand people need jobs and the economy needs energy to run, and I appreciate that energy from coal has been instrumental in helping create modern civilization. Coal as a substitute for wood for energy is also a big reason why, after two centuries of clear cutting, America's eastern forests have grown back and are now more extensive than they have been in hundreds of years. But this mountain top removal mining - turning mountains that are hundreds of millions of years old into moonscape craters - seems like a sin to me. I support nuclear power and would like to see it expanded, particularly in regions like Appalachia. It's clean and safe, requires little to no mining like this, and it supports high paying jobs. Plus, America has enough uranium and thorium to meet all its energy needs (not just electric power) essentially forever, so it represents a pathway to total energy independence, which can't be a bad thing.
“Only when the last tree has been cut down, the last fish been caught, and the last stream poisoned, will we realize we cannot eat money .” Cree Proverb
This is so upsetting
How do you think the steel for those windmills are made? Or all the other components within them?
The high grade steel specifically? From coking coal in Australia. The coal in the U.S. is garbage quality for making high grade steel. You can't just use any old coal for making steel, you need to get good coking coal for the best steel on the market.
Which is why Trump didn't start mewling on about extended tariffs to Australia, as Australia is one of the few places you can source high grade steel due to both good banded ore deposits as well as large quantities of high grade coking coal needed to make it.
The coal being ripped from those mountains is shitty coal for power generation mostly.
SWEDEN HAS THE TECHNOLOGY TO MAKE GREEN STEEL WITHOUT COAL. EASTERN CANADA IS LOOKING AT USING HYDROGEN TO MELT IRON PELLETS. USING RENEWABLE ENERGY LIKE HYDROGEN IS MORE SUSTAINABLE AND ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY. THE BYPRODUCT OF HYDROGEN IS WATER. THE BYPRODUCT OF COAL IS HARMFUL GREENHOUSE GASES. WE DON'T NEED COAL ANYMORE.
Powerful video...
@titansteelminer I've met people from the appalachians that are absolutely against this. They've been driven out of their own homes. The ones who stay risk their lives fighting. In WV in the 50s there were at least 125,000 jobs in mining, now around 16,000. It was cut by more than 50% due to MTR! Appalachia are also some of the poorest people in the nation even though some of the most money is coming out of there. That's because the corporations take it all and dont give back!!
No need to look far but at ourselves.
If one is needlessly consuming the the dead bodies of other animals and their secretions (a birds menstruation of eggs and calfs growth fluid dairy)---one is contributing to the greatest destruction of all ecosystems.
🙌🏼🙌🏼❤️
Your answer is knocking at the door.
Mountains channel wind and windmills attached to dynamos can generate electricity without destroying the landscape and the people on it. If placed in a hollow, the mountains actually increase the windspeed which increases the energy production potential of an electric generator windmill. It's simple meteorology and physics. Without the mountains however, you lose that capacity forever. 93% of all coal is still mined without mountaintop removal.
Janet Weiss has wised us up.
This short video zeros in on the major points of the problem. Unlike coal from places flatlands like Wyoming the Appalachian mountains destroyed by surface mining can NEVER be returned to the beauty that they once were and the water sheds are polluted forever. The economy of the region has suffered. Dollars are taken out by big coal, nothing is returned, and the mountains that have such rich heritage are reduced to rubble. Until fossil fuel is replaced we must develop clean alternatives.
Amazing video.
"THERE IS NO THRESHOLD BELOW WHICH PARTICLE POLLUTION EXPOSURE IS NOT HARMFUL TO HEALTH (World Health Organisation)."
Ridiculous destruction!
1. In the baby-stages of renewable energy (wind, solar, geothermal, etc), more jobs have been created than the entire coal industry. These jobs stay put, they do not move mountain to mountain. Thus, unemployment rates would decrease.
2. Of course roads would be needed, but I think we can all agree that that's much better then blowing up the mountain.
And please, I would love to hear all opinions and facts (biased or not) as I refuse to blind myself of other points of view. - Ben
WOW! powerful video. As a former coal operator and miner I really appreciate the accuracy of your video.My recent novel highlights a family's fight against such practices.
Nathan Rhodes Author
"Murder Seen Through the Eyes of a Child"
Wind and solar power are not substitutes for coal because they don't produce power on demand and there is no practical way of storing surplus electrical energy on the scale that would be needed to support power demand to an entire electrical grid during the many periods throughout the year when the sun isn't shining, or shining brightly or long enough and when the wind isn't blowing, or blowing strongly enough. Also, each individual windmill and solar panel doesn't produce all that much power even under optimal conditions, so deploying enough of them to make meaningful contributions to the grid means building lots and lots of them, and that all adds up to a very intrusive industrialization of the landscape. Nuclear power is a much better choice for replacing coal, because like coal, nuclear power can be generated on demand. Nuclear power has _much_ smaller land footprint per unit of power generated than just about any other form of power generation. It's also the least deadly power generation technology there is. And it produces no air pollution or CO2 emissions. France gets most (75-85%) of their electricity from nuclear power, and they have some of the cleanest air and cheapest electricity in the developed world as a result. Nuclear power is what people in Appalachia, and across the entire US, should be pushing for. Renewables might have popular appeal and a feel-good factor to them, but they are actually only marginally useful and expensive. As a tool in an environmentalist energy strategy, they're an expensive dead end.
Clean energy needs coal to operate
I've seen the future of energy,and IT IS NOT anything like this.There are currently hundreds of new alternative,non-destructive, clean and affordable energies coming on line now and in the future.Oil,Coal and nuclear will be left in the dinosaur pile along with their evil owners. Get involved.Push you legislatures at federal,state and local levels to purchase, support and develop these clean, alternative energies.There are hundreds to pick from. Spend your time where change will count.
yo guys from the class ya already knowww twitter naturres also amos fw.lit
"If we can put a man on the moon we can burn clean coal" That was said by President Obama in a tv ad in 2008.
Wow.
I agree with everything she said here. However, if she wants to really make a change as a wealthy person, then she should stop getting limos and private jets all over the world, that consume copious amounts of fossil fuels.
Nuclear energy is much safer and cleaner
10,000 family clans wiped off the face of earth forever, all in the name of cheap coal!!!
There is only 16,000 jobs because there is a war on coal...