America is fortunate to have a seeming endless supply of coal; the United States Geological Survey says that we may have as many as 4 trillion tons of coal located in underground coalfields. This coal can be used to generate electricity, which can power us into the future. Coal is relatively inexpensive, a major factor leading to low energy costs we all enjoy. The problem with our vast coal supply is that it is very difficult to reach the coal buried deep underneath the earth.
Coal powered generation plants are the only feasible way to power our nation into the 21st century. States that rely almost exclusively on coal for power generation have up to 40% lower energy costs. Currently coal produces 54% of our nation’s power, and provides over 170,000 permanent full time jobs that can never be out sourced, many of which pay over $50,000 a year in areas where coal jobs are the only jobs available. For every coal mining job a additional 3.5 jobs are created elsewhere in the economy. By using coal we provide jobs for Americans, while at the same time reducing our dependence on foreign oil, additionally coal helps to reduce the negative impact unstable oil prices have on our economy, and national security.
America’s coal reserves contain 12 times the energy of all the oil in Saudi Arabia. According to the United States geological survey there are 1.7 trillion tons of known coal reserves across our nation, and some estimate there may be as many as 2.3 trillion tons that have yet to be discovered.
There are two major problems with coal; the first is that coal burning of coal to generate power results in the release of lots of emissions, epically Carbon Dioxide, one of the main pollutants that contribute to global warming. However we have made great strides in increasing the pollutant standards in coal fired power generation plants, in fact Coal plants today emit 90 percent less pollutants (SO2, NOx, Particulates, mercury) than the plants they replace from the 1970s, according the National Energy Technology Laboratory. The second problem with coal is that the techniques used to retrieve coal are extremely devastating to the environment. One technique used is known as mountain top removal, in this method the earth on top of the coal is simply pushed aside, so that the coal may be more easily retrieved. This devastates the nitrogen cycle, and destroys the ecosystem on the mountain, but allows the miner to easily retrieve the coal. It is important to note that mountain top removal is not used very widely, and only contributes roughly 10 percent of all the coal mined annually in the United States.
Mountain top removal does have its benefits, it is much safer for the miner than traditional underground mining, it greatly reduces the occurrence of black lung in miners, and eliminates the deaths caused by roof falls, which occur when the weight of the roof of the mine is not properly supported, and it the roof falls on the miners, crushing them. Most mining deaths occur because of roof falls. Mining deaths have dropped significantly since the wide implementation of mountain top mining, 1,546 annually in the 1930’s, when the only type of mining was traditional underground mining, now that mountain top mining is more commonly used only 65 miners were killed in 2006, even though the amount of coal mined each year has increased significantly.
Our position is that coal is so important to the health of the United States that the benefits of coal outweigh the negative impacts of coal. This is not to say that we think we should rely solely on coal to power our country forever. We as a country need to invest tremendous recourses into developing alternative energy sources because the simple fact of the matter is that coal like oil and any other limited recourse will run out sooner or later. However at this time there are no clean energy sources that can come close to providing half of the electrical energy for our country that coal currently produces. We see coal as a way to power us until these newer technologies can take coal’s place as the largest means of generating electricity in the United States.
Critics of the coal industry say that the benefits of coal do not outweigh the negative impacts coal has on the environment. They say we should replace coal immediately with alternative energy sources, but no current energy source can produce enough power to take the place of coal. Coal is terrible for the environment, and we as a nation need to work on reducing emissions, but right now we cannot afford the dramatic increase in the price of electricity that would come from reducing or eliminating our use of coal as a power source. The answer is to use coal to power our nation until we can develop the technology necessary to take the place of coal.
The United States has vast coal recourses, enough to provide us with lots of cheap power, but in order to extract the coal form the earth we must destroy the environment to get it. We need coal to power us into the future, but we need to be investing tremendous resources to develop alternative energy sources to eventually eliminate our dependence fossil fuels.
Works Cited
Electronic Field Trip to a Coal Mine. KET. Web. 11 Nov. 2009.
Fast Facts about Coal. National Mining Association. Web. 11 Nov. 2009.
A Handbook To Appalachia. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee, 2006. Print.
"Injury Trends in Mining." Injury Trends in Mining. United States Department of Labor. Web. 28 Oct. 2009.
Group A feels that coal is an extremely vital asset to our country. Not only does it fuel our economy by providing countless jobs, generating mass revenue, and providing our nation with the power it needs to prevail, but coal also serves as a great substitute for oil. This is important because oil as resource is bound to deplete soon. Group A argues that the benefits of using coal and retrieving it from the method of mountain top removal far outweighs its negative impacts. They believe that having a strong economy, a reliable energy source, and an easy way to access coal is far more important than the negative impacts it has the environment. In addition they argue that mountain top removal, although devastating to the environment, is a better approach due to the fact that less miners die.
ReplyDeleteI agree with group A that our nation cannot afford to altogether give up our use of coal. Our country is driven by power, and without we would not be what we are today. However, I do not agree that the benefits of using mountain top removal exceed its negative impacts. It has a devastating impact not only on the environment but on the families and communities surrounding the mountain top removal sites. I think that the environment needs to play a larger role in determining how to retrieve coal.
Team A is arguing that coal is a necessary evil. While they admit that mountain top removal along with emissions makes coal harmful to our environment, we do not have adequate alternative energy sources to replace the cheap energy we get from coal. They state that while mountain top removal is destructive, it saves the lives of miners and increases efficiency. The United States also has huge reserves of coal which means we don’t have to depend on other countries to supply it. Team A believes that the benefits of coal and mountain top removal outweigh the negative effects. I happen to disagree with Team A because I feel that their arguments are all centered around short-term effects. This short-sighted approach spells disaster for future generations in the form of air and water pollution, denuded landscapes that were once pristine, and countless other ill-effects that will accompany global warming
ReplyDeleteYou guys make some great arguments, however I have a question. It seems coal is a necessity, which I don't doubt, but why is MTR the most essential type of extraction technique? If it is only 5% of Coal mining, why is it so important to maintain considering its costs?
ReplyDeleteGroup A admits that MTR has negative effects on the environment. However, they clearly stated that mining coal is a necessity UNTIL a cleaner energy is developed. Group A did a good job of providing statistics such as the U.S’s coal compared to Saudi Arabia’s oil and the number of deaths caused by traditional mining vs. MTR. Group A was sympathetic, yet straight forward; with our economy in its current state could we really afford to lose 10% of our coal production? Great job Group A!
ReplyDeleteGroup A agrues that coal is a necessity and that its use will ensure our future. They say that the mining of coal provides numerous jobs 3 jobs for every mining jobs. They also argue that this form of mining is safer than traditional underground mining reducing the number of deaths from over 1500 in the 1930s to 64 in 2006. They also state that the United States should invest in other sources of energy but until the time comes when these other forms can take over that coal should be used.
ReplyDeleteIt is Group 1’s position that mountain top removal mining should be continued. They believe that there is no alternative to coal, since coal is so cheap and provides a majority of nation’s energy. In their opinion the benefits from cheap electricity and the added jobs out weighs the negative effects on the environment. My main critique of Group 1’s position paper is the way they tend to contradict themselves. One example being they say mountain top removal is only 10% of all mining operations in the United States, but then talk about how its “wide implementation” has reduced the deaths of coal miners. I don’t see how you can argue how it is not being used very much to justify the environmental impacts, but then say that it is being used so much that miner deaths are being dramatically reduced. I also thought it was odd that reclamation efforts, and laws and regulations were not discussed in any detail.
ReplyDeleteThe group started out well by discussing the numerous reasons as to why their position was the more sensible approach. They spoke about the economical benefits such as the jobs created, the pay involved and the cheap costs for energy that results. The abundance was another point made as was the accessibility of the coal which reduces the deaths and injuries that normally are associated with this dangerous occupation. The only downside to their position was when they started to discuss the flaws with mountain top removal.
ReplyDelete1) Group A argues that mountain top removal is a vital part of our nation’s health. They give the importance of coal to our nation and our ability to continue running. The group does discuss the downfalls of mountain top removal and its effects on the environment. They believe that the benefits to people override those problems. The group also says that it is especially necessary until another source or type of removal can be found. One of their major arguments for mountain top removal is that it is safer for the miner. It reduces the number of deaths which occur in mining because most are caused by roof collapses. Basically, they believe that they contributions of mountain top removal exceed the cons of it.
ReplyDeleteGroup A defends coal mining occupation as a crucial energy provider for the United States. They acknowledge the environmental impacts of global warming that is increased with the burning of fossil fuels. Group A also focuses on the amount of job opportunities that are allotted because of mountain top removal. Mountain top removal employs thousands of people in jobs that should be secure in their standing. However, with people who are not willing to grasp the bigger picture these jobs are now in a precarious state. I think Group A did a good job in representing their material but also seeing the down falls of Mountain Top Removal on an environmental level. I think that they should have mentioned how people do not want to be using this kind of “dirty energy” but are unwilling to switch to various forms.
ReplyDeleteGroup A takes the position that mountain top removal is necessary for continued economic development even though its environmental impacts are severe. They believe that in order for the US to stay competitive and secure in the world economy we must continue strip mining practices. Group A admits in their own position paper that only 10% of coal is mined using mountain top removal. With such a small portion of power being generated by mountain top removal (5.4% according to group A) their argument that it cannot be replaced by renewable energy sources is extremely flawed. Increased miner safety is touted as the largest benefit of mountain top removal, but miner safety has been improving by leaps and bounds even in conventional underground mines. By enacting stricter guidelines for underground mines, and focusing development efforts on efficiency and cleaner energy sources, the need for mountain top removal can be eliminated.
ReplyDeleteGroup A feels that Mountain top removal is a necessary evil to keep the lights on in our over populated world. They feel that there is an overabundance of coal reserves that will power us into perpetuity. Coal also provides over 170, 000 jobs in areas that need jobs and are low income. This group also feels that emissions from coal fired power plants are 90% lower than in the 70’s. Mountain top removal is vastly more safe that traditional mining. Traditional mining is extremely dangerous and costs more due to increased labor rates. This increase is unacceptable and mountain top removal is the only way to cheaply fix our addiction to energy.
ReplyDeleteGroup A believes that coal, although harmful to the environment and difficult to extract, is an adequate source of energy for America until alternative energy sources are developed. Coal is cheap, bountiful, reduces our dependence on foreign oil, and the coal industry provides thousands of jobs for Americans. Group A also states in their position paper that mountaintop removal is a safe, effective way to mine coal. They do point out some of the devastating effects of mountaintop removal on the environment, but undermine the seriousness of these problems by stating that mountaintop removal "only contributes roughly 10 percent of all the coal mined annually in the United States." I think that Group A should have focused their paper more on mountaintop removal specifically, rather than the utilization of coal for energy as a whole. However, Group A does make some solid arguments which will make for a very interesting debate.
ReplyDeleteThe Necessity of Mountain Top Removal still has yet to be established. The opposing group found that only 10 percent of coal used is from mountain top removal and listed the many negative outcomes that this type of mining creates. Nowhere did they provide enough information to show that the gains from mountain top removal outweighed the expulsion of the mining technique. The Group managed to establish a backing for coal use on a national level, but we are talking about a certain region and a certain type of mining, mountain top removal. In my opinion the group vaguely projected the benefits of surface mining to a broad extent. They support the use of coal based on the fact that 54 percent of the U.S. relies heavily on coal as an energy source to produce electricity. They also circumvent that jobs are created by coal, but mountain top removal is a technique that uses less manpower, hence, the minimal amount of danger to work men and that this support for mountain top removal is simply not falsifiable. The group’s position paper could be developed more appropriately to the subject at hand. The paper could also do a far better job in pushing the benefits on mountain top removal, but they clearly approached the topic with all coal resources in mind. In accordance with the above evidence I am standing firm in my belief that mountain top removal should be abolished.
ReplyDeleteGroup A believes that we need to continue MTR practices while simultaneously investing heavily in alternative energy sources as MTR is the only feasible way of powering our nation today. They cite several sources that show some of the benefits of MTR, besides extracting the coal in a relatively safe and convenient way (to the mining companies). More jobs, reduced dependence on foreign oil, and improved economies are all the result of coal usage. Group A also explains the downsides of MTR, which lends them credibility in my opinion. They also helped sway my opinion by saying that MTR is only a temporary fix until we develop better technologies. My only problem is that I can’t fully support an industry that blatantly damages both the environment and locals.
ReplyDeleteTeam A is for mountain top removal in order to obtain the power we use daily. They think that our use of coal is very beneficial to today’s society, so the negative impacts of coal can be pushed aside and almost ignored. They argue that mountain top removal is beneficial to the miner; the process is less dangerous than underground mining and there is a lesser chance of the black lung disease. The economic effects of this process is mentioned, saying it will provide more energy for a cheaper price, something the nation should take advantage of, at least until other, safer, cleaner sources of energy are discovered and usable. Their most prominent argument is that the United States appears to have an endless amount of coal, and it will sustain us and ensue the future for the nation.
ReplyDeleteRight now, China is doing a lot of mining and burning of coal, and they argue that they have a right to propel their upward movement in economic and industrial strength. It is hard to argue with that since we did the same thing to make America what it is today, and most of us should be very thankful for that. However, we are at the point where we need to reduce how much we are using mountain-top removal, even if it is only 10% of all coal-mining. Because we have destroyed a million acres of forest, destroyed 2,000 miles of streams, and it is time to minimize the damage. Coal has served it's purpose for this country, it is time to start using the wind and renewable energy more so that we can stop mountain-top removal before too much of it happens. Even with the benefits of mountain-top removal it is time to stop doing things like removing 600 feet of land off of a mountain. I do think it would be really regrettable to spoil so much more land, considering how much they have already ruined, which is the size of Delaware. With a growing population, energy demands may cause u to turn too much land into barren, toxic, hellish wastelands. You don't truly appreciate how much you have left of something until you start to get close to running out.
ReplyDeleteCoal currently produces 54% of our country’s power and provides 170,000 full-time jobs. Mountain top removal makes retrieving coal much safer by reducing the occurrence of black lung and number of roof falls. Mining deaths have decreased significantly, despite the drastic increase of the amount of coal that is mined. Group A’s position is that we should continue mining for coal via mountain top removal because the health of our country relies on it. They believe that the benefits outweigh the cost; therefore, we should ignore the negative impacts coal has on the environment because of the benefits we receive.
ReplyDeleteTeam A uses statistics quite well and have a good argument in comparing the mountain top removal to the oil industry. They also argue that mountain top removal is the only means in which we can maintain the energy needed for our current lifestyles. They feel that coal is so beneficial that the negative impacts to the environment can almost be pushed aside, the good outweighs the bad. They argue that it is safer to the miners health, but what about the fact that many miners are losing their jobs due to this new method?
ReplyDeleteGroup A has a level headed stance on mountain top removal. They don’t deny the negative impact that mountain top removal has on the environment. Their focus is on the fact that the United States has a huge supply of coal which makes for cheap energy. They also state that there are many jobs produced in the towns close to these mining operations. I have seen this in Logan County, WV. Many jobs in this area are related to coal, even if they are not directly working for the coal companies. The argument about how miner’s lives have been saved is a strong one. Human lives may be worth a couple of mountain tops.
ReplyDeleteGroup A provides the basic statistics that most defending MTR do. The fact that it is safer and cheaper. Coal may provide 54% of our nations energy, but how much of that is provided by MTR coal? There are other ways to retrieve coal from the ground. Coal is beneficial in some ways right now, but MTR is not the way to go. Go to SWVA and see the impacts of MTR.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGroup A is arguing that mountaintop removal is an essential method of harvesting natural resources for efficient energy. It seems as though that the group has raised some interesting points and it is stated that the supply is enough to last the population for many years. However, I can’t help from wondering how we are going to prevent ourselves from doing so much damage to the environment when harvesting these resources, and what else can be done to help repair the land once these resources have been gathered?
ReplyDeleteGroup A supports mountaintop removal mining primarily on the grounds of the relatively safe and cheap nature of the practice. The majority of the argument being made, however, seems to support coal use in general and is not specific to mountaintop removal. Mountaintop removal mining is just one of several types of surface mining (such as strip mining, open-pit mining, and highwall mining), all of which share the same safety benefits. If MTR contributes only about 10 percent of US coal, it can’t account for the majority of health and safety gains. Why not differentiate MTR from other practices, perhaps by suggesting the benefits of being able to mine coal quickly as energy needs increase?
ReplyDeleteThis group recognizes that coal has detrimental effects on our environment, but the advantages outweigh these negative side effects; MTR is a necessary evil. They state that coal provides a great number of jobs, generates revenue for the economy, and provides the nation with a form of cheap energy. They argue that emissions from coal fire power plants have decreased 90% from the past, and MTR is a much safer way to mine considering the human death rate. They did a good job providing statistics and talking about both sides to the story.
ReplyDeleteYour paper started out strong but then in the middle grammar got horrible. This is supposed to be a pro mountain top removal paper and it in no way moved me to think that mountain top removal is a good way of mining.
ReplyDeleteThese gusy do manke a good arguement for the short term use of coal. They do realize that we need to find alternate energy sources. There are also a bunch of jobs and money tied up in the coal industry both in mining and power production that could be affected if MTR was banned completely. Hopefully in the future technology will come up with a better way to retrieve the coal that is less harmful to the environment.
ReplyDeleteGroup A does a good job of supporting why we need coal mining and coal powered electricity. It provides jobs for Americans and gives a reliable energy source. They also beleive that although coal mining is detrimental to the environment, the pros outweigh the cons. They beleive that the economic support and job security coal mining provides is more important than the environment.
ReplyDelete-Courtney Beale
The other groups position paper has a title that is stronger than the one you have choosen. This does not impact the strength of your argument but it was very noticable to me. That being said you make several comments that lean on the economic advantages that mountain top removal provides. The fact is the coal companies are the main benifactors of these advantages. MTR in fact reduces the demand for local mining jobs. Since a majority of the MTR occurs in areas that have socially developed to provide a capacity of workers for traditional mining methods, MTR actually hurts local economics. Added to the environmental and health stresses that MTR creates for these local populations how can you justify the reduction in equity these people experience?
ReplyDeleteGroup A makes a valid and coherent argument. They appropriately use facts to shore up their positionandrefute potentialclaims by opposition. However, they seem to be arguing more for coal than MTR coal mining. I feel Group A makes a clear argument but not for what they actually should be defending. They should refocus their points to justify MTR coal mining specifically. If they could do this I think they would have a strong standpoint on the subject.
ReplyDeleteGroup A argues that coal is a necessary source of energy until we can successfully develop alternative methods that create less pollution and supply us with enough energy. They believe the pros outweigh the cons in the use of coal. While they make a very good argument for coal, they do not talk enough about why MTR is so important and why other methods cannot be used. I feel they are defending coal more than they are defending MTR.
ReplyDeleteThere are those, such as Group A, that believe mountaintop removal coal mining is worth the damage that it does. Estimates for how much coal we have in our land reach as high as 4 trillion tons. With this huge supply of coal, we need to use it to decrease our dependence on foreign oil. They acknowledge the drawbacks of using coal: the destruction of the land in order to harvest it, and the pollution it causes when burning it. Mountaintop removal coalmining is responsible for large amounts of land destruction; however, it is much more efficient than traditional coal mining. It is much easier and safer for miners to harvest the coal, by not putting them in the tunnels that heavy in coal dust and cause black lung and not at risk of cave ins. As for the pollution caused when burning coal, have been able to reduce the air pollution by as much as 90% compared to the 1970s. Despite these downsides, Group A favors mountaintop removal coal mining. Their stance is that we need to use the coal we have until renewable energy sources can be offered just as cheaply as the energy from coal
ReplyDelete