Losing Blair Mountain: The Mountaintop Removal of History

A federal judge yesterday ruled against the Sierra Club and other organizations in a case brought before the court to preserve Blair Mountain, a historic landmark in American and labor history. The ruling opens up the ability of a coal company to destroy the mountain, or at least a significant portion of it, through mountaintop removal mining.

I use this cyber soapbox often to point out how mountaintop removal is destroying our ecological and cultural heritage. In this case this mining practice will destroy part of our history as well. The largest armed conflict on American soil since the time of the Civil War occurred on Blair Mountain. In 1921, after years of lawless exploitation, 10,000 West Virginia miners marched against the oppression of the mine owners. Met with armed resistance by the local sheriff, hired mine guards, and a makeshift militia at Blair Mountain, a battle ensued. The conflict lasted ten days. President Warren G. Harding sent in the Army, including the Air Force, and included the use of aerial bombing.

            Once the Army came in and the bombs started to fall from the sky, the miners went home. The mine owners won this battle. It was not until 1933, under FDR’s first term, that West Virginia coal miners gained unionization.

            As far as labor history goes, the Battle of Blair Mountain bears the same significance as John Brown’s raid on Harpers Ferry does to the Civil War. And just as our understanding of the Civil War is incomplete without a knowledge and appreciation of Brown and his quixotic raid, we do not fully understand the New Deal or other achievements of the labor movement without a knowledge of the struggle of Blair Mountain.

Details about the court ruling can be found here. Briefly summarizing, the plaintiffs in this case were trying to have Blair Mountain returned to the National Register of Historic Places, which the National Park Service had bestowed on the landmark in the spring of 2009. Being on the register would keep the mountain safe from mountaintop removal. The judge ruled that the Sierra Club and others lack standing, the ability of a plaintiff to demonstrate to the court that the actions of the defendant would cause harm to the plaintiff.

Mountaintop coal mining has decimated the United Mine Workers, depressing wages and the economy of West Virginia and rolling back the accomplishments of the UMW and organized labor. What those miners fought for at the Battle of Blair Mountain is being lost. Losing the mountain as well makes this irony especially bitter.

Rachel Carson's Silent Spring at 50: Why This Book Inspired and Where We Stand Today

Rachel Carson Postage Stamp issued in 1981

In the papers and scattered on the Internet folks are taking note of the 50^th anniversary of the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring. As every introductory paragraph of every article or feature about the book has the phrase “inspired the modern environmental movement” or something of that nature, I’d like to take a moment to consider why this book created the fervor that it did and where we presently stand because of Carson and her book.

Carson targeted the use of pesticides, particularly DDT, in her book. Most Americans could not see the harmful effects from the misuse of these substances. They could not witness the cracking of the DDT weakened eggshells of pelicans and eagles and their subsequent empty nests, nor were most of the people living in this country privy to the topsy-turvy ecological landscapes created by pesticides.

            But Americans could bear witness to the harm industrialization caused their environments. And a large number of folks felt that things were getting worse. In 1955 Los Angeles declared its first smog alert. In the sixties and seventies these alerts became more frequent.[i] Beaches of Lake Erie that people had enjoyed for decades were closed because of pollution, and commercial fishing in that body of water had been severely impaired.[ii] Other lakes and rivers were increasingly fouled with industrial waste and poorly treated sewage.

            Though the specifics of the book differed from people’s everyday experiences, the central leitmotif of Silent Spring—that as far as Mother Nature was concerned something was out of whack and that we were, because of our carelessness and hubris in matters of the environment, the cause of that out of whackness—resonated with the American People.

            In many ways our environmental problems have increased since the time of Silent Spring. Mountaintop removal has destroyed over 500 mountains of Appalachia, as well as destroying communities and ruining the health of many Appalachians.  Oil spills still kill fish and waterfowl. These and other problems plague us and our environment despite the environmental movement and the workings of our government that Silent Spring inspired, such as the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, NEPA, and the EPA.

            Carson is often compared to Harriet Beecher Stowe, whose book, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, stirred antislavery sentiments and prepared the way for the Civil War and emancipation. I often think that as far as environmental awareness, we are living through a time comparable to the hundred years after the Civil War. Just as the sons and daughters, grandsons and daughters, of freed slaves were technically emancipated yet still enslaved by discrimination, segregation, and Jim Crow, we are environmentally safeguarded by the environmental laws of the early seventies yet still enslaved by the same mindset of hubris and carelessness that saw the spraying of hundreds of tons of DDT and other pesticides across field and forest that Carson addressed in Silent Spring.

            With anti-environmentalism threatening the 50 year legacy left by Silent Spring, it would be easy to despair. But we can also look forward as well. Like the struggle of civil rights 50 years ago, perhaps we are only beginning our work of environmentalism. I remain hopeful.

---

[i] Chronology of California History: New Dreams 1945 to 1964 n.d. web 9/25/12

[ii] Hill, Gladwin. “Fight to Save an Ailing Lake Erie Nears the Crisis.” New York Times June 20, 1965: pg 50 print

President Obama Accepts Reality During His Acceptance Speech: So Why Am I Not Campaigning For Him?

Delivered as an obvious rebuke to the flippant dismissal that Romney gave the topic of climate change during the GOP convention, President Obama had this to say about a warming planet during his acceptance speech.

Well, three cheers! It’s good to hear a note of reality during a party convention speech. But as Obama talks the talk, please excuse me for being skeptical about our president walking the walk.

When he ran for president in 2008, Obama and his campaign promised “swift and comprehensive action to combat global climate change.”[i] Yet the tack on global warming that the administration took after gaining office was often tepid and cautious. During those first hundred days of the new administration, when Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and Oval Office, the administration more or less threw cold water on comprehensive legislation introduced to the House that would have capped greenhouse gasses.[ii] Also, for the International Climate Conference in Copenhagen, Obama waited until the last day to show up.[iii]

            Perhaps I have been expecting too much. After all, it’s impossible to describe the opposition that the GOP has presented to advancing any progress on reducing greenhouse gasses. And opposition on this issue also extends to the president’s own party.[iv] In his favor I do have to give Obama credit for raising standards for gas mileage for American cars. He didn’t need Congress for that.

Obviously, I can have no truck with a candidate who is dismissive of the dangers of rising seas and a planet that is wrapping itself more thickly in the thermal insulation of CO2, as Governor Romney did last week. I just wish that, campaign speeches and acceptance speeches aside, I could vote to reelect a president who had done more to keep the globe from getting hotter and hotter.

---

[i] Broder, John M. “Obama, Who Vowed Rapid Action on Climate Change, Turns More Cautious.” New York Times April 11, 2009

[ii] ibid

[iii] Broder, John M. “Obama Shifts His Visit to Last Day of Climate Conference.” New York Times December 5, 2009

[iv] Broder, John M. “Climate Bill Threatened by Senators.” New York Times August 7, 2009

Mitt Romney's Acceptance Speech Gets Cheers When It Comes to Accepting Global Warming

This is only a portion of Mitt Romney’s acceptance speech from Thursday night. In less than two minutes, and mostly using political code words such as “protect the sanctity of life” and “honor the institution of marriage,” The GOP nominee touches on themes meant to fire up the base of the GOP: taxes, gay marriage and abortion. You would think that any of his pledges on these hot button issues would bring the house down.

            It is when he gets to the environment and its protection, saying, “President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet . . . My promise is to help you and your family,” that the crowd in the convention hall is truly electrified.

This is big crazy if ever there was big crazy. As I’ve pointed out before, this has been going on with the Grand Old Party for over 30 years, politicizing the environment. It is nonetheless surprising—and I have to admit, a little scary, too—to see an entire convention of people cheering on the warming planet, the rising oceans, and a political system that is incapable and unwilling to do anything about it.

Todd Akin: Is He Any More Stupid and Insensitive Than Other Politicians?

This is apparently big news. I’ve been hearing about it just about any time I turn on the radio. Defending his stance against abortion rights, Todd Akin, the Missouri representative who is competing with Claire McCaskill for her Senate seat, said during an interview with a Saint Louis television station this past weekend that pregnancies do not result from “legitimate rape.” Besides the absolute ignorance of basic biology he displays with this statement, he’s also showing a great deal of insensitivity with the terminology of calling any sort of rape legitimate.

            So there is an outcry and calls for him to drop out of the Senate race against McCaskill. I tend to agree with the folks who say he should drop out of the race. A person who would say such a thing, whether or not you think that access to abortions should be restricted or outlawed, is too stupid to hold any sort of public office, from the U.S. Congress down to your local school board.

            But, compared to other congressional representatives, is Akin all that stupid? Despite some of the best science ever performed in the history of the empirical method, Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe denies that there is any evidence for global warming. As a matter of fact, he goes so far as to say that all the science on climate change is a fakery, a hoax, perpetrated on the world by mendacious scientists. This is a scenario that, if it were a movie, would contain thousands of Doctor Frankensteins in cahoots with a sort of covert Trilateral Commission working with a great PR department.

            Obviously crazy or really stupid, maybe even paranoid. Where are the calls for him to resign?

            Then there is Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky, a state in which mountaintop removal coal mining has destroyed hundreds of mountains, ruined ecosystems, and has been shown to cause kidney stones, tooth loss, diarrhea, learning disabilities, and some forms of cancer,[i] as well as numerous forms of birth defects.[ii] Rand said of the mining practice that, “I don’t think anyone’s going to be missing a hill or two here and there.”

            People are getting sick and dying, and as far as Rand is concerned it all amounts to “missing a hill or two here and there.” I don’t think much consideration is needed to find this statement stupid and insensitive. Once again, where are the calls for his resignation?

            I could go on and on. The list of things said that are stupid and insensitive is long: equating Islam with terrorism; blaming poor folks for their plight; classifying vandalism as terrorism; calling any kind of coal production “clean.” There is a lot of stupid getting in the way of real political progress.

---

[i] Holzman, David C. “Mountaintop Removal Mining.” Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 119, Issue 11 11/1/2011 electronic journal

[ii] Ahearn, Melissa M. et at. “The association between mountaintop mining and birth defects among live births in central Appalachia, 1996–2003.” Environmental Research Vol. 111 Issue 6. Aug 2011, p 838-846 electronic journal

Mitt Romney and Barack Obama: What Their Campaigns Say About the Environment

As it is that I’m concerned about the environment and how our thinking about the environment affects the manner in which we live our lives and how those actions affect our rivers and streams, the air we breath, and the creatures that share this planet with us, I venture into the political from time to time to examine the thinking behind new or proposed legislation or the rhetoric about the environment that comes from candidates and parties. I have pointed out that some of the rhetoric of the GOP over the last 30 years runs counter to its traditional conservationist attitude toward the environment. And some of what the Grand Old Party says and does also strikes me as weird or crazy.

            That being said, it piqued my curiosity to look at the websites of the presidential candidates governor Mitt Romney and president Barack Obama to see what they both had to say about the environment.

            Energy and the environment are listed as issues addressed on Obama’s campaign website. Clicking into that webpage, topics include wilderness protection, increasing the fuel economy of our automobiles, as well as improving the quality of our air. Some of the ideas listed on this page I consider dubious. With the environmental destruction of modern mining methods, no kind of coal is ever clean, no matter how many times you scrub it. Constructing great wind farms in the desert can also affect the land and be deadly for birds and bats.

I don’t’ believe that Barack Obama has a great environmental record. But whether or not I agree with the policies and actions he endorses, the President has established the environment as a campaign issue.

On the other hand, clicking over to Mitt Romney’s website, of the 24 subjects that his campaign lists as issues, the environment is not mentioned once. If you look at the Energy issue page, it says that Mitt Romney, as president, will “make every effort to safeguard the environment.” And yet a familiar trope of “regulatory reform,” which means loosening or doing completely away with environmental laws appears further down the page.

Even among Democrats the environment is not a big issue right now, overshadowed by jobs and pocketbook concerns. And yet it seems so odd to me that someone could run for president and expect votes from a constituency that is unconcerned about the health and safety of our waters or our ability to breath clean air.

Congressional Hearings on Climate Change: Did Anybody Hear About This?

There was a Congressional hearing this past week on climate change and the connection that climate change has to the extreme weather we’ve been having. Except for a 75-word piece in the Washington Post that announced the participation in the hearing by Senator Benjamin Cardin from Maryland, the hearing received no U.S. press. I read about the hearing in the Guardian, a paper from Britain.

Perhaps this country’s press was correct to pass on reporting on this hearing. After all, maybe there was nothing newsworthy in the hearings. That there was nothing new in earnest scientists telling Congress once again that, yes, global warming is really happening, and yes, that some of the freakish weather that has brought drought to half of the United States and wildfires throughout Colorado can be connected to that warming.

            And maybe they know that there is no news that Senator James Inhofe, the ranking member of the Senate’s environment and public works committee, continues to claim that the science of climate change is a hoax. And they also know that there is no news in reporting that two of Inhofe’s biggest campaign contributors are Koch Industries—which has made its fortunes from oil, gas, and other extractive industries, as well as the Koch brothers being the financiers behind the T Party—and Murray Industries, the largest privately owned coal company in the United States.

            We know that big oil and King Coal are to blame for the inaction of our government to take steps to reduce carbon emissions and that shills like Inhofe are the most egregious enablers of this dangerous charade. The press, particularly the major papers and television networks, are also partly to blame for leaving important hearings and other news on climate change unreported.