 |
| Bull Mountain coal mine as seen from above. |
 |
| Bull Mountain coal mine as seen from inside. |
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/montana-coal-mine-appeals-ruling-trigger-layoffs-50330339
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-climate-costs-20171004-story.html
With a recent ruling from the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, an expansion for the Bull Mountain coal mine in Montana was halted. In March, the Trump administration, who support this expansion plan, ordered federal officials to stop calculating any environmental costs that plans like these bring. Courts have finally begun to require an estimate of expenses to the climate before making any environmental decisions. This requirement gives time for officials to calculate the potential damage to the atmosphere and decide whether the economic benefits outweigh the global warming.
However, by blocking this project, there is a potential for several workers to lose their job at this coal mine. It is predicted that 30 workers will be laid off as a result of the halt to the expansion. Furthermore, mining officials claim that no additional damage will be done to the environment, as consumers will simply go to other sources of coal, not affecting the total global warming.
I believe that climate change and global warming is a significant issue that must be addressed now. Our environment needs to be protected, and by encouraging the public to use harmful energy sources, we hurt our environment and ourselves. The Trump administration is focused on economic improvements, but pays no attention to the heavy damage that decisions like these may bring. I think we need to evaluate whether the economic benefits are worth the environmental toils, and forcing estimates to be presented is a great way to do so.
What do you think? Should estimates of environmental costs be required for big decisions? Is the court justified in halting this expansion?
7 comments:
In the modern world, coal mining is a dying industry, being replaced by more efficient sources of energy. The President's desire to bring back coal mining is a flawed plan because it upholds reactionary tendencies. In modern society we need to start thinking about long term survival rather than short term profit. Coal mining is an environmentally destructive process that is being replaced by newer and better practices. Let the coal miners loose their jobs so we can fun solar and wind farms. Those who decide to live in the past shall no reap the benefits of future progress.
While I agree alternative energy is the best way to go, I disagree with Tilman's assertion that we should simply let a group of people lose their jobs because we hyper-regulate their industry. The "long term survival" of the miners depends on their jobs, so to dismiss them I believe is unjust. Mining is by no means a glorious profession, so I think we ought to have some situational empathy and recognize they are doing America's dirty work that keep our lights on.
I also don't think that solar or wind energies are the future, yet they are definitely a step in the right direction. Take Germany, for example. They closed numerous power plants in favor of wind farms, and ended up having to sell energy at a net negative (search "German energy crisis," Forbes has a great article explaining the economics behind this). In regards to solar, many of the heavy metals used to create current day solar panels are also damaging to the environment (although admittedly not as much coal). I personally advocate for more research and development into nuclear energy. Nuclear energy produces very low carbon emissions, and if properly controlled and operated run smoothly. Construction costs are relatively high, however. Both Forbes and BBC do a great cost benefit analysis of this as well.
Thirty people losing their jobs is a tragedy. However, it does not mean that further destruction of the environment is justified. The damage done at this point is irreversible and drastic. Any more is another step towards the type of environmental chaos that we have experienced in the last few weeks with hurricanes and earthquakes. The fact that only now people are actually considering the damage it would cause before going through with the plan is baffling and horrible. The government has a responsibility to protect the people, and the destroying the environment puts the people at serious risk. Economic problems cannot be equated to environmental problems, because who cares if the economy is booming if no one can breathe the air. It the Trump administration continues to prioritize the economy over sustainability there will be devastating consequences.
If you asked me a year ago, I would've said that all coal mining is bad and should be discontinued immediately. However, after taking APES I now realize that because coal is already so thoroughly integrated into our society as the primary energy source for our commercial industries and most of our daily functions, it would be impossible to stop using it. However, we can certainly transfer some of our energy needs to alternative sources, as Tilman and Austin said. Wind is by far the most efficient alternative energy in terms of production costs and environmental costs, followed by geothermal and hydroelectric energy. Hydroelectric energy generators such as dams, however, can disrupt local aquatic environments and create thermal pollution, killing off native fish populations, thus making wind and geothermal better choices. While nuclear energy is extremely potent, the risk of a meltdown such as those that occurred in Chernobyl and Fukushima makes nuclear energy too much of a health hazard. Anyhow, the point that I want to convey is it would be illogical for Trump to shut down coal mines altogether, but there definitely needs to be strict environmental regulations in place because coal companies cannot be trusted to manage themselves.
I also agree that alternative energy is the better option compared to coal. However, like Austin, I don't believe that solar and wind energy are the way to go. I'm not sure about wind energy, but the production of solar panels and other technology that help harness solar power creates a lot of air and water pollution with heavy metals. While using solar energy over fossil fuels and coal might be beneficial to the environment, the production and maintenance of means to do so is not really worth it. Unfortunately, this goes for a lot of different kinds of energy.
For the people losing their jobs, I think that a step toward a better environment takes precedent, but I still think it is important to consider that this can affect people outside of those 30 miners (family, for instance). And though I'm pretty sure Trump is more likely to kneel during the national anthem than grant unemployed miners insurance, I think that it would theoretically be ideal if the government would help the unemployed miners find a job and pay them insurance while they are still unemployed.
While it is unfortunate that thirty people would be losing their jobs, protecting the already damaged environment is more important. Trump is a businessman, so it is not surprising that he has no regard for the environment or the wellbeing of others if he can profit from it. America is one of the most wasteful countries in the world and his greed prevents America from moving towards sustainability. Estimates of environmental costs should be required for big decisions that could potentially damage the environment, but we should also focus on finding alternative, cleaner sources of energy as Tilman stated.
I can follow the various opinions and arguments concerning the type of energy that ought to be used in place of coal, and I also support Diana in mentioning that coal is already quite integrated within our society as a major power source. However, I don't think these arguments are the most valid for this particular subject. I would rather agree with Michelle, in saying that we ought to understand that the wellbeing of our Earth is more important than economic growth. Dhruv also mentioned that the Trump administration has focused on our economy instead of our ecosystem, and I support the idea of shifting gears, for the environment ought not to be forgotten in exchange for money.
Post a Comment