Quantcast
Environmental News for a Healthier Planet and Life

New Study Once Again Proves Mountaintop Removal Is Simply Not Worth It

Nicole D'Alessandro
Sep. 13, 2013 02:54PM EST Energy
New Study Once Again Proves Mountaintop Removal Is Simply Not Worth It

Appalachian Voices

By Brian Sewell

To meet current U.S. coal demand through surface mining, an area the size of Washington, DC—about 68 square miles—would need to be mined every 81 days, according to a new study.

We talk a lot about the external costs of mountaintop removal. And by understanding the true costs that coal puts off on the landscapes, water and communities of Central Appalachia, it’s abundantly clear that the costs far outweigh the benefits to all but a few.

But still we hear arguments about the need for a balance between the environment and the economy.

As elected leaders and industry representatives delude themselves and others, yet another study has concluded that mountaintop removal is simply not worth it. Here’s the simple takeaway from the conclusion of The Environmental Price Tag on a Ton of Mountaintop Removal Coal: tremendous environmental capital is being spent to achieve what are only modest energy gains.

The study’s author, Brian D. Lutz, writes that while many studies have documented the severity of surface mining’s impacts on local ecosystems, less attention has been given to comparing the extent of mountaintop removal’s environmental impacts to the economic benefits of coal as an energy source. According to Lutz, an assistant professor at Kent State University who began the study during his postdoc at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment last year, “This is a critical shortcoming, since even the most severe impacts may be tolerated if we believe they are sufficiently limited in extent.”

To accurately measure the extent of land disturbance against coal production, Lutz and the studies co-authors took county-level coal production data for 33 counties in eastern Kentucky and 14 counties in southern West Virginia. They compared this data to satellite imagery and known mine delineations that extended back to 1976.

Back in 2007, Appalachian Voices contracted with SkyTruth to compile much of this data. We’re thrilled that it has been used to educate others and build a better case for ending mountaintop removal. What’s more, the original data underestimates the amount of land disturbed by mountaintop removal by up to 40 percent in some areas, according to a follow-up mapping study conducted in 2009.

The conclusions drawn from those comparisons are laid out in simple terms most of us can understand and even visualize. Check out the graphs above for another representation of the environmental toll required to meet coal demand for two years with surface mining. Here’s how a press release from Duke University sums up the study:

To meet current U.S. coal demand through surface mining, an area of the Central Appalachians the size of Washington, D.C., would need to be mined every 81 days. That’s about 68 square miles—or roughly an area equal to 10 city blocks mined every hour.

A one-year supply of coal would require converting about 310 square miles of the region’s mountains into surface mines, according to a new analysis by scientists at Duke University, Kent State University and the Cary Institute for Ecosystem Studies.

Creating 310 square miles of mountaintop mine would pollute about 2,300 kilometers of Appalachian streams and cause the loss of carbon sequestration by trees and soils equal to the greenhouse gases produced in a year by 33,600 average U.S. single-family homes.

We know that Appalachian forests, as denuded as they are, serve as a carbon sponge. At least they have for millennia. A report from earlier this year found that mountaintop removal could turn Appalachia from a carbon sink to a carbon source in the next 12 to 20 years. Lutz’s study breaks it down further.

Based on the carbon sequestration potential of Appalachian ecosystems it would take approximately 5,000 years for any given hectare of former mines reclaimed to grassland to sequester the carbon released from combustion of the coal removed from that hectare, that is, assuming the ecosystem could persist over that time period.

Lutz writes that “the scientific community has adequately demonstrated the severity of surface mining impacts.” We agree, but also have found that facts only go so far once they’re met with the denial of Appalachian legislators in accepting the true costs of mountaintop removal. Nonetheless, here we have it, again: mountaintop removal is bad energy policy, devastating to the environment and the regional economy, and, as we’re beginning to understand more, a double whammy on the climate. It’s a mantra we’ll repeat until we win.

In light of the amassing academic research, especially research like Lutz’s, which should speak to the pragmatic and business-minded as much as the environmentally conscious among us, we have to wonder what it will take for the most ardent supporters of mountaintop removal to see reason.

Visit EcoWatch’s MOUNTAINTOP REMOVAL and COAL pages for more related news on this topic.

coal energy mountaintop removal
keystone xl

Biden Likely Plans to Cancel Keystone XL Pipeline on Day One

Politics
Lakota spiritual leader Chief Arvol Looking Horse attends a demonstration against the proposed Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico in front of the White House in Washington, DC, on January 28, 2015. Nicholas Kamm / AFP / Getty Images

President-elect Joe Biden is planning to cancel the controversial Keystone XL pipeline on the first day of his administration, a document reported by CBC on Sunday suggests.

Read More Show Less
keystone xl indigenous peoples indigenous rights climate crisis oil activists biden administration

EcoWatch Daily Newsletter

wildfires

Downtown Los Angeles Under Rare Wildfire Risk as Strong Winds Rattle California

Climate
A plume of smoke from wildfires burning in the Angeles National Forest is seen from downtown Los Angeles on Aug. 29, 2009 in Los Angeles, California. Kevork Djansezian / Getty Images

California is bracing for rare January wildfires this week amid damaging Santa Ana winds coupled with unusually hot and dry winter weather.

Read More Show Less
wildfires extreme weather drought climate change california

Trending

childrens health

A Push for Answers About the Environmental Causes of Child Cancer

Insights + Opinion
A new study invites parents of cancer patients to answer questions about their environment. FatCamera / Getty Images

By Jennifer Sass, Nsedu Obot Witherspoon, Dr. Philip J. Landrigan and Simon Strong

"Prevention is the cure for child/teen cancer." This is the welcoming statement on a website called 'TheReasonsWhy.Us', where families affected by childhood cancers can sign up for a landmark new study into the potential environmental causes.

Read More Show Less
childrens health environment pollution
water

Climate Crisis Will Shift Tropical Rain Belt and Create Food Insecurity for Billions, Study Finds

Climate
Madagascar has been experiencing ongoing droughts and food insecurity since 2016. arturbo / Getty Images

Nearly 1.6 million people in the southern part of Madagascar have faced food insecurity since 2016, experiencing one drought after another, the United Nations World Food Program reported.

Read More Show Less
climate crisis food security drought water africa climate change carbon emissions pandemic
carbon emissions

EU Aims to Curb Carbon Footprint via Breakthrough in Space Program

Science
German Chancellor Angela Merkel and German ESA astronaut Alexander Gerst stand at the Orion spacecraft during a visit at the training unit of the Columbus space laboratory at the European Astronaut training centre of the European Space Agency ESA in Cologne, Germany on May 18, 2016. Ina Fassbender / Anadolu Agency / Getty Images

By Monir Ghaedi

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to keep most of Europe on pause, the EU aims for a breakthrough in its space program. The continent is seeking more than just a self-sufficient space industry competitive with China and the U.S.; the industry must also fit into the European Green Deal.

Read More Show Less
carbon emissions science fossil fuels renewable energy climate change