|
Coal mining effects farmers, ranchers, communities and the natural environment. Policies and projects which meet our energy needs through increased energy efficiency, distributed energy and renewable energy sources are preferable to those that require more coal mining.
Environmental and community organizations in Appalachia and the West fought for years to win a federal stripmine act, and WORC’s member groups have worked to improve its enforcement since the act’s passage in 1977.
Dozens of new coal-fired power plants are planned around the West, and now coal promoters are reviving failed plans from the 1980’s to build liquid coal plants to make transportation fuel out of coal.
The most dramatic current illustration of the impacts of coal mining is mountain top removal mining in Appalachia, a destructive practice in which entire mountaintops are dynamited, and all the soil and overburden above the coal seams is bulldozed into valleys, threatening water quality and the safety of downstream communities.
Instead of mountaintop removal, in the West we have aquifer removal. In most cases in the West, the coal seams are aquifers, tapped by wells and natural springs. These coal aquifers are a critical source of groundwater for livestock production and wildlife. In most cases, these aquifers are not protected by federal or state laws and regulations. The laws require reclamation of the surface and replacement of damaged water supplies, but do not require reconstruction of the aquifers.
Clean, renewable biofuels and increased efficiency are cheaper, cleaner, faster ways to replace oil than proposals to build multibillion dollar plants to make liquids from coal. Building commercial-scale liquid coal plants would be too expensive, take too long, and require huge public subsidies.
It would require massive amounts of water, more mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia , and stripmining hundreds of square miles of farm and ranch land in the West. Yet liquid coal plants would yield far less fuel and far fewer jobs per dollar than biofuels plants and energy efficiency.
The U.S. Senate rejected two attempts to add incentives and subsidies for liquid coal plants to the energy bill it is considering, H.R. 6. Senators voted down amendments to mandate production of liquid fuels from coal and to authorize federal loans for liquid coal plants.
- An amendment mandating production of 6 billion gallons of liquid fuels from coal annually by the year 2022 failed 55-39.
- An amendment providing $10 billion in direct loans to plants that gasify coal and /or biomass failed 61-33.
‘Boondoggle’, ‘snake-oil’, ‘filthy fuel’ – the
nation’s newspapers editorialize on liquid coal
Members
tell Congress to protect Western lands, water, communities,
and landowners.
Read WORC’s statement
What's
dirtier than coal by the ton?
See WORC’s Fact Sheet, “Liquid
Coal: Too expensive, too slow, too dirty.” (pdf
117k)
Taxpayers oppose liquid coal subsidies. (pdf 193k)
New York Times: Lawmakers Push for Big Subsidies for Coal Process, May 29, 2007
Northern Plains' Analysis of Coal-To-Liquid Synfuels Process
Why coal liquids are not a viable option to move America beyond oil, a fact sheet by the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Find out why Pennsylvanians are organizing to stop the first coal to liquids plant proposed in the U.S.
On August 3, 1977, President Jimmy Carter signed the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) into law. The signing culminated a fight of several years by citizens in Appalachia and the West to control the ravages of stripmining.
The need for domestic energy production to decrease reliance on foreign energy, along with the rising price of oil and natural gas, have led the coal industry, utilities and some politicians to renew calls for increased coal production.
Check up on the status of coal strip mine reclamation in Montana.
August 3rd is the 30th Anniversary of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
Find out about mountaintop mining -- and why groups around the country say that coal is never clean.
|
