House Republicans Vote to End Rule Stopping Coal Mining Debris From Being Dumped in Streams

[FriendlyFire]

Coal jobs are back ! now shut up and drink deeply Republicans
If Republicans do strip away All regulations coal becomes competative against Wind and I'd imagine for a while it will halt the decline of the coal industry. Its one hell of a tradeoff, more jobs at the cost of health and enviroment. But most Republican states are headed this way

House Republicans Vote to End Rule Stopping Coal Mining Debris From Being Dumped in Streams

WASHINGTON) — Moving to dismantle former President Barack Obama's legacy on the environment and other issues, House Republicans approved a measure Wednesday that scuttles a regulation aimed at preventing coal mining debris from being dumped into nearby streams.

Lawmakers also voted to rescind a separate rule requiring companies to disclose payments made to foreign governments relating to mining and drilling.

Republicans said the votes were first in a series of actions to reverse years of what they see as excessive government regulation during Obama's presidency. Rules on fracking, guns and federal contracting also are in the cross-hairs as the GOP moves to void a host of regulations finalized during Obama's last months in office.

"Make no mistake about it, this Obama administration rule is not designed to protect streams. Instead, it was an effort to regulate the coal mining industry right out of business," said Rep. Bill Johnson, R-Ohio, who sponsored the disapproval measure on the stream protection rule.

Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, senior Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, said repealing the stream protection rule would "sicken and kill the very people Donald Trump falsely promised to help," coal miners in West Virginia and other states.Rep. John Yarmuth, D-Ky., displayed a bottle of brownish water he said came from a constituent's well near a surface coal mine. He challenged lawmakers to drink from it and said the stream rule was one of the only safety measures protecting people in coal country.

http://time.com/4657438/congressional-republicans-environmental-regulations-coal-streams/

 

[Arwon]

As if coal mining workers deserve clean water anyway

 

[Lexicus]

I just have a really hard time sympathizing with people who think like this:

“The majority of the people do not blame the company for their loss because they realize that businesses [are about] making money, and that if they had a business of their own, they would do the same thing."

The context there is Wal-Mart destroying local businesses and jobs, but the logic works pretty well when the coal company poisons you for profit, too.

 

[Bootstoots]

Dumping of coal debris into streams has already rendered the drinking water in large parts of WV and eastern KY undrinkable, and this will obviously make the situation even worse. But there's a sort of Stockholm Syndrome thing going on there, where people are willing to make any Faustian bargain, including poisoning themselves and their neighbors, just to keep the last few coal jobs from leaving.

It would be really nice if there were an obvious way to redevelop that area to focus on anything but coal mining, but it's not clear what can be done even if they still voted for Democrats and Trump wasn't gutting the EPA. It's a poor, isolated, and uneducated region, which means the "human capital" there isn't good enough for new businesses to show up. It's not like any of the former coal mining areas of Britain are a success story either, even after the total shutdown of the coal industry. So there's a perverse logic in giving up everything including non-toxic water just to keep the last few good jobs there for another decade or so, until they inevitably go away anyway because it's just more economical to mine coal in the West and use fracked natural gas.

 

[Cutlass]

What's needed is a law saying that if you do anything which makes someone else's water unsafe, you have to provide them clean water in perpetuity. No exceptions. No limited liability.

 

[Lexicus]

It would be really nice if there were an obvious way to redevelop that area to focus on anything but coal mining, but it's not clear what can be done even if they still voted for Democrats and Trump wasn't gutting the EPA. It's a poor, isolated, and uneducated region, which means the "human capital" there isn't good enough for new businesses to show up. It's not like any of the former coal mining areas of Britain are a success story either, even after the total shutdown of the coal industry. So there's a perverse logic in giving up everything including non-toxic water just to keep the last few good jobs there for another decade or so, until they inevitably go away anyway because it's just more economical to mine coal in the West and use fracked natural gas.

In other words, these people can't be saved by voting for history's most enthusiastic capitalist party. They need to go full socialism and completely reject the legitimacy of the profit motive.

Instead of course they're saying "oh well I don't blame that business for poisoning me, I'd poison people too if I could make a buck doing it."

 

[Traitorfish]

In other words, these people can't be saved by voting for history's most enthusiastic capitalist party. They need to go full socialism and completely reject the legitimacy of the profit motive.

Instead of course they're saying "oh well I don't blame that business for poisoning me, I'd poison people too if I could make a buck doing it."

Who is saying that?

 

[Perfection]

It would be really nice if there were an obvious way to redevelop that area to focus on anything but coal mining, but it's not clear what can be done even if they still voted for Democrats and Trump wasn't gutting the EPA.

West Virginia is gorgeous. They could easily turn it into tourist dollars.

 

[JollyRoger]

Perhaps they could set up a niche industry hosting gay weddings and honeymoons.

 

[Berzerker]

nevermind

 

[Perfection]

Perhaps they could set up a niche industry hosting gay weddings and honeymoons.

Oh God they could.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Instead of course they're saying "oh well I don't blame that business for poisoning me, I'd poison people too if I could make a buck doing it."

After reading "Methland", my vision of Rual America in crisis has become more clearer as the problems of job loss, drugs, immigration, aging population out are all linked together
The job losses are only one part of the puzzle, an important part. Even the Republican government, senators are unable to make the connection and the war on drugs, disbanding unions have made things much worse. If the people in charge cant see what the real problem is then the avg Rual american has no chance of grasping the problem

 

[onejayhawk]

As if coal mining workers deserve clean water anyway

Of course the criticism of the rule is that it does not promote clean water.

J

 

[AlpsStranger]

We need to figure something out, but it's not going to work this way.

I get it. I grew up almost entirely around hard working blue collar men and it is hard to realize that they're stuck in a country where, frankly, there's not a need for nearly as many of them as there are. Naive ideas about retraining them all to be computer programmers or phlebotomists or something are a bit unrealistic if you actually know these people.

EDIT: Certainly not true in 100% of cases, but the majority of these sorts I know are not flexible enough in their thinking to learn stuff that falls outside of their narrow view of who they are. I'm not even saying they're not smart enough, that varies wildly by individual, but that they'd be violently bored by that sort of work.

Trump sure isn't going to give them a wet bag of horsehockey in substance.

 

[Lexicus]

Of course the criticism of the rule is that it does not promote clean water.

Wait, do you really believe this?

 

[FriendlyFire]

Of course the criticism of the rule is that it does not promote clean water.
J

So the actual rule is dont dump closer then 30 meters to a stream or river. but if you do dump under 30 meters you can still do that but more regulations for doing so
What is wrong with this regulation and what would you change ?

The Interior Department said in announcing the rule in December that it would protect 6,000 miles of streams and 52,000 acres of forests, preventing coal mining debris from being dumped into nearby waters. The rule maintains a long-established 100-foot buffer zone that blocks coal mining near streams, but imposes stricter guidelines for exceptions to the 100-foot rule.

 

[onejayhawk]

Wait, do you really believe this?

Merely reporting what I have read. See below.

So the actual rule is dont dump closer then 30 meters to a stream or river. but if you do dump under 30 meters you can still do that but more regulations for doing so. What is wrong with this regulation and what would you change ?

What additional restrictions? Why are they necessary? Do they achieve their intended purpose? Why are you not asking these questions?

J

 

[FriendlyFire]

So it was a rule to stop water contamination, and make company restore damaged water systems
Oh well, Republicans states want to keep what little industry they have left. The first part is somewhat restrictive but the second part makes sense the more you dump the costly it will be to clean up

Coal mining is a messy business. In parts of West Virginia, Kentucky, and Virginia, mining companies often get at underground coal seams by blowing up the tops of mountains — a process known as mountaintop removal mining. Once that’s done, they’ll frequently dump the debris into the valleys below, which can contaminate streams and waterways with toxic heavy metals.

Appalachian Voices, an environmental group, estimates that coal companies have buried over 2,000 miles of streams in the region through mountaintop removal mining since the 1990s. And there’s growing evidence that when mining debris and waste gets into water supplies, it can have dire health impacts for the people and mostly rural communities living nearby.

published on December 19, 2016 — just before Obama left office. And while it’s almost ludicrously complex, updating hundreds of older regulations, it basically puts a couple of key restrictions in place for coal companies seeking permits to expand or start new mines in the future:

1. First, a company that wants to open a surface or underground mine needs to avoid causing damage to the “hydrologic balance” of waterways outside of its permit area. The rule goes into excruciating detail on what these definitions mean, but it’s basically a much stricter limit on dumping waste and debris in surrounding ecosystems.
2. Second, companies and regulators have to do a baseline assessment of what nearby ecosystems look like before any new mining begins. They then have to monitor affected streams during mining, and the company has to develop a plan for restoring damaged waterways to something close to their natural state after mining is done.
   

http://www.vox.com/2017/2/2/14488448/stream-protection-rule

 

[Samson]

I'm not even saying they're not smart enough, that varies wildly by individual, but that they'd be violently bored by that sort of work.

A lot of people are bored at work, that is just something you need to learn to live with.

 

[danjuno]

Welcome to my world 24/7. "Sure it'll poison the water, but it'll bring back coal jobs! What? Jobs still not coming back? Must be cuz too many regulations, it couldn't possibly be cheap NatGas, cheap Oil, and increasingly less expensive renewables destroying the coal industry!"