Appalachian Voices’ very own Matt Wasson and Benji Burrell, and Coal River Mountain Watch’s Lorelei Scarbro star in a film by Google Earth, celebrating Appalachian Voices as a Google Earth Hero—inspiring the world to take initiative!

“We are thrilled by the fact that hundreds of millions of people around the world use Google Earth to discover, explore, and learn. But perhaps we’re even more proud of the fact that many people have used Google Earth as a tool to help them change the world; ordinary people achieving extraordinary goals with the help of Google Earth.”
-Google Earth

The film salutes Appalachian Voices’ mission to end mountaintop removal in a behind-the-scene story highlighting ilovemountains.org, one of the first platforms to make extensive use of Google Earth as an educational tool.

BREAKING NEWS: Reports are coming in from residents of West Virginia’s Coal River Valley that Massey Energy has begun mountaintop removal mining operations on Coal River Mountain. Sprawling across thousands of acres of diverse and pristine hardwood forests, this mountain is home to the tallest peaks ever permitted for destruction in the state of West Virginia. The mountain also became a powerful symbol of hope for a better future in the Appalachian coalfields after a study showed those peaks and ridges have wind resources as high as “Class 7,” which is the highest rating on the scale.

Take Action here

Local residents have rallied around a proposal for a 328 Megawatt wind farm and put up a website, coalriverwind.org, to promote their vision. The wind farm would, over the course of a few decades, provide far more jobs in the community than those created during the few years it would take Massey Energy to reduce the mountain to a flat, barren, and toxic wasteland. Just a few days ago, the AP reported that a local organization, Coal River Mountain Watch, has been working with Google Earth to design a presentation that will be shown at the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen, contrasting the proposed wind farm with Massey Energy’s plans for more than 6,000 acres of mountaintop removal coal mining on the mountain.

A 328 Megawatt wind farm versus a 6,000 acre mountaintop removal coal mine — there could be no better symbol of the crossroads we are at in America’s energy future. Whichever way it goes, the fate of Coal River Mountain is America’s energy future. If the coal companies can mine Coal River Mountain, they can do anything they want. If they can destroy these peaks, we’ll know exactly what the effect that the billions in tax-payer giveaways to the coal industry will have if the climate bill is passed.

What’s at stake

There’s far more than just a wind farm at stake when it comes to the destruction of Coal River Mountain, however, both for residents of the Coal River Valley and for people across the country who believe that a clean energy future is within our grasp.

For local residents, this is the last intact mountain in the vicinity, home to some of the few remaining headwater streams that have not been polluted with heavy metal-laden mine waste. If Massey Energy’s plans aren’t stopped, they know exactly what’s in store – just a few weeks ago, a local Eyewitness News story about 200 families in the town of Prenter who are suing 9 coal companies for contaminating their well water with coal waste began as follows:

“Twenty-two year old Josh McCormick is dying of kidney cancer. Twenty-six year old Tanya Trale has had a tumor removed from her breast; her husband has had two tumors removed from his side and both have had their gallbladders taken out.

Rita Lambert has had her gallbladder removed; so has her husband and both parents.

Jennifer Massey has a mouthful of crowns and so does her son after their enamel was eaten away, and six of her neighbors – all unrelated – have had brain tumors, including her 29-year old brother, who died.

Bill Arden is one of those neighbors. He survived his brain tumor, but Arden’s eight-year old boxer named Sampson did not.

What do all of these people have in common? They all live within a 3-mile radius of Prenter Hollow in Boone County, West Virginia. And all have well water.”

As usual, despite overwhelming evidence that it’s the sludge they have been pumping into underground mine shafts that contaminated the groundwater, the coal companies deny any connection to the problem.

On Coal River Mountain, less than 100 yards from where the mining has begun, lies the Brushy Fork coal slurry impoundment, a massive earthen dam holding back 8.2 billion gallons of toxic coal sludge. Were that dam to fail, as several have done in the recent past, hundreds of lives could be lost in a matter of minutes and thousands would be put in jeopardy. Even short of complete dam failure, the risks to local communities are great. The ground beneath the impoundment is riddled with abandoned underground mine shafts, leaving many local residents with little doubt that some of that toxic slurry will end up in their groundwater as the foundation-shaking blasts of ammonium-nitrate explosives begin cracking rock strata and exposing aquifers to the contaminated water.

Outside the Coal River Valley and across the nation there is also a lot at stake — especially for the millions of young people who turned out en masse during last November’s election, believing they could take their country back from the powerful special interests that pulled the strings of government over the preceding eight years. Just this weekend, thousands of students are attending regional “Powershift” conferences, learning what they can do to bring about their vision of a new future and a new energy policy build around efficient use of clean and renewable energy technologies.

Those same young people who came out by the thousands chanting “Yes We Can!” last fall are soon going to learn whether that slogan applies to them, or really just to powerful corporations with a lot of money and political influence. Today, it’s coal companies like Massey Energy that are claiming the “Yes We Can!” slogan:

“Yes we can destroy your mountains, drinking water, and dreams for a better future. Yes we can threaten and intimidate you at public hearings and drown out your voice.
Yes We Can!“

Just last week, the same Administration that donned the mantle of “Hope” and “Change” held public hearings on the rubber-stamp permitting of mountaintop removal in which the Army Corps of Engineers allowed mobs ginned up by the coal companies to threaten, intimidate and drown out the voices of people brave enough to speak out against the destruction of their homes, communities and mountains.

But it’s too soon for those young people to return to the feelings of disenfranchisement and cynicism that has characterized their age group for the past few decades. The Obama Administration has begun taking small steps to rein in mountaintop removal mining, and recently threatened to veto the largest mountaintop removal permit ever proposed in West Virginia. For even those baby-steps, they are facing a massive push-back from the coal industry. But its not nearly enough to make tweaks to the permiting process while letting mountaintop removal continue under the industry-friendly rules rigged by the Bush Administration. The Administration needs to hear from us – to hear from you.

It’s time we demand the “change” we were promised, and Coal River Mountain, the most powerful symbol of the difference between the destructive and climate change-denying policies of the past and the promise of a new future, is the line in the sand. Coal River Mountain must be saved.

The Administration has been hearing a lot from the coal industry, but have they heard from you? If not, you can start by calling the White House and making your voice heard. Here’s a link for more information: www.ilovemountains.org/coalriver/.

Next, sign up to for the e-mail list to stay informed and engaged in the campaign. It’s not a scam, your e-mail address won’t be traded or sold, so get over it and sign up – you can’t stay engaged and make a difference if you don’t stay informed. Here’s the link.

And finally, tell a friend, recruit a co-worker, or post the news to a list or a blog.

The mission is clear; the stakes couldn’t be higher; the fate of Coal River Mountain and our energy future are up to you. The time to act is now.

Cross-posted with iLoveMountains.org

On Tuesday, Duke Energy and the North Carolina Utility Commission reached a preliminary settlement on Duke’s request for a substantial rate increase on residential and commercial utilities.

The proposed agreement would cut Duke’s original request of a 13% residential rate increase to around 7%, a hike which would phase in over a two year period, starting with a 4.3% increase in January, 2010. The proposed agreement would reduce Duke’s expected profit increase from $496 million to $315 million.

Commercial and industrial groups have sought out similar reductions.

The Public Utilities Commission is scheduled to hold a hearing in Raleigh on Wednesday about the proposed rate request. According to an article by Bruce Henderson of the Charlotte Observer, “it is not known how the nine other formal parties to the rate case will regard the…compromise” and that the state Attorney General’s office has asked for a delay in Wednesday’s hearing to “analyze the agreement.”

Duke Energy’s official press release

Just the day before, the Utilities Commission held the last in a string of public hearings in which Duke Energy customers were able to make public comments concerning the hike. According to Commission Chairman Edward Finley, Jr., thousands of emails, phone calls and letters had also poured in opposing the increase.

During yesterday’s hearing, over a dozen residents spoke out against the rate hike, citing health concerns, economy, and the lack of need for the Cliffside coal-fired power plant expansion

Read Appalachian Voices’ official submitted commenton the Duke Energy rate hike.

Several speakers chastised Duke Energy for its failure to move towards more renewable energy. Elizabeth Goyer, a UNC Asheville environmental studies student, noted that while the utility claims to be pushing for more renewable sources, only about 3% of Duke’s electricity comes from alternates to coal. “I am waiting for Duke to make a real commitment to renewable energy,” she said.

Zell McGee, a North Carolina native and a medical expert who taught for years in Utah, testified about known health effects of coal-fired power plants. “Healthcare costs are translated to the customers,” he said, further increasing their financial burden beyond the rate increase. He compared rate payers to prey and Duke Energy to predators, and said that the Commission needed to work harder to “encourage harmony between utility companies and their customers.”

A representative of the North Carolina Conservation Network delivered a petition signed by over 1500 citizens asking that the rate hike request be rejected, and an attorney with the North Carolina Justice Center, testified on behalf of the disadvantaged residents of the state, noting that of the 1.3 million poor people currently living in North Carolina, none of them could afford to pay for the increase, either monetarily or physically.

“One thing that has not been mentioned today,” Ripley said, “is the extensive research that has been done to show correlations between energy costs and the health of our children and of our poor elderly people in this state.” Ripley elaborated by explaining that increased external costs means less money to spend on food, which leads to malnutrition and poor health.

Ruby Best, a disabled 61-year-old from Durham, N.C., testified that her electricity rates have steadily increased since she bought her home in 2005, in spite of changes in energy use habits, and that she currently struggling to pay her bills. “If this [increase] is granted, how am I going to be able to manage this?” she asked.

And Casey Baker, whose family owns a vineyard and farm near the Cliffside plant, mentioned that the rate increase would seriously effect farmers who rely on electricity to pump water and power farm equipment. “If the rate increase comes in, our profit margins are going to be seriously cut,” he said, and noted that some of the farmers have begun researching off-the-grid alternatives such as solar.

Representatives from Duke Energy and several environmental groups were present, but only residents were allowed to testify. No residents at the hearing on Monday spoke out in favor of the rate hikes.

Safety of Dozens of Citizens Threatened at “Public Hearing”
Pro-coal groups and mountaintop removal coal mining opponents verbally clashed at a hearing on the Army Corps of Engineers’ NW21 permits Wednesday night in Charleston, W.Va. According to eyewitnesses, hundreds of coal industry supporters rallied to outnumber mountaintop removal opponents, and heckled and yelling threats to individuals who came to present their case against mountaintop removal coal mining; some reports included elbowing, pushing and other physical forms of intimidation (view a video and read testimonials from citizens present at the event), and most were prevented from speaking at the hearing. Both the Charleston Daily Mail and the Charleston Gazette covered the event. According to a blog post by Ken Ward, the Corps claims that the hearing was “conducted in an orderly fashion.”

Jackson Claims Coal “Can Be Mined Safely and Cleanly”
In other Obama Administration news, according to an article also by Ken Ward in the Charleston Gazette, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson defended her agency’s scrutiny of mountaintop removal while claiming to have no desire to end coal mining, amid growing pressure from coalfield political leaders and the mining industry. During a Congressional committee meeting, Jackson stated: “Neither EPA nor I personally have any desire to end coal mining, have any hidden agenda, any agenda whatsoever that has to do with coal mining as an industry….I believe coal can be mined safely and cleanly. I believe it can be done in a way that minimizes impacts to water quality.”

ACCCE Back In The News
As reported today by Kate Shepard in her Mother Jones blog post, the hearing scheduled to investigate the role of Bonner & Associates and the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity in the forged anti-climate bill letters sent to Congress was postponed until next week. Read Shepard’s full report.

Shepard’s post also mentioned a new report out by Politico outlining the ACCCE budget on astoturfing and lobbying efforts for the past 18 months – a cool $10 million.

Light on the Horizon for Marsh Fork School
To end on a positive note, Jeff Biggers reports on Huffington Post that yesterday evening in Coal River, W.Va., the Raleigh County School Board met with local citizens and announced its intention to ask the state for funds to construct a new school for March Fork Elementary. Marsh Fork School—which sits immediately below a 2.8 billion gallon coal sludge impoundment and a mountaintop removal mining site and adjacent to a dusty coal silo—has been at the center of a series of rallies and campaigns from local residents and mountaintop removal coal mining opponents, who have worked for over five years to obtain a new school for the children.

And that’s all in just two turns of the clock.

As Congress was returning from the August recess, there wasn’t much news about the climate bill. The only energy-related news breaking through the coverage of the rancorous health care debates and town-hall tea parties was a study on “energy sprawl” published by five staff members of the Nature Conservancy.

“Renewable Energy Needs Land, Lots Of Land” was the headline of an August 28th story on NPR about the study.

“Renewable technologies increase energy sprawl,” was the headline summary on the journal Nature’s website.

Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, in an Op/Ed published in the Wall Street Journal, summed up the message that was heard by legislators and the public from the news coverage of the study:

“we’re about to destroy the environment in the name of saving it.”

The interesting thing about the news coverage is that none of it addressed the actual analysis. The study didn’t actually measure the impacts of different energy technologies, but rather compiled estimates from a smattering of reports, fact sheets and brochures from government and industry sources in order to arrive at an acre-per-unit of energy figure for each energy technology. Those figures were then applied to the Energy Information Administration’s modeling of four climate policy scenarios under consideration by Congress.

So the coverage was generated not by the study’s results, but entirely by the assumptions that went into it about the relative impacts of renewable versus conventional energy technologies. Looking at the counter-intuitive findings (wind is 8 times as destructive as coal), it’s no wonder that the media took such an interest.

To put those assumptions in perspective, the habitat impact of the Mount Storm Wind Farm in the first image is assumed to be 25% greater than the impact of the 12,000 acre Hobet mountaintop removal mine in the second image (images are taken from the same altitude and perspective; the bright connect-the-dots feature in the windfarm image is the actual area disturbed):

“Garbage in, garbage out” is a concept most people are familiar with, but the problems with the “energy sprawl” study go farther than that.

When I taught a course in ecological modeling, we used a hypothetical study on acts of violence in industrialized countries to examine how you could generate any result you desire simply by choosing how to define an “act of violence.” For instance, if you wanted to show that the French are the most violent industrialized society, you might define rude treatment by waiters as an act of violence. The study does something very similar, but worse – it fails to define a consistent measure of land-use impact across the various energy technologies it purports to compare. It’s as though we defined “acts of violence” to include rude treatment only by French waiters, but not by German, English or American waiters.

While I won’t get into detail of the math and science (a full analysis and response is in preparation), here are just a few of the jaw-dropping errors and assumptions that went into the study:

• A 2 megawatt wind turbine is assumed to disturb between 100 and 120 acres of wildlife habitat (smell test: does it really make sense that one of those wind turbines you always see on television is disturbing more than 100 football fields worth of land?). These estimates were not from published studies, but from portions of brochures discussing the area required for ideal placement of a windfarm. Instead of using additional estimates from those same brochures that only 3-5% of that area is directly impacted, the study used vaguely-worded, unreferenced and unsupportable biological justifications to include the other 95-97% in their analysis.
• The acreage impacts of coal mining, from Wyoming to Alabama, were extrapolated from one mine in Illinois, and apparently one other mine, though no location, details or references were provided. In the case of Appalachian mining, a casual examination of available data reveals that many – probably most – Appalachian mines exhibit a “landuse intensity” 5 to 10 times higher than either estimate used in the study.
• The impacts of blowing up a mountain and dumping resulting toxic-laden waste into nearby valleys and streams is treated as a comparable disturbance to, say, being located several hundred yards away from a wind turbine. Worse, fragmentation of habitat (the category that increased wind’s alleged impacts by 95-97%), was only considered for renewable technologies but not for nuclear and coal, despite a wealth of published studies showing fragmentation effects as much as five times greater than the footprint of a strip mine.

It’s obvious that the authors of this study don’t spend a lot of time thinking about coal mining (the fact that they refer to underground or deep mines as “pit” mines is revealing). That could partly explain the distorted picture the study gives of the impacts of coal mining, but the assumptions are so consistently weighted against renewable energy that it gets hard to ignore. If the pattern of assumptions so consistently tilted against renewables and in favor of coal and nuclear doesn’t raise a red flag, consider the language used in the study. The EIA’s “No International Offsets/Limited Alternatives” scenario, which would emphasize rapid expansion of renewable energy technologies (and which purportedly creates the most “energy sprawl”), was renamed the “Few Options” scenario by the authors. A real gem of a PR strategy from the group that came up with “energy sprawl.”

As for the policy options that the study’s results (and assumptions) favor, the “Core” scenario from the EIA’s analysis of the Warner-Lieberman climate bill was renamed the “CCS” scenario – shorthand for carbon capture and storage. This could also represent a real tipping of the hand as to the policy priorities at the Nature Conservancy. That, in turn, would go a long way toward explaining the blind spot the Nature Conservancy possesses regarding the wholesale destruction of the most biologically diverse forests and streams on the continent through mountaintop removal coal mining. The fact that plants installing CCS will need to consume at least 15-30% more coal to produce the same amount of electricity (if and when CCS becomes available), would cause a little cognitive dissonance in anyone concerned about the environment but supportive of widespread CCS deployment.

What the study didn’t look at

From the perspective of communities impacted by coal mining, a study on energy impacts that looked no further than the land area affected by mining was never going to carry much weight anyway. EPA biologist Gregory Pond, who published a study in 2008 showing the loss of entire orders of insects downstream from mountaintop removal mines, told the news media when the study was released:

“While habitat degradation from mountaintop mining is what one sees on the surface, we found that chemical effects are quite pronounced and limit much of the expected biodiversity from what were once naturally rich, diverse Appalachian stream systems.”

The most important factors in the “what the study doesn’t look at” category, however, are the impacts of energy on people and communities. The thousands of people in Appalachia without access to clean and safe drinking water do not show up in the “energy sprawl” study’s land impact estimates. The photo on the right of a child in Prenter, West Virginia, is the lead photo of a remarkable piece of reporting from the New York Times that provides a lot of insight into the awful tragedies faced daily by families in Appalachia who are forced to drink and bathe in water polluted with coal waste.

The authors of the “energy sprawl” study stated explicitly that aquatic and health issues are not what the study was about, and it wouldn’t be fair to blame them for any failure to address those problems. It’s the inevitable distortions of the study that do the most violence to those fighting for safe homes and clean drinking water in coal and uranium-bearing regions. The lead author addressed some of those distortions directly, shortly after Senator Alexander’s “We’re destroying the environment in the name of saving it” op-ed. Here are a few excerpts from his post on the Nature Conservancy’s blog:

First, climate change is the big threat to America’s wildlife (and to our communities). Severe climate change has the potential to imperil many more species than energy sprawl.

Moreover, we show in our paper that most of the energy sprawl from now to 2030 will happen regardless of whether or not there is a comprehensive climate bill. By far the largest amount of energy sprawl will come from biofuel production, driven by the renewable fuel standard and other laws already in place.

So I say to everyone writing or blogging about energy sprawl: If you are concerned about energy sprawl, then fight for energy efficiency!

The Nature Conservancy’s tireless efforts to support energy efficiency, build awareness of climate change, and bring climate policy to the table deserve both thanks and respect. But the concept of “energy sprawl,” now that it has been associated with such a distorted picture of the impacts of wind, solar, coal and nuclear technologies, adds nothing but confusion and false impressions to the debate over climate.

The study also does a lot of harm to those working to reduce the impacts of mining and to promote green jobs in their communities. “Nature Conservancy says wind and solar are more harmful than coal” is a talking point that will be repeated in mine permit hearings, utilities commission proceedings, letters to the editor and at coal rallies across the country for years into the future.

There is no way to repair the concept of “energy sprawl” at this point. Environmental and climate advocates would do well to strike that buzzword from their lexicons and literature entirely.

Burn this blog post after reading.

cross-posted with Huffington Post and iLoveMountains.org

Watch this insightful piece from WCHS-TV Eyewitness New. From the WCHS-TV Website:

Appalachian Voices is pleased to commend West Virginia Democratic Senator Robert C. Byrd, Senator Jay Rockefeller, and Congressman Nick Rahall for standing up to Massey Energy, and demanding that the company pay to relocate Marsh Fork Elementary. Their words are an encouraging sign that the efforts of coalfield citizens to protect their health and communities is being heard at the highest levels, and that some relief may be on the way.

Senator Byrd led the way with the following words Wednesday afternoon (via Coal Tattoo).

“Such arrogance suggests a blatant disregard for the impact of their mining practices on our communities, residents and particularly our children. These are children’s lives we are talking about,” said Byrd.

“If Massey were not operating near Marsh Fork Elementary, we would not be debating what to do about moving these young students someplace safer. This is not the taxpayers’ burden to remedy. This is Massey Energy’s responsibility to address.”

Byrd added that, “Let me be clear about one thing – this is not about the coal industry or their hard-working coal miners. This is about companies that blatantly disregard human life and safety because of greed. That is never acceptable.”

“At a time when coal is under such close scrutiny, coal companies operating in West Virginia should be working together to put their best foot forward. For the sake of the entire coal industry, Massey Energy should strive to be a better and more responsible corporate citizen. And for the sake of the kids, they should address these serious environmental concerns at Marsh Fork Elementary immediately.”

Senator Byrd, as he so often has, is able to sum of what many of his constituents in the communities around Marsh Fork have been feeling for a long time. These are children’s lives at stake, and its not up to Massey or anyone else to play political games with our kids’ lives. Senator Byrd even gets in a dig at Don Blankenship’s political action committee, which is called – ironically – “And for the sake of the Kids.”

Congressman Rahall and Senator Rockefeller were equally unequivocal in their statements that the kids and the communities deserve better from Massey.

Congressman Rahall represents West Virginia’s third district, where Marsh Fork Elementary is located. He indicated that such a move could even help build public goodwill towards the coal industry.:

I certainly agree with Senator Byrd. Massey Energy should take this significant step of helping to replace the Marsh Fork Elementary School so that these children no longer have to fear the threat of adverse health effects of nearby coal operations. It would go a long way toward improving the good will of the public toward that company and the coal industry.

And junior Senator Jay Rockefeller stated clearly:

“The hazards around Marsh Fork Elementary have been weighing heavily on the minds of parents in the Marsh Fork community for some time. Protecting our children is our first and most fundamental obligation, and it is right to expect the company to help pay for the solution.”

Appalachian Voices extends our thanks to these officials and hope that they will do everything in their power to protect the children, communities, mountains, and streams from the hazards of mountaintop removal and coal slurry.

Thank you so much to Ohio Citizen Action, who have been great allies on the fight to end mountaintop removal. They have been a great part of the reasons we were able to get several member of the Ohio delegation on board HR1310, the Clean Water Protection Act. They are working hard to get Senator Sherrod Brown on board with the Senate version of the bill. When Sen Brown was a House Rep, he was a cosponsor of the HR 1310. So what’s the problem now? As Ohio Citizen Action put it,

“In the seven months since S. 696 was introduced to ban the practice, 13,411 people have sent letters, messages, and children’s illustrations from all over Ohio to Brown, urging him to co-sponsor it.”

See Senator Brown’s reaction when pressed on the issue:

Write your Senator asking him or her to end mountaintop removal today!

Please welcome two new Congressmen who realize the importance of protecting our water and stopping mountaintop removal coal mining!

Congressman Steve Driehaus is from the 1st District of Ohio and signed on as a cosponsor on October 1, 2009. Mary Rita Cooper and Robert Nienbar from Cincinnati went to visit the Congressman himself during the August recess and asked him to cosponsor the HR 1310, the Clean Water Protection Act. And the people prevailed! Good job, Mary Rita and Bob! He is our 6th cosponsor from Ohio.

Congressman Steve Kagen Wisconsin’s 8th District and signed on as a cosponsor to the Clean Water Protection Act on September 30th. Mr. Kagen serves on the Agriculture, and the Transportation & Infrastructure committee. Rep. Kagen is the 16th cosponsor in the Water and Environmental Resources subcommittee, and the 25th member of the Transportation & Infrastructure committee to cosponsor the Clean Water Protection Act.

Write your member of Congress today and ask them to cosponsor HR 131o, the Clean Water Protection Act, or thank them if they already are!