You better watch out! Better not cry! Better not pout! I'm telling you why, Santa Claus is comin' to town.
He's making a list and checking it twice. He's going to find out who's naughty and nice. Santa Claus Is Comin' To Town.
We better watch out. We better not cry. While Santa checks his list twice, so too might you and I. The ebony chunks Old Saint Nick might place in our stocking, contrary to what coal corporation sponsored commercials might claim, are not clean. Nor is this source of energy cheap. When used as a resource for power, this sedimentary rock is dirty, deadly, and digs deep into the pocketbooks, and personal lives, of those the industry touches. In America, that may be you and me.
More than 60 percent of all coal mined in the United States today, in fact, comes from strip mines.
In the "United States of Coal," Appalachia has become the poster child for strip mining's worst depravations, which come in the form of mountaintop removal.
An estimated 750,000 to 1 million acres of hardwood forests, a thousand miles of waterways and more than 470 mountains and their surrounding communities -- an area the size of Delaware -- have been erased from the southeastern mountain range in the last two decades.
Thousands of tons of explosives -- the equivalent of several Hiroshima atomic bombs -- are set off in Appalachian communities every year.
More than 104,000 miners in America have died in coal mines since 1900.
Twice as many have died from black lung disease.
Dangerous pollutants, including mercury, filter into our air and water [through mining practices.]
The injuries and deaths caused by overburdened coal trucks are innumerable.
Source . . . Washington Post. Jeff Biggers is the author of "The United States of Appalachia: How Southern Mountaineers Brought Independence, Culture and Enlightenment to America."
"Drill baby, drill," is the now ever-present and popular battle-cry for many Americans. From Presidential candidates to everyday people, those who wish to consume sweet light crude as they have for a more than a century remind me of my hair, and the current President's energy policy. I ponder the parallels and invite you to consider . . .
During a recent press conference, as I gazed upon the President of the United States, noticeably aged after years in the Oval Office, I thought of my hair and my history. His wavy gray locks are not as the strands that fall from my head. Nor did the diminutive curl that danced on his brow remind me of my own tresses. The style the Chief Executive donned did not resemble the permanent waves, pompadours, or ponytails I once wore. As George W. Bush spoke of his energy policy, I pondered. His approach to petroleum and power were as the methodology I embraced when I colored my hair.
This morning as I sat in what I would wish to think of as my safe little sanctuary from danger, I watched you mount the stairs and ascend into Air Force One. The television announcer spoke of your impending trip to the Midwest. As one with family in Iowa, Wisconsin, and Illinois, I was grateful for your travel. I am certain the people in these regions will be comforted by your presence. Most will feel they have reason to hope that you will offer help. I truly appreciate you "swift" response to their needs. I am gratified that you have decided to fly high above the flooded terrain, and perhaps spend a moment with an individual or two. Perchance, you will speak to my sister or my Dad.
All the talk of Catastrophe Funds seems silly to me; the reasoning is apt. I think there are better sources for these subsidies than the government. In my mind, our efforts are misplaced.
It is true; we as a nation and as a world have seen an increase in the number and intensity of cataclysmic storms. Tornados, droughts, hurricanes and other recent disasters have caused great calamity. We are mired in misfortune. However, we are working to pay for what we caused. We are closing the barn door behind us; our prides and joys are all long gone. We now, belatedly, prepare for what was our own ignorance. We elected George W. Bush, twice. Well actually,
Each and every week, the Bush administration offers inconsistencies. This week a contradiction seems so strikingly absurd, I cannot ignore it. I feel compelled to comment on the recent change in the Bush energy policy.
In September 2002, the President of the United States spoke emphatically of energy concerns. He spoke of consumption and the importance of this. At the time Baby Bush said, “Congress also must understand they've got to pass an energy bill. You see, an energy bill will be good for jobs. An energy bill will be good for national security. We need an energy bill that encourages consumption [sic].”
Recent Comments