Longwall mining activity is increasing in Australia, while evidence mounts that it is greatly impacting rivers. These same activities are to go ahead under Illinois Highway 185, with subsidence a known factor.
What is the connection? The connection is the close ties between the companies who will do anything, including the destruction of their own world, and those in government who are charged with oversight of those companies.
It really is no surprise to anyone that mining companies will destroy any and every ecosystem to get the ore they are after. They do it all over the world. And, the destruction they cause is no secret, either. It has been captured on film and is widely available to all.
What is not so widely spoken of, but certainly should be, is the connection to government. The very people we depend upon to protect our air and water, are as much of the problem as those doing the actual polluting and killing.
For any mining operation to begin, a permit must be issued. That permit comes from those who act on our behalf. If those people know that a longwall mining operation will dewater an area, or that it will cause road damage in the future, why would they issue a permit?
It cerainly couldn't be the record. The recordis ffilled with examples of the destruction caused by longwall mining. From release of mercury and arsenic upon first contact, to these same elements being pumped into our waterways after being burned.
And, it certainly isn't common sense. For common sense would give pause before allowing the destruction of our roads and waterways.
So, what could be the possible reason? How about, those who are supposed to be looking out for our collective welfare are in fact no more than shills for those who would cause the physical damage? If dewatering and damage to roads is allowed, knowing it can and will happen, how could it be any other way? Are we to believe that people with good and sound reasoning abilities would allow such things? It is my opinion that they would not. You?
2 comments:
Good thoughts as usual, Rusty.
Here's a little story to go along with what you said:
There’s a manhole in the sidewalk outside a hospital. It is painted a bright florescent orange color, and in big, bold black letters on its top it says: STEP HERE!! As soon as anyone steps on it, however, a monster comes out and bites off the person’s leg at the knee. Medical staff immediately rush the poor person into the hospital, where doctors work feverishly to control the bleeding and attach a prosthetic device. This has been happening at least six times every day for many years. The doctors have performed the operation so often that they have devoted a separate operating room and staff just to handle patients who step on the manhole cover. No one ever thinks to suggest “Wait a minute. If you know this is happening and people are losing their legs because of it, why don’t you just kill the monster, or paint over the message on top of the manhole, or at least cordon off the manhole, so people won’t step on it and get hurt?”
Sometimes, the common-sense approach is not the one taken. This seems to be particularly true in regulatory matters, and especially so in coal mining regulatory settings. Things are done a certain way, and everyone gets used to doing them that way without ever thinking about it.
In an underground coal mine application, an applicant is supposed to provide considerable analyses whenever stream restoration activities are proposed. The applicant must study the stream, its water quality, flow rate and other hydrologic characteristics, aquatic biota, etc., and must justify why the restoration work is being done one way rather than some other way. He must show that the work he will be doing to fix the stream will be done carefully, so as not to damage the stream while the restoration work is being done. There is no mention of why the restoration work is necessary in the first place - which is the 800 lb gorilla in the room. The restoration is necessary because the underground mining caused many reaches of the stream to collapse or subside, so that instead of a free-flowing stream, it ended up being a series of pools. What is left unasked is the single, most obvious question - why weren’t all of the analyses and studies done BEFORE the mining occurred so we could identify where the stream damage would occur AND THEN AVOID THE DAMAGE FROM HAPPENING IN THE FIRST PLACE?
This is mitigation (protection) once removed. Rather than protecting the stream (or wetland, or spring, or house) from being damaged in the first place, the regulations protect it after it has been damaged - they protect it from further damage by the fix. Rather than keeping people from stepping on the manhole where the leg-eating monster is, we provide (after-the-fact) a crack team of doctors to treat the wounds and provide artificial limbs. And then everything is just fine, isn’t it? Ask the guy with the cane over there.
Great story Steve, thanks for passing it on. It serves to remind that most systems are reactive and rarely proactive. In this case, it seems to me that there is more to it than that. Political appointees, such as Joe Pizarchik, seem to be a commodity in and of themselves.
Post a Comment