• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Western World's Largest Coal Company Goes Bankrupt

Being that we blow up entire mountains to get much of our coal in the United States and coal mining is responsible for more environmental damage than any other form of energy and that the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history were related to coal mining, I cannot see how the decline of the coal industry in the United States and the corresponding rise of much, much, much cleaner natural gas, is a bad thing.

The worst case scenario for fracking has nothing on coal in terms of environmental damage. Coal is literally in a league of its own, and its not like coal mining has brought wealth to this country either, the poorest parts of the country are also the parts where coal mining is the main industry. This is how we get much of our coal:

xmtr_2.jpg.pagespeed.ic.VrKVhNmg8r.jpg

Even if we could somehow burn it with zero emissions, we still would be scaring the land for literally millions of years mining it. (How long do you think it takes a mountain to form again?) You can literally see the environmental damage... the literal scaring of the land due to coal mining...from orbit. This isn't hyperbole either, just open up Google Earth and look at what the coal mining industry has done to much of Appalachia. That is how bad it is. If you are for more coal mining, then you obviously don't give a rats ass about this country's land.
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
Yeah. All this clean air and water is really starting to grate on my nerves!
Click to expand...

So when you have a puddle in your backyard and it gets declared a wetland, will you get the point? Because that has happened.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Being that we blow up entire mountains to get much of our coal in the United States and coal mining is responsible for more environmental damage than any other form of energy and that the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history were related to coal mining, I cannot see how the decline of the coal industry in the United States and the corresponding rise of much, much, much cleaner natural gas, is a bad thing.

The worst case scenario for fracking has nothing on coal in terms of environmental damage. Coal is literally in a league of its own, and its not like coal mining has brought wealth to this country either, the poorest parts of the country are also the parts where coal mining is the main industry. This is how we get much of our coal:

View attachment 67200400

Even if we could somehow burn it with zero emissions, we still would be scaring the land for literally millions of years mining it. (How long do you think it takes a mountain to form again?) You can literally see the environmental damage... the literal scaring of the land due to coal mining...from orbit. This isn't hyperbole either, just open up Google Earth and look at what the coal mining industry has done to much of Appalachia. That is how bad it is. If you are for more coal mining, then you obviously don't give a rats ass about this country's land.
Click to expand...

It hasn't been done that way for decades, and, I'm guessing you know that.
 
JasperL said:
Air pollution including mercury, sulfur and particulates is squarely in the mandate of the EPA.
Click to expand...

Except the limitations are in the Clean Air act. Which they have exceeded. You folks don't seem to get it. I am not against regulation. I am against agencies exceeding their mandate. I am for agencies following on their mandate via legislation. The EPA is notorious for abuses. I get and understand that they deal with a lot of environmental abusers too, but no one deserves to be fined without being able to take the fine to court for adjudication, which in another case, the EPA did to someone.

Legal regulation, mandated by legislation, not regulatory fiat.
 
Absentglare said:
I don't think you understand the EPA if you think they are not allowed to manage environmental regulations.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand our system of government if you think the EPA can just start regulating a new item without a legislative mandate.
 
OpportunityCost said:
I don't think you understand our system of government if you think the EPA can just start regulating a new item without a legislative mandate.
Click to expand...

It sounds like what this boils down to is that you trust congress more than i do- while i trust the EPA more than you do.
 
Absentglare said:
It sounds like what this boils down to is that you trust congress more than i do- while i trust the EPA more than you do.
Click to expand...

Congress is the legal body or vehicle for legislation. I do not trust any regulatory agency that decides it will keep passing fines without setting a court date to force people to do what they want. They were doing that until they got told 9-0 to set court dates pursuant to regulation violations. Very trustworthy. :roll:
 
OpportunityCost said:
It hasn't been done that way for decades, and, I'm guessing you know that.
Click to expand...

They have blown mountains up to get coal for the last few decades because its cheaper for the coal companies. Moreover that is the main reason for all the layoffs over the past few decades in the coal industry as they don't need nearly so many miners in a mountaintop removal mine. Hell, John Prine wrote a song about it way back in 1971.



This is why I don't get the opposition to fracking by many on the left. Natural gas fracking has been killing the coal mining industry and in the absolute worst case imaginable for fracking, its still exponentially better for the environment than coal mining is. Anyone that thinks fracking is horrible ought to go look at mountaintop removal mine.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
They have blown mountains up to get coal for the last few decades because its cheaper for the coal companies. Moreover that is the main reason for all the layoffs over the past few decades in the coal industry as they don't need nearly so many miners in a mountaintop removal mine. Hell, John Prine wrote a song about it way back in 1971.



This is why I don't get the opposition to fracking by many on the left. Natural gas fracking has been killing the coal mining industry and in the absolute worst case imaginable for fracking, its still exponentially better for the environment than coal mining is. Anyone that thinks fracking is horrible ought to go look at mountaintop removal mine.
Click to expand...


I don't support mountain top mining. Its not used at all in Illinois, where I am from. Environmental impact is gigantic. No support at all here.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Congress is the legal body or vehicle for legislation. I do not trust any regulatory agency that decides it will keep passing fines without setting a court date to force people to do what they want. They were doing that until they got told 9-0 to set court dates pursuant to regulation violations. Very trustworthy. :roll:
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with associating a cost for the emissions of particulates ?
 
OpportunityCost said:
I don't support mountain top mining. Its not used at all in Illinois, where I am from. Environmental impact is gigantic. No support at all here.
Click to expand...

Illinois only accounts for 6% of the nation's coal production. The bulk of it comes from Kentucky, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Of those, only Wyoming doesn't do mountaintop removal opting for strip mining instead. So if you support the coal industry, then you are supporting mountaintop removal whether you like it or not.

Anytime someone loses a good job, its a tragedy for them and their family. There is no doubt that there will be some good paying jobs lost in the wake of Peabody Energy's bankruptcy. The fact is though that happens in a modern market economy. Above all what is killing the coal industry is natural gas. The additional regulations might be speeding that along some but its not changing the economic fundamentals and regulation or not, coal would still be killed by natural gas. That is just what happens in any market economy. For example, Peabody Energy has 8000 employees or so. Intel just announced it will be laying off 11,000 employees. The difference is that Intel doesn't permanently scar the landscape, destroy mountains, millions of acres of forest, and thousands of miles of streams and rivers in the process of building microprocessors. All thats being lost are good jobs with the decline of the PC industry in response to the rise of mobile devices. At least with the decline of the coal industry there is the consolation that we are losing the most polluting industry known to man.
 
OpportunityCost said:
It has to do with trusting the EPA more than I do Congress.
Click to expand...

And i could cherry pick from the long list of things that congress has ****ed up.

The reality is that our economy is doing fine and our environment is a hell of a lot better off than China's.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Illinois only accounts for 6% of the nation's coal production. The bulk of it comes from Kentucky, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Of those, only Wyoming doesn't do mountaintop removal opting for strip mining instead. So if you support the coal industry, then you are supporting mountaintop removal whether you like it or not.

Anytime someone loses a good job, its a tragedy for them and their family. There is no doubt that there will be some good paying jobs lost in the wake of Peabody Energy's bankruptcy. The fact is though that happens in a modern market economy. Above all what is killing the coal industry is natural gas. The additional regulations might be speeding that along some but its not changing the economic fundamentals and regulation or not, coal would still be killed by natural gas. That is just what happens in any market economy. For example, Peabody Energy has 8000 employees or so. Intel just announced it will be laying off 11,000 employees. The difference is that Intel doesn't permanently scar the landscape, destroy mountains, millions of acres of forest, and thousands of miles of streams and rivers in the process of building microprocessors. All thats being lost are good jobs with the decline of the PC industry in response to the rise of mobile devices. At least with the decline of the coal industry there is the consolation that we are losing the most polluting industry known to man.
Click to expand...

It looks like the next generation of profitable coal energy will be in gasification or carbon capture. I would also say that one of the reasons why coal became such a large polluter is because its use was so widespread and the extent of the pollution and the ill effects was not well known. I don't know that there is any energy industry that is completely clean. Coal is admittedly one of the dirtiest, oil, Nuclear, Natural Gas, even wind and solar have issues as well.

To me, it feels like the current administration has its thumb on the scale. Coal is slowly declining in use under current regulations, promulgating new ones every 4 years just feels punitive in a heavy industry.
 
Absentglare said:
And i could cherry pick from the long list of things that congress has ****ed up.

The reality is that our economy is doing fine and our environment is a hell of a lot better off than China's.
Click to expand...

Reality is that the EPA is an overzealous agency and always has been. Reality is congress sets law, not agencies. Reality is regulations should be by legislation, not fiat.

Reality is our environment would still be better than China's with the current level of legislatively mandated regulation.
 
OpportunityCost said:
It looks like the next generation of profitable coal energy will be in gasification or carbon capture. I would also say that one of the reasons why coal became such a large polluter is because its use was so widespread and the extent of the pollution and the ill effects was not well known. I don't know that there is any energy industry that is completely clean. Coal is admittedly one of the dirtiest, oil, Nuclear, Natural Gas, even wind and solar have issues as well.

To me, it feels like the current administration has its thumb on the scale. Coal is slowly declining in use under current regulations, promulgating new ones every 4 years just feels punitive in a heavy industry.
Click to expand...

Nuclear, Natural Gas, Oil, Solar, and Wind have nothing on coal. If there was a Chernobyl level event every decade with nuclear, it would still have nothing on coal in terms of environmental and human health impacts. The only reason why coal got away with it for so long was the fact that the energy and mining industries outspend the environmental groups on lobbying by 100 to 200 to 1 depending on the year. Sorry, but I fail to see how the current administration having its thumb on the scale in regards to coal is a bad thing.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Nuclear, Natural Gas, Oil, Solar, and Wind have nothing on coal. If there was a Chernobyl level event every decade with nuclear, it would still have nothing on coal in terms of environmental and human health impacts. The only reason why coal got away with it for so long was the fact that the energy and mining industries outspend the environmental groups on lobbying by 100 to 200 to 1 depending on the year. Sorry, but I fail to see how the current administration having its thumb on the scale in regards to coal is a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Because the goal should be justice and protection of citizens, not revenge.
 
OpportunityCost said:
It looks like the next generation of profitable coal energy will be in gasification or carbon capture. I would also say that one of the reasons why coal became such a large polluter is because its use was so widespread and the extent of the pollution and the ill effects was not well known. I don't know that there is any energy industry that is completely clean. Coal is admittedly one of the dirtiest, oil, Nuclear, Natural Gas, even wind and solar have issues as well.

To me, it feels like the current administration has its thumb on the scale. Coal is slowly declining in use under current regulations, promulgating new ones every 4 years just feels punitive in a heavy industry.
Click to expand...

"...the current administration has its thumb on the scale."

Presuming that bold claim is true, it is so very, very far from unique to this administration.
 
Absentglare said:
"...the current administration has its thumb on the scale."

Presuming that bold claim is true, it is so very, very far from unique to this administration.
Click to expand...

Which would neither excuse it or make it just.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Reality is that the EPA is an overzealous agency and always has been. Reality is congress sets law, not agencies. Reality is regulations should be by legislation, not fiat.

Reality is our environment would still be better than China's with the current level of legislatively mandated regulation.
Click to expand...

Oh- and what tales of success seek to suggest that it is wise to underperform one's duties ?

The judiciary and legislature can balance the EPA. It is not the EPA's job to keep itself perfectly in check to perpetuity. A reflexive EPA serves to secure a healthy public. As human beings become more populous and more technologically inclined, there will be greater impact on the planet Earth. I know that the Earth is so big that it seems difficult to jeopardize, but make no mistake, if we let recklessness overcome vigilance, it is only a matter of time before we suffer catastrophe. Our ability to fundamentally change the world around us is always increasing.

I can willingly accept the idea that there are times when these safeguards go too far, but i do expect that politicians on both sides of the aisle give preferences to industry since industry is in a better position to fund their campaigns. I remain skeptical that regulations on coal are excessive. If we are to err, it seems far more wise to err on the side of caution.
 
Absentglare said:
Oh- and what tales of success seek to suggest that it is wise to underperform one's duties ?

The judiciary and legislature can balance the EPA. It is not the EPA's job to keep itself perfectly in check to perpetuity. A reflexive EPA serves to secure a healthy public. As human beings become more populous and more technologically inclined, there will be greater impact on the planet Earth. I know that the Earth is so big that it seems difficult to jeopardize, but make no mistake, if we let recklessness overcome vigilance, it is only a matter of time before we suffer catastrophe. Our ability to fundamentally change the world around us is always increasing.

I can willingly accept the idea that there are times when these safeguards go too far, but i do expect that politicians on both sides of the aisle give preferences to industry since industry is in a better position to fund their campaigns. I remain skeptical that regulations on coal are excessive. If we are to err, it seems far more wise to err on the side of caution.
Click to expand...

I would be fine with that if the EPA weren't levying fines every day they aren't in court. Which they have a record of doing. As a matter of fact they were fining people without setting court dates to adjudicate the regulations they were using. They were forced to set court dates by the judiciary. That doesn't sound fair or just.

Got a puddle in your yard? The EPA wanted to declare control over all such "waterways". And creeks, and ditches with water in them.

My problem with the EPA safeguards is they are regularly exceeding their mandate. Its become about power more than it is about the environment. They aren't even making regulation that is reasonable and necessary, they are just keep moving the bar up every few years. The EPA's ****ing job is to stay within their mandate, which is clearly stated via legislation.
 
Absentglare said:
The fact that they are discouraging the use of coal is not a problem and it's not a secret.

What's important is why.
Click to expand...

Because red state economic hardship is irrelevant to Democrats?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom