Republicans Eliminate Coal Restriction Rule!

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

Why Congress just killed a rule restricting coal companies from dumping waste in streams

"With everything that Republicans want to do — repeal Obamacare, overhaul the tax code — it might seem odd that one of Congress’ very first acts would be to kill an obscure Obama-era regulation that restricts coal companies from dumping mining waste into streams and waterways.

But that is indeed what’s going on! On Thursday, the Senate voted 54-45 to repeal the so-called “stream protection rule” — using a regulation-killing tool known as the Congressional Review Act. The House took a similar vote yesterday, and if President Trump agrees, the stream protection rule will be dead. Coal companies will now have a freer hand in dumping mining debris in streams.

Killing this regulation won’t really help Trump fulfill his goal of reversing the coal industry’s decline — that decline has more to do with cheap natural gas than anything else. Instead, Republicans are mostly focusing on this rule because they can. Because the stream protection rule wasn’t finished until very late 2016, it’s much, much easier to kill than most of the other Obama-era rules around coal pollution. It was basically an easy target, so long as the GOP acted fast.

What Obama’s “stream protection rule” actually does

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

Appalachian Voices, an environmental group, estimates that coal companies have buried some 2,000 miles of streams in the region through mountaintop removal mining. And studies have found that when this all debris and waste gets into water supplies, it can have dire health impacts for the people living nearby.

In theory, there’s a law to mitigate this. The 1977 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act says that companies should not cause "material damage to the environment to the extent that it is technologically and economically feasible." But that language is pretty vague. And the agency responsible for enforcing this law, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), hadn’t issued a rule clarifying its water protections since publishing a “stream buffer rule” in 1983.

Community groups and environmentalists had long pushed to update the regulations here, especially since mining practices have changed dramatically over time and scientists have learned more about the harmful effects of water pollution from coal mining. In 2008, the George W. Bush administration published an update to the “stream buffer rule,” but those efforts later got struck down in court for running afoul of the Endangered Species Act.

So enter the Obama administration. Ever since 2009, OSMRE has been trying to update these environmental protections. That process involved poring through reams of research on the effects of coal mining on ecosystems, holding endless hearings, talking to various stakeholders, and so on.

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

First, a company that wants to open either 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 all mean, but it’s basically a much stricter limit on dumping waste and debris in surrounding ecosystems.

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. 

This sounds pretty basic, but there were numerous debates over best how to define “hydrologic balance,” how to monitor waterways, how to deal with the variety of coal industry practices out there, and so on.

In the end, environmentalists certainly weren’t thrilled with the rule — many groups didn’t think it went far enough to restrict the dumping of debris, and they don’t believe coal companies can restore damaged streams fully to their prior state after mining. But on balance, they thought the rule an improvement over the status quo. 

“The rule doesn’t address all the problems with the most destructive practices,” says Thom Kay of Appalachian Voices. “But it makes it a little bit harder to pollute streams. And it also makes it a little easier for communities to fight back against mines if they don’t want it.”

Why the stream protection rule became so controversial

But coal companies absolutely loathe this rule. Coal mining is already facing a brutal decline in Appalachia — partly because the easiest-to-mine coal seams are running out, but also because the advent of cheap natural gas has absolutely crushed US demand for coal. Now they’ve got this rule, which imposes new restrictions and makes it more expensive to open new mines.

The National Mining Association says the stream-protection rule could put more than half of the nation’s yet-untapped coal reserves off limits to future mining — and further cripple a declining industry. The group would prefer environmental protections be handled at the state level (where, in states like West Virginia and Kentucky, regulators have taken a much looser approach). “It’s a pure expression of all that ordinary Americans loathe about rule by bureaucracy,” writes NMA’s Luke Popovich. 

Other coal companies, like Ohio-based Murray Energy, complained that the rule could outlaw new techniques like longwall mining — which involves using machines with revolving blades to cut coal from an underground seam into slices. "This unlawful and destructive rule is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to destroy our nation’s underground coal mines and put our nation’s coal miners out of work," saidRobert Murray, the CEO of Murray Energy, after the rule was finished.

OSMRE, for its part, had argued that these worries were (mostly) overblown. The agency pointed out, for instance, that most longwall operations are so deep underground that they wouldn’t have much effect on streams above — and hence are unlikely to be affected by the regulations. Still, outside experts think it will making mining — particularly mountaintop removal mining — less economic and hence harder to do.

Whatever the actual economic impact, the rule has taken on a life of its own in politics. On the campaign trail, Donald Trump talked about reviving America’s coal industry and ending Obama’s “war on coal,” further cementing Republican dominance in states like West Virginia. After the election, Robert Murray — one of Trump’s staunchest supporters — talked about killing the stream protection rule as a top priority. The rule featured prominently on Trump’s transition website."

 

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

 

 

[DeleteMyAccount 11,881]

So who paid who then?

[Chromatica 7,042]

"War on coal"

Angel down.

[PunkTheFunk 125,703]

Come through Global Warming

[Delusional Aura 5,129]

I'm not even surprised.

[Pacify Him 9,073]

Truly a business mindset

[Aura Veil 2,395]

No one use coal country tap water. That stuff is about to be contaminated AF

[Miel 15,009]

This is, like, lowkey lightweight potentially disastrous, environmentally.

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

3 minutes ago, Miel said:

This is, like, lowkey lightweight potentially disastrous, environmentally.

But make America great again I guess...  

 

[PaperIz 7,354]

5 minutes ago, Aura Veil said:

No one use coal country tap water. That stuff is about to be contaminated AF

A power company in NC had a huge coal ash spill into local water sources and of course our dumb ex governor was basically bought by them. I imagine more stuff like this will happen now 

[sarahb 17,188]

This movie sucks, these villains are way too unrealistic. 

[Whispering 18,865]

11 minutes ago, Miel said:

This is, like, lowkey lightweight potentially disastrous, environmentally.

Ya think? 

Coal mining waste, made up of Heavy metals such lead, mercury, arsenic, and beryllium getting dumped into waterways that impact the US and Canada.

What could go wrong? 

[Miel 15,009]

1 minute ago, Whispering said:

Ya think? 

Coal mining waste, made up of Heavy metals such lead, mercury, arsenic, and beryllium getting dumped into waterways that impact the US and Canada.

What could go wrong? 

It's like, on one hand I'm super pissed and angry about how people could be so stupid and ignorant as to continually let this kind of bs pass.

Yet on the other hand, it's like they either 1) damn well know the consequences, and still continue to do so, or 2) literally don't believe in basic science stating that our general planetary ecosystem is at risk because of corporate pollution.

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

10 minutes ago, Whispering said:

Ya think? 

Coal mining waste, made up of Heavy metals such lead, mercury, arsenic, and beryllium getting dumped into waterways that impact the US and Canada.

What could go wrong? 

"Dancing in coal, feels good to be Dirrty"...  

 

[Yuko 1,010]

This is so disappointing. Why do so few people care about the ecosystem? They'll be ignoring it until it threatens their lives. Doesn't matter how many other living beings die first. But "jobs and money!!1!!1", of course