I went on a short trip this weekend to do a quick tour of Black Mountain - the highest point in Kentucky - and of the neighboring mountain that has been devastated by the mountain top removal method of coal mining, which is what you see in the photo.
We also met with some folk (former miners, as it turns out) whose own homes have been damaged/threatened by nearby mining operations. Some of the quotes (roughly) from these folk living with MTR...
"It's state-sponsored destruction..."
"When they were getting to start mining above my house, I was warned that it might cause damage. 'I'm not worried,' I told them, 'There are laws in place to protect me...' And there WERE/ARE laws in place, but they didn't protect me. Laws are only good as their enforcement..."
The rest of his story, I can't quote, but went something like this:
I had built a fishing pond on my land. When I got hurt mining and ended up on disability, I couldn't go out and fish - or take my grandkids fishing - like I used to. So I spent thousands of dollars building and stocking this pond.
Then they started mining up above me and soon, my 11-15 foot deep pond was filled with run-off silt and I had dead fish floating in my pond.
I tried calling the appropriate authorities and, at first, the mine company denied it. Then they looked into it and said the pond wasn't even on my own property (it was). Eventually, they owned up to the problem and said that, in about 10 or 12 years, they could make things right.
In 10-12 years, I may well be dead and my grandkids will be grown! That was no solution.
The mining company DID get fined (a few thousand dollars) by the authorities, but none of that money came to me. It didn't stop their irresponsible practices and it didn't restore my losses.
I learned that the laws aren't any good unless they're enforced.
The problem is, here in Appalachia, we're just hillbillies. We can be ignored and no one will care. Our land and people can be damaged and no one will care. The mining companies will be - at best - fined a pittance and just keep with the same damaging practices.
If this were the Smoky Mountains, or the Rocky Mountains, no one would stand for this sort of devastation to the local land or people, but that's why we need you all in Louisville, in Lexington or other places that "matter" to speak out on our behalf.
We have to work together to make this right...
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Mountain Top Removal Tour
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
44 comments:
Then they started mining up above me and soon, my 11-15 foot deep pond was filled with run-off silt and I had dead fish floating in my pond.
They violated his property rights. In this case, governmental regulation would not be inappropriate.
And the regulation exists. It's just not enforced. That, and it's sort of a paper tiger. If the company violates the regulation and actually gets caught at it, they have to pay a pittance (say, $1000) but they're making $100,000, so there's no incentive for them to change their ways.
What do you think should be done in such a case? Significantly increase the fine/punishment? Not allow the procedure in the first place if it can't be done safely?
Suing/pursuing legal action in court is not much of an option for the poor Appalachians at the bottom of these digs, because EVEN IF they could find the resources to pursue it, it could be years/decades in getting a resolution, as this fella mentioned.
What do you think should be done in such a case? Significantly increase the fine/punishment? Not allow the procedure in the first place if it can't be done safely?
Provided that criminal intent can be proven, then prison time.
If people knew that this property damage was a crime and knew that it was going on, then it should be treated like any other property crime, such as theft or vandalism.
More regs wont' help. They rarely do. If a company wants to skirt the law, assuming there are regs already in place, then they'll skirt the law. Personally, I'd like to see more details from both sides regarding anecdotal tales of victimhood. I'm not lacking compassion, but I'm not knee-jerk compassionate. Environmentalists tend to go over the top with their tales of woe. I don't trust them any more than those they accuse. The mining is legal.
Here's the problem I have with this particular anecdote:
He was warned and apparently wasn't fazed by the warning. If a company (or whomever) warns me about possible damage to my property from work they're doing in the area, I'm damned worried and bust ass to find what can be done before the work proceeds. This guy blew off the warnings and now demands.
But again, the mining is legal. The demand for the resource is high. There are no viable alternatives that will totally satisfy the demands for the energy this resource provides.
Marshall...
More regs wont' help. They rarely do. If a company wants to skirt the law, assuming there are regs already in place, then they'll skirt the law.
Actually, this fella (and KFTC) weren't talking about more regs. They were talking about actually enforcing the regs that exist in a just and prompt manner.
Marshall...
If a company (or whomever) warns me about possible damage to my property from work they're doing in the area, I'm damned worried and bust ass to find what can be done before the work proceeds.
It wasn't the company who warned him, Marshall, it was concerned neighbors who've seen this sort of damage before. He was a coal company man, he trusted the coal companies, for the most part, and the laws that were in place. He found out later about the reality that the coal companies will put off your complaint, deny your complaint, fight your complaint and, if they really get caught on it and have to do something about it, delay fixing the problem.
That's what person after person has found out at the bottom of these mountains, after their ponds have been destroyed, after their well-water has gone bad, after their drinking water starts coming out orange or black or gray.
As to "what can be done," well, for this fella, he's decided what can be done is to join forces with groups like KFTC to deny the permits to companies because they can't safely mine in this fashion.
Marshall...
There are no viable alternatives that will totally satisfy the demands for the energy this resource provides.
Living with less? Living within our means? Demanding that coal (and oil and gas) producers mine their products in the safest way possible and, if that adds more costs to the coal and oil, well then, that's reflecting the ACTUAL costs, rather than costs that are subsidized on the backs of the poor and our children. And when ACTUAL costs are counted in, then the Market can work in a more just and righteous manner.
Marshall...
the mining is legal. The demand for the resource is high. There are no viable alternatives that will totally satisfy the demands for the energy this resource provides.
As I've quoted before, this line of reasoning is the excuse of the addict, as Wendell Berry notes...
"The great obstacle is simply this: the conviction that we cannot change because we are dependent on what is wrong. But that is the addict's excuse, and we know that it will not do."
"It wasn't the company who warned him,"
Note my "(or whomever)".
"As I've quoted before, this line of reasoning is the excuse of the addict,"
Quote away. But the point is entirely valid. The mining is legal. The same argument is used to defend abortion. While it is legal, the company can proceed under current laws and regulations.
Actually, Marshall, blowing off the top of mountains and dumping wastes into the valley below is NOT legal. It's a violation of US law.
The loophole is that mining companies can get an exemption to the law on a case by case review, if they can present a "need" to do the mining that way.
In the Bush years, those exemptions to safe mining/clean water practices were granted as the norm. Fortunately, Obama has greatly curtailed this practice and the EPA is actually "P"-ing the "E." Unfortunately, they're not doing it enough.
Regardless, just because a company can wriggle around the existing laws and do so in an unsafe, unsound manner, does not mean that we should allow them to do so.
Enforce the existing laws. That's the point.
If we enforced the existing laws, then coal prices could reflect actual costs instead of dumping that cost off on Appalachians and our children and the environment and, well, people in general. We MUST have something like REAL costs reflected in our pricing or capitalism just becomes the dominion and oppression of the strongest and richest over the weak and powerless.
That is not a moral way to live.
As to the "addiction" model you're advocating, it isn't any wiser or moral when we're talking about cheap fuel addiction than when we're talking about meth or crack addiction.
Stupid is as stupid does.
You'd prefer expensive energy addiction? Again, the alternatives have not shown to be either more reliable or cost effective. In the meantime, we work with what we have. If you want to refer to that as addiction, then you go ahead and work that "stupid is as stupid does" meme. If you want to pretend you don't benefit by the present processes of providing energy, again, SIASD. Furthermore, if this form of mining is illegal, it wouldn't be happening. Waivers and exemptions, like for Obamacare, mean that these companies are acting legally.
BTW, just out of curiosity, what law prohibits this form of mining? I have no idea.
I meant to add that I've been doing some searching and have only been able to find, so far, that some of the effects of the mining can be termed as illegal, that is, what happens as a result of the mining, not the mining itself, if I'm making myself clear.
And I also meant to add this: I don't like it either. I'd much prefer no destruction of any mountain, forest, lake, stream, prairie or any other natural setting anywhere in the country, if not the world. But the question still stands: how else to we extract that which we need to live our lives. I don't much care for your "simple living" responses, as they are not doable anywhere in a civilized world. As the population grows, the needs of that population grows as well. Until viable alternatives can be had without the massive costs associated with them, even if any of them actually worked, then change will occur. But we can't "not" use the energy coal provides. All in all, we can't attack one source of energy until another can be had. Those who oppose things like coal mining, oil extraction, etc, do so with no rational alternatives to offer. Rational must include cost effective, efficient and RELIABLE alternatives, not pipe dreams.
Glad to hear that you don't like it, Marshall.
what law prohibits this form of mining?
I don't know all the laws, but generally, it tends to go against the Clean Water Act, which protects people from having toxins and garbage and waste thrown in their streams and drinking water.
Waivers and exemptions, like for Obamacare, mean that these companies are acting legally.
No, it means they have the potential to act legally. In theory, they can comply with the exemption to the law IF they don't damage the folk below and if they return the mountain to a semblance of what it was before. They tend to do neither, is the word I'm hearing from the folk who've lived through it.
the alternatives have not shown to be either more reliable or cost effective.
Actually, living within our means, passive solar power, solar power and wind power have all been shown to be extremely effective/reliable. As to cost effective, that's what we're talking about here. Coal companies are able to undercut their costs by passing the real costs of mining off on their neighbors and our children and the environment. IF they paid actual costs (same for gas), then wind and solar would be competitive in terms of costs. And as it is, living more simply/within our means and with passive solar and reduced consumption and better insulation is cost effective now.
Beyond that, no one is talking about "not" not using coal. We're talking about mining it in a way that is safe for the miners, provides MANY more jobs than MTR, that doesn't pass the costs off to the least fortunate and isn't oppressive: Paying the actual costs for mining in a safe and responsible way.
Trying to cut corners to get our "fix" cheaper is also the mark of an addict.
More info on MTR:
Mountaintop removal mining is a form of surface mining that requires the removal of the summit or summit ridge of a mountain in order to permit easier access to the coal seams. After the coal is extracted, the overburden (soil, lying above the economically desired resource) is either put back onto the ridge to approximate the mountain's original contours or dumped elsewhere, often in neighboring valleys.
Mountaintop removal is most closely associated with coal mining in the Appalachian Mountains in the eastern United States.
Peer-reviewed studies show that mountaintop mining has serious environmental impacts that mitigation practices cannot successfully address, including loss of biodiversity, as well as human health impacts from contact with affected streams or exposure to airborne toxins and dust...
Permits must be obtained to deposit valley fill into streams. On four occasions, federal courts have ruled that the US Army Corps of Engineers violated the Clean Water Act by issuing such permits.[8][24] Massey Energy Company is currently appealing a 2007 ruling, but has been allowed to continue mining in the meantime because "most of the substantial harm has already occurred," according to the judge...
A federal judge has also ruled that using settling ponds to remove mining waste from streams violates the Clean Water Act. He also declared that the Army Corps of Engineers has no authority to issue permits allowing discharge of pollutants into such in-stream settling ponds, which are often built just below valley fills.
wiki
Marshall...
I meant to add that I've been doing some searching and have only been able to find, so far, that some of the effects of the mining can be termed as illegal, that is, what happens as a result of the mining, not the mining itself, if I'm making myself clear.
That is correct, Marshall. It's not the blowing up of the mountain top (as IMMORAL as that might be) that is illegal, it is the dumping of the waste into streams and any unsafe/dangerous/unhealthy behaviors that happen while one is blowing up the mountain top.
Marshall...
the question still stands: how else to we extract that which we need to live our lives.
In a responsible way - one that does not come at a loss of life and property to innocent bystanders.
I'm sure we could mine oil or coal much more cheaply if we didn't have to worry about blowing up someone, killing someone or having massive oil/coal slurry spills. Nonetheless, we rightly legislate rules on HOW one can recover such fossil fuels. That is part of the cost of doing that business and using that resource.
Attempts to remove minimal safety and health requirements in order to cheapen the resource come at a falsely cheapened price.
Can we agree on that much?
Marko Kloos had an excellent response to the notion that people are "addicted" to oil. Foul language warning.
Marshall...
I don't much care for your "simple living" responses, as they are not doable anywhere in a civilized world.
1. You don't have to care for it.
2. nonetheless, it is demonstrably false that living simply isn't "doable." People have done so for all of humanity's time on earth and still do so today.
3. That we may not WANT to live within our means in a responsible way does not mean that it isn't possible or desirable. Just because a child WANTS to have candy for dinner doesn't mean they should.
Marshall...
As the population grows, the needs of that population grows as well.
Which point argues in favor of reducing our population, rather than continually growing it. We are a finite earth with finite resources.
Marshall...
Until viable alternatives can be had without the massive costs associated with them...
In every day parlance, this would be called, "the cost of doing business" and must be paid whether or not one likes it.
Marshall...
even if any of them actually worked, then change will occur.
Using less DOES work. Passive solar DOES work. Geothermal DOES work. Hydro and wind power DO work.
The thing is, we currently have to pay full expense for these power sources, whereas gas and oil and coal are subsidized and otherwise have their costs artificially lowered.
Remove the subsidies and false cheapness to these products and the other sources of power become more affordable, comparably to fossil fuels or better.
Marshall...
But we can't "not" use the energy coal provides. All in all, we can't attack one source of energy until another can be had.
Not saying NOT to use coal or oil. I'm saying that we should pay real costs for these. Other sources are here and now available at sustainable, real prices.
Dan wrote:
Which point argues in favor of reducing our population, rather than continually growing it. We are a finite earth with finite resources.
You continue to state this, even though I've provided specific examples of resources growing.
John, I hope you know that I like your visits here and appreciate your input, but you just can't get around the fact that this IS a finite world with finite resources. I'm just stating a truism, a self evident fact.
There is X amount of water, X amount of arable land, X amount of coal and oil in the ground. Those numbers can't grow infinitely.
Do we have some resources that are renewable? Certainly, and those are good things to rely upon.
But ARE there limits to how much a finite world can produce/support? Yes, obviously.
With my limited time these days, I should have started here today. There is so much nonsense put forth as fact that I simply can't spend the time now. One thing I can say is that none of the alternatives you've mentioned have been shown to be reliable in the manner we now experience with coal and oil. It's not always windy, it's not always sunny and despite the simplistic tone of this fact, these truisms make a difference in terms of reliability of these alternatives. Look at, for example, just how many windmills must be erected in order to provide the energy provided by coal. The land that is used (and the land that can't be used because of it) is enormous and the costs of maintenance as well as the costs in terms of energy to produce these windmills has not been offset by the energy it provides.
Gotta go.
One thing I can say is that none of the alternatives you've mentioned have been shown to be reliable in the manner we now experience with coal and oil.
And who said that they are? They're reliable in DIFFERENT ways.
For instance, solar, wind, hydro and conservation are infinitely more reliable than coal or oil in the area of not producing pollution.
On the other hand, solar does not produce power at night and wind does not produce power in areas lacking wind.
They are different sorts of sources of energy (or conservation of energy), NOT the same as coal or oil. That's sort of the point.
Standing in the dark rubbing your hands for warmth doesn't produce pollution, either, until you fart, but that's not what I'm looking for in terms of a decent and comfortable life.
"the question still stands: how else to we extract that which we need to live our lives.
In a responsible way - one that does not come at a loss of life and property to innocent bystanders."
Oh. That settles the question perfectly.
"Attempts to remove minimal safety and health requirements in order to cheapen the resource come at a falsely cheapened price.
Can we agree on that much?"
What would be the point without more detail about any of it? I'm all for working safely and in a manner that results in no harm to anyone or to the environment. There is a balance, however, and I'm not confident people like yourself would have a realistic understanding of it. At minimum, I don't believe it is possible for man to exist without leaving behind some trace that can be regarded as pollution or damage. The question is what is acceptable for living life.
For your three points,
1. What a relief!
2. What constitutes "simple living" is subjective. I'll leave it there except to say what passes for it in your terms, as expressed so far, is not "doable" in terms of serving the general good. It just makes you feel better while doing as little as possible.
3. Living within our means. If that is defined as not living as if one brings home 50K when in reality only bringing home 30K, then I'm all for it. If it is defined as walking to work because one believes there is a "finite" amount of natural resources, that's way too comical to take seriously. But feel free to walk everywhere you want to go.
"As the population grows, the needs of that population grows as well.
Which point argues in favor of reducing our population, rather than continually growing it. We are a finite earth with finite resources."
Feel free to check out any day now. I would prefer to multiply as is better for everyone. This is particularly true considering who is actually producing the most offspring.
As to that goofy finite resources lamentation, you still have not made a case for why it is wrong to use up the resources now, as opposed to denying one's self for some unknown later generation. What of those living at the point when a given resource is known to be at its end? Would they be selfish, wicked or immoral for using up the resource, being the last to indulge themselves? Would you expect that they divvy up the last crumbs of the resource to stupid portions of useless and non-enjoyable size? You act as if using a limited resource is akin to hoarding it and denying its benefits to others. If it is limited, finite, then somebody will be the first to NOT be able to use it. So freaking what?
"Until viable alternatives can be had without the massive costs associated with them...
In every day parlance, this would be called, "the cost of doing business" and must be paid whether or not one likes it."
No. In the real world, it's called "stupid". One doesn't pay for that which can be done more cheaply and efficiently. Alternatives are neither. They are cost prohibitive because they do not provide energy in a cost effective way for the same amount of people as does oil and coal (and nuclear, which would be the best path). Their use would impoverish the nation because none of them CAN replace what we use now. To force their use would not be a matter of paying the costs of doing business. It would be paying far more than what is proper because the cost is not a result of true free market forces determining those costs.
"The thing is, we currently have to pay full expense for these power sources, whereas gas and oil and coal are subsidized and otherwise have their costs artificially lowered.
Remove the subsidies and false cheapness to these products and the other sources of power become more affordable, comparably to fossil fuels or better."
Does the name "Solyndra" mean anything to you? Alternative energy is indeed being subsidized.
"Not saying NOT to use coal or oil. I'm saying that we should pay real costs for these."
There is far too much gov't interference for REAL COSTS to be experienced. We could be drilling in our own country for our own resources and we'd see REAL COSTS go down.
Dan wrote:
John, I hope you know that I like your visits here and appreciate your input, but you just can't get around the fact that this IS a finite world with finite resources. I'm just stating a truism, a self evident fact.
There is X amount of water, X amount of arable land, X amount of coal and oil in the ground. Those numbers can't grow infinitely.
And yet I've demonstrated that resources have increased.
Alternatively, you could stop using the term "resources" and instead, as I suggested at the link, "materials".
Or, as another alternative, you could accept that past estimates of "resources" have been consistently wrong.
If the reasoning that I have expressed at the link is wrong, I would like to know specifically how.
Resource:
1. a : a source of supply or support : an available means
b : a natural source of wealth or revenue
There is a finite amount of water available. There is a finite amount of arable land available. I think "resource" is the right term, but if you prefer "material" (or perhaps "Material resources"), then just substitute the word. I think you understand my meaning.
Again, Dan, you have not made the case against using up "finite" resources now. You still have not explained what difference it makes to use it up now or use it later. You obviously think that going for a drive, for the sole purpose of enjoying the drive, without an expressed destination or need to even start up the car, is somehow wasteful and wicked. It would seem that you would prefer there be no public or private swimming pools, considering how you believe our water supply is "finite". You do realize, of course, that any musical instrument used at your church is the result of destroying our "finite" supply of trees. Regardless of whether it was bought new or used, it was an unnecessary expenditure of the trees, plastics and metals used in its manufacture, not to mention the energy expended to process that manufacture, including heating or cooling and lighting the manufacturing facility itself.
You do realize that when you're down to one bowl of Cheerios left in the box and two kids looking for breakfast, dividing that bowl amongst you results in everyone still being hungry. Your regard for "finite" resources isn't a practical concern or an example of true caring.
But you go ahead and walk everywhere, huddle together for warmth in whatever natural cave you've found (a finite amount of which could not possibly house everyone) and do nothing that would risk propelling us to that day when coal, oil, water, trees, animal skins, food run out.
Marshall...
you have not made the case against using up "finite" resources now. You still have not explained what difference it makes to use it up now or use it later.
If I and my child are stranded on an island with a finite amount of food, I would put off my consuming NOW simply because it's here now and I'm hungry now, in favor of rationing it for as long as possible and in favor of wanting my child to get as much of it as possible.
Using up all "the stuff" NOW, simply because it's available without regards to those with whom I share the place with or without regards to my children and their children, that strikes me as selfish and foolish.
THOSE are my reasons:
In opposition to blind consumption,
in support of rationing resources,
in support of sharing responsibly and holding off personal instant gratification in favor of providing resources to those who come behind me...
these are all rational, moral reasons to me.
You may disagree if you wish, but you can't say I have not explained why we ought to conserve.
You know, conservation used to be a conservative notion.
Marshall...
You obviously think that going for a drive, for the sole purpose of enjoying the drive, without an expressed destination or need to even start up the car, is somehow wasteful and wicked.
I "obviously" have never said that. Nor do I think that. Nor do I think that eating is wasteful and wicked. But again, if I were on an island with finite resources, overconsuming now for the joy of eating now without regards to "later" for me (or those with me), that WOULD be wasteful and wicked. Wouldn't you agree?
So, to the extent that joy rides are similar to eating up the last of a groups' food, one could certainly make the case. It's not a case that I'm making, but I wouldn't say it's wholly irrational, either.
Marshall...
It would seem that you would prefer there be no public or private swimming pools, considering how you believe our water supply is "finite".
In an area with plenty of water, no, that's not a problem. Water is recyclable, at least to a degree.
On the other hand, in an area with very limited clean water (think Arizona in the time of a drought, for instance), one could certainly make the case that unnecessary water usage (ie, swimming for pleasure, trying to keep your grass green) should rightfully take a back seat to more necessary water usage.
That's just rational, wouldn't you agree?
And it's not that I believe our water supply is "finite," it IS finite. There is a finite amount of water on this planet. I'm not sure what's unclear about that. It's just a fact.
Marshall...
You do realize, of course, that any musical instrument used at your church is the result of destroying our "finite" supply of trees.
Trees are a renewable resource, not finite exactly.
Marshall...
But you go ahead and walk everywhere, huddle together for warmth in whatever natural cave you've found (a finite amount of which could not possibly house everyone) and do nothing that would risk propelling us to that day when coal, oil, water, trees, animal skins, food run out.
As always, one need not swing to one extreme to avoid another extreme. This is a world of plenty, enough for all. But it is NOT an infinite world with enough for everyone to hyper-consume (and waste and pollute) as much as they possibly can and more.
I'm calling for living within our means, not living in a cave.
Again, "living within our means". You don't seem to have the same meaning of the phrase. If water is finite, then any usage for pleasure is "selfish" as you plainly state. That is, what you regard as finite could be said of just about anything imaginable. We ARE on an island. Earth. Or even our country, is an island unto itself with limited resources. But, by limited, what are we saying? That we'll run out by the end of the week? Of course not. By the end of the year? No again. So when? Likely many generations from now.
So think of the last generation for whom the end of any resource, say, OIL, is only a year away. What benefit is had by prolonging and rationing what little is left if no alternative has been discovered or invented? EVERYTHING will collapse as petroleum is used in manufacturing literally thousands of products. If the end is not foreseen in such a way as to allow for replacement of oil, what good is prolonging the agony that will inevitably occur? It's ridiculous!
Rationing in times of drought is a temporary situation. We even have that in some towns in the Chicago area where watering one's lawn can only done on odd numbered dates if your address is odd and even dates if your address is even. Times of war have brought about rationing as the resources were necessary to build a winning war machine.
But otherwise, how does one "overconsume" gasoline? Or water? Or coal, wood or anything, even food? Do you eat until you're full and then continue eating? And who exactly is it who benefits when you eat less, drive less or turn off your lights when not in the room? You're dealing in fiction.
There is a finite amount of arable land available.
So you're saying that the amount of arable land has never increased in human history? Or, let's say, the past century?
I'm saying there is a finite amount of arable land on this planet.
To further clarify: There is a finite amount of land that is potentially arable on this planet. There is a finite amount of earth material in which one can grow food. There is a finite amount of land space on this orb.
Put another way: We DO NOT have an infinite amount of land space or arable land on this planet.
There is a finite amount of land space on this orb.
On this, we agree. And I gather that you agree that land formerly regarded as arable is now regarded as arable.
Which means that past predictions of the amount of available arable land were incorrect.
Right?
I guess it would depend upon those predictions, none of which I've referenced here or am speaking of. But sure, if there were predictions that there are 100x acres of arable land and currently there are 200x acres of arable land, that prediction would be mistaken.
Of course, if we were speaking of predictions based on sustainable technology and the 200x acres is utterly dependent upon, for instance, fossil fuels to produce, AND if fossil fuels are going away and will no longer be widely available, then those predictions weren't wrong, they just didn't take into account someone using an unsustainable method to TEMPORARILY increase the potential amount of arable land.
As a conservative in the best sense, I wouldn't count temporary and unsustainable methods into any long term planning, nor would I count on POSSIBLE increased based upon technology not yet available. That would not be prudent, seems to me.
And going ahead and exploiting what we have now and to hell with the next generation, well, that's not a moral alternative as far as I'm concerned.
"And going ahead and exploiting what we have now and to hell with the next generation, well, that's not a moral alternative as far as I'm concerned."
But you refuse to explain why not. You refuse to explain what you mean by "exploit" or "over-consume". You refuse to explain why being the one to eat the last bowl of Cheerios is immoral. If I'M not the last one, someone else will be. So what? If I'm the next in line after the Cheerios have run out, how is it that I would have any right to accuse the person who ate the last of it? What if that person only had one "O" because he was rationing it for people like me? Is he still an ass for eating that last "O"? There is no moral factor in using limited resources. If they're truly limited, then the end of the resource is certain and people like you must come to terms with the fact that at some point, people will not have access to it. It's not a moral issue in the least.
Dan wrote:
Of course, if we were speaking of predictions based on sustainable technology and the 200x acres is utterly dependent upon, for instance, fossil fuels to produce, AND if fossil fuels are going away and will no longer be widely available, then those predictions weren't wrong, they just didn't take into account someone using an unsustainable method to TEMPORARILY increase the potential amount of arable land.
Okay, let's back up.
One of the principles of rational thought is falsifiability. This means that it must be hypothetically possible to disprove a thesis.
For example, you've asked me if I think that the Earth could support a population of 70 billion people. I've said 'yes'. If mass famine happens at or before that mark, then my thesis is wrong.
So, I'd like to know this: hypothetically, what would have to happen for you to regard your own thesis as falsified?
(I gather that your thesis is that resources are dwindling constantly. If not, please clarify your thesis and its falsifiability.)
To prove that the thesis: This world is a finite place with finite resources," is false, I suppose you would have to prove that this world is INfinite with INfinite resources.
You up to that challenge?
And by "finite", you mean the volume of the Earth and its atmosphere? That this, as the outermost definition of "resource", can be used up?
These aren't flippant questions. I'm really serious.
I'm not sure what you're asking, John. By "finite" I mean simply "finite" - Having bounds; limited.
There are a limited, finite amount of raw material here on earth from which we could make resources. There are X gallons of water on the planet and we can't use up 2x. There are X gallons of oil on the planet and we can't create an economy based upon 10x or 1000x gallons of oil.
I'm not sure what you mean so I'll just repeat: The earth is finite, with a limited amount of resources to use.
So you reject the conservation of mass, a fundamental principle of physics?
To clarify:
I'm saying that matter cannot be created; that it is of a fixed quantity.
You're saying that matter is not only finite, but can actually be destroyed.
Right?
Matter can be changed, transformed. There is a FINITE amount of coal in the ground. Once dug up and burned, that coal no longer exists in coal form. It becomes heat and pollutants.
I'm no scientist guy, but I'm pretty sure that the amount of coal existing in the world does not remain at a constant amount as it gets burned. There IS a finite tonnage of coal and once burned, it doesn't come back as coal again.
Where am I mistaken?
Excellent! Yes, I agree: the material of the Earth is limited. It is finite. But it does not decrease in mass over time.
Now, within this finite mass of the Earth are resources. And resources, as I have noted, are:
(1) known, (2) extractable, (3) useful, and (4) profitable.
(if you think that any of these elements of my definition are wrong, or any are missing, please explain)
And they have changed over time. For example, petroleum was not a resource in 1800 because it served no profitable purpose, very little of it was known, and even less was extractable.
But, now it is a resource.
Uranium was not a resource in 1900, for all of the same reasons.
Now it is a resource.
And, as you have admitted, the amount of arable land has actually increased over time.
So, then, you agree that 'resource' is not a fixed concept, but one that changes widely over time.
Right?
John...
And resources, as I have noted, are:
(1) known, (2) extractable, (3) useful, and (4) profitable.
And (5) finite.
And, going along with 2 and 5, (6) not infinitely extractable. That is, we can't continue to extract coal/oil forever and ever, it's not being regenerated (or at least not at a pace that would keep up with the demand).
Agreed?
John...
And, as you have admitted, the amount of arable land has actually increased over time.
Yes, but it is not infinitely increasable.
And yes, I agree that resource is not a fixed concept, but one that changes. As some resources become less affordable/available, then that resource soon becomes a limited resource and, eventually, a rarely used resource.
And, going along with 2 and 5, (6) not infinitely extractable. That is, we can't continue to extract coal/oil forever and ever, it's not being regenerated (or at least not at a pace that would keep up with the demand).
Agreed?
Yes, I agree.
And yes, I agree that resource is not a fixed concept, but one that changes.
Precisely. Yesterday's junk is today's valuable resource and historically speaking, past predictions of what is valuable (e.g. petroleum serves no useful purpose to humanity) have been wrong.
Agreed?
And we've agreed that the actual amount of matter is not going to diminish, so there's an infinite amount of material to process -- because we're just reprocessing the same matter, over and over again.
Agreed?
Post a Comment