Thursday, November 29, 2012

Mountaintop Removal: Wilderness to Wasteland


Coal has always been considered a dirty source of energy, and it remains the dirtiest fossil fuel in terms of carbon emissions. The production of coal has also long been associated with images of soot-covered miners suffering from terrible consequences to their health. But a new method of coal production is proving even more destructive to their environment and human communities. The practice of mountaintop removal, which is exactly what it sounds like, is a reckless way to get coal.


The environmental impact of mountaintop removal is obvious from any photo of its aftermath. Mountainous wilderness areas, once lush ecosystems full of trees and animals, are turned into brown wastelands. After the tops of the mountains are removed, the barren area is smoothed out to supposedly allow nature to "reclaim" the land. However, the land left behind is highly infertile and inhospitable. Even after years, the land is suitable only for grass and insects. Some estimate it could take as long as 100 years for the land to fully regenerate.


Perhaps the greatest victims of mountaintop removal are the mining communities nestled in valleys between the coal mountains that are being destroyed. The waste material that comes from the mountains is simply dumped into the surrounding valleys, often causing streams to flood into surrounding communities. The waste is also filled with pollutants, which can contaminate the nearby water supplies. After the generations of hard work that these mining communities have given to the coal industry, their land is being stripped of all value for short-term profits. But that's not an argument the coal companies can here. Anything besides the bottom-line, as any good capitalist would say, is simply an externality.

Monday, November 26, 2012

Fracking: Your Water is Safe, Unless...


The frenzy to find new sources of fossil fuels has led to a new method of natural gas production: hydraulic fracturing (also called hydro-fracking or just fracking). This method is highly controversial, and has been blamed for numerous instances of water contamination. There have even been documented cases of flammable water, apparently caused by nearby fracking operations. While the gas companies deny any harmful effects of fracking, environmentalists claim that the drilling method has serious health risks. The chemical mixture that is pumped into the ground during fracking is highly toxic. After fracking, if it does not leech into nearby water supplies, the mixture gets dumped in a water containment pit where it sits as a lasting source of contamination.


The accusations against the hydro-fracking industry might not be so alarming if the industry was properly regulated. Incredibly, Congress voted in 2005 to excempt fracking from the Safe Drinking Water Act. This loophole was proposed by none other than Dick Cheney, then the Vice president and former CEO of Halliburton. It's no coincidence, undoubtedly, that Halliburton is involved in the natural gas drilling industry. Just like the two wars started in the Bush era, this excemption was a way for Cheney to boost the bottom line of his corporation.


Public anger against the growth of hydro-fracking operations has been widespread. At the same time, the marketing departments of the fracking companies are blasting the airwaves with ads that praise fracking as the solution to our energy problems. Politicians refer to fracking as a green way of achieving energy independence, with less carbon emissions than coal or oil and a large supply of domestic reserves. With mounting economic and political pressure for increased energy production, it seems likely that the health and safety concerns about fracking will swept under the rug for now. Time will tell whether or not the benefits of this practice are worth the risks.

Sunday, November 4, 2012

Syria: Nightmare of the Arab Spring

Syrian protest, April 2011
The wave of protests and revolutions now called the Arab Spring, which achieved remarkable success in Middle Eastern countries like Egypt and Tunisia, has had a profoundly devastating effect on Syria. Instead of toppling the current regime, the protests in Syria have led to a brutal civil war, with no end to the violence in sight. With deaths numbering in the tens of thousands, many being innocent civilians including women and children, it seems the dream of the Syrian revolution has turned into a nightmarish situation of unchecked oppression and insurrection. The rebels, comprised of several independent military organizations, claim to be fighting to topple a corrupt regime and bring freedom to Syria. The government, led by President Bashar al-Assad, claims that the nation is under attack by terrorists and armed gangs funded by regional rivals like Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Both sides view each other as existential threats, making a political solution all but impossible.

Pro-Assad rally, October 2011
The failure of the Syrian protesters can be explained in part by the political strength of the Assad regime. Unlike the Mubarak regime in Egypt, Assad enjoyed support from large sections of the population as well as the complete loyalty of the military. The Alawites, the ethnic minority that makes up most of the ruling class (including Assad himself), have largely remained faithful to the regime. Many speculate that the fall of the regime would result in a state led by the Sunni majority, potentially leading to a massacre of the Alawites by Sunnis seeking revenge for the victims of the regime. The Syrian government tried to maintain an image of multiculturalism by giving positions to Christians and other ethnic minorities in Syria. This is another way to instill fear in the population in order to maintain the stability of the regime. Syria is also a much smaller and more densely populated territory than Egypt or Libya, making it easier for the military to stop the protests by force.

Destroyed buildings in Syrian city Aleppo, October 2012
The survival of the Assad regime can also be explained from a geopolitical perspective. Syria is a close ally of Iran, perhaps the greatest rival to the United States and the West in the region. It is also a major importer of Russian arms, making the Assad regime a strategic ally of Russia. Mutual distrust between the US and Russia (along with China) prevented a UN resolution that would have allowed a military intervention. It seems the UN, which has never been a hindrance to American military adventures before, was used as an excuse to avoid blame for the lack of a military intervention. This is just one of many examples of how the US uses its military dominance to promote its interests rather than its values. We intervened in Libya because the West had much to gain from Libyan oil fields, despite the official reason of preventing a massacre. Meanwhile, when massacres happen repeatedly in Syria, we do nothing because there are no major resources to be gained. Although the Obama administration has denounced Assad and encouraged the rebels, the conflict in Syria has not been a priority in the drawn-out presidential campaign that has been dominating American news. The US military strategists may even think that it is in our interest to let Syria collapse into civil war, to deny the support they give to Iran and Russia. If this is the case, the Syrian people are in for continued violence and instability for years to come.