Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Danny Salvato- Mountain top removal
My paper is about mountain top removal for coal mining. There are serious environmental impacts to this practice which involves the destruction of mountain tops in order to retrieve coal from the landscape. This practice does serious harm to the land, ecosystem, and to human health. The blasting of mountain tops causes lots of dust to be thrown in the air. This dust contains high amounts of sulfur compounds which is a major health hazard to nearby communities. Forests are destroyed when blasting mountain tops as well as species causing a loss of biodiversity. There are laws enforcing companies to reclaim the area in which the blasting occurred but they have focused mainly on stabilizing rock formations rather than reforestation of the area. The practice of mountain top removal for coal is one in which society uses nature for profit and economic gain. There is no “land ethic” in this practice simply land destruction for economic profit. It is unsustainable practice in which ecosystems and human lives are reduced to monetary costs. My paper will analyze the justified destruction of mountain tops for economic profit.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In your last few sentences, do you mean to imply that reducing ecosystems an human lives to monetary costs is inaccurate and perhaps unethical? Certainly, something's "value" can be translated into a monetary system (isn't this the cornerstone of cost-benefit analysis?).
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned there are major health hazards from sulfur components to nearby communities. Since these effects of the sulfur are likely to have health implications, would this have an effect on the health insurance policies for those people? e.g. not extending coverage to communities that live nearby those blast zones?
ReplyDeleteWhat types of people live in areas were there is a high rate of mountain top removal? Are they of a certain race, socioeconomic status etc...?
ReplyDeleteWho owns this land? What worldview plays in to this?
ReplyDeleteClearly this affects humans in a very negative way, however, the deforestation will definitely affect animals lifestyles and wellbeing. Which according to Bentham’s argument, would be just as detrimental. Ethically, I think it is necessary to look at the amount of animals and humans that are severely affected by the coal industries actions. Would this information make it easier for legal action to be imposed in the future?
ReplyDeleteWhat actions are people living in these areas taking? How can they enact change to stop the destruction?
ReplyDeleteWhat other option exist? It seems like the one's partaking in this are acting out of a utilitarian and egoistic frame of mind, reaping a profit from depleting the mountain with little care of the cots to other, so what incentive would they have to change their actions? Can the government regulate this? Out law this? tax this?
ReplyDeleteIs this ethical, strictly from a utilitarian view? Is the overall societal gain worth the negative consequences for a small population?
ReplyDeleteOhh...basically the same question I asked Ben and Jared.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteMany questions have asked about the alternatives to MTR. However, would exploring a more environmentally friendly MTR approach be better supported? Most companies will not be willing to make drastic changes in procedure. But, if those changes are minimal and are put into affect over time, I think more companies will be willing to adopt them. That way, companies can gradually moved away from using the MTR process, making the transition easier. What changes can be made to the MTR process itself to make it less hazardous to the environment? How can those changes be expressed in a way that would encourage companies to adopt them?
ReplyDeleteDo you think that having the government incentivize alternatives to MTR would get companies to change their ways? What other realistic alternatives exist?
ReplyDeleteTo defend your thesis even more, discuss how mountain top removal leads to the building of giant sludge dams that further affects the surrounding communities.
ReplyDeleteWho's responsibility does it become (or should it become) to clean up the area from toxins and devastating coal slurry? Are there any laws in place that require the companies responsible for the destruction to take care of this? Or does it fall to communities?
ReplyDeleteEconomic profit seems to be the motivating factor behind a lot of environmental damage, other than cost benefit analysis how can one translate morals to consumers without putting a monetary value on it?
ReplyDeleteIf companies who did this type of mining were forced to cover the health, aesthetic, and economic losses of the people effected by it, would that change the argument? Would companies still continue to do this if their financial incentive was reduced?
ReplyDeleteGoing off of Ryan's question....
ReplyDeleteHow can monetary value be assigned to aspects of the environment which according to Aldo Leopold may not have economic importance rather they are significant in that their existence helps sustain a particular habitat.