Article: Enough is Enough! Obfuscation and Our Forests by Heather Cantino

Enough is Enough! Obfuscation and Our Forests by Heather Cantino
Copy/pasted from Martha's Journal with some minor editing by Rouzie

Over the last decade, we’ve heard many terms that cloak damaging practices in pretty-sounding language, such as Bush’s Healthy Forests and Clear Skies initiatives and the currently touted “advanced energy” (which includes nuclear power) and oxymoronic “clean coal.”

There are, though, a number of forest-related terms that we may not even think about being similarly deceptive. Here are a few:

Division of Forestry (DOF) is in the Department of Natural Resources. Both suggest a simplistic, anthropocentric perspective that reduces forests to “resources” as well as simply to trees to be logged.

“Logging” itself does not suggest the harm it almost invariably causes. Like “timber harvesting,” “logging treatment,” “silviculture,” “clearcut” and its new replacement, “even-age regeneration plot,” logging implies that one can somehow remove trees and leave the forest intact. The terms’ agricultural or medical allusions erroneously evoke healing, growth, and care.

Similarly, logging is not acknowledged as serving the timber industry but is now called “vegetation or “ecosystem management,” as if the ecosystem needs to be managed or might benefit from logging. DOF’s and USFS’s notion of “healthy forest” is oddly in line with forest industry goals and drastically at odds with what constitutes a healthy natural forest, with all its complexity, variation in tree age and species, and wealth of flora and fauna. (See An Economic Analysis of the 2006 Wayne National Forest Plan, at heartwood.org, for an extensive discussion of USFS “goals” for “healthy forests” in relation to timber industry needs.)

And then there’s the Mohican State “Demonstration Forest,” which, under the guise of “education” permits logging in spite of a ban on commercial logging. A stately spreading oak in an area of “selective cuts” has even been girdled (and thus killed) and is now a “wildlife tree.” With its spreading canopy (having started life in the open, probably in the 19th century), the tree is not ideal for timber, so perhaps its fall may be welcomed and is thus being hastened? It is alarming that DOF calls “educational” the killing of a grand tree to create habitat for wildlife that would have plenty of such habitat if the trees were left to live out their natural lives.

And then there are DOF and USFS efforts at oak-hickory “restoration” or “regeneration,” in spite of growing evidence that the recent prevalence of these species may not have been natural but was the result of frequent human-induced fire in pre-European and early European settlement periods.

“Controlled burn,” one technique being used in these efforts, suggests limited action under human control, though it actually affects many non-target organisms and often burns hotter and well beyond planned boundaries. Another term for these forest burns, the medical-sounding “prescribed burn,” sounds beneficial, obscuring that the practice may exist because the federal government funds DOF and USFS based on its use. (See “Follow the Money” in An Economic Analysis, cited above) In certain cases, such as logging followed by burning (a practice used in Shawnee State Forest) and burning in moist coves, in which fire is clearly unnatural and not “historic,” “habitat sterilization” would be an equally appropriate term. Although fire is purportedly to “restore a natural fire regimen,” experts increasingly surmise that frequent fire was perhaps never a natural part of Ohio’s forests.

Another common government forest term, “salvage sale” (in which dead but also living trees are removed after a storm), implies rescue and reuse. However, the Economic Analysis of the Wayne report cited above documents extensive abuse by the timber industry and economic shenanigans by USFS hidden behind this innocent-sounding program.

Finally, there are (mis)uses of environmental power words: DOF claims its “timber harvests” are “sustainable” based on the amount “harvested,” with no consideration of the impact of cutting on the land cut. And DOF claims to promote “biodiversity” and “wildlife habitat” when it claims to log to create “early-successional habitat,” as if logging were simply the means to appropriate ends. This practice is doubly misguided because scrubland and young woods are much more abundant than older forest in Ohio. DOF and USFS both use this justification to cloak their steady supply of trees to the timber industry. They also refer to trees over 80 years old as “over-mature,” clearly a timber industry point of view. Some Ohio species have life spans of several hundred years and of course offer wealth to the forest even after they have died.

The rest of Lost Mountain

In the second half of the book Reece uses many of the same visuals and sappy stories about nature that he did in the first half of his book to make his point. He continues to bombard the reader with descriptions of blackberry bushes that have disappeared and rants about the gaping hole that now stands in the once lush landscape. Its not that the points are not solid but after 150 pages of the same thing your beating a dead horse.
The part of the second half of the book that I found the most interesting was the recount of the Robert Kennedy visit. I think what Reece is trying to do in that chapter is show how things were bad back then and how little to nothing has changed. The description of the participation and community involvement in the reenactment give the sense that the issues are still very close to hearts of the individuals being afflicted. When Robert Kennedy says "that there is absolutely no reason why in a country with such affluence that people should live in such poverty" (paraphrase) he is absolutely right. It is this point that Reece is trying to drive home the hole book. It is the responsibility of the people at large to take care not only of our environment but of each other.
All in all, Reece wants his reader to walk away from his book knowing that Mountian top removal and strip mining are not some ancient technologies from a distant past but real issues that we need to deal with today. He brings attention to the destruction of homes, water contamination, devastation of forests, and perpetuation of poverty and disease that the coal industry has brought to Appalachia. His warhearted descriptions and factual evidence support his argument that something needs to drastically change in order to ensure a better future for all of us.
Make sure to do your part!

Last Part of LM

A sympathetic mind and a rational mind are two very different ways of thinking. Thinking sympathetically would be using your feelings to make decisions. These types of thinkers also give thought to how others may feel or react to certain situations. A rational mind only sees things in black and white. There are no grey areas. Their decisions are objective and based on facts and logic. The minds of the men and women who are in charge of the coal companies think in this manner. All they see is the bottom line. People like Reece see the end result sympathetically. They see the families whose loved ones have been killed by overloaded, speeding coal trucks like the ones on page 167. They see the destruction of their homes and the ecosystem in which they are part of it. On page 172, Reece points out what the mountain would still have to offer had there been no coal mining. The quote that stood out to me from the conclusion came on page 226. "And while the United States produces twice as much CO2 as Russia, Bush made it clear in the Presidential debates that he would not sign the Kyoto Protocol because it could :cost American jobs and stifle economic growth". This quote stands out to me because of the quote that came before it about the Mayans destroying themselves because of short sighted decisions. The coal mining industry is quite comparable because of the short sighted decisions that are made while mining. Coal mining does bring a large amount of Americans power every day, but at what cost. We consume tons of energy every year, while destroying hundreds of acres of land everyday. We are the cause of our own problem.

Last part of LM

The difference between a rational mind and a sympathetic mind is very distinguishable. A person with a rational mind doesn't pay much attention to the feelings of others or the effect that his or her actions will have on people. They try to look at what the best decision is at this moment and act upon it. A person with a sympathetic mind cares more about the feelings of the people they are affecting. They will try to come up with the best solution that will help their situation but at the same time try not to deliberately hurt other people. An example that Reece uses to describe a rational mind is after he files the complaint and is taking on a tour of the facility. The part on page 220 when he talks about the hallow fills and how they are not 100% durable rock, and because of this the drainage from the fills is affecting the water supply. He goes on to talk about how the officials at certain agencies continue to produce illegal permits knowing that the fills are not what they should be. An example that he uses for the sympathetic mind is in the chapter that he talks about Robbert Kennedy's visit to Kentucky. Robbert Kennedy felt strongly enough to visit Kentucky and try to raise awareness to the trouble that the coal mining was creating. He could have just over looked it and went on to speak somewhere else but he knew by speaking there he had a chance to do something good and help out the people effected by it.

The quote that stood out to me the most in the conclusion of Lost Mountain was on page 231 when Reece stated "Why are we as Americans so stubbornly immune to understanding the world as something miraculous, as something imbued with spirit, as something worth preserving?" Although this quote would be considered on the short side, i feel that it packs a big punch. It opened my eyes to the fact that me along with most Americans do not realize how beautiful of a country we live in. We all know that there wont be many changes in our environment during our lifetime, but what about the people that come hundreds of years after us. We should all want people that come after us to experience the same wonderful country that we were able to experience and to see the many different things that we take for granted on a daily basis. If we don't decide to do something about this, we will be destroying our country for the generations that come after us.

blog post asignment for LM, Wed.

Do both A and B and post them both in  the same post.  Due Wednesday by class time. 

A. Explain in your own words Wendell Berry’s distinction between a “rational” and a “sympathetic” mind, and then using that distinction, identify and discuss two examples from the last third of Lost Mountain where Reece exhibits his own “sympathetic” mind. 

B. Select and reproduce a quote from the conclusion chapter of LM that you find significant.  Make sure you quote accurately and include the page number in a parenthesis at the end of the quote.  The quote should be more than one sentence and express a complete thought.  Then comment on this quote. Poke it and prod it. Connect it to other things.  Poke and prod your mind and see what happens and express this encounter as well as you can.

Asher, Sarah, Kenzie, Cullen

1)We should care because there are so many useful things in the forest. There are a lot of plants that are anti-carcinogens, and the ecosystem in the forest helps make the air and water around cleaner. It acts as a free filtration system. We also just can't recreate this environment in one day, it takes millions of years for the forest to get back to its "natural" state. The book says by 2030 1/5 of plant and animal species will be extinct. This is a huge number that eventually leads to the extinction of humans. The coal economy is not going to last long either so why would anyone spend money supporting something that will run out.

2)The political chapter really puts things in perspective. There is a vicious cycle of money and control in the government. The agencies that are supposed to be regulating the coal companies are actually making it easier for them to break rules and harder for the people living there to fight for their lives. He says that the EPA sat up beside the coal companies lawyers. That says a lot about how hard it is to fight these issues.

3)We think that we have learned a lot about how the forests are useful to our everyday lives. The example of the New York City water system shows how amazing the forest is, and how much money keeping the forests intact save us. They could have spent millions of dollars to build a filtration system that would have continued to cost millions in upkeep but instead they just used the natural resources we have available to help filtrate their water. The book seems to affect us a little more than someone on the other side of the country because we are so close to the problem. This makes us have stronger beliefs and wants to help the people of eastern Kentucky.

4)Reece is a very good writer and researcher. He backs up all his opinions with facts. He lived in this area for a year, so we get to hear his first hand accounts not stories he has read. We also get to hear personal stories and fights that help appeal to our emotional sides. He also does a good job appealing to people of all different backgrounds. We didn't like how he always includes poems and songs. Sometimes they don't really seem to relate, and it almost feels as if he is trying to hard to get sympathy out of the readers.

5)Olson is just saying that the way a typical American lives is just as harmful to the environment as strip mining is. Why should we feel so bad for this small area, when we are continuously polluting the earth in other ways. We think Reece would agree with this statement, but he would ask why should we just turn our heads on the problem because there are other problems in the rest of the world.

LM Group Responses Joe Kerry Max Mike

1) Well, we don't really eat squirrels, and so on a purely utilization basis, other species of animals that are dying out from our interaction with the environment is just an unfortunate byproduct of human life. However, we do understand that all nature is connected, and so eventually the decline of other species could affect us.

2) The breaks keep the book fresh. The shorter chapters make the book more dynamic, and the anecdotes keep the very bleak and repetitive story of the mountain's destruction somewhat more interesting. One question: there's so much controversy involving other strip mining sites... where is the controversy involving lost mountain? Maybe it'll come later in the book, but we think it would add some substance to the book.

3) We think that Reece is assuming that his story will change you. However, he assumes that you feel just like him about all of these issues... if you do, then you think his writing is amazing. If you don't you're left wanting more. As far as values, we haven't changed our actions at all... what change can we make that will directly alleviate this problem? Also, if the situation is so bad here, the question of why people don't move away was raised.

4) We enjoy his jokes and sarcasm, and the occasional colorful (aka profane) language adds some variety. However we feel he is pretty repetitive. The mountain is being destroyed, we get it already. Also, we feel like he is ignoring some social issues that are probably affecting the situation, such as some kind of class struggle.

5) Ultimately the coal company needs to be more responsible. Even if we cut down our energy consumption by 50%, why would the coal company stop mining coal? It's inherent in the name of the company: coal. We would expect the government to step in and protect the rights of its citizens, but when the government is profiting heavily also from the coal industry it doesn't make sense for them to stop it. By this analysis, there is no hope for the people of eastern Kentucky.

LM Group Questions

Becca Moore
Shawna Polivka
Pat Ferguson
Dave Landers

1. The economy of coal is a relatively short-sighted solution to our resource problem, while creating a long term problem for the forests and ultimately for us. When we look at the value of the economy of coal, one has to think about how it is benefiting the population - for example, heat and electricity. However, this is at the expense of our forests which could supply us with plants containing anti-carcinogens and oxygen. When Reece says species diversity "holds the secret to the perpetuation of human life," he is saying that we need to stop taking away species from the ecosystem before it collapses entirely.

2. The alternating chapters give us two different perspectives that allow us to see what he is seeing, while keeping in mind the negative affects it has on real people. This helps us associate the facts of mountain top removal with the emotions of the people it is directly affecting. Sometimes when we hear the broad perspective, it's hard for us to emotionally connect to the problem. However, the emotional appeal through specific stories gives us a reason to care. An example that affects us as readers was the chapter called "White Washing in Martin County." He uses personal stories to relate outrageous tactics by the EPA to cover up criminal acts of the coal companies. Aside from just explaining what he is seeing, as a reader we now have a reason to care.

3. Reece believes that educating readers about the cost of clean tap water will drive people to put more effort into finding alternative energy sources. As a group, we agree that the book so far has not changed our beliefs, values or actions because we already felt like we needed to save energy. It has enlightened us on the effects it has on the people living in the area of coal mining, but we have already begun making an effort to save electricity and we will continue to do so.

4. We would emulate the emotional appeal he incorporates into his writing because it really keeps us involved in the stories. He keeps his points short, helping us get through some of the harder parts to read. His blunt facts are important, but some of the statistics weigh the story down.

5. Our group believes that it is both us and the coal companies who are contributing to the downfall of Appalachia. Because the demand for cheap energy is so high, society as a whole is to blame for giving the coal companies a reason to mine the way they do. In order to change that, we not only need to save energy in our homes, but we need to demand alternative fuels by relaying this message to other people.

Susan Rauh, Mitch Barley, Paul Kolbe, Anthony Cable

1. Reece talks about how the coal companies don't understand the value of destruction itself, the only value they see is coal. They don't see the value in the destruction of the whole environment. When you destroy something, when you value it your will show some type of remorse, in this case coal companies show no remorse and make no effort to preserve the current way of life. If you destroy the plants with the cancer curing agent, then you are destroying life itself. Diversity in human life is very important and by destroying diversity it is detrimental to the human race because diversity is such a positive thing. Diversity brings a unique quality to life that you wouldn't otherwise have; to destroy it denies humanity that quality.
2. Reece does a good job with these few chapters because bringing in other specific issues and events persuades the reader in a more effective manor. He goes beyond telling what he sees and gives real life examples that tend to enhance the ethical appeal. In the chapter titled "Acts of God," Reece exposes the reader to real life events and hardships directly tied to strip mining. It gives you a deeper, more meaningful understanding of the issues correlated to strip mining. Weaving back and forth between the specific chapters and his journal you get the full spectrum of knowledge.
3. Reece assumes that by making people aware of these issues that awareness can act like a catalyst for change. As a group, we have become more aware of our everyday energy consumption. The more energy we use, the more others suffer. It also gets us talking about something that we would otherwise never talk about. Being aware of the truth of striping mining makes us want to somehow contribute to positive change.
4. Reece uses ethos, logos and pathos along with statistics. His use of statistics given an objective credibility, he provides irrefutable statistics. Pathos-Reece provides the very emotional and personal stories dealing with individuals and how coal mining has effected their lives. When you think about getting electricity, you turning on a light switch has a negative impact on someone else's life. The issue as a whole is an ethical and moral issue at heart and Reece takes advantage of almost all opportunities to capitalize on appealing to readers emotion.
5. We as the people demand cheap energy and coal provides that, therefore Reece probably wants the reader to take a step back and look at the way we live our lives. Reece would probably think despite the fact we now know what tragic effects strip mining has, we still demand cheap energy. By writing this book, even if only one person changes their way of living down the road, Reece would view that as a success. Maybe this would even create a domino effect.

Lost Mountain Group Post

Matt Hunter, Matt Proctor, Sam Chan, Jeff King

1. The value of this Appalachian region is the very unique and important ecosystem and it is quickly being destroyed by the effects of mountain top removal coal mining. This whole ecosystem is one economy and as you start to break it apart then the economy begins to fail. Once this happens then everything else it affects cannot function. Everyday the coal mining adds pollution and waste to the environment that is destroying this ecosystem. Coal does bring about one benefit with cheap and usable energy, but it comes at a huge price in destroying the environment around it. This is all at stake when coal is used as a main energy source. As the forests are being destroyed the species are becoming less diverse and begin to inner breed among themselves which eventually weakens the entire species, like the flying squirrel.

2. He is showing the coal mining, then takes you out of it to show you the bigger picture of what is happening with the whole cycle of coal mining. It is affecting the government with laws being passed, it affects the people around the coal mining, and the environment. He also takes us into the actions that activists take and people take who do not want to succumb to the coal companies in giving up their land and homes. It's hard for us as outsiders from central Appalachia to completely put ourselves in the shoes of the people who this is affecting. It is definitely easy to sympathize with these people's situations because it's hard to imagine life like that of central Appalachians in the coal mining regions. It has affected their lands, their religion with destroying churches, and then it has affected the environment around them which is definitely wrong to do.

3. What Reece has written about has definitely affected our beliefs. To go back to things we mentioned in question 2, it's hard to put yourself in the shoes of these people who are being affected by coal mining. It's definitely something that would make life harder. Reece talks about how people who live in Louisville could pay to get the forests replaced, which in turn would clean their water, instead of spending money right now for clean water that is destroying the forests in Eastern Kentucky.

4. Reece does a very good job at pointing out all sides of the argument. He lets everybody get their word in, even though he clearly disagrees with mountain top removal. He brings in the whole picture with politics and the people around it on both sides. Reece also does a good job at grabbing the emotions of the reader and trying to put them into the shoes of the people who this coal mining is really affecting.

5. The reason the coal companies are using mountain top removal is because it is the quickest way to meet the large demand of coal in this country. American's use coal every day as a main energy source and in order for the coal companies to continue to produce it for us they have to use this type of mining. We can change that being energy efficient and using alternative sources of energy.

Group Discussion Questions, LM, part 2

Group Discussion Questions on Lost Mountain, p. 86-162. Groups of three to four, but not more than four. Discuss these questions and compose some notes on each. Post these in the main course blog with the names of all in the group.

1) Reece educates us readers on the declining numbers of some ‘indicator species” in central Appalachia due to forest fragmentation (mainly the Cerulean Warbler and the Flying Squirrel). Reece contrasts two “economies,” that of the forest (nature relatively unmolested) and the economy of coal. Consider the concept of “value” in the destruction Reece writes about and discuss what is at stake and why we should/should not care. On p. 100, Reece writes that preserving species diversity “holds the secret to the perpetuation of human life.” What does he mean by this? Put this in the mix.

2) Discuss Reece’s strategy (so far in our reading) of alternating chapters of his month by month visits to Lost Mountain with chapters focused on specific issues, events (such as the Martin County, KY sludge flood), politics, victims and activists, and so on. Use an example to make some points about how this affects you as readers.

3) Reece writes that most people living in Louisville don’t know about how the cost of clean tap water in their city connects with the loss of eastern forests and the consumption of coal (109). Reece wants to educate readers about it. What does he assume about the possible effects of becoming knowledgeable about all these connections, the destruction, and so on? Do you think that what you have learned from the book so far (or already knew) affects your beliefs, values, and actions? If yes, explain how; if not explain why.

4) Reece’s writing has some notable characteristics. Identify some characteristics you might want to emulate and imitate. Indicate why. Name some you might NOT want to emulate and imitate and explain why.

5) In “The Ecovillage” chapter, p. 156-62, Reece quotes Berea college ecologist, Richard Olson: “Who is destroying the mountains of eastern Kentucky and West Virginia? . . . It isn’t the coal companies. It’s us” (161). Discuss his point. What might Reece think of that, given how much of Lost Mountain exposes and indicts the coal corporations? Is this an either/or distinction? Or both/and? Discuss Olson’s next point: “Okay, forget the guilt. How can we change that?”

Group Discussion Responses

Wendy Goldfarb, Brian Lachman, Maxx Blank

1. Nature acts as an economy where each aspect works as a team player to provide for something else. Our economy works the same, however, it’s based on monetary units, which causes greed to become part of the picture. Yes, the coal industries are adding infrastructure, but do it’s negative effects outweigh it’s positive? Nature has an unwritten, but set plan. It seems that our species, with our focus on our own economy, has disrupted nature’s economy, which is inevitably causing disruption in nature’s plan. Coal mining has gone in and stripped areas of Appalachia of it’s own natural economies in order to focus on the monetary value of their land. They attempt to justify themselves by “reclaiming” the land, and replacing it with foreign ecosystems that don’t necessarily mesh into the natural economy surrounding them. Nature has managed just fine without the help of humans through the past five extinctions. It’s seems that we’re more dependent on the natural economy than it is dependent on us. Thinking logically, everything on earth is interconnected and when we disrupt the natural order of things it can have a negative impact.

2. Reece’s strategy of alternating chapters between visits and discussing personal issues allows the reader to relate to the mountain top removal on a more personal level. It brings the situation more to life with the knowledge of the people and issues surrounding the area. The story of Debra Burke, a woman who killed herself after her land and garden had gotten repeatedly destroyed due to fly rock, is a heart-wrenching story. After hearing of such devastation, reading about the strip mining occurring on Lost Mountain hits home even more.

3. Educating the people of Louisville about the cost of clean tap water in their homes could potentially help fight against mountain top removal. Louisville is a big city, full of educated, well-respected people. If the citizens of Louisville became aware of the filtration necessary for them to receive clean drinking water, it could cause an uproar that the coal companies couldn’t ignore. Just reading this book has most definitely affected our beliefs about the coal industry and mountain top removal. It’s not something we had previously thought about on a regular basis. While reading this book, we’ve learned quite a bit of information that has made us more environmentally aware.

4. It seems Reece really knows how to make you feel awful through his style of writing. He personifies the issues by bringing in the stories of real people that we can relate to. This makes the issues come alive. This is definitely a useful characteristic to use in our own persuasive writing without assuming to be a one sided argument. His use soft news makes the hard news even more emotionally appealing to the audience. He also uses hard facts to back up his statements, making them hard to not believe. Something we might not want to emulate is Reece’s tendency to be very one-sided. In order to be fully educated on the coal industry and mountain top removal, Reece should really include the positive aspects of coal. The book is obviously biased, but if the reader was able to view both sides than they could make a decision for themselves. Reece tries to make the decision for the reader and almost guilt them into an anti-coal state of mind.

5. Olson’s quote is entirely right. We ARE the people destroying the mountains. We support the coal industry simply by paying our electric bills every month. It’s partially the responsibility of the consumer to look into alternative forms of energy, such as installing solar panels. Reece may or may not agree with this statement, because it is true that most of America is blind to the corruption of the coal industry. We think it’s not entirely the coal industry’s fault because a lot of the employees working for such companies are simply trying to support their families. It’s not entirely anyone’s fault, for that matter. It’s just the way the entire system works. The main thing that needs to happen to change the system is education and government regulation. Students need to become aware of the corruption and devastation happening around them, and the elected government officials need to protect the people, not just their wallets.

OU eco house

See this link for info on ecohouse:

http://www.ohio.edu/ecohouse/

Group questions LM, Pt2

Ben Ziraldo
Brandon Fude
Vince Gerbec
Holly Ruwe

Question 1
Reece makes the argument against coal mining because we are losing our natural habitat, losing clean water, and many natural resources in the region around Lost Mountain. However he says that mining loses a big energy source and it is one of the cheapest forms of energy. Also he talks about the loss of jobs from the coal industry. Although he believes people that mountaintop coal removal needs to stop he does provide reasons why people are opposed. When he states about the perpetuation of human life he means earth has been here so long its not natural to change it. Also he states that the earth has survived 4 mass extinctions already, and it can survive another.

Question 2
Reece's strategy of alternating chapters between his visits to Lost Mountain and accounts of specific issues and events is a very effective strategy. His decision to tell us about specific people and animals affected helps us relate and then his first hand account of the mountain itself helps us sympathize with those people and animals. That way we can relate the negative effects of strip coal mining to more than just the people of Lost Mountain and take a stance on against mountain top mining all over the world not just at Lost Mountain.

Question 3
Reece gives an example of the people in Louisville not knowing about how their clean tap water is being affected by deforestation and coal mining. He, like many other environmental authors, assumes that becoming knowledgeable about the cause of the problem will motivate people being negatively affected by it to do something about it. We think it's nearly impossible to read a book like "Lost Mountain" and not have your beliefs and values affected whether it be a positive affect or negative affect. None of us were very knowledgeable about mountain top mining before reading this book, but hearing the facts and real-life accounts of the people and animals alike changes how we feel about mountain top mining and coal energy.

Question 4
Reece's writing has some very notable characteristics. What first strikes us is that his writing is easy to read and well organized. He does a good job getting his points across using facts and even small moments of humor. His style of alternating the chapters from his first-hand accounts of Lost Mountain and stories of those effected by mountain top mining grabs us as readers and makes it a lot easier for us to sympathize. If his style of writing was to only talk about what he found at Lost Mountain, he would be less credible in a way because he's only telling his side of the story.

Question 5
Richard Olson's point that the destruction of the mountains in eastern Kentucky and West Virginia can and should be blamed on us and not the coal companies is one we don't entirely agree with. Yes, we as consumers use the electricity provided by coal, which is taken, at times, from the very mountains we're discussing. However, to say that the coal companies are not to blame at all is unreasonable. We feel that the blame should fall evenly on both shoulders. Let's keep in mind that the coal companies aren't exactly non-profit organizations. They stand to make large sums of money from the destruction of these environments. We feel that we should be spending less time pointing fingers and more time finding a solution.

Group Answers to Questions

Chelsea Stoner
Erin Crane
Eric Eatan
Katey Mueller

1) We should care because some of the plants that are becoming extinct can be used to help cure cancer, the water that humans are drinking is contaminated with materials that can ultimately cause cancer, and lastly it creates lots of harmful waste that can't be used. In nature there is no such thing as waste.

2) As there is more destruction on the mountain, it seems like the stories that Reece is telling become more compelling and persuasive by sharing stories that are far more enlightening and depressing . We found the following stories to be much more compelling than the stories from the previous reading: The statistics on the rate of extinction among various species and how it has increased over time, the idea that most people won't be able to see the flying squirrel, the corruption of the coal companies, and the story about the sludge in Kentucky.

3) We have learned that strip mining is a bigger problem than what most people think. It lacks media coverage and leaves most citizens without the tools and information necessary to make a change. For the most part our group agreed that this book has changed our values and beliefs and caused to strive for the end of mountain top removal.

4) We would want to emulate Reece's writing strategy. Throughout the book, he starts each chapter with a powerful message and ends with a powerful message which leaves the reader with a clearer and more memorable message. Some things we would not want to emulate is his laid back manner of telling a story, the statistics he throws in throughout sometimes get a little long, and some of the information is hard to understand for first time readers of the coal mining issues.

5) Demand is driving the need for coal, but ultimately it is the coal companies that are getting the coal in the cheapest possible way. That cheapest possible way happens to be the most destructive. We can end the guilt by trying to find alternative sources of power.

Blog Questions: Lauren, Maddie, Kyle, and Alison

1.) When defining "value" it seems important to distinguish the difference between the value the coal companies are addressing and the value of the natural world. The coal companies are valuing things like money and economic gain. The value associated with the natural world seems to be held within the actual worth of the land. The worth of the land is not limited to economic values, but carries through from the plants, animals, and the human beings living around it. Nature's value surpasses monetary issues, nature hold a significant amount of sentimental/spiritual value as well. On the issue presented on pg. 100, Reece seems to be making a comment on the fact that humans are unable to think in terms of the future. We need to be able to live now, and be able to understand that what we do now effects the people of the future.

2.) Reece alternates between factual information and real people accounts in order to keep the reader interested. There is not a long succession of fact followed by several interviews, he mixes it up. "At one of the town meetings, the EPA told people that there was nothing in the slurry that wasn't on the periodic table." (pg. 133) This example stuck out to our group because although this statement is true, it terrible undercuts the credibility of the EPA. Of course these elements are on the periodic table, but sprinkling plutonium on your cupcake does not make for a wonderful day. Accounts like this as well as Reece's month-by-month visits to Lost Mountain help to support the pressing nature of the events being discussed.

3.) Awareness is the first step to a solution. By Reece writing this book, more and more people are becoming aware of this particular problem. Some people were never aware of issues such as mountain top removal and thus, not able to do anything about it. Things as simple as not buying bottled water, and turning of the lights when you leave a room can help to lessen the demand of coal powered energy. Reece is making a comment to his readers that all of the little things add up, he is trying to win a lot of little battles because trying to win one big battle may prove to be fruitless.

4.) As stated before Reece alternates between factual information and real person interviews to keep the interest of the reader. Also, the tone he uses when writing helps to take him more seriously, the reader knows he is a real person and not just a person on a soapbox. Our group agrees that we appreciate the fact that Reece is out getting his hands dirty, he is in the thick of it. Any person can sit around and say "That's horrible" but here is a man out doing and telling about it.

5.) Reece is again showing his reader that although the coal mining industry is destructive, that they are simply supplying our demand. We feel that Reece would agree with Olson's statement, that he is again presenting multiple views of this situation in order to gain credibility. We should not feel bad, that wastes time. Instead Reece urges us to do something about this issue. He uses the example of other alternative energies, such as wind power, that are not being harnessed.

Group Discussion Questions, LM, part 2

Group Discussion Questions on Lost Mountain, p. 86-162. Groups of three to four, but not more than four. Discuss these questions and compose some notes on each. Post these in the main course blog with the names of all in the group.

1) Reece educates us readers on the declining numbers of some ‘indicator species” in central Appalachia due to forest fragmentation (mainly the Cerulean Warbler and the Flying Squirrel). Reece contrasts two “economies,” that of the forest (nature relatively unmolested) and the economy of coal. Consider the concept of “value” in the destruction Reece writes about and discuss what is at stake and why we should/should not care. On p. 100, Reece writes that preserving species diversity “holds the secret to the perpetuation of human life.” What does he mean by this? Put this in the mix.

2) Discuss Reece’s strategy (so far in our reading) of alternating chapters of his month by month visits to Lost Mountain with chapters focused on specific issues, events (such as the Martin County, KY sludge flood), politics, victims and activists, and so on. Use an example to make some points about how this affects you as readers.

3) Reece writes that most people living in Louisville don’t know about how the cost of clean tap water in their city connects with the loss of eastern forests and the consumption of coal (109). Reece wants to educate readers about it. What does he assume about the possible effects of becoming knowledgeable about all these connections, the destruction, and so on? Do you think that what you have learned from the book so far (or already knew) affects your beliefs, values, and actions? If yes, explain how; if not explain why.

4) Reece’s writing has some notable characteristics. Identify some characteristics you might want to emulate and imitate. Indicate why. Name some you might not want to emulate and imitate and explain why.

5) In “The Ecovillage” chapter, p. 156-62, Reece quotes Berea college ecologist, Richard Olson: “Who is destroying the mountains of eastern Kentucky and West Virginia? . . . It isn’t the coal companies. It’s us” (161). Discuss his point. What might Reece think of that, given how much of Lost Mountain is an expose and indictment of the coal corporations? Is this an either/or distinction? Or both/and? Discuss Olson’s next point: “Okay, forget the guilt. How can we change that?”

Sludge--Martin County KY spill

Lost Mountain

Erik Reese brings up a lot of good points about the destruction of mountaintops. The problem that it causes on the environment and the animals that live in the forest are not to be overlooked. As I am reading Lost Mountain it is making me more aware of the trouble and problems that mountain top removing is causing. The homes that are in the area of Lost Mountain are at risk of cracking walls and shifting the base and foundation of the house that can cause it to fall or become almost useless. The streams that are buried and valleys that are filled are not worth it. The wildlife and trees that are being destroyed is not healthy for humans and animals. I thought he brought up a good point about how coal companies will destroy the land and then try to rebuild it and call it a tourist attraction. And that it can be used for ‘public use’. I knew that strip mining wasn’t good but I was unaware of the destruction and desolation that it causes in a beautiful forested area. The process of strip mining is devastating to the Appalachian Mountains.

I was in a category of ‘didn’t care’. This was because I was unaware of the facts and the true desolation of the forests and effects on the forest and wildlife that strip mining has. I am still undecided about the issue but I do think that it needs to be taken care of sooner rather than later.

LM pg85

Erice Reece is strongly opposed to mountaintop removal because of the damages it causes to the nearby wildlife and citizens and because it is destroying and eliminating chunks of our earth that are pretty much impossible to replace. There are several effects of mountaintop removal including the fact that the Appalachian mountains are home to a diverse group of trees and animals and by bringing in heavy machinery and causing total devastation to the area, it is ruining the wildlife and also makes it difficult for scientists to study certain species that used to be native to the area. His main point is that coal companies are demolishing large areas of land (the Appalachian mountains in particular) without providing any compensation or replacement of the wildlife that is ruined. Another huge problem is the fact that laws have been either ignored or revised in favor of the mining companies and pretty much allows companies to dump the matter from the explosions into the water and nearby areas. This has also caused many illnesses and deaths from the chemicals and toxins that are leaked into streams and the water supply of the people who live close to the area.

Reece mentions the various reasonings that companies and supporters of mountaintop removal, such as providing an abundant amount of energy, cheap coal, the wildlife return after the mining, and several other claims that ignore the aversive side effects and praise the highly “efficient” mode of extracting coal.

By putting myself in this situation the problems seem much larger than by just thinking about it happening miles and miles away. It’s scary to think that cheap coal and this way of mining is supposedly good for the state and that it should be beneficial to the Kentuckians. This is not the case at all and it makes me sick to think that these people are still so poor and can easily get ill from this and no one is doing anything to help them. I also can understand where Reece is coming from when he describes the beauty and life that fills the Appalachian mountains and how mountaintop removal is ruining everything there is to appreciate about the wildlife and scenic views of the Appalachian mountains. He also makes a great point when he mentions the fact that the Mayan civilization used up all of their resources and only thought in the short term and what we are currently doing today will horribly affect us in the long run if we don’t stop to think logically about what we are doing and what problems we are causing.

blog post asignment for LM, Monday

In Lost Mountain, Eric Reece makes different kinds of arguments for stopping mountaintop removal coal mining.  One major strand of his overall argument asserts the value of the unspoiled, “contiguous” forests of central Appalachia.  What kinds of reasons does he offer?  In your own words, describe this perspective, express his main points about this, and contrast this perspective with the one against which he argues.  Then try to relate your own perspective to these--place yourself as best as you can in this debate.  If you can, draw on your personal experiences in doing that, in the way that Reece does.

Your post should be in the neighborhood of 300 words. Go over if needed, but not by a huge amount.  Edit and proofread. Please post this by class time on Monday. 

--Dr R

Clean Coal

I thought that the site for “America’s Power” seemed to give information and sources that supported their stance for clean coal but the further I read I noticed that the website seems to be sugarcoating the issue of using coal to generate energy and makes it seem like coal is our only option. The site claims to have “facts” and that its opponents have no proof or reasoning behind their claims. This site doesn’t seem to be giving as much information as I would expect and doesn’t seem to be as honest and straight-forward as the website for “This is Reality”. I felt that this site gave much more information on what clean coal is and is not. I also think that this site had a more open view and discussed different ways on reducing greenhouse gases than the other site had. Clean Coal is supposed to be a new way of using and creating energy without emitting greenhouse gases.

“This is Reality” is giving a stance on how to generate energy and power for our country with as little pollution as possible. This site also discusses the fact that no plant in the US uses clean coal or permanently stores CO2. “America’s Power” focuses on the fact that the US has such an abundant amount of coal that it is necessary for our country to obtain and use coal to generate power. “This is Reality” suggests that we take smaller steps in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by using/taking part in the available technology that is proven to reduce emissions and to wait until we are sure that clean coal technology can be produced and will be effective and beneficial towards reducing the harmful gases into our atmosphere.

It seems that the site for “America’s Power” is aiming towards an audience that is either unaware or uninterested in the problems of pollution, such as wealthy people and those who care greatly about technology and obtaining energy in order to do what they want. The other website seems to be aiming towards people who aren’t really sure of the position our country is in but want to help and raise their awareness of the situation. “This is Reality” is sponsored by MIT CO2 Capture and Storage Project, Center for Global Development, IEA Greenhouse Gas R&G Program, and Sierra Club Environmental Law Program. I think that the support from these groups provide a lot of credibility because they study this for a living and see this issue as very serious because they are taking the Earth’s and the citizens’ future into account. “America’s Power” on the other hand, is sponsored by companies that produce/use coal and have no sponsors from organizations that deal with the environment or greenhouse gas emissions.

“America’s Power” uses emotional appeal by discussing the large amount of coal our country has and how this supply could sustain us for the next 200 years. The site is trying to appeal to those who take part in using and/or supporting companies and products that require pollution in order to gain what they want or “need”. I think that “This is Reality” is more concerned with informing us about what clean coal really is and uses facts and resources that are really effective in getting the reader to understand our options and our current position.

“This is Reality” has an important visual representation of the canary dying because of the pollution we are causing. The other site is quite plain and unappealing.

I believe “This is Reality” is more persuasive because it covers almost all areas of the issues and is out to help our environment and atmosphere from further deteriorating. “America’s Power” only focuses on why coal is so great and ignores the other serious problems that surround the process of getting and using coal.

"Clean" Coal

When I first visited the Clean Coal web-site, I noticed that it was very simple. It featured a white background, with soft colors and a professional looking lay-out. The web-site also featured a few individuals who work within the coal and electric industries. The web site attempts to appeal to the average person who wants to learn more about clean coal. There are many statistics and facts about clean coal technology and the research that is being done to improve coal. The "This is Reality" web-site was much more different. The first image on the web-sie is of a cartoon yellow canary. It is bright yellow and contrasted with a dark, black background. This is somewhat a metaphor to the "clean" coal notion, as if to say that coal is actually not clean at all. There are factoids about clean coal that are presented on the screen, all of which feature the canary flying into them and then falling to the ground shortly after. This web-site uses humor to try and convey their message, that clean coal in fact doesn't exist. The clean coal web-site appeals more to me because it is more professional looking, and seems to have more sources of information to back up it's research.

The clean coal web-site is attempting to argue that clean coal is currently 77% cleaner than regular coal. This is based off of how much emissions and CO2 are released into the atmosphere. This stat is based on five pollutants and has been compiled by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. According to thisisreality.org, this is not the case. Th web-site states that burning coal is the dirtiest way to produce electricity. It continues to state that coal cannot be considered "clean" until it's CO2 emissions are captured and stored safely. At the moment, there are no coal producing plants that are doing this, according to the web-site.

The audience for both sites is anyone who may be interested in learning about clean coal research or finding some facts about clean coal. The sponsor of the americaspower website happens to be the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. This coalition is made up of the industries involved in producing electricity from coal, which makes sense as to why the web-site is pro clean coal. Thisisreality.org is made up of groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council, League of COnservation Voters, and the Sierra Club. Both web-sites are clearly influenced by their sponsors, and one can easily differentiate which side of the argument the web-site is on. Thisisreality.org taps into the environmentalist side, using the canary as a sort of mascot. The americaspower.com web-site uses actual people in the industry to give their web-site a more personal feeling. It uses a lot of graphs, maps, and charts to get their main points and statistics conveyed to their audience. Thisisreality.org uses the canary on each page, and each animation vary. I enjoyed watching the canary do different things as it flew into each different fact. However, the americaspower we-site seemed more credible because of the way it was set up.

Brian Lachman: "Clean" Coal

            When I first opened both of these websites I found an immediate difference. The site backing “clean” coal had a look of professionalism. The colors are mellow, light blue and green with a simple white background. The layout did not have fancy colors and cartoons, but charts and simple paragraphs expressing their argument. From the first impression, it seems to attract the regular Joe businessman. The top of the front page shows three people in casual business attire. They seem like the everyday businessperson. The slideshow quotes each person saying it is affordable and needed to run his or her business. In their arguments they seem to be quite repetitive. Every page seems to emphasize the fact that it is 77% cleaner and it is working on getting better. In only one section, it says that CO2 emission is not at regulation but quickly changes the subject. The argument looks very one-sided when you look at the members list and realize it is all coal-based industries. Its main argument is that America can rely on America because we have the coal. We use it in our day-to-day activity and it produces more than half of our electricity today. They are making the viewer ask themselves, “why find something else when we have an abundance of something we use everyday that can become cleaner?” They give us the feel that Americans love, let them take care of it, let us go on with our daily lives and they will let us know when they solved it.

The site protesting “clean” coal, however, had a completely different look and demographic. It is very clear the website is seeking younger adults. The background is black with yellow font and an immediate cartoon of a bird flying into a big bold quotation. At first impression, the view of the website is much catchier to the eye. This website is full of quotes and quick facts. The flaw in this website is that it seems as if that is all it is. It took me a second glance at the website to find the section on all the details. The argument they are expressing is that coal is still not clean. There is technology already that is clean, safe and already in use. They mainly talk about how coal is bad and leave it up to the links to explain solutions. The supporters are people trying to better the environment, not solely “clean” coal protesters. The argument does not seem as one-sided as the other website. They explain that if coal were truly clean it would be part of the solution. But the big “however” is that it is not and there is technology already there. The job of this website seems to get peoples feet wet in the subject, hoping that they will dive in.