Michael Hendryx, author of the study written up by Ken Ward Jr....
CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Coal mining costs Appalachians five times more in early deaths as the industry provides to the region in jobs, taxes and other economic benefits, according to a groundbreaking new study co-authored by a West Virginia University researcher.
In the latest in a series of papers, WVU researcher Michael Hendryx questions the idea that coal is good for West Virginia and other Appalachian communities, and recommends that political leaders consider other alternatives for improving the region's economy and quality of life.
"Coal-mining economies are not strong economies," Hendryx said in an interview last week. "[Coalfield communities] are weaker than the rest of the state, weaker than the rest of the region, and weaker than the rest of the nation."
Writing with co-author Melissa Ahern of Washington State University, Hendryx reports that the coal industry generates a little more than $8 billion a year in economic benefits for the Appalachian region.
But, Hendryx and Ahern put the value of premature deaths attributable to the mining industry across the Appalachian coalfields at -- by one of their most conservative estimates -- $42 billion.
...will be holding a live chat at the Charleston Gazette at 2 p.m. Hopefully questions from the reality based community will get through.
Meanwhile, it's Coal vs. Climate as two heavyweights agree to debate.
Dear Don,
Thanks for your offer to publicly discuss climate change, human-made global warming, and its implications for the coal industry in general and mountaintop removal in particular. That is an excellent suggestion. I would be glad to participate in a format that allows the public to become better acquainted with the science and its implications.
I had planned to return to a meeting in Washington immediately after the activities at your place on Tuesday, but to accommodate a public discussion, I will stay another day. I expect that we will be able to find a school auditorium that would be well-suited for presentations and discussion. I am scouting that out now and will get back to you with specific information.
Usually I spend close to an hour on a climate science discussion for the public, but I can shorten that to about 40 minutes, so that you can have a similar time to present your views, if you would like that much time. You are welcome to speak either before or after me. After we have both spoken, we can open it up for discussion with the public.
If for any reason you are unable to find time for this discussion on Wednesday, I will give my talk anyhow. Hopefully the public will then be able to get back to you with information and questions about how your practices relate to climate, the environment, and the future that will be faced by young people and future generations.
Thanks again for your helpful suggestion. I very much agree on the importance of reaching out to the public and increasing public understanding of scientific matters.
Sincerely,
Jim Hansen
It's not as exciting as CM Punk vs. Jeff Hardy for the heavyweight title at the Great American Bash (I refuse to simply refer to it as The Bash), but the issues at stake in this debate are very real.
|
