
Since he began reporting full-time, in 1991, Ken Ward Jr. has embodied the credo of Ned Chilton III, The Charleston Gazette’s late publisher, that the “hallmark of crusading journalism is sustained outrage.” In his twenty years covering the coal business in Appalachia, the forty-four-year-old Ward has exposed regulatory and enforcement breakdowns, as well as the corruption of corporations and individuals. In person he can be quiet, even shy, but his reporting is fierce and his sense of injustice unwavering. His work has been cited by everyone from Andrew Revkin at The New York Times to The Washington Post, PBS, and NPR. He is a three-time winner of the Scripps Howard Foundation’s Edward J. Meeman Award for Environmental Reporting. He also has received the Livingston Award for Young Journalists, an Investigative Reporters and Editors medal, and an Alicia Patterson Foundation Fellowship. In 2009, he launched Coal Tattoo, a blog on the Gazette’s website that takes its name from a Billy Ed Wheeler song. Coal Tattoo, driven by Ward’s smart, data-driven coverage, quickly became a must-read for reporters who want to understand the coal industry in the United States. CJR’s
Brent Cunningham interviewed Ward in Charleston earlier this year.
Bearing Witness
Maybe fifteen years ago, I drove up Cabin Creek hollow. This is twenty miles from the capital in Charleston, and one of the poorest areas in Kanawha County. It was Earth Day, I think, and there was some coal company-sponsored event where they were going to plant some trees. This is where the big mine at Kayford Mountain is. You’ve seen photos of Kayford Mountain, showing the effects of mountaintop removal, on the front of The New York Times and any number of places. I’m driving up there and there are kids playing along the side the road, by open sewers, because at the time they didn’t have city water and sewer service. I did a calculation—I can’t remember the numbers now but I put it in a story at the time—of how much coal is hauled out of that particular hollow every year. It was like a billion dollars. I mean, who would stand up and say that’s okay? Would the president of the company that’s mining that coal really say it was okay that he was pulling a billion dollars’ worth of coal out of there and the kids who live there are playing in open sewers? I don’t think so. But yet, if it’s kind of hidden away and the story isn’t told, then it makes it okay.
I don’t think I knew for sure I wanted to be a reporter until I interned at the Gazette in 1989. That was the summer of the Pittston coal strike, and for some reason the editors decided it was a good idea to send an intern who had never been to southern West Virginia and didn’t know anything about the coal industry to cover the strike. They had a business writer covering it, and they sent me to do a color feature on the striking miners re-enacting the Blair Mountain march. Somehow that morphed into me being the main person covering the strike. They used to joke that, you know, “We’ll send you out to the picket line, and it’ll be okay, because you’re not on the company health plan.” I spent the summer riding around with Jim Noelker, who was a photographer at the Gazette, talking to coal miners. And that was it for me. There was something about meeting a group of people who were different from people I’d grown up with, yet the same, because, you know, coal miners in southern West Virginia are really a lot like the people who worked at the paper mill that was the big employer in my hometown. Just working people who wanted to get done with their day and go home and be with their families. Standing on picket lines and talking to coal miners, hearing stories about the last time they were on strike—I was a little naïve, but there was a romanticism to it. But also the Pittston strike was about a coal company trying to break the union and not have a big contract with good benefits, and particularly good health-care benefits for their pensioners. The injustice of all of that, that these broken-down old miners who had given their health and in some cases their lives for coal were being robbed essentially of the health care they’d been promised. I really liked telling that story. And it seemed to me that if what was happening was laid out for people clearly, they would see that it wasn’t right.
Big, Dumb Projects
One of the first stories that I took on was this out-of-state garbage story. There’d been a number of proposals, framed as economic development, for these big garbage dumps, and most of them had been beaten down. But when I came to the Gazette there was one that was being proposed for McDowell County, the poorest of the poor in West Virginia, and the whole view in Charleston was, “Well, the people in McDowell County want it.” I knew some people from McDowell County, and they told me that wasn’t true. There was an environmental reporter at the Gazette at the time who was convinced that the people there wanted it, so he wasn’t writing about it. I remember going in to [editor] Don Marsh—and this wasn’t my beat—and I said, “We need to write about this.” I’d been there like three months, and I’m challenging these people who had been there a long time. I was one of Marsh’s boys, you know; he hired me, and he always kind of had my back, and he said, “Okay, go down there, see what you find out.” I ended up writing probably two dozen stories about it over the course of the next six, eight months, and they ended up building a landfill but it was a much smaller one than what was originally planned; it wasn’t this giant, out-of-state thing. And then we took on this thing about a big pulp mill that was proposed in Mason County, and I wrote hundreds and hundreds of stories about that. Well, it never got built. That was the beginning of a series of stories about big, dumb projects. And there was something satisfying about that. But at the same time, there was a guy who worked for the PR agency that was promoting that McDowell County landfill. I remember him giving me this lecture about how if I was going to be a successful investigative journalist I needed to find something that I was in favor of, instead of just writing about things that are wrong. And that still sticks with me; he was twisting what was really going on. Because you’re against something doesn’t mean you’re not for other things. Saying that economic development for southern West Virginia need not mean taking everybody else’s trash—inherent in that is the idea that there are other kinds of economic development that might be better.
I think that most journalists, certainly in America today, are dishonest with the public by telling them that they’re objective. I used to go give talks at some of the trade groups in West Virginia, and I’d use this Hunter S. Thompson quote—that objective journalism is a pompous contradiction in terms—and people would always say, “A-ha! That proves it! Ken Ward’s biased, we knew it all along.” And then I would say, “Well, let’s talk about my biases.” And I would say things like, “You know, I think everybody should be able to earn a living so they can take care of their families. I think everybody should have clean water to drink. I think everybody should have clean air to breathe. I think every kid deserves to have a chance at a good education. I think that everybody ought to share in the wealth of our nation.” Nobody ever really wanted to disagree with any of that. But they didn’t really like how it manifested itself in stories.
I guess somebody could say I’m being pompous, that if everyone would just see it my way… And maybe there’s some truth to that. But there’s a difference between an inherent, emotional bias against something and really looking at it in a scientific sort of manner. I guess that’s one way my own thinking about some of this has evolved—and it goes back to my dad. He was a high school chemistry and biology teacher, and he used to preach scientific method sort of stuff. If you’re going to go at journalism the way I do, that there are injustices that need to be exposed, then you also need to do what scientists do and rigorously examine whether there’s evidence that shows that your hypothesis is wrong. These days I probably spend more time trying to read what the coal industry says about mine safety or air pollution or whatever than I do reading what environmental groups say about it. Because I want to understand what they’re saying.
True Facts, False Facts
I did this thing not long ago on my blog, I went to hear Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito at the Coal Association Meeting. She was waving some piece from some right-wing columnist about how the EPA was going to regulate spilled milk. It flows great with Republican ideas, you know, but it’s not true. And so I wrote about how she was doing this and it wasn’t true, and with the blog I can link to the Federal Register notice so readers can see for themselves. But at the same time, that guy’s column got linked to on a bazillion websites, and anyone that types “EPA and milk” in Google News, the first thing they see is his column. There’s a lot of noise today, obviously, and it is harder to cut through and get true facts out there. But it’s even harder to dispel or debunk false facts.
There is a group called Climate Ground Zero—they’re the ones doing all the tree-sitting and stuff against mountaintop removal. They have their own blog, and they are forever putting out information that’s just not accurate. I get bombarded with these e-mails: “Why won’t you report about this? Climate Ground Zero’s the only one that will tell the whole story.” Ten years ago I would have ignored it, but it’s out there on the Internet now. But if you spend all your time debunking that stuff then you’re not getting anything else done.

Part of the reason I wanted to do Coal Tattoo was that I saw the growth of pseudo-journalism about these issues, about mountaintop removal, climate change, the coal industry. I saw this pseudo-journalism taking over the public discourse. If real journalism is to survive, I think we have to engage with that stuff to a certain extent. So much journalism that’s considered the best of the best is so self-indulgent. Here’s my three-million-word, seventeen-part series on education, that I had six computer experts and three graphic artists and seven photographers and three librarians and two interns work on with me. Don’t get me wrong, I love doing a big project, but we’ve got to do more than that. And the same kinds of tools and skills that real journalists have to sort out what’s true and what’s not true, and who’s doing what to whom and who’s winning and who’s losing public policy debates—we need to deploy those things for products other than seventeen-part series that win the Pulitzer Prize. I keep trying to get our newsroom to stop calling blog posts “posts,” because I think it makes them these kind of lesser forms of journalism. And they ought not be.
The Why and the How
My city editor always says to me, “You always have these damn documents, you don’t have any people in your stories. Go find some people.” And he’s right. When I’ve done more to get more people into my stories, they’re obviously always better. I did this big thing on how disasters aren’t the only way coal miners die, how they die one by one a lot of different ways. That’s how I learned about Bud Morris, whose picture’s on my blog. Sago [an explosion at an underground mine in Sago, West Virginia, that killed twelve miners] was January of 2006. And 2005 was the safest year ever in the coal industry. And all the stories on January 1 were about how “This has been the safest year.” Well, on December 30th, 2005, Bud had gotten killed. He was the last miner killed in the safest year in history. Then January 2, the day after New Year’s Day, Sago blows up, and all of a sudden people care that coal mines aren’t safe. Well, he had just gotten killed—what about all of these guys like him? cnn isn’t there, there’s no big press conference, the president doesn’t come and speak.
So I understand how important those stories can be. One of the big things in journalism schools now, of course, is multimedia, and everybody talks about “storytelling.” I think that maybe we need to focus a little bit less on storytelling, a little bit less on finding Joe Smith who lives near a Marcellus Shale gas well, and his story about what it was like having that big industrial complex move in next door to him, and do more of giving him information he needs to understand why that happened to him and what he could do as a citizen of this republic to change or resist the situation. I try to do stories that don’t necessarily tell about somebody who’s going through a difficult time, but that tell people who have gone through a difficult time why the hell it happened to them, and how their government let it happen, what powerful institution did it to them, and what can be done about it. Obviously, the best journalism kind of melds those things, but I’ve always been more interested in the latter than the former.
Home
Coal is a very rich topic. It’s brought this endless series of disasters—death, destruction of the land—but at the same time, to a relatively small number of people who work directly for it, it’s brought a good living… with a lot of peril that comes with that living; your life could be choked off at any minute. To an even smaller number of people—a kind of local middleman—it’s brought enormous wealth. People who are lawyers or representatives and accountants for the industry; to Charleston families who are lucky enough to have somehow ended up with significant holdings of mineral rights, it’s brought generations of idle wealth.
I saw these kids when I was growing up, and it wasn’t coal, it was the paper mill. The mill hadn’t been hiring new people for years, and as workers retired they just downsized their work force. But guys I went to school with, their grandfathers had worked there, their fathers were still working there, and they were convinced that when they got out of school they were going to get a job at the paper mill. Things are going to get booming again, it’ll be great. And what politicians in West Virginia are trying to convince people of now is, if we can just stop these crazy Obama people, then we’ll have our next coal boom and we’ll have 100,000 coal miners working in West Virginia again. Then we won’t have to worry about things like how we educate kids for some kind of future where they can live a good life and provide for their families. Because the coal industry will take care of that again.
That’s the kind of false hope that they’re trying to give people.
Way back when Jim Noelker and I used to ride around and talk to people in the coal fields, we never found one that wanted their kid to be a coal miner. They always said, “I’m doing this terrible work so that my kid can go to college.” Now, the politicians have sold this idea that coal is their only way of life, and that they need to fight to make sure their kids can do that. It’s a complete reversal, and that notion is kind of maddening.
I find, reporting about coal over the years, that when you get a really good story, a story that really explains something that isn’t right, when you listen to the criticism you get, it isn’t that the story’s wrong, it’s that you did the story in the first place. You’re disloyal. And it comes from the coal industry, of course, but from the miners too. I’ve known a lot of coal miners and I have a lot of respect for them. They do ungodly difficult and dangerous work and they deserve every penny they get paid for it. But there’s all this romanticism about coal mining. Ten thousand people died of black lung in the last decade. Is that modern?
Working at a paper the size of the Gazette in this economy is not the most fun thing in the world all the time, and on days when it’s not very much fun, it’s like, “God, why did I do this, am I crazy?” I don’t want to wake up in twenty years and think I missed some great opportunities. I’ve had chances to go to other places—bigger newspapers, a lot more money, more readers. I remember one interview, I went in asking this editor a bunch of questions, trying to see if she would convince me that this was a move I should make. I said, “Let me describe to you what I do now. I set my own agenda for what I’m going to do each day. I don’t get assignments, or very seldom get assignments; my editors trust me to sort out what’s important. So basically, I do what I want. Can you offer me a job doing that?” And of course they all say, “Wellll…” And I say, “Okay, when you can offer me that, call me.” I don’t get too many calls like that. I know people who work at bigger places that essentially get to do that; they get a year to work on one story so they can try to win another Pulitzer, or turn it into their next book. And that’s great, and there are people that do that whose work I admire a lot, and who have been great mentors to me. But I also know the kind of fights they have at bigger places, with layer after layer of editors or bureaucracy and, you know, the six months’ worth of investigative work they did gets hacked in half at the whim of some editor who may or may not know anything about the subject matter. That doesn’t appeal to me. My wife would say I’m too bullheaded and don’t like anybody telling me what to do, and she’s probably right.
West Virginia’s my home. I’ve never lived anyplace else. It is impossibly rich with things for a reporter to cover. Right now I’m focusing on coal. I’ve written about a lot of other things, and I have a huge list of things I still want to write about. And I can’t think of many places that are in need of good journalism more than West Virginia is, or what higher calling journalists have than to try to write stories that make their home a better place.
Ken Ward is awesome. We are so fortunate he chose to stay home. There's no telling how many lives he's saved, and the breadth of the impact his reporting has had on life in West Virginia is simply immeasurable.
#1 Posted by Dave White, CJR on Mon 28 Nov 2011 at 11:48 PM
So much of journalism is crumbling, but it's good to know that there are still heroes out there like Ken Ward. I follow his work, I've never lived in West Virginia, and what he reports is not exactly beckoning me to move there, but there's nothing nobler and more courageous than speaking truth to power, and nowhere in America where it's more needed. Reporters like Ken are tragically rare. Even rarer are editors and publishers who back up reporters like Ken, so congrats to the paper's leadership, too.
#2 Posted by Peter Dykstra, CJR on Tue 29 Nov 2011 at 11:17 AM
Glad to see a story on Ken Ward, Jr. and his fact-driven journalism. It's in stark contrast to some of the lazy stenography and meme-chasing that goes on.
#3 Posted by Beth Wellington, CJR on Tue 29 Nov 2011 at 12:42 PM
History has shown that when you give the EPA, or any regulatory agency for that matter, the power to regulate something it will regulate it to the extent that it is legally allowed to and many times beyond the original intent and scope of the law. While you laugh at the “spilled milk” regulation, given the government’s past behavior, it is not inconceivable that the EPA would at some point in time move to regulate bulk storage of milk as it would have fallen under the authority of the SPCC rule as written. Granted, there was an exemption proposed for the dairy industry, but that had not made it into the final rule at the time this was being discussed. It’s a similar story with the “farm dust” myth. While the agencies new proposed PM10 standards don’t specifically label dust from agricultural activities as a contributing factor in PM10 levels, any reading of the law would concluded that agricultural dust is most certainly implicitly covered. Barring specific congressional legislative action, whether or not the EPA would choose to enforce this regulation as it applies to farmers is entirely up to the EPA, but I could easily see a environmental organization that hates “big Ag” suing the EPA and forcing them to regulate bulk dairy storage under the SPCC or farm dust under the Clean Air Act. As I write this, the EPA is attempting to classify hay as a pollutant in an attempt to shut down several small ranching operations, as they could never afford to comply with the EPA’s ruling.
And yeah, coal mining is a dangerous way to make a living, but we all can’t work for Solyndra.
#4 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Tue 29 Nov 2011 at 01:06 PM
Really good to hear from Ward in his own words. The work he's been doing at the Charleston Gazette shows exactly what journalism should be about. He reads those thousand page environmental impact statements and permit documents, and he shows why it matters.
Ken Ward is a national treasure in a regional paper. He knows what matters.
#5 Posted by walden, CJR on Tue 29 Nov 2011 at 04:53 PM
Thanks for this excellent interview with Ken Ward, one of my heroes. The Charleston Gazette has for decades courageously kept the light of honesty and integrity burning in a State where the corporate money has had great sway in so many areas of life, to try to hide the truth. I don't know Mrs. Chilton, the publisher, but I am guessing that there are very few people who have done as much as she has in running the Gazette in West Virginia for the cause of free inquiry -- and that old chestnut "the rights of man" (and woman.) A great, great, newspaper. (full disclosure -- they printed my picture on page one last week. A stellar choice, readers agreed. LOL.)
#6 Posted by Thomas Rodd, CJR on Tue 29 Nov 2011 at 07:25 PM
Thank you, Ken Ward. You have done more for your fellow West Virginians than so many others, some of whom are greatly celebrated for their efforts. I agree with Tom Rodd: you are a hero.
#7 Posted by Colleen Anderson, CJR on Tue 29 Nov 2011 at 10:54 PM
How wonderful to read this interview with Ken in Ken's words. Nobody tells it better, and he has been telling the story of the proud men and women of West Virginia, lovingly, for years. Holding corporations accountable doesn't make him an enemy of prosperity; it means he wants the best for the neighbors and the state he chooses. Thank you again and again.
#8 Posted by Hilary Chiz, CJR on Wed 30 Nov 2011 at 01:00 AM
A very inspiring article for young journalist on the writing and the importance of place in journalism. Nice job CJR and Brent.
#9 Posted by John Russo, CJR on Wed 30 Nov 2011 at 07:12 AM
to: Mike H
Where O where is this documented history you speak of? Where did you get that information. I'd like to read it. Show me any regulatory agency that has done this.
Many do not even enforce the laws on the books in the first place.
I would be happier if the regulatory agencies would just enforce the original intent and scope of the law that created them. Take a look at MSHA and the Office and Surface Mining.
#10 Posted by Erle Wright, CJR on Wed 30 Nov 2011 at 04:57 PM
@ Erle Wright
I got one right off the top of my head: CO2.
Now before you start whining and kvetching about how CO2 is the most deadly plague unleashed upon man since daminozide in apple juice let me explain to you the basics of the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act mandates the EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for hazardous airborne pollutants that are "requisite to protect the public health". At the time, this referred to things like PM10, SOx, NOx, mercury, etcetera. These standards are based primarily on quantifiable health concerns and are irrespective of compliance costs. Until Massachusetts v. EPA, the EPA had no authority to regulate green house gasses as it is was never deemed a direct threat to human health, as per the original scope of the law, unless you could argue that anyone in their right mind in 1971 would have voted for a bill that gave the Fed the power to limit CO2 emissions.
So now the EPA has the authority to regulate GHG’s …. which everyone knows only refers to fossil fuel power plants (the wicked engines of progress and wealth that they are) … but what about the next step. Cars and truck, that’s a gimme, but these new rules will have the scope to cover beer and soft drinks (as its carbonated with CO2), paintball parks, farms and ranches, and yes even the lowly humble backyard compost pile.
Want to be a good steward of mother earth and take care your own trash in an eco-friendly manner … whoops, better apply for that New Source Review permit, or you will be in violation of the law!
The first step is always to get your nose under the tent (Massachusetts v. EPA) and the next steps are always to increase your authority (classifying hay as a pollutant) and selectively exercise that authority when it suits political considerations (having to hire an additional 230,000 employees to enforce a rule).
#11 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Wed 30 Nov 2011 at 05:58 PM
Except Mikey-boy, outside of your Patriot newsletter that never happens.
So yeah, aside from that, good point.
Oh. And you better take off your tinfoil hat. I hear the EPA requires you to register it so as to prevent metal poisoning. (though that too may be a plot, oooooh!)
#12 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 1 Dec 2011 at 03:31 AM
Ken Ward is the closest thing we've got to a real journalist. Unfortunately he's far from perfect when it comes to nailing down politicians over their flaws.
More than once Ward has "buried the lead" so deep within a crucial story that his own editors couldn't find it. Otherwise neither they, nor the UMW likely would ever have endorsed Joe Manchin to the U.S. Senate, considering the role his "Retail Government" policy likely played in both disasters.
One prime example is what Mr. Ward missed in his April 12, 2010 article at this link when at the end of his report he insinuated that former governor Joe Manchin publicly admitted that he'd told his Environmental Protection Agency administrators the following:
The problem isn't just what Ward left out, but the way he wrote it.Had this piece been properly composed, it would have been front page news that Manchin trotted out top administrators of not just his DEP (as Ward asserts), but Manchin's top mine safety administrators as well! Ward also left out the part where Manchin presented his regulators like they were his own personal trained show ponies ajust before he pandered -er "explained" his lethal Retail Government policy to his corporate benefactors.
That Manchin had told his agency heads to not shut the mines down when they saw grievous safety violations after the Sago deaths and prior to Upper Big Branch explosions wasn't the only time Ward missed his mark by miles.
More recently, when the UMWA issued its report called "Industrial Homicide" regarding the Upper Big Branch mine disaster, although he was there, Ward missed his opportunity to ask UMW president Cecil Roberts why his team of investigators hadn't even gone as far as an earlier report which had all but placed the responsibility onto Manchin's lethal "Retail Government" policy.
Someone else asked Roberts the question, but unfortunately Ward has been deleting that reporter's comments about Manchin's culpability and Roberts' answer from his precious Coal Tattoo blog. MUCH MORE HERE
#13 Posted by One Citizen, CJR on Thu 1 Dec 2011 at 11:42 AM
Except Mikey-boy, outside of your Patriot newsletter that never happens.
Except, of course, when it does.
#14 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Thu 1 Dec 2011 at 11:52 AM
Which, for the most part, it doesn't.
#15 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 1 Dec 2011 at 03:53 PM
You are arguing that the EPA isn’t being consistent in its application, I am arguing that it continually pushes its scope. These two concepts, amazingly enough, are not mutually exclusive.
Reading comprehension will save you some embarrassment in the future.
#16 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Thu 1 Dec 2011 at 05:28 PM
"You are arguing that the EPA isn’t being consistent in its application."
No Mike. You got this habit of trying to win arguements by sticking what you'd like your opponent to have said in his mouth and then making a big show of refuting it. Are you a child?
My arguement has been consistent, the EPA in its application of power has been consistently weak and pro-industry, and this is a symptom of a conservative problem. You have an agency which conservatives hate and undermine whenever they have a snippet of power. They appoint pro-industry people to head and purge it, they threaten to cut its funding in congress if it gets to aggressive, and the people they regulate sent bought politicians to their doors to shut down individual investigations.Many career workers at the EPA are often frustrated because they cannot fight the battles that require fighting and maybe some career workers take on insignificant and easy battles because they know the people they're fighting don't have the resources to win, and winning is what counts come time for promotion, and I say that based on my analysis of a similar situation at the SEC. But those cases are minority cases.
The majority of the time, business is allowed to pollute/kill people and then leave the government in charge of cleaning up their mess. And the EPA basically conducts studies on toxics and makes suggestions on what should be done about it. While you cry about what the EPA has done to some shumck who paved over a wetland over the advice of his own advisors and state officials, people are getting toxic fish on their plates that have absorbed the emmissions from coal power plants and factories and no one is doing much to stop them. You want to talk about the EPA overreach while the industries in America are making choices that kill people? Is killing people not an overreach?
Have kids someday in the shadow of some of these belching wonders, or better yet, move to Bejing where they don't have any overreaching product safety laws or environmental protection. Hopefully the experience will help you grow up.
#17 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 2 Dec 2011 at 02:57 AM
My arguement has been consistent, the EPA in its application of power has been consistently weak and pro-industry, and this is a symptom of a conservative problem.
Spoken like someone who doesn’t deal with the EPA on a daily bases. Don’t worry, I'm sure you will find something from Grist that will facilitate continued wallowing in your happy ignorance.
You want to talk about the EPA overreach while the industries in America are making choices that kill people? Is killing people not an overreach?
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr said that taxes are the price we pay for civilization, he would have been more accurate if he said pollution is the price we pay for civilization. Everything from creature comforts to necessities generate industrial waste, to think that this can be eliminated with perfect or even near perfect efficacy is delusional.
#18 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Fri 2 Dec 2011 at 11:04 AM
"Everything from creature comforts to necessities generate industrial waste, to think that this can be eliminated with perfect or even near perfect efficacy is delusional."
Oh I know, that is why we should settle for a life that is Bejing in environmental quality and never adapt any processes that produce, process, or store waste to mitigate the environmental damage done. Cause when your kids have cancer, you're going to be wanting some creature comforts to numb the pain of watching them slowly die.
#19 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 2 Dec 2011 at 11:34 AM
Oh I know, that is why we should settle for a life that is Bejing in environmental quality and never adapt any processes that produce, process, or store waste to mitigate the environmental damage done.
I know liberals aren’t too keen in the technical arts and sound like mouth breathers when it comes to this stuff, but are you really that slow? An entire industry exists to deal with industrial pollution.
By every single quantifiable metric, emissions of HAP’s in the US have declined significantly over the past 40 years. There just aint no arguing that. So you can perch yourself on your soapbox and rail against the evils of polluting enterprises and all the mythical cancer clusters choked full of sick black and brown babies, but the fact of the matter and what is incontrovertible is that all these “wicked” engines of wealth have cleaned up their acts to such a significant degree, that there is little regional or even local health impacts from them.
Is the CAA and CWA responsible for this decline, yes. Does the EPA abuse its scope and regulatory control of the CAA and CWA, once again, yes. Does the EPA’s abuse of both its scope and authority unfairly target individuals, companies, and activities that no reasonable person would believe they have authority over, yes, and the courts have ruled on this many a time.
#20 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Fri 2 Dec 2011 at 02:19 PM
"I know liberals aren’t too keen in the technical arts and sound like mouth breathers when it comes to this stuff, but are you really that slow? An entire industry exists to deal with industrial pollution."
Oh look, could Mikey be making the argument that even having a minimal agency like the EPA and minimal environmental laws attach costs to businesses which spur improvements that would otherwise not happen, like in China?
No, it sounds to me like Mikey-child is getting upset with how ineffectual his weak arguments are proving to be. Need a time out Mikey-boy? *pinches cheek*
#21 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 2 Dec 2011 at 02:57 PM
Wow, mouth breather … is that all you got? Has your argument so horribly collapsed that all you are left with is garbage like this.
I guess I shouldn’t be supposed, because as well all know, facts have a well known conservative bias.
Don’t worry, I’m sure you will find something from Grist or the Nation that helps will help you sleep tonite.
#22 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Fri 2 Dec 2011 at 03:10 PM
On the topic of coal, 40% of plants don't have the basic scrubber technology to take out mercury and sulfur dioxide. Why? Because they didn't have to so they didn't bother.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/11/29/131642/can-coal-plants-afford-epas-new.html
"Constellation broke ground to build the scrubber in June 2007 and finished in September 2009. At the peak of construction, 1,385 people worked on it.
Allen said he'd heard the complaint that the EPA wasn't giving industry enough time.
"That doesn't square with our experience," he said. As with any construction project, there was a trade-off between how much was spent and how fast the work got done. The state deadline made Constellation move fast, and it spent $885 million. It also added 30 jobs to run the pollution-control equipment — and it remains profitable.
Today, the white plumes rising from two new stacks at the plant emit mostly water vapor and carbon dioxide. The scrubber — a large chemical plant next to the plant — cuts 95 percent of the sulfur dioxide, which contributes to soot, and 90 percent of the mercury.
Allen said it was a good time for the power industry to invest in reducing toxic air pollution, because the price of electricity has gone down in recent years as a result of cheaper natural gas supplies from horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing."
But not everybody took advantage of that good time:
""We support what the EPA is trying to do relative to emission reductions at our power plants," Akins said in an interview. "What we are arguing about is the timetable."
Under the EPA's pending rule, companies would get three years, until 2014, with a possible extension to 2015. But Akins said scrubbers took five years to build, including time to get permits. There will be too much demand for labor throughout the power industry to get all the equipment built within three or four years, he said.
American Electric Power wants to stagger its plant retirements and pollution controls until 2020.
"It would be great if we could do all this stuff overnight," Akins said. "We just need a chance to make that progress.""
Over a decade of time wasn't enough of a chance. Why was that?
"Unlike Constellation, American Electric Power operates in states where it needs approval from regulators to recover costs. In areas with no state rules on toxic air pollution, it wouldn't be able to get such regulator approval before the EPA puts out a final rule, company spokesman Pat Hemlepp said."
When they say "recover costs" read "raise rates". In other words, they won't begin complying with regulations until they can pass on the costs to the consumers, which they can't do until their states pass regulations to justify rate increases.
Which means instead of investing in available technology to limit mercury and sulfur emissions out of concern for their fellow people or fear of pending federal regulation, they're going to push it until the day the EPA decides to enforce the edict and ask for extensions.
You know what? If that's the attitude they want to have, let them have it. If they violate the federal rule the day after the timetable, shut their plants down until they get the work done or solar and wind eat their lunch. Then try to pay for your improvements with a rate increase on zero power produced, idiots.
Have they earned sympathy?
#23 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 4 Dec 2011 at 09:29 PM
"pay for your improvements with a rate"
increase on zero power produced, idiots.
(So close to 600 words.... so close)
#24 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 4 Dec 2011 at 09:40 PM
Let's remember that the fact of the matter is that the people of McDowell did want the project and voted to approve it in a binding referendum by a 10 point margin after a through and detailed debate. The people of McDowell did decide that it was an important economic development effort and, whether others agree or not, it was their decision to make. Democracy is an odd little creature sometimes.
#25 Posted by Jack, CJR on Tue 6 Dec 2011 at 02:43 PM