West Virginia Highlands Voice

By John McFerrin

When people who make a living by ripping up mountains are feeling witty they make that joke about C.A.V.E. (Citizens Against Virtually Everything) people. They point to that horde that fits their stereotype of “Environmentalist (spit)” and grumble that “these people” are against everything. Whenever real West Virginians who just want to provide jobs and save us from dependence on foreign energy are trying to do their duty, along come the C.A.V.E. people to oppose it. Mountaintop removal- against it. Windmills-against it (never mind that this is not universally true; we’re dealing in stereotypes here.)

When people who have similar world views but better manners get on the topic, they often say such things as “If we get rid of coal how will we replace it?”

We often are sucked into answering this question, tossing out generalities about solar power, conservation, etc. Yet the true answer is, “I don’t know.”

Our job is not to identify the next technology. Our job is not to say that the solution to problems with energy supply is coal, solar, wind, or hamsters on treadmills. Our job is to make sure that the world knows about and accounts for the social costs of energy. When that cost gets too high, we have a duty to say no. This is particularly true when it is our mountains who pay that price.

Mountaintop removal is easy to figure out. People are fond of saying that coal is “cheap and abundant.” Abundant it may be; cheap it is not. The price tag on a kilowatt hour of electricity generated by coal may be small. Behind that low price are mountains laid waste, streams, wildlife, and communities destroyed. Hidden behind the low price are roads pounded to bits, houses shaken apart, pollution in the air… The list goes on and on.

When we say we oppose mountaintop removal we are really saying that the coal is not worth the costs it imposes upon society. We may enjoy the benefits of electricity but not at the costs of mountains, streams, wildlife, and communities.

Windmills are more difficult to figure out but the analysis is the same. The electricity production may be carbon free and its impact may be trivial compared to that of a mountaintop removal mine. But it is not free. It costs us some wildlife, some scenic views, etc. Our job is to point this out. When the costs are too high, we end up in opposition.

The analysis is the same with any source of energy. Looked at from an energy production standpoint, the Hawks Nest Tunnel is a dream come true. It was built in the 1930’s. For seventy five years it has been producing all of the electricity for a substantial industrial facility, all without releasing any carbon dioxide, putting any mercury into the air, pounding any roads to pieces, or burying any streams.

Yet that electricity is not free. The April issue of The Highlands Voice had a review of a book about the building of that tunnel. Hundreds of workers died of silicosis, contracted while building the tunnel.

It is not the particular province of the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy to advocate for the tunnel workers although somebody should have. It is, however, our province to advocate for the woods and waters of West Virginia, particularly the highlands. If the social cost of energy production is too much, it is our job to say no.

Sometimes saying no has the beneficial effect of forcing projects to be modified so that they are not harmful. Had a union, a government, or somebody fought for the workers at the Hawks Nest Tunnel, we could enjoy cheap, clean energy without the stain of about (nobody knows the actual body count) 750 deaths. People speaking up about bird and bat deaths at windmills have prompted some technical changes that may eliminate or reduce that problem. It is not known how effective these measures will be but if they do work we can thank the naysayers who spurred the companies to make the changes.

It is not our job to pick sources of energy. It is our job to point out the social costs. The winning technologies will be those who can reduce or eliminate those social costs and still produce useable energy at a competitive price. If the coal industry can’t figure out a way to mine coal without the current social costs and still produce a product that it can sell at a competitive price, then it deserves to go out of business. The same is true of wind, solar, or anything else.

Figuring out what technology to support is way too complicated for anybody. One result of the talk of global warming, energy independence, etc. has been the flowering of ideas. There is supposedly a strain of yeast in Argentina that can chomp on almost any plant and produce something like diesel fuel. There are companies trying to embed microscopic fibers in ordinary window glass that could turn whole houses into solar power collectors. There are other technologies closer to being ready for commercial release. You can’t read a newspaper without seeing a story of some new technology to produce or save energy.

No doubt the majority of these ideas are from dreamers who will never get their ideas to market. There are certainly a fair number of charlatans hoping to con their investors or the federal government for a few years until it becomes clear that their “ideas” are no more than schemes.

Yet some of these ideas are going to work. We are going to find new ways to produce and use energy. There is too much brainpower being applied to the problem not to.

Our job is not to decide which of the currently available or yet to be developed energy sources is the best. Our job is to point out the social costs-and particularly the costs to our woods and waters-that come with these sources. If pointing out these social costs sounds like opposition, then we will just have to be C.A.V.E. people. Instead of worrying about finding something to support, we should proudly continue to make clear that energy production has a social cost and that we are not going to sit still and let that cost be ignored.