Coal+Country

Audrey Newcomb April 9, 2010 Sustainability Problems **Film Annotation: “Coal Country”** “Coal Country,” directed by Phylis Geller, and released in 2009

“Coal Country” captured the effects that mountain top coal removal and burning coal in central Appalachia can have on the environment and people’s lives. It also showed the dependence of many people’s livelihoods on the coal industry. Not only is the coal industry often the only major employer, but burning coal is often the main source of electricity in Appalachia. For example, in West Virginia coal fired plants account for 92% of generating capacity and 48% of the new generator projects are coal powered. In many families several generations will work for the coal industry. The omnipresence of coal in their lives was celebrated in a West Virginia Coal Festival. The intertwining of a person’s livelihood with the coal industry produces strife within communities.

compared to...



Discord becomes ignited when certain citizens witness of the affects of coal on their lives and speak out. The poisoning of the water, fogs of coal dust, unfair labor conditions, destruction of streams and their ecosystems, witnessing mountains being blown up, the homogenous flora that emerges after mountain “reclamation,” and the toxins that permeate the air and water from the power plants are all possible reasons that a citizen may express contempt towards the coal industry. When they do express contempt they are often viewed as traitors by other people in their community, will be threatened, and will be labeled “tree huggers” which is a derogatory term in the south. The discord created in the community rises to the level of state politicians. There were several politicians featured in “Coal Country” who were very supportive of the coal industry because the perceived popularity of the coal industry among constituents, and because of the monetary support that the coal industry can give to politicians. Discord between dissenters and status quo supporters, as well as conflicts between union workers and non-union workers aides the coal industry by hindering change.

There are many sustainability problems associated with using coal. Becoming less dependent on coal necessitates finding alternative jobs for all the coal workers as well as finding alternative energy sources. The movie featured citizens advocating for the use of wind energy, but if only 16% of the queued projects in West Virginia are wind farms, then this problem will need continued attention. Providing alternative jobs appeared to be the biggest hurdle in transitioning away from coal, because until other jobs are available, dads will feel obliged to work in the mines and provide for their children. Along the same sentiment, politicians need to be funded by someone other than coal. There are factors in the legal system that aid the coal industry as well. For example, the Clean Water Act prohibits filling in streams but it exempts fill material that is not waste material. This means that all the “overburden” dirt from mountain top coal removal can fill in streams. The Clean Water Protection Act was created in order to ensure that debris from mountain top removal is considered waster. However, the law has not been passed yet; in March it was referred to the House subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment (“H.R. 1310”). Another law requires coal companies to “reclaim” the mountain they blow up which creates the appearance of a recovered ecosystem, when in reality biodiversity on the mountain has been lost. Although the movie showed Joe Lovett prevailing in court, it was admitted that judges are often biased towards the coal companies. Something is wrong with the distribution of wealth within the coal industry. One lady wondered “Why are we so poor? I watch millions of dollars of timber and coal drive past my house every day.” This problem parallels the disparity in Tanzania between the fishers and top managers. Especially at Massey Energy, it seems that the man in charge gives little consideration to his workers, the environment, or anyone besides himself. Another sustainability problem is the power of coal corporations. They have so much money to invest to commercials that perpetuate the image of “clean coal.” It is also easy for the coal corporations to exploit the environment because the communities in central Appalachia are poor. The movie suggested that the same conditions could not exist in the Berkshires because there is money there.



“Coal Country” was one of the most compelling films because of the emotions conveyed. Every interview with a coal country citizen was very frank. I was convinced of their frankness when they cried on camera because they didn’t want another mountain to be blown up. It was clear that they had no hidden agenda; they simply wanted a safe place to live. I was not convinced by Senator Rockefeller’s assertion that “people are hateful towards coal.” This does not express the true sentiment of the people speaking out against coal mining’s bad effects. One coal worker convinced me of the complexity of the issue. All throughout the movie he had been speaking as a representative of a coal company. Towards the end of the movie he almost cried explaining the difficulty of being a father and having his son come home and tell him about class writing assignments whose topics were anti-coal industry. He stated that “we have lots of residents here who are fine with us [the coal company] being here.” I am not convinced by that are truly “lots” of citizens complacent with the coal company’s presence, but I am convinced that he earnestly believes the coal company does its best to recover the land and mine safely.

I would like to do additional research about the feasibility of coal capture and storage. There is money being invested in continued research of coal capture and storage and companies do have plans to implement coal capture and storage, but “Coal Country” featured scientists who thought that the technology was a falsity. If I had the means I would be interested in studying the actual benefits of coal capture and storage.

This film is most appealing to someone who lives in a coal community in central Appalachia. If I lived in central Appalachia and had witnessed neighbors become ill, my home depreciate in hundreds of thousands of dollars, and surrounding mountains being blown up then watching this movie would be a very emotional experience for me. As it was, this movie made me want to cry because I could feel the people’s heartache.

The film is a good example of how people can become involved in their community to make a change. The people educated themselves about legislative processes and supported a changed Clean Water Act. They sued the coal companies for the damage being done to the environment. They worked together to collect evidence of harm (the school lunch ladies filmed the rain of coal dust). They learned how to form a community and reconnect with classmates.

I do not think that more should have been added to this film. I do not think that further statistics or facts were needed because the emotional testimonies and their observations of the damage to their surrounding ecosystems were valid and compelling.

__References:__ "12.13.1 – Load Growth and Existing Generation." //PJM’s Regional Transmission Expansion Plan (RTEP)//. PJM, n.d. Web. 9 Apr 2010. .  "H.R.1310 - Clean Water Protection Act." //Open Congress//. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Apr 2010. . "Powering New York." New York Independent System Operator, 2008. Web. 29 Mar 2010. .