Hunt_Coal

//Coal Country,// Phylis Geller, 2009
 * 1.** **Title, director and release year?**

Essentially, the film narrates and depicts the issues surrounding the coal industry, including dangers to miners, air pollution, destruction of the environment, and water pollution. By portraying all stakeholders in the debate – both coal lobbyists and opponents – the viewer gets a unique view into this huge industry. West Virginia governor and coal peddler Joe Manchin declares: "There is no replacement for coal. There might be 30 or 50 or 100 years from now, but there's not today." The film argues that the coal industry is not as profitable as we think because of all the problems that are associated with obtaining coal. The contributors to the film are convinced that the coal industry shows “no commitment to the future,” and that alternatives should be used sooner rather than later. The documentary also shows how coal mining harms local communities, as economic development is stunted to keep locals dependent on coal for their livelihoods. The result: The area stays poor, its environment ruined, and more carbon dioxide is emitted. //Coal Country// also gives voice to activists who have stood up against mountaintop-removal mining even though their stand has made them outcasts in their communities. “Today’s destruction is not tomorrow’s prosperity.”
 * 2.** **What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**


 * 3.** **What sustainability problems does the film draw out?**


 * - Pollution From Coal Use: As one coal company executive coldly states, the millions of pounds of ammonium nitrate/fuel oil explosives that rip through the Appalachian mountains and poison the watersheds and air of local communities daily, "might make some people uncomfortable."Another coal engineer playfully recalls teaching his children to refer to coal-fired plants as "cloud factories" to bring the rain, in the face of some of the highest cancer and heart disease rates in the country, and an American Lung Association study that 24,000 Americans die prematurely from coal-fired plant pollution each year. Another prominent issue was the air pollution that resulted from mountain top removal and its affect on entire neighborhoods’ quality of life. Residents spoke of ash coating their homes and cars, and even making its way into their homes despite air filtration systems. The images shown to illustrate the gravity of the air pollution were astonishing, including blackened air filtration screens and ashy windowsills (from within the home). The residents also discussed the ‘solutions’ to the air pollution problem, all of which were laughable (including building domes over coal factories). The water pollution was also intense. Residents collected samples from streams in their towns and the samples didn’t even seem to resemble water at all. They were jars of brown and black guck, and they were what their streams looked like. The mountain top removal strategy called for removing layers of soil to reach the valuable coal. These layers of soil are blown up with explosives and dumped into nearby valleys, thus affecting the local streams that flow throughout the surrounding towns. This destroys the quality of water within these towns, not to mention the surround environment as well.
 * - Economic Plight of Workers: Those working in the coal mines have little other economic opportunity than to work in the mines or work for the big coal companies. As we see, towns in Virgina were literally built on the back of the coal companies and to this day there are yearly town fairs put on by the coal companies. One is almost expected to grow up and follow in their parents footsteps by working for the coal companies. In West Virginia, Goldman Prize winner Judy Bonds recounts the polarization and poisoning of the community's watersheds. She quotes Upton Sinclair: "It is hard to get a man to understand something when his paycheck demands him not to understand." This quote awesomely depicts the economic attachment to these jobs by coal workers.

I think the story of Virginian Kathy Selvage was the most compelling. In the film, Kathy describes how she went from too shy to speak in public, to her transformation as one of the most articulate activists and well-researched coal experts. Far from being politically motivated, it comes down to an "assault on our community and way of life." Standing in the face of pitiful reclamation efforts, she declares, "I grieve over the loss of a mountain."
 * 4.** **What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

I was not convinced at all by the idea of mountainside reclamation. The coal industry claims that once they have finished mining a mountainside, they reintroduce vegetation and wildlife to the mountainside, thus making it as good as new. However, this idea that you can make a mountain whole again, after blowing up a large portion of it is absurd. For one, blowing up a mountain forever changes the natural topography of that area, which could have disastrous implications. Also, with this new topography, who is to know what vegetation and wildlife would prosper on the mountainside? Even reintroducing the same vegetation and wildlife that were there pre-mining may not fare well in the new atmosphere. In my eyes, mountainside reclamation is better than leaving the mountainside bare, but not enough of a positive to justify the continuing use of mountaintop removal.
 * 5.** **What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?**

This film compelled me to seek out more information on the livelihoods of miners and just how widespread the issues depicted are. I am aware that mountaintop removal is now a popular way of obtaining coal in many regions; however, are we far enough in to justify a need for the industry, rather than looking elsewhere for alternatives? Coal miners can be retrained to work in greener fields, dealing with green energy sources that are safer for them, their families, their neighbors, and their environment. This film made me wonder just how complex a transition from coal to, say, windmill farms would be. Clearly residents in coal country are demanding a change; the only thing holding us back are the workers themselves, dependent on the industry for survival. Also, I was very interested in the economics of mountaintop removal and how the economies of the towns might exist if coal mining was removed. I found some facts from the Sierra Club (see citations below) that describe how banning mountaintop removal could actually benefit communities.
 * 6.** **What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?**

This film best addresses audiences who have little knowledge about the negatives of the coal industry. Most people know that coal is a primary source of energy in the United States but do not understand what implications come along with mining it. I believe this film does an excellent job of serving a reality-check on what is really associated with coal mining and how it affects people beyond the miners themselves. I would hope this film makes viewers support green energy, or at least a transition away from coal. This film should be required watching for politicians who may not be as knowledgeable about these issues.
 * 7.** **What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?**

The film primarily calls for support against the coal industry and for green energy. The film personalizes the negatives associated with mountaintop removal and the coal industry to make viewers want a change for their fellow man. It forces you to put yourself in their shoes and act on their behalf, regardless of where you are.
 * 8.** **What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?**

I have little knowledge about the coal industry and how it has evolved, so it may just be me but I was curious as to whether the way coal mining is down now is ‘better’ for the environment than the way it used to be done. If so, the logic behind the ‘clean coal’ campaign may make more sense. All in all, perhaps expanding on exactly what clean coal entails would have been nice to know, and maybe even made the film more impartial.
 * 9.** **What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**

[] [] []
 * Citations:**