Beauvilliers+-+Annotation+-+Coal+Country

Coal Country
An annotation by Evan Beauvilliers

1. Coal Country: Directed by Mari-Lynn Evans and Phylis Geller, Released 2009

2. This film is about the problems associated with coal and its use as a primary energy source. The primary argument presented is that the main practice for procuring coal is mountain top removal. As the name suggests, this is a method by which the top of a mountain is blasted off, the debris removed, and the coal scraped off the newly exposed surface. This method has many problems. It creates a lot of debris that settles in nearby towns causing health problems to the nearby residents. Coal companies are repeatedly sued for the practice and its problems, but political officials fight to get any favorable rulings overturned as the coal companies are major supporters of the officials. Another problem with coal is the way the coal companies abuse their laborers. While technically within the limits of the law, the workers are paid very little despite the huge profits of the companies. This low wage is also despite the fact that coal mining is one of the most dangerous jobs with many related deaths each year in the U.S. alone.

3. The primary concern of the film is ecological. The process of mountain top removal destroys mountains and fills I valleys. It causes deforestation and rains pollution on people and the environment. Another concern that is not directly mentioned is that of technology. While clean energy technologies exist, they are being held down by coal and oil companies (often the same) so that they do not bite into their profits. One media concern is the huge wave of clean coal ads that have been appearing on the television. They claim that coal can be burned in a clean fashion through sequestration and other new technologies, but not only do these technologies have problems, this does nothing for the mountain top removal problem. Another large problem is the way in which legislators are able to get legal rulings overturned in favor of the coal companies once they have already been ruled against. It is important that the option for overruling exists, but it definitely needs to be changed somehow if it can be so easily abused.

4. The most persuasive part of the film would be the visuals of the damage and pollution caused by the mountain top removal. It is one thing to say that coal dust rains down on the citizens. It is another to show a citizen wiping off her window sill and lifting the rag to show a thick black coating. The images of the mountain tops which have been destroyed were also compelling. They demonstrate the magnitude of the destruction and give a better picture of the horrendous nature of mountain top removal than any verbal description could.

5. Unfortunately, part of what made the movie compelling also made it less compelling. This may seem a contradiction, but here is the explanation. While the images of the mountain top removal showed just how bad it was, these images only really showed the aesthetic problem if not taken in context, which they are not at first. As such, the least compelling part of the film would be the first portion in which the destruction is shown, but the health effects, etc. have not yet been considered. This section of the film was probably too long and might cause certain viewers to not finish the film (see below).

6. This film calls the viewer to find out if the new clean coal technologies are really as problematic as the movie claims. Yes, this does not solve the mountain top removal issue, but that comes secondary to the global warming issue which effects the entire world population instead of coal dust for example which only affects citizens in the vicinity of the mine. If it so happens that clean coal might serve as a temporary solution to the global warming issue and would give us more time to develop other technologies, it may be worthwhile to overlook the aesthetic effects of mountain top removal, though of course the health issues must be addressed.

7. The best audience for this film would have to be people who support the rights of the environment, unfortunately, if this film were shown to someone who was not supportive of these, they may shut it off after the first twenty minutes which focus solely on the aesthetic problems of mountain top removal. Because the target audience of this film seems to be people that already support changes for the problems it addresses, it is unlikely that this movie would alter the attitudes or actions of its viewers, though from the film makers view point, that is a good thing since we do not want the environmentalists becoming anti-environment.

8. The point of action that the film suggests seems to be education, tough this is not stated explicitly. One representative phrase in the film is that it is “hard to make a man understand something when his paycheck depends on his not understanding that something.” It is hard to affect the coal industry when the workers support them due to their paychecks relying on the coal company’s existence. It is worthy of note that many of the places in the U.S. and around the world that mine coal tend to be very poor despite the huge profits of the coal industry. We need to educate people and get the workers to realize that they are cogs in a terrible machine of environmental destruction. Only then do we have a good chance of truly effecting change in the industry, or better yet even minimizing the industry.

9. This film should not be enhanced by adding things as much as it needs things to be removed. As mentioned, the worst part of the film is the first portion which focuses on aesthetics. Aesthetics should not be of concern in an age where so many suffer from so many different things. In a world with billions starving and without adequate water or nutrition, saying that the mountain is no longer pretty enough for you is a horrible argument. Things that could be added however include more statistical information to support claims. More information on the monitoring “buckets” the citizens implemented would also be useful for other places wishing to replicate their methods and could provide a starting place for people to innovate on pollution monitoring of the coal industry.