annotation10

**Director:** Phyllis Geller **Released:** 2009
 * Title:** Coal Country

** Coal Country is a film which looks at the way coal production in the United States harms both the people living in the surrounding areas as well as the environment. The film looks at various facets of coal production including mountain top removal as well as coal power plants. They argue that more steps need to be taken to minimize the effects that coal production has on the surrounding areas. **
 * What is the central argument or narrative of the film? **

** The film shows how every year over 10,000 miles of streams and rivers are being polluted and destroyed by the coal industry, especially due to mountaintop removal. We also see how much land is destroyed through the practice of mountaintop removal. Although companies are required to fix up the land when they are done mining, it is usually done poorly and the landscape is that of plains, not of Appalachian forest. This destroys not only the plant life that once lived on the mountain but it also destroys the habitats of many animals, decreasing the number of wildlife in the area. **
 * What sustainability problems does the film draw out? **

** Living around coal production areas is hazardous to human health as well. Much of the problem stems from the coal dust particles that are released into the air. Because of this much of the water in 'coal country' is not suitable for drinking. The dust gets on everything, leading to breathing problems as well as increased cancer rated in areas surrounding coal production areas. Due to these issues many mining towns are much poorer than other towns in the Appalachians. House prices have depreciated to 10% of the original price in recent years due to the health problems getting more publicity. So many people who want to move have a hard time due to a lack of money. **

** A lack if jobs in the area prevents people from moving out of their mining career. Others towns which aren't located near mining or power facilities tend to be much wealthier due to the tourism that they attract. The mining towns are caught in some sort of catch 22, where they are unable to make the change over to a more wealthy town. **

** I really found the health risks that were shown in the film compelling. The people living in the communities around the coal mining facilities were well aware of the increased health risks yet couldn't do anything about it. I also liked how the film showed us what mountaintop mining did to the landscape. The film showed areas that were actively being mined, the surrounding mountains and the mining area after the 'restoration'. This showed how little effort the mining companies put into protecting the environment, as well as how total the destruction of the local habitat was. **
 * What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? **

** Also footage of how much coal dust is released into the air surprised me, it was enough to write in. I was extremely surprised that people weren't wearing masks while outside to protect themselves from it. **

** The film at times seemed to be arguing for the continuation of mountaintop mining. There were some people that were interviewed who talked about how the land after the mining companies restored the area was great for farming. Others argued that they didn't want the mining companies to leave because they feared that they wouldn't have anywhere to work. This is a horrible argument when you look at how much wealthier the areas without the mining companies are. **
 * What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? **

** What I wanted to find out was how large the scope of this issue is. How much of the Appalachians are effected by mountaintop mining. Although I couldn't find an exact number I did find that the EPA estimated that there would be 2,200 square miles would be taken up by mountaintop mines. This is the same area as two Rhode Islands. This number does not take into account the number of streams that are effected by the airborne particles. Even with the companies 'revegitation' of the mining area studies have shown that it would take about 1000 years for the area to return to its natural environment. **
 * What additional information does the film compel you to seek out? **

** [] ** ** [] ** ** [] **

** This film is obviously mainly for people living in the Appalachians, especially those who live in mining communities. I was unaware of the extent of the issues surrounding the mines and I feel like many other people are as well. I feel that if this film was seen by enough regular people a momentum would build to change the ways that mining companies go about their business. **
 * What audiences does the film best address? **

**What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value? ** **Although it is subtracting, not adding to the film, I believe that the film could have gotten rid of a few of the arguments for the mining companies. Not only were they weak arguments, but they also took away from the overall feel of the film. I felt that they were simply unnecessary. ** **I think that the film could have added a part about the wildlife and how effected they were by the mining. Although it was touched on it wasn't covered very well in my opinion. **

**Does the annotation describe points of intervention suggested by the film? ** **The main way of intervening with this problem is through government regulations. Putting limits on what the corporations can do as well as how much they can effect the environment would help curb the the problem. One idea that the movie brought up was the idea of a 'buffer zone'. This would not allow mining companies to operate within a certain distance of water sources, limiting their pollution of drinking water for both animals and humans. To help these regulations come into place the documentary says that people need to rally against the atrocities that the mining companies are committing. They need to get their voices heard. Once that happens they can begin turning their community back into a cleaner and healthier area to live **