Loeper-+FA+9-+Coal+Country

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

2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film? This film lays out is problems that are associated with coal, focusing on the West Virginia mining and the process that the miners use in that area. The companies are now using a technique called mountain top removal, where, instead of going down into the ground to mine for the coal, they are just blowing the top of the mountain off with dynamite and taking the resources from the top. It used to be that mining for coal was a slow, work intensive process that required a lot of manpower and effort to get the source, now they just set up the explosives and blow the top off. This movie talks about how the coal companies are literally and figuratively poisoning their employees and the communities around them, with harmful chemicals and by bribing them with gifts for individuals and the community to keep the people loyal to them.

3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? This film talks about the environmental issues of mountaintop removal and of coal, but it really focuses on the problems with human health. Mountaintop removal is absolutely terrible for the environment for extremely obvious reasons, it takes away ecosystems and basically makes plateaus from a mountainous region; this is changing the environmental regions when they shouldn’t be changed, mountains formed there for a reason, we shouldn’t be destroying them. The human aspect of the movie goes into health issues as well as economic/political issues with the coal companies. The horrible health conditions for the communities are drawn out in the film, showing filters on peoples’ homes and explaining how many people have cancer in the area. Also, the coal companies control so much of the economy that people feel that if they aren’t there, then the people would have no jobs.

4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? - When the film showed the fly by view of all of the mountain tops that have been removed, it was very compelling to see how destroyed they really are. o The ability for man to just blow up the environment is so disheartening that we do it for our own selfish reasons, especially because there is no reason to do it on such a massive scale. It’s dangerous and harmful for people and it’s astronomically worse for the environment - I really appreciated when the two older woman were talking and were making the movie. It gave me hope to see that older people, who are usually more conservative and set in their ways, were so outraged by this process and the damage that coal is doing to their area. I thought it was great to see these women taking initiative and going around their town to tape what is really going on and the harm that is being done. Hopefully more people use them as an example and start protesting.

5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? - I couldn’t believe when some of the people in the film were holding up signs that say “No coal, no lights.” That’s completely not true and I can’t believe that people feel that way. I understand that people are worried about their jobs, but instead of blowing up the mountains, we could put wind farms on them and employ more people to construct, build, install, and maintain clean energy. There are plenty of different ways to turn the lights on and coal is not the __only__ answer to this, and it’s probably the worst method. It’s very frustrating that people believe that there are no alternatives and are so closed minded to not try something else.

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.? - I would like to know more about the environmental problems that are associated with mountaintop removal, especially the long term effects. Would this affect the climate in that area with the mountains gone? What does this mean for species that are there? Also, would it affect the communities especially with water runoff?

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? This film best addresses the general public, it’s very beneficial for Americans that are across the country and don’t know that this is happening on the other side of the country, but it’s also beneficial for more local Americans that don’t know this is going on. I’m from Maryland and I had no idea that this kind of destruction was going on just a few hours away from where I live. It describes the human impact the most, so it really appeals and directs attention to the human health problems that are associated with coal and the way that we are getting the coal. Hopefully people see the damage that is being done in these communities and check to see what is happening near them and try to advocate for changes.

8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film? The only actions that were given in the movie would be to fight big coal companies by joining local community groups to fight for change and to pressure the politicians in your respective area to change legislation to stop these harmful practices. Other than that, there is really nothing that the general public can do, however, if communities work hard enough, there can be change for coal.

9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? To increase the educational value, I would have liked to have seen more information about mountaintop removal, especially talking about the process and what companies actually do. I feel like this would have given viewers more information on what exactly happens and the extent of damage. This would have shown what exactly happens to the air quality and water supply of the surrounding areas rather than just proving that these areas are polluted.