Part 7 Ecology
Chapter 26 The Strip Miner
There are basically two methods of mining coal, strip mining and deep mining.
In deep mining, an intricate set of tunnels, shafts and braces are set deep in the earth.
People who work in such mines for long periods of time commonly contract black lung disease,
The dreaded miners' malady caused by breathing in coal particles.
Deep mining is hazardous to workers in other ways.
Mine entrapments, for example, in which hundreds of miners are trapped far below the surface
of the earth, occur with deadly regularity.
The immediate cause may be a cave-in, escaping gas, an explosion, or water seepage.
But the ultimate cause is the deep mining method itself.
In strip mining, as the name implies, the earth is stripped layer by layer until the
coal stream is unearthed.
Although especially well suited for coal beds that lie close to the surface, strip mining
has also proven feasible at moderate depths.
Strip mining is free of the danger of cave-ins and other forms of entrapment and of black
The Supposed Explanation for this otherwise inexplicable state of affairs centers around
two criticisms of strip mining.
It is said to cause pollution and to despoil the natural beauty of the landscape.
But as can be seen from even a cursory examination, these criticisms hardly suffice.
Even if they were correct, it would be difficult to reconcile humanistic impulses with a preference
for deep mining.
For there is no black lung disease among miners who work on the surface of the earth.
There is no danger of cave-ins or entrapment. Clearly, life is on the side of strip mining.
But upon examination it is clear that the criticism is by no means correct. First, consider
pollution. Although it is true that pollution does in fact result from strip mining, it
is not a necessary concomitant. It can be eliminated, and it would be eliminated if
Laws Prohibiting Trespass were enforced.
What is presently done during the strip mining of coal is to pile up in high mounds the earth
that must be peeled away to expose the coal.
These mounds are usually piled near streams of water.
Substantial amounts are borne away by the streams, contaminating them and the lakes
and waterways into which they feed.
Also, the denuded land becomes a source of mudslides.
Thus, as a result of what the strip miner does, the whole environment is damaged.
But these are not necessary elements of the strip mining process.
Although a person may do whatever he wishes with land that he owns, if what he does damages
land belonging to others, he should be made to bear the costs of the damage.
If, for example, the strip miners' activities result in mudslides and destruction of other
people's land and goods, he is liable.
Part of his responsibility may be to reseed or otherwise rehabilitate the land to eliminate
the possibility of future mudslides.
If strip miners were made to bear the full costs of their activity, and if the property
The industry owners downstream were granted preventative injunctions if they were unwilling
to be compensated for damages, then the pollution would cease.
It is most important to see that the present link between pollution and strip mining has
no inherent status, but is rather entirely due to the failure to apply the common laws
of trespass against the strip miners.
In any other industry, such as the hula hoop industry, that was allowed to violate the
law in this manner.
Now there is no necessary connection between the hula hoop industry and pollution.
But if excess plastic clutter were allowed, there soon would be a connection between this
industry and pollution, at least in the mind of the public.
And so it is with the coal mining industry, and with strip mining in particular.
There is nothing about the strip mining method of coal mining that is inherently pollution-causing.
It is only because the laws of trespass have not been rigidly applied to the strip miners
that the link between stripping and pollution exists.
Let these laws be fully adhered to and this argument against strip mining will disappear.
What of the other argument against the strip miner, that stripping spoils the natural beauty
of the landscape?
This is a shaky objection at best, because when it comes to beauty or aesthetics there
are no objective standards.
What is beautiful to one person may be ugly to another and vice versa.
It is true that strip mining removes the vegetation, grass and trees from the landscape.
It can turn a lush, fertile landscape into a veritable desert.
But some people prefer the desolation and emptiness of the desert.
The Painted Desert in Arizona, the Salt Flats of Utah and the Grand Canyon of Colorado are
considered by many people to be places of great beauty.
If contrast is one of the concomitants of natural beauty, then the small bits of barren land created by strip miners amidst the lush greenery of the Appalachians actually add to the beauty of the scene.
Certainly we cannot unambiguously and objectively fault the strip miner on the grounds that he destroys the beauty of the landscape.
But discussions about aesthetic criteria will not resolve the issue raised by the critics,
since the issue is not really about beauty, though it is phrased as if it were.
The real objection seems to be that strip mining is an intrusion upon nature by an offensive industrial society.
The notion that land areas should be left in their natural state seems to be the operative one.
But if the lovers and protectors of nature as is have the right to prevent strip miners
from operating, then they also have the right to prevent farmers from clearing virgin soil
and planting upon it, and to prevent builders from erecting buildings, bridges, factories,
airports and hospitals.
The argument from nature is really an argument against civilization and against the use of
of Human Intelligence.
Actually, many among those who condemn strip mining as unnatural would themselves object
vigorously if other conditions, homosexuality or miscegenation, for example, were objected
to on those grounds.
They would point out very little is natural to man, and that sometimes what is natural,
murderous rage, for example, is not what is best.
One depends to a great extent upon our being able to transcend nature.
To say of a thing that it is natural or unnatural is not to say anything about that thing's
intrinsic value.
A thing's value depends upon whether or not it satisfies our needs and contributes to
our well-being.
Mining, when evaluated rationally, fulfills these more rational criteria.