Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Coal Kills by poasterchild Coal Kills by poasterchild
Please disseminate widely, thank you! This does not give permission to alter or claim credit for this re-mixed work, for which I retain all copyrights. The original illustration is in the public domain.

If you disagree with the views expressed here, please be sure to read my Policy Statement BEFORE you post: [link]

Our mountains. In the Sierras, climbers climb them. In the Rockies, skiers ski them. In Appalachia, coal companies level them.

Coal isn't clean, and it's definitely not cheap. Across the Appalachians, companies are blowing entire mountaintops to smithereens to get at the thin coal seams below. The communities of the region are paying the cost in their health, their culture and their natural heritage.

Mining companies are clear cutting thousands of acres of some of the world's most biologically diverse forests. They're filling local rivers and streams with blasted debris, polluting drinking water with toxic waste and sacrificing the safety and sanctity of countless communities.

Mountaintop removal mining is not just devastating the region's environment and quality of life. It is also steadily crushing the heart of Appalachia.

Big coal companies should not be allowed to turn our nation's oldest (300 million years) mountains into molehills. Laws must change, environmental regulations must be enforced, corporations must reform their practices, and legal action must be taken to stop the most ecologically and culturally destructive form of strip mining on earth.

You can help today by urging Congress to reverse a Bush administration rule that allows mining companies to legally dump waste into mountain streams. Please go to the Natural Resources Defense Council website [link] and send letters today to the Obama Administration officials and urge them to pressure Congress close a loophole in the Clean Water Act that permits this deadly practice to continue.

This poaster is best viewed while listening to this [link]
Add a Comment:
ninjawerr Featured By Owner Oct 9, 2013  Professional Writer
YOu know they have methiods to prevent damage to the invitoment and still get the coal right?
poasterchild Featured By Owner Oct 9, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
No they don't.  Before you go any further, understand that you're talking to someone with a energy policy who has studied these issues carefully over a period of years, at a university where the coal boys have substantial influence, someone who was hired by a major coal company to assess whether or not they could/should get into the biofuels business.

If you're thinking of carbon sequestration, it is unproven and untested, not to mention expensive.

If you're thinking of scrubbers at the stack, they are effective, but they are so expensive as to make the price of electricity generated too expensive to be competitive.  That's why the industry is fighting tooth and claw against the new regulations on new coal-fired power plants.

The only coal that's environmentally safe is the coal that's left in the ground.
ninjawerr Featured By Owner Oct 9, 2013  Professional Writer

nothing not even solar power is 100% safe and i know some of the folks that used to be in the coal industry up untill recently. so i know the facts, and folks up in ohio get jobs from coal or did...

 and the scrubers are now easy to mass produce, and cheep you made this poster how long ago? you will be pleased to know times have changed, and with that the effectiveness of coal baced power.


it is true that coationaly the scrubers miss a spec of sulfer or 2 but the gov regulations are the only thing that is expencive about coal, it is the safeist to produce, for wokers if nothing elce (not counting the mining prosess wich mineing is dangerous regardless of how its done or what your looking for) but the mining prosess has changed, the sludge problems gone, the loss of farmland is no longer of concern, the only hazard is the risk of collapse, and that is miner (LOL).


It is true that regardless of what is done coal will never be trully inviromentaly safe but nither is us breathing, and we do it anyway. why not give coal a chance?   

poasterchild Featured By Owner Oct 9, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
I'm not going to debate this with you.  I don't care what your opinion is -- it's just that, an opinion.  Unfortunately, it's an ignorant opinion.  Don't reply -- a ban will result.  Instead, Google "coal toxic emissions" and read the first 10 links.

Here's some facts from the Union of Concerned Scientists…:

Coal plants are the nation’s top source of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the primary cause of global warming. In 2011, utility coal plants in the United States emitted a total of 1.7 billion tons of CO2¹.  A typical coal plant generates 3.5 million tons of CO2 per year².

Burning coal is also a leading cause of smog, acid rain, and toxic air pollution. Some emissions can be significantly reduced with readily available pollution controls, but most U.S. coal plants have not installed these technologies.

Sulfur dioxide (SO2): Coal plants are the United States’ leading source of SO2 pollution, which takes a major toll on public health, including by contributing to the formation of small acidic particulates that can penetrate into human lungs and be absorbed by the bloodstream. SO2 also causes acid rain, which damages crops, forests, and soils, and acidifies lakes and streams. A typical uncontrolled coal plant emits 14,100 tons of SO2 per year. A typical coal plant with emissions controls, including flue gas desulfurization (smokestack scrubbers), emits 7,000 tons of SO2 per year.

Nitrogen oxides (NOx): NOx pollution causes ground level ozone, or smog, which can burn lung tissue, exacerbate asthma, and make people more susceptible to chronic respiratory diseases. A typical uncontrolled coal plant emits 10,300 tons of NOx per year. A typical coal plant with emissions controls, including selective catalytic reduction technology, emits 3,300 tons of NOx per year.

Particulate matter: Particulate matter (also referred to as soot or fly ash) can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility. A typical uncontrolled plan emits 500 tons of small airborne particles each year. Baghouses installed inside coal plant smokestacks can capture as much as 99 percent of the particulates. 

Mercury: Coal plants are responsible for more than half of the U.S. human-caused emissions of mercury, a toxic heavy metal that causes brain damage and heart problems. Just 1/70th of a teaspoon of mercury deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat. A typical uncontrolled coal plants emits approximately 170 pounds of mercury each year. Activated carbon injection technology can reduce mercury emissions by up to 90 percent when combined with baghouses. ACI technology is currently found on just 8 percent of the U.S. coal fleet.
Other harmful pollutants emitted annually from a typical, uncontrolled coal plant include approximately:

114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium. Baghouses can reduce heavy metal emissions by up to 90 percent³. 

720 tons of carbon monoxide, which causes headaches and places additional stress on people with heart disease.

220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone.

225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.

1 EIA Data
2 Typical plant assumptions: Capacity=600 MW; Capacity Factor=69%; Heat Rate=10,415; CO2 Emissions Rate=206 pounds of CO2/Million Btu
3 Nescaum. “Control Technologies to Reduce Conventional and Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal-Fired Power Plants.” March 31, 2011. 

And by the way, the 50 most dirty coal fired electric generating stations in the U.S. are responsible for 30 percent of the energy industry’s CO2 emissions, and a full two percent of all emissions worldwide — these 50 plants were responsible for more climate change than all but six countries in the world. See:…
Hidden by Owner
Charlene-Art Featured By Owner Feb 14, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Great poster design and message.
Internet-Cancer Featured By Owner Jan 26, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Geez it's the early 1900s all over again.
Or did it never stop?
NonnyFox Featured By Owner Jan 26, 2013
Sadus's Black comes to my mind whenever I here about another corporation not caring about the enviroment. Here's a link to their song [link] click only if you're into intense speeding thrash metal.

Sadus - Black (copyright 1990 Sadus, reprinted for educational purposes only)

Unknown substance, a putrid cloud - Choking all within
Results of progress, a noxious waste - Floating in the air

Living free? Chemically - So now our world is fading into slowly burning out
Prime wealth? Toxic health - Advancing towards extinction is the way it's turning out
Foul air? Do you care? Is cleanness where you live going against your common believe
Too much slime, insufficient time? In a suffocated future will you find the time to breathe

Jammed in one place
Blind in haste
Progress can't wait
A life in waste

Tending towards - Technology
Reverse of: life's biology

Chemical comatose
Radiation overdose
Burning, melting flesh
Leaking slime of dissolving waste
Overflowing blackness of death

Creation is being torn down by abuse
Infringement of the substance and our use

Elements decomposing, dilution is too slow
Every contribution, to the evolution
Its bad gets worse; deathly course.

Swallowed in black

Faced with reality?
Search your memory
Nothing dead ever comes back... the black
emperorkirkwall Featured By Owner Jan 26, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
Actually here in PA coal is our heritage, it gives us jobs which we desperately need, and revenue. We also got oil and natural gas but coal is more plentiful here and safer to extract. Yes its dirty, and sometimes found in thin supply, but its a Pennsylvania heritage, that has been going for hundreds of years.
poasterchild Featured By Owner Jan 26, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
I live in Appalachian Virginia, and so, I am not unsympathetic to the miners and to the deep mining section of the industry. I am extremely opposed to the technique called mountaintop removal mining. There is a huge difference between the two. Take a look at this video on Youtube: [link]. I have never seen a deep coal mining operation that produced destruction such as this.
emperorkirkwall Featured By Owner Jan 26, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
I can agree with the mountaintop thing, but the states in Appalachia survive off the coal industry, even if it does mean blowing a crater in the ground.My family has a history of being coal miners so this strikes me at the heart.
poasterchild Featured By Owner Jan 26, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
From what I understand from people here in the coal industry, most of the contraction is sales is not due to environmental regulations, but because of the competition caused by cheap natural gas that is coming on-line due to fracking. It is my hope that the deep mining of coal will always be a part of our economy, but I think it is going to be much more specialized. For example, the anthracite coal that you have in Pennsylvania that we do not have here in Virginia will always be in demand because of its use in the manufacture of steel, etc. What will happen over time is that less and less bituminous coal will be burned to generate electric power. So long as natural gas remains relatively cheap compared to coal, there is no way to stop that from happening in a free market system.
Add a Comment:


Submitted on
January 26, 2013
Image Size
819 KB


23 (who?)