Yes, Kaizar, this article is inflammatory (I cannot agree with dangerous), but so are the circumstances. While nuance and balance are good, the piece is factually correct on the following assertions and perhaps only falls short in using hyperlinks to document the facts behind them (below you'll find links to two somewhat dated pieces I wrote which provide such background): Coal "control[s] Kentucky [and WV and far southwest VA] and neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton have dared to challenge "King Coal" while campaigning." In fact, they have touted "clean coal" which critics say is anything but and fave refused to come out against the MTR that "clean coal" will accelerate unless is is restricted again or outlawed. The Bush ... More »

Incredibility important subject clearly reported.. other views or report are requested as MSM, has not(or is it will not) cover. This is a fact filled expose' with detail and a passionate delivery. Many facts which are not exaggerated. What should an honest reporter write if 'Big Coal" is actually a demon? Bring other views to the table, please. What is the EPA's record of protecting the environment around coal mining? Who is covering environmental issues and the EPA in the MSM? Is anyone impartial on this issue?

If you doubt that the "rights" of big corporations have won over the rights of people in the U.S., read this moving piece about big coal. While the U.K. coal industry has had its own problems, it's always easier for an outsider to see the big picture.

This story is almost too sad to read. As a Kentuckian it is more than painful to see the devastation caused by the insatiable appetite of the American people for cheap electricity. In Kentucky, West Virginia and Virginia our environment is being raped at will by coal companies while neighbors are turned against each other as they fight poverty and scramble for the few jobs provided by this atrocious way of doing business. Kentuckians for the Commonwealth and environmental groups fight a brave rearguard action but each victory is offset by many, many defeats. Our forests and streams are being destroyed as we watch.

Very one sided, not addressing for example the costs of NOT mining coal. Raises legal issues but doesn't explore them enough. Contains information that is not widely available.

When it comes to exploiting fossil fuels .. be they gas, oil or coal ... there really is no free lunch. For every gallon or BTU gained the price is environmental desegregation, pollution, global warming, or all the above. We cling to fossil fuels like a battered wife clings to an abusive husband -- because it's what we know and we fear change. Last November I installed solar panels on my roof. Last month the utility company ended up owing me $8.18. Former oil man,T. Boone Pickens, has just made a big investment in wind-powered electrical generation. There are solutions, but we seem determined to ignore them in favor of the dirty and depleting energy sources that got us into the troubles -- economic and ecological -- that ... More »

This portrayal of the negative impacts of "mountain top removal" coal operations is told by narratives from those most disadvantaged by it. Some will react contentiously that anecdotal evidence does not make good journalism, but I can't see how the article could be made "fair and balanced". The coal producers can cite economic necessity, since half our electricity is generated with it, and there is always a local demand for some type of employment. But there is no denying the rapacious devastation of the ecosystems. The real impact here is the underlying political power and implied bias or even corruption; documenting that might create a more responsible, focused journalistic product.

This is an incredibly important issue which makes this piece particularly dangerous. 'Big Coal' is demonized, which serves to degrade the writer's valid argument that what is being done in Kentucky and elsewhere in Appalachia is problematic. A more nuanced, balanced, and fact-filled piece, rather than this emotional plea, would have made for much better and more responsible journalism.

The devastation is indeed horrible. I wonder what is being done in China? We have alternatives that will help some. Nuclear power - stopped by environmentalists. Wind - intermittent and also stopped by environmentalists - Ted Kennedy are you listening? Solar - expensive and intermittent. We can raise the cost of electricity and strain the poor while letting the rich build ever bigger houses. Al Gore are you listening? All the while driving industry to other countries. Or we can mine coal. What is left out of the article is what are choices? All they have presented is the costs. No look at the benefits.

This opinion piece has no journalistic merit. The author is ignorant of all the facts on the issue. He does not present information about what happens after the land is restored. Nor does he note the high level of fatalities from deep coal mining each year. Nor does he know that much of the coal is going to Europe (except of course France, which generates electricity by nuclear power). You can always find people to whine and complain about anything, but the role of journalism is to provide context and accurate information about the full picture. So this piece fails to meet the standards of journalism.

I wish we could have heard more from members of the Kentucky Coal Association about why coal mining is "a good thing." It would have added some balance. A quote from the Bush Administration or congressman in favor of aggressive coal mining would have been nice too.