Mountaintop removal is an extremely common mining technique in the Appalachian region of the United States; one that has immense effects on the surrounding environment.  A 2009 found higher rates of cardiovascular disease, birth defects and cancer localized around areas where mountaintop removal had taken place.  In one area in West Virginia, a possible link can be drawn between these ailments and the local drinking water that had been contaminated by runoff and pollutants caused by mountaintop mining (The Coal Mine Next Door).  While it is extremely difficult to measure the impact to human lives and health in a dollar value, the cost to clean up local streams can be assessed.  In 2016, the Obama administration passed the Steam Protection Rule, which has since been repealed by the Trump administration.  This rule required companies conducting mountaintop removal to monitor and restore nearby freshwater.  A government-funded study placed the cost to implement the rule at $52 million, whereas a coal industry-funded study claimed the rule would result in the loss of upwards of 77,000 jobs  (The Coal Mine Next Door),  Due to the company’s need to turn a profit, the cost imposed by any legislation would naturally be reflected in the coal produced and the resulting energy on its way to consumers.  However, this may be a necessary cost of maintaining the environment around these mines.  This job loss statistic may also be hyperinflated, as it was paid for by the companies opposed to the legislation.  However, it is worth asking if these jobs are worth maintaining if they are harming those both doing the jobs and living near where they are done.  If these jobs must be lost to reduce the impact of mountaintop removal, then perhaps new jobs could be created from both environmental cleanup and new energy sources.

Even if mountaintop removal isn’t entirely moved away from, I believe that the companies undergoing mountaintop removal should, at minimum, be responsible for minimizing environmental impact and for restoring any resources that are destroyed.  If companies need to raise prices to supplement the costs and prevent job loss, then I believe they should.  If the increased cost of mountaintop removal causes it to become unprofitable, then the practice will naturally decline.  The environmental costs of these practices are currently being paid by people living near these sites in terms of loss of quality of life, rather than money.  Another example of the environmental cost of harvesting and transporting nonrenewable resources is an oil spill.  It is just this year that the transport company Patriot Marine, LLC is being sued for removal costs of an oil spill they caused in 2018 (Ashcraft). If the cost and responsibility falls directly on the companies, then there would be no need to spend time taking these companies to court after every incident, sometimes years later.  In the meantime, the human and environmental cost wouldn’t need to be paid.

The coal mine next door. (2020, May 27). Retrieved February 23, 2021, from https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/12/10/coal-mine-next-door/how-us-governments-deregulation-mountaintop-removal-threatens#

Ashcraft, E. (2021, February 17). United States Asks court to require company to pay $1 million for oil spill cleanup – agriculture. Retrieved February 23, 2021, from https://lawstreetmedia.com/agriculture/united-states-asks-court-to-require-company-to-pay-1-million-for-oil-spill-cleanup/