The real story of US coal: inside the world's biggest coalmine

[malaise]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/10/-sp-the-real-story-of-us-coal-inside-the-worlds-biggest-coal-mine
<snip>
In the world’s biggest coalmine, even a 400 tonne truck looks like a toy. Everything about the scale of Peabody Energy’s operations in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming is big and the mines are only going to get bigger – despite new warnings from the United Nations on the dangerous burning of fossil fuels, despite Barack Obama’s promises to fight climate change, and despite reports that coal is in its death throes.

“You’re looking at the world’s largest mine,” said Scott Durgin, senior vice-president for Peabody’s operations in the Powder River Basin, watching the giant machinery at work. “This is one of the biggest seams you will ever see. This particular shovel is one of the largest shovels you can buy, and that is the largest truck you can buy.”

Chris Curran, a Peabody spokesman, refused to talk about climate change or the effects of Obama’s efforts to cut carbon emissions on the company’s profits. “They are only proposed regulations right now. Nothing is going on,” he said.

It takes a call to the senior vice-president of corporate communications, Vic Svec, at the head office in St Louis before the company will discuss climate change. As it turns out, the company’s official position is that there is no such thing as human-caused climate change. “We do not question the climate changing. It has been changing for as long as man has recorded history,” Svec said. Climate change was a “modelled crisis”, he went on.

--------------------
WTF!!!!

[tech3149]

1. The fiends of coal will not be deterred!

They are so invested in their personal gain that they will deny responsibility as their own children choke on the air they breath.

[RiverLover]

2. Really well written article, I had no idea that was happening in beautiful Wyoming.

Thanks for posting.

From OP link~

"“We are making a national sacrifice out of this region,” he said. “Peabody coal and other coal companies want to keep on mining, and mine this country out and leave it as a sacrifice and they want to do it for their bottom line. It’s not for the United States. They want to sell it overseas, and I want to see that stopped.”

As do some of the most powerful people on the planet. About 120 world leaders met at the United Nations (UN) in September to commit to fighting climate change – many noting that the evidence of warming was occurring in real time. Obama last year proposed new rules that will make it almost impossible to build new coal power plants."

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/10/-sp-the-real-story-of-us-coal-inside-the-worlds-biggest-coal-mine

[malaise]

7. The greedy don't care who or what is destroyed as long

as they accumulate wealth.

[Omaha Steve]

3. Thanks for the post

K&R!

[malaise]

9. Check out n2doc's thread as well

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025800545

[Fred Sanders]

4. From the lips of corporations to the ears and pockets of politicians, climate change is not man made

How much damage is political corruption and graft costing? It is no longer affordable.

Never mind Big Coal, it is Big Corruption and Big Greed that is more the problem.

[Martin Eden]

5. Coal should be taxed out of existence

It is entirely fair and necessary to do so because coal has huge externalized costs including global warming, environmental destruction, lung disease, and birth defects.

[Divernan]

6. Of course this is reported in a British newspaper/web page!

The Guardian is a real thorn in the side of U.S. profiteers.

[malaise]

8. Just check out the Guardian's ownership structure

and you'll see why.

[Divernan]

12. Quite interesting - thanks for the tip.

http://moreintelligentlife.com/content/ideas/tim-de-lisle/can-guardian-survive

This triumph of old-school reporting has been accompanied by spectacular success in new media. The Guardian has never been a big-selling newspaper: among the 11 national dailies in Britain, it lies 10th, with only the Independent behind it. But on the internet, the Guardian lies second among British newspaper sites (behind the Mail, which cheerfully chases hits by aiming lower than its print sister) and in the top five in the world, rubbing shoulders with the New York Times. Where many newspapers treated the web with suspicion, the Guardian dived in, starting early (1995), experimenting widely, pioneering live-blogging, embracing citizen journalism, mastering slideshows and timelines and interactive graphics. By March 2012 it was putting up 400 pieces of content every 24 hours. Its network of sites had a daily average of 4m browsers, as many as the sites for Britain’s bestselling newspaper (the Sun) and its bestselling broadsheet (the Telegraph) put together. The Guardian’s total traffic, around 67m unique browsers a month, was still rising by 60-70% a year.

A third of those readers are in America, which is an extraordinary achievement for a left-leaning British newspaper with its roots in Manchester. The urge to crack America is a common yearning in British public life, affecting not just rock bands and TV personalities but supermarkets (Tesco, which hasn’t succeeded) and prime ministers (Tony Blair, who has). In the news media, only three British institutions apart from the Mail have made a big impact in America: the BBC, which was already world-famous before it launched BBC America in 1998; The Economist (mothership of this magazine), whose abiding belief in the free market chimes with American values; and now the Guardian, which had no such head start. If, 15 years ago, anyone in British newspapers had predicted that the Guardian would soon find an audience of 20m in America, they would have been laughed out of the pub.

In terms of reach and impact, the Guardian is doing better than ever before. But its success may contain the seeds of its demise. Its print circulation is tumbling. In October 2005, boosted by a change to the medium-sized Berliner format, the average daily circulation was 403,297. By March 2012 it was down to 217,190. Those figures are not quite like-for-like, as the Guardian has sworn off the Viagra of giveaway copies and overseas sales (which tend to be counted less rigorously); but they are still bleak. Saturday sales remain sturdy, at 377,000, but, on a typical weekday, only 178,000 people buy the Guardian, while millions graze on it for nothing on their screens. In the financial year 2009-10, the national newspapers division of Guardian Media Group—which also includes the Observer, Britain’s oldest Sunday paper—lost £37m. The following year, it managed to cut costs by £26m, and still ended up losing £38m. In May, Rusbridger told me he was expecting a similar loss for 2011-12. So, for three years running, the Guardian has been losing £100,000 a day. This is not boom or bust, but both at once: the best of times, and the worst of times.

[seveneyes]

10. Paradise

[RiverLover]

11. Wow. Touching, bittersweet. Peabody is even wrecking Paradise KY. ~nt

[Hoppy]

13. I wonder if L J Turner, quoted in the article, voted Republican.