In Lost Mountain, Eric Reece stresses the importance of the diverse forests in the mountains of Northeast America. He gives examples of the diversity, such as the different kinds of trees and the wood rats, which are things that only live in those conditions. Although wildlife does come back to the areas after "reclamation," it's never fully restored because those trees and those creatures have history there that has been destroyed. The diversity is also greatly reduced in these areas, sometimes down from thousands of species to just a few animals like deer and elk. He also states that reclaiming those areas only fixes the problem for a short time, because the land is so loosely packed that it slides downhill during rain, so the trees and plants and, therefore, the habitats of many animals never last.
While those reasons are all great examples of the importance of those forests, I am most convinced by his reference to the streams. Reece refers to a statement made by Bill Caylor of the Kentucky Coal Association, saying a stream without fish is not a stream at all. I had to read that statement over again to really believe that anyone could say that. Reece's argument that liverworts, seemingly insignificant plants, reside in these streams and contribute to richer soil and better water downstream, is a great argument that can be applied to the broader category of any life form in the water. As a biology major, maybe I am biased, but I find it difficult to ignore the impact of every living thing in an environment. Mountaintop removal is destroying life in the forests it occurs in, but it is affecting life in areas miles away as well.
I don't consider myself to be any kind of activist, as I usually take on a laissez-faire attitude towards most major issues, but to ignore such blatant harmful effects on the historically rich and diverse forests of Appalachia is criminal.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with you on the fact that what mountaintop removal does to the habitats of animals and plants is wrong, but at the same time i feel that the effects on the people is even worse. For a community to have to live in fear of getting cancer from their water supply or having complications during birth from eating the wrong fish should not be occurring. I feel that is should be the company that is in charge of the removal to provide a way for the water supply to be cleaned up enough that is doesnt not harm the residents surrounding the project. This way they removal of coal would continue which i feel is needed, but at the same time taking care of the citizens.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your post and I'll say that your POV as a biology major should be valued as you have a better understanding of these issues that a lot of us. Personally, I'm kind of at a point where I dont want to take sides on this issue just yet, I simply want to take in as much information as I can and your contribution has helped.
ReplyDeleteI could not agree more. The fact that the man from the Kentucky Coal Association said that a stream is not a stream, if it doesn't have fish is ridiculous. You don't have to be a biology major to know bullshit when you see it.
ReplyDelete