Nationwide 21: To Dump or Not to Dump

http://www2.tricities.com/tri/news/local/article/public_hearing_on_mountaintop_mining_waste_draws_large_crowd/34312/
Humanity’s addiction to fossil fuel is both its greatest strength and weakness. Since the Industrial revolution humans have been able to successfully harness energy from fossil fuels to build modern empires and power them. Of these sources oil and coal continue to be the primary sources of energy worldwide. But this attraction is a fatal one; while coal is a relatively cheap and simple source of energy it also generates large amounts of pollution which compromise both environmental and human health. Despite this fact, coal mining continues to be one of the largest industries in developing countries. Before coal is even incinerated, it creates serious environmental impacts. Surface mining scars the land and creates large amounts of mining waste, which needs to be disposed of. One of the biggest challenges for mining companies in the United States is to find and get the permit for a waste site. However, there is a permit known as Nationwide 21 which enables mining companies go through the waste site permit process more efficiently and thus speed up the mining process. On October 16, 2009 a hearing took place in Big Stone Gap Virginia to debate whether Nationwide 21 permits should no longer be issued.
There are many ethical issues that come with this issue, and the position in which an individual takes depends on what they deem morally significant. Mining companies who support Nationwide 21 argue that it allows Mountaintop mining to work more effectively and therefore employ more people. It is clear to see that for the mining companies only humans count morally, and that their well being is directly tied to their job. The mining companies do not even mention the environment or any other species other than humans, this view is anthropocentric. For the environmental activists who oppose Nationwide 21 take a more biocentric holistic stance. The environmental activists argue that Nationwide 21 allows mining to operate more efficiently therefore the rate of environmental destruction that results from mining is also increased. Morally, humans, sentient animals, non- sentient animals and non living entities such as ecosystems and species matter. It is the environment as a whole which supports the survival of the organisms inhabiting it and the organisms themselves, including humans which matter.
If Nationwide 21 permit regulation were to be changes then mining companies would have a a harder time establishing mining sites due to the inefficiencies associated with acquiring an individual permit. This would lead to a decrease in mining productions therefore less environmental degradation. However the companies argue that this decrease in productivity would also lead to a decrease in jobs and of the coal industry in the area. A consequentialist in this situation would say that Nationwide 21 should not be banned because it positively impacts the interests of humans. The ecosystem in this case only has value to the humans in the area because they can extract resources from it. The health of the ecosystem itself does not matter. By being able to harvest the coal from the environment humans are able to have jobs, therefore support themselves and achieve a level of happiness. Therefore more humans benefit from not having the permit banned. In contrast a non consequentialist would argue that Nationwide 21 should be banned because it allows increases the rate of mining. The environment in this case does have intrinsic value outside of its ability to provide humans resources. The allowance of mining degrades the local environment, the species living in it, and contaminates the water table, which is accessed by people from outside of the local area. Morally the environment, the other species and the people from around the area who access the water do matter and therefore it is important to protect their interests as well. Although some people might have to find other jobs, the environmental protection for the surrounding area and people far outweighs this as jobs can be replaced, but the environment health of the environment cannot.