August, 16 2011, 03:52pm EDT

New Poll Finds Powerful Opposition to Mountaintop Removal Mining in the Heart of Coal Country
Appalachians also overwhelmingly support increasing clean water protections
WASHINGTON
Today, Earthjustice, the Appalachian Mountain Advocates (formerly the Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment) and the Sierra Club released a major new poll that surveyed voters in Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia and Tennessee to measure public opinions on the practice of mountaintop removal coal mining and clean water protections. The poll was conducted by Lake Research Partners and Bellwether Research & Consulting between July 25 and 28 and sampled the opinions of 1,315 registered voters.
The poll found that voters oppose mountaintop removal coal mining by wide margins in all four states. This opposition to mountaintop removal--and the decision makers who defend it--exists across party lines.
"The survey data turns conventional wisdom on its head," said Celinda Lake, president of Lake Research Associates. "Not only does it show Appalachian voters opposing mountaintop removal and by wide margins, it also underscores that voters in these states are now treating this as a voting issue, and promise to punish elected officials who weaken clean water and environmental regulations on mountaintop removal."
Here are the major findings of the poll:
A majority of voters in WV, KY, VA, and TN reject mountaintop removal mining:
The number of voters who oppose mountaintop removal dwarfs the number who support it: 57 percent oppose mountaintop removal, and with noticeable intensity (42% strongly oppose), compared to just 20% who support it. Voters who strongly support mountaintop removal mining in these states are a very small minority (at 10%).
In the poll, voters were provided with a brief description of the practice as follows:
"Coal companies in [STATE] mine coal from mountains through a process called mountaintop removal mining where the top of a mountain is removed to extract the coal and waste is disposed in nearby valleys and streams."
Voters across Appalachia want stronger clean water protections from mountaintop removal mining:
In some of the strongest and most surprising data, the poll reveals intense and broad-based support in the heart of Appalachia for fully enforcing, and even more support for increasing, clean water protections to combat the negative impacts of mountaintop removal mining.
"Fully three-fourths (75%) of Republican voters, and 68% of Tea Party supporters, in this survey support increasing Clean Water Act protections from Mountaintop Removal coal mining," said Christine Matthews, president of Bellwether Research & Consulting. "Even in these economically stressed coal country states, there is overwhelming support for increasing clean water safeguards -- a far cry from disarming the EPA as some on the national stage have suggested."
The unpopularity of mountaintop removal mining is far-reaching and crosses party lines:
Surprisingly, opposition to the practice crosses typical political boundaries, including 64% of Democrats, 60% of independents and 51% of Republicans.
Voters in all four states mean business:
Those polled are likely to reward public officials who stand strong on clean water protection issues and punish those who act to weaken clean water protections on mountaintop removal mining.
Voters believe environmental protections are good for the economy:
Appalachian voters reject the notion that environmental protections are bad for the economy: 60 percent say they are either good for the economy or they have no impact (40% to 20%, respectively), as compared with only 25% who think they are bad for the economy.
"Elected representatives in Appalachia are out of touch with their constituents," said Joe Lovett, executive director of Appalachian Mountain Advocates. "The people of Appalachia want to be protected from mountaintop removal mining. They want environmental regulations enforced. But in Congress and statehouses, officials protect special interests instead, working to gut the Clean Water Act instead of enforcing it and strengthening it."
"We've seen the polls that show national disapproval of mountaintop removal mining, but this poll clearly shows that the people in the heart of coal country have had it with mountaintop removal mining," says Joan Mulhern, senior legislative counsel for Earthjustice. "The time for this destructive practice is over. The people in Appalachia are making it clear in this poll that they recognize the threats to their health and communities. The Obama administration, Congress, and all of our elected leaders owe it to the people of Appalachia to stop this practice before even more damage is done."
"Public officials who constantly attack the EPA and advocate for even more mountaintop removal are clearly out of step with the region's likely voters," said Ed Hopkins, director of the Environmental Quality program at the Sierra Club. "The vast majority of people in Appalachia support strengthening Clean Water Act protections to safeguard their streams and rivers from this destructive and unpopular form of mining. This poll should embolden the EPA to vigorously enforce its new policy on mountaintop removal coal mining. We urge the Obama administration to do more and do it now."
For more information about mountaintop removal coal mining in the surveyed states, please contact:
Tennessee: Ann League, Statewide Organizing for Community eMpowerment, (865) 249-7488, (865) 617-2451, ann@socm.org
Virginia: Jane Branham, Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards, (276) 679-7505, jabah2@comcast.net
Kentucky: Jerry Hardt, Kentuckians For the Commonwealth, (502) 614-6637, jhardt@kftc.org
West Virginia: Katheryn Hoffman, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, (304) 658-4224, JRWoodman@frontier.com
Debbie Jarrell, Coal River Mountain Watch, (304) 854-2182, debbiejarrell@gmail.com
Cindy Rank, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, (304) 924-5802, clrank2@gmail.com
The complete poll and the polling firms' topline memo and findings presentation are available.
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460LATEST NEWS
'Important Victory' for Florida Higher Ed: Court Upholds Block on DeSantis Censorship Law
"This is an important step in preserving the truth, civil liberties, and a better future," said one state ACLU attorney.
Mar 16, 2023
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday kept in place a preliminary injunction against Florida GOP policymakers' school censorship law in what rights advocates celebrated as "an important victory for professors, other educators, and students."
The appellate court denied a request from Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis' administration and higher education officials to block a district judge's injunction that is currently preventing enforcement of the Stop Wrongs Against Our Kids and Employees (WOKE) Act—rebranded by its supporters as the Individual Freedom Act—in the state's public colleges and universities.
DeSantis' Stop WOKE Act "limits the ways concepts related to systemic racism and sex discrimination can be discussed in teaching or conducting training in workplaces or schools," parroting a Trump administration executive order that was ultimately rescinded by President Joe Biden, the ACLU explained last year.
The plaintiffs in one of the relevant cases, Pernell v. Florida Board of Governors, are represented by the national and state ACLU along with the Legal Defense Fund (LDF) and Ballard Spahr, who first filed the federal suit last August—the same day U.S. District Judge Mark Walker, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, issued a separate injunction against the law related to employers.
The new appeals court order upholds the injunction Walker issued in November, which began by quoting George Orwell's novel 1984. Calling the controversial law "positively dystopian," the judge wrote at the time that "the powers in charge of Florida's public university system have declared the state has unfettered authority to muzzle its professors in the name of 'freedom.'"
"All students and educators deserve to have a free and open exchange about issues related to race in our classrooms."
Leah Watson, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Racial Justice Program, said Thursday that "the court's decision to leave in place the preliminary injunction is a recognition of the serious injury posed to educators and students by the Stop WOKE Act."
"All students and educators deserve to have a free and open exchange about issues related to race in our classrooms," Watson argued, rather than censored discussions that erase "the history of discrimination and lived experiences of Black and Brown people, women and girls, and LGBTQ+ individuals."
LDF assistant counsel Alexsis Johnson similarly stressed that "institutions of higher education in Florida should have the ability to provide a quality education, which simply cannot happen when students and educators, including Black students and educators, feel they cannot speak freely about their lived experiences, or when they feel that they may incur a politician's wrath for engaging in a fact-based discussion of our history."
The order also pertains to a challenge filed by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) in September.
"Professors must be able to discuss subjects like race and gender without hesitation or fear of state reprisal," FIRE said Thursday. "Any law that limits the free exchange of ideas in university classrooms should lose in both the court of law and the court of public opinion."
The Stop WOKE Act is part of a nationwide effort by Republican state lawmakers and governors—especially DeSantis, a potential 2024 GOP presidential candidate—to curtail what content can be shared and discussed in classrooms and workplaces.
"Since January 2021, 44 states have introduced bills or taken other steps that would restrict teaching critical race theory or limit how teachers can discuss racism and sexism," according to an Education Week analysis updated on Monday. "Eighteen states have imposed these bans and restrictions either through legislation or other avenues."
ACLU of Florida staff attorney Jerry Edwards warned Thursday that "lawmakers continue to threaten our democracy by attempting to curtail important discussions about our collective history and treatment of Black and Brown communities."
"This is an important step in preserving the truth, civil liberties, and a better future," Edwards said of the 11th Circuit's decision.
Though legal groups welcomed the order, the battle over the law is ongoing. The court will eventually rule on the merits of the case—which DeSantis' press secretary Bryan Griffin highlighted Thursday, adding, "We remain confident that the law is constitutional."
Opponents of the law are also undeterred, as Ballard Spahr litigation department chair Jason Leckerman made clear.
"The movement to restrict academic freedom and curtail the rights of marginalized communities is as pervasive as it is pernicious," he said. "We are proud of the work we have done so far with our partners, the ACLU and Legal Defense Fund, but the fight is far from over. Today, we'll take a moment to savor this result—and then we'll keep working."
This post has been updated with comment from FIRE and Gov. Ron DeSantis' press secretary.
Keep ReadingShow Less
In Reversal of Trump-Era Stance, Biden DOJ Backs Colorado Communities Suing Big Oil
"The Justice Department has added its voice to a series of unanimous court rulings that support communities in their efforts to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for their climate lies," said one campaigner.
Mar 16, 2023
Climate defenders on Thursday applauded the Justice Department's move to support communities suing a pair of oil companies by urging the U.S. Supreme Court to deny the corporations' bid to keep the case out of state court.
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar filed an amicus brief urging the high court to deny a petition from ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy asking the justices to review lower court rulings allowing a lawsuit from three Colorado communities to proceed.
In 2018, Boulder County, San Miguel County, and the city of Boulder sued the corporations for damages related to their decades of fossil fuel extraction—which is fueling global heating—and their lies.
"It's past time that Big Oil companies face the evidence of their climate lies and answer to juries in state court."
Common Dreamsreported in July 2020 that the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the lawsuit could proceed in state rather than federal court, the second time in two months that federal judges handed down such decisions.
Fossil fuel giants have repeatedly tried to shift such suits from state to federal courts in a bid to get the cases dismissed and avoid paying massive amounts of money for their significant contributions to the climate emergency.
"By finally ending its Trump-era support for Big Oil, the Justice Department has added its voice to a series of unanimous court rulings that support communities in their efforts to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for their climate lies," Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, said in a statement Thursday.
According to the Center for Climate Integrity:
On the campaign trail, President [Joe] Biden pledged he would direct his attorney general to "strategically support" such lawsuits, but the department had allowed its Trump-era support of oil companies to remain in effect until today. To date, five federal appeals courts and 13 federal district courts have unanimously ruled against the fossil fuel industry's arguments to avoid trials in state courts. Last year, the Supreme Court asked the Justice Department to express its views on the matter.
"Big Oil companies have fought tirelessly to escape accountability for fueling the climate crisis and then lying about it, but judges have uniformly denied their pleas to escape trial in state courts," said Wiles. "Communities in Colorado and across the U.S. have waited long enough for justice. It's past time that Big Oil companies face the evidence of their climate lies and answer to juries in state court."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden Shows Support as Senate Advances Repeal of Iraq War Authorizations
"Repeal of these authorizations would have no impact on current U.S. military operations and would support this administration's commitment to a strong and comprehensive relationship with our Iraqi partners."
Mar 16, 2023
As the U.S. Senate on Thursday teed up a vote to end the congressional authorizations for the Gulf and Iraq wars, President Joe Biden formally backed the bipartisan bill.
The progress on finally repealing the 1991 and 2002 authorizations for use of military force (AUMFs) comes just ahead of the 20th anniversary of the George W. Bush administration's costly and devastating invasion of Iraq.
The bill ( S. 316/H.R. 932) was reintroduced in February by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), and has GOP co-sponsors in both chambers. On Thursday, 19 Republican senators joined with all Democrats present to advance the measure.
The legislation has not yet been approved by the House of Representatives, which is narrowly controlled by the GOP. However, if it reaches the president's desk, he supports it, according to the statement of administration policy released Thursday.
While former Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump used the 2002 authorization to justify strikes against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria and Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani, respectively, the new Biden administration document notes that "the United States conducts no ongoing military activities that rely primarily on the 2002 AUMF, and no ongoing military activities that rely on the 1991 AUMF, as a domestic legal basis."
"Repeal of these authorizations would have no impact on current U.S. military operations and would support this administration's commitment to a strong and comprehensive relationship with our Iraqi partners," that policy statement adds. "President Biden remains committed to working with the Congress to ensure that outdated authorizations for the use of military force are replaced with a narrow and specific framework more appropriate to protecting Americans from modern terrorist threats."
Demand Progress Education Fund policy adviser Cavan Kharrazian said in a statement that "we are glad President Biden is supportive of getting these outdated AUMFs off the books, and that he is committed to work with Congress on presumably replacing the 2001 AUMF with a narrower framework."
"However, any serious attempt by President Biden to work with Congress on war powers reforms requires the administration to halt unauthorized participation of U.S. armed forces in hostilities that contravene the War Powers Act," Kharrazian stressed. "This includes ending U.S. support for the Saudi-led coalition's war on Yemen, ceasing the use of U.S. forces to protect Syrian oil fields and battling Iranian-backed militias, and putting an end to legally dubious military operations in the Horn of Africa."
The campaigner continued:
Moreover, the administration must commit to full legal transparency regarding the use of military force. Both this administration and previous administrations have failed to provide Congress with timely reporting on the 2001 AUMF, as required by 50 U.S. Code § 1550. Additionally, President Biden has failed to respond to lawmakers' inquiries about the administration's legal justifications for the expansive use of the 2001 AUMF and Article 2 authorities. Without such transparency, Congress is unable to fully exercise its oversight and legislative duties over war and peace.
It's encouraging to see an administration committed to addressing outdated AUMFs. However, a genuine commitment will involve respecting congressional authority over war by proactively ending unauthorized military activities and implementing comprehensive transparency measures.
In a series of tweets, the Quaker advocacy group Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) welcomed the administration's position and highlighted fresh comments from Kaine and Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.), a co-sponsor, who gathered outside the U.S. Capitol on Thursday with members of the American Legion.
"There's no reason—none—to have a war authorization against a strategic partner, and so that's the first reason why we need to do this," Kaine said of Iraq, adding that the repeal must also occur to honor U.S. service members.
Kaine called out previous failures by Congress to end the AUMFs, and noted that leaving them in place enables abuse. While confirming he has not spoken with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) about the bill, the senator expressed optimism that it will pass—saying of the lower chamber, "there's a wonderful bipartisan coalition there as well."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
SUPPORT OUR WORK.
We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100%
reader supported.
reader supported.