WVU researcher Michael Hendryx argues the price West Virginians pay in health problems and shorter life spans is far greater than any economic benefits.
Morgantown reporter Ben Adducchio discussed the study with Hendryx.
Ben: How did you reach this conclusion?
Hendryx: We relied on mortality data, published by the CDC, to estimate how many extra deaths take place every year in Appalachian coal mining areas. We assigned a monetary value to that through a technique that’s called VSL, or value of statistical life, which is a well-accepted approach to helping to make policy decisions.
We used in figures for the value of statistical life which vary anywhere from $4 to $7 million per life, we multiplied that by the number of deaths to get an estimate of the total cost. And then for the benefit, we used a report that was published by some economists at the University of Kentucky, who estimated the economic benefits of the coal mining industry for Appalachia. The benefits were $8 billion per year, and the costs are about $42 billion, more than five times higher.
Ben: In your opinion, why is this the case?
Hendryx: I think it’s partly due to the persistent levels of poorer economic conditions that exist in mining areas. Mining areas, in our analysis, actually had higher unemployment rates, higher poverty rates, and lower income levels than non mining areas.
All of those factors contribute to health in pretty profound ways. We think there are probably, although it’s really hard to get good evidence on this so far, but probably some contributions from environmental contaminants from the mining industry itself.
Ben: You said quote “If we were serious about developing a strong economy, we’d develop an economy not dependent on coal.” Critics would disagree and say that if we shift away from coal, many people that work in those areas would lose their jobs. How do you respond to those critics?
Hendryx: The choice is not just between coal mining and nothing. I’m not suggesting that we should shut down coal mines today and replace it with nothing. Then, sure, some people would lose their jobs and we’d have less tax revenue. But it’s not a choice between mining and nothing; it’s a choice between mining and developing alternatives.
The evidence shows that areas that don’t have mining, which are similar in other respects to mining communities, develop economic alternatives. They have different kinds of industry. I think we need to work to develop those alternatives in mining areas as well, so there are more jobs, not fewer.
Ben: Is it possible that some of these mortality rates have nothing to do with coal mining, but other risk factors, like high tobacco consumption? Is it possible to isolate that kind of data in your study?
Hendryx: We’ve tried to do that to the best of our ability. Smoking rates are higher in mining areas. Other contributions include higher poverty rates; I think that’s probably a major one. I approach it from a perspective that’s called social disparities models, that is that the health disparities that we see in Appalachian mining areas are the result of this complex set of factors, it’s not just one thing or another.
They’re all rooted in the economy that is dependent and dominated by coal. They are all interrelated; it’s not just smoking, because part of the reason that smoking rates are higher is because people there live in a depressed economy, and there aren’t the number of coal mining jobs that there used to be.
If you are lucky enough to have one of those jobs, that’s great, I have no question with that whatsoever. In 1980, there were over 55,000 coal miners in West Virginia. The most recent figures I’ve seen, there is only about 20,000. It’s gone down by more than half.
Ben: You’ve published this paper, but what still needs to be done to fully examine this issue, in your opinion?
Hendryx: There are a couple of things that I think are most important. One is to get better data on the direct environmental consequences of coal mining. We don’t really understand very well what the real water or air quality issues are, and how they might relate to health outcomes.
The second one has to do with this idea of developing stronger economies. Again, not just replacing coal mining with nothing, but trying to find better ways to grow the economy and create jobs. I’d like to see some effort placed on trying some demonstrations, evaluating some ways to try to do that, and see if it works.