Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Environment

How Wind Farms May Really Replace Coal Mining

By Peter Slavin, AlterNet. Posted August 19, 2008.


One community is attempting to prove that clean energy can beat dirty power -- even in the heart of coal country.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The late John Flynn, an environmentalist raised in West Virginia's Big Coal River Valley, was a farsighted man. In 1995, Flynn met a Catholic sister fighting poverty there. They talked about the abuses that Massey Coal Company's operations had inflicted on the valley. There were the mining jobs denied to local people and an economy on its knees, people forced out of their homes to accommodate mining in hollows, and front porches blanketed by coal dust. Flynn wondered aloud about placing windmills on top of the mountains surrounding them to produce power. Why, he suggested, couldn't an array of windmills replace the giant coal mines that dominated the valley?

What Flynn didn't know was that in a few years Massey would begin the most draconian form of strip mining, known as mountaintop removal, which to date in Appalachia has been responsible for the destruction of more than 470 mountains and staggering damage to the environment and communities. Currently, mountaintop removal (MTR) operations stretch for 14 miles down one side of the river and about five miles on the other. Massey now has in its sights the last untouched major part of the valley, the huge Coal River Mountain. It plans to subject 10 square miles of it to mountaintop removal, blasting the top off to expose its coal, filling 18 hollows (local parlance for valleys) with the debris and burying six headwater streams. Most of Coal River Valley might be rendered uninhabitable.

On Coal River, mountaintop removal mining has meant living with daily blasting with thousands of pounds of explosives, some set off within a few hundred feet of homes; contamination of groundwater and Coal River; and damage to cemeteries and loss of access to them. People have to breathe in coal dust every day. When it rains hard, further flooding from mountains stripped of all cover is feared. Some families have lost their "home place" completely. Others have seen their property plummet in value. Young people can't find work, and many residents have left the area, causing school after school to close.

For years, residents have tried to fight off the four mining permits for Coal River Mountain, which could open the door to strip mining by early 2009. Meanwhile, the regional environmental group Appalachian Voices had been working with the firm Wind Logics to search for wind potential in southern West Virginia. They were surprised to find that despite their lack of elevation, the Appalachians could generate industrial-scale wind. They decided to do a more detailed look at the potential of two locales and discovered that on one, Coal River Mountain, strong winds blow.

This led a local community group, Coal River Mountain Watch (CRMW), a band of mining watchdogs, to forsake years of defensive tactics against Massey and take the offensive. In a bid to trump the company's plans, the group is working to substitute wind power on Coal River Mountain for strip-mined coal as an energy source. CRMW's campaign, Coal River Wind, is groundbreaking, the first of its kind in Appalachia's coalfields, and has been termed historic. In effect, some people on Coal River are seeking to make John Flynn's vision come true.

But with Coal River Mountain largely in the hands of three large land companies from which Massey leases the mine sites, CRMW has its work cut out for it. Undaunted, members are pursuing a strategy to shut down strip mining in favor of multiple economic uses of the area -- timber, hunting and fishing, local craft and furniture making, tourism, and temporarily, underground mining. They believe these could form the basis for sustainable economic development in the valley.

The Coal River Wind project is ambitious. Coal River Mountain Watch proposes to put 220 wind turbines, each 292 feet high, that combined could generate 440 megawatts, across miles of the mountain at a cost of upward of $1 billion. A study by WindLogics, Appalachian Voices and wind farm campaign coordinator Rory McIlmoil, 28, who has studied and analyzed wind energy for the past 16 months, found that a wind farm could produce enough power for 150,000 homes -- more than the entire surrounding county has -- and create at least 200 jobs for the two-year construction period and 40 to 50 permanent jobs to keep the turbines running. Underground mining, according to the study, would create at least another 200 direct mining jobs and potentially more if mountaintop removal were prevented, given the current demand for coal from central Appalachia.

The study acknowledges that while the four proposed mountain removal operation sites would generate far fewer jobs -- only an estimated 65 to 225 per year, since some permit areas contain much less coal than others -- they would generate much more power. However, the study notes an important difference: The mountain will yield only 14 years' worth of coal from strip-mining, while a wind farm could operate indefinitely. Moreover, the study found that only 1 in every 16 tons of coal to be produced on any West Virginia mountain is used for energy consumption within the state -- the rest is exported to other states or abroad. A good deal of wind power is bound to be exported as well, McIlmoil said, but not at the heavy social and environmental costs of strip-mined coal.

Wind farm supporters also point out that the wind farm would preserve other economic uses of the mountain, such as sustainable forestry.

Tackling Climate Change and Providing Green Jobs

According to McIlmoil, if Massey wins all four permits and mountaintop removal proceeds, the mountain would produce 58 million tons of coal in its 14 years of operation, resulting in the emission of about 170 million tons of CO2. But the competing plan for wind and underground mining, he said, "will prevent release of 104 million tons of CO2 over the first 14 years."

A revelation of the study was that mountaintop removal mining robs a mountain of wind power and wind farm potential by lowering its height by hundreds of feet. This raises the stakes on Coal River: Once such strip mining has occurred, no wind farm will be possible any time in the future.

McIlmoil sees this as a silver lining if mountaintop removal cannot be stopped. "If the state allows the mining to proceed after the whole nation knows ... what MTR will do to the wind potential, then they're going to look really bad," he said, "and MTR is going to be viewed in a whole new light, as destroying the resources that renewable energy and alternative economic development could be based on."

To McIlmoil, the wind farm represents the needed transition from coal -- providing energy "in a very old, very destructive and very dirty way" -- to clean energy. "If the nation's going to be really serious about moving toward clean energy," he said, "it could really show its ... commitment to that by preserving Coal River Mountain through wind power."

Mary Anne Hitt, the executive director of Appalachian Voices, added, "If you can build a wind farm in the middle of the Appalachian coalfields on a mountain slated for mountaintop removal, it would be a powerful statement toward making people part of the alternative energy economy." Hitt said people in Appalachia fear they're going to be left out of that economy and left to live with fossil fuels.

Every time one of the many lawsuits that have been filed against mountaintop removal threatens to shut down a mine in Appalachia, the specter of strip-miners losing their jobs is raised as the first and last word in the matter. Such high-paying jobs are precious in the coalfields. McIlmoil argues that investment in renewable energy would benefit miners, because they're already good with machinery and could be easily trained for green jobs.

"Green jobs are long-term, stable jobs," he maintained. Unlike coal industry jobs, he said, "their existence doesn't depend on litigation or boom-and-bust cycles." Green jobs may pay less, he acknowledged, but they are more stable and safer than jobs in the mines, where workers are exposed to coal dust, toxins or explosives. Some have to "work 10- to 12-hour days, seven days a week, going three months without a day off," he said, referring to some nonunion mines.

He argued that renewables also bring in new manufacturing and stable tax revenues for the state and counties. "If (West Virginians) are serious about the jobs argument," he said, "green jobs is the obvious solution."

The Campaign's Prospects

Three wind farm developers are interested enough in Coal River Mountain that they have held exploratory talks with the largest landowner as well as himself, McIlmoil said. Coal River Wind's strategy is to pressure West Virginia officials to buy out or even rescind the leases held by Massey on the mountain, and then convince the landowners that they could make good money by leasing the land instead for a wind farm and deep mining. Clearly, it's a tall order. McIlmoil estimates that if they succeed, it will be four to six years before the wind farm is in operation.

Today the group is launching a national campaign on behalf of the wind farm, a media blitz aimed at getting the public and organizations to lean on Gov. Joe Manchin and other officials. It's largely an online campaign in which its supporters -- the Sierra Club, Rainforest Action Network, the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, and Appalachian Voices -- will all send out e-mail blasts about the campaign to their members; these will reach more than 1 million people. Members will be linked to a video about Coal River Mountain (shown on the right), videos of community testimonials, a petition to state officials and a letter to the governor.

McIlmoil and supporters have already met with many state and local officials and have won sympathy in various quarters and official support from the Affiliated Construction Trades union. Significantly, the United Mine Workers has expressed no opposition. Still, they have a long way to go.

But even if the project fails to get a green light, it has already introduced a new factor onto the energy scene. Other Appalachian communities may follow suit by also trying to replace mining with wind energy. Appalachian Voices, together with three other environmental groups, is seeking funding to conduct a wind mapping study in the Virginia coalfields and apply the Coal River model in communities there. One community group in Virginia is reportedly raring to go.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: coal, wind, mtr, appalachia, coal river

Peter Slavin, a freelance journalist based in Oakton, Va. near Washington, D.C., has followed events along the Big Coal River since 1995. His articles on Appalachia have appeared in the Christian Science Monitor, Financial Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times Magazine.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
From awesome to inspiring
Posted by: HughScott on Aug 19, 2008 2:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I frequently drive from my home near Los Angeles to visit relatives in Arizona. The trip takes me past one of the world's largest wind farms, in Banning Pass along US. 10.

Before the energy crisis reared its frightening head. the sight of those many rows of tall towers with their huge propellers turning in the wind was always awesome to me. Now it's inspiring.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The Windfarm Posted by: LeaderofMen
» Of Course there is Better Posted by: gellero1
» Drive in PA or West VA Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals
Big wind
Posted by: willd4change on Aug 19, 2008 4:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wish you all the luck in the world. Hopefully there are enough people to get behind the movement and prove what everyone has been talking about. Then maybe the rest of the people will wake up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Unfortunately,
Posted by: Last Chance on Aug 19, 2008 5:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
whatever your expertise may be, you have very little idea of what you're talking about, so please let me explain it to you.

As the population continuse to grow, the demand for energy continues to grow and so the need for more and more wind farms will also continue to grow. Do you get the picture? Millions of huge windmills everywhere in everyone's back yard to feed energy to hundreds of millions of ambitious consumers busy growing the economy for a growing population.

Don't misunderstand me. Wind energy is good in a proper context, and certainly preferable to oil, but too much of any good thing turns it bad, and too many people turns everything bad, like a toxic planet!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Unfortunately, Posted by: donl51
» "Methinks you protest too much." Posted by: Last Chance
» I live in West Virginia Posted by: kww355
» RE: I live in West Virginia Posted by: Last Chance
» Thank you, Last Chance Posted by: kww355
» Appalachia Strikes Back Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals
» RE: Appalachia Strikes Back Posted by: BobKincaid
» LOL Posted by: gellero1
» It doesn't work for you. Posted by: Last Chance
» You are completely wrong about me! Posted by: Last Chance
» Last Chance Posted by: harryf200
Poop: The Future of Biofuel
Posted by: timbottoms on Aug 19, 2008 5:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I recently read that scientists in Sweden is experimenting with fecal matter and corpses as potential fuel sources. They're making biofuel by mixing alcohol, animal entrails, and poop in anaerobic digesters. I read somewhere that humans collectively produce three million tons of shit per day.

Of course, I'd imagine that to provide the entire fuel needs for the U.S., we'd have to contaminate the food supply as to induce chronic diarrhea in everyone, and install "siphoning toilets" everywhere which would use pipelines that go to refineries. Human ingenuity as it's finest, no?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Anyone ever heard of TCP? Posted by: lightwing1
end Corp Poaching,Revoke leases for Real Energy Independence
Posted by: Purple Girl on Aug 19, 2008 6:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We will never be energy independent until we kick Corps off our public lands. They are stealing our resources and putting them on the open market for the highest bidder (while destroying our Property).
This is the Reality about "off shore drilling"- We don't own this oil now, and We will not own it then!
One Fact both campaigns have fail to Explain.
Of course Mac never would, but Obama could easily end this debate by stating the facts about this obvious flaw in the Rhetoric.
Reason both Solar & Wind have been intentionally kneecapped- because Citizens could genreate their own power from Home.No Middle men- No Profits.Of course Coal is the same Deceptive idea, and so is Nuclear and Natural gas (Pickens next get richer quick scam)-All are Profit makers for the corps who control them.Reason enegry Corps quickly picked up Corn as the 'alternative' because they knew it would have an adverse effect on food production and require more use of petro to produce- a Win/win. cut the legs out from under the 'alternative' fuel movement ("told you so")and put more tractors and truckers out using Gas & Oil.
The only way to become truely Energy independent is to give citizens the chance to produce their own, and take back all natural resources as Federally owned Assets- Retrieval, production, distribution and over seas sales.Hey let's call it the Dept of Energy!
If these corps what to compete with what little land they actually own- it's a free market,go for it!Oh but will will be taking back all the equipment you got loans and tax breaks to purchase,and have not bothered to pay US back for,too!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And to further cut down on fossil fuel guzzling known as "demand",
Posted by: jwverez on Aug 19, 2008 6:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. Get rid of the ban on INDUSTRIAL HEMP and let it compete with fossil fuels on the market. Besides, HEMP does not deplete the soil and can in fact help trap the carbon that is otherwise contributing to global warming.

2. Stop supporting Big Government over-subsidization of Big Agri and help bring back the small farms. Corn-fed factory farm enslaved animals choke up more fossil fuels and contribute to global warming whereas grass-fed animals don't and in fact help nourish the soil. And to the vegetarians out there, get off the soda and junk food shit and try lentils for a change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Also, stop supporting Big Government's TYRANNICAL "zoning" laws against solar and wind.
Posted by: jwverez on Aug 19, 2008 6:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People should be given their rights to install their own solar panels and/or wind turbines if they want to power up their own homes by themselves. Unfortunately, BIG GOVERNMENT'S "zoning" laws (hint: Home Owners Association) are designed to force more people to be dependent on commercial grids which in turn use mainly fossil fuels and gouge the consumers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WARNING WARNING: New York blames wind farms for everything !!
Posted by: jwverez on Aug 19, 2008 6:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/08/18/11061/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Appalachia Strikes Back Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals
» CORPORATE WELFARE Posted by: gellero1
Watch out for big coal
Posted by: arocco on Aug 19, 2008 7:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The people of West Virginia should realize if they vote Repubilican the coal industry will win out!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It's not that simple Posted by: BobKincaid
» maxpayne-re:your PS Posted by: kww355
» RE: maxpayne-re:your PS Posted by: maxpayne
» Wrong again Posted by: BobKincaid
» RE: maxpayne-re:your PS Posted by: Spot
» "You people" Posted by: BobKincaid
MTR is a crime against nature and man
Posted by: PaulC on Aug 19, 2008 7:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here is a great Alternet article by Antrim Caskey that appeared in The Global Policy Forum last year, explaining, among other things, how G.W.Bush made MTR legal in 2002 with an executive order:

GPF article

peace,
Paul

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wind Power
Posted by: GreyFoxThree on Aug 19, 2008 7:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I lived aboard a Sailboat for many years and I found Wind Generators to be the most cost effective way of keeping batteries charged. Cheap, and a lot of power output and very reliable at sea.

RD
Ultimate Anonymity

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We need to do it well though....
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Aug 19, 2008 8:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The giant propellers turning slowly in the breeze is quite refreshing compared to coal smoke but we must utilize all the wind has to offer. The one trouble with our current wind generators is they need alot of acreage. There are other wind generators, Turby for example. that can make as much power and give you the option of having more generators per acre that we have now.
Yes,wind will outpace coal,but don't just settle on one kind of generator. It will take many diffrent types to take advantage of all the types and strenghts of wind currents we have and can use.
Let's be as diverse in our use of wind power as we are in having hamburger joints and pizza parlors to choose from. Ones for the house and city buildings can be very cost effective for the power they put out.
If we get serious about wind power and don't become fooled that it's too costly for the middle class to buy or get a tax rebate for,we'll truly be a 'Bright Nation'.
Write-in Jeffrey7 for Prez '08

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

energy dark ages
Posted by: HANGTRAITORS on Aug 19, 2008 8:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
free clean energy is real.. and yes, its a plutocrats nightmare... google suppressed energy technologies... we are still living in the steam engine age with the plutocrats egregiously obsolete stone age technology

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Blow me baby (I'm talking wind here!)
Posted by: Grandma Crabby on Aug 19, 2008 8:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was raised in Oklahoma, where the wind comes sweeping down the plane. And boy, does it ever! (Please do yourself a favor and do not wear a big billowy dress in Oklahoma because it will end up over your head. Yes, it happened to me. Damned embarrassing!)

But other than being pesky and showing the boys my panties, wind is one of the best energy sources around. Some of the best wind research is being done in Oklahoma and there are several companies that produce and install wind generators for individual homes and larger buildings too.

Wind generation, like solar, is best done by the individual home owner. This fact alone makes it unpopular because God forbid, people being independent makes the energy companies wheeze. So their PR machines come up with every reason imaginable to make wind and solar sound impractical. Neither are impractical, they are both extremely viable, if not quite perfect, methods for replacing fossil fuels.

I would like to add that the best way to conserve energy is to build energy efficient homes and buildings. Passive solar construction might sound boring, but it is one of the single best ways to actually solve this problem.

Do you think anybody in authority wants to actually solve this problem? No. But they do like it when the wind blows my dress up over my head.

Luv,
Granny


Granny's crazy videos

= go get a hearty chuckle!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Smog, Global Warming Vs. Visual Polution
Posted by: vkobaya1 on Aug 19, 2008 9:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Make your choice, smog, global warming, or visual polution and the noise of the windmills. Chances are if we don't stop contaminating the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, we will reach the tipping point which triggers release of the underseas methane hydrates and instead of a 2 degree rise in global temperatures, we may see a 100 degree runaway global warming eliminating all life on earth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rebecca
Posted by: rprocter on Aug 19, 2008 11:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In all of this discussion, there is a serious disconnect on the part of (seemingly) thousands of people who consider themselves progressive, and many journalists who consider themselves energy experts. There is an attitude that, particularly in the western U.S., massive, overwhelming, horizon-blotting wind farms are acceptable and "good clean energy". When are these "progressives" going to wake up to a couple of very serious circumstances: first, the entrepreneurs funding the really huge wind farms are often corporate criminals like T. Boone Pickens, who has destroyed large swaths of West Texas landscape to fuel his profits. This does not even consider the fact that it is widely known that Pickens intends to use the easements he's obtained for wind farms to put in huge water pipelines that will drain the Ogalalla aquifer and sell the water to large cities such as Dallas. A second problem is this: many seem oblivious to the fact that these large areas of land, often with low populations and little or no urban development, are vastly rich in biological, cultural, and scenic resources. They are also people's homes. Why do so many folks ask me if we can find somewhere "desolate" enough to put up massive wind farms so that cities can have power? As a native Texan, an adopted New Mexican, and a lifetime Westerner, I could easily make the case that urban New Jersey or Manhattan Island are "desolate". After all, the biological diversity in those places is extremely low. Shall I suggest that we level them, and put up massive, horizon-choking wind farms so rural Ohio can have lights, refrigerators, and tractor fuel? The real solution MUST lie in smaller-scale, local, community-based solutions, not just a "clean energy" version of the same massive corporate model of resource extraction we've used for fossil fuels.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ebecca Posted by: BobKincaid
Live From Coal Country
Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals on Aug 19, 2008 1:10 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You people wonder why you Liberals loses national elections... PA and Ohio are states you need and willing to piss away in the name of being "green"
Even the Upper West Side is powered by coal.

Leave the energy thinking to those how are working hard risking our lives to bring it to you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Live From Coal Country Posted by: BobKincaid
Follow the Money
Posted by: gellero1 on Aug 19, 2008 5:37 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm sure they expect the suckers...aka 'taxpayers' , to subsidize their wind farm. But the premise is absurd........there are more appropriate areas to put up windturbines. The turbines should be put there first. Interesting that the promoters want to trade high paying mining jobs for fishing and basket weaving ( aka furniture making....which is done in China anyway ). And with energy being much more expensive, who exactly is going to be supporting the ex-miners in their new skill???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» {singing} I smell a coal whore! Posted by: BobKincaid
» PS Posted by: gellero1
Panacea?
Posted by: harryf200 on Aug 19, 2008 7:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In principle I like the idea of wind farms but I note there is an increasing body of opinion in Europe at least) which states that wind turbines are less efficient than is claimed, therefore, less cost-effective, that they are extremely expensive to build and present a high "carbon footprint" in their manufacture and construction and maintenance. It is claimed that, in the UK, wind power costs the electric companies £50 per megawatt-hour, compared to £15 for conventional power.

I think this whole things need dispassionate analysis of the facts, It is too easy to jump in and assume it must be good because it's renewable energy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Panacea? Posted by: BobKincaid
» RE: Panacea? Posted by: harryf200
» It will happen............ Posted by: gellero1
» RE: It will happen............ Posted by: gzuckier
» hey, great minds Posted by: gzuckier
» RE: Panacea? Posted by: gzuckier
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement