Coal-Country versus Climate Policy: The Rural-Urban Divide of Environmentalism in the Southern United States
A juxtaposition between the urban setting rapidly gaining popularity in the south with a more traditional rural environment. Source: Press Progress
At a Crossroads: The American South’s Environmental Divide
The ultimate juxtaposition: “clean” and “coal.” The two words evoke starkly different emotions for Americans when referencing energy sources. Coal is, by composition, not a clean rock. Rich in sulfur, nitrogen, and heavy metals such as mercury, lead, and arsenic, the black, chalky rock was the poster child of energy in the United States from around the late 18th century up until the early 21st century.
The American South, in particular, has found itself at a critical crossroads recently, with rural and urban communities representing a stark divide in their approaches to environmental policy. Historically, rural regions of the American South rely heavily on the extraction of natural resources (e.g., coal) for their economic prosperity. Decades ago, when natural resource extraction was at its peak, and little attention was paid to the environmental ramifications of such extraction, they were an excellent form of economic success for the rural American South. Unlike rural areas, urban areas (e.g., Nashville, Louisville, Raleigh, etc.) have historically relied on diversified economies, championing more service-based industries such as technology and finance sectors. Such economic structures, those that don’t rely heavily on resource extraction, have helped urban centers be more open to sustainability initiatives, as it does not directly threaten their economy.
Louisville, Kentucky. Source: iStock by Getty Images
The Economic and Cultural Divide: Coal Dependency versus Green Innovation
One of the most significant differences between the rural and urban American South is the way in which their economies operate. Natural resource extraction has been a way of life in the South, dating back to the Antebellum period of the 17th century, with deforestation and plantation agriculture being an integral part of life, to the early 20th century, when more industrialized resource extraction began. Here, practices such as coal mining, fracking, and mechanized farming (e.g., chemical fertilizers) are seen as more popularized culprits of environmental exploitation—specifically, in rural regions of the south. Such industries are not the only ways in which the rural South fuels its economy, however, they are integral parts of the identities of many rural Southerners. In an interview with the author conducted via email with one resident of the rural Tennessee town Johnson City, they shared that “Many in our area feel an allegiance to coal because for generations that was the family’s livelihood.”
Johnson City, Tennessee. Source: Rutherford Source
Oppositely, a trend in the urban South is a championing of environmental policy and regulation, usually out of necessity, instead of stemming from an ingrained ideology. In the early 20th century when the extraction of coal was beginning its reign in the South, stakeholder urban towns like Louisville, Kentucky were forced to confront threats to public health from environmental exploitation, as it was directly affecting public health with issues like air pollution and respiratory disease plaguing urban society. In an interview conducted via email, one Louisville resident wrote, “Louisville plays a key role in moving the conversation forward and shaping a more sustainable future for Kentucky,” that is, shaping a more sustainable future for the broader South.
Beginning around the late 19th century to early 20th century, concepts like post-Civil War industrialization are seen. In the later 20th century, post-World War II, industrialization boom, immediate consequences of pollution occurred in urban areas; oppositely, rural areas saw more dispersed forms of pollution which meant that fewer people experienced immediate health consequences. Slow, long-term effects in the rural South contributed to a growing acceptance and comfortability surrounding exploitation in communities. It may be hypothesized that pushback for championing environmental policy in the rural South is due to an ingrained, old, sense of what life should be like; perhaps, disparities in education and access to information may also be a culprit for such narratives. According to the Center on Rural Innovation, the gap in economic opportunity between rural and urban areas has increased over recent years due to a lack of education in rural areas.
The gap in rural and nonrural employment has risen since 1980. Source: CORI
The graph follows the rise of the knowledge economy in urban areas since the late 20th century. Perhaps there is a connection between pitfalls in the rural-southern knowledge economy and pushback against policy-threatening traditional ideals in rural areas.
One Johnson City, Tennessee resident stated to the author that “education, connection, and listening demonstrate that the types of changes we implement on behalf of Mother Earth will be okay for her residents’ well-being, too.”
By prioritizing inclusive policies and having open dialogue surrounding environmental policy, progress that benefits the planet and the people and communities that call her home is highly probable.
To begin to bridge the divide in environmental policy in the American South, much more than policy shifts need to be carried out. Above all, it appears that this issue is an issue of cultural reckoning amongst rural and urban communities—one where one must reconcile with the past, recognize the risks, and have a vision for the future. That is one where economic security and sustainability concepts are not mutually exclusive but are intertwined, acting as a seamless integrated form of the green and industrial sectors.