Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Bristol Bay, the EPA and Pebble

  1. #1
    Member AlpineEarl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Usually somewhere I don't want to be.
    Posts
    408

    Default Bristol Bay, the EPA and Pebble

    A couple of new articles about the EPA's study of the environmental impacts of large scale mining on Bristol Bay. Of course the Parnell Administration is unhappy, words like science, environmental impact and study are used in the assessment. They have asked the EPA to stop its work citing, shockingly, the authority of the EPA to conduct such a study.

    http://www.adn.com/2012/05/03/245049...-concerns.html

    http://www.adn.com/2012/05/03/245132...g-its-job.html

  2. #2

    Default

    Perhaps the state doesn't like the feds taking over our business?
    Perhaps Senator Murkowski is trying to protect the constituents? I'm sure they would be happier with jobs.
    Perhaps citing editorials isn't going to convince anyone but just muddy the water.
    Mike
    Mike
    www.alaskaatvclub.org
    There is a faster way off the mountain, might hurt a little though.

  3. #3
    Member sayak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central peninsula, between the K-rivers
    Posts
    5,790

    Default

    You dont mean this EPA, do you?
    "Armendariz answers a question about enforcement policies. 'In the Middle Ages', he told the audience, 'the Romans conquered a village by taking "the first five guys they saw and they'd crucify them.'
    He added that the EPA, similarly, makes 'examples out of people who are not complying with the law ... you make examples out of them, use it as a deterrent method.'".
    'Companies that are smart see that and they don't want to play that, and they decide at that point that it's time to clean up.' he added."

  4. #4
    Member AlpineEarl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Usually somewhere I don't want to be.
    Posts
    408

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Echo View Post
    Perhaps the state doesn't like the feds taking over our business?
    Perhaps Senator Murkowski is trying to protect the constituents? I'm sure they would be happier with jobs.
    Perhaps citing editorials isn't going to convince anyone but just muddy the water.
    Mike
    Perhaps Mike. Only the vast majority of public opinion in Alaska is against Pebble. This is not even about whether or not to have Pebble go forward this is just a study on the impacts of Pebble. Why are some against determining the impacts of large scale mining in the region?? The only reasonable answer is that the developers, the supporters in the administration and those who will benefit from such mining don't want to know the impact it will have, and more importantly they don't want the rest of to know either. it's an assessment, nothing more. if there is a conspiricy, its from the mining industry.
    The feds taking over our business argument is baloney, tired old regurgitation of an invalid argument. It holds no water Mike.

  5. #5
    Member sayak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central peninsula, between the K-rivers
    Posts
    5,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlpineEarl View Post
    The feds taking over our business argument is baloney, tired old regurgitation of an invalid argument. It holds no water Mike.
    Wow Earl, that is a classic Alinskian tactic:"Anyone who is not clearly in accord with the Facilitatorís agenda is made to appear ridiculous, inarticulate, ignorant or dogmatic."

  6. #6
    Member AlpineEarl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Usually somewhere I don't want to be.
    Posts
    408

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sayak View Post
    Wow Earl, that is a classic Alinskian tactic:"Anyone who is not clearly in accord with the Facilitatorís agenda is made to appear ridiculous, inarticulate, ignorant or dogmatic."
    Ok Sayak, please clarify. Instead of diverting attention from the actual claims, refute them. Explain how, exactly, the Federal Government does not have authority over enforcing large scale mining laws, environmental regulation like the clean water act AND how Alaska State law trumps this. No arguments on how you believe it SHOULD be, but how it actually is.

    The floor is yours.....

  7. #7
    Member sayak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central peninsula, between the K-rivers
    Posts
    5,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlpineEarl View Post
    Explain how, exactly, the Federal Government does not have authority over enforcing large scale mining laws, environmental regulation like the clean water act AND how Alaska State law trumps this.
    I never said they didn't Earl. I was just pointing out that you shot down Mikes assertion that the state may not like the fed's interference in "Alaska Business". You replied "The feds taking over our business argument is baloney, tired old regurgitation of an invalid argument. It holds no water Mike.". Which is basically like saying "Shut up. Your argument has already been stated, is foolish, and I don't agree, therefore it's invalid." . That is a tried and true method of quashing opposition with a preemptive strike of belittlement. A better way would be to say, "I believe you are wrong because...".
    At any rate, it is not necessarily invalid to refer to the original, very limited scope, of the federal government. The EPA has been a rogue agency with gestapo-like powers for years, and the land in question is State land, not federal.

  8. #8
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default

    Touchy issue feds and state, and like anything it can be politicized.

    I agree with Steve's (Sayak) last post that the best way to argue a point is saying "I believe you're wrong because..." but Steve I just gotta tell ya in your other post quoting some EPA enforcement guy I guess you did the same thing you're accusing Earl of, you cherry-picked something that had nothing to do with an "I think you're wrong because..." argument.

    Bottom line it comes down to (objective) science vs politically influenced science. I honestly don't think we can say any entity (state or fed) is confined to the former only. I'll wait to read the EPA report and peer review. I don't think more study from other agencies is necessarily a bad thing but always depends on final results and what are done with them.

    I can't refrain from saying though that I think all that money Pebble Fund is giving to entities in SW Alaska - 5 million! - for very good and needed projects, including materials to rebuild churches and purchase of fire trucks and helping with public infrastructure (etc) , is in no way intended to influence the outcomes <grin>.

    Tis still about risks vs benefits, or benefits vs risks. I find which one of those prefaces the argument is the real bias. Some look at risks first and come away saying no. Some look at benefits first and come away saying yes. We need to somehow elevate the education of the populace, while keeping the science within all agencies (fed and state) as non-politicized as possible, and come to a reasonable answer. That means incorporating a whole slew of answers to the needed questions, the main one being: "What is best over the long term?"

  9. #9
    Member AlpineEarl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Usually somewhere I don't want to be.
    Posts
    408

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sayak View Post
    I never said they didn't Earl. I was just pointing out that you shot down Mikes assertion that the state may not like the fed's interference in "Alaska Business". You replied "The feds taking over our business argument is baloney, tired old regurgitation of an invalid argument. It holds no water Mike.". Which is basically like saying "Shut up. Your argument has already been stated, is foolish, and I don't agree, therefore it's invalid." . That is a tried and true method of quashing opposition with a preemptive strike of belittlement. A better way would be to say, "I believe you are wrong because...".
    At any rate, it is not necessarily invalid to refer to the original, very limited scope, of the federal government. The EPA has been a rogue agency with gestapo-like powers for years, and the land in question is State land, not federal.
    Well Sir, in now way did I intend to say "shut up....". Nothing could be further from the truth. I took his statement, "maybe the state does not like the feds taking over our business" at face value; which is to say, the feds are meddling in state business without warrant. This is, of course, a invalid argument without merit that is parroted regularly by anti-environment crowds. So the State owns the land, federal laws do not end at state borders, much like the rivers that flow out of the BB watershed! The EPA does have jurisdiction, they are well within the legally defined scope of the law and are carrying out function that the voters of our country have given them the authority to do.
    Now, if you don't like the EPA, fine. If you have problems with the laws they enforce, fine. if you believe quoting an EPA official, who basically says we should throw the book at those crummy developers, will promote an anti-environmental protection stance that's fine too. But saying the feds are taking over our business is, as I stated before, an invalid tired argument. It's their business, has been for some time and will continue to be long after we are both gone.

    Your closing perfectly illustrates my point, "EPA has been a rogue agency with gestapo-like powers". Comparing the EPA doing a study of the effects of large scale mining to the Gestapo running concentration camps and killing millions of people is a tad distorted I think. Comparing people to Nazi's is just unseemly, not fit for rational civil discourse. Plus, I thought FEMA was building those new camps anyway?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •