Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Environmentalists blast Obama mining rule reversal

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
RiverStone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-02-10 08:26 PM
Original message
Environmentalists blast Obama mining rule reversal
DENVER — The same week President Barack Obama riled environmentalists with plans for offshore oil drilling, he faces criticism for signaling he will support a Bush-era policy criticized as giving mining companies unlimited access to public lands to dump toxic waste.

The administration asked a federal judge Tuesday to dismiss a challenge by environmental and community groups to a rule that lifted a restriction on how much public land companies can use. The groups are also challenging a 2008 rule that says companies aren't required to pay the going rate to use the land.

Environmentalists said the administration's decision conflicts with its pledge to overhaul the nearly 140-year-old law regulating the mining of gold, silver and other hard-rock minerals on public land.

"The Obama administration can't have it both ways," said Jane Danowitz of the Pew Environment Group in Washington. "Either it stands by its earlier commitment to bringing mining law into the 21st Century, or it continues to allow the industry to dump unlimited toxic waste on public land at the expense of taxpayers and the environment."

National Mining Association spokeswoman Carol Raulston said Friday that her group is pleased with the Obama administration's decision to support the Bush policy.

more:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100402/ap_on_bi_ge/us_mining_reform


Sadly, President Obama continues to disappoint on environmental issues. Whereas I'll always say that his election was better for the earth than continuing with the rethugs (and I worked like hell to elect him) - on eco issues anyway, he has been underwhelming.

A very disappointing trend. The stench of corporate influence is obvious.

As a result, I find myself far less passionate about national politics, but remain very involved and active with local progressive issues.

I wonder how much green support is Obama calculating he can afford to lose? :think:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
robinblue Donating Member (385 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-02-10 08:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. "her group is pleased with the Obama administration's decision to support the Bush policy."
:mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katandmoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-02-10 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
2. Note to Keeper of Obama's List O'Accomplishments: Please add this!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RKP5637 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-02-10 09:15 PM
Response to Original message
3. I find it exhausting! I try to keep upbeat, but things like this can't help but
make one wonder WTF.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Smashcut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-02-10 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
4. But don't you see??? This is a brilliant move!
He's "taking this issue away" from the Republicans!!!

:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pathansen Donating Member (696 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-03-10 06:58 AM
Response to Original message
5. Too bad we didn't draft Al Gore as President
Didn't Obama pledge to support the environment instead of polluters?
This is sad!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MoonRiver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-03-10 09:30 AM
Response to Original message
6. Change!!
:woohoo:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-03-10 05:24 PM
Response to Original message
7. kick for the earth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tnlefty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-03-10 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. And kick for yet another kick in the gut.
:hi: We're gonna need a bigger bus is all that I know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-03-10 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
8. Yes!!!! Another Republican issue is ours!!!
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-04-10 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. yay! we win!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-03-10 07:32 PM
Response to Original message
9. It's disappointing they won't support the lawsuit
Edited on Sat Apr-03-10 07:40 PM by bigtree
... but the administration can still support the legislation in Congress to reform the 1872 law (http://coloradoindependent.com/33462/udall-hearing-examines-1872-mining-law-reform-pits-reid-against-salazar-obama-admin).

It's not as if that effort is a political slam-dunk among Democrats (Reid etc.). It looks to me like Interior Sec. Salazar has expressed support for the environmentalists' position (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31910387/) so I expect this move is more of an attempt to move to the legislative fight without undermining that upcoming debate than it represents a reversal of his position.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-03-10 07:41 PM
Response to Original message
11. It's all part of a master plan...
and if anyone figures out exactly what the plan is could you let me in on it?

K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-03-10 08:00 PM
Response to Original message
12. Just because an environmental group
files a lawsuit does not automatically mean it has legal merit. In my direct experience with such litigation, often the point they are trying to make is compelling and correct morally, but based on flimsy legal arguments. Mining laws for public lands are so old and vague that it wold be quite difficult for them to prevail regardless of administration support. Sometimes it is far better to use one's powder changing the law, as opposed to pointless litigation over varying interpretations of archaic legal language. On the upbeat side, let's just say they would win at the District level. There is no doubt in my mind that this would be appealed to the SCOTUS, and reversed.

The proper way to achieve this purpose under the current circumstances is to pass law that is clear and meets constitutional muster. Under that scenario, the matter never makes it to SCOTUS in a form subject to reversal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 12th 2024, 08:04 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC