Bonasababy
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 16, 2024
- Messages
- 1,570
Senate vote any day now, call your senators if you haven't already!
Boundary waters under attack
- Thread starter IDiot
- Start date
MT_Chad
Well-known member
To make it worse, we don't even have the capacity to smelt it either, it will get shipped out of the country. Last I heard, the concentrated ore coming out of butte goes to China for smelting, I don't know that as fact though.
Bonasababy
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 16, 2024
- Messages
- 1,570
FWIW, my points when talking to people/answering common questions on this are:
"Its not in the BWCA"...no, but its immediately outside it, and near waters that flow north into the BWCA.
"We need to allow environmental review and the permit process to work". Already been extensively reviewed, the conclusion of which was that mining cant be allowed without undue risk of pollution that will be impossible to mitigate, and flowing into the BWCA watershed.
"Our country needs the products from mining". Best argument here is the mine owners are from out of the country. They will NOT agree to restrict sale and use of all mined material to US interests...they want to move it out of country and sell to foreign interests. If its so important to our national security, how does shipping mined product out of our country work to accomplish that?
"Jobs, economic impact"...cant be denied there would be some positive benefits here, but they are temporary, and especially important...future costs after mine owners disappear have always been extremely high...and borne not by the long gone company, but by generations of taxpayers. Its sometimes possible to require up front bonds for this...but the mine company will not agree to the huge need there...which would be hard to even estimate.
NO similar mine has ever been implementing without creating major pollution problems. The mining proposed always creates sulfuric acid when minerals mined are exposed, and the resulting acid mine drainage would flow right into one of most water rich watersheds in the world.
It is feasible...if at some future time, new mining methods are developed that somehow avoid the basic chemical reaction problems all past sulfide ore mines have created, for the ban to be reconsiderd.
IMO, its very possible to support mining consideration, while saying not this type of mining...and especially, not in this place.
"Its not in the BWCA"...no, but its immediately outside it, and near waters that flow north into the BWCA.
"We need to allow environmental review and the permit process to work". Already been extensively reviewed, the conclusion of which was that mining cant be allowed without undue risk of pollution that will be impossible to mitigate, and flowing into the BWCA watershed.
"Our country needs the products from mining". Best argument here is the mine owners are from out of the country. They will NOT agree to restrict sale and use of all mined material to US interests...they want to move it out of country and sell to foreign interests. If its so important to our national security, how does shipping mined product out of our country work to accomplish that?
"Jobs, economic impact"...cant be denied there would be some positive benefits here, but they are temporary, and especially important...future costs after mine owners disappear have always been extremely high...and borne not by the long gone company, but by generations of taxpayers. Its sometimes possible to require up front bonds for this...but the mine company will not agree to the huge need there...which would be hard to even estimate.
NO similar mine has ever been implementing without creating major pollution problems. The mining proposed always creates sulfuric acid when minerals mined are exposed, and the resulting acid mine drainage would flow right into one of most water rich watersheds in the world.
It is feasible...if at some future time, new mining methods are developed that somehow avoid the basic chemical reaction problems all past sulfide ore mines have created, for the ban to be reconsiderd.
IMO, its very possible to support mining consideration, while saying not this type of mining...and especially, not in this place.
Bonasababy
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 16, 2024
- Messages
- 1,570
A few things I didn't mention.
Regarding jobs, there is widepread belief that by the time any mine would get started, more jobs that today are filled by people would be done by machines--and underground operations would/could be conducted by people remotely, living nowhere near the mine.
Also, the Chilean mining conglomerate that owns the rights and wants to mine has close relationships with China in their other operations around the world. So on the national security thing--it's likely, and there is no prohibition being discussed by the administration--that mined products could be sent to China.
Regarding jobs, there is widepread belief that by the time any mine would get started, more jobs that today are filled by people would be done by machines--and underground operations would/could be conducted by people remotely, living nowhere near the mine.
Also, the Chilean mining conglomerate that owns the rights and wants to mine has close relationships with China in their other operations around the world. So on the national security thing--it's likely, and there is no prohibition being discussed by the administration--that mined products could be sent to China.
All of it is important, but my main point is that the Congressional Review Act (CRA) is the mechanism that small private interests are using to cut out the entire public comment process.
Tens of thousands of people weigh in on administrative rule making, as is required under our system. Congress has a 60-day window to overrule something published in the Federal Register as a final rule. Using some very sketchy legal theory, Congress is extending that 60-day window by saying the tolling period starts when they ask the GAO whether or not a rule would fall under the CRA. So, even though it was a rule when enacted, a rule published 3, 10, 15 years ago and way outside the 60-day window, the current Congress/Administration is comfortable saying the 60-day window starts when the GAO gives them an answer.
The net of all of this is to carve out the comments of tens of thousands of people who followed the process, gave input, offered suggestions, took days away from work/family to participate in their government. And now, those people and their comments and effort are tossed in the trash in order to repay a political debt to a donor or beneficiary who doesn't like said administrative rule.
This weaponization of the CRA has been the most blatant attack on our process of public involvement in my adult life. If we want to disenfranchise the citizens, if we want them to believe their voice doesn't matter, the current efforts to weaponize the CRA and overturn all of this citizen involvement is a smashing success.
The CRA was passed in 1996. Clinton never used it. Bush used it one time to overturn an OSHA rule Clinton's team enacted as he headed out the door. Obama never used it. In that 20-year stretch, it was used one time, within the 60-day window as it was designed for.
Trump 1 used it 16 times. Biden used it 3 times. Trump 2 has used it 25 times (22 passed so far) in the last thirteen months.
The "swamp monsters" see the CRA as the best tool they've ever encountered. The CRA is making the swamp a lot swampier and the folks who ran on the notion of draining the swamp are the ones using it to repay favors and political debts.
The BWCA issues is a reflection of this. It's hard for me to understand how anyone who believes in the value of citizen input and our form of government find weaponizing the CRA to be helpful. And those supporting the use of it now might want to hold on, as the other side it taking note and if they gain power I suspect they'll say, "Hold my beer and watch this."
Tens of thousands of people weigh in on administrative rule making, as is required under our system. Congress has a 60-day window to overrule something published in the Federal Register as a final rule. Using some very sketchy legal theory, Congress is extending that 60-day window by saying the tolling period starts when they ask the GAO whether or not a rule would fall under the CRA. So, even though it was a rule when enacted, a rule published 3, 10, 15 years ago and way outside the 60-day window, the current Congress/Administration is comfortable saying the 60-day window starts when the GAO gives them an answer.
The net of all of this is to carve out the comments of tens of thousands of people who followed the process, gave input, offered suggestions, took days away from work/family to participate in their government. And now, those people and their comments and effort are tossed in the trash in order to repay a political debt to a donor or beneficiary who doesn't like said administrative rule.
This weaponization of the CRA has been the most blatant attack on our process of public involvement in my adult life. If we want to disenfranchise the citizens, if we want them to believe their voice doesn't matter, the current efforts to weaponize the CRA and overturn all of this citizen involvement is a smashing success.
The CRA was passed in 1996. Clinton never used it. Bush used it one time to overturn an OSHA rule Clinton's team enacted as he headed out the door. Obama never used it. In that 20-year stretch, it was used one time, within the 60-day window as it was designed for.
Trump 1 used it 16 times. Biden used it 3 times. Trump 2 has used it 25 times (22 passed so far) in the last thirteen months.
The "swamp monsters" see the CRA as the best tool they've ever encountered. The CRA is making the swamp a lot swampier and the folks who ran on the notion of draining the swamp are the ones using it to repay favors and political debts.
The BWCA issues is a reflection of this. It's hard for me to understand how anyone who believes in the value of citizen input and our form of government find weaponizing the CRA to be helpful. And those supporting the use of it now might want to hold on, as the other side it taking note and if they gain power I suspect they'll say, "Hold my beer and watch this."
Gellar
Well-known member
I always get the feeling that some of these politicians are so full of themselves that they honestly think they are so much smarter than you and you are to dumb to know any difference.
@Bonasababy have voted yet? It’s been eerily quiet lately from the groups that were yelling and shouting last week.
Bonasababy
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 16, 2024
- Messages
- 1,570
I've been waiting to hear if a vote is looming but haven't heard anything yet.
BrentD
Well-known member
I don't think it has happened yet. They are too busy harassing Hillary about nothing.
Carnage2011
Well-known member
Ah yes. Current politics summed up in one post. The files only matter when it’s the other teams problem…
BrentD
Well-known member
Going after bill might be justified, but attacking hillary's just political showmanship. And then, of course, there is the donald, what do you have to say about that?
Carnage2011
Well-known member
I say we go after everyone involved. I don’t care about R and D. Burn the entire pedo ring down…
BrentD
Well-known member
I will believe it only when I see Trump up there. Meanwhile the BW dangles by a threadwhile we wait to hear how enriching Chile and China will MAGA.
Thanks for setting some truth to this.
BrentD
Well-known member
I think we have all known all along that the mine is not going to be inside the boundary waters proper. What northwoods forgot to tell you was that the fishing up there is far greater quality than the hunting and water flows north. You do the math.
And there are other things as well, but the nuts and bolts of it is: the water flows north.
Similar threads
