EPA Blocks Long-Disputed Mine Project in Alaska (nytimes.com) 62
The Biden administration on Tuesday moved to protect one of the world's most valuable wild salmon fisheries, at Bristol Bay in Alaska, by effectively blocking the development of a gold and copper mine there. From a report: The Environmental Protection Agency issued a final determination under the Clean Water Act that bans the disposal of mine waste in part of the bay's watershed, about 200 miles southwest of Anchorage. Streams in the watershed are crucial breeding grounds for salmon, but the area also contains deposits of precious-metal ores thought to be worth several hundred billion dollars.
A two-decades old proposal to mine those ores, called the Pebble project, has been supported by some Alaskan lawmakers and Native groups for the economic benefits it would bring, but opposed by others, including tribes around the bay and environmentalists who say it would do irreparable harm to the salmon population. Alannah Hurley, executive director of United Tribes of Bristol Bay, which has long opposed the mine, said the decision "was a real moment of justice for us." She said the tribes had long been told that "we just need to fall in line" and that the mine was inevitable. "Thank goodness our tribal leaders did not accept that," Ms. Hurley said. "We'll be celebrating this decision for decades to come."
A two-decades old proposal to mine those ores, called the Pebble project, has been supported by some Alaskan lawmakers and Native groups for the economic benefits it would bring, but opposed by others, including tribes around the bay and environmentalists who say it would do irreparable harm to the salmon population. Alannah Hurley, executive director of United Tribes of Bristol Bay, which has long opposed the mine, said the decision "was a real moment of justice for us." She said the tribes had long been told that "we just need to fall in line" and that the mine was inevitable. "Thank goodness our tribal leaders did not accept that," Ms. Hurley said. "We'll be celebrating this decision for decades to come."
So there! (Score:2, Informative)
If corporations can be people, then so can fish!
Re:So there! (Score:4, Insightful)
There, there, son. Ask Mommy for a cookie and glass of warm milk, you'll feel better.
Re: (Score:1)
Better yet, ask Mommy for their Xanax tablets.
Re: (Score:2)
Last time I checked, salmon are way tastier than gold and/or copper.
We should enjoy them while they're still around, the minerals will still be there later.
Re: (Score:2)
Except we need the copper to build EVs, wind turbines, and HVDC transmission lines.
This may help one bay but will damage the global environment.
Re: (Score:1)
World Demand (Score:2)
I give it a few years and with new mining technology we'll see this kind of decision as mute.
Why?
There's typically 180lb of copper in each Tesla.
There's 1900lb of copper in a 1.5MW wind turbine.
You can't go green without leaving a few holes in the earth.
Re:World Demand (Score:5, Insightful)
I’d rather have salmon free of heavy metals than a 2% cheaper Tesla.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Not the equation (Score:4, Funny)
Or... instead of keeping the same 19th century mining laws in place, mining companies could get in front of the environmental concerns and make a win-win?
Hey--good news! The copper ore isn't going anywhere.
Re: (Score:1)
yeah but then their teslas are going to be more expensive, you fool!
personally i couldn't care less about teslas, but the older i get the more misanthropist i become, and boy is this a good age to be a misanthropist. it has never been better. we have gotten to a time where it is already clear that there is no going back, and humanity is going to sack whatever pristine resources are left and trash everything else, no matter what. it's way too late. once you learn to accept this fact you stop wasting energy a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why are presenting the false dichotomy that if the Pebble Mine does exist, electric cars cannot exist. As far as I am aware Tesla blueprints do not require "Copper mined from Alaska" as the list of materials.
They require copper mined from other places without the stringent environmental regulations. Eventually those places will catch on and not be so accommodating though..
Re: Not the equation (Score:2)
Eventually could be so long it doesn't matter.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
And at that point it will become economically feasible to mine this copper in such a way as to minimise the environmental impact.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why are we presenting the false dichotomy that the Pebble Mine and the fish can't coexist?
https://greenerideal.com/news/... [greenerideal.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not the equation (Score:4, Informative)
In many cases, this means using cleaner technologies to reduce the release of pollutants, minimizing the use of water and energy, and maximizing the reuse and recycling of materials.
Sometimes, it may also mean locating mines in areas with lower environmental impact.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Because PROFIT!!
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, the Mercury already in salmon isn't a problem?
Re: (Score:3)
I knew Freddy got around but that's a bit much.
Re: (Score:1)
The point is you won't have a Tesla at all. Nor will you have the all-electric economy you claim you want.
Unless of course you are intending to revert to the business model of the East India Company and do a good old-fashioned rape and pillage exercise on the less developed world. If you do propose this you should at least have the honesty to admit it.
As in "Resolved, I demand the rest of the planet be mined, deforested and otherwise polluted as needed so that I may continue to enjoy my current or better li
Re: (Score:2)
The point is you won't have a Tesla at all. Nor will you have the all-electric economy you claim you want.
wait ... no tesla at all? the horror! is it already time for collective suicide?
Re: (Score:2)
...
Unless of course you are intending to revert to the business model of the East India Company and do a good old-fashioned rape and pillage exercise on the less developed world....
That's what they were doing, only in this case the "less developed world" was just Alaska. What, you thought that colonialism only affected other countries?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You can't go green without leaving a few holes in the earth.
Which leaves more holes in the earth, green or not green? I don't actually know, but I'm curious.
The statement might have to read, "If you go green you'll leave fewer holes in the earth... but not zero."
Re: (Score:2)
> There's typically 180lb of copper in each Tesla.
The 2030 Green New Deal agenda requires all copper mined until 2169 at current rates.
Approving new mines is needed to change those rates.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, who does the state back? There are two competing interests here, both important to the state.
And because of the civil war, the Feds absolutely have this power; there are amendments added to the constitution as well after 1789, it's most definitely not a static document, and the country absolutely is not composed of 50 different loosely aligned nations.
Re: (Score:3)
the country absolutely is not composed of 50 different loosely aligned nations.
Sure looks that way from outside, but I'll take your word for it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The EPA is actually on shaky constitutional ground and is meddling in state local affairs. A strong governor can probably kick the EPA out. Ever since the civil war the states tolerate much Fed overreach.
Sure, then Alaska can mine all they want but then what? From Trade Regulation [cornell.edu]:
The U.S. Constitution, through the Commerce Clause, gives Congress exclusive power over trade activities between the states and with foreign countries. Trade within a state is regulated exclusively by the states themselves.
Careful what you wish for ...
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, someone here thinks referencing a clause in The Constitution is something to mod Troll ... (sigh)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you might want to take a high school civics course.
Re:EPA State Affairs Meddling (Score:4, Informative)
So might you. The use of the interstate commerce clause to intervene in this sort of situation is highly debatable, and likely to be challenged in several actions in the near future. It has been used as a trump card expanding federal power for 100+ years now, and has been found inapplicable in several cases where there is overreach.
And yes, if you take that to its logical conclusion, overturning this type of use/abuse of the clause entirely would remove the power of the federal government to regulate a wide range of activities. Which is a foundational principle of the republic.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Congratulations on your comment. Rarely, if ever, have I read one that has been so comprehensively refuted with hard facts by others on this site.
That's quite an accomplishment.
Re: (Score:1)
I wonder if upon appeal, if the folks for the mine will bring up last years SCOTUS ruling that kinda slapped the EPA hard (and likely almost any Executive branch bureaucracy office) in the pee pee for overstepping their defined roles and laws by congress.
I dunno if this is the case here or not, but wonde
Re: (Score:3)
The EPA is actually on shaky constitutional ground and is meddling in state local affairs.
Much of the land at question is not even the State of Alaska but the Federal land. The US government paid for the land, they are the owners. The State of Alaska does have some conveyed land to it from the Bureau of Land Management, but a whole lot of what we all consider Alaska is in fact actually Federal land.
A strong governor can probably kick the EPA out
A strong governor will be quickly told to pound sand by the US Government. It is lawfully Federally owned land, Alaska can suck eggs.
Fed overreach
It's not overreach, it's the US Government's land. They get to
The real winners will be the lawyers (Score:3)
The state and land owners will sue. It will be fought in the courts for years or until the next GOP administration overrides the EPA. And then we'll be back in the courts again.
Re: (Score:3)
The state and land owners will sue
The owners for the land we're talking about is (checks notes) the US Federal government. I don't think I need to say much more past that.
until the next GOP administration overrides the EPA
It's not solely a matter of the EPA. This is part of the Bureau of Land Management as well for ownership. Congress can pass a law that gives the land to the State of Alaska, but in doing that the US Government stands to lose out on some cash. Something both parties do not like. If they attach strings to the land, there has to be an agency to oversee it (or not and we
Re: Don't dispose in the waters (Score:1)
There are levels that are absolutely safe, given the ores are already there, some level is already leaching into the water. The question is what exactly would relatively inert metals do, there is no scientific evidence quoted that the practice would get the water to toxic levels.
On the other hand, you have to wonder where Bidenâ(TM)s America will get gold and copper from instead. Perhaps people would be less suspicious if it werenâ(TM)t for the fact that Hunter Bidenâ(TM)s investment group ha
Re: (Score:2)
High Voltage Distribution wires are made from Aluminum. Those wind turbines use, yes, the same aluminum wires that all the other power plants use.
https://harborenergysolutions.... [harborener...utions.com]
Did the EPA Buy Out the Land Owner? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Did the EPA Buy Out the Land Owner?
No the US Government has owned the land since the acquisition from Russia in 1867. So the owner is the US Government, no need for the EPA to buy them out since they're part of the thing that owns the land.
Claims (Score:2)
The right to stake a mining claim on Federal land goes back to the beginning of time. The issue here is how they run the mine.
Yay, it terns out (Score:1)
Yay, it turns out there are some things more important than a few more coins in the pockets of the rich.