US EPA opens door to mining of protected coastline

[EZM]

I saw a few reports and articles on this and was pretty shocked at how bold Trump and his administration have become.

Trumps appointed head of the EPA (environmental protection agency), Scott Pruitt, had a meeting with a mining company interested in mining a sensitive area know to be a salmon spawning ground.

An hour after the meeting, Pruitt sent an email to his staff instructing the process of accepting applications to mine this sensitive area was to be opened. The area has been studied and has been suspended to development under a legal suit.

Trump promised to "drain the swamp", a term used to remove all the collusion and inside deals government officials did with special interest groups and other cronies YET he seems to have no problem doing it himself.

First, opening dialogue to discuss exploration, development and leases to protected lands adjacent and within Yellowstone for oil/gas exploration and now this.

Seems to me this is not in the best interests of us, as hunters/fishermen and conservationists.

Smells exactly like the corruption he spoke about fixing in his administration.

I guess we should be surprised. He has proven himself to be a compulsive self centred liar with zero impulse control since day one.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/trumps-epa-decision-on-alaska-mining-project-reignites-battle-over-protecting-wild-salmon/

[huntsfurfish]

Ya, I saw this yesterday too. Sure makes you wonder.

[Unregistered user]

It's consistent with his campaign, the Alaska wildlife refuge is next, Americans by and large want this. EPA had become a colossal pain in the wallet and US companies were giving up on making money at home. Checked the stock markets lately?

[EZM]

So you think we should drill for oil and gas in Yellowstone and Mine in sensitive coastline areas?

I have to say, we need to have some boundaries and natural areas left for ourselves and our grandchildren to enjoy.

I wouldn't trade it for a sack of cash. Sorry. Not this guy.

[Unregistered user]

He made it clear before he was elected. And he was elected.

[270person]

He made it clear before he was elected. And he was elected.

Had a gander at the average person who voted for him or listened to one of them talk? Pretty much says it all.

[270person]

Ya, I saw this yesterday too. Sure makes you wonder.



Not really when you consider who's running the clown parade.

[Unregistered user]

Had a gander at the average person who voted for him or listened to one of them talk? Pretty much says it all.

And look what Canadians elected, any better? Americans voted for Trump because they want to work decent paying jobs, sometimes that means getting dirty. If the EPA had their way in Canada there would be no oilsands industry.

[Newview01]

Had a gander at the average person who voted for him or listened to one of them talk? Pretty much says it all.

What do you mean by this?

[dmcbride]

And look what Canadians elected, any better? Americans voted for Trump because they want to work decent paying jobs, sometimes that means getting dirty. If the EPA had their way in Canada there would be no oilsands industry.

A lot of Canadians have TDS (Trump derangement syndrome) and are to busy to to see what is actually happening in our own country.

[Unregistered user]

what is that even supposed to mean?

[thumper]

A lot of Canadians have TDS (Trump derangement syndrome) and are to busy to to see what is actually happening in our own country.

x2
Trump is doing exactly what he promised to do - dismantling the excesses of the eco-zealots ( and social justice crowd) to create an even playing field with America's main competitors. He's bound to swing the pendulum too far on some items, (like this issue imo) but it was so far left that it was crippling their economy. The excesses of the left has resulted in excesses of the right. Balance is hard to achieve - and differs from one person to the next.

But we have so many Trump haters in Canada that are eager to join the dump-on-Trump pile-on, that we're ignoring our very own clown digging us deeper and deeper into our own liberal la-la land. The deeper we go, the more extreme our own backlash will become... and we'll end up with our very own Donald!

[Scott h]

What do you mean by this?

Cue the banjos........

[ChickakooKookoo]

x2
but it was so far left that it was crippling their economy.

Disagree. Look at the growth of their country in the 8 years Obama led it compared to past presidents. Obama being a job killing president was lie right up there with the birther BS. Obama inherited the biggest recession the world is ever seen and yet under his leadership their economy excelled quite well according to their own statistics.

And don't even try to give Trump credit for the economy he's inherited.

[huntsfurfish]

Disagree. Look at the growth of their country in the 8 years Obama led it compared to past presidents. Obama being a job killing president was lie right up there with the birther BS. Obama inherited the biggest recession the world is ever seen and yet under his leadership their economy excelled quite well according to their own statistics.

And don't even try to give Trump credit for the economy he's inherited.

This^^^^^^^^^^^^

[jrowan]

Disagree. Look at the growth of their country in the 8 years Obama led it compared to past presidents. Obama being a job killing president was lie right up there with the birther BS. Obama inherited the biggest recession the world is ever seen and yet under his leadership their economy excelled quite well according to their own statistics.

And don't even try to give Trump credit for the economy he's inherited.

Also consider the fact that the 2008 recession was brought on by deregulation of the US and other financial markets.

There's another couple of problems with looking at the current market and saying Trump is doing a great job:
1) The Christmas bump: generally now is when markets are kicked into high gear as the Christmas rush begins and people start spending money like crazy. The market is slowest in the summer months when everyone is on vacation.

2) Policy to Market delay: When economists talk about the short term they mean in the next 1-2 years. The only decisions that impact the market in less than 1-2 years are the interest rate decisions made by the central banks, which run independently from the government. Any policy change done by a government will take at least a year before any sort of impact is made on the market.

[Jadham]

I find it ironic that people on AO get all up in arms about "eco-terrorists" preventing development of the oilsands and pipelines, but then lament it when resource development will proceed despite "eco-terrorists" concerns, in other jurisdictions.

Maybe read the proposed mine plan by the NDM to counteract the hyperbole of the greens and decide for yourself whether industry and environmental standards/protection can co-exist, because goodness knows, we all believe it can in Fort Mac.

Their website is located here, you can scroll through the plan and environmental process to your heart's content.

http://www.northerndynastyminerals.com/pebble-project/project-overview/

[Okotokian]

I'm waiting for Trump to roll back the excesses of that pinko Teddy Roosevelt and bring back market hunting. And the crowd here will cheer. Putting limits on what and where and how many animals we can hunt is socialist.

No hunter or angler should support environmental protection.

[huntsfurfish]

I'm waiting for Trump to roll back the excesses of that pinko Teddy Roosevelt and bring back market hunting. And the crowd here will cheer. Putting limits on what and where and how many animals we can hunt is socialist.

No hunter or angler should support environmental protection.

Agree.:) Get em while ya kin.:sHa_shakeshout: lol

[Newview01]

Cue the banjos........

Explain... Or is there something you don’t want to say?

[Scott h]

Explain... Or is there something you don’t want to say?

Can't figure it out ???? I guess that proves my opinion of Donalds core supporters :thinking-006:

[EZM]

I'm waiting for Trump to roll back the excesses of that pinko Teddy Roosevelt and bring back market hunting. And the crowd here will cheer. Putting limits on what and where and how many animals we can hunt is socialist.

No hunter or angler should support environmental protection.

LOL. Exactly.

I am personally shocked how we, as angler and hunters, and I thought conservationists (but maybe I'm wrong on the last one) - who enjoy the peace, tranquillity and raw nature would ever, under any circumstances, support unbridled exploitation of the few remaining pieces of wilderness we have left.

I don't hunt and fish because I NEED to put food on the table, but when I do, I respect nature and the animals that I do harvest and eat, and respect the wilderness when I do hike, camp, or enjoy the outdoors and try to leave it pristine.

Why would we just want to destroy that? for money?

I remain firmly against the exploitation of protected and sensitive areas.

Trump sold your grandchildren's wilderness to line his (already full) greasy pockets.

People in the tropical jungles might kill the last remaining "ruby eyed wiggler" because they need to feed their kids, they might even deforest sensitive rain forests to plant crops so they, again, can feed their kids.

But for a guy and his cronies, to exploit and sell off our environment to stuff even more cash into their already bulging pockets makes me absolutely enraged.

Let's not start with feeding the working families that will be employed at the new mine - that argument doesn't fly, because the net effect will destroy the livelihoods of many salmon fishermen, guides, etc... and you end up helping one while hurting another.

[Unregistered user]

I'm waiting for Trump to roll back the excesses of that pinko Teddy Roosevelt and bring back market hunting. And the crowd here will cheer. Putting limits on what and where and how many animals we can hunt is socialist.

No hunter or angler should support environmental protection.

Back to reality, Trump jr. is an avid hunter, conservationist and gun enthusiast. So I'm sure he'd slap the ol' man around if this was an issue.

[Unregistered user]

LOL. Exactly.

I am personally shocked how we, as angler and hunters, and I thought conservationists (but maybe I'm wrong on the last one) - who enjoy the peace, tranquillity and raw nature would ever, under any circumstances, support unbridled exploitation of the few remaining pieces of wilderness we have left.

I don't hunt and fish because I NEED to put food on the table, but when I do, I respect nature and the animals that I do harvest and eat, and respect the wilderness when I do hike, camp, or enjoy the outdoors and try to leave it pristine.

Why would we just want to destroy that? for money?

I remain firmly against the exploitation of protected and sensitive areas.

Trump sold your grandchildren's wilderness to line his (already full) greasy pockets.

People in the tropical jungles might kill the last remaining "ruby eyed wiggler" because they need to feed their kids, they might even deforest sensitive rain forests to plant crops so they, again, can feed their kids.

But for a guy and his cronies, to exploit and sell off our environment to stuff even more cash into their already bulging pockets makes me absolutely enraged.

Let's not start with feeding the working families that will be employed at the new mine - that argument doesn't fly, because the net effect will destroy the livelihoods of many salmon fishermen, guides, etc... and you end up helping one while hurting another.

Been to Fort Mac? Drove there on roads?

[EZM]

Been to Fort Mac? Drove there on roads?

Yes and Yes. Also flew over the sands a few times. Is there a question you want to ask? I'd be happy to give you my perspective.

[huntsfurfish]

LOL. Exactly.

I am personally shocked how we, as angler and hunters, and I thought conservationists (but maybe I'm wrong on the last one) - who enjoy the peace, tranquillity and raw nature would ever, under any circumstances, support unbridled exploitation of the few remaining pieces of wilderness we have left.

I don't hunt and fish because I NEED to put food on the table, but when I do, I respect nature and the animals that I do harvest and eat, and respect the wilderness when I do hike, camp, or enjoy the outdoors and try to leave it pristine.

Why would we just want to destroy that? for money?

I remain firmly against the exploitation of protected and sensitive areas.

Trump sold your grandchildren's wilderness to line his (already full) greasy pockets.

People in the tropical jungles might kill the last remaining "ruby eyed wiggler" because they need to feed their kids, they might even deforest sensitive rain forests to plant crops so they, again, can feed their kids.

But for a guy and his cronies, to exploit and sell off our environment to stuff even more cash into their already bulging pockets makes me absolutely enraged.

Let's not start with feeding the working families that will be employed at the new mine - that argument doesn't fly, because the net effect will destroy the livelihoods of many salmon fishermen, guides, etc... and you end up helping one while hurting another.

Good post EZM

[huntsfurfish]

Back to reality, Trump jr. is an avid hunter, conservationist and gun enthusiast. So I'm sure he'd slap the ol' man around if this was an issue.

Ya right. Thats exactly what he would do.:sHa_sarcasticlol:

[Jadham]

Sort of wondering how people are getting sucked into the "ecoterrorist" hyperbole.

The area is not a National Park or otherwise protected area. The mine will likely have minor effects on the sockeye runs.... yeah tailing ponds can leach or leak but that is a rare thing and indeed the "the traditional role" of the EPA and other regulatory bodies is to ensure that the site is designed and built accordingly to prevent such.

It is sort of like the greens of Vancouver getting their panties in knot because of increased tanker traffic for Kinder Morgan and endlessly worrying about rare what ifs (there hasn't been any significant tanker spills in recent decades).

I certainly believe industry and conservation can coexist if there is the proper oversight. Unfortunately, the ability to compromise seems to be lacking in the ecowarriors of today and in Canada we are losing tens of billions of dollars of business because of blocked resource development (although this is an Alaska mine site it is owned by a Vancouver company and so affects both Canadians and Americans).

[EZM]

Sort of wondering how people are getting sucked into the "ecoterrorist" hyperbole.

The area is not a National Park or otherwise protected area. The mine will likely have minor effects on the sockeye runs.... yeah tailing ponds can leach or leak but that is a rare thing and indeed the "the traditional role" of the EPA and other regulatory bodies is to ensure that the site is designed and built accordingly to prevent such.

It is sort of like the greens of Vancouver getting their panties in knot because of increased tanker traffic for Kinder Morgan and endlessly worrying about rare what ifs (there hasn't been any significant tanker spills in recent decades).

I certainly believe industry and conservation can coexist if there is the proper oversight. Unfortunately, the ability to compromise seems to be lacking in the ecowarriors of today and in Canada we are losing tens of billions of dollars of business because of blocked resource development (although this is an Alaska mine it is owned by a Vancouver company and so affects both Canadians and Americans).

A couple comments .... I bolded the parts of your post I'm commenting on which are not correct, and, of course, some commentary.

The Bristol Bay Watershed, indeed, is a designated protected area. It is listed, classified and the designation has been ratified. The EPA designation has been in place for many years. There is quite a bit of research specific to this area. This is a quote taken directly from the Governments own EPA website .........

The Bristol Bay watershed supports the largest sockeye salmon fishery in the world, with approximately 46% of the average global abundance of wild sockeye salmon.

https://www.epa.gov/bristolbay/about-bristol-bay

It's impossible to know what impact the mine will have, in scope and residual, unless you understand the location, processing and operational details of the mine - but it will, without doubt, have a negative impact to the salmon habitat.

I've already commented on the economic reality of this mine operation, and, the only "big money" a mine generates is for the shareholders. Unlike the mines of yesteryear, modern mines employ very few people compared to the massive amount of material they process.

I simply wouldn't trade lining the pockets of shareholders and trading that off for pristine habitat destruction to create a couple thousand jobs while destroying a couple thousand other jobs. Makes zero sense.

I agree industry and the environment can coexsist. It just doesn't make sense here.

And, Yes, there are no compromises here - That knife cuts both ways. Trump and his cronies don't want to compromise when it comes to their insatiable greed and exploitation.

[EZM]

From the Trump Government's own website ...... same link as in previous post ....

Economy of ecological resources
The Bristol Bay watershed supports several economic sectors that are wilderness-compatible and sustainable:
commercial, sport and subsistence fishing
sport and subsistence hunting
non-consumptive recreation (e.g. wildlife viewing and tourism)
Considering all these sectors, the ecological resources of the Bristol Bay watershed generated nearly $480 million in direct economic expenditures and sales in 2009, and provided employment for over 14,000 full- and part-time workers.
The Bristol Bay commercial salmon fishery generates the largest component of economic activity and was valued at approximately $300 million in 2009 (first wholesale value) and provided employment for over 11,500 full- and part-time workers at the peak of the season.

/end

How does the mine's number stack up against these, and is the risk worth it?

[Jadham]

I have not seen or read anywhere (including in the links provided) what areas within the watershed are protected and what activities they are protected from, and understand that the proposed mine site is not within such protected area(s).

Given that the mine will likely have a minor impact on the overall sockeye run, there is no credible evidence it will have any impact on fishing in the Bristol Bay.

Although Trump makes a convenient scapegoat, and while he did appoint the EPA director, I highly doubt he has any personal stake in the venture (or could even find it on a map).

Most micro cap base metal miners have annual revenues of $200-400 million (e.g. Taseko & Copper Mountain) even with copper price in the basement (until the last year)... so would likely double the economic activity in the area with the reduced footprint mine they are proposing now (and assuming commercial fishing minorly affected)

[EZM]

I have not seen or read anywhere (including in the links provided) what areas within the watershed are protected and what activities they are protected from, and understand that the proposed mine site is not within such protected area(s).

Given that the mine will likely have a minor impact on the overall sockeye run, there is no credible evidence it will have any impact on fishing in the Bristol Bay.

Although Trump makes a convenient scapegoat, and while he did appoint the EPA director, I highly doubt he has any personal stake in the venture (or could even find it on a map).

Most micro cap base metal miners have annual revenues of $200-400 million (e.g. Taseko & Copper Mountain) even with copper price in the basement (until the last year)... so would likely double the economic activity in the area (assuming commercial fishing minorly affected)

Excerpt .... right from the governments own EPA site .....

After careful consideration of available science in the recently completed multi-year Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment and other available information, including extensive materials provided by the Pebble Limited Partnership, EPA Region 10 decided to proceed under its Clean Water Act Section 404(c) regulations to protect Bristol Bay resources from the adverse environmental effects of mining the Pebble deposit in southwest Alaska.

Action of Determination under 404c
ORDER-015038
Record ID: 324712

Your comment .... Most micro cap base metal miners have annual revenues of $200-400 million

You are talking "revenues"

I'd suggest revenues include all income not exclusive to that site and does not suggest what portion of that entire revenue stream translates to local economic development. Revenues are not the same as economic benefit - far from it.

[Jadham]

Ezm

... that is an EPA summary of its stay order in 2014, whose director was an Obama toadie (just like the new one is for Trump). It is not a designation of a park or permanent protected order for that area. And is now effectively suspended as NDM is allowed to reapply for permitting.

For micro-cap miners, such as Taseko and CMMC mentioned, their revenues are the sole result of sales from their (single) mine production. The majority of their revenues is spent on worker salaries and equipment purchases, with fairly thin profit margins. Furthermore, the workers, locally sourced, then spend their money locally (unlike Seattle fisherman), usually leading to amplified effect on the local economy rather than diminished effect, as you suggest (not to mention royalties paid in addition to taxes ...)

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in unregulated development. But the rhetoric around Pebble has been highly exaggerated by the enviros (and then used by the commercial fisherman).

[EZM]

Ezm

... that is an EPA summary of its stay order in 2014, whose director was an Obama toadie (just like the new one is for Trump). It is not a designation of a park or permanent protected order for that area. And is now effectively suspended as NDM is allowed to reapply for permitting.

For micro-cap miners, such as Taseko and CMMC mentioned, their revenues are the sole result of sales from their (single) mine production. The majority of their revenues is spent on worker salaries and equipment purchases, with fairly thin profit margins. Furthermore, the workers, locally sourced, then spend their money locally (unlike Seattle fisherman), usually leading to amplified effect on the local economy rather than diminished effect, as you suggest (not to mention royalties paid in addition to taxes ...)

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in unregulated development. But the rhetoric around Pebble has been highly exaggerated by the enviros (and then used by the commercial fisherman).

It is a protection order. A stay order is exactly that. It effectively stops (stays) any action (like development) therefore protecting the subject area. Let's not go back and forth on this, it's very well documented and you are, respectfully, incorrect.

I didn't say anything about a "park" and a designation/classification refers to a specific action as it relates to a geographical boundary. This is found in the scope of the subject in the initial synopsis of the document.

And yes, this last month, It has been suspended by Trump's cronies.

The reason I used the government's own information to position my opinion on this simply underpins the gravity of the potential for adverse environmental impact in this specific watershed. This is not fake news or eco-terrorists or some other trash rag article.

The Bristol Bay Watershed is a very important and sensitive area, particularly as it relates to half of the world's sockeye population.

I have presented the facts, some of my opinions and provided credible resources.

You have provided your opinion, and some data, which I respect and acknowledge.

Given all I see - regarding the development in this watershed - That's more than enough for me to say I don't support mining and development of this high potential in this area.

We are not going to agree and that's cool. But give it some consideration - the cute little sockeyes (which are delicious BTW) will thank you for it.

The sustenance fishermen, commercial fishermen, area guides, processors and all the people employed and who benefit from this area, who ARE and HAVE BEEN economically benefiting from this area will also thank you.

And they are doing it with little or no significant impact to the watershed.

[Jadham]

That is fine if we disagree.

However, in closing, I do want to re-iterate that the stay order was instated by an Obama crony in the EPA, and so it is merely tit for tat for it be effectively rescinded by the new government's EPA crony.

No reasonable evidence or realistic scenario had been forwarded by those opposing groups about how the mine might adversely affect the sockeye runs. There are also no recent examples of modern mines in North America that have eliminated migratory fish runs, just like there have been no tanker disasters in NA since Exxon Valdez. There are no endangered species in the area, as far as I am aware of.

If they want to truly preserve it they would make it into a National Park, but instead they play politics and leave the area in limbo.

[Newview01]

Can't figure it out ???? I guess that proves my opinion of Donalds core supporters :thinking-006:

:snapoutofit:

I don't like Donald Trump. But to insinuate that his supporters are less intelligent than those of Hillary Clinton is asinine and the opposite is more likely true. Leftism has no foresight, it is an unsustainable ideology. As her supporters demonstrated.

[Scott h]

:snapoutofit:

I don't like Donald Trump. But to insinuate that his supporters are less intelligent than those of Hillary Clinton is asinine and the opposite is more likely true. Leftism has no foresight, it is an unsustainable ideology. As her supporters demonstrated.

Well if you aren't a Trump supporter it doesn't t matter then, you realize he's an idiot.

[Unregistered user]

Idiot? How does an idiot turn millions into billions? How does an idiot get elected when the MSM and even his own party were against him? When his opponent spent a billion to get the job and failed? Idiot? Look at our PM.

[roughneckin]

Scott Pruitt is the scariest thing to happen to the EPA ever. He is the administrator of a department that he has sued more than a dozen times. If the human race wants protection for important areas this is not the man that they want leading it. He has not a single environmental bone in his body. Not sure what Trump was thinking putting him there unless it was to dismantle every positive thing that has been done to protect the environment in the last 50 years. On his own website, he admits being the, "leading advocate against the EPA's activist agenda." The EPA has to be active or business will knock down every forest to produce every dollar and walk away leaving giant open pit mines all over the place.

[pikergolf]

Scott Pruitt is the scariest thing to happen to the EPA ever. He is the administrator of a department that he has sued more than a dozen times. If the human race wants protection for important areas this is not the man that they want leading it. He has not a single environmental bone in his body. Not sure what Trump was thinking putting him there unless it was to dismantle every positive thing that has been done to protect the environment in the last 50 years. On his own website, he admits being the, "leading advocate against the EPA's activist agenda." The EPA has to be active or business will knock down every forest to produce every dollar and walk away leaving giant open pit mines all over the place.

What happens when you mix politics and your own Christian views.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-epa-pick-blends-conservative-christianity-with-anti-environmental-activism

[Newview01]

Well if you aren't a Trump supporter it doesn't t matter then, you realize he's an idiot.

The idiots are those who claim one sides' supporters are more intelligent than the other.

[EZM]

The idiots are those who claim one sides' supporters are more intelligent than the other.

That last election was simply two of the most horrifying choices anyone could ever ask for.

Problem is, many people ended up voting "for the party and the ideology" in both cases. That doesn't make them stupid in that regard ....

BUT .....

The people who STILL can't see Trump for what he is and continue to support him really make me wonder .......

[Scott h]

That last election was simply two of the most horrifying choices anyone could ever ask for.

Problem is, many people ended up voting "for the party and the ideology" in both cases. That doesn't make them stupid in that regard ....

BUT .....

The people who STILL can't see Trump for what he is and continue to support him really make me wonder .......

I'm well past wondering. Virtually every time I've bothered to listen to that wanker give a speech I've been left shaking my head at the boorish way he comes across and the lack of intellect it takes to find him impressive.

[Newview01]

I'm well past wondering. Virtually every time I've bothered to listen to that wanker give a speech I've been left shaking my head at the boorish way he comes across and the lack of intellect it takes to find him impressive.

Ok we get you don’t like Trump. But lets talk about the alternative. Do you believe the US would be better off with Hillary?

[roughneckin]

Ok we get you don’t like Trump. But lets talk about the alternative. Do you believe the US would be better off with Hillary?

When it comes down to the brass tax. Would it be better for Canada to have Hillary rather than Donald. Yes especially with his rediculous requests when it comes to NAFTA.

[Newview01]

When it comes down to the brass tax. Would it be better for Canada to have Hillary rather than Donald. Yes especially with his rediculous requests when it comes to NAFTA.

That is not what I asked, nor is it a relevant question in the terms of my question. We don’t get to elect leaders of other nations. All we should hope for is someone who turns the tide of globalism, and he is more likely to do that than Hillary.

Looks like Austria is poised to get an anti-establishment leader. Good news for Europe.

[roughneckin]

That is not what I asked, nor is it a relevant question in the terms of my question. We don’t get to elect leaders of other nations. All we should hope for is someone who turns the tide of globalism, and he is more likely to do that than Hillary.

Looks like Austria is poised to get an anti-establishment leader. Good news for Europe.

At the time Germany thought Hitler was the best to lead their country. Not even close to what we are talking about but Poland wasn’t to thrilled with it.

[EZM]

Scott Pruitt is the scariest thing to happen to the EPA ever. He is the administrator of a department that he has sued more than a dozen times. If the human race wants protection for important areas this is not the man that they want leading it. He has not a single environmental bone in his body. Not sure what Trump was thinking putting him there unless it was to dismantle every positive thing that has been done to protect the environment in the last 50 years. On his own website, he admits being the, "leading advocate against the EPA's activist agenda." The EPA has to be active or business will knock down every forest to produce every dollar and walk away leaving giant open pit mines all over the place.

I agree, he was not the choice a pragmatic, intelligent and effective president would want to appoint.

We know Trump's position on the environment, climate change and issues where economic development is weighed against environmental protection BUT he still should have appointed someone he trusts, who is committed to the goals and charter of what the EPA is supposed to be.

To hire/appoint a person to work with you, who is trustworthy, but may challenge your mandates with sound arguments, a person you could work with to reach consensus, yet agree to disagree, would have been the intelligent and pragmatic move.

That's how you ensure you have evaluated all the options and have made the best choice for the country and the people.

Unfortunately, I am convinced, the most important thing to Donald is Donald, and his ego, and how others must respect, fear or yield to him. It's all about him. That's why he appointed him.

He is, and will go down in history as, the most self centred, narcissistic, irrational and ignorant president that has ever been elected. He is an absolute fool and the entire world views him for exactly what he is, an embarrassing, grossly ignorant, arrogant, loud mouth bully and narcissistic clown.

Everyone he appoints must be sheep yielding to him. Those that do not fall in line, are removed.

The guy simply does not have the capacity or capability to occupy the position. He is dangerous and destructive to the US.

He is solidifying, polarising the rest of the world's ideologies, making the world far more dangerous tomorrow than it was yesterday.

He has destroyed the credibility of the US and inserted himself as "the clown of the earth", effectively making friends into enemies.

Destroying the environment is a minor issue here. He thinks it's more important to undo Obama's legacy and insert his own.

[huntsfurfish]

I agree, he was not the choice a pragmatic, intelligent and effective president would want to appoint.

We know Trump's position on the environment, climate change and issues where economic development is weighed against environmental protection BUT he still should have appointed someone he trusts, who is committed to the goals and charter of what the EPA is supposed to be.

To hire/appoint a person to work with you, who is trustworthy, but may challenge your mandates with sound arguments, a person you could work with to reach consensus, yet agree to disagree, would have been the intelligent and pragmatic move.

That's how you ensure you have evaluated all the options and have made the best choice for the country and the people.

Unfortunately, I am convinced, the most important thing to Donald is Donald, and his ego, and how others must respect, fear or yield to him. It's all about him. That's why he appointed him.

He is, and will go down in history as, the most self centred, narcissistic, irrational and ignorant president that has ever been elected. He is an absolute fool and the entire world views him for exactly what he is, an embarrassing, grossly ignorant, arrogant, loud mouth bully and narcissistic clown.

Everyone he appoints must be sheep yielding to him. Those that do not fall in line, are removed.

The guy simply does not have the capacity or capability to occupy the position. He is dangerous and destructive to the US.

He is solidifying, polarising the rest of the world's ideologies, making the world far more dangerous tomorrow than it was yesterday.

He has destroyed the credibility of the US and inserted himself as "the clown of the earth", effectively making friends into enemies.

Destroying the environment is a minor issue here. He thinks it's more important to undo Obama's legacy and insert his own.



I agree!

[Helgs28]

Chance to comment on the potential mine:

http://action.savebristolbay.org/page/speakout/PebbleEPAcommentsC?js=false

(Today is last day to do so)