Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (336111)	11/28/2009 12:43:38 PM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (2) of 793968

Yes, I agree that we needed the environmental laws that we got in the 70s. There's a creek I drive by in Idaho that used to be called Shit Creek because of the effluent from the mines that were dumping into it. Now it's free and clear, although I don't think I would eat the fish from it. The forests around the smelter were exterminated, and are only now coming back. The same with the Clark's Fork in Montana. It's now fishable right in town. I worked with NEPA for many years, and it had a good effect on what we did. The problem is that environmental groups use it to gratuitously sue every lawful project out there whether or not there was a defect in the proposal. For example, in a case I worked on the environmental suit said in effect "This proposal is defective because you didn't do it like X Ranger District does theirs, which is very satisfactory to us." Well as a matter of fact, we at X Ranger District developed the method that they liked so much and it was X Ranger District that proposed the project they were filing on, and X Ranger District had followed the method that they liked. They simply did not read the document they were filing on, and used a word processor to copy and paste their boilerplate from other gratuitous lawsuits they had filed. NEPA has been drug into the legal system so badly that it's a major profit center for lawyers. I think it's lost its bearings, but there's a huge organizational structure supporting it now, and that's very difficult to cope with. I reviewed hundreds of environmental appeals and not one of them had any substance at all. The reason for it was the agency had learned its lesson in the 70s and was operating the way it should. The environmentalists learned a different lesson: that it was fun and profitable to interfere with the process they helped create. Industry in my field learned still another lesson: That they had crapped in their own nest by pushing for unsustainable procedures.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next