Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (337050)	12/2/2009 7:32:33 PM
From: mph	4 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 794033

I heard that this morning.....I can't wait for the evidence from Obama and his henchmen. The man will say anything.

To: KLP who wrote (337050)	12/2/2009 7:33:27 PM
From: mph	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794033

Here's a blurb on a new environmental law case.............The link below is to the case itself. -Environmental Law- Plaintiffs--who alleged that they had viewed polar bears and walrus in a specific region, enjoyed doing so, and had plans to return, and that certain regulations of the Fish and Wildlife Service threatened imminent, concrete harm to these interests by destroying polar bears and walrus in that specific region, and that those regulations continued to be implemented--had standing to challenge the legality of the regulations. Where the United States Fish and Wildlife Service promulgated five-year regulations under Marine Mammal Protection Act Sec. 101(a)(5) that permit non-lethal "take" of polar bears and Pacific walrus by oil and gas activities in and along the Beaufort Sea on the Northern Coast of Alaska, conditioned upon service’s issuance of a "letter of authorization" to an individual oil and gas operator, facial challenge to the regulations was ripe, and plaintiffs were not required to challenge individual LOAs. Term "gas and oil exploration, exploration, and production activities" was not too broad to qualify as a specified activity as to which service may allow incidental take of wildlife under MMPA. Service’s finding that the taking of wildlife pursuant to regulations would have a negligible environmental impact was not arbitrary and capricious where service relied on scientific opinions that the combined effects of oil and gas operations on the weakened physical fitness of polar bears due to climate change was speculative. Evidence that global warming poses a generalized threat to polar bear populations did not demonstrate that non-lethal takes within a particular industry and during a particular period of time are likely to have significant impact, so service’s "no significant impact" finding under National Environmental Policy Act was not arbitrary and capricious. NEPA did not require service to prepare environmental impact statement, which regulations require when effects are "highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks," where service relied on reasonable predictions based on prior data. Center for Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne - filed December 2, 2009 Cite as 08-35402 Full text metnews.com