It's no surprise that Chimpy McShrub has directed the EPA to ignore scientific advice and to put the interests of the citizenry behind the interests of campaign donors.

I understand it can be difficult to overturn a "rule." Here's hoping Pres. Obama can add some rules, such as, "No earth moving device with a gross weight greater than 500 pounds may be used while dumping mine tailings or debris." T

As a member of TU this is a worst case scenario; mountaintop removal is bad enough with runoff of sulfur but dumping into waterways is sickening. I hear the cheap electricity argument all the time and my reaction to that is that more people need to conserve, I have my heat set on 60 degrees and burn wood. I do agree with Obama when he said to someone worried about their electric bills and keeping comfortable he said put on a sweater. We need coal, but we do not need to strip mine or remove mountaintops to get to it. From a religous point of view think of the hubris; in order to get cheap electricity and some comfort we are destroying some of God's magnificent creations and to me that is unforgivable.

Let's look at it like this. How much are those water supllies worth? How much damage does this do, economically, to communities there? What are the costs of the deforestation, in carbon credits, in biodiversity, in the long term?
Exactly what are we losing by allowing the companies to do this? how much would is cost to reverse the damages? I would think that it was in the millions or billions of dollars- costs that the companies simply "externalize" onto the environment, and thus onto everybody else, while keeping all the "profits"- "profits" in quotes because the money made is actually stolen from everybody else.
Okay, we can factor in the cost of power- why can't an independent agency or economist figure out whther these ridiculous mountain top removal practices have ACTUALLY decreased or prevented increases in, the COST of electricity. From what I know, these practices HAVE NOT decreased the costs of electricty to the consumer, but they have indeed increased the costs of that electricty to future water supllies, communities, fisheries, forests and wildlife, air quality, etc etc etc.

This "rule" from the last weeks of this Administration is an example of a kleptocracy, parceling out of the treasure of a nation to a selected group. If there was ever any doubt about the true nature of these folks that we elected, this rule- which is astounding, coming from a government that claims to lead the US for the benefit of the majority of the people - lays that doubt to rest. It is a giveaway, pure and simple, and by the time it is reversed, the money will have been saved, made, and banked by industry.

We will be left with the staggering debt to clean it up.

Sounds real familiar, doesn't it?

The worst thing in all of this, to me, is not that corrupt people in government would issue this rule. You can look at Mexico,Zimbabwe, Russia, and see that kleptocratic governments are everywhere.

What is depressing is that an American company would take advantage of this, and actually continue this practice.

If you are willing to wreck mountains and watersheds, somebody has to step in and regulate you. If you pretend to believe in some kind of "free market" but then put all the costs of doing your business onto others, somebody has to step in and call a halt to your operations.

As a real believer in conservative
ideas, small government and free markets, this kind of thing makes me sick.

Though ya'll were outdoorsmen and coulc brave rough weather. i guess you just wusses who need "cheap electricity." You're a disgrace to the hunting community and the human population in general. Are you really saying a chipmunk can handle cold better than you, Shane?

Though ya'll were outdoorsmen and coulc brave rough weather. i guess you just wusses who need "cheap electricity." You're a disgrace to the hunting community and the human population in general. Are you really saying a chipmunk can handle cold better than you, Shane?

How many people on this website voted for Bush because the Dem's were gong to take away their assault errrr I mean hunting rifles away??!!. Bush had a dismal environmental reccord when he came into office. The hunting community needs to look beyound some of the issues that frankly are far over rated, such as gun control. I am a life long dem and I own guns, I tore up my NRA card along time ago, they have turned into a whack job organization. I vote based on MANY issues and concerns not just one or two.
One can argue that the Dem's dont have a 100% perfect reccord on the environment but compared to the GOP / Bush team who get F's on the environment, the choice is obvious.

http://lcv.org/scorecard/

Obama @ least has a brain and surounds himself with SMART people, I doubt that Obama will be steam rolled by anyone, Bush was / is uncurious about the world around him and is a poor leader by any stretch so dont be supprised by the stunts he pulls in the last few weeks of his tenure.
Remember Clinton got alot of flack for signing off on alot wilderness designation in his last few weeks in office.

The argument about "Employment" is lame, I live in Oregon where much of the rural economy was based off of Logging, cutting back has for sure cuased SOME hardships but nothing that was purported by the Pro Timber crowd. Oreogn has flurished by pushing for lots of other industries that have easily taken the place of Logging such as Wind Power ( Vestus builds windmills here ), High Tech, Manufacturing etc.
I think it is a scary and SAD commentary on this generation that we cannot find a way to save what little clean air, water and minimal wild places we have left for the next generation.

Muddog,
Have you ever in your life had a single topic that you could argue to a reasonable, logical conclusion, or do you just bounce around like a ping-pong ball in a whirlwind?
Pick one. Please. Your choice.
Oherwise it's like trying to understand and discuss with Sybil, the schizophrenic.
johnl

"Dont blame me if you cannot think / discuss a complex subject."

I would love to think and discuss any subject you wish. And if they are as complex as you imply let's do so.
Pick one from your list:
1) assault rifles
2)Bush environmental record
3)gun control
4)NRA being a whack job
5) Obama has a brain.............oh,please let's do this one
6)Clinton got a lot of flack
7) Oregon (or Oreogn) "flurished" (is that flourished or flushed) with wind power and high tech
8)What little clean air, water, wild places still exist

Focus, focus!

Good formula = Mike Diehl + UB3L.
I have been an NRA member for a long time and I will occasionally disagree with the organization on particular issues. To portray the membership of the NRA in toto based upon the support of one member, Tom Delay, is like recognizing Dr. Jack Kevorkian as the archtype for all medical doctors.
This administration has shown a blatant disregard for the environment. We as sportsmen/sportswomen, needs be cautious however in our attempts to reverse the current damaging trend lest the environmental oversight fall to some of the more "whacko" or extreme environmental organizations. I need not mention any names.

Those above who believe that Barry is less beholden to those same special interests and big money are more naive then the youngest child. Perhaps, there is truth that Barry will not ease up on heavy industry and will seek tougher regs.; instead, he will allow enviro-terrorists/facists to chase us out of the parks and streams because, god forbid, we take something from the land. Not too mention, these same enviro-facists will tax us heavily and make it cost-prohibitive for reloaders and generic shooters alike due to heavy-metal regulations. It's not all roses with the Messiah in office.