EPA unleashes environmental disaster, tries to stone wall and cover up and President is silent

dave23 said:
Your sudden concern for the environment and Native Americans is touching.

not to mention the sudden support for the right to sue

ml1 said:

dave23 said:
Your sudden concern for the environment and Native Americans is touching.

not to mention the sudden support for the right to sue

Sue? Isn't that a governmental entitlement? Another entitlement to get rid of.

So now we have proof you all are ok with the government running rough shot over the people so long as it is a Democratic administration.

bramzzoinks said:
According to the President of the Navajo Nation, people representing the EPA are going door to door pressuring people, mostly poor, many who do not speak English as their first language, to sign paperwork for an immediate payment which signs away rights to sue or get future payment.
Imagine the fury if this was happening in a Republican administration? Or if a private company tried to do this?

I agree this is bad behavior. I hope people refuse to sign those papers, and that a large enough public outcry causes the EPA to back off from pushing this, since I believe that people and organizations should be responsible for their actions. I suspect most everyone on this thread who supports the EPA in general also opposes this particular action.

What I don't believe is that you actually care, but do share -- would you be as upset if this was under a Republican administration? Or more to the point, are you upset at the private companies that created the pollution in the first place?

bramzzoinks said:
So now we have proof you all are ok with the government running rough shot over the people so long as it is a Democratic administration.

Not really. We're simply reflecting your indifference whenever it's a private entity causing similar environmental damage to highlight that you only care about the environment when the government effs it up.

And all the while the champion of the people, the President, is ensconced in Martha's Vineyard, where the only poor people allowed are servants, totally silent on the issue.

I imagine the response of the government would have been very different if the environmental disaster was off the shores of Matha's Vinyard and a some rich peoples yaghts might get soiled.

bramzzoinks said:
And all the while the champion of the people, the President, is ensconced in Martha's Vineyard, where the only poor people allowed are servants, totally silent on the issue.
I imagine the response of the government would have been very different if the environmental disaster was off the shores of Matha's Vinyard and a some rich peoples yaghts might get soiled.

bramzzoinks said:
And all the while the champion of the people, the President, is ensconced in Martha's Vineyard, where the only poor people allowed are servants, totally silent on the issue.
I imagine the response of the government would have been very different if the environmental disaster was off the shores of Matha's Vinyard and a some rich peoples yaghts might get soiled.

Your sudden concern for the poor and our country's wealth inequity is touching.

Do you not see the irony in your posts? You seem hell bent on proving hypocrisy yet are easily the most hypocritical person in this thread.

On this thread?

Innocent people get shot and killed every day but when a person is shot by a cop it is more significant. Why? Because cops are sworn to protect. Same thing here. The EPA is supposed to protect in a way a private business is not. So it is much worse when they act this way. And I doubt the CEO of any company would have gone so many days without a statement and trip to the site. Yet Obama is silent and absent.

Kind of like Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina?

bramzzoinks said:
And all the while the champion of the people, the President, is ensconced in Martha's Vineyard, where the only poor people allowed are servants, totally silent on the issue.
I imagine the response of the government would have been very different if the environmental disaster was off the shores of Matha's Vinyard and a some rich peoples yaghts might get soiled.

The government was not the cause of Katrina.

Plus Bush survey the area by air two days after landfall (cutting short a vacation) and was on the ground in the area four days after landfall. Obama has blithely remained in Martha's Vineyard and been silent.

yahooyahoo said:
Kind of like Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina?

bramzzoinks said:
And all the while the champion of the people, the President, is ensconced in Martha's Vineyard, where the only poor people allowed are servants, totally silent on the issue.
I imagine the response of the government would have been very different if the environmental disaster was off the shores of Matha's Vinyard and a some rich peoples yaghts might get soiled.

Is that really the comprison you want to make?

I don't think there is any comparison. That's the point.

bramzzoinks said:
Innocent people get shot and killed every day but when a person is shot by a cop it is more significant. Why? Because cops are sworn to protect. Same thing here. The EPA is supposed to protect in a way a private business is not. So it is much worse when they act this way. And I doubt the CEO of any company would have gone so many days without a statement and trip to the site. Yet Obama is silent and absent.

it's a traveshamockery

Shows how little concern the Eastern liberal elites have for Native Americans and the rural poor.

bramzzoinks said:
Shows how little concern the Eastern liberal elites have for Native Americans and the rural poor.

no. it shows how little concern we have in using this disaster to bash the president.

bramzzoinks said:
Shows how little concern the Eastern liberal elites have for Native Americans and the rural poor.

It's funny, because although I've seen lots and lots of discussion among liberals (including the elite eastern type) about poverty, the rural poor, and native americans, I don't believe I've ever seen you express any concern until just this moment, when you could use it as a stick against the EPA.

bramzzoinks said:
The government was not the cause of Katrina.
Plus Bush survey the area by air two days after landfall (cutting short a vacation) and was on the ground in the area four days after landfall. Obama has blithely remained in Martha's Vineyard and been silent.

You seem to think that the government dug that mine. Sorry, but they didn't. The government is now tasked with monitoring the damage done by private entities to protect the land and people.

Maybe companies should be responsible for the land they use in perpetuity, even after they are done exploiting it for profit.

Interesting letter to the editor of the local paper just days before the incident.

1. TylerDurden said:

Fascinating article where retired geologist predicts the disaster (based on a career of experience with the EPA), a week before the disaster occured. Article suggests that the spill was theintentional plan of EPA rather than mere negligence.

To suggest they intentionally broke the dam is kook territory and not what the letter actually says. The letter says the plan will fail and that will lead to the construction of a treatment plant.

Locals have been resisting superfund designation for decades. The only practical long term fix is plugging the inflows as best you can and treating the outflow. When water goes in, it comes out - in this case laced with copper and lead.

That letter doesn't say they planned to intentionally broke the dam. It says that plugging the leak will lead to the water leaking into cement creek through alternate routes, possible increasing the amount of pollution in that water. That's not great, but it's also very different from what actually happened -- a breach in the dam that turned the Animas River yellow. So the letter does not, in fact, remotely predict what actually happened.

I can see why EPA opponents would cite it, though. If you don't read the letter closely, at first glance it does look like a prediction (and who actually reads on the internet?). More importantly, though, it makes a juicy allegation of conspiracy. Since no one is actually defending the EPA (everyone agrees they made a bad mistake here), opponents need to step things up and allege not just a mistake, but active malice.

It does make their position cynically ironic, though. The bad behavior on the part of the EPA is polluting the river, but notice how ZZ and tyler durden studiously avoid the question of who caused the pollution in the first place. If the EPA polluting the river shows that the EPA is evil, consistency would require that the private companies who actually created the pollution are also bad. If you can get people arguing the merits of an alleged conspiracy by the EPA, though, you can sidestep this glaring inconsistency and keep the focus on the EPA and the Big Bad Government, rather than the problem of pollution.

TylerDurden said:
Interesting letter to the editor of the local paper just days before the incident.

Aside from the irrational speculation that this mess is an EPA conspiracy, I couldn't tell from the expert retired geologist exactly what the proper solution was. Was it OK to let the 500 gallons per minute flow of mine water into Cement Creek continue as it was?

The mine last operated 90 years ago.

So bramzz, are you for funding the EPA more so they can do their job properly across America? Or are you for unfunding govt agencies, and the EPA specifically, because well, it's big govt?

bramzzoinks said:
The mine last operated 90 years ago.

But the pollution was still there, slowly leaking into the ground and the water. All the more reason for the government to get involved, instead of waiting for a private party to show up and clean up the poisonous mess.

Of course, the reason the poisonous mess was there in the first place was because the mining took place at a time when there weren't government regulations to keep a mining company from doing that. Or, what Libertarians call, "the Golden Age".

tjohn said:

TylerDurden said:
Interesting letter to the editor of the local paper just days before the incident.

Aside from the irrational speculation that this mess is an EPA conspiracy, I couldn't tell from the expert retired geologist exactly what the proper solution was. Was it OK to let the 500 gallons per minute flow of mine water into Cement Creek continue as it was?

Clearly the answer is to let all the pollution leak into the river at once. :-|

ffof said:
So bramzz, are you for funding the EPA more so they can do their job properly across America? Or are you for unfunding govt agencies, and the EPA specifically, because well, it's big govt?

The predictable argument: When private industry messes up, they must be punished and/or shut down! When government messes up, they just need more funding. As if this happened due to EPA inaction.

It makes one wonder how this event would be portrayed if this happened under the Bush admin.

Do the @'s still work? Let's check.

@ridski

It makes one wonder how this event would be portrayed if this happened under the Bush admin.

TylerDurden said:

tjohn said:

TylerDurden said:
Interesting letter to the editor of the local paper just days before the incident.

Aside from the irrational speculation that this mess is an EPA conspiracy, I couldn't tell from the expert retired geologist exactly what the proper solution was. Was it OK to let the 500 gallons per minute flow of mine water into Cement Creek continue as it was?

Clearly the answer is to let all the pollution leak into the river at once.

Obviously the EPA contractor made a huge mistake, but what is your solution to the original problem? Or is the steady leaching of toxic metals into surface streams not a problem in your book.