Posts Tagged by Bristol Bay
|August 9, 2012||Posted by Beth Shaw under Mining|
A primary rule of propaganda is that if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth. Unfortunately, most of us read headlines and hear sound bites and rarely look beyond that. Therefore, what is put out there as truth is usually believed and becomes the basis for the opinions of the public at large. The wealthy ‘green’ activists groups seem to understand this concept well and have used it to give themselves credibility and to promote their job-killing agendas.
Just a couple of days ago they declared a ‘victory’ in an automated letter writing campaign against the proposed Pebble Mine Project in Alaska. They cull out enough evidence to prove they have ‘strong support’ for blocking the mining project. They leave out any evidence that proves that ‘strong support’ is shaky at best.
Worse of all, they leave out the fact that Native Alaskans and other local people have been refused a voice in the process. The powerful ‘green’ lobbies have run roughshod over the native villagers who have the most to lose if the employment opportunities of the mines is denied to them. They don’t have the wealth and connections the ‘greenies’ have, so their voices are being silenced.
Here are some facts that are in direct opposition to the claim that there is ‘widespread applause’ for opposition to the Pebble Mine Project.
The powerful environmental lobbying groups sent out a mass mailing to their membership with a quickie link to click to send a robo-comment to the EPA. They claim their response was fantastic making 98% of the comments received by the closing of the comment period as being in opposition to the proposed job and energy producing mining project. In reality, the letters came from people who were already members of environmentalist activists groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, National Wildlife Federation, National Parks Conservation Association and the Pew Environmental Group. Out of the millions of emails that were sent out asking for a quick click to send the letter, only 6% took the few seconds to do that. So a couple of hundred thousand letters sent by people who responded sounds good until you put it into the context of how many people were asked to click on the quick link. In truth, it’s an embarrassing level of response.
This lame response is after wealthy sports fishermen from the lower-48 have spent over $40 million to get support for opposing Pebble Mine and shut out public dialogue. Native Alaskans don’t have that kind of money to spend to get support. Their voices have been shut-out by the well-heeled who want to use their home lands for their own personal playground.
Another problem with their claim of ‘widespread’ opposition is that they left out the people most affected by whether or not the the EPA allows the Pebble Mine Project to proceed. Native Alaskans and villagers. Ten of the 12 Alaska Native Corporations, village corporations, tribal governments, state leadership and local leaders say this is a rush to nowhere. They say there is no threat and that a thoughtful scientific study is needed – not a rushed political move.
So the environmentalist’s claim of overwhelming support for pre-emptively denying the Pebble Mine Project to grossly overstated. In reality, it is propaganda. The lie is repeated over and over until it becomes truth. At least in the mind of the people. Meanwhile, average Americans will have to continue buying resources from other countries, paying more for it and Native Alaskans and villagers will be denied jobs and continue to struggle to live (or be forced to move away from their homes, giving up their Native culture!)
It gets so tiresome, doesn’t it. Having to dig so deep to ferret out the truth from the constant flow of misinformation we are fed by these groups who hold the general public in such contempt that they put their own pleasure above the livelihood of people in their own homes.
Once again we ask that the comment period be reopened in order to give Alaskans a chance to have their voices heard in this important debate.
|July 16, 2012||Posted by Beth Shaw under Issues, Mining|
As Americans we are accustomed to being free to voice our opinions and have an expectation that we can have at least a minimal effect on events in our own local communities. Whether or not we choose to attempt to have an affect is another matter. We believe we can vote someone out of office who is not performing to our expectations. At the very least we can write our Congressmen, local commissioners or a scathing letter to the editor of our local newspapers.
Unfortunately, there are those who don’t understand this and are reverting to older ideas of government that have failed repeatedly. We see ourselves being moved backwards towards a stronger centralized government in insidious ways. So insidious that it’s barely noticeable until it gets so big that it will be hard to overcome.
One of the avenues for undermining the power of the people is through building huge bureaucratic organizations that make it virtually impossible for everyday people to have a say in what is going on in their own back yards and give all the power to a centralized government. That appears to be what is happening with the Pebble Mine Project in Alaska as well as other places around our country. The local people have little or no say. They are being ignored and all the power to make decisions is based with a few people who have their own agendas and have little or no interest in the opinions of the people most impacted by their decisions.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is rushing the comment period for their controversial watershed assessment for Bristol Bay, Alaska that would pre-emptively deny permits for Pebble Mine which would mine the world’s largest copper resources located in Alaska. Lisa Jackson, Director of the EPA is refusing to meet with local supporters of the Pebble Mine Project and are holding community meetings on the project in Washington State, 1,500 miles away.
Alaskan Senator Lisa Murkowski has met with Lisa Jackson and is speaking out about her disappointment in the EPA’s indifference to the concerns of Alaskans:
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, today criticized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for refusing to give Alaskans more time to comment on the agency’s controversial watershed assessment of the Bristol Bay region.
“The EPA’s refusal to provide additional time for the public to comment on the draft watershed assessment for Bristol Bay demonstrates, once again, that the agency does not understand Alaska,” Murkowski said. “There is no deadline – other than the one arbitrarily imposed by the EPA – that requires the agency to act now.”
Murkowski raised her concerns about the limited comment period directly with EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. Murkowski said the comment period, which is currently scheduled to close July 23, coincides with the busy summer season in Alaska, when many Alaskans are out commercial or subsistence fishing.
“I’m disappointed that the EPA’s Washington-based leaders have failed to see the benefits of allowing Alaskans adequate time to comment on an assessment that could have significant consequences for the future of our state,” Murkowski said.
The consequences for Alaska and its future are only a drop in the bucket to the consequences for the rest of the country in terms of acquiring much needed natural resources and jobs.
We need to speak out about this usurping of the people’s power. Resourceful Earth has set up an action alert site which makes it very easy for you to write your representative and ask that the people most affected by the Pebble Mine project have a say in keeping that opportunity from being shut down through bureaucratic red-tape. You can access the action site here.
|May 24, 2012||Posted by Admin under Mining, Special Interests|
We have written before about the Pebble Mine, which is under threat of a preemptive shutdown due to an absurd power grab by the EPA.
These threats came to a head in the late afternoon last Friday (the perfect time to try to sneak underhanded tactics by people and hope no one notices), as the EPA “released a draft scientific study of the Bristol Bay watershed and its natural resources, conducted solely to form the basis for preemptively vetoing the Pebble Mine in Alaska.”
Keep in mind the Pebble Mine owners haven’t even applied for a permit, let alone gone through the permitting and vetting process, yet the EPA is already trying to block them. So much for an honest and fair chance.
Mineweb, a leading online publication covering the mining industry, writes:
Never mind that the U.S. Corps of Engineers has been the primary permitting authority for dredging and filling permits for mining projects impacting watersheds. Over the opposition of the Alaska attorney general [Michael Geraghty], Ranking Senate Energy & Resources Committee Member Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and others, the EPA is determined to wrest the permitting authority for itself, using the power it believes was granted by the Clean Water Act.
Let us be clear: This is a pure power grab by unelected, unaccountable EPA bureaucrats. This report could mean that the EPA can kill any project that could potentially impact water, without the project ever going through the permitting process, and without input from state, local, or other federal agencies.
In fact, Wizbang Blog reports:
An article from Inside the EPA (subscription required) shows that environmentalists couldn’t be happier, and want the EPA to use this plan to kill other projects…
“Environmentalists are now calling on the agency to conduct a similar assessment of mining activity in the Great Lakes region. The Bristol Bay study “is comparable to what we’d like to see” in the Great Lakes, National Wildlife Federation (NWF) attorney Michelle Halley said on a May 10 conference call.”
How can you help?
1. Let EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and members of Congress know what you think about this unprecedented power grab.
2. On Twitter? Follow @ResourceEarth for updates and tweet your thoughts using the hashtags #YesPebble and #GivePebbleAChance
3. Comment on news articles, saying why you support Pebble Mine and oppose this expansion of EPA power.
For further reading:
Has the EPA overstepped its bounds with Pebble Project assessment? (Mineweb)
The EPA is annexing Alaska (Wizbang Blog)
EPA finds mining could affect fish, water as residents fight prospect near Alaska fishery (Washington Post)
EPA: Mining Could Affect Quality of Water, Fish (Associated Press)
Alaska AG says EPA’s actions ‘unlawful’ (Legal Newsline)
|February 16, 2012||Posted by Beth Shaw under Energy, Issues|
Native Alaskans are being snubbed by the Obama Administration’s EPA. All an Alaska Native consortium wanted was a chance to ask Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Director Lisa Jackson for assurance their villages and native culture will be preserved. They were denied the opportunity which in turn denies the opportunity for jobs in an area in the midst of devastating economic depression.
Abe Williams and Lisa Reimers of Nuna Resources (an Alaska Native consortium) went to Washington last week with a very reasonable request. They had written and asked for a meeting with EPA Director Lisa Jackson to talk with her about the Pebble Mine Project in the Bristol Bay area of Alaska.
You see, they represent the area of Alaska that is most affected by whether or not the enormous copper deposit is harvested. The situation for the tribes of that area is dire. The Native Alaskans of the area have little opportunity, and so many are leaving behind their homes and community to seek opportunity elsewhere. The migration away from the area is decimating the Native Alaskan culture, traditions and community. Without opportunity, few will be left to pass the traditions along to subsequent generations.
Williams and Reimers went to Washington to ask for the opportunity to save their community and culture. They didn’t ask for an bail-out. All they asked for was fair hearings for the Pebble Limited Partnership.
Nuna Resources and its native village constituency want to allow impartial scientific studies to build the Pebble Mine near their homes and villages. The natives do not specifically endorse the mine, which would exploit the largest known ore body of copper on the planet. But they want its proposed developer, the Pebble Limited Partnership, to be given a fair hearing for its claims of environmental and cultural protection on Native traditional lands.
Jackson would not even give Williams and Reimers a meeting. The EPA’s emailed reply their request for one — on Feb. 6, 7 or 8 — came just two days before their already-scheduled flights: “While the Administrator greatly appreciates this request, she will unfortunately be unavailable.”
The note ended, “Have a nice day.” Really.
If the Pebble Mine Project is safe, then they can have jobs and a chance to save their community. It would seem that fair hearings would be a very reasonable and rational request. Unfortunately for Williams, Reimers and the Native Alaskan community they represent, that doesn’t fit the party line. Their request was denied.
You have to HAVE ‘green’ to BE ‘green’ and no one is giving Nuna Resources millions of dollars like is being filtered through to the radical environmentalists. The monied left and well-heeled environmentalists don’t have a problem having their voices heard. They are backed by big money to fund AstroTurf faux outrage through groups like ‘Stop Pebble Mine’ and ‘Save Bristol Bay’. They have almost unlimited funding for advertising and public relations (propaganda?) from the millions donated by the likes of Gordon Moore of Intel, Tiffany Company Foundation and Brainerd Foundation who funnel money through anti-development Big Green groups like Natural Resources Defense Council, Trout Unlimited and EarthWorks.
While the Native Alaskans of the area are facing devastating economic hardships (paying $9 for a gallon of milk and $8 for a gallon of gas!) environmentalists are loudly declaring that harvesting the ample supplies of copper in the area will endanger the native salmon. The radical left ignores the reality of the situation. The area can have their fish and their jobs as well. The Pebble Mine study has just been released. The exhaustive scientific study conducted over 7-years at a cost of $150 million using more than 40 respected independent research firms represents the company’s commitment to protecting the fish and the environment as an integral part of the project.
Is it really better to get our copper from China than from Alaska? Will China be more concerned with protecting the environment than Americans? I think not. It seems to be more of a ‘not in my backyard’ kind of argument. We have to have copper so it will come from somewhere. Why insist it come from somewhere without the regulations and restrictions that will undoubtedly be MORE damaging to the environment? That’s irrational and counterproductive to the very cause they claim to embrace. But when has reason ever stopped a good money-making ’cause’. Buckets of money, in fact.
The problem is that while it’s a ‘feel good’ issue for many of the environmentalist – you know, stand up and make a big stand about something that you only know anything about at a very shallow level – its being done standing on the necks of the people who live in the area. The native people are suffering so some environmentalists can feel like their lives have meaning or some of the major financial backers can have even more money in their own portfolios.
In reality, mining copper and gold from the Pebble Mine Project in Alaska is a win-win situation for everyone involved (other than those who have a financial interest in stopping it). It is better for the environment (as opposed to getting the copper from somewhere else), it already is providing jobs in Alaska and will provide tens of thousands of jobs in the long run in a depressed area of the country and it will provide American’s copper at a better price than if it were bought from other countries.
Seriously, what is the downside?
The problem is that it flies in the face of the monied environmentalists that Obama is courting for his re-election campaign. He’s playing nice with the environmentalists while America jobs are being lost and the environment damaged by having us obtain copper from countries where how it is extracted from the Earth is not so well monitored.
Unless something is done, Obama and his environmentally radical EPA will ‘Keystone’ the Pebble mine project.
Here’s what you can do:
- Add your comments to the article written by Ron Arnold. Tell the nay-sayers they are out of touch!
- Share this story with your friends and family on Facebook, Twitter, and other social networks. Use this link to share: http://bit.ly/yV2XPQ
- Tweet this story using the hash tag #GivePebbleAChance. You can follow and mention us @ResourceEarth as well.
- Join the nearly 40,000 others in our Facebook community by clicking here.
|December 13, 2011||Posted by Beth Shaw under Mining|
A survey paid for by NRDC conducted by a known liberal polling firm has little credibility, especially when it was conducted in August and released in December. NRDC has been a leading opposition been using the potential of an extraction project at Pebble as a means to raise money through a misleading alarmist direct mail campaign. This survey is just more biased fundraising material; the survey questions were as biased as the direct mail fundraising letters. How can they expect a survey with loaded questions to be taken seriously?
The environmental movement is built on a series of lies. Lies about the science on which they base their belief system. They lie about economics and any businesses or groups that do not fit into their belief system. They also lie about public opinion. In short, we can trust nothing that is put out by the environmental industry.
In light of all that, it comes as no big surprise that the environmentalists are touting a ‘new’ poll that they claim proves public opinion is firmly against the building of the Pebble Mine Project in Alaska. That project would provide jobs and a boost to the economy in an economically distressed area of the nation. In addition, it would go a long way toward relieving the U.S. economy and dependence on foreign sources for copper. But those things don’t seem to matter to the environmentalists.
This ‘new’ poll has the environmentalists patting each other on the back and telling us all that the majority of people in Alaska and the Lower 48 agree with them and their wealthy benefactors that the Pebble Mine Project should not be built.
That would be great news for the environmental industry – if it were true. But its not. Fact is, the poll they are citing is bogus and the conclusions they are drawing from the polling is equally suspect.
Let’s take a closer look at the poll the environmentalists are so proud of to see if Americans REALLY do want to shut down efforts to harvest these precious resources that our country needs.
The poll was paid for by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), an acknowledged liberal polling firm with little credibility. In addition, NRDC has been a leading opponent of the Pebble Mine Project. NRDC has also used the potential of an extraction project at Pebble as a means to raise money through a misleading alarmist direct mail campaign. With that kind of vested interest in killing the Pebble Mine Project can we expect this is an unbiased report?
Also involved in the poll were Nunamta Aulukestai which translates as ‘Caretakers of Our Lands’ and Renewable Resources Coalition, both environmentalist activist groups who can not be expected to conducted objective, unbiased polling.
The survey was conducted by Belden Russonello Strategists, LLC., a group who has historically done these types of surveys for environmentalists and liberal politicians. Again, unbiased? Hardly.
The press release for the survey sets up the questions with this statement (among others) ‘and the level of opposition actually increases as people learn more about the mine.’ This seems to provide respondents with the ‘right’ point of view with which to regard the questions.
The survey questions themselves push the environmentalists agenda. For instance asking respondents if they think Alaskan salmon should be protected or would respondents like to see Alaska stay a wonderful wilderness or have it torn to shreds because greedy profiteers want to rape it of its natural resources. They were a tad more subtle, but the general method was the same.
And what about this ‘majority of Americans’ who voted in the poll. They polled 801 people across the Lower 48. That comes out to about 17 people per state. Hardly a ‘majority of the American people.’ Even with these minute numbers, their polling wasn’t a landslide in their agenda’s favor.
The poll was conducted in August, but the results of the poll have just now been released. Hardly ‘new’ news! Why the delay? Are they unsure of the results of the poll data themselves?
We understand that the conclusions of this ‘poll’ are suspect at best, even while the environmentalists are lauding this survey as proof positive that the American people are speaking with one voice that they want to put a STOP to the harvesting of essential resources in Alaska. We might be generous in calling their conclusions exacerbations and exaggerations. But that would be extremely generous indeed. It gets more and more obvious every day that they will tell the public anything to get their own agenda passed without thought or concern for the consequences. Sounds like desperation, doesn’t it.
Well, maybe they think of the consequences, but not in the way most of us do. The executive director of Nunamta Aulukestai said in praise of this questionable poll that its a ‘no brainer’ that the salmon are more precious than gold and copper. She called that common sense. Common sense tells me that she’s using copper to post her comments online, to read the bogus report, whenever she talks on her phone or heats her house. Common sense tells me that we need copper and will get it one way or the other and better to get in under the strict regulations of an environmentally sensitive country like the United States.
The environmentalists are gleefully celebrating the ‘big news’ of this ‘diverse, comprehensive survey’ that is anything BUT diverse and comprehensive. This bogus poll is nothing more than another environmentalists lie. In fact, it is not worth the recycled paper its written on.