The GMO thing. I’m not really a fan of GMO, but there were some articles a while back about how pretty much every crop on earth now has tested positive for GMO ‘cross pollination” or whatever term they used...basically meaning it’s all GMO to some degree.
Horse/barn door.
Who needs more jobs when you can just sit around and smoke dope now?
Some environmental choices are too important to play around with over a few hundred jobs for 30 years.
The hoopla about “GM” Crops is a bunch of luddite BS. Libs would prefer people starve to death.
“Environmentalists, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and some Alaska native tribes want to stop the mine...”
It’s always the same: stop development but give me funds in taxpayer revenues for my own, little games.
Money for me, but not for thee.
If bullsh*t were bullion, the streets of the world would be paved with gold.
I swear, some of my fellow conservatives are just like the knee-jerk liberals we laugh at. Just take a few minutes and research tailing ponds failures. Just building this mine will destroy a huge amount of salmon spawning grounds. These tailing ponds that contain millions of gallons of basically battery acid has to survive forever without leaking which is impossible. There will be breaches which will destroy Bristol Bay fishing. Mount Polley Mine Dam failure in Canada is the most recent example. I hate the EPA but on this I’m with them.
Environmentalists and the EPA, blocking development for far too long.
Correction: A demonstration of democracy. It was put to a vote.
Not really. Any mine of the sort proposed has a huge chance of wiping out the Bristol Bay sockeye runs (the largest in the world) or at best severely reducing them.
Beyond that, there is also a possibility of reducing the crab population (Opilio, King, etc) in the Bay and Bering Sea. The dead salmon help supply the nutrients the entire ecosystem needs to maintain the abundant marine life and livelihoods of many Alaskans. Wave good bye to Pollock (fish sticks), Hake (artificial crab), Halibut, and True Cod. These are multibillion dollar fisheries, as well as supplying a large portion of the fish in the nation’s grocery stores.
No relatively transient mine will replace the lost food sources, income, or jobs over the long term. The Bay and Bering fisheries also help the US Balance of Trade
Its a battle between food and metals - and you cannot eat metal. More metal or more food - the voters clearly saw this choice and voted for food.
Reasonable environmental protections are necessary in the case of mining operations: The question is what is reasonable in each instance. However, the successful minimum wage initiatives, etc., are worrisome, as a mere “anti-incumbent” mood at best only slows the “progressives” slightly. Illinois, for example, also passed a “Millionaire’s Tax” initiative. Fortunately, at least in the near future, that one will likely be blocked by governor-elect Rauner, but in the long run, one can just “see” the moneyed citizens leaving. Why stay in Illinois? IL will be lucky to have any jobs outside the Gov’t that are not minimum wage jobs...
Maybe. More like a victory over salmon fishers over the mine. Fish is big business there.
Building a tailings pond in a watershed is simply stupid. Doing it in a massive scale in the world’s largest salmon spawning run is simply massively stupid.
Alaskan love mining, but we love Alaska more. It’s a conservative thing.
So what’s the “hurdle” or “restriction?” Why doesn’t the author want to that? And which is it—a “hurdle” or a “restriction?” Those are two different things.
The author also says that various groups “want to stop the mine,” but he’s not honest about the kind of group. Is it a big, government-linked corporate group of the likes in favor of county planning regulation offices, building regulation offices and HOAs? Or is it the kind of of group that doesn’t like having government-connected big shots eating in Colorado while crapping in Alaska?
Why doesn’t the author make a choice in his accusations? Are opponents trying to “stop” the mine without any conditions, erect a “hurdle” or place a “restriction?”
Some fake environmentalists want to stop working men from building their own houses on their own real properties and making products in small shops on their own real properties. Working men want government-linked fake environmentalists to clean up their own enormous messes and quit poisoning water and food.
Correction:
Why doesn’t the author want to talk about that? [Referring to choosing between the descriptions, “hurdles,” “stop” and “restriction.”]
And why did the author describe those who want the group of investors behind the proposed mine as “Environmentalists, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and some Alaska native tribes,” when a majority of local residents are against it?
The author wrote the usual propaganda for those who have poisoned our water and food for many decades while outlawing our property rights and freedom to engage in productive activities on smaller scales. They’ve even moved to outlaw most wood stoves used for heating houses and to outlaw all of the better home-built heating alternatives.
Outlaw HOAs. Outlaw and shut down planning and building offices in rural counties. Legalize small manufacturing shops in rural areas.