Media Criticism

The New York Times' Hostility to Industry Gets Worse

The paper of record has it in for Pebble Mine, and for industry in general.

|

The New York Times' hostility to industry gets worse every day.

Last week, The Times ran a big picture of a bay in Alaska with the headline "In Reversal, EPA Eases Path for a Mine Near Alaska's Bristol Bay."

While this was just another of their stories about how Donald Trump will poison America, it caught my eye because of the big photo and because I once reported on that mine.

Attempted mine, I should say. No holes have been dug.

I reported on Pebble Mine because the EPA rejected the mine even before its environmental impact statement was submitted.

The Obama EPA squashed Pebble like it squashed the Keystone XL pipeline. It just said no.

This shocked CEO Tom Collier. He's a Democrat who managed environment policy for Al Gore and Bill Clinton. He was convinced Pebble could be developed safely and assumed EPA regulators would follow their own rules. They didn't.

"They killed this project before any science was done, and there are memos that show that!" Collier complained.

I'm skeptical when sources say things like that, but in this case, there are documents that reveal collusion between the EPA and Pebble's political opponents.

One of America's richest environmental groups (they collect more than $10 million per month) is the Natural Resources Defense Council. Their website claims "Science empowers NRDC's work," but the NRDC is run by lawyers, not scientists, and many are anti-progress activists upset about "corporate greed."

NRDC spokesman Bob Deans told me that the NRDC isn't anti-progress—it just wants the "right" kind: "Wind turbines, solar panels … this is what the future needs."

"But we also need copper and gold," I said.

"Well, that's right," he replied. "But we have to weigh those risks."

"Are there some mines where NRDC says, 'Go ahead!'?" I asked.

After thinking for a while, he said, "It's not up to us to greenlight mines."

I asked, "Are there any you don't complain about?"

"Sure," he told me. He said he'd send us names. He never did.

Unfortunately, there's a revolving door between groups like the NRDC and the EPA.

One NRDC activist who walked through that door was Nancy Stoner. EPA administrators aren't supposed to conspire with former activist colleagues, but she did, telling them that she couldn't coordinate with them directly but could meet with them so long as they communicated via other people and invited people besides her to meetings.

After her correspondence about that was revealed, Stoner left the EPA, but Pebble had already been rejected.

Now Trump's in charge and his EPA says it will reevaluate the mine. Good. It should.

But New York Times reporters can't stand that. They've smeared Pebble year after year in their headlines.

2008: "Mine would irreparably harm a centuries-old salmon fishing industry."

2012: "A Threat to Bristol Bay."

2013: "Native Alaska, Under Threat."

Last week's smear piece was written by Tatiana Schlossberg. Name sound familiar? She's Caroline Kennedy's daughter, granddaughter of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis.

Her Times articles are a litany of enviro-hysteria: "Mass Die-off of Whales"; "…Bring Coal's Hidden Hazard to Light"; "How Lowering Crime Could Contribute to Global Warming."

I'm not making this up.

Her last anti-Trump column was headlined: "23 Environmental Rules Rolled Back." But the article lists only nine. Fourteen others were "under review" or in "limbo"—not rolled back.

Her Bristol Bay story claimed the proposed Pebble Mine was "on" Bristol Bay. But it isn't. It's more than 100 miles away.

When we asked Schlossberg about that, she replied, "I'm not going to comment on that. If you have a problem or a question, you can direct it to the standards editor."

So we did, and to my surprise, the standards editor published a correction: "The mine is not on Bristol Bay itself."

But he defended the Times' headline saying "near Bristol Bay" because "it is in the watershed of Bristol Bay … The mine could affect the fishery."

I suppose it "could." Most anything "could." But "near" the bay? To me, "near" is 200 yards, or maybe half a mile, but not 100 miles.

Forget the anti-development phrase NIMBY (Not In My Backyard). Now it's BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody).

The Schlossberg-Kennedys have hundreds of millions of dollars and already own 300 acres of waterfront property. They won't be crushed by insane environmental restrictions.

You, however, may be.

COPYRIGHT 2017 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

NEXT: My "USA Today" op ed criticizing Trump's proposed parental leave mandate

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. One of the aspects people tend to overlook with over-regulation and overzealous environmental restrictions in the US is that if we don’t mine minerals or get our lumber here in a moderately responsible way, people will only clear cut forests and pollute the Earth to get minerals in places with zero environmental protections. Puritans who refuse to accept anything beyond zero pollution and zero emissions and zero trees cut down in America only create greater environmental damage and far higher CO2 emissions elsewhere.

    1. It’s like the Keystone Pipeline. Canada is going to get their product somewhere somehow. Now it will be forced over rail and road and water, all of which are far more dangerous and environmentally damaging than pipelines.

      1. “Canada is going to get their product somewhere somehow.”

        When Obo rejected the pipeline, I actually read comments claiming the oil would therefore not be harvested.
        That oil is coming out of the ground and it will be burned or converted into petrochemicals regardless of some watermelon’s bloviations.
        I swear, these are the folks who think if they impeach Trump, the hag will take office.

        1. How coulkd people fail to understand how the government works?

          1. How coulkd people fail to understand how the government works?

            See: Progtard; Proglodyte; DanO.; Tony

            1. Some people haven’t been mugged by reality yet.

              1. The only way the brainwashed average American will be mugged by reality is when the water cannons are rolling down the streets ala Venezuela. The uneducated brainwashed masses love some socialism until it is too late. Hence, America in its present state.

          2. “How coulkd people fail to understand how the government works?”

            Well, actually, it doesn’t work.

        2. I am NOT defending the decision to stop the Keystone pipeline BUT there is some logic to the argument that forcing the oil to be delivered at a higher cost might take it off the market. This is a very low profit margin product (refined from tar sands I believe) and so any slight increase in cost can put them out of biz. Seems to me a pipeline must be far more efficient at transporting liquids than by trucks or by rail.

          1. “BUT there is some logic to the argument that forcing the oil to be delivered at a higher cost might take it off the market.”

            Seems the extraction is going on even with oil falling from~$100/bbl when it started to ~$50 today, so I guess there’s money to be made.

      2. It also made a ton of money for Obama supporter Warren Buffett. But we aren’t supposed to mention that.

        1. DON’T FUCK WITH THE PROGTARD MEME IF YOU KNOW WHAT IS GOOD FOR YOU.

      3. Maybe. But, Warren Buffet doesn’t own the Keystone XL, he owns BNSF Railway. How’s he supposed to make any money if they move it in a more environmentally friendly way.

      4. I understand that pipelines are cheaper, but from the numbers I’ve seen there have been more pipeline failures than train or ship wrecks.

        1. How many pipeline failures have blown up a town?

        2. “…but from the numbers I’ve seen there have been more pipeline failures than train or ship wrecks.”

          Cite?

      5. …And the oil will be going to China.

    2. Yes; we’ve already exported the vast majority of our pollution and other environmental “problems” to China.

      1. I think ypu meant to say that the US is falling embarrassingly behind envirinmental pioneers in China. After all, they have a plan to rid the planet of poisonous co2.

        1. “After all, they have a plan to rid the planet of poisonous co2.”

          I was told in another web-space that the Euros are ‘on their way to complete renewable energy!’
          I pointed out that I am on my way to becoming a billionaire, too.

        2. Sit his sarcasm? Due to fracking the US is doing better at cutting emissions than most. China is building a bunch of nuclear and solar and wind plants, but that is still not enough to meet their increasing demand, so they’re continuing to build super dirty coal plants.

          1. I’m not known for my sarcasm and snark.

        3. After all, they have a plan to rid the planet of poisonous co2.

          Heh.

          And with their fingers crossed behind their back at every global pow-wow.

        4. Yep, the Molten Salt Thorium Reactor.

          1. More like AP1000’s, but sure.

          2. You mean Morton Salt, with the little girl and the umbrella on the side of the reactor…

        5. Yes, CO2 just *kills* plants.

          Wait, what?

      2. We are actually the world’s largest exporter of trash. I’ve seen the huge cargo ships that get loaded up with our electoric trash and sent to China for recycling. They send us back cadmium and gold and shit and then flush the nasty chemicals used to “recycle” it down the drain.

        1. Or they just tossed them in a dump for peasants to scavenge the valuable parts.

          1. Burning works. Fire good.

            1. Fire bad; tree pretty.

    3. One of the aspects people tend to overlook with over-regulation and overzealous environmental restrictions in the US is that if we don’t mine minerals or get our lumber here in a moderately responsible way, people will only clear cut forests and pollute the Earth to get minerals in places with zero environmental protections.

      ^ This.

      This is exactly my argument against offshore drilling bans.

      It is best to drill offshore oil now while we do all of our drilling pretty cleanly and safely. If we don’t drill it, there will come a time when that oil will be needed, and the more desperate that need is, the less carefully and cleanly that oil is going to be drilled.

      1. 22nd century progtards will find a way to say that whaling is environmentally responsible and a hip way to get back to nature.

        1. Only if it is done in whaling boats driven by oars, by men with one peg leg.

        2. What, you’re against clean-burning lamp oil?

    4. One of the aspects people tend to overlook with over-regulation and overzealous environmental restrictions in the US is that if we don’t mine minerals or get our lumber here in a moderately responsible way, people will only clear cut forests and pollute the Earth to get minerals in places with zero environmental protections.

      Yeah, but those places tend to be populated by poor brown skinned people. Environmentalists don’t give a shit about them, despite their protestations to the contrary. The only thing that matters is that they get pristine bays that they can drive their Priuses too and look at while feeling smugly superior to everyone who doesn’t share their views.

      Or pictures of pristine nature that they can look at on the internet from the comfort of their air conditioned homes.

      1. Well they need some place for the bike paths paid for with gas taxes to go.

      2. They DO give a shit about poor brown people. The last thing they want to have happen is that lots of poor brown people suddenly get ahead of them economically with their filthy “productivity”.

  2. That was a good article.
    Thank you.

  3. What is the Libertarian problem with NIMBY? A man of property should have the right to decide what to do or not to do with his property. Yet the NIMBY phrase is only used in a negative sense, as though insisting on property rights were something shameful.

    1. The problem with NIMBY is that people not only want to control their property, they want to control any property near theirs. Plus, it’s often done not because of any concrete harm or even credible threat of harm, but on the merest possibility of some purely theoretical harm. Thus, it’s used to override others’ property rights, not to uphold one’s own.

      1. Correct. NIMBYism isn’t about doing things on peoples’ private property, but on adjacent lands. Eminent domain is a separate issue. NIMBY is a bit of a misnomer. Acronyms for things like “Not In My Town” just don’t sound as catchy.

      2. “Thus, it’s used to override others’ property rights, not to uphold one’s own.”

        I take your point but noise and other forms of pollution are notorious disrespecters of property distinctions. Perhaps you disagree with these property owners and their assessment of these theoretical harms, but it’s their property and it’s they, not you, who are responsible for deciding how much their polluting neighbours are going to get away with. I don’t see how a Libertarian would have problems with this.

        1. There’s a difference between NIMBY and BANANA. Not In My Back Yard is an admission that there are externalities that must be borne by somebody, they just want it to be someone else paying the price. They want a free lunch, in other words. Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody is a delusional belief that externalities can be done away with completely, that there’s no such thing as trade-offs rather than that trade-offs are all there is in life. They’re demanding free lunches for everybody.

          1. And Pebble Mine is as much in “my backyard” as it is “on Bristol Bay.”

          2. A property owner who expects a noisy neighbour to cease or take steps in noise abatement is not looking for a free lunch. Since when do Libertarians treat property owners with such contempt?

            1. Yes he is looking for a free lunch. You don’t like the neighbor’s noise, YOU do your OWN noise abatement.

              (The biggest noise polluter in my neighborhood is the government.)

              1. Is noise pollution a special exception or is that the same for all forms of pollution?

            2. You’re being deliberately dense.

              Is someone here proposing that all noise ordinances be abolished? Noise pollution isn’t a valid excuse to bar someone from building a mine a hundred mikes away, nor from building a high rise across the block because it ruins your view, nor from building condos nearby because it would ‘alter the character of the neighborhood.’ Most land use restrictions don’t even purport to protect property from any specific kind of pollution.

              Mostly they amount to the modern day analog to trying to keep poor black people from moving in to keep their own housing prices up.

              1. Mines are today’s poor black people. Now you’re talking sense. Keep it up, I sense that moran Sevo is about to make an appearance. Until then you’ve got the floor to yourself.

              2. MarkLastname|5.24.17 @ 6:11PM|#
                “You’re being deliberately dense.”

                It’s all he’s capable of.
                Ask him for a cite once, if you want to see some bullshit.

                1. Cites are today’s poor black people.

          3. I would say that a Californian protesting a mine in Alaska is not engaging in NIMBYism, he’s a BANANA. Some of these people seriously believe there’s some magical process whereby we can satisfy our needs (with “needs” being distinct from “wants” and “needs” being determined by them, of course) without disturbing Mother Earth a whit. Why can’t we just 3-D print whatever we want instead of using natural resources? Why can’t we use rechargeable batteries instead of that nasty old electricity? Why don’t we get our meat from the grocery store instead of killing animals?

            Others, however, are under no delusion that we can satisfy our desires for the comforts of modern existince without costs to Mother Earth and they openly argue that human beings and their large brains are a mistake, that we should abandon all the so-called “progress” of humanity and return to a pre-Stone Age hunter/gatherer animal existence. They also openly acknowledge that the planet can support at best a few hundred million human animals and they’re fine with about 90% of humanity dying off, even if the dying off might not be entirely a voluntary process.

            You’ll note not a goddamn one of these people is huddled shivering and naked in a damp dark cave eating roots and grubs like they think we all should be.

            1. “we can satisfy our needs”

              A Libertarian has no business making pronouncements on ‘our needs.’ It’s not a collectivist philosophy, but individualist, leaving decisions on what is needed to the individual. Not the amorphous ‘we.’

              1. If there’s no collective we then there’s no ‘we’ that has a right to tell an individual where they’re allowed to mine so they can sell what they find to other individuals.

                1. What’s to stop them from keeping it for themselves and their loved ones? Surely you support a property owner’s right to make that decision.

        2. You mean noise pollution like that from wind turbines? Or perhaps that would include exemptions from killing protected species?

          1. “You mean noise pollution like that from wind turbines?”

            Property owners have every right to oppose wind turbines, for excessive noise or any other reason that strikes their fancy. I would have thought that Libertarians should have no problem with this. It’s part of NIMBY, after all.

            1. NIMBY’s don’t want their neighbor to abate the externalities, they want their neighbors to drop dead and they want them to drop dead somewhere else. Mines and oil wells and factories and landfills and stores and roads have to exist somewhere, NIMBY’s know this and they know there are externalities involved and they’re not looking for the externalities to be internalized through some sort of market-based payment system, they want the cost of externalities to be borne by somebody else. That’s the very definition of a NIMBY.

              It’s like with the environmental movement here in the US, the EPA did a pretty good job getting the environment cleaned up, but part of the cost of that was all the dirty dangerous low-wage jobs moving to Mexico and China. That’s the trade-off being made whether you realize it or not, whether or not that cost was calculated into the price of a cleaner environment. You want no externalities from your neighbor? You’re going to have to find another planet to live on because this one’s chockfull of externalities. You want your neighbor to pay for the externalities or pay to abate them? So does everyone else, and eliminating all the externalities for everybody is going to cost a surprisingly staggering sum.

              1. “NIMBY’s don’t want their neighbor to abate the externalities, they want their neighbors to drop dead and they want them to drop dead somewhere else. ”

                What you think NIMBYS want or don’t want is immaterial. And why a Libertarian would accept a trade off where the property owner gets somebody else’s externalities in exchange for vague promises of economic growth and the general well being of society is hard to imagine. Sounds more like a Republican or Democrat.

                1. So if having to see black people in your neighborhood from your window bothers you and therefore black people in your neighborhood is a negative externality for you, do you have the right to forbid black people from moving to your neighborhood?

                  You’re twisting into knots to justify a way of thinking that effectively holds all property to be common and therefore everyone gets a say in where everyone else gets to live, work, or do anything on the basis that it could potentially effect them. That’s not consistent with the idea of private property.

                  Everything you do could potentially impact me. When you buy good, it impacts the supply and price of that kind of food, which effects its availability and affordability to me, however slightly. Does that give me the right to dictate what you’re allowed to eat?

                  1. I have nothing against seeing black people from my window. If I had my druthers I’d love to see more.

          2. Protected species are a few pegs down on the “Save the World Crusade”, remember you have to crack a few eggs to get an SJW scrambled and incoherent mess.

      3. The problem with NIMBY is that people not only want to control their property, they want to control any property near theirs.

        Usually any property within line of sight of theirs or otherwise close enough to theirs for them to be aware of its existence.

        1. After a 35 years career in the nuclear business, dealing with the most crazy NIMBYs you can imagine, I have now become one, over a cell tower that is proposed to be built next to my house. I am not worried about cell-phone radiation, but about the possibility of a fire because they want to build it in a location, in a floodplain, in a hurricane zone, that does not have fire protection for 200 boats loaded with gasoline. My house will be destroyed if a fire ever starts in this facility.

          I am an example of a NIMBY who has a real hazard to deal with. The others, who worry about mines 3000 miles away, are really political activists who want to de-industrialize the US, and then the rest of the world. They have trust funds to keep them comfortable once the country reverts to its pre-Columbian state. They probably have guns and guards and lawyers to help them keep the trust funds, as well.

    2. This is worse than NIMBY. This was a single billionaire, Bob Gilliam, bankrolling the entire anti-Pebble effort. Because it’d be near his fishing lodge. Because fuck him that why. Oh, and the tremendous dicknugget then had the balls (admittedly admirable for its audacity) to lobby the new administration to be Interior Secretary.
      One billionaire shuts down a commercial enterprise of great value to the locals.

  4. The NRDC may be colluding and conspiring but is it doing anything illegal? You might have a story here if it were. Whingeing about the New York Times will only take you so far even in Reason Magazine.

    1. If they are an environmental non-profit covertly using their contacts in the EPA in ways that they know are not lawful in order to manipulate government regulators into bypassing existing processes in order to squash otherwise perfectly legal and legitimate economic activity then yes, that is illegal.

      1. Regulatory capture and lobbying are endemic but not illegal. If the author had info about illegal goings on, he would have mentioned it. He doesn’t, hence the tedious recapitulations of what the NYT says.

        1. Agreed it is tedious to preach to the choir about our corrupt government to libertarians. But amassing and disseminating evidence as to how our government is broken and corrupt is a service to those of us who like to know the truth. No matter how miserable it makes us.

        2. Many things are endemic but not illegal – this whole site is nothing if not bitching about all the things that are legal and generally acceptable but that we wish were not. It’s perfectly legal for the government to lock your ass in jail if you put certain natural substances into your body or agree to have certain things put into your body for cash – the fact that it’s legal and that most people are fine with it means exactly jack shit, it shouldn’t be legal and it shouldn’t be acceptable..

          1. “this whole site is…”

            The site is not so great when it comes to regulatory capture. Prisoner activism could also be covered. Less hand wringing over college antics would also be nice.

    2. Truman, I don’t think you are seeing the bigger picture. What Stossel should have said in bold lettering is that the whole EPA-Environmental lobby and its allies are simply anti-business before they are anything else.

      The entire sustainability meme, and each of its former titles before they had to change them, are rooted in nothing more than Marxists thought.

      Environmentalism has always been a smokescreen for protest against for-profit business. Stossel does allude to that overriding theme in the NYT arsenal.
      The government is not necessary to protect the environment. Contract law and private property rights would allow litigation of a perceived threat to your land. And yes, air pollution can be litigated based on private property rights and contract law application. The fallacy is that for some reason, private business owners love to pollute their fellow neighbors because they think it is fun for some reason. They also love to get sued to then right?

      1. Marx was never against industry or progress. He even celebrated Capitalism’s capacity to excel in these areas, if I recall the Communist Manifesto correctly. Stalin founded dozens of engineering schools to train Soviets in how better to exploit nature, and arguably the most Leftish government on the planet today, the government of Bolivia, is hell bent on exploiting resources such as lithium and fossil fuels. I think your big picture is missing something. Venezuela is not so different. It actually subsidizes fossil fuel consumption, encouraging its use.

        1. Marx was indeed against progress. To espouse the labor against the profit motive ideology, which Marx indeed did, is to be against progress. The profit motive is progress. It is the reason we see innovation, employment, and improved living conditions. After all, there was never a call for the collective and to fight the evil exploiting employers until the industrial revolution. Do you not find it more than coincidental that the communist movement coincided with the IR and all of the employment and advancement that came from people moving from the fields to the cities?

          1. “Marx was indeed against progress. ”

            He wasn’t against industry and the exploitation of nature. Same goes for the president of Bolivia, which I believe may well be the most leftist government in the whole world. If you want to believe that Lenin didn’t lead the campaign to electrify Russia, or Mao didn’t expend massive resources on developing rail infrastructure at tremendous human cost, then you have to ignore the facts.

            “After all, there was never a call for the collective and to fight the evil exploiting employers until the industrial revolution. ”

            Europe is full of examples of pre-industrial peasants revolting against land lords. Granted, these peasants weren’t exactly employees and their lords were much more than employers. Employment is a phenomenon of the Industrial era, so I suppose you are correct in a tautological way.

      2. I don’t think mtrueman’s interested in seeing the bigger picture or having you explain it, he’s got his opinions and an unshakeable faith in them.

        I don’t believe he’s a troll as some do, I just think he sees himself as an evangelist for the faith and preaching the gospel amongst the heathens as his mission. He does serve a purpose in helping us clarify our arguments, but don’t expect that the arguments might be falling on fertile fields.

        1. Understood. I just love the smug ignorance of the hardcore leftist. Not only do they dismiss the failures of marxism, they are unwilling to even explore weather the great economic prowess of our country came from its capitalists roots. In the face of overwhelming evidence, they have to ignorantly assign their lack of success to a capitalist boogeyman. Could it be possible that they are just not smart enough to make their nut in a man’s world?

          1. “Could it be possible that they are just not smart enough to make their nut in a man’s world?”

            That’s rather self-serving don’t you think? It could be they have differing priorities.

            “Not only do they dismiss the failures of marxism”

            Whatever they were, they don’t include failure to industrialize. Any other failures are not germane to the point you were making that Marxists have some animus towards industrialism.

            ” they are unwilling to even explore weather the great economic prowess of our country came from its capitalists roots”

            It’s not just our country. It’s a good part of Europe and Asia as well. I’m not a Marxist, but I know that Marx was fully aware that Capitalism was a necessary stage in his ideas of development. Marx is all about class struggle, how the fruits of industrial society are divided up, The struggle is against the bourgeois, not industrialism.

            1. Are you kidding? Marxism as utterly anti-industrial, and its empirically demonstrable. Industrialization is by definition connected to the actual demand for specific goods and labor and to a nation’s comparative advantages (whether natural or a product of labor specialization).

              Communist countries fail miserably at industrialization because the state sets quotas for goods arbitrarily and allots labor inefficiently, which is why came at such a massive human cost, ‘needed’ to be imposed from above rather than happening spontaneously, was so inefficient relative to capitalist countries, and let to such horrific waste of natural resources.

              Marxism is anti-industrial, Marx just didn’t know it; just like someone who (I’m aware this is hyperbole) wants an fossil fuel consumption immediately is anti-industrial. They can ramble about solar and wind tech and pretend they are capable substitutes, but for practical purposes, they are in favor sending society back 200 years, whether they admit it or not.

              Abstract declarations of support for something do not mean obe’s ideology is not still fundamentally antithetical to that thing.

              1. Marx and his followers opposed electrification, canal and railroad building and so on? Or they only failed to electrify their own communist countries. I get that you oppose communism. It’s not necessary to convince me. I just think you are not thinking this through. Of course communists support industry and the exploitation of natural resources. It’s not just in the abstract, either. For a concrete example look at Bolivia. You may have to broaden your horizons past Reason, CNN or FOX.

                “they are in favor sending society back 200 years, whether they admit it or not.”

                You can rest assured that they don’t have a time machine yet. Find something else to fret about.

                1. Communist dictator’s do not oppose putting their subjects to work to accomplish grand projects in the name of the party.
                  My point is that communists, certainly to include Marx, are against private enterprise owning assets and employing the poor exploited worker.
                  They are generally against private enterprise because of the success of brainwashing against private enterprise via the class warfare/exploitation argument.

                  When that argument washed out, even though it is tried over and over again, the next step was to condemn private enterprise in the name of the environment. I mean, after all, what is more powerful than a poor exploited slave than a bird covered in oil? Forget the fact that, when relative to the mass quantities of products shipped all over the globe daily, that the few accidents that have actually happened amount to but the tiniest fraction of a percent of total volume and even less destructive when you consider the great improvement of living conditions, cheap products, and overall better economic condition the world over.

                  1. That is a sober argument for allowing the mining of natural resources and eliminating the EPA. Private property owners should be allowed to fight development near them via contract law and private property rights.

                    A sane, sober person would consider a cost benefit analysis. A psychotic enviro-whacko would not fathom a cost benefit analysis because the potential for one harmed droplet of that river would be cause enough to squash any progress.
                    That reinforces my point that most americans, certainly to include environmentalists, are Marxists, they just don’t know it.

                    1. “A sane, sober person would consider a cost benefit analysis.”

                      Most property owners haven’t the time or the inclination for such an analysis. Besides, the notion that a property owner benefits from their neighbour’s pollution wafting over their property is hard to credit. If there’s any benefit, it will go to the polluter.

                  2. “Communist dictator’s do not oppose putting their subjects to work to accomplish grand projects in the name of the party.”

                    I’d go further than that. Communist dictators support these grand projects of industrialization and expend much in the way or resources to see them through. I’m sure you are correct that some Marxists consider themselves environmentalists, perhaps even the president of Bolivia, hellbent on exploiting his nation’s mineral and fossil fuel resources, even if it means cooperating with private Capital.

        2. Jerryskids|5.24.17 @ 3:17PM|#
          “I don’t think mtrueman’s interested in seeing the bigger picture or having you explain it, he’s got his opinions and an unshakeable faith in them.”

          Trueman is a troll spouting unsupported nonsense.

          1. Never stopped you from chiming in with your contributions. Property owners who insist that it is they who decide the use of their back yard are anathema (very bad).

  5. Like I said the other day, those days of blocking yo momma from working in the mine are over. Free enterprise is back!

  6. “This shocked CEO Tom Collier. He’s a Democrat who managed environment policy for Al Gore and Bill Clinton. He was convinced Pebble could be developed safely and assumed EPA regulators would follow their own rules. They didn’t.”

    I thought I had all of my cronyism lined up, but I was foiled!

    1. If he is a democrat, there is no way in the world he would expect the regulators to follow their own rules. He would know better. The rules are just for cover from non-democrats. “we were just following policy”.

    2. He must have missed a bribe somewhere.

      1. He’s a Democrat who managed environment policy for Al Gore and Bill Clinton.

        He was probably fully paid up with the Clintons and Gore, but not Obama. Had Hill-dog won in ’08 he probably would have been fine.

        1. No shit. this was a promise long in the making by another one of those corrupt evil democrats who never gave a shit about the environment.

          And that is why the American voter is such a fucking dunce. If you think the government is here to protect the environment, then you are just a dipshit Marxists who really only wants the government to shut down business. Why? because you are retarded enough to think the government is capable. That means you are as stupid as a Marxists and don’t know you are one, or you are an honest Marxists which means you are just stupid.
          Like Tony. Here is a guy that once used the phrase “managed capitalism”. That is a veil for stupidity brainwashed into the sheep.

        2. No shit. this was a promise long in the making by another one of those corrupt evil democrats who never gave a shit about the environment.

          And that is why the American voter is such a fucking dunce. If you think the government is here to protect the environment, then you are just a dipshit Marxists who really only wants the government to shut down business. Why? because you are retarded enough to think the government is capable. That means you are as stupid as a Marxists and don’t know you are one, or you are an honest Marxists which means you are just stupid.
          Like Tony. Here is a guy that once used the phrase “managed capitalism”. That is a veil for stupidity brainwashed into the sheep.

  7. Let’s get some dude in a lab coat to weigh in. I nominate Bill Nye.

      1. Bill Nye is no more a scientist than I am.

        Actually, since I’m still working as an engineer and not a former kid’s show host turned bloviating talking ass pimple for the “I Fucking Love Science!” set, I’m probably MORE of a scientist than he is at this point.

  8. “Are there some mines where NRDC says, ‘Go ahead!’?” I asked.

    After thinking for a while, he said, “It’s not up to us to greenlight mines.”

    I asked, “Are there any you don’t complain about?”

    “Sure,” he told me. He said he’d send us names. He never did.

    Sounds to me like the little shitstain lied. Imagine my surprise.

    1. SJWs Always Lie.

  9. MSNBC Reaches No. 1 for First Time in Weekly Primetime Ratings, Fox News Drops to Third

    Huh. Apparently more people want hard news than pro-Trump propaganda and scandal-denial counter-programming.

    https://tinyurl.com/k7mwd7q

    1. Not if MSNBC is number 1.

      1. Want hard news that is.

        1. Share your crackpot theories with their sponsors. I’m sure they’d like to avoid the increased ad rates.

          1. People who want ‘hard news’ don’t get news from a TV, retard.

            1. Oh, that’s right. They get it from wingnut blogs!

              1. That is correct. Since Walter Duranty, you don’t get your news from the established media,unless you want to remain woefully misinformed.

      2. Shhh – it thinks it’s making a super relevant point that going to drive us closet Republicans nuts.

        1. Seems to be working.

          1. Please define free market capitalism DanO?

          2. Fuck off troll.

            1. Polly want a cracker?

    2. MSNBC is just as biased, only in the other direction. With a self-styled Republican in office I would expect far-left sources to uptick in viewership.

      Celebrating higher viewership at one partisan source, while crowing about lower viewership on another partisan source that is the opposite viewpoint, would itself be an example of partisanship.

      Of course, we all know you’re just trolling for some reason but if you actually have a true opinion it might carry more weight than simply being a childish contrarian. Probably less fulfilling to someone that derives their sense of purpose from tilting at windmills and attacking strawmen, but it’s something to consider Mr. Quixote.

      1. Maddow had the top ranked non-sports program in all of cable for the week. On CNN, “Anderson Cooper 360” ranked number one in in thDaily Show With Trevor Noahe demo for five straight days at 8 p.m. This ties for the longest winning streak on record for the show in that timeslot.

        MSNBC’s record week comes as repeated scandals have plagued Donald Trump’s administration. First came the report last Tuesday that now former FBI Director James Comey had written in a memo that Trump personally asked him to drop the investigation into possible collusion between Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia. That report was followed closely by another claiming Trump gave away classified information to Russian diplomats during a meeting in the Oval Office. Finally, on Wednesday, the Department of Justice announced that they would appoint former FBI director Robert Mueller as special counsel in charge of the Trump-Russia investigation.

        Going nuts yet?

        1. Please define free market capitalism DanO?

        2. Other than John and DD, no one around here seems to be (or has in the past) cheerleading for Fox, so why exactly do you think cheerleading MSNBC will get anyone ruled up.

          You’re like an Eagles fan who walks into a bar in Boston and shouts ‘fuck the dolphins’, and interprets the confused murmuring as a sign of furious indignation.

          1. Keep nibbling that Cheeto while pretending to be objective. It’s funny!

    3. The other 98% of the country knows these cable outlets are nothing but propaganda for government cock-slurpers.

    4. MSNBC, which was found to be 15 percent news and 85 percent opinion?

      Imagine that, snowflakes want to hear nasty stuff said about Trump.

      1. It’s like grown up tabloids

  10. No one likes dick-slurping apologism, whether it was MSNBC with Obama or now Fox with Trump. A new organization will always do better as part of the outgroup.

  11. First off, Stossel shows off a penchant for shallow thinking by not understanding where exactly salmon spawn. They don’t spawn in the bay, but upstream where the mine is to be constructed. A modicum of research would have clued him in to why a mine located upstream is a bigger problem than mineral extraction in the actual bay would be.

    There is a libertarian way to handle these types of risky situations. It’s not by trying to get politicians to agree with your point of view then steamroll everyone else. It’s called bonding. If the owners of the mining company are confident they can safely extract the gold in Pebble, they should be willing to bond out – let’s say – half the total economic value of the ore until the mine is exhausted, the tailings hauled away, and reclamation satisfactorily completed (which can take 50-100 years). Or maybe even let the rest of the residents in the area set a value on their property and perpetual livelihoods and set the bond somewhere above that to cover legal fees. If something goes wrong, the owners of the mine need to personally take a big hit (not just under a corporate veil, as mining companies hold few tangible assets). Maybe they should put their entire personal wealth up as collateral? Got to have skin in the game. If the company cannot afford to do that, then maybe this isn’t the right project, or the right company.

    1. The point of the article was that the EPA didn’t consider any solution; they shut it down without even looking into the evidence.

      I’m sure plenty of companies would be willing to bond. The EPA however would not allow it; it insists on direct regulation and discretionary enforcement.

  12. When it comes to Kennedys and their related spawn there aren’t enough trees on ski hills, light planes in bad weather or, well, other things. They should have been classified as a terrorist org long ago.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.