Coal industry fumes as US revokes mining permit

Jan 14, 2011
A truck loaded with coal makes its way from a coal mine on top of Kayford Mountain in West Virginia 2008. The withdrawal of a permit for a controversial "mountaintop removal" coal mining operation has sparked outrage in the US industry, but was hailed as a victory for environmental protection and the health of nearby communities.

The withdrawal of a permit for a controversial "mountaintop removal" coal mining operation has sparked outrage in the US industry, but was hailed as a victory for environmental protection and the health of nearby communities.

The move Thursday by the (EPA) to revoke licenses for a major open-pit mine in West Virginia, at the heart of the Appalachian wilderness region, was a landmark move against Mingo Logan Co, a subsidiary of the leading coal producer Arch Coal.

The mine, said the EPA's assistant administrator for water Peter Silva, "would use destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on with they depend."

Withdrawn to comply with the , the EPA's decision would halt the practice of mountaintop removal at site known as Spruce 1.

The controversial practice has been determined to have serious environmental impacts, including loss of biodiversity, and adverse human health impacts as toxins associated with the mining process affect regional water supplies.

Senator Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia lawmaker with strong ties to the mining industry, said he was "deeply angered" by the "unfair" decision, and has written to President Barack Obama to protest the withdrawal of what he described as a "rigorously reviewed and lawfully issue permit."

Environmental groups such as the Sierra Club meanwhile heralded the move as an "historic step."

The action, "shows that while the coal industry and past administrations have denied the impacts of mountaintop removal mining on local communities, the Obama administration and EPA administrator Liza Jackson are addressing the importance of environmental justice in Appalachia," said the group.

For the industry, the withdrawal may prove a first blow to their open-top mining in the state.

"We remain shocked and dismayed at EPA's continued onslaught with respect to this validly issued permit," Arch Coal spokeswoman Kim Link told AFP.

"Arch will continue to vigorously defend the permit, now in court, along with the right to have a predictable regulatory environment," Link said.

"Absent court intervention, EPA's final determination to veto the Spruce (mine) permit blocks an additional $250 million investment and 250 well-paying American jobs," she added.

Industry defender the National association said the EPA's decision weakens "the trust US businesses and workers need to make investments and secure jobs," and called the Obama administration's decision an "unprecedented action... at a time of great economic uncertainty."

Explore further: Pharmaceuticals and the water-fish-osprey food web

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

EPA holds up 79 permits for Appalachian surface mines

Sep 15, 2009

The Environmental Protection Agency announced Friday that 79 applications for surface coal-mine permits in Kentucky, West Virginia, Ohio and Tennessee might violate the nation's Clean Water Act and require closer scrutiny.

Recommended for you

Stopping the leaks

5 hours ago

When a big old cast-iron water main blows, it certainly makes for a spectacular media event.

Alpine lifelines on the brink

6 hours ago

Only one in ten Alpine rivers are healthy enough to maintain water supply and to cope with climate impacts according to a report by WWF. The publication is the first-ever comprehensive study on the condition ...

User comments : 128

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

GSwift7
3.2 / 5 (10) Jan 14, 2011
Wow, they actually presented both sides equally. Amazing. And they didn't even say 'global warming' or 'greenhouse gas'. The world must be broken, or the physics of the universe must be breaking down. We should all start buying bottled water and canned food in preperation for the end of the universe. THIS IS A SIGN!!

lol.
Quantum_Conundrum
2.3 / 5 (23) Jan 14, 2011
Great. The leftists couldn't get what they wanted legally, so now they just issue a proxy "executive order" to ban what they don't want. Nevermind the complete lack of any legal, constitutional basis for this action.

Economists wonder why the U.S. has such a large trade defecit. Well, this is one reason: It's "illegal" to use known resources, and it's "illegal" to look for new resources.
GSwift7
3.1 / 5 (13) Jan 14, 2011
Yeah, QC. That about summmmmms it up alright.

Besided legal basis, let's talk about science basis. I'm sure we can point to all the devestated and poisoned regions of Apalacia in PA as a result of this type of mining in the past. Oh wait. Those places are just fine now. Never mind. Forget I mentioned the science.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 14, 2011
More reasons for oil to rise.
http:/www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40811733/ns/business-oil_and_energy/
apex01
2.2 / 5 (14) Jan 14, 2011
EPA= anti-business.
Mira_Musiclab
3 / 5 (12) Jan 14, 2011
The mine, said the EPA's assistant administrator for water Peter Silva, "would use destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on with they depend."


So, consequences be damned? There's a profit to be made in those hills there, so the end justifies the means..
For whom, exactly?
ekim
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 14, 2011
Nevermind the complete lack of any legal, constitutional basis for this action.

"Withdrawn to comply with the Clean Water Act..."
xlmine
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 14, 2011
"Ban mining.....let the bastards freeze in the dark" is a bumper sticker one sees in towns that are dependent on mining jobs. I don't believe that those people drink dirty water or that their health is any worse off than the general population of the USA. So unless you live off the grid, you are getting your electric power from coal, oil, or hydro. All of which impact the environment to some degree or another. So until battery technology and solar cell efficiencies get to the point where the cost of a kwh is under 0.15, opponents of coal will try and make it more expensive, using these low down tactics.
Howhot
Jan 14, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (12) Jan 14, 2011
"EPA= anti-business." - ConservaTard

Business = Anti-Environment
Vendicar_Decarian
3.6 / 5 (14) Jan 14, 2011
"I don't believe that those people drink dirty water or that their health is any worse off than the general population of the USA." - ConservaTard

ConservaTards refuse to believe many things that are true.

The death rates for all cancers for rural Appalachia (176.3 per 100,000 population; 95% CI=±1.2) and all Appalachia (173.1; 95% CI=±0.7) were significantly higher than the corresponding U.S. death rate for this period (166.7; 95% CI=±0.2) (Table). The death rates for lung cancer were significantly higher in rural Appalachia and in Appalachia as a whole than in the United States overall, and the rural Appalachian cervical cancer death rate and the Appalachian colorectal cancer death rate were significantly higher than the corresponding overall U.S. rate.

PPihkala
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 14, 2011
Mountaintop removal mining is the issue here. They are still permitted to mine the coal the old way, making tunnels. But that of course is more expensive, so they don't like it. So they want to continue with this mountaintop removal way, which has been shown to have grave environmental costs. Costs that someone else than the mining company has to pay. Another 'hidden' cost of using coal is the CO2 pollution that also has grave environmental costs that should be reflected to the price of coal based energy. Which would make coal less competive, will cry the coal miner...
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 14, 2011
htp://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=coal+mountain+top&sll=38.030701,-81.59636&sspn=0.009431,0.01929&ie=UTF8&rq=1&ev=p&split=1&filter=0&t=h&radius=0.63&hq=coal+mountain+top&hnear=&ll=38.027067,-81.59915&spn=0.009432,0.01929&z=16

Cut and paste; and add a 't' in ht tp. Usually then all is done; the company just abandons site with minimal reclamation and firing the people.
LAG
2.1 / 5 (14) Jan 14, 2011
"The withdrawal of a permit ... was hailed as a victory for environmental protection and the health of nearby communities." Communities that are now full of unemployed people. Democrats love poor people-that's why they keep making more of them.
eryksun
4.4 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2011
So unless you live off the grid, you are getting your electric power from coal, oil, or hydro.

Electric power in the US is 45% coal, 23% natural gas, 20% nuclear, 7% hydro, 4% other renewable sources, and only 1% petroleum (EIA 2009).
eryksun
5 / 5 (3) Jan 14, 2011
Cut and paste; and add a 't' in ht tp. Usually then all is done; the company just abandons site with minimal reclamation and firing the people.

Shortened URL:
goo.gl/maps/wxZL
Mira_Musiclab
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 14, 2011
@Howhot,

Wow, reminds me of Phelps Dodge back in Arizona. Some of those strip-mines looked like meteor strikes..
Wonderful track-record as well, 13 superfund sites, and didn't mind kidnapping pro-union organisers..

Look em up on wiki sometime..
Howhot
Jan 15, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Shakescene21
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2011
Mountaintop removal creates far fewer jobs per ton of coal than other techniques, such as tunnel mines or strip-and-recover. With current high prices for coal, coal companies have even less justification for mountain-top removal.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 15, 2011
EPA= anti-business.

EPA=pro-population health
Shakescene21
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 15, 2011
Mountaintop removal creates far fewer jobs per ton of coal than other techniques, such as tunnel mines or strip-and-recover. With current high prices for coal, coal companies have even less justification for mountain-top removal.
Shootist
1 / 5 (6) Jan 15, 2011
EPA= anti-business.

EPA=pro-population health


Neither. EPA is a bureaucracy that is fully infected with the Iron Law (look it up).
Shootist
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 15, 2011
Mountaintop removal creates far fewer jobs per ton of coal than other techniques, such as tunnel mines or strip-and-recover. With current high prices for coal, coal companies have even less justification for mountain-top removal.


And more coal per ton/hour worked. Good!

Cheap Energy = Growing Economy. Expensive Energy = Sitting in the dark, freezing to death.

Cheap Energy, good.
Expensive Energy, bad.

So simple, it continues to evade the Liberal.
ekim
5 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2011
So simple, it continues to evade the Liberal.


Withdrawn to comply with the Clean Water Act...


It is simple to understand legal and illegal.
It is simple to understand right and wrong.
The reason for this ruling doesn't evade me.
Comply with the law = make profits
Break the law = get shut down
Skeptic_Heretic
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 15, 2011
And more coal per ton/hour worked. Good!

Cheap Energy = Growing Economy. Expensive Energy = Sitting in the dark, freezing to death.

Cheap Energy, good.
Expensive Energy, bad.

So simple, it continues to evade the Liberal.
Mercury tainted food, non-potable water bad. So simple you would think all coal supporters would understand it.
omatumr
1 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2011
How much of this country's declining resources have been squandered because the permit was approved by one set of bureaucrats and withdrawn by another?

The old USSR government and its entire economic system finally collapsed.

Are we headed down the same road?

Let's hope not!
Oliver K. Manuel
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2011
EPA= anti-business.

EPA=pro-population health

Some of the worst pollution sites were created by the government: Rocky Flats, Love Canal, ....
Once again I call for the end of mineral rights and for full property rights.
Shakescene21
5 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2011
And more coal per ton/hour worked. Good!
Cheap Energy = Growing Economy. Expensive Energy = Sitting in the dark, freezing to death.
Cheap Energy, good.
Expensive Energy, bad.
So simple, it continues to evade the Liberal

It's not as simple as some simpletons think. Even if mountaintop removal is cheaper for the coal companies, this does not translate into cheaper energy for consumers as much as bigger profits for the coal companies.

More than 93% of coal is consumed in generating electricity. Yet coal only supplies 48% of electricity generated in the US. West Virginia only supplies 13% of total US coal, and more than 60% is from underground mines. Thus, total West Virginia coal output only supplies 6 percent of the nation's electricity. (All data from the DOE/EIA website.) Even if all WV coal were mountaintop-mined the cost savings would not amount to much, especially since the coal companies would try to sell at market prices rather than negotated cost-plus prices.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2011
Some of the worst pollution sites were created by the government: Rocky Flats, Love Canal, ....
Once again I call for the end of mineral rights and for full property rights.
Love Canal was caused by the improper disposal of toxic waste by Hooker Chemical, a private company.
Rocky Flats was caused by the Dow Chemical crew that ran the place at the behest of the government cutting corners in acceptable storage checks and supply controls. EG&G was also liable for damages due to their controls in the facility.

It wasn't until Rockwell came in and followed government guidelines that the facility was cleaned up. It's now a healthy and clean wildlife refuge.

How are you blaming the government for either of these two ordeals? How are you blaming mineral rights for either of these issues as well?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jan 16, 2011
Hooker chemical disposed of its waste appropriately.
The city school board forced Hooker to sell the land so houses could be built to expand the tax base.
Rocky Flats was caused by the Dow Chemical crew that ran the place at the behest of the government

It was a DOE owned facility.
If all landowners also had the mineral rights, they would be more concerned about preserving their property.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2011
Hooker chemical disposed of its waste appropriately.
Not according to the laws and the findings in the mediation.
The city school board forced Hooker to sell the land so houses could be built to expand the tax base.
That's an assertion with no foundation. Cite your evidence for that claim.
It was a DOE owned facility.
If all landowners also had the mineral rights, they would be more concerned about preserving their property.
So you're telling me an impoverished group of people could win against Dow Chemical in court? You're out of your mind. The government couldn't beat the legal teams of some of these companies to enforce cleanup regulations. You're a ridiculous person.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jan 16, 2011
"". . . .Prior to the delivery (sale). . . the grantee herein (school board) has been advised by the grantor (Hooker) that the premises above described have been filled, in whole or in part, to the present grade level thereof with waste products resulting from the manufacturing of chemicals by the grantor at its plant in the City of Niagara Falls, New York, and that the grantee assumes all risk and liability incident to the use thereof . . . ."

from the deed recorded July 6, 1953

City of Niagara Falls

Niagara County Clerk's Office

Lockport, New York

"
http:/civil.engr.siu.edu/301I_Ray/he_love.htm

"According to New York State officials, federal agencies, especially the Army, disposed of toxic chemical wastes there during and after World War II. The city of Niagara Falls also regularly unloaded its municipal refuse into this Hooker-owned pit."
http:/reason.com/archives/1981/02/01/love-canal/1
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2011
"Looking over the School Board minutes from the early ‘50s, one notes two concerns that dominated and practically obliterated all others: construction of new buildings, and overcoming the monetary shortage."
"The Board of Ed’s deed to the site (donated by the federal government) refers to the presence of radioactive substances."
"the Board was already well along in its planning of the 99th Street School more than two years before Hooker deeded the Canal to the Board. And the Board meant business. It was gearing up for a string of condemnation proceedings for the Canal site and all properties abutting it. "
"The EPA’S own chief of Hazardous Waste Implementation, Mr. William Sanjour, was quoted in the New York Times on June 30, 1980: "Hooker would have had no trouble complying with these (RCRA) regulations. They may have had a little extra paperwork, but they wouldn’t have had to change the way they disposed of the wastes. ""
http:/reason.com/archives/1981/02/01/love-canal/4
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jan 16, 2011
The article is entirely unsourced outside of the deed information. How do you know he's not making it up? This guy is pushing on the fact that the deed cited the dump was there. That's fine.

Hooker did not properly contain the chemicals for which they were paid to dispose of. This happened MANY times in Hooker's past.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jan 16, 2011
The deed says it all. The rest is icing on the cake.
Love Canal would never have been a concern had not the local govt not wanted to build houses and a school on a toxic waste dump they KNEW existed and WERE warned about. And a waste dump used by the local as well as federal govt.

BTW, who owns the coal in WV? The landowners? The mineral rights holders? The govt?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jan 16, 2011
The deed says it all. The rest is icing on the cake.
Love Canal would never have been a concern had not the local govt not wanted to build houses and a school on a toxic waste dump they KNEW existed and WERE warned about. And a waste dump used by the local as well as federal govt.
They were also told it was built and maintained properly and that the potential for a leak was non-existant per the deed.

Your arguing the wrong point. The chemical company did not bargain in good faith because they lied about the condition of the dump.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 16, 2011
The deed says it all. The rest is icing on the cake.
Love Canal would never have been a concern had not the local govt not wanted to build houses and a school on a toxic waste dump they KNEW existed and WERE warned about. And a waste dump used by the local as well as federal govt.
They were also told it was built and maintained properly and that the potential for a leak was non-existant per the deed.

Your arguing the wrong point. The chemical company did not bargain in good faith because they lied about the condition of the dump.

So YOU say.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2011
"only about one mile of the canal, about fifteen feet wide and ten feet deep, was ever dug.
In 1920, the land was sold at public auction to the City of Niagara Falls, which began using the undeveloped area as a landfill for waste disposal from its thriving petrochemical industry. There are also allegations that the United States Army used the site to bury waste from its chemical warfare experiments."
"In 1942, the Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation, a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum, expanded the use of the site, and in 1947 purchased the land for its own private use. In the subsequent five-year period, the company buried 21,800 tons of toxic waste in the area. Once the site had been filled to capacity in 1952, Hooker closed the site and back-filled the canal."
"(the city) attempted in 1953 to purchase some of the Hooker Chemical property for a new elementary school. The company initially refused to sell,..."
http:/www.envirojustice.org/community/lovecanal.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jan 16, 2011
"The company initially refused to sell, but eventually sold on the condition that the school board buy the entire property for a dollar. In the agreement, Hooker included a seventeen line caveat that explained the dangers of building on the site.
Shortly thereafter, the school board began construction on the 99th Street School. The original building site was forced to relocate when contractors discovered two pits filled with chemicals. The new location was directly on top of the former chemical landfill. During construction, a clay seal which Hooker had put in to stop the chemicals from seeping out was broken through. In 1957, the City of Niagara Falls constructed sewers for a mixture of low-income and single-family residences to be built on lands adjacent to the landfill site. In the following years, residents began making repeated complaints of strange odors and "substances" that surfaced in their yards."
http:/www.envirojustice.org/community/lovecanal.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jan 16, 2011
The chemical company did not bargain in good faith because they lied about the condition of the dump.

If Hooker lied, the city soon found out during construction and yet continued to build houses and schools in the late '50s.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Jan 16, 2011
deleted
Howhot
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2011
Some of the worst pollution sites were created by the government: Rocky Flats, Love Canal, ....

That's BS. It wasn't government. These sites where created by companies that are in the business of waste disposal. In the case of Love Canal(If I recall from 60minutes eons ago) part of the controversy was that no one knew what the chemical where and Occidental Petroleum (at the time) kept denying that there was anything dangerous buried there. Of course we were just leaning about the effects of some of these chemicals at the time. Dioxin was one such nasty if I recall from the 70-ish time frame.

The federal response to Love-Canal, Rocky-Flats and others nasty cluster F screw-ups left from business, and industry was the creation of the "Superfund" for site cleanup. Its cost tax payers billions to properly re-dispose of waste contained at some of these sites.

I agree with SH on this aspect; EPA=pro-population health.
zslewis91
5 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2011
@ryggesogn, so.....lets sum this up...gov=bad?...Private=good? gov+private=???.....the deeds irrelevant and so is the idea that gov's bad and private sector is oh' so good... please...give me a break...left wing right wing....you are all idiots...anyone who lacks the depth of mind to stay out of that fairy tail land that is american politics...take all that wasted time spent on mindless garbage, and applied it to mathematics maybe. your people would be able understand the world around you better.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jan 16, 2011
. In the case of Love Canal(If I recall from 60minutes eons ago) part of the controversy was that no one knew what the chemical where

That is false. The city of Niagra knew exactly where the waste was.
The EPA is like any govt agency, they need to create problems to stay in business.

Rocky Flats was a govt owned facility. Any facility that reprocessed plutonium for nuclear weapons would be owned by the govt. The DOE was responsible for Rocky Flats regardless of the contractor hired to operate the facility.
Decimatus
5 / 5 (5) Jan 16, 2011
How can you defend the revocation of a permit that would obviously lead to the poisoning of water supplies for local communities.

If the coal companies want to tear down a mountain, they should at least provide clean water for everyone within a 5-10 mile radius of said mountain.

And from what I hear, free oxygen masks might be nice too.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2011
obviously lead to the poisoning of water supplies for local communities.

Then the local communities sue for compensation.
Decimatus
5 / 5 (8) Jan 16, 2011
obviously lead to the poisoning of water supplies for local communities.

Then the local communities sue for compensation.


Sue for compensation after the coal company finishes devastating the local area? After it basically pulls it's manhood from the local area's behind?

How about we stop obvious stupidity from taking place, rather than rely on lawsuits to determine who is right in the end.

This is an action the executive is entirely correct in taking. You may not agree with it, but Obama has the right and the duty to protect it's citizens. Above his duty to protect the profits of a giant corporation.

There are plenty of times where Obama is stepping on companies when he shouldn't be. This is not one of those cases.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jan 16, 2011
Sue for compensation after the coal company finishes devastating the local area?

Who owns the coal?
Why would anyone who owns the land devastate the area?
The fault lies in the concept that the state owns the mineral rights.
Decimatus
5 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2011
Sue for compensation after the coal company finishes devastating the local area?

Who owns the coal?
Why would anyone who owns the land devastate the area?
The fault lies in the concept that the state owns the mineral rights.


It isn't about mineral rights. It is about the right of a private enterprise to completely devastate the water table and air quality for miles around in the acquisition of said minerals.

It would be like testing nuclear weapons and only caring about ground zero. Oh, the shoke waves are knocking your walls down 10 miles away? Not my problem, see you in court!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jan 16, 2011
It is about the right of a private enterprise to completely devastate the water table and air quality for miles around in the acquisition of said minerals.

Who said they have that right? If they own the land AND the coal, they can mine and sell that product. If they pollute their neighbors property, they are subject to be sued for damages.
The problem is that govts protected these companies from such suits with permits the companies paid for with bribing govt agents.
As I have said many times, the proper role of govt is to protect property rights, everyone's property rights.
Decimatus
5 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2011
Then you and I generally agree that much of the fault lies with the permits themselves. It should have been taken into account that chopping mountains in half is not good for the local environment and should be factored into the permit. Of course it also helps if the original permit isn't simply rubber stamped.

The other problem is that the same people being hurt by the mine are the same people who work in the mine.

I hate it though when these big corporations are obviously stomping all over everyone in their way and when challenged they whine like a little kid: "But our proooooffffiiiiiittttsssss.... :( :( :(".

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jan 16, 2011
"But our proooooffffiiiiiittttsssss.... :( :( :(".

If no one made profit mining coal, their would be no coal for electricity or steel.
Unfortunately govts think they need to manage such vital industries approving the collateral damage.
lengould100
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 17, 2011
The concept that private corporations can be trusted to "do things right" based on a threat of lawsuits is SO MINDLESSLY off centre, so definitively proven incorrect so many times in history, I cannot believe anyone can argue it.

The list of examples of companies deliberately poisioning locals, then if sued simply declaring bankrupcy with the shell company and ignoring judgements, is so long and well-known it needs no further discussion.

I once worked in the Dryden Chemicals plant which mercury-pollutted an entire wilderness river system. I watched employees tasked with carrying replacement 100lb bottles of mercury up to the cell floor every day. I did washdown duty in the basement where the floors of gutters were covered with mercury, and water flowed over it directly into the river. I didn't know the dangers then (early 1960's) but thinking back on some strange instructions on how to hose areas down etc., I'm sure management did.
fmfbrestel
5 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2011
This is so great. I love watching the fascist right swing to defense of a mining operation which has been decimating local water supplies.

It is so simple: Comply with the Clean Water Act, or you dont get to mine. The EPA didn't just make up those regulations, but they were probably reminded of their constitutional authority to enforce the laws of our land.
fmfbrestel
5 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2011
If a lack of previous enforcement invalidated law, then undocumented immigration aught to be completely legal.

"Arch will continue to vigorously defend the permit, now in court, along with the right to have a predictable regulatory environment,"

If lawyers for illegal immigrants used this defense, they would be ridiculed beyond imagination. All the EPA has to do is go to court and say "A regulatory environment based on law enforcement has been implemented. This new regulatory environment is perfectly predictable due to its basis in statutory law."
fmfbrestel
5 / 5 (5) Jan 17, 2011
It is not up to the EPA to make economic decisions, their responsibility is solely to enforce the laws of the United States of America. If the american people wish to allow the mining of coal which would have a direct impact on the quality of their local water supply, then they can have their representatives in congress repeal the Clean Water Act. Is the rule of law really that difficult to understand?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2011
their responsibility is solely to enforce the laws of the United States of America.

Like all other agencies, they create the laws as well.
fmfbrestel
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 17, 2011

Like all other agencies, they create the laws as well.


And they also have the constitutional authority to do so.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 17, 2011

Like all other agencies, they create the laws as well.


And they also have the constitutional authority to do so.

Where is that?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2011

Like all other agencies, they create the laws as well.


And they also have the constitutional authority to do so.

Where is that?

Interstate Commerce Clause of Article I/Section VIII.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2011
I wouldn't have an issue with this if we were handing out licenses for nuclear plants like they were candy...but we're not, so I do.
fmfbrestel
5 / 5 (1) Jan 17, 2011
Article II Section III "...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."
fmfbrestel
5 / 5 (1) Jan 17, 2011
"The EPA was proposed by President Richard Nixon and began operation on December 3, 1970, after Nixon submitted a reorganization plan to Congress and it was ratified by committee hearings in the House and Senate.[3]" -- wikipedia (fully sourced -- visit wikipedia to retrieve specific sources)

So you cant even blame the EPA on a Democratic President. Too bad.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2011
Article II Section III "...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."

How does that authorize EPA or other agencies to create law?
Nixon was no conservative.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2011


So you cant even blame the EPA on a Democratic President. Too bad.


No, we can blame it on a batshit crazy megalomaniac with delusions of Godhood...

That helps its reputation how?
fmfbrestel
5 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2011
Through a statutory grant of authority. This was proposed by Nixon and ratified by Congress. It is all fully legal and constitutional. The rules and regulations of Exectutive agencies and departments, have the power of federal law.

I'm not making this up, it is the law of our land. It is all based on constitutional powers of both the executive and legislative branches, which were lawfully transfered to the Environmental Protection Agency. Through a congressionally ratified executive order.
lengould100
5 / 5 (5) Jan 17, 2011
ryggesogn2: In every democratic system in the world, the elected representatives pass laws which state the general objectives, and perhaps some relevant restrictions. The civil service then enact regulations which effectively implement those laws. It is the only way democratic government can operate, since the legislators are not specialist experts in the details of how every system works.

If citizens have a problem with the regulations compliance with the legislation, then they have recourse to courts which will decide on the legality of the regulations.

You love the legal system as a means to restrict property rights, so what's your problem with it determining legality of regulations?
fmfbrestel
5 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2011
Its reputation is not what is under assault here, rather the constitutionality of the powers granted to it. Which are fully and properly vested in law.

The EPA has the authority to make and execute regulations which have the power of federal law. PERIOD. If you believe otherwise you are wrong. You might believe that it should not have those powers, fine. But it is true that the EPA does have the power.
lengould100
5 / 5 (1) Jan 17, 2011
Nixon was no Conservative
Don't you mean "Nixon was no Fascist"?
fmfbrestel
5 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2011
There is no debate about the lawfulness of the EPA, NONE. If you don't like the rules and regulations which it makes in order to uphold the Clean Water Act, then repeal the Clean Water Act. But until that law is repealed it is the responsibility of the EPA to create regulations necessary to carry out the law, and to enforce those regulations.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jan 17, 2011
Nixon was no Conservative
Don't you mean "Nixon was no Fascist"?

No.
Nixon was quite fascist as he supported state power to control the economy, like every 'good' socialist.
Through a congressionally ratified executive order.

Executive orders are NOT ratified by Congress.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2011
"How high the air quality standards should be, and at what cost, are quintessentially legislative decisions that constitutionally must be made by Congress alone.
The Court of Appeals therefore held that the Clean Air Act is unconstitutional unless the EPA can offer an interpretation of the statute that confers upon the EPA only a gap-filling, and not a lawmaking, authority."
"Independent administrative agencies, run by government officials who are neither elected to their new lawmaking capacity nor answerable to the chief executive, combine the lawmaking, executing, and judging functions of government in a single place — the "very definition of tyranny," according to James Madison."
http:/www.claremont.org/projects/pageid.1813/default.asp
There is considerable debate regarding the Constitutionality of the regulatory state.
lengould100
5 / 5 (5) Jan 17, 2011
Nixon was quite fascist as he supported state power to control the economy, like every 'good' socialist
Fascist = Socialist???? ???? That's so unaware politically it must be deliberate trolling.

Tell me, what two sides fought the Spanish Civil War in the 1930's? It was Fascists (Franco supported by Hitler and Mussolini) against the socialists (supported in part by many anti-fascist democracies and several communist factions)
fmfbrestel
5 / 5 (2) Jan 17, 2011
This Court has repeatedly held that Congress does not violate the Constitution "merely because it legislates in broad terms, leaving a certain degree of discretion to executive or judicial actors." Touby v. United States,500 U.S. 160, 165 (1991); see, e.g., Yakus, 321 U.S. at 425 (Congress may authorize agencies to engage in activities that "call for the exercise of judgment, and for the formulation of subsidiary administrative policywithin the prescribed statutory framework"). It is "'constitutionally sufficient if Congress clearly delineates the general policy, the public agency which is to apply it, and the boundaries of this delegated authority.'"Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 372-373 (1989)
fmfbrestel
5 / 5 (1) Jan 17, 2011
Previous quote from the Supreme Court decision in Browner v. American Trucking Association. ryggesogn2 merely quoted the Court of Appeals in a previous decision. But thankfully the Constitution of the United States provides for a Supreme Court to decide on matters of constitutionality. And the above quote clearly states the opinion of the Supreme Court on the Constitutionality of agency regulations.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2011
There is considerable debate regarding the Constitutionality of the regulatory state.
Only by those who refuse to pay attention to laws.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2011
Fascist = Socialist

Franco, Mussolini and Hitler wanted national socialism and did not want to be controlled by the USSR. F, M, H did not oppose the socialist method, just who was going to be in power.
"Few recognize that the rise of fascism and Nazism was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period but a necessary outcome of those tendencies."
"Long before the Nazis, too, the German and Italian socialists were using techniques of which the Nazis and Fascists later made effective use."
"It was not the Fascists but the socialists who began to collect children at the tenderest age into political organizations to direct their thinking."
"By the time Hitler came to power, liberalism was dead in Germany. And it was socialism that had killed it. "
http:/jim.com/hayek.htm
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2011
There is considerable debate regarding the Constitutionality of the regulatory state.
Only by those who refuse to pay attention to laws.

That's why we have a Constitution with an amendment process. Laws can be changed by a process of debate.
And Congress holds the purse strings in the interim.
fmfbrestel
5 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2011
The EPA is constitutional. Agency and Department regulations are also constitutional. They are however restricted by the language of the statute which delegates such regulatory power.

There certainly will be a challenge to the particular regulation in question here, and it will be up to the EPA to defend the specific statutory requirement which they are fulfilling. The general policy of rulemaking, however, is not in question, and has been upheld many times by the Supreme Court.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Jan 17, 2011
in which he "warned of the danger of tyranny that inevitably results from government control of economic decision-making through central planning,"[1] and in which he argues that the abandonment of individualism, liberalism, and freedom inevitably leads to socialist or fascist oppression and tyranny and the serfdom of the individual.

From wikipedia about Hayek's work above.

The problem with this assertion Marjon, is your ideology of capitalism as is executed by corporate sovereignty is fascism. A lack of government regulation results in fascism as according to your own source.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2011
A lack of government regulation results in fascism as according to your own source.

Where did you read that?
Regulation IS govt control of the economy.
I want consumers to regulate the economy.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2011
""I think the EPA needs to understand it's not the fourth branch of government," said Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska, who supports the limits on EPA. "Just because they are dissatisfied with the level of progress of the legislative branch doesn't empower them to become super legislators."

Nelson's sentiment is echoed by fellow Democrats Mary Landrieu, D-Louisiana and Blanche Lincoln, D-Arkansas. The only Republicans not currently signed on as co-sponsors are Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine and Scott Brown of Massachusetts."
http:/politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/08/alaska-senator-moves-to-strip-epas-authority-to-regulate-greenhouse-gases/
Congress, which is well defined in the Constitution, is questioning the constitutionality of the EPA.
lengould100
5 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2011
Franco, Mussolini and Hitler wanted national socialism and did not want to be controlled by the USSR. F, M, H did not oppose the socialist method, just who was going to be in power.


Now you're simply re-writing history to suit some wierd personal agenda. Fascism and socialism are on opposite ends of the political scale, with social democracy in the middle and the US as presently operated seriously on the fascist (corporatist) side.
lengould100
5 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2011
NB: Simply because the Nazis "claimed" to be "national"ist socialists (whatever that might have meant) doesn't make them socialists. It's no different that the US republican's "Clear Skies" initiative, which eliminated a lot of anti-pollution requirements.

You're falling for the propaganda, not studying the reality.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2011
Socialist IS as socialist does.
What socialism DOES is take property rights from individuals and transfers them to the state.
Whether this is accomplished by a vote of the mob or by a few bullies with guns, the end result is the same, state control of property and economic misery.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Churchill
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Jan 17, 2011
What socialism DOES is take property rights from individuals and transfers them to the state.
No, that isn't what socialism does. Socialism is popular ownership of the commons.
fmfbrestel
4 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2011

Congress, which is well defined in the Constitution, is questioning the constitutionality of the EPA.


wow, I mean.. wow. just plain ignorant.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jan 17, 2011
What socialism DOES is take property rights from individuals and transfers them to the state.
No, that isn't what socialism does. Socialism is popular ownership of the commons.

Hugo Chavez, a socialist, has been taking property for 'the commons' (the state).
Castro did the same, taking all private property for 'the commons'.
The next level of socialism are state laws that force 'owners' to comply with the state. That means they are not real owners as the state controls the property, not the owner.
Mises lays this out quite well in Ch2 of Socialism.
ekim
not rated yet Jan 17, 2011
"The truth is sometimes so precious that it must be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies"
- Sir Winston Churchill

This sums you up pretty well.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2011
The lies regarding socialism are made by the socialists to cover up their skeletons: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, ....

The only place where socialism has ever been successful required 100% voluntary participation.

If those who do not want to participate are forced to stay, socialism starts down the road to tyranny.
lengould100
5 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2011
ryggesogn2: I've been here before with u, and i know you won't quite spouting your lies. I'd just like to make sure no naif readers are suckered in by another paid apologist for investment capital.

The bottome line:

a) Workers need an incentive to work (That's why communism doesn't work)
b) Investors need an incentive to invest. (Fair dividends).
c) Government's job is to balance out market incentives so workers and investors participate appropriately in the benefits of productive enterprise and sustainable resource exploitation.

If you're a worker, you'll likely think all governments are corporatist / nazi. If you're an investor, you'll likely think all governments are socialist. If a government is being accused of being both, regularly, then its probably about right on. And Ayn Rand is for children.
lengould100
5 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2011
The only place where socialism has ever been successful
Don't get out much, do you? eg. Canada (= socialist according to every US commentator) now has a FAR more healthy economy than the US. See Norway, Denmark, Sweden....
Jimee
5 / 5 (1) Jan 17, 2011
xlmine> You don't believe those people are any less healthy than the general population? Black lung anyone? And what studies would you cite that would support your statement that those communitys' water is not contaminated? Does it make sense to allow those who can afford it to poison us any way they happen to do it, because there's no way to prove beyond a doubt that these poison's actually kill people (think fourth world infant mortality)? Thank God for the EPA!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2011
Govt's job is to protect the property rights of all.

Government's job is to balance out market incentives so workers and investors participate appropriately in the benefits of productive enterprise and sustainable resource exploitation.

First, what are 'fair' dividends?
Who decides the 'balance' for the market incentives?

The devil is really in the details. Your fantasy of govt doesn't account for the inevitable corruption.

Adam Smith stated it quite succinctly in the self interest of the butcher, the baker.....
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2011
How socialist Canada?
"The Canadian economy continues to sharpen its long-term competitiveness. Scoring high in many of the 10 economic freedoms, Canada performs particularly well in business freedom, financial freedom, property rights, and freedom from corruption. Straightforward regulations and the competitive tax regime facilitate entrepreneurial activity and lure dynamic investment. The corporate tax rate is scheduled to decline further to 15 percent in 2012."
"Private property is well protected. The judiciary is independent, and judges and civil servants are generally honest."
http:/www.heritage.org/index/country/Canada
"Denmark is among the world leaders in business freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, property rights, and freedom from corruption. The overall regulatory and legal environment, transparent and efficient, encourages entrepreneurial activity."
http:/www.heritage.org/index/country/Denmark
lengould100
5 / 5 (6) Jan 17, 2011
Yet Canada, by US right-wing standards, is extremely socialist, because it operates tax-supported universal medical insurance, inter-regional equalization payments from federal govt., long-term "employment insurance", parental leave for 1 year for birth of a child, high-quality government-run education system.....

If anyone proposed those measures in the US, you'd be screaming "socialist", right? No more lies, ok?

Not long ago, a person in Canada would have been hung for slandering their goverenment the way you do yours.
lengould100
5 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2011
I also anticipate that several self-identified enemies of the US (Chavez, bin Laden, probably even the Chinese politbureau) must love to see you speak of your government the way you do.
ekim
5 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2011
How socialist Canada?

Registered Political Parties
* Bloc Québécois - Quebec sovereignty, social democratic
* Conservative Party of Canada - conservative
* Liberal Party of Canada - liberal
* New Democratic Party - social democratic
You tell me.
And these are just the ones that have power at the moment. There's also a Green, Communist, Marxist-Leninist and Marijuana Party as well as several others.
lengould100
5 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2011
doesn't account for the inevitable corruption.
You guys just need to figure out how to get some laws in place to control corruption. Top of the list would be eliminating campaign contributions to individual politicians, then finance every candidate MOSTLY from govt. funds, as in Canada. The get some decent laws against lobbying politicians, you'd be all set.
Mira_Musiclab
3 / 5 (2) Jan 18, 2011
doesn't account for the inevitable corruption.
You guys just need to figure out how to get some laws in place to control corruption. Top of the list would be eliminating campaign contributions to individual politicians, then finance every candidate MOSTLY from govt. funds, as in Canada. The get some decent laws against lobbying politicians, you'd be all set.


'Citizens United' vs SCOTUS..

I'm thinking don't hold your breath on that one..

Any countries accepting asylum on the premise, "They're all batshit crazy over there"?

No really, you see the rhetoric around here, and they are supposedly the 'smart' ones, both sides of the fence...
Last civil war didn't go so swell, I want out before the bullets start flying..
ekim
5 / 5 (2) Jan 18, 2011
Top of the list would be eliminating campaign contributions to individual politicians, then finance every candidate MOSTLY from govt. funds, as in Canada.

Interesting proposition. A portion of my taxes would be given to the candidate I vote for. More votes = more money to campaign = more reason to vote. No more trying to buy the presidency.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Jan 18, 2011
Adam Smith stated it quite succinctly in the self interest of the butcher, the baker.....
Adam Smith also proposed that the state collect over 70% of unearned income to ensure protection of the commons for the population. Bad source for your viewpoint.

Marjon, how can you be critical of Canada when they've effectively skipped the current depression altogether by controlling unearned income and bank machinations?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jan 18, 2011
doesn't account for the inevitable corruption.
You guys just need to figure out how to get some laws in place to control corruption. Top of the list would be eliminating campaign contributions to individual politicians, then finance every candidate MOSTLY from govt. funds, as in Canada. The get some decent laws against lobbying politicians, you'd be all set.

Sure, that will fix it.
Why not get the govt out of people's business? Restrict the power of the govt to meddle and the power of the politician and regulators would end.
Corporate 'power' is best controlled by the consumer.
The 'high tech' industries have demonstrated this most effectively.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2011
What socialism DOES is take property rights from individuals and transfers them to the state.
No, that isn't what socialism does. Socialism is popular ownership of the commons.


Which is what he basically said. If you don't control it, you don't own it...
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 18, 2011
"We remain shocked and dismayed at EPA's continued onslaught with respect to this validly issued permit," Arch Coal spokeswoman Kim Link told AFP.

This story does NOT say the original permit was approved 3 years ago and millions have been invested.

Now EVERY EPA permit may be subjected to retroactive revocation costing businesses billions.

Why should any company now trust the EPA or any govt agency? We are now under the capricious rule of 'kings' not the predictable rule of law.
And some wonder why businesses are not investing.
lengould100
5 / 5 (2) Jan 18, 2011
SO you've got a government subject to influence. Ouch. I sympathsize. However, be careful of choosing to implement nazi-ism as the solution, that generally hasn't worked out well in the past....
Howhot
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 18, 2011
"We remain shocked and dismayed at EPA's continued onslaught with respect to this validly issued permit," Arch Coal spokeswoman Kim Link told AFP.

This story does NOT say the original permit was approved 3 years ago and millions have been invested.

Now EVERY EPA permit may be subjected to retroactive revocation costing businesses billions.

Good. Maybe we can get rid of a few of the bad ones.

Howhot
3 / 5 (2) Jan 18, 2011
"How socialist Canada?" Ok Canadians, have at ryggesogn2 for insulting your nation![SARCASM] Stone him. No? Weed him then. Yes! ... Ooo wow man. Weed. [/SARCASM]
I Read your comments on Canada, are you nutty? Never Mind.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jan 19, 2011
"We remain shocked and dismayed at EPA's continued onslaught with respect to this validly issued permit," Arch Coal spokeswoman Kim Link told AFP.

This story does NOT say the original permit was approved 3 years ago and millions have been invested.

Now EVERY EPA permit may be subjected to retroactive revocation costing businesses billions.

Good. Maybe we can get rid of a few of the bad ones.


Why should any 'good' companies invest millions of dollars if the govt will step in and take it all away on a whim or a change in political power?
It is called rule of law, not rule of Obama or any other self declared king.
The first court challenge to the EPA revocation has been successful. Maybe the rule of law will prevail.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Jan 19, 2011
Why should any 'good' companies invest millions of dollars if the govt will step in and take it all away on a whim or a change in political power?
If a company directly invests profit, that profit is no longer profit and no longer taxed. Higher taxes encourage direct investment. Stock market investment is "unearned" income from speculation. Making a guess should not exempt you from taxes.
It is called rule of law, not rule of Obama or any other self declared king.
The first court challenge to the EPA revocation has been successful. Maybe the rule of law will prevail.
What?
Which is what he basically said. If you don't control it, you don't own it...
Popular ownership is ownership by the people, not ownership by a "public" or state organization.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2011
Which is what he basically said. If you don't control it, you don't own it...
Popular ownership is ownership by the people, not ownership by a "public" or state organization.


Which is what I said. If YOU (singular) don't control it YOU don't own it.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 19, 2011
If a company directly invests profit, that profit is no longer profit and no longer taxed.

What?
Mingo Logan invested millions of dollars AFTER the EPA approved its permit 3 years ago.
NOW, that investment will be lost if the EPA revocation stands.
Who holds govt bureaucrats accountable for such capricious actions?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Jan 19, 2011
What?
Mingo Logan invested millions of dollars AFTER the EPA approved its permit 3 years ago.
NOW, that investment will be lost if the EPA revocation stands.
Who holds govt bureaucrats accountable for such capricious actions?
How does this have anything to do with taxation? Mingo Logan invested millions of dollars, and didn't follow the protocols according to the clean air act. That would be the company's fault, not the government's.
Which is what I said. If YOU (singular) don't control it YOU don't own it.
No, Marjon said Socialism is state control of all property. That's incorrect. So what I'm saying and what he's saying are not at all the same.
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 19, 2011
No, Marjon said Socialism is state control of all property. That's incorrect. So what I'm saying and what he's saying are not at all the same.


Ahhhh I see yes there is a distinction. However, it's little conciliation to the property owner who's had his property "back door" confiscated via regulation.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2011
"The permit was issued in 2007 after a decade of multi-agency review and is said to be the only mountaintop mining permit for which an Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared."
http:/www.allbusiness.com/legal/legal-services-litigation/14381146-1.html
frajo
5 / 5 (1) Jan 19, 2011
If YOU (singular) don't control it YOU don't own it.
This is interesting on a semantic level. The German language distinguishes very precisely between "Eigentum" and "Besitz". The former is what you are the owner of no matter whether you use it. The latter is what you have the right to use but not to sell, destroy, change etc.
Example: You are allowed to use a car of your company's car pool for private ends. Thus, you are in control of that car but you are not owning that car. The company is the owner instead.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2011
The company is the owner of the car period. The semantics you speak of simply obfuscate that fact.
GSwift7
3 / 5 (4) Jan 19, 2011
If YOU (singular) don't control it YOU don't own it


That's an interesting social question. I think it's a lot more gray than you suggest though. As usual, life isn't black and white. For example, a typical home in the US: You own the home, but you have a mortgage, there is an easement in your front yard, you have a homeowners' association with rules, as well as government rules like building codes and zoning, as well as civil law such as noise laws.

So, do you own your home?

If the mail man trips in the easement and breaks his leg, then sues for damages, who is the defendant?

I think ownership is clearly a gray area. You suggest that control is key, and that would be partially right. I would add that responsibility is also key, but neither of the two is mutually exclusive.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 19, 2011
So, do you own your home?

Nope.
Sovereignty would be a better term. If you are the real king of your castle, you can burn it down (as long as you do no harm to another sovereign's property) and be accountable to no one else.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2011
As for the coal company and the EPA though:

I think this is an example of a President doing what he things is right. I disagree with his method in this case, though I think I have to give him credit for being true to his word about the environment and also credit for being a man of action rather than just the usual rhetoric.

I disagree with his method in this case because I think it was done in a way that is really unfair to the coal company. It may not be a big deal in the long run though. The coal company still has the option to use a convential mine or they can wait till we have a President who is more favorable to caol companies.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) Jan 19, 2011
Nope.
Sovereignty would be a better term. If you are the real king of your castle, you can burn it down


I like that one. It neatly summs up a lot of concepts, such as the source of sovereignty. Maybe in the end it's just about who has the biggest gun and whether anyone wants to take away your sovereignty. I like the scene at the beginning of the movie "The Chronicles of Riddick" where he is standing in the other guy's space ship with a knife to his throat and asks something like "one last question; who's ship is this?" lol.
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (6) Jan 19, 2011
Ownership is no cut and dried, and it never will be.

I've done my share of debating property rights on the net and in the end I've ended up with more questions than answers.

HOWEVER, there comes a point when, in their infinite "wisdom" the government regulates a portion of what's yours into what's theirs. I don't think it's done intentionally as a form of seizing property per se...but that IS the result.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2011
I don't think it's done intentionally as a form of seizing property per se

Why not?
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
lengould100
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 19, 2011
You conspiracy guys. Really. Ownership of property is a very complex thing. Here and in the US, the concept of private property is derived from British common usage, meaning "the crown owns all property, and grants you the named landowner CERTAIN rights in perpetuity, to be vested in your inheritors and their inheritors."

The other obvious form of ownership of property referenced above is much more clear, eg. "my being a recognized citizen of this country grants to me and all my fellow citizens equally, ownership of all public lands" (known in Canada as "Crown Land").

You'd be very surprised at what you're NOT allowed to do on public lands which you share ownership in. Usually almost nothing is allowed.

Integrating sub-surface rights with ownership of surface rights with disputes referred to courts, as advocated as a solution above, solves nothing. Who wins in those situations is who can afford to pay the most to lawyers, usually the large corporate offender.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Jan 19, 2011
No, Marjon said Socialism is state control of all property. That's incorrect. So what I'm saying and what he's saying are not at all the same.
Ahhhh I see yes there is a distinction. However, it's little conciliation to the property owner who's had his property "back door" confiscated via regulation.
I agree with you. There are times at which the regulation is not clear, and that allows for "dummy ownership" resulting in problems that are no one's fault and everyone's problem. That needs to stop.

The problem is the fact that the majority would rather it doesn't become their problem.

Too bad.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jan 19, 2011
no one's fault

Who writes and enforces the regulation?
When THEY screw up, THEY don't get fired as they are govt employees.
Once they get their ticket punched, they can go work for some company's legal department to lobby for or against more regulations.
The fault lies with the regulatory system, the govt, that so many here support.
"Common law has, for centuries, empowered Canadians to prevent and to clean up pollution. Pollution
usually violates people’s common law property rights in one of three ways. It may be a trespass, a
nuisance, or a violation of someone’s riparian rights."
"As a judge in Manitoba explained, “Every invasion of private property, be
it ever so minute, is a trespass.”
Both landowners and tenants have used trespass law to keep pollutants off their property. Trespass
cases have involved sawdust from a lumber mill and pesticide spray. A current trespass case before
an Ontario court argues that toxic gases constitute a trespass."
http:/www.probeinternational
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2011
"What barriers have prevented people from using the common law? And do these barriers still exist?
The most formidable barriers to the common law have been created by our governments. They have
passed scores of laws and introduced volumes of regulations overriding the common law. Many of
these laws confer what is called ‘statutory authority’ upon polluters that makes it impossible for victims
to sue polluters.
This is not accidental. In fact, many of these laws were introduced specifically in response to the threats
to industry posed by people exercising their common law property rights. Common law property rights
were simply too effective for many governments."
http:/www.probeinternational.org/envirowaterarticles/commonlawpollution.pdf
The regulatory state is a systemic problem.
ekim
5 / 5 (4) Jan 19, 2011
Ontario court argues that toxic gases constitute a trespass.

I would love to see how this plays out in court.
There's many toxic gas emitters I would like to sue.
Most of the time however, they blame it on the dog.
Howhot
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2011
@ryggesogn2. You know, you seem to have a heck of a lot of knowledge about Mingo Logan than most normal people do. I suspect that you are paid for TROLL! A complete right-wing shill. TROLL! Probably even have a research team that can dig up troll crap like,
"their permit was issued in 2007", or it's on line at "http://america XXXX obsure as spit in a flame,pdf" website.
TROLL!
Howhot
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2011
NOW, that investment will be lost if the EPA revocation stands
.
If you google for "Mingo Logan Violations" you will find this is not a good company. It sounds like EPA was right in the withdrawal of this permit.