[VIDEO] MSNBC Tries to Blame ‘Locals,’ Not EPA, for River Pollution

On MSNBC Live with Thomas Roberts Monday afternoon, environmental reporter Tony Dokoupil described the Environmental Protection Agency causing three million gallons of toxic waste to spill into a Colorado river as “good intentions leading to a bad outcome.” He explained: “This mine has been leaking sludge for a long time and EPA was on the scene in hopes of cleaning it up.” 

Moments later, Dokoupil seemed to suggest local citizens were really the ones to blame for the massive pollution:

...this is one mine, but in fact, there are dozens and maybe even hundreds of them in the area. And the EPA has been saying, “We want to make this a Superfund site.” Which means they want to dedicate a special amount of money to clean this really super toxic thing up. They haven’t had the political support to get that done because locals, believe it or not, want more mining in the area, they want more development.

Dokoupil lectured: “After this, I think they may revisit the conversation.” Roberts replied: “May be a little conflicted.”

Here is a transcript of the August 10 exchange:

2:52 PM ET

THOMAS ROBERTS: We want to show you what's happened in Colorado. A discolored sludge that is traveling down the Animas River in the mountain states of Colorado, also to New Mexico as well. And as you can see, it started in the southwestern Colorado gold mine and has now reached New Mexico. There are even fears it could spread to the Grand Canyon. About three million gallons of waste water began spilling on Wednesday, when a cleanup crew breached a dam. The crew was being supervised by the EPA. Which is amazing when you think about it.

Tony Dokoupil’s a reporter for MSNBC and the host of Greenhouse on Shift by MSNBC. So Tony, when people hear that, that this was being observed by the EPA, how could this happen?

TONY DOKOUPIL: Well, it's good intentions leading to a bad outcome. This mine has been leaking sludge for a long time and EPA was on the scene in hopes of cleaning it up. But what they inadvertently did was knock the dam loose and the whole thing came down the river. So they thought it was one million gallons, it turned out to be three million gallons. And the stuff is heavy metal, it’s arsenic, it’s lead, it’s cadmium, at 300 to 3,000 times the normal level. And they're still in a containment phase of this. They don't know what the cleanup’s going to be because they're still trying to cap it again.

    

(...)

DOKOUPIL: The big question now is, you know, how did this happen and how do we avoid having it happen again?

ROBERTS: In the future.

DOKOUPIL: Because, you know, this is one mine, but in fact, there are dozens and maybe even hundreds of them in the area. And the EPA has been saying, “We want to make this a Superfund site.” Which means they want to dedicate a special amount of money to clean this really super toxic thing up. They haven’t had the political support to get that done because locals, believe it or not, want more mining in the area, they want more development. After this, I think they may revisit the conversation.                                 

ROBERTS: May be a little conflicted.

DOKOUPIL: Yeah.

Via: Newsbusters

Continue Reading.....

'They're not going to get away with this': Anger mounts at EPA over mining spill

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. –  Anger was mounting Monday at the federal Environmental Protection Agency over the massive spill of millions of gallons of toxic sludge from a Colorado gold mine that has already fouled three major waterways and may be three times bigger than originally reported.

An 80-mile length of mustard-colored water -- laden with arsenic, lead, copper, aluminum and cadmium -- is working its way south toward New Mexico and Utah, following Wednesday's accidental release from the Gold King Mine, near Durango, when an EPA cleanup crew destabilized a dam of loose rock lodged in the mine. The crew was supposed to pump out and decontaminate the sludge, but instead released it into tiny Cement Creek. From there, it flowed into the Animas River and made its way into larger tributaries, including the San Juan and Colorado rivers.

“They are not going to get away with this.”

- Russell Begaye, president of the Navajo Nation

"They are not going to get away with this," said Russell Begaye, president of theNavajo Nation, which intends to sue the EPA.

More on this...

• Officials trying to contain toxic spill caused by EPA

Visible from the air, the toxic slick prompted EPA Region 8 administrator Shaun McGrath to acknowledge the possibility of long-term damage from toxic metals.

"Sediment does settle," McGrath said. "It settles down to the bottom of the river bed."

McGrath said future runoff from storms will kick that toxic sediment back into the water, which means there will need to be long-term monitoring.

The toxic waste passed through Colorado's San Juan County on Saturday, heading west. People living along the Animas and San Juan rivers were advised to have their water tested before using it for cooking, drinking or bathing. That was expected to cause major problems for farmers and ranchers, who require large quantities of water from the river for their livelihoods.

Related Image

Expand / Contract

New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez inspected the damage in Farmington over the weekend and came away stunned.

"The magnitude of it, you can’t even describe it," she said. "It’s like when I flew over the fires, your mind sees something it’s not ready or adjusted to see."

The EPA and the New Mexico Environment Department plan to test private wells near the Animas to identify metals of concern from the spill. Tests on public drinking water systems are handled by the state environment department, the agencies said.

Begaye said Saturday at a community meeting in Shiprock, N.M., that he intends to take legal action against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the massive release of mine waste into the Animas River near Silverton, Colorado.

Related Image

Expand / Contract

Officials are warning people along the affected rivers to test water before using it for drinking, cooking or bathing. (AP)

"The EPA was right in the middle of the disaster and we intend to make sure the Navajo Nation recovers every dollar it spends cleaning up this mess and every dollar it loses as a result of injuries to our precious Navajo natural resources," Begaye said. "I have instructed Navajo Nation Department of Justice to take immediate action against the EPA to the fullest extent of the law to protect Navajo families and resources."

Begaye said the plume of sludge has made its way into the San Juan River and is wending through the Navajo Nation, the nation's largest Indian reservation. It is expected to reach the heavily used Lake Powell by Wednesday.

David Ostrander, an EPA spokesman, said last week the agency is taking responsibility for the incident.

Related Image

Expand / Contract

The mustard-colored plume stretched 80 miles at one point. (AP)

"We typically respond to emergencies, we don't cause them, but this is just something that happens when we are dealing with mines sometimes," Ostander said.

The infiltration of toxic material is a haunting memory for the Navajos who are still reeling and experiencing the adverse health effects of a uranium waste spill into a river outside of Gallup, N.M., some 36 years ago. On July 16, 1979, a dam failed in a uranium waste pond spilling 1,100 tons of solid radioactive mill waste and approximately 93 million U.S. gallons of acidic and radioactive tailings solution into a nearby river tributary.

There have been claims the amount of radiation released in the Churchrock incident exceeded Three Mile Island.

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

James Woods shares ‘nice visual metaphor for big government socialism’

 

James WoodsVerified account‏@RealJamesWoods

Nice visual metaphor for big government socialism...

• RETWEETS485
• FAVORITES381
• 

8:09 AM - 10 Aug 2015

Via: Twitchy.com

Continue Reading....

[CARTOON] Nuking Coal Power

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading....

EPA’S CLEAN POWER PLAN HAMMERS REPUBLICANS, SPARES DEMOCRATS

The EPA’s final Clean Power Plan, released on August 3, financially hammers coal-dependent states compared to the Obama Administration’s 2014 draft proposal. Nine months after the loss of Kentucky Democrat Senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes and the retirement of West Virginia Democrat Jay Rockefeller, the EPA’s attack on coal country is all about going after Republicans.

After the Democrats aligned with the United Mine Workers in the early 20th Century, “coal-country” counties that stretch through Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Eastern Kentucky, Southern Indiana, Southern Indiana and Alabama had been some of the most reliably Democrat bastions in the nation. A number of coal-country counties voted Democrat in every Presidential election from 1932 to 2004.

But Democrats suffered huge losses in the region due to Bill Clinton’s regulations and Al Gore’s environmentalism, coupled with cultural issues like gun control. The impact crippled a key Democrat advantage. George Bush’s 2000 victory in West Virginia cost Al Gore the U.S. Presidency.

Barack Obama only lost Knott County, KY by 8 percent in 2008. But his cap and tradeproposal, along with his enthusiasm for EPA regulation of coal-fired plants, caused him to lose the county by 48 percent in 2012.

With hopes of salvaging some of the Democratic base in June 2014, the EPA’s Clean Power Plan proposed rule under the Clean Air Act was unveiled as the centerpiece of the Obama Administration’s strategy to address climate change. The proposal had a complicated set of formulas “explicated” in dense bureaucratese in a series of technical support documentsthat varied dramatically from state to state.

Despite huge criticism from coal-country Democrat Senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes and the Republicans about the EPA harming their states, the effect of the proposed “disparate treatment” would have allowed much more moderate enforcement of coal-countryCO2 emissions. According to an analysis by the Brookings Institute of the 2014 proposed EPACO2 emissions reductions, the “states that emitted the most were generally asked to do the least.”

Despite easier proposedCO2 treatment in 2014, Jay Rockefeller, the West Virginia incumbent Senate Democrat and chairman of the powerful House Commerce Committee, decided not to run for re-election. Five months after the proposed EPA regulations were released, outstanding Democrat Senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes lost by 16 percent against Senate Majority Leader 

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

52%

. Coal-country strength helped give Republicans control of the Senate for the first time since 2006.

The final EPA rule is 1,560 pages of complex typeset. But Brookings finds the basic structure is now much more straightforward:

Basically, the EPA has set carbon emissions standards for two types of plants: for fossil fuel-fired steam generating units, 1305 lbs CO2/MWh, and for stationary combustion turbines, 771 lbs CO2/MWh. Now each state’s target is set by looking at a weighted average of their current (2012) fossil fuel-fired electrical generating units and imposing those emission standards.

Where the EPA came up with its CO2-per-megawatt emission standards is sure to be both legally and politically controversial. It is also interesting that nuclear energy seems almost exempt. But it is Republican-controlled states of Kentucky, West Virginia, Indiana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana and Wyoming that will be financially hammered.

The Democrat-controlled states of California and the Northeast are tasked by the EPA with much smaller CO2 reductions, because they supposedly embraced renewables and natural gas.

Via: Brietbart

Continue Reading....

Toxic mine water accidentally released by EPA in Colorado river flows south

A cloud of orange-brown, toxic mine water and sludge accidentally released by the US Environmental Protection Agency is flowing down the Animas River through the hearts of towns in Colorado and New Mexico, and ultimately toward a lake in a national park.

The water, described as an “unnatural” orange color and loaded with heavy metals, was flowing through a stretch of wilderness as of Friday afternoon from Durango, Colorado toward Farmington, New Mexico. It is flowing toward the western edge of the Navajo Nation and along the Glen Canyon national recreation area in Utah.

The same area of wilderness in Utah contains well-known red rock cliffs and terraces in Utah, such as Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.

“It’s awful, it’s awful,” said San Juan County undersheriff Stephen Lowrance. “It’s [a] horrible, horrible accident.”

“It’s, like I said, an orange-ish brown. You wouldn’t want to drink it – that’s for sure,” said Lowrance. Lowrance and another sheriff’s deputy were at the site of the spill almost instantly when an estimated 1m gallons of mine wastewater was released into Cement Creek north of Silverton, Colorado, a tiny town with just more than 600 people.

The huge amount of water nearly flooded Cement Creek as it flowed into the Animus River, after breaking free from a shoddy dam at the Gold King Mine. EPA officials said that a blockage of loose soil and little more was holding in the bright orange wastewater at Gold King, a former gold mine, when water broke loose. An EPA official estimated that 200 gallons of wastewater per minute was still flowing out of the mine as of Friday afternoon.

The EPA was working at the property as part of a plan to remediate the superfund site and stop a longtime flow of acidic, heavy metal-laden wastewater from the nearby Red and Bonita mine, all near the abandoned Gladstone mining town. The work would have installed a bulkhead, or massive plug, at the end of the inactive mining tunnel.

The EPA’s initial tests of the wastewater and sediment in Animus found substances known to be harmful to be human health, including lead, arsenic, cadmium, copper, calcium and other heavy metals “at varying levels,” though at concentrations enough for officials to warn people away from the river. The PH of the water near the mouth of the mine was found to be 4.5,roughly that of beer. Lake water typically ranges from 6.5 to 8.5 on the PH scale.

EPA officials later told reporters that the impact on human and environmental health was not immediately clear, because toxicologists are still analyzing data from water samples.

“First off, I’d like to just say I’m sorry for what’s happened,” David Ostrander, the EPA’s head of emergency management told a standing-room-only crowd in Durango, Colorado Friday afternoon. “This is a huge tragedy, and it’s hard being on the other side of this, in terms of being the one who caused this incident.”

“We usually respond to emergencies, we don’t cause them,” said Ostrander.

The wastewater is the vestige of gold rush mining of more than 100 years ago. Though the mine still has an owner it appears to have been all but abandoned.

As the wastewater moves downstream it will enter the hearts of towns along the way – Silverton, Colorado; Durango, Colorado and Farmington, New Mexico among others. Many of the towns along the way have water-recreation-centric tourism industries. The US Parks Service raves about water recreation activities in Glen Canyon in particular.

As of Friday, people were warned away from the water for an indefinite period of time. Farmers have been asked not to use the water. Durango was using a backup water supply and asking residents to conserve. The Federal Bureau of Reclamation, which manages water supplies in the western United States, has warned strongly against any contact with the water, and is doubling the flow of water from the Navajo dam near the San Juan to try to dilute the toxic waste.

Via: The Guardian

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Climate Scientists Question Significance of Obama’s New Carbon Rule

Days after the Obama administration finalized plans to reduce carbon emissions, some climate scientists have criticized the administration for failing to detail how the regulations will lower global temperatures.

These critics suggest the administration used the plan more to inspire global climate action, rather than using it as a concrete step to make the earth cooler.

On Monday, the Obama administration finalized the Clean Power Plan, which would overhaul America’s energy system by striving to reduce carbon emissions from power plants 32 percent by 2030.

Chip Knappenberger, assistant director at the Cato Institute, argues that if the administration’s plan was implemented to perfection, the amount of climate change averted would amount to insignificant levels.

“The Clean Power Plan is only going to avert close to .02 of a degree of future warming over the course of this century,” Knappenberger told The Daily Signal. “What the EPA doesn’t like to advertise is what the mitigation will be.”

Chip Knappenberger‏@PCKnappenberger

Our analysis shows the temperature "savings" directly attributable to the #CleanPowerPlan is 0.009°C. http://www.cato.org/blog/spin-cycle-epas-clean-power-plan … @CatoCSS

• RETWEET1
• 

12:24 PM - 5 Aug 2015

In June, Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, asked Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy to justify the costs of regulations in comparison to the proposed benefit in global temperature reduction.

“Do you consider one one-hundredth of a degree to be enormously beneficial?” Rep. Smith asked.

“The value of the rule is not measured in that way. It is measured in showing strong domestic action which can trigger global action,” McCarthy responded

McCarthy’s response indicated the administration’s intention to use the plan as an opportunity to position itself as a global leader in tackling climate change.

Judith Curry, an American climatologist, argued in a blog post that the Obama administration sold the Clean Power Plan as an economic and public health issue, purposely leaving out specific temperature reduction targets

Via: Daily Signal

Continue Reading.....

BUSINESS Report: EPA Broke The Law To Push CO2 Regulations

A new report by a government watchdog group claims the EPA broke federal law by secretly colluding with environmental activists to push the Obama administration’s global warming agenda, and urges the agency to go back to the drawing board on its pending carbon dioxide rule.

A report by the Environment & Energy Legal Institute unveils “records showing illegal activities by EPA staff, colluding with certain environmental group lobbyists to draft EPA’s greenhouse gas (GHG) rules behind the scenes and outside of public view.”

“These emails, which EPA forced us to litigate to obtain, prove beyond any doubt that EPA conducted its campaign to impose the global warming agenda unlawfully, making the rules themselves unlawful,” Chris Horner, an E&E Legal senior attorney, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Horner says the EPA’s rules are unlawful because they were made in collusion with environmental groups, effectively shutting out the public from the process and violating federal law. E&E Legal says the Clean Power Plan and other agency rules were written with an “unalterably closed mind” because it revolved around pushing an anti-fossil fuel agenda.

E&E Legal’s latest report builds off one the group released last year which produced emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request showing coordination between environmentalists and EPA officials. This included emails between environmentalists and EPA employees discussing the Keystone XL pipeline and the technological feasibility of clean coal technology.

Now E&E Legal says FOIA records show “the influence on EPA by pressure groups, the same groups from which EPA obtained numerous senior officials.” These activists were instrumental in crafting the EPA’s “Clean Power Plan” — which regulates carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants.

The EPA is expected to finalize the Clean Power Plan as early as Monday, and the White house said it would be “stronger” than the proposed rule that was published last year. Already states have sued to get the rule struck down by the courts, and Republicans are urging governors not to enforce it.

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Congressman: EPA Sexual Predator ‘Fed A Steady Diet Of Interns’

Utah Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz had some harsh words for EPA Chief Administrator Gina McCarthy during a hearing Wednesday regarding the agency’s handling of an employee who repeatedly sexually harassed interns.

For the past couple of years, Republican lawmakers have been investigating reports of misconduct at the EPA from employees watching porn everyday while on the job to an agency employee who sexually harassed interns and was not reported to the authorities and continued to work at the agency for years.

“This is a predator who was fed a steady diet of interns,” Chaffetz told McCarthy during the hearing. “The first time this happened he should have been fired and he should have probably been referred to the authorities for criminal prosecution.”

“It happened 10 times

Chaffetz remarks come after the EPA inspector general Arthur Elkins told Congress that Peter Jutro, an EPA employee, “engaged in offensive and inappropriate behavior toward at least 16 women, most of whom were EPA co-workers.” Elkins also said very senior EPA officials “were made aware of many of these actions and yet did nothing.”

The IG also noted that Jutro was even promoted to be Assistant Administrator for the EPA’s Office of Homeland Security where he again “engaged in such behavior toward an additional six women.”

Chaffetz went off on McCarthy over the agency’s failure to fire Jutro despite repeated allegations that he was sexually harassing women. Here is the exchange starting with McCarthy’s response to Chaffetz’s first remarks about a “predator who was fed a steady diet of interns”:

McCarthy: I am aware that eleven years ago there was an issue raised and it was handle appropriately is my understanding.

Chaffetz: Appropriately?! He got a promotion, he continued to work there.

M: No, he was carefully watched. The very minute we had any indication of impropriety, which was the recent issue, we took prompt action and in less than two months…

C: You moved his cubicle four spaces away. You think that’s appropriate? What do you say to the mother and father who sent their twenty-four year old to the EPA — she’s starting her career, and she’s harassed. Look at her statement. And you did the right thing by moving her four cubicles away?

M: Sir, we are doing everything we can to reinforce the policy and the law. We are developing procedures so there’s never a question about this, and we are doing everything…

C: That isn’t good enough! When someone is sexually harassed you send them to the authorities, you fire them.

M: I did send them to the authorities…

C: You sent them to human resources, who wanted to reprimand him, you never did send them to the criminal referral.

M: Human resources recommended the same thing as every manager, which was to proceed to removal, the man is no longer in federal…

C: That’s not what actually happened. It was in his record that they had had ten complaints — ten sexual harassment complaints against this gentleman and he was allowed to continue to be there. And as we heard testimony, a predator who was a fed a steady diet of interns.

M: I am aware of one complaint, eleven years ago, and the complaint that was just processed under my watch which resulted in his removal from public service within five or six weeks.

C: Did you fire him, or was he allowed to retire?

M: He was allowed to retire because that is his right. Even if he were fired, he’d be allowed to retire.

C: Do you believe this intern who said there was sexual harassment? Do that her statement is true?

M: Oh, I absolutely do…

C: Then why didn’t you refer it for a criminal referral? If you believe that her statement is true, and it was sexual harassment, and that is a violation of the law, and you allowed him to just retire, why didn’t you send that to the proper authorities?

M: We took the appropriate action.

C: Do you think it’s appropriate, do you think it’s against the law to sexually harass somebody at work?

M: I think it’s not only against the law, but it’s also against our policies, and we acted under the policies and the law when it led to the removal of him from public [office].

C: Did you let any of the law enforcement officer know?

M: Mr. Chaffetz, I’ve got two young daughters just about this woman’s age…

C: I’ve got two young daughters too! And I would never send them to the EPA, it’s the most toxic place to work I’ve ever heard of. This person, this twenty-four year old girl, she’s starting her career, she’s harassed over a three-year period and you admit that is a violation of the law. Why didn’t you do the criminal referral?

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....