Environmentalists blast Obama mining rule reversal

[RiverStone]

DENVER — The same week President Barack Obama riled environmentalists with plans for offshore oil drilling, he faces criticism for signaling he will support a Bush-era policy criticized as giving mining companies unlimited access to public lands to dump toxic waste.

The administration asked a federal judge Tuesday to dismiss a challenge by environmental and community groups to a rule that lifted a restriction on how much public land companies can use. The groups are also challenging a 2008 rule that says companies aren't required to pay the going rate to use the land.

Environmentalists said the administration's decision conflicts with its pledge to overhaul the nearly 140-year-old law regulating the mining of gold, silver and other hard-rock minerals on public land.

"The Obama administration can't have it both ways," said Jane Danowitz of the Pew Environment Group in Washington. "Either it stands by its earlier commitment to bringing mining law into the 21st Century, or it continues to allow the industry to dump unlimited toxic waste on public land at the expense of taxpayers and the environment."

National Mining Association spokeswoman Carol Raulston said Friday that her group is pleased with the Obama administration's decision to support the Bush policy.

more:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100402/ap_on_bi_ge/us_mining_reform

Sadly, President Obama continues to disappoint on environmental issues. Whereas I'll always say that his election was better for the earth than continuing with the rethugs (and I worked like hell to elect him) - on eco issues anyway, he has been underwhelming.

A very disappointing trend. The stench of corporate influence is obvious.

As a result, I find myself far less passionate about national politics, but remain very involved and active with local progressive issues.

I wonder how much green support is Obama calculating he can afford to lose? :think:

[robinblue]

1. "her group is pleased with the Obama administration's decision to support the Bush policy."

:mad:

[katandmoon]

2. Note to Keeper of Obama's List O'Accomplishments: Please add this!

[RKP5637]

3. I find it exhausting! I try to keep upbeat, but things like this can't help but

make one wonder WTF.

[Smashcut]

4. But don't you see??? This is a brilliant move!

He's "taking this issue away" from the Republicans!!!

:crazy:

[pathansen]

5. Too bad we didn't draft Al Gore as President

Didn't Obama pledge to support the environment instead of polluters?
This is sad!

[MoonRiver]

6. Change!!

:woohoo:

[Bluebear]

7. kick for the earth

[tnlefty]

10. And kick for yet another kick in the gut.

:hi: We're gonna need a bigger bus is all that I know.

[Karmadillo]

8. Yes!!!! Another Republican issue is ours!!!

nt

[Bluebear]

13. yay! we win!

[bigtree]

9. It's disappointing they won't support the lawsuit

... but the administration can still support the legislation in Congress to reform the 1872 law (http://coloradoindependent.com/33462/udall-hearing-examines-1872-mining-law-reform-pits-reid-against-salazar-obama-admin).

It's not as if that effort is a political slam-dunk among Democrats (Reid etc.). It looks to me like Interior Sec. Salazar has expressed support for the environmentalists' position (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31910387/) so I expect this move is more of an attempt to move to the legislative fight without undermining that upcoming debate than it represents a reversal of his position.

[walldude]

11. It's all part of a master plan...

and if anyone figures out exactly what the plan is could you let me in on it?

K&R

[quaker bill]

12. Just because an environmental group

files a lawsuit does not automatically mean it has legal merit. In my direct experience with such litigation, often the point they are trying to make is compelling and correct morally, but based on flimsy legal arguments. Mining laws for public lands are so old and vague that it wold be quite difficult for them to prevail regardless of administration support. Sometimes it is far better to use one's powder changing the law, as opposed to pointless litigation over varying interpretations of archaic legal language. On the upbeat side, let's just say they would win at the District level. There is no doubt in my mind that this would be appealed to the SCOTUS, and reversed.

The proper way to achieve this purpose under the current circumstances is to pass law that is clear and meets constitutional muster. Under that scenario, the matter never makes it to SCOTUS in a form subject to reversal.