The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Political Ammunition => Global Warming, Its Myths and Its Truths => Topic started by: obumazombie on August 10, 2015, 06:30:48 PM
-
Water carriers in the media to reposition askew fig leaves...
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.â€
He explained:
“This mine has been leaking sludge for a long time and EPA was on the scene in hopes of cleaning it up.â€
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.â€
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.â€
Roberts replied:
“May be a little conflicted.â€
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.â€
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.
full article...
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2015/08/10/msnbc-tries-blame-locals-not-epa-river-pollution#sthash.igFpxXpc.dpuf
(http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2015/08/10/msnbc-tries-blame-locals-not-epa-river-pollution#sthash.igFpxXpc.dpuf)
This type of environmental mishap is tangibly destructive, and should be the standard of judging environmental impact. Not like the fantasy of glow bull warming.
edit+r
-
If this had been BP or one of the other evil oil companies...
-
Who says they didn't Let It Happen On Purpose to get more money and create more government jobs? ....and to shut down the mines they wanted to shut down to begin with?
-
Who says they didn't Let It Happen On Purpose to get more money and create more government jobs? ....and to shut down the mines they wanted to shut down to begin with?
There were abandoned mines, but locals have been trying to get companies interested in reopening them. This was the EPA method of shutting the locals down.
-
If this had been BP or one of the other evil oil companies...
...something about obama's boot on somebody's throat...
-
...something about obama's boot on somebody's throat...
Does comrade owebuma know about this ?
I don't believe a bit of this story, because it would be a black eye on an otherwise perfect presidential record of performance in office...
Quote
While filling in for Thomas Roberts on MSNBC Live, Frances Rivera brought on Dan Olson from the San Juan Citizens Alliance to defend the EPA and cast all the blame on local mines in the region.
The Environmental Protection Agency broke a dam holding back three million gallons of lead and iron filled water while working on the Gold King Mine on August 5.
In the days following the disaster caused by the anti-mining governmental agency, the toxic mix of metals leaked and spread downstream, turning the Animas River yellow in Southern Colorado and northern New Mexico.
Olson dodged Rivera's questions, and insisted on deflecting all the blame to local mines and residents.
In the process, he compared the disaster to a bomb technician trying to defuse a bomb in a supermarket:
FRANCES RIVERA, Host:
Many people are questioning how this happened to begin with.
With the EPA assessing leaks in that Gold King Mine when it accidentally shook loose a debris dam releasing all this water with the arsenic and lead and toxins.
Is that something that you're questioning how this even happenned in the first place?
DAN OLSON, guest:
Again, I want to blow it out a little bit more and look at the bigger picture perspective.
The EPA was trying to clean up an ongoing pollution concern in our communities.
The headwaters of the Animas River is a historic mining district that every minute is leaking pollutants into these waterways.
The EPA was working in that region to try and identify and address these leaks.
And in so doing triggered a very nasty accident.
But if you were to think of an analogy-- If someone plants a bomb in a crowded market and someone goes in to defuse it and it blows up, who's at risk?
The bomb maker or the defuser?
He also suggested that this type of thing can be expected in the future, and that we shouldn’t expect the EPA to fix their mistakes in situations like this:
OLSON:
Absolutely.
I mean not even around Colorado.
I'd say a couple hundred yards downhill of this mine there are two mines that are leaking pollutants into our waterways right now.
So the ongoing question is not just how do we fix this spill-- which to be honest we may not be able to clean up or remediate.
But I think the bigger question is how do we address the legacy of mining, and the toxic mine pollution that's been left behind in these regions for literally over a century worth of mining.
Typical liberal response when their policies and actions fail.
“Don’t blame me for what I did. It’s ultimately your fault.â€
The relevant transcript is listed below:
FRANCES RIVERA, Host:
Many people are questioning how this happened to begin with.
With the EPA assessing leaks in that Gold King Mine when it accidentally shook loose a debris dam releasing all this water with the arsenic and lead and toxins.
Is that something that you're questioning how this even happenned in the first place?
DAN OLSON, guest:
Again, I want to blow it out a little bit more and look at the bigger picture perspective.
The EPA was trying to clean up an ongoing pollution concern in our communities.
The headwaters of the Animas River is a historic mining district that every minute is leaking pollutants into these waterways.
The EPA was working in that region to try and identify and address these leaks.
And in so doing triggered a very nasty accident.
But if you were to think of an analogy-- If someone plants a bomb in a crowded market and someone goes in to defuse it and it blows up, who's at risk?
The bomb maker or the diffuser?
RIVERIA:
So how do you feel as far as the EPA and their job addressing this, are you satisfied with that?
OLSON:
You know, I think that early on, and even today, some of their communications I think could definitely be improved.
There are so many questions with regards to “is the water healthy†and “what would healthy even mean?â€
So we would like to see better data and better communication from the EPA but I think this is a phenomally difficult situation covering such a large stretch of river and such a complex problem that I don't think anyone could have all the answers at this point.
RIVERIA:
And how about the concern for other mines?
I know those areas especially in Colorado, there are a lot of similar mines.
Any concern of it happening again or danger in the future?
OLSON:
Absolutely.
I mean not even around Colorado.
I'd say a couple hundred yards downhill of this mine there are two mines that are leaking pollutants into our waterways right now.
So the ongoing question is not just how do we fix this spill-- which to be honest we may not be able to clean up or remediate.
But I think the bigger question is how do we address the legacy of mining, and the toxic mine pollution that's been left behind in these regions for literally over a century worth of mining.
RIVERIA:
Something that may be tackled long after that river in particular cleans up.
Thank you, Dan Olson from San Juan Citizens Allience.
Appreciate your time.
full article...
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/spencer-raley/2015/08/12/activist-msnbc-compares-epa-disaster-diffusing-bomb-crowded-market#sthash.1al7vTeS.dpuf
Modify message