Weather forcing people to move?

[dave1949]

I disagree with most of your post...and there's a good probability that many of the regulations you write about are onerous or unnecessary.
People do need jobs...and jobs pay money that pays taxes and the economy chugging along. Granted, there always has to be a balancing act and, IMHO, that balancing act has swung way too far against business.

There cannot be a balancing act in the case of mining regulation changes in Maine. The current "open for business" governor has appointed "business friendly" anti-environment lawyers to head the state DEP. Call me silly but the head of the DEP should actually care and know something about environmental science.

If the OR's (Oligarchy R's) could make a factual case for their war on the environment, they wouldn't need to replace knowledgeable people with lawyers who come from law firms specializing in getting around and contesting environmental regulations. There is no intent on their part to do any environmental protection, in fact it is just the opposite.

Their intent to sidestep, ignore and weaken protections and they are willing to tell any number of lies and silence any internal dissent from knowledgeable people while doing it. If someone has a good story to tell they don't need to restrict the freedoms of those who disagree. Absolutely despicable and unpatriotic.

Saying that people need jobs or that we need resources is typical of the shallow thinking of most righties. Of course people need jobs and we need the raw materials that mining produces. We also need the clean water, air and habitat preservation that supports our healthy existence. Presenting the need for jobs as a justification for environmental destruction leading to a lower quality of life is a false either-or choice that is based solely on maximizing short term gain.

Ignorant righties view the earth as a bottomless resource, like some magical bank account that never runs out of funds no matter how many checks are written against it. Any protections that run counter to their fantasies are seen as onerous or unnecessary. They have never met the natural asset they cannot justify degrading or destroying.

If jobs are truly the goal then hire enough smart people to develop and build the processes and equipment that would allow mining to proceed while minimizing (in fact, not just empty promises) the environmental impacts. Oh, but wait, besides being inconvenient that would raise the costs of mining and eat into profits. That is the falseness of the jobs argument laid bare.

We all have our passions Roy. Yours is the 2nd amendment. Mine is the environment and I doubt either of us will give an inch.

Metal Mining Pollution: A Serious Threat to Maine
Majority of Mainers Oppose Weakened Mining Rules


Digging into Bald Mtn. is going to release more metals and acids:
Bald Mountain copper-zinc-gold-silver deposit, northern ME, USGS study on environmental behavior of m ineral deposits
The Bald Mountain volcanic-associated massive sulfide deposit offers unparalleled opportunities to study natural geochemical backgrounds because it was discovered in an area that has not experienced historic metallic mining. The deposit is hosted by a moderately dipping sequence of Paleozoic submarine volcanic rocks, basalt with lesser rhyolite, and subcrops beneath 0 to 15 m of glacial till. The mineralization consists of: (1) a hypogene massive sulfide zone (pyrite and pyrrhotite with lesser chalcopyrite, sphalerite, and arsenopyrite); (2) a supergene sulfide zone (pyrite, chalcocite, covellite, and enargite); and (3) a gold-bearing gossan zone (goethite, quartz, and trace remnant sulfide minerals). Ground waters in and around the deposit show elevated concentrations of dissolved iron, base metals (copper, zinc, nickel, cobalt, cadmium, and lead), arsenic, and sulfate compared to regional surface waters and ground water upgradient from the deposit. Subsurface weathering of the Bald Mountain deposit appears to significantly and naturally elevate the concentration of dissolved constituents in ground waters relative to regional surface waters.

To keep on topic, if the weather was nice at Bald Mtn. would people choose to live next to an open pit mine surrounded by a polluted watershed?

 

[RoyJackson]

There cannot be a balancing act in the case of mining regulation changes in Maine. The current "open for business" governor has appointed "business friendly" anti-environment lawyers to head the state DEP. Call me silly but the head of the DEP should actually care and know something about environmental science.

[Edited for brevity]

The problem is the so-called "pro-Environment" types are just as bad as what you consider "open for business" types...extremists.
We have a bunch of those in Vermont...I don't know how they make a living (other than as lobbyists and lawyers), but their views are as destructive as any company that is guilty of polluting an area.
None of us wants a return to the "Love Canal" days, but we don't want to return to the caveman days either. Government cannot support everyone on welfare.
I don't know if you're retired or not...but most of us are still working...to pay for your retirement (if you're on Social Security) as well as our own (when that time comes). It cannot be all based upon flower and antique shoppes or other boutiques.

Fracking is a good example...the environmentalists are overstating (lying) about the pitfalls as much as the proponents are lying about the benefits...however, there is money to be made by fracking...especially in depressed areas.
Just recently, central NYS cities are considering seceeding from NY and becoming part of Pennsylvania. I'm sure Cuomo and his lackeys will wail and gnash their teeth. OK, then what say we put a 30% tax on the Stock Market and see who wails and gnashes then...

 

[Country Geek]

Those things can be done too. The ocean fishery is in deep trouble though, so that is problematic. Local small-scale agriculture is making a very slow comeback. Maine is never going to be a mass cropland style production location, we just don't have that soils resource. Forest products are vulnerable to global competition and the trend to paperless. Wood pellets are doing well.

Any business sector is sensitive to slow downs, tourism included. One thing that cannot be done is to outsource the eye candy and atmosphere of a Maine lake to China or India. Seriously, that is a strength to have something unique to offer. Strengths should be built upon. Sometimes I get the feeling that building tourism is just not flashy/wheeler-dealer enough for some politicians.

If a high tech operation wants to locate in Maine I wouldn't discourage that, but I wouldn't give the store away to get them here either.

In my younger days I used to camp and hike in Baxter State Park in Maine. Used to send in my cabin application on the first day that they accepted applications from out of state residents. You're making me want to go back, but unfortunately I'm not as fit as I was when I would go rock scrambling up Mt. Kathadin. I've really enjoyed my vacations in Maine, you're right that it's a great place to visit.

 

[Country Geek]

3/4? Ouch! Holy moly!

Well that depends, you don't know from that if schools are particularly expensive, or if the rest of the government is particularly cheap.

 

[Country Geek]

OK, so back on topic, If weather is the issue, move to Hawaii, where the weather is sunny and warm but not too hot - all year round!

As long as you like rain.

 

[vtsnowedin]

Well that depends, you don't know from that if schools are particularly expensive, or if the rest of the government is particularly cheap.

No there is nothing cheap about Vermont state or local government. :muttering:

 

[dave1949]

[Edited for brevity]

The problem is the so-called "pro-Environment" types are just as bad as what you consider "open for business" types...extremists.
We have a bunch of those in Vermont...I don't know how they make a living (other than as lobbyists and lawyers), but their views are as destructive as any company that is guilty of polluting an area.
None of us wants a return to the "Love Canal" days, but we don't want to return to the caveman days either. Government cannot support everyone on welfare.
I don't know if you're retired or not...but most of us are still working...to pay for your retirement (if you're on Social Security) as well as our own (when that time comes). It cannot be all based upon flower and antique shoppes or other boutiques.

Fracking is a good example...the environmentalists are overstating (lying) about the pitfalls as much as the proponents are lying about the benefits...however, there is money to be made by fracking...especially in depressed areas.
Just recently, central NYS cities are considering seceeding from NY and becoming part of Pennsylvania. I'm sure Cuomo and his lackeys will wail and gnash their teeth. OK, then what say we put a 30% tax on the Stock Market and see who wails and gnashes then...

I will re-state this:
If jobs are truly the goal then hire enough smart people to develop and build the processes and equipment that would allow mining to proceed while minimizing (in fact, not just empty promises) the environmental impacts.

I don't see the issue as being that very worthwhile jobs requiring education and applied intelligence are not needed for the purpose of protecting the environment. The need for those jobs clearly exists.

The issue I see is that the perception of that need is lacking. Obviously a mine owner, for example, is not going to spend $10M-$20M or whatever on environmental issues unless (a) they are forced to by regulations and/or social pressure, or (b) they themselves understand and care about the impacts of their operations, and (c) there is a way to make reasonable profits while doing that.

If the value of the raw materials extracted from a mining operation is measured in $Billions, then $50M-$100M for the environment is peanuts. $100M is 5% of $2B. I'm not worried that a reasonable profit cannot be earned if limiting the environmental impact costs 5% of gross revenue. There is no way that 5% can be a justification for creating one permanent disaster site after another--excused by convincing people they will starve to death or be on welfare unless something can be destroyed. That's hucksterism IMO and people need to stop falling for it.

Even if that 5% or however much were to be too expensive, then placing a realistic value on environmental degradation will provide the market pressure/incentive to figure out better and less expensive means. That is supposedly one of our strengths, is it not? The hard reality is we won't get what we aren't willing to demand and expectations will not be met if there are none.

We are both old enough to look back 50 years. In 1960 the global population was 3 billion, today it is 7 billion and still growing. The USA has gone from 175M to 304M in that time. Most of those billions (as individuals) have a larger environmental footprint than they did 50 years ago. We consume more of just about everything, and we consume/make use of many things that didn't even exist in 1960. Every bit of that consumption is taken from a finite resource and the results are absorbed by a finite sink. This is not remotely sustainable on our current path and the proof of that is all around us.

 

[RoyJackson]

No there is nothing cheap about Vermont state or local government. :muttering:

Got that right!! Bethel has about 2200 people total (in the town itself, plus the surrounding area (in PA, those outer areas would be boroughs...in Vermont, the counties are comprised of "towns" bordering one another)).
Their budget is about 1.5 million...and Bethel doesn't do much for the areas outside town limits. There's many of us who want lower taxes and we're not too concerned about the "ambiance" of the town.

 

[RoyJackson]

...Every bit of that consumption is taken from a finite resource and the results are absorbed by a finite sink. This is not remotely sustainable on our current path and the proof of that is all around us.

So, when ya going to sell that TC 40 and get a couple of mules? Can't be wasting all that fossil fuel, eh?

 

[newbury]

<snip> we're not too concerned about the "ambiance" of the town.

Writes the man in the avatar