Carol Raulston, a spokeswoman for the National Mining Association (NMA) in Washington DC, wrote in a statement that “based on analyses by outside experts retained by NMA, stream function (in this case the stream’s ability to provide sufficient food sources for fish, birds, etc.) is not altered by the mining activity”.
Judge Jackson did not rule on the scientific questions raised by Mingo Logan; the EPA and Earthjustice are hoping that the appeal court will do so, and will put an end to the doubt cast on evidence that they say is “solid”.
With the US presidential elections fast approaching there is little time to waste. “Mitt Romney has been candid about his feelings on environmental regulation — he wants to reduce the power of the EPA,” says Bernhardt. “I don’t see a Romney administration helping to put teeth into the EPA’s ability to protect the environment.”
This article is reproduced with permission from the magazine Nature. The article was first published on October 16, 2012.
See what we're tweeting about
9 Comments
Add CommentTo me it seems that the mining is definitely bad for the environment, but the EPA does not have the authority to rescind. However, the mining companies do not want to admit that the mining is bad, so they're taking what they see as a high road—"The EPA has no power *and* we do no harm"—what I see as reckless arrogance, but their only path to convince voters not ever to give the EPA any power.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow come every time evidence is researched and given they just brush it off as I don't believe the evidence. That's not a scientific answer to facts and research. Make the coal company's do the research that contradicts the facts and then have the law and community's then decide.Otherwise we are leaving the truth up to lawyers and judges that really don't have our best interest at heart.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can't stand the fact that science gets argued in court as if it were negotiable. Science needs a special level of protection. It's not right to argue that scientific findings are up for debate like any opinion. Arguments against science should only be made by more science that proves its case with scientifically sound data not rhetoric.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are a nation of laws, under the Constitution, and we are all due our day in court. The science has to be able to hold up in court, to be considered. Would you want scientists to be above the law? Suppose they were, and in a few decades decided that there were too many people, will you go willingly? And who will decide who is a scientist? A court? The laws pertain to all citizens equally, there is no royal class in the US and there never should be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou misinterpreted what I was saying. Science should be able to be argued against, I never said it shouldn't. What I said was that it should be argued with science not rhetoric.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPrecisely. Take the vaccines-cause-autism debacle. Immunocompromised people like my mother are now in serious danger of getting pertussis because Andrew Wakefield got paid to alter his findings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSuch massive destruction lasting many, many lifetimes for so little dirty coal to run a single plant for not even a yr per mountain top. Way to go West Virgina, Ky, NC, etc!! You are so smart doing this.
Such bueatiful states being laid to waste for a few dollars today.
jerry, read the article. This is not happening in NC, it is in WV.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPostman get a life!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt happens in more places than WV and even reular mining of coal caused too much damage for a very short term gain.