Timmer wrote. Reader comments include:
It is deeply disappointing to see the governor and both our senators clearly avoiding doing the right thing for Minnesota’s vulnerable watershed.
They know there is a huge risk and historic evidence that should supersede political wishes and short-term economic gain.
They also know, (unless they have turned a blind eye) that the MPCA did not perform due diligence in permitting, ignored the expansion and did not set effluent volumes or limits. The enforcement of the Clean Water Act is sabotaged.
We count on our elected representatives to be informed and to act in the best interests of the state, LONG TERM.
Political courage or opportunism?
Will those who are paid to protect our lands and waters start doing it?
I hope they will be held individually liable for their sell-out.
and
Submitted by Steve Timmer on 09/01/2019 - 09:53 am.
I refer to Jess Richards’ 2014 comment to me about a Glencore guaranty in the commentary. PolyMet VP Brad Moore made a similar remark to me in 2013 at an event at the Canadian Consulate that you can read about here:
https://www.minnpost.com/minnesota-blog-cabin/2013/10/who-will-keep-polymet-s-grave-clean/
Nobody of real consequence wants that sulfide mining. Whoever they are and whatever positions the advocates hold, they are not of consequence. They are compromised out of being of consequence. Their actions may be ruinous for the waters of the state, but they are each as inconsequential as each regards the environmental risks and costs as inconsequential (compared to the 2020 election).
"Short sighted" is a term invented for the batch of 'em. Kissing up to the copper barons discharges is not a pretty sight, but it is in plain sight. It is less than second-rate.