- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Judge rejects federal plans for fossil fuel mining in Powder River Basin
Posted on 8/5/22 at 10:04 am
Posted on 8/5/22 at 10:04 am
quote:
A federal judge on Wednesday night threw out two resource management plans developed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), finding they failed to account for the risk of fossil fuel leasing on public lands in Montana and Wyoming.
The plans, developed during the Trump administration but defended in court by the Biden BLM, outline how much coal can be mined and burned on public lands in parts of the Powder River Basin, which covers parts of southeast Montana and northeast Wyoming. The basin is the source of more than 85 percent of federally-produced coal in the U.S. In 2018, Judge Brian Morris, an Obama appointee, ruled that the BLM must redraw the plans to factor in the risks of climate change.
The BLM, then still under former President Trump, finished a revised estimate in 2020, but was again ordered to redo it because Morris ruled it did not properly consider impacts like methane emissions and potential harms from fossil fuel combustion. On Wednesday, Morris again ruled the BLM had not properly complied with the earlier order to review the plans, and that it had not properly considered alternatives with limited or no new coal leasing in the region.
“The Bureau of Land Management is singularly focused on propping up the dying coal industry at the expense of its legal obligations to consider public health and the climate,” Melissa Hornbein, a senior attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center and one of the plaintiffs in the case, said in a statement. “That a federal judge ordered the Bureau to consider a no-leasing alternative and disclose to the public how many people will be sickened and die as a result of the combustion of federal coal is groundbreaking. The courts recognize the seriousness of the climate crisis and the impacts of fossil-fuel pollution. The BLM must now do likewise.”
LINK /
So here we are in an energy crisis (sane people on both sides the political spectrum acknowledge it), domestically and globally, where we at this time should have an "all hands on deck" push. Fossil fuels, wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, etc.
Yet we still have leftist judges legislating from the bench, even on leasing plans that the anti-fossil fuel Biden Administration is defending.
7
Posted on 8/5/22 at 10:08 am to ragincajun03
quote:
we are in an artificial energy crisis by design
FIFY
Posted on 8/5/22 at 10:10 am to ragincajun03
I’m torn. Supporting the BLM is a tough pill to swallow and that area is some of the most beautiful in the country. Why not leave all this to more local organizations like the Powder River Basin resource council?
This post was edited on 8/5/22 at 10:13 am
Posted on 8/5/22 at 10:11 am to ragincajun03
quote:
The courts recognize the seriousness of the climate crisis and the impacts of fossil-fuel pollution. The BLM must now do likewise.”
Posted on 8/5/22 at 10:13 am to ragincajun03
That's such bullshite. The judge also isn't taking into account all the EPA regulations put on industry that are actually doing the burning of this coal. There's so much scrubbing, carbon capture, emission limiting technology in place over the years a friggin bird could build a nest in one of the stacks and not be harmed for pete's sake. This is such bullshite.
Posted on 8/5/22 at 10:18 am to ragincajun03
There are coal seams in some of the western states that are tens of feet thick. Contrast that with eastern seams that are mined by miners who have to bend over to work them.
Posted on 8/5/22 at 10:23 am to Purple Spoon
quote:
Why not leave all this to more local organizations like the Powder River Basin resource council?
Because councils like this are NGOs that have no jurisdiction over government lands. Doesn't mean they aren't a group worth listening to, but they just have no authority to make any final decisions affecting leasing of government-owned lands.
I would have to imagine, knowing how RMPs have been drawn up for years, that PRB Resource Council, along with individual ranchers, other NGOs like Sierra Club and other affected industry groups were ALL consulted and given opportunities to present amendments to the original version of this RMP. These things take years to draw up and go back and forth between the BLM/Dept of Interior and various groups.
This post was edited on 8/5/22 at 10:28 am
Posted on 8/5/22 at 10:24 am to Unobtanium
Everything is a conspiracy
Posted on 8/5/22 at 10:28 am to mattz1122
quote:
Everything is a conspiracy
Everything really is.
Posted on 8/5/22 at 10:31 am to ragincajun03
Posted on 8/5/22 at 10:38 am to ragincajun03
That's Longmire country
Posted on 8/5/22 at 10:45 am to ragincajun03
quote:The question was why don't local agencies have control over local lands.
Because councils like this are NGOs that have no jurisdiction over government lands. Doesn't mean they aren't a group worth listening to, but they just have no authority to make any final decisions affecting leasing of government-owned lands.
Posted on 8/5/22 at 10:55 am to Gravitiger
quote:
The question was why don't local agencies have control over local lands.
1- The lands are owned by the Federal Government, have been for over a century, so the Federal Government is going to have control. Just like how the State Government has control over State Lands, and Parish/County governments have control over Parish/County Lands.
2- Again, the PRB Resource Council is NOT a government agency, so even if it was left to local governmental agencies, they would likely be consulted (as I can pretty much guarantee they were for this RMP), but they still would not have jurisdiction to make any final decisions. The only way they could have that control is if they went out and purchased these lands, which RMPs typically do have such a mechanism for selling BLM Lands or at least swapping tracts of land, but those rules would be spelled out in the RMP itself...which this judge threw out.
This post was edited on 8/5/22 at 10:58 am
Posted on 8/5/22 at 10:59 am to ragincajun03
A lot of stuff run by federal and state government would be better off run at the local level. A lot of stuff run by local government would be better off run by non-government enterprises.
That's the point. It's not a legal question. It's a "what is actually best" question.
That's the point. It's not a legal question. It's a "what is actually best" question.
This post was edited on 8/5/22 at 11:02 am
Posted on 8/5/22 at 11:02 am to Gravitiger
quote:
A lot of stuff run by the federal government would be better off run at the local level. That's the point.
It's not a legal question. It's a "what is actually best" question.
Ok. I understand that and don't necessarily disagree.
However, such argument should never be the basis for a judge like this to just legislate from the bench for his own anti-fossil fuel agenda.
Posted on 8/5/22 at 11:06 am to ragincajun03
quote:Tell that to SCOTUS
such argument should never be the basis for a judge like this to just legislate from the bench
Posted on 8/5/22 at 12:00 pm to real turf fan
(no message)
This post was edited on 8/5/22 at 12:13 pm
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News