What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
54 Comments
- 55mph, on 07/03/2008, -1/+14because we clearly live in a Corportocracy.
- Ecochick, on 07/03/2008, -4/+16People really are stupid, aren't we? When a group of people (because it's people who make up companies) make the choice to destroy a lake (legal or not shouldn't be the argument) I just want to throw up my hands.
- Duositex, on 07/02/2008, -4/+14I don't understand how there can be any argument over this. It seems pretty simple. I dugg it for the attention but I would like the comment that the submission is not that great. It just kind of... ends.
- jacen6678, on 07/03/2008, -0/+10Maybe I don't understand the mining process... but lead and mercury are valuable commodities. Why doesn't the mining company harvest the lead and mercury for sale too?
- bjs3171, on 07/03/2008, -2/+11people dumping toxic waste into water when readily available fresh water is an issue right now. can we just shoot these people and be done with it? we really don't have time for this ***** right now.
- jbmcb, on 07/03/2008, -0/+5> what do you expect from an administration that favors corporate cutbacks
Administration? This is a local matter in Alaska. The supreme court case doesn't really have anything to do with pollution, it's about federal oversight of state land. - michaelpinto, on 07/02/2008, -7/+11I'm still amazed at the recent Exxon case where they won't have to pay the damages for the Valdez from 1989. How can we trust these same folks with drilling off shore or up in Alaska? And if this is on public land why doesn't the public get a share of the profits
- flickerbrain, on 07/03/2008, -3/+6Gold mining.....or a silo full of pig crap.
- cvindustries, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3If you live in Alaska, you DO get a share of the profits. And no income tax. And no state sales tax. And a check from the State of Alaska once a year. Pretty sweet if it weren't so cold.
- RolltheStampede, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3Time for Captain Planet
- gnotDigger, on 07/03/2008, -1/+4thinking like this is why your drinking water, air and food are contaminated
- darkened, on 07/03/2008, -1/+4So now natural materials that are in the earth are considered pollution? What next?
- andydumi, on 07/03/2008, -2/+4They do have to pay. Half a billion in actual damages, and another in punitives (punishment). The only change in the ruling was that the punitives greatly outweighed the actual damages and were unreasonable.
This is a common practice. If the actual damages were very small, then the punitives may outweigh them by a lot, but when the actual damages are a lot, then punitives are usually on par.
Remember, they paid for the cleanup separately, and the half a billion is just what you say, punishment that is essentially free money for the government. - mleaman, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuyahoga_River
- inactive, on 07/03/2008, -2/+4It's not "public" land. It's federal lands and you can't do with your "share" as you'd like. The notion of public lands is socialist. Just where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to hold land in the so called public trust? The feds are only authorized to hold land for buildings and other things necessary for the administration of the government. None other. Where do these public trust lands fall into that definition?
- megabozz, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2Who owns the lake?
- Phearce, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2IMNAL, but FTA it looks like the Supreme Court isn't weighing in on the issue of pollution per se, but rather if the EPA has any jurisdiction. That is, the court is expected to clarify the extent of the EPA's reach. If this lake is determined to be included in the EPA's jurisdiction, then the Clean Water Act would apply. Otherwise, it would be up to the state.
- Malacandra95, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2The notion of public lands is socialist? Haven't you ever heard of a "commons"? The Boston Common goes back to the 17th Century, therefore predating the union. It's not federal, but if the federal government is incapable of owning land, (an absurdity) then we'd have no public buildings. The founders clearly didn't have a problem with public buildings... or they wouldn't have built the White House, the Treasury, the Capitol, etc.
And if it is capable of owning land, than of course that land is public land... the public having paid for it... which certainly means - in a democratic republic - that the public has certain interests in the use of that land. That's not socialism - it's simple logic. - inactive, on 07/03/2008, -1/+3Win.
- cerejota, on 07/03/2008, -2/+4Which is an activist court gone mad in overriding a jury... Scalia and his croonies have destroyed the american legal system.
- jstohler, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2Interestingly, the defendant is C. Montgomery Burns.
- falstaff, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2The only jurisdiction SCOTUS has is when there is a Constitutional question. The issue here isn't whether there is pollution or not, the real question is whether it falls under federal or state control. CWA is a federal law, but it may not apply here.
- beauley, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Will the world ever become cleaner, our air, oceans and streams less polluted ? Will man with his past great accomplishments find a way to reverse what it has exhausted into our ecosystem ?
http://www.socyberty.com/Issues/We-Live-In-A-Pollu ...
We live In A Polluted World - jp12380, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1You said it, I dugg it.
- ryan850, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1If that would make it go away I would do my part.
- inactive, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1What about all the people who lost their livelihoods?
Recent shows about this area show that Exxon never made good.
In that case, I'd say MORE punitive measures are required.
Instead Exxon just waiting out the process until the SC was so rightard and oil friendly they got 80% of the fines dumped. - SilverBlade2k, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Poison water supplies so they can sell you overpriced water in a bottle..
- cerejota, on 07/03/2008, -2/+3Man, I can't understand how people actually seem to want pollution. Even if green to you means money, you got to hate the fact that you could turn into a mutant!
- screamingjoker, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2Alaska is Texas of the Arctic
- gnixon70, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Never thought I'd say this, but i'm going to have to side with the environmentalists on this one.
- banderwocky, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1That is disgusting. Like lawyer disgusting.
- ryanarchy, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1This is nothing new. Rohm and Haas released chemicals into the atmosphere 11 years ago which made their way to their holding pond and eventually into my area's water table. I'm not sure what exactly this chemical is but I know what it does. It causes a very specific, rare and fatal form of brain cancer. About 90% of the cases of it are isolated here in Illinois about 4 miles from their plant and at another location in Pennsylvania near another one of their plants fulfilling an identical role using the same chemicals.
Now you would think, hey at least they were shut down for this indiscretion, right? Wrong. Not only are they still operating, but they just recently allowed even more of the same chemical to escape into the water table. Mishaps like this should be as fatal to the companies that cause them as they are to the residents and wildlife that they affect. - brad3378, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1The public (via the Government) does get a share of the profits when Oil Companies bid for drilling rights.
- jbmcb, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2> 1. i wasnt talking about the judicial branch.
Then what are you talking about? It's a local matter for Alaska, GWB and co. have little to do with it. An environmental group is suing saying the waterway is covered by the CWA, the state of Alaska disagrees, ergo it's a states right's case in front of the supreme court.
> is alaska an authorized state to be dealing with CWA/RCRA?
What does that even mean? The question is weather the federal government has oversight on certain types of land. This is a matter for the supreme court. The "Administration" has pretty much nothing to do with it. - ChildeRoland420, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1IIRC the mercury is used to extract the gold from the ore.
- inactive, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Read what i said. "The feds are only authorized to hold land for buildings and other things necessary for the administration of the government. None other."
More than half of the west is in control of the feds. The states should have control.
Again, show me in the Constitution where these holdings by the feds are authorized! - Gimjee, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Next thing you know, they'll be putting a giant dome over the whole city to prevent it from spreading.
- weaponR, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1Wow, I want to know what sort of childhood spawns a conservative. How can you love corporation/government that do this and defend them with little conscience?
- adam71o, on 07/03/2008, -0/+0I was sure that the title had an intentional Alice in Chains reference. {:^(
- thedarkwolf, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1uhh, reply button??
- screamingjoker, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1Money Talks, and thats all you need to know in America.
- carlhcb, on 07/03/2008, -0/+0FYI: There won’t be any mercury, arsenic or other artificially-added chemicals in the Slate Lake tailings. The mine will produce unrefined ore, to be shipped down south and processed at an existing facility that is already certified to handle it (under the benevolent oversight of the EPA I imagine this facility being surrounded by verdant fields and bunnies). The tailings that would have gone into the lake are “all natural” so to speak –meaning the lake-killing toxins are all found in the ground already. That’s part of the problem the court needs to decide: is moving rock from underground into the lake really pollution? (absolutely) Disposal in the lake was the worst all around of all the plans they considered, and they’re already working on an alternative.
- LucifersDad, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1Maybe someone should dump the same chemicals in the water the supreme court use.
- xinul, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1I am sure that this is just the most wonderful little lake in the middle of nowhere that I will never see but you know what is more wonderful? Gold.
- SkippyDoorknob, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1But I want to be Wolverine!
- gttim, on 07/03/2008, -3/+3When the GOP stacks the courts with conservatives, they do not really give a crap about abortion and gay marriage. What they care about is making sure corporations can do anything the want to increase profits without the fear of lawsuits, environmental protections, employee protections or anything that would deduct from the bottom line. Expect to see more crap like this allowed as the courts are heavily stacked with "activist pro-corporation" Republican judges. Not only is the government privatizing profits and socializing loses, they are giving them blatant corporate welfare and allowing them to take, steal and trash the US citizens property, land and country.
One of the funny things is that all the NRA nuts are supporting the party that will make sure there is no land to hunt on and animals to hunt (or lakes to fish in or fish to fish for). My brother-in-law, a former Republican and NRA member, has finally realized he was supporting organizations that really did not support him or his hobbies. - crazy0, on 07/03/2008, -5/+4what do you expect from an administration that favors corporate cutbacks, to them abiding by environmental regulations is a threat to economic productivity, its cheaper to dump the crap, its cheaper to burn it...they dont need our stinking environmental rules....
as far as the EPA...youtube their director, and ye shall see how screwed we are....he is far from an environmentalist - crazy0, on 07/03/2008, -2/+1well 1. i wasnt talking about the judicial branch.
2. is alaska an authorized state to be dealing with CWA/RCRA? - psyjoniz, on 07/03/2008, -4/+1fail.
- aftern9ne, on 07/03/2008, -7/+3Man, ***** pollution.
-
Show 51 - 54 of 54 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is