Chip Cravaack is fighting the EPA. Based on the information in this statement, it’s likely that he’ll win:

On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit for the U.S. Court of Appeals struck down a sixth overreaching EPA rule, writing that “…Congress did not authorize EPA to simply adopt limits on emissions as EPA deemed reasonable. Rather, Congress set up a federalism-based system of air pollution control.”

Here’s why that information is important:

Today, the Cravaack for Congress Campaign issued a statement regarding the continued assault on Minnesota mining jobs by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in which the Agency proposes a rejection of the Minnesota State Implementation Plan put forward by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for upgrading taconite facilities.

The rule, which imposes an unrealistic timeline for compliance, would threaten Minnesota’s mining industry and the over 40,000 residents who depend on the mining industry for their livelihood.

“The silence from the DFL and Mr. Nolan on this issue has been deafening, and without surprise. On August 13, two days before the EPA’s rule was announced, Twin Cities–based Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness publically opposed the state plan and mining jobs in Minnesota,” said Michael Bars, Cravaack’s Press Secretary.

This isn’t about whether mining should be regulated. It’s about whether the MPCA’s regulations should be applied, especially considering the fact that this doesn’t affect anyone outside of Minnesota.

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals, the next most powerful court behind the Supreme Court, has issued its ruling.

Rick Nolan is losing the mining vote bigtime because he’s too tied with militant environmentalist organizations like Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness.

Nolan isn’t pro-mining because the militant environmentalists won’t let him be pro-mining.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

3 Responses to “Chip Cravaack vs. the EPA”

  • walter hanson says:

    Looks like Chip will win with a comfortable margin of victory.

    And just think with fresh leadership in the EPA next January Chip won’t have to waste time fighting the EPA and can focus on other things.

    Walter Hanson
    Minneapolis, MN

  • eric z says:

    I like the EPA. It has been a positive force for years. It has been active in enforcing the Clean Air Act, and on trying its best to assure water quality. If you pose that choice, the clear answer, go with the EPA. It has proven itself.

  • Gary Gross says:

    The EPA hasn’t been a positive force. When in doubt (and even when it isn’t), it’s sided with environmentalists rather than attempting to balance the need for inexpensive electrical power with the desire to not pollute.

    President Obama’s EPA isn’t interested in weighing things in this balance. This administration’s decisions are driving up the cost of electricity and home heating bills.

Leave a Reply