Conservation Minnesota says their priorities are your priorities. They’ve put this survey together, theoretically to record Minnesotans’ opinions. I highly recommend you do that. Here’s a sampling of their questions:

Protecting lakes and rivers from sulfide mining pollution.
Replacing dirty coal with clean, renewable energy.
Investing in energy saving transit and transportation systems.

I don’t believe that Conservation Minnesota is that interested in hearing from all Minnesotans. Rather, I think they only want to hear from Minnesotans that agree with them.

Conservation Minnesota hasn’t hesitated in lying about the ‘dangers’ of precious metal mining. Here’s one of their lies:

Sulfide mines have a long record of polluting surrounding lakes, rivers, streams and groundwater with mercury, acid mine drainage, and toxic metals. Mines proposed in Minnesota would pose risks to some of our most important water resources like Lake Superior and the Boundary Waters.

That’s BS. Conservation Minnesota knows it’s BS. PolyMet and Twin Metals are south of the continental divide in northern Minnesota. The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, aka the BWCAW, is north of the continental divide in northern Minnesota.

Waters on the south side of the continental divide flow south. Waters on the north side flow north. That means it’s imposssible for the water from the PolyMet and Twin Metals mines to ever flow into the BWCAW.

The dirty little secret (actually, it isn’t that secret anymore) is that the DFL can’t survive without organizations like Conservation Minnesota writing lots of checks to their campaigns. Gov. Dayton is, in fact, in a difficult position because he wants to keep the greenies on his side without pissing the miners off too much.

Conservation Minnesota’s impact, along with the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, aka MCEA, and the Minnesota Environmental Partnership, aka the MEP, isn’t just in writing checks. They’re part of the DFL’s GOTV operation during the election and their lobbyists when the legislature is in session. Without their muscle, Gov. Dayton and the DFL would be in a difficult position electorally.

If conservatives don’t take the time to fill out this survey, they’ll be giving the DFL’s special interest allies a huge political advantage. The survey only has 12 questions so it isn’t a major time investment.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

4 Responses to “A survey worth taking”

  • SamDaniel says:

    Thats a great survey. A survey is worth it in knowing people’s opinion and to improve your work.

  • Frank Pafko says:

    While I agree that Polymet and Twin Metals mines can be undertaken without serious pollution to the adjacent waters, you may wish to write a correction to this post. The Polymet mine, east of Hoyt Lakes, would be adjacent to the Partridge River, which is in the Lake Superior drainage. However, The proposed Twin Metals underground mine is located adjacent (south ) of Birch Lake and the South Kawishiwi River. This river does flow north into Basswood Lake and the BWCA.

    Conservation Minnesota fails to point out the lack of noticeable water pollution from a real world test. SE of the proposed Twin Metals site, also adjacent to Birch Lake, is the Dunka iron ore open pit mine. This mining operation, for over a half century,has needed to remove sulfide bearing rock to get to the iron ore. Rainwater has been leaching through these rock piles without treatment the entire time. While elevated metals are found in the runoff, downstream lakes have not been polluted as has been implied would happen from “sulfide mining”.

    This has been submitted for your consideration, you do not need to publish this comment.

  • JJ says:

    I don’t believe the survey is all that great considering the slant of the questions. The survey doesn’t give you options for extent and basically all the questions are more or less along the lines of do you want what we’re supporting or do you want to kill puppies? I find question 7 especially interesting in that it asks if you want to remove toxic chemicals from food packaging and consumer products, but then when you are asked to rank the top priority the question seems to have been about saving the children from toxic chemicals (the summary became “Protecting children from toxic chemicals.” The best part of the survey was being able to disagree with replacing “dirty coal.”

  • Gary Gross says:

    JJ, the survey is worth knowing about because we need to expose the DFL’s agenda.

Leave a Reply