Lots of people, including some journalists, think that Sen. Bakk is pro-mining. He might be but there’s a respectable case that can be made that he’s a tepid supporter of mining. Brian Bakst’s article says that “Bakk is a leading legislative proponent of the PolyMet copper-nickel mine.” Look at what he’s done to push for making PolyMet a reality. Better yet, let’s see what Sen. Bakk hasn’t done to make PolyMet a reality.
Let’s start by determining which side Sen. Bakk is on. Bakk said “I just want to take as long as it systematically takes in order to get those permits awarded. And I should want it expedited more than anybody else.” That’s a weasel-word quote. Let’s be clear. Sen. Bakk hasn’t lifted a finger to streamline the permitting process. Likewise, Sen. Bakk hasn’t criticized Gov. Dayton for proposing another review of PolyMet, this time by the Minnesota Department of Health. Thus far, the MPCA and the DNR have required environmental impact studies. Then special interests have requested a programmatic environmental impact statement. Now, they’re pushing for the MDH to do another EIS, supposedly to determine whether PolyMet would cause any health issues.
What’s really happening is that environmental activists are using the current regulatory system to delay the building of PolyMet. Then there’s this insane statement:
[Bakk] said any actual or perceived shortcuts “could potentially weaken the state’s position in a lawsuit.” Environmental groups, who are wary of the new kind of mining, have signaled they’ll explore litigation if permits are granted.
That strains credibility. Environmental activists have their lawsuits ready to file. This isn’t a case of them waiting to see how things go before determining whether to file a lawsuit. It’s a matter of waiting for the most opportune time to file their lawsuit. I’d be surprised if they don’t have the lawsuits written. Likewise, I’d be surprised if other like-minded organizations don’t already have their friend of the court briefs written.
Why isn’t regulatory reform a priority for the DFL? This isn’t about whether these projects will get reviewed. It’s a matter of whether they’ll get reviewed into oblivion. Reviewing PolyMet for 10 years isn’t justice. It isn’t being thorough. It’s attrition through regulation and litigation. Sen. Bakk has essentially defended an unjust status quo system.
Defending a system that favors the special interests over hard-working blue collar workers isn’t justice. It’s the epitome of injustice.
Saying that Sen. Bakk is a pro-mining advocate is questionable. His inactions say otherwise.
Get serious.
Bakk backstabbed PolyMet opposition within the party he was tasked to lead.
If you backstab your supposed friends, you surely are on the side you backstabbed for.
Those so-called friends wanted to kill mining, which means they weren’t friends of the Iron Range. That’s why the poverty rate in Virginia is an immoral 24.1% and the poverty rate in Hibbing is an immoral 18.0%. The environmental activists from the Twin Cities don’t care about Iron Range families. They care about their agenda. The DFL’s environmental activist wing doesn’t want to make sure mining is done safely. They don’t want it done. Period.
People come. People go. The planet is forever on human time scales, if not astronomical ones.
Poisoning things for half a millennium, as might happen, is a high price for 350 short term jobs - for only as long as the ore bed is profitable, then exit Polymet, so nice to have known you and hope you like cleaning behind us.
Eric, I’d love seeing you say that to the Iron Range families that are hurting, especially the 24.1% of people who live in poverty. That’s assuming that PolyMet will poison the waters in the area. I don’t assume that. In fact, I assume the opposite. I’m certain that the environmentalists don’t believe that PolyMet will pollute things. I’m confident that they don’t want mining of any sort so they can turn the BWCAW into part of a UN biosphere.
Neither the DFL nor Eric Z want the Range to have good paying, private company jobs. They would rather “save” mother earth from possible pollution by making the Range residents reliant on government welfare checks instead of paychecks. Of course where will we get all the copper and nickel needed for the solar panels and wind turbines the DFL believes will save poor mother earth?
And if we are going to use the short term/long term jobs litmus test, maybe there shouldn’t be a bonding bill at the legislature. The DFL crows about all the jobs that the bonding bill creates but those are only short term jobs also. And while pollution generally isn’t a problem with the bonding bill, continued taxation and further bonding bills to keep those projects in operation is just as bad.
As for Polymet just walking away, there are things called performance and construction bonds, escrows, etc. that can and would be added to the permits so as to hold Polymet responsible for restoring the mine when it is depleted. Keep the EPA away from the site and things will probably be fine.