Obama Saves The Grand Canyon

January 15, 2012 | Filed under Energy,Environmentalism | Posted by

Okay, he didn’t really save it. But that’s how the left is spinning the news that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has placed a 20 year ban on  uranium and other mining on 1 million acres in the Grand Canyon National Park area. Salazar, who continues to believe that America’s energy future is Solar Energy, said that the ban will create jobs and keep the water supply clean. You know, the typical leftist arguments used when we neuter ourselves.

Now, not only are we becoming more and more dependent on foreign sources of oil; we’re now going to be more and more dependent on foreign sources of uranium. For those who may not know, uranium is necessary for nuclear power and nuclear power is a key component for the United Staes to be energy independent.  America’s nuclear power facilities produce about 20% of all of our energy. At this time, the United States imports 90% of it’s uranium. Ken Salazar just banned mining in an area where we were able to obtain half of what we are able to get out of the ground ourselves.

So, one might ask where are we going to get the uranium needed for our nuclear power plants? Can anyone out there say Russia? How about Kazakhstan? Not exactly friendly countries to our cause. But then again, the environmentalist fascists out there aren’t exactly concerned about American interests or energy independence. Their only concern is advancing their green, anti-oil, anti-nuclear agenda; and they’ve got a powerful ally in the White House.

As I wrote here, it will be the small, subtle things like this that will eventually destroy this country once and for all. A prospect that doesn’t concern leftists, environmentalists, or those in the White House.

Enhanced by Zemanta
« « Now there’s an all-star lineup
Huntsman reportedly out of GOP race; will endorse Romney » »

Shortlink:

Posted by on January 15, 2012.
Filed under Energy, Environmentalism.
Tagged with: • • • .
I'm not an author, lawyer, or professor. These seem to be the most common careers of bloggers these days. I'm just an average, commonsense, conservative who lives in a red state that flipped blue. America is lacking in the commonsense department. We've got plenty of lawyers and professors.

Both comments and pings are currently closed.
  • http://profiles.google.com/jinxmchue Jinx McHue

    Remember Obama’s promise to make energy prices “necessarily skyrocket.”  This is just another cog in that plan.  He hates America and her independence.  Plain and simple.

  • Commander_Chico

    Isn’t it a smart strategy to conserve resources?  Mining and drilling bans can be lifted, but once minerals are extracted and “burned,” that’s it.  Let’s burn Kazakh uranium and Saudi oil for now, we can always mine the Grand Canyon or drill ANWR later if necessary.   These complaints are from mining interests who want to make money NOW – on public land.

    And, surprise! The author of the piece from which this post is derived, Dan McGroarty, is a Washington lobbyist with the usual shadowy “issues management” firm, Carmot Strategies, which does not list its clients. He’s also the front-man for the “American Resources Policy Network,” your usual Washington advocacy group, in this case for the mining industry, with no disclosed source of funding on its website.

    You’ll have to do better than credulously recycling lobbyist propaganda.

    • Rick Caird

      You seem to be unaware that we have a balance of payments problem, now.  It is not a future problem.  I suppose you also believe it is better to save a dollar today and starve, than to spend the dollar eating today so as to maintain the strength to earn another dollar tomorrow.

    • Gmacr1

      Maybe you were asleep durring Clinton’s grand sweeping move that placed the Rocky Mountain Front off limits? It was a rich source of clean burning coal that we then started to import from, are you ready? The Chinese.

    • GarandFan

      The argument for the action wasn’t about ‘conserving resources’.

      You remind me of an employee I once supervised.  When his low production was pointed out, he replied “I’m CONSERVING MY ENERGY for the future, I don’t want to BURN OUT too soon.”

    • retired.military

      Fine theory but if we go bankrupt or disappear as a country in the meantime it is hardly worth it or if we simply wind up mining our own natural resources at that time for our chinese masters..
      Also I imagine in 40-50 years from now we will not be using fossil fuels or else they will be so fuel efficient that vehicles (not sure if there will be cars) will probably get 300 miles to the gallon.. . IN which case we not have a shitload of debt, no money, but also a bunch of then worthless deposits of oil. I could be wrong but Obama’s and the lefts track record have been proven SOOOO right so far.

      Your/Obama’s plan is brilliant Chico. No upsides and all downsides. Typical leftist babble.

    • Commander_Chico

      I’m not saying I have the ultimate answer, but I bet the issue is a little more complicated and the pros and cons more balanced than what this press release from a mining industry lobbyist says. 

      Sure, the mining industry wants to carve up the Grand Canyon National Park with their projects.  They’ll make tons of money off of it.  I have no objection to making money, but the issues should be set forth completely, not a flack babbling about “leftists and radical environmentalists” to whip up the Bubbas. 

      FYI, here’s a list of uranium mines, there’s a lot of them, not just in Russia and Kazakhstan:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_uranium_mines

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

        We went to the Grand Canyon a few years back – at one of the vista points I was able to spot an old mine shaft near the rim that the tour guide pointed out.  It was closed in the ’50s.

        It was tiny, compared to the Grand Canyon.  We’d gone to a mining museum a few days before, so I knew the building at the top of the shaft was about 50-75 feet tall.  The footprint for such a mine would be about an acre, possibly less with good management.  He pointed out the tailings pile – which didn’t look appreciably different from any other slope of rock in the Canyon.  (And there’s a LOT of it there.) 

        I’m thinking the folks in Washington have NO sense of scale about the rest of the country.  To them, the Mall is a tremendously large place, and everything is so close to everything else that making room for anything is a bureacratic and zoning nightmare - so something the size of an acre is utterly immense and a mining company excavating would have a incredible impact on the local environment.

        Funny how your sense of scale changes when you get to someplace like the Grand Canyon.  Back off a half-mile, and you wouldn’t notice it was there unless someone told you, and pointed it out. 

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

        Whoops – double post. Sorry.

    • http://profiles.google.com/rtssdorsai Jeff C

      But that is not the plan …

    • SCSIwuzzy

      Well, this resource is actually shrinking just by being left alone.  Use it while we have it, people.

  • Rick Caird

    What can be done by Salazar can be undone by the next administration. 

  • Par4Course

    He either “created or saved” it.  

    Because of his globalist views, Obama will do what is necessary to keep our country dependent on foreign energy.

  • herddog505

    TWB – Salazar, who continues to believe that America’s energy future is Solar Energy

    Hell, it’s the ONLY energy future by process of (liberal) elimination.  Let’s go over them:

    — Coal.  That’s right out due to global warming and acid rain and the ozone hole.

    — Oil.  Ditto.  Plus, it ALWAYS will be ten years to get any oil that we might find, so what’s the use?

    — Natural gas.  No, no, NO!  It pollutes the water supply due to fracking.

    — Hydro.  Absolutely not!  Think of the fishes!

    — Nuclear.  Are you kidding??? Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and Fukushima!!!*  And what shall we do with the radioactive waste?

    — Wind.  Chews up the birds and spoils the view from the Kennedy compound.

    So, all the libs will even consider is solar.  But give it a little time.  Sooner or later, some “scientists” will discover that the materials used to make solar panels are toxic, or that potential sites for solar arrays will damage the habitat of the lesser tufted horny toad, or that the cells are made by non-union labor in South Carolina, or something.

    ——

    (*) As we ALL know, nuclear power technology reached its zenith in 1975, and it’s simply impossible to build a nuclear reactor that’s safer than what could have been built then.

    • Commander_Chico

      You can say that again.  Hasn’t Obama come out in support of nuclear energy? That is one thing he should be given credit for.

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

        In a half-hearted manner, subject to revision upon further study.  (Which means, ‘will this get me votes or not?’ and will it irrevocably piss off the Green lobbies?)

        Besides, all he has to do is say he’s for ‘more study’, that should be enough to stall things for a year or five.

        You know, I think a lot of people didn’t believe Obama when he said “Under my plan, the price of energy will necessarily skyrocket.”  Just goes to show you, sometimes you CAN take a politican’s word and believe in it.

      • Commander_Chico
        • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

          And that approval process can get delayed, papers misfiled, accidentally shredded, the entire process defunded (temporarily, until we actually have a budget) - suspended for review, or even rejected because there was a misspelled word and a missing semicolon on page 470 of Appendix 4, subsection B, Paragraphs 8 through 140, “Detailed Description of Break Room Facilities, Vending Machine Models and Manufacturers, Process for Handling Rejected Payments, Refunds and Returned Product”

          C’mon, man, you know how it works.  If something isn’t ‘wanted’ by the Prez, it’ll just get stuffed away.

          • Commander_Chico

            Well right, but you’re purely speculating and I’ve provided evidence to the contrary.

          • retired.military

            You have provided SQUAT.  You said “Obama has a plan”.   Thats it.  He hasnt done anything to make it a reality.  NADA.

            When was the last nuke plant opened in the US?  1980ish???

            Your evidence is like saying Obama is trying to eliminate the national debt.  All talk and ZERO action.  Which is par for the course for liberals.   They want to talk something to death, plan something to death.  But when it comes time to put paper to action they are nowher to be seen except the picket lines trying to stop it.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoreham_Nuclear_Power_Plant 

            Just because it’s approved doesn’t mean they’ll be built to completion.
              \http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_Nuclear_Power_Plant

            (Made a great movie set for “The Abyss”, though…)

            And just because it’s built, doesn’t mean it’ll be approved to actually run.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoreham_Nuclear_Power_Plant 

            Or even allowed to run for long enough to earn back the cost of building it.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            All in all, you’ve got more faith in ‘em actually getting built than I do.  I’d sure like for it to be otherwise, but politicians are a notoriously fickle lot when it comes to nuclear power.

          • Commander_Chico

            Those examples you gave appear to be old-design plants.  After Fukushima, who wouldn’t be cautious about a nuke plant on Long Island?

            About 700 square miles around Fukushima is now contaminated. That is a tremendous loss of wealth.

            And whether a plant is economically viable is a separate question to whether the regulation prevents construction.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Re the contamination - 
             
            It’s the least of their problems in that area, and pretty minor in the first place.  Some analysts/experts are saying that there might not even be any appreciable rise.  Time will tell.  http://www.statesman.com/opinion/insight/future-cancers-from-japan-nuclear-disaster-might-be-2010697.html?viewAsSinglePage=true   And contamination ain’t forever – I would be surprised if there isn’t new construction in the ‘contaminated’ areas inside of  a year.
             
            Re Long Island – oh, but there’s such a record of tsunamis and earthquakes there – and again, if such a thing were to occur in that area, the nuke plant would be of minor concern.
             
            Pretty much any plant will be economically viable, unless the litigation during construction (and the delays which jack up the price during the construction) reach a tipping point.  I think a lot of people in the anti-nuke camp are of the “If it can’t withstand a hit by a 100 meter asteroid, it’s not safe enough!” mentality, overlooking just what ELSE would happen in the area if such a thing were to occur. 
            You can take risk mitigation to ridiculous extremes in the guise of ‘safety’ – but at some point the law of diminishing returns kicks in, and it becomes unaffordable.
             
             
             

        • retired.military

          Designs ThAT WILL NEVER BE USED IF OBAMA AND YOU LIBS HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT IT!!!!

        • herddog505

          Call me when they start breaking ground.  Then I’ll believe that Barry’s serious.  Until then, this is pap, a nice, safe thing to say because he KNOWS that it’ll never happen.  I could say that I’ll giv 100% of my pay for the next twenty to the DNC if Barry and Holder sign full confessions and turn themselves over to the US Marshals because I know that will never happen, either.

          • SCSIwuzzy

            Working in the nuclear industry, I can tell you from first hand exp, nobody has credible plans to build a new nuc unit.  Not with the current regime in Washington.
            It will take a sea change in legislature and in the executive branches before a new nuc is actually built.

          • herddog505

            Yeah, that’s about what I figured.

      • http://profiles.google.com/rtssdorsai Jeff C

        How is cutting off a domestic source of fuel supporting nuclear energy ?

      • retired.military

        Gee and umm what has he done about it.

        Squat.  Zilch.  nada.  Nothing. 

        You are good at googling.  Google where a nuclear plant is being built in the US and if you can even find one the date that it will put out its first watt of energy.

        I bet you cant find one under active construction. 

        Saying Obama is for nuclear energy it is like saying Obama is for wiping out the debt.  A lot of talk and ZERO action.  In fact it is less than zero it is going the opposite way of progress as he makes it harder not easier for nuclear power to be produced.
         

    • Hank_M

      “So, all the libs will even consider is solar.”

      And when that gets the go-ahead, we can always count on other libs, the green eco-terrorists to do all they can to stop solar from  being developed.

      A good example being the lawsuit against Brightsource Energy’s 370-megawatt Ivanpah solar energy plant in Ca.

      Gotta love our liberal friends, the absolute definition of the “I got mine and you’re not getting any” crowd.

  • herddog505

    TWB – Salazar, who continues to believe that America’s energy future is Solar Energy

    Hell, it’s the ONLY energy future by process of (liberal) elimination.  Let’s go over them:

    — Coal.  That’s right out due to global warming and acid rain and the ozone hole.

    — Oil.  Ditto.  Plus, it ALWAYS will be ten years to get any oil that we might find, so what’s the use?

    — Natural gas.  No, no, NO!  It pollutes the water supply due to fracking.

    — Hydro.  Absolutely not!  Think of the fishes!

    — Nuclear.  Are you kidding??? Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and Fukushima!!!*  And what shall we do with the radioactive waste?

    — Wind.  Chews up the birds and spoils the view from the Kennedy compound.

    So, all the libs will even consider is solar.  But give it a little time.  Sooner or later, some “scientists” will discover that the materials used to make solar panels are toxic, or that potential sites for solar arrays will damage the habitat of the lesser tufted horny toad, or that the cells are made by non-union labor in South Carolina, or something.

    ——

    (*) As we ALL know, nuclear power technology reached its zenith in 1975, and it’s simply impossible to build a nuclear reactor that’s safer than what could have been built then.

  • Hank_M

    These people cannot be voted out too soon.

    A moratorium on mining? Job creator.
    Investing in Solar companies that are going bankrupt all over the place? job creators.
    Dispensing more unemployment checks? job creators.

    Using this absurd logic, why not shut down the whole economy. We’ll have full employment.

  • ackwired

    The withdrawal order does not actually do what the writer makes it sound like it does.  The withdrawal order does NOT remove the existing uranium mining projects on these lands.  It bans new projects.

  • retired.military

    I guess Chico is getting worried about the election
    now.  Since the OWS “gress roots” movement
    fell apart (they have been pretty much out of the news for weeks now) he has
    started defending Obama again instead of bashing him for his evil wall street
    connections.

  • Brian_R_Allen

    …. 
    So, one might ask where are we going to get the uranium needed for our nuclear power plants …?

    Australia.

    Now ask me a hard one.