Turning the farce of an “environmental review” into “pleasing the environmental base,” the EPA has again invited individuals who seem to have a passionate distaste for mining and industrial processes to an EPA sponsored hard-rock mining conference. Recall a previous post (click through to the American Spectator) at Resourceful Earth documenting a certain mining activist relied upon to produce “studies” that inevitably conclude that mining is a dangerous scourge on the earth:
Yet environmental activists have urged the EPA to preemptively deny a permit for the Pebble Mine before it has even been applied for. To support this absurd proposition they rely on environmentalists masquerading as objective scientists, who produce reports that environmental advocacy groups then use to frighten the public in order to gain support for their cause.
Consider a report being used to discredit the idea that waste from the mine can be effectively contained. One of the authors is Dr. Ann Maest, a geoscientist known for her consulting work on behalf of organizations that oppose mining and oil drilling. Just a few months ago, she was caught on camera with a trial lawyer, apparently working out a plan to manufacture evidence of pollution for a lawsuit by the government of Ecuador against Chevron. She remains silent as a lawyer comments that the scientific report they have been working on is “just a bunch of smoke and mirrors and bull-****.”
Astonishingly, this “scientist” regularly provides consulting work for the government — including regarding Pebble — and is a member in good standing of the National Academy of Sciences. Can you imagine the outrage if the situation was reversed, and industry leaders were caught covering up evidence of scientific harm from pollution?
Seriously — just imagine — the enviro-crafted media outrage if a respected industry affiliated mining expert was caught on tape working with someone who openly acknowledged that the “reports” they were working on were nothing more than “smoke and mirrors and bull-****” to justify a conclusion that aligns with their political beliefs. And yet, when the situation is reversed it seems that this is acceptable behavior. Below is a screenshot of the agenda: