 |
LETTER ARCHIVE 2001
October 30,
2001
Letters
to the Editor, Los Angeles Times
Dear Editor:The mining industry
agrees with your call for mining law reform ("Negotiating
Away the Environment," Oct. 30), but saying that laws governing
mining on federal lands are "virtually unchanged from 1879,"
is simply untrue.
October
30, 2001
Letters
to the Editor, Arizona Daily Star
Dear Editor: Your repeated assertions
that action by the Bureau of Land Management to amend hardrock
mining rules somehow weakened environmental regulations is a
blatant falsehood ("Corporate Welfare," Oct. 30).
October
30, 2001
Letters
to the Editor, The New York Times
Dear Editor:The mining industry
agrees that the public needs to pay attention to the debate over
environmental regulations, ("More Environmental Rollbacks,"
Oct. 29), but they need to be told the whole truth.
October
5, 2001
Letters
Editor, The Washington Post
Dear Editor,
Your article about utility plant emissions may have left your
readers with the mistaken impression that there is a definite
correlation between these plants and human health.
August 24, 2001
Letters
to the Editor, An Antonio News-Express
We agree with the headline of your August 24
editorial, "Miners Should Pay Royalties," however the
text of the article is jam-packed with one error after another.
August 24, 2001
Letters
to the Editor, New York Times
The mining industry agrees with your appeal
for mining law reform ("Gold Miners Eager for Bush to Roll
Back Clinton Rules," Aug. 16), but your statement "the
Mining Law does not require mining companies to share their gains
with federal taxpayers," is completely untrue.
June 18, 2001
Letters
to the Editor, Seattle Post Intelligencer
Your "Mining in the West" series (June
11-14, 2001) blatantly omits any mention of steps taken by the
mining industry to reform the General Mining Law of 1872, and
improve the Section 3809 regulations governing hardrock mining
on public lands.
May 2, 2001
Letter
to the Editor, The Washington Post
Your recommendation that we "mine in
areas already open" ("Keep the Roadless Rule,"
May 2) is counsel from the idealists' point of view. Fencing
off 60 million acres of our country's national forest in the
name of environmental protection may seem like a good idea, but
the cold, hard truth is that America's mineral resources are
where the Good Lord put them.
April
24, 2001
Letter
to the Editor, Newsweek
In your article, "W's
Green War," (April 23, 2001), you incorrectly characterize
one of President Bush's recent moves saying he "suspended
a rule controlling toxic run-off from mining sites." All
run-off from mine sites have been - and continue to be - strictly
regulated on federal, state, and private lands through the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Clean Water Act
as well as numerous state laws and regulations protecting ground
water resources.
March 12, 2001
Letter
to the Editor, The Washington Post
Your editorial, "The
Warming Debate" (March 9), hit the nail on the head regarding
the contradiction between regulating carbon dioxide on the one
hand and delivering the nation a balanced energy plan on the
other.
February
28, 2001
Letter
to the Editor, The Washington Post
While your article, "As Coal's Fortunes
Climb, Mountains Tremble in W. Va." (2/25/01), illustrated
the controversy surrounding mountaintop mining in the state,
it painted a far bleaker picture of what is actually occurring.
January 31, 2001
Letter
to the Editor, USA Today
Your article, "Cheaper,
Dirty, and Still King" (1/25/01), correctly points out that
coal provides over 50 percent of America's electricity nationwide
and remains the cheapest fuel for power production, but you also
raise environmental concerns. Your readers should know there
have been very substantial reductions in the environmental impact
of coal use.
January
9, 2001
Letter
to the Editor, The New York Times
The assumption that Interior
Secretary Bruce Babbitt could not get the Congress to reform
the mining laws is incorrect ("The Death of a River Looms
Over Choice for Interior Post," Jan. 7). In fact, just the
opposite is true.
|
