Skip to main content

Ad in The New York Times calling for protection of the
Grand Canyon (A larger version can be found here.)

Two years ago, faced with the prospect that a growing global market for uranium was spurring the staking of thousands of claims in lands adjacent to the Grand Canyon, the Obama administration imposed a two-year moratorium while the issue was studied. The moratorium expires next month and eco-activists are urging that it be extended on a million acres for another 20 years.

If the temporary ban is lifted, those thousands of mining claims—many of them held by foreign corporations—could be activated. And that, foes say, could ultimately cause harm to wildlife habitat, taint drinking water and spoil the beauty of the magnificent region.

Some activists, like Bobby McEnaney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, have argued that extending the moratorium would help the administration redeem itself in the eyes of environmentalists disappointed with what they view as President Obama's failure to vigorously protect wildlife, wild lands and ocean coasts from attacks by energy interests and their elected Republican mouthpieces. McEnaney takes note of a Wednesday speech by former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt that challenged the President to meet head-on the GOP's extremist assault on the environment, particularly when it comes to public lands.

Extending the mining moratorium in lands around the Grand Canyon offers a perfect opportunity for holding the line.

On May 4, 63 Congresspeople signed a letter to Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar asking that the 20-year moratorium be extended to protect the Grand Canyon from a "toxic threat":

Mining so close to the Canyon could seriously impair the region's ecosystems: wracking havoc on the landscape, drying up critical seeps and springs, disturbing fish and wildlife, and releasing toxic chemicals into the environment. With mining claims positioned so close to the Canyon and the Colorado River, a range of contaminants from heavy metals to uranium could also degrade the downstream water supply, impacting a water supply relied on by millions of Americans. Not to mention the fact that uranium mining produces permanent radioactive waste, an environmental toxin which must [be] disposed of in an urgent, safe manner.

An ad hoc coalition put together by the Pew Environment Group purchased a moratorium-promoting advertisement in The New York Times. It takes the form of an open letter to President Obama and is signed by the heads of several environmental advocacy organizations, the National Congress of American Indians, the chairpersons of two Indian tribes, the mayors of Los Angeles, Phoenix and Flagstaff, a former secretary of the Department of Energy, a former director of the National Park Service and a former director of the Bureau of Land Management, and the great-grandson of Theodore Roosevelt, who created the Grand Canyon National Monument in 1908. It became a National Park in 1919.

In 1903, on his first of many visits to the Grand Canyon, President Roosevelt gave a much-quoted speech at the Bright Angel Hotel on May 6:

Leave it as it is. You can not improve on it. The ages have been at work on it, and man can only mar it. What you can do is to keep it for your children, your children's children, and for all who come after you, as one of the great sights which every American if he can travel at all should see.

We have gotten past the stage, my fellow-citizens, when we are to be pardoned if we treat any part of our country as something to be skinned for two or three years for the use of the present generation, whether it is the forest, the water, the scenery. Whatever it is, handle it so that your children's children will get the benefit of it.

Republicans of Roosevelt's caliber are in rather short supply these days. It seems that all but a handful would transfer the rights to every inch of public land in the nation to private hands if they could figure out how. There is simply no bargaining with them. Fortunately, President Obama doesn't have to when it comes to the mining claims in question. He can just put them on the shelf until 2031. And he should.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 07:55 PM PDT.

Also republished by DK GreenRoots, Public Lands, and Baja Arizona Kossacks.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  OT but site-related: PLEASE someone tell me (6+ / 0-)

    how to get rid of that obnoxious and annoying petition widget in the upper left of the home page!!!!!!!

    The price of apathy toward public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. ~ Plato

    by jan4insight on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 08:01:18 PM PDT

    •  Click2Flash is your friend. I installed it, not (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      because of its adblocking power, but because flash based stuff is so bloated and so prone to causing browser crashes.

      Having a policy does not mean receiving care. -- Tzimisce

      by Miggles on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 08:05:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't understand what you just said. (0+ / 0-)

        What is Click2Flash?

        I have AdBlock - are you saying I have to install another software to get rid of something I don't want and never asked for? ( the snipe is at the site, not at you)

        Please expand your answer a little more, kthx.

        The price of apathy toward public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. ~ Plato

        by jan4insight on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 08:14:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't know which browser you have, but in (0+ / 0-)

          Firefox (and I think Safari) there is a plugin called Click2Flash which does not load any Flash objects unless you allow it to do so.  It lets you white list Flash from trusted sites like youtube while preventing newcomers like the little surprise in the top left of your screen from causing any damage.

          Having a policy does not mean receiving care. -- Tzimisce

          by Miggles on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 08:25:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I don't understand your answer, please expand n/t (0+ / 0-)

        The price of apathy toward public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. ~ Plato

        by jan4insight on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 08:26:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Remind me again (0+ / 0-)

    the uses of uranium. Yeah I am sure there will be those that defend the mining but we all know in our hearts why anyone would want access to this element.

    I'm an ass, my father was an ass as was his father before him. This has no bearing on the fact that I am correct.

    by LaEscapee on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 08:04:26 PM PDT

  •  In light of Fukushima and Germany, the (6+ / 0-)

    uranium mining market should be in a free fall.  These days a uranium mine has about as much future as a buggy whip factory.

    Having a policy does not mean receiving care. -- Tzimisce

    by Miggles on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 08:07:26 PM PDT

    •  You'd think but that isn't the case (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Miggles, koNko, kosta

      They took a sharp drop in response to Fukushima but have recently started to rise. Uranium was trading at $75/lb of U3O8 in Feb, dropped to $52 and has climbed back to $57.

      As soon as you have people telling other people how to live/think/behave because "god gave them authority" you effectively get dictators in funny looking hats.

      by ontheleftcoast on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 08:22:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Why so? (0+ / 0-)

      Germany did not suddenly shut-down all it's reactors; most are still running and need just as much if not more fuel if they are being used to make-up shortfalls in production for the ones shut down (I don't know if that is the case).

      And the US has far more reactors running - greatest capacity in the world, in fact.

      Commodities markets tend to be volitle and short-term and not much of an indicator of long term trends.

      At this point nuclear capacity in the world is increasing. How long that trend lasts probably will have more to do with the rate of decomissioning old plants than building new ones, which might be affected by Fukushima, but I don't see demand for nuclear fuel declining rapidly any day soon.

      And assuming uranium producion peaked and declined, the commodity price could be expected to increase, no decrease - exactly the arguement against nuclear some people make.

      What about my Daughter's future?

      by koNko on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 11:08:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well clearly, long term demand will (0+ / 0-)

        diminish.  Two and quite likely three G8 nations are going to be nuclear free within 10-15 years.  The sun is setting on the nuclear age, and regardless of any short term price fluctuations there will be far fewer reactors out there 10 years from now than there are now.  

        Having a policy does not mean receiving care. -- Tzimisce

        by Miggles on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 11:09:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not so sure about that. (0+ / 0-)

          Hopefully but if you consider the number of nukes being built and planned and the number that should be decomissioned but filing for extensions, particularly in the US, I donlt see a significant reduction on the horizon.

          And if you look at the total number of reactors in the G8, including new builds, it's quite likely the number in the G8 may actually increase.

          G8 - Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom, United States.

          If you just sum up the reactors in the US, Russia, France and Japan it pretty much excludes the possibility there will be a great change unless there is a huge investment other power sources that I'm doubtful will be made.

          I agree that the "Nuclear Rennisance" is pretty much history, but the numbers as they presently stand do not suggest a significant wind-down for decades.

          All the more reason to increase pressure on developing renuables.

          What about my Daughter's future?

          by koNko on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 12:06:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Why does Ken Salazar hold so much weight? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Heart of the Rockies

    God, when I think of the people our President could have chosen for this post!

    Not quite sure what purposes uranium are used for, although their use for nuclear purposes might perhaps be one option he might use, given the times?

    Sounding dumb here...

    Reporting LIVE from Durban @COP17 ...

    by boatsie on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 08:08:34 PM PDT

    •  Nuclear-generated electricity for one. n/t (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Heart of the Rockies, blueness, koNko

      Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 08:32:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Which raises one thorny issue (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ban nock

        The US has the world's largest Nuke capacity and is a net importer of uranium, which comes at the expense to the environment and lives to some of the exporting countries such as Niger (and the profit of some 3rd parties such as Areva/France).

        On that basis, one might suggest the be responsible and meet it's own needs for raw materials, and if it comes at an unacceptable cost, to use other means to generate power.

        And of course, that would also apply to any other nation importing uranium nothing special about the US except it's capacity.

        What about my Daughter's future?

        by koNko on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 11:15:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Barack Obama has no real feel for the environment (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      walkabout, squarewheel

      On a visceral level he doesn't get caring about nature, evidently.  Some in his cabinet obviously do, but he does not understand either the  importance of environmental protection or how close to disaster we are on climate.  Coupled with his unwillingness to fight the GOP, it leaves the door open for people like Salazar, who are in the pocket of the extraction industries.  We really miss Bruce Babbitt.

      The scientific uncertainty doesn't mean that climate change isn't actually happening.

      by Mimikatz on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 09:15:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  "Leave it as it is." (8+ / 0-)

    When TR created the GC Nat'l Monument in 1908, Arizona's territorial governor, legislature, and most chambers of commerce went ballistic. How dare he, with the swipe of his pen, set aside their minerals and resources!! Imagine what the Canyon would look like today if the boosters had their way. I doubt it would be the biggest tourism attraction -- and economic engine -- in the state.

    stay together / learn the flowers / go light - Gary Snyder

    by Mother Mags on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 08:20:00 PM PDT

  •  Federal land cannot be (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    mined raped enoung.   Be our Presisident Mr. Obama and put an end to this.

    "There's nothing in the dark that's not there when the lights are on" ~ Rod Serling

    by jwinIL14 on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 08:24:27 PM PDT

  •  Reading that TR quote (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    walkabout, Meteor Blades

    and doing a little calculations made me realize that the country pretty much did keep the Grand Canyon as it was for the generation that was TR's grandchildren, but has kind of let the side down for  the less specific "those who come after".  

    As I figure it, TR's grandchildren would be the generation of folks born in say the 1930's or so?

    So the Republicans, in good contemporary Republican fashion are doing that "extreme literal reading" thing and following TR's advice.  After all, they left the Grand Canyon alone for a few more generations of those who came after, but surely TR didn't mean ALL of those who came after...

    Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

    by a gilas girl on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 08:27:07 PM PDT

  •  does anyone care? (6+ / 0-)

    i look at the number of comments (like 7 or 8 now) and recs and i just wonder, if we care that so many natural wonders and environmental resources are at risk from us?

    A father recently published a book with world-class photographers of pictures of 100 places in the world at risk from climate change impacts. We are talking about historic places, wildlife and cultures that have existed for hundreds or thousands of years, and now they are at risk from us.

    We have a policy of bombing mountaintops that are part of ranges that existed for millions of years until we allowed mining companies to decapitate so they could pollute the air that is harming, sickening and killing us?

    Whether corporate greed or climate change, does anyone care that we are the ones that are placing so much at risk after so many of years of being safe?

    Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Mohandas K. Gandhi

    by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 08:34:00 PM PDT

  •  Marketing corporations charged with generating (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cacamp, Mimikatz

    revenue and then paying the states a percentage - having obtained all other rights - will lay claim for eminent domain and annex property "in the public interest."

    This is creeping privatization, and the dissolution of democracy is not far off - where the government will be smaller, corporate power will be absolute, and the voting public will not affect corporate elites at all.

    You think it's not a plan? When everything else has been transferred to corporations, why wouldn't they then lay claim to rights of eminent domain ?  

    We really should be very frightened, because the Federal courts will get on line to back up corporations in the shadow of the a@@holes on SCOTUS who gave us Citizens United and then reached around to itemize corporate personhood.

    This is a benevolent fascist state. We can deny it if we want to, but that's all we've got. And from my perch, it ain't so 'benevolent' at all.

  •  Babbit is a pig (11+ / 0-)

    I used to admire the fool but a couple of year ago Native American tribes in Arizona began an effort to stop a ski resort from using waste water to make false snow on a mountain that is sacred to several tribes. We didn't want our sacred mountain pissed on on a massive scale nor did we want the increased traffic and environmental distruction an elongated season would bring.

    My comment here is not about the pros and cons of the dispute it's about Bruce Babbit and the role he played.

    During the initial phase of the furror the tribes turned to Babbit for advice and support since he had long claimed to be a friend and supporter of Indian people and the environment. Ole Bruce jumped in with both feet on our side and made many good strong statements regarding respect for our religion and culture. He appeared in several venues and lent his voice to what the Tribal leaders were trying to accomplish. We appreciated him greatly.

    But then a strange thing happened; The ski resort offered him big money to become a lobbyist for their cause. Guess what? Old Bruce changed his spots in a NY minute! In one day he refuted everything he had said before and went completly anti-Indian. He denigrated our culture and religion while disrespecting our tribal leaders and the environmental activists on our side, many of whom were his long time friends. I have never seen such a display of selfserving turncoat actions by a politician in my long life.

    I know some politicians can turn their coats inside out for a buck sometimes but this was blatent hypocrisy and greed beyond words. It was sickening, breathtakingly sickening. The man is a greedy pig and there is no other way to discribe his actions.  Bruce Babbit is a pig.

    America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

    by cacamp on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 08:37:58 PM PDT

    •  ninth circuit not too good in that case either (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cacamp, Lorinda Pike, koNko

      i wrote diary on the first decision, but then they flipped on rehearing.

      Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Mohandas K. Gandhi

      by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 08:41:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yep (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cacamp, Lorinda Pike, koNko

      Thanks, it's all about show me the $$$$$$$$.$$ how sad for all on the little blue sphere hurling through space.

    •  Really sorry to hear that (0+ / 0-)

      He was a good Interior Secretary.  

      The scientific uncertainty doesn't mean that climate change isn't actually happening.

      by Mimikatz on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 09:21:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  He was deeply & directly involved (0+ / 0-)

      in development of the MSCP in San Diego County, a test case for planning in a complicated rare species region.  It was developer driven, not science based and has not succeeded in preventing ongoing losses of endangered species and their habitat.

      Many HCPs, however, are not providing adequate protection measures for the endangered species they cover. As over 350 HCPs now encompass over 30 million acres of land, in many places, HCPs have become the primary tool for balancing development and nature preservation.

      HCPs have proliferated over the past 22 years as development continues to encroach upon the landscape. While only four HCPs were approved in the 1980's, 259 HCPs were approved during the 1990's. Over 350 HCPs have now been approved, affecting over one hundred threatened or endangered species populations.

      from Defenders of Wildlife website

      I believe Babbitt was also involved in the Safe Harbor and No Surprises rules.

      The federal government is basically an insurance company with an army. Paul Krugman

      by Heart of the Rockies on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 09:51:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm no fan of Babbitt but I'd never believe (0+ / 0-)

        anything from Defenders without another source. My knee jerk reaction to any statement from Defenders is "what's in it for them" or how are they distorting the issue.

        "Don't fall or we both go." Derek Hersey 1957-1993

        by ban nock on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 05:59:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ban nock

          I think the site is somewhat pro HCPs.  I picked the quotes primarily because of the numbers.

          Having said that, I was personally and intimately involved (as a professional scientist) in the HCP "movement" in the 1990's, and I can attest to Babbitt's role, the apparent goals of the administration (facilitate commerce not protect the environment) and the sleazy politics involved. A law suit was won against a major portion of what he brokered in Southern California, and the settlement has still not been worked out over a decade later.

          The federal government is basically an insurance company with an army. Paul Krugman

          by Heart of the Rockies on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 07:31:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  There was also an issue with moneys held in trust (0+ / 0-)

      for Native Americans or owed to them. And it turned out to be a whole lot. My memory isn't so great, I thought it was billions, he shrugged it off and tried to cover up.

      I don't follow Native American issues too closely, but I know there was lots of bad blood between them and Babbitt.

      Environmentally what did Babbitt do?

      Saved Escalante Canyon, what else?

      "Don't fall or we both go." Derek Hersey 1957-1993

      by ban nock on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 05:56:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Grand Canyon ~ Sunset (3+ / 0-)

    PROUD to be a Democrat.

    by noweasels on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 08:41:29 PM PDT

  •  No. Just.. no. (2+ / 0-)

    I hiked the Canyon in 1982. Sitting on the rim watching the sunrise is one of the most amazing experiences I have ever had.

    I have no words to describe the power of that place.

    (-7.62/-7.90) .....It was their destruction. They delved too greedily and too deep... Gimli in Moria, JRR Tolkien

    by Lorinda Pike on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 09:15:23 PM PDT

  •  Republished to Public Lands, if you don't mind n/t (5+ / 0-)

    Join/follow Climate Hawks and Public Lands; @RL_Miller

    by RLMiller on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 09:17:03 PM PDT

  •  GE won't like this one bit (0+ / 0-)

    Plutocracy too long tolerated leaves democracy on the auction block, subject to the highest bidder ~ Bill Moyers

    by Lefty Coaster on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 09:37:57 PM PDT

  •  Rule for the Grand Canyon (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    For decades the rule for the Grand Canyon has been, "Take only photographs. Leave only footprints."

    There's no good reason to change it.

    It's just the same old trickle-down, on-your-own, special-interests-first, country-club, voodoo economics.

    by JayC on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 10:09:52 PM PDT

  •  Republishing (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueness, Meteor Blades, flowerfarmer

    to Baja Arizona Kossacks.

    Uranium mining was also disastrous for the Navajo who worked in the mines, including WWII vets who could not find other work.

    There is a diary about open pit mining here in the Santa Rita Mountains also worth reading.

    When shit happens, you get fertilized.

    by ramara on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 10:34:01 PM PDT

  •  Obama will not do the right thing. Count on it. (0+ / 0-)

    In every choice between large, entrenched business interests and the welfare of the American people, he has sided with the plutocracy.

    He will not change. His luxurious, plutocrat-financed retirement depends on it.

    Each time a person stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope... --RFK

    by expatjourno on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 12:59:14 AM PDT

  •  Why not just ban the claims close to the park? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ban nock

    Below is a link showing a map with the placement of the uranium claims that are subject to the moratorium.

    Unfortunately there is no scale on the map, but I pulled a map of the park from the National Park Service that does have a scale here:

    If the real issue is protecting the Canyon - why not just ban the mining within a certain distance of the park (10 miles, 20 miles, whatever is determined to be appropriate).

    I'm guessing, that for many on this board any mining is objectionable -- even if it can be done in a safe manner and away from the Canyon.

    Arizona now has some of the worst unemployment in the nation and typically only a small minority of claims are actually mined -- so my attitude towards that is lift the moratorium on those claims that can be worked without threatening the Grand Canyon.

    •  Most comments don't even seem to realize (0+ / 0-)

      that the claims aren't even in the National Park.

      From past discussions here at DK I believe the claims are held by foreign companies and the US would make very very little from them.

      I'd rather at least we mined the stuff for our own use. As koNko posted above the US is a net importer of uranium.

      My impulse on all extraction industries is that we have so much potential with reducing our demand we should go that route first. Later when we learn to use things efficiently if we still need whatever it is we are mining it will be worth much more anyway.

      Many more advantages leaving it where it is.

      I hear you on jobs though. I'd certainly be willing to pay 4 times as much for veggies to make agriculture pay a living wage to Americans.

      "Don't fall or we both go." Derek Hersey 1957-1993

      by ban nock on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 06:08:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Most are foreign, not all - 1872 Mining law issues (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ban nock

        According to the articles I read on this issue many of the companies are foreign that isn't a real issue - other than state security issues because some are Russian, and there are qualms about giving so much clout given the importance of the mineral to a country we're not on great terms with, but the leasing/royalty issue seems legitimate.

        Apparently, an 1872 mining law prohibits the federal gov't from taking royalties - that may have made sense during the Grant administration - it doesn't make sense now that we're so deeply in debt.

  •  I visited Grand Canyon 2 months ago... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ...for the only time (thus far, but I hope to return!) in my 62 years.  After first looking out at the vista from El Tovar, and then picking up my jaw, I said to my wife: "Why didn't anyone ever tell me about this 30-40 years ago, that I HAD to see this?"  

    I have seen many wonderful sights: Hawaii. The Alps. The view from Vesuvius down to Naples.  There may be vistas that compete with Grand Canyon, but I do not expect ever to see them.

    I told my 20-yr-old son to not ever pass up an opportunity to visit it. It is both unimaginable and indescribable, and photos/videos are completely incapable of doing it justice.

    On the drive from Flagstaff to the Canyon, my wife and I noticed an ugly scar on a mountain top as we drove by.  Whether it was uranium, coal, manganese, diamond or data mining, I have no idea, but it should be stopped!  

    Teddy Roosevelt may have been the king of imperialists (though arguably not much worse than every other US President of the 20th Century not named Jimmy Carter!), but his commitment to conservation has saved at least parts of our wilderness for a century.  Today's GOP would sell it all for a burning lightbulb.    

    "Slip? Upset? In Utah! Trail, no! M. Romney? Odd! Elder, an A.M.C. man, a Red-led doyen! Mormon liar that unites pupils?"

    by Obama Amabo on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 05:09:50 AM PDT

  •  Uranium mining, production and enrichment (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    should all be banned and boycotted everywhere.

    Signing a petition? That's not enough. It's not just about saving the Grand Canyon's landscape. It's about saving our environment from the contamination of the  radioactive waste products from nuclear energy production.

    We will sacrifice our livelihood to the damages of radioactive contamination anyhow, so we could as well sacrifice our lives to enforce banning of all radioactive material mining and production.

    Let's become all  "free radicals" when it comes to enabling usage of radioactive material in all technologies but medical diagnosis applications.

  •  In a sign of how much harm litigious (0+ / 0-)

    environmental groups have done when I read this diary I automatically am suspicious of the Environmental Defense Whoever they are.

    63 Congressmen signing a letter carried more weight, and anything beginning with Pew made me think twice.

    What I used to take at face value I now automatically question. The environmental movement has done itself irreparable harm with it's endless and often harmfull court cases. I have to wonder how many more people like me there are.

    "Don't fall or we both go." Derek Hersey 1957-1993

    by ban nock on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 05:43:55 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site