<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Mining-law revamp could put millions of public acres up for sale]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by David Roberts http://www.grist.org/article/land-sale/ Thu, 17 Nov 2005 05:20:57 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/land-sale/1 More on this subject

Kewpie Wilson has a good piece on this at Truthout, and Ellen Miller follows up with a post specifically on Pombo's ties to industry. Here's the bulk:Not surprising, Pombo received $24,159 from the mining industry, $33,750 from the timber and forestry products industry, and $43,000 from developers and the construction industry in 2004.  (Center for Responsive Politics) This wasn't the first time Pombo sought to help private developers with public lands. He threw his support behind the logging industry's so-called Healthy Forest Initiative that opened 20 million acres of forest to logging while making it much harder for environmentalists to oppose logging. (San Francisco Chronicle, 5/3/04)  

Mining and logging companies weren't the only companies at the door, Pombo has provided assistance to others in the energy sector. For instance, he took $13,000 from groups invested in the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration weeks before pushing the legislation to be included in the energy bill. (Tracy Press, 10/8/05)

In addition, after receiving $38,250 from the electric utilities industry in 2004, Pombo published a 33-page report supporting President Bush's plans to loosen mercury emissions rules allowing more mercury pollution into the air and water. (Center for Responsive Politics; House Resources Committee)

Finally, and we definitely saved the best for last, since 2003, Pombo has received $13,000 from Chevron. Chevron was the key competitor of a Chinese firm to purchase Unocal in mid-2005, and Pombo was a key ally of Chevron during the fight over who would purchase the oil and gas giant. Pombo let Chevron write a letter from him to Treasury Secretary John Snow in support of Chevron's bid and denouncing the Chinese attempted takeover.  (Center for Responsive Politics; Energy Bulletin, 7/7/05; Roll Call, 6/29/05)

]]> More on this subject

Kewpie Wilson has a good piece on this at Truthout, and Ellen Miller follows up with a post specifically on Pombo's ties to industry. Here's the bulk:Not surprising, Pombo received $24,159 from the mining industry, $33,750 from the timber and forestry products industry, and $43,000 from developers and the construction industry in 2004.  (Center for Responsive Politics) This wasn't the first time Pombo sought to help private developers with public lands. He threw his support behind the logging industry's so-called Healthy Forest Initiative that opened 20 million acres of forest to logging while making it much harder for environmentalists to oppose logging. (San Francisco Chronicle, 5/3/04)  

Mining and logging companies weren't the only companies at the door, Pombo has provided assistance to others in the energy sector. For instance, he took $13,000 from groups invested in the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration weeks before pushing the legislation to be included in the energy bill. (Tracy Press, 10/8/05)

In addition, after receiving $38,250 from the electric utilities industry in 2004, Pombo published a 33-page report supporting President Bush's plans to loosen mercury emissions rules allowing more mercury pollution into the air and water. (Center for Responsive Politics; House Resources Committee)

Finally, and we definitely saved the best for last, since 2003, Pombo has received $13,000 from Chevron. Chevron was the key competitor of a Chinese firm to purchase Unocal in mid-2005, and Pombo was a key ally of Chevron during the fight over who would purchase the oil and gas giant. Pombo let Chevron write a letter from him to Treasury Secretary John Snow in support of Chevron's bid and denouncing the Chinese attempted takeover.  (Center for Responsive Politics; Energy Bulletin, 7/7/05; Roll Call, 6/29/05)

]]> Comment #2 by jdhlax http://www.grist.org/article/land-sale/ Thu, 17 Nov 2005 11:57:00 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/land-sale/2 Relativity

Pombo is the worst of the worst, the most ecologically harmful and dangerous person in Congress.  He represents an area about 80 miles east of San Francisco in the San Joaquin Valley.  Outside of our own districts, enviros nationally should target him for removal next year, which should be a top electoral priority.

]]> Relativity

Pombo is the worst of the worst, the most ecologically harmful and dangerous person in Congress.  He represents an area about 80 miles east of San Francisco in the San Joaquin Valley.  Outside of our own districts, enviros nationally should target him for removal next year, which should be a top electoral priority.

]]> Comment #3 by emma snacker http://www.grist.org/article/land-sale/ Tue, 22 Nov 2005 03:44:27 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/land-sale/3 serious threat here

There has been a fair amount of discussion over at dailyKos on this for the last week or so. Here's a link to diary. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/20/234332/50
down in the comments are some other links to previous diaries.
Lots of info in one place, and some to action pages on various websites.
I will link this story next time I am over there.
dKos is not real strong on environment, but getting better lately, as the politics of it become more evident.



]]> serious threat here

There has been a fair amount of discussion over at dailyKos on this for the last week or so. Here's a link to diary. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/20/234332/50
down in the comments are some other links to previous diaries.
Lots of info in one place, and some to action pages on various websites.
I will link this story next time I am over there.
dKos is not real strong on environment, but getting better lately, as the politics of it become more evident.



]]> Comment #4 by Storm Dragon http://www.grist.org/article/land-sale/ Mon, 28 Nov 2005 09:48:25 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/land-sale/4 Really!

I have long thought that the 1872 Mining Act needed to be revised, but this is ridiculous!

]]> Really!

I have long thought that the 1872 Mining Act needed to be revised, but this is ridiculous!

]]>