Sal,

Did you see the source of the above data?

Let me spell it out for you:

CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE

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

Read the wikipedia article.

Sounds like the facts they've presented could be represented as accurate and fair. So what does that mean Sal?

Why would a branch of the U.S. government say that we have the worlds largest supply of energy raw materials? But yet the liberal Democrats keep saying we can't use them because we have to conserve.

What's up with that Sal?

SP

It seems Sal’s skepticism may have been shared by a certain celebrity of some significance (say that 5 times). This afternoon I heard Greta Vansustren (phonetic), the Fox News lady, say that Mark Twain advised, “ there are lies, damned lies and statistics” but you can probably find a reporter on the internet who will claim Twain said nothing of the kind... ...So yea, what IS a girl to do? Say Sal, see if you can say statistics five times?

I'd like to know who suggests that most recoverable domestic fossil fuel products have been harvested. There are many who don't want us to drill or mine fossil fuels in this country and will say anything needed to stop drilling and mining. On the other hand, we have oil and coal companies who WANT to drill and mine. Now the miners and the driller don't like to sink a dry hole, so through carefull study they decide where they want to drill and mine. Seeing how they are using private money, not government grants {gov't grant = make the results say what the grantor wants it to say} I trust them more when they want to sink a hundred million in drilling or digging a hole in the ground.

If things continue to go as they are, in a very short time, we will be importing most of all of the natural resources we need. Mining in the country has become chocked with laws and fees to the point many miners have quit. It seems a lot of environmentalests want all mining to stop. Areas with known mineral and fuel (coal, oil and natural gas) are being closed and designated wilderness. Sometimes I wonder what the real goals are for these folk. Once this nation looses the ability to produce stratigic mresources we are doomed. Just look at WW1 and WW2. Britan was loosing the war untill the US imported the goods they needed to survive. They had limited resources. Once this nation looses the ability to provide those resources for ourselves, who do we look to to get them? China? Russa? Mexico? What happens if those countries do not want to give us resources. Or supply lines are to long and, once again, we do not have the ability to ship what we need? (Very few merchant ships are under the US flag) Once we close lands to mining or energy resouce development, we become more dependent on forign countries for survival. This issue goes way beyond the mear need to recreation on a OHV in the desert. Or closing a few old mines. Think about it.

Mike

from sal


Simple... the authors charts has the source shown in the box. Simply review those and compare to other information.... THEN you can formulate an informed rebuttal to the article. Otherwise your just an uninformed troll without a coherant counterpoint. I think it's referred to as dribble...

I heard the same prediction made in the LAST century about resources being all used up.... Guess that turned out wrong. Perhaps you can post a link to where this has been reported, since you are questioning the integrity of the author who DID post his source, while YOU did not.

Taxpayers foot the bill for environmental lawsuits November 5, 2009

By Oregon Tax News,

The federal government spends about the same amount of money funding environmental lawyers as it does to protect endangered species according to an investigation conducted by a Wyoming lawyer who defends farmers and ranchers involved in environmental lawsuits.

According to the Capital Press, Karen Budd-Falen was curious how much money the federal government paid the lawyers who initiated cases against her clients and uncovered more than $4.7 billion in taxpayer money that the government paid to environmental law firms between 2003 and 2007. That represents an average of $940 million a year, compared to $922 million spent directly on the 986 endangered and threatened species, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s annual report.

According to her research, Budd-Falen found that three environmental groups—Western Watersheds Council, Forest Guardians and the Center for Biological Diversity—filed more than 700 lawsuits against the U.S. government between 2000 and 2009.

“That money is not going into programs to protect people, wildlife, plants and animals,” Budd-Falen told the Capital Press, “but to fund more lawsuits.”

According to Budd-Falen, environmental groups are eligible for government funds under the Equal Access to Justice Act, which provides for the award of attorney fees to “prevailing parties” in cases against the government. The firms also are accessing government funds through the Judgment Fund, which is a line-item appropriation in the federal budget used for paying claims against the government.

“We tried to track the fees paid to environmental groups in certain federal courts. These guys are charging between $350 and $450 an hour in legal fees.” Budd-Falen told Now Public.

“If you just look at the raw number and say ‘why in the world is the United States paying a million dollars bankrolling them to sue us,’ well that’s what congress set up through EAJA. That’s the law, we’re bound by it,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Haws of Boise told Now Public.

Budd-Falen found in one 15-month-long case that Earthjustice Legal Foundation and the Western Environmental Law Center filed for $479,242 in attorneys’ fees.

Brian Smith, a spokesman for Earthjustice, told the Capital Press that the foundation counts on those fees because it represents groups free of charge and that if the government had been doing its job under the Bush administration, the foundation wouldn’t be so active. He believes the current Obama administration will reduce the need for environmental lawsuits.

However, Budd-Falen doubts the steady stream of lawsuits will stop, or even slow. “Why would you stop filing litigation when you can get that kind of money? They are not filing these suits to try and protect the environment. They are filing these suits to make money.”

Mike great post. Something I have been saying for a long time. Old proverb, follow the money.

Mike

Follow this link
http://westinstenv.org/sosf/2009/10/17/ ... litigants/

Follow this link http://www.pinedaleonline.com/news/2009 ... itigat.htm

Follow this link http://www.pinedaleonline.com/news/2009 ... itigat.htm

ENVIRO LITIGATION GRAVY
Ever wondered how so called environmental groups can afford to keep filing more and more lawsuits each year? You think it is because they win huge awards, well think again. Most people are unaware that these groups legal fees are reimbursed by our government under the Equal Justice Act. That is correct we the taxpayers are paying them to sue us. This means each lawsuit they file is a money maker for them. That is why most of the suits filed today actually harm the environment instead of helping. It's about the money not the environment.

From an anonamous email

Is that ok with everyone?
Should we let it continue?
What say you Greenies?
How do you defend this BS?

The Equal Access to Justice Act and the EPA have somethings in common, the original concepts were honorable but they have since been abused.

Brew