Environmentalists Are Suing This Coal Mine For A Reason That’ll Make Hillary And Obama Proud

Tree-hugging, granola-eating hippies. Environmentalists that are more concerned about a tree, a whale, or a squirrel over the well-being, safety, and security of human beings drive me bananas.

But, that is the world we live in.

And these people are suing the Trump administration for taking their trees…less than 3 square miles of trees.

According to The Daily Caller:

Environmental groups are suing the Trump administration to stop a coal mine expansion into Colorado’s Gunnison National Forest to recover 17 million tons of coal on 1,720 acres, less than 3 square miles.

“The Trump administration’s dangerous decision will harm public health and destroy some of Colorado’s most pristine forests,” Center for Biological Diversity attorney Allison Melton said in a statement. “Arch Coal already has a decade’s worth of coal under lease at this mine. It’s senseless to sacrifice these public lands so more carbon pollution can be spewed into the atmosphere.”

It is less than three square miles, folks. For 17 million tons of coal.

Maybe we should rely on the Middle East or North Korea for energy alternatives so you can have your 2.8 square miles of trees.

Yeah, that is a good idea. Because, after all, our concern should be for squirrels…and not the energy and security of millions of Americans.

Expanding the West Elk coal mine was first proposed by then-Colorado Gov. Bill Owens in 2006. Owens included the proposal to the Department of Agriculture (USDA) in a petition to allow Colorado to develop a state-specific Roadless Rule that regulates and protects 4.2 million acres of roadless areas in National Forest System lands.

The coal mine’s expansion is an exception to the Colorado’s Roadless Rule, and it allows temporary roads to be built through a part of Gunnison National Forest for the purposes of the coal mine.

“The 2012 Colorado Roadless Rule was developed in a highly collaborative manner. Five formal comment periods were held, which included 27 public meetings and resulted in about 312,000 comments,” the USFS approval for the coal mine says.

This environmental group is upset because they accuse “the USFS of downplaying the coal min’s population, ignoring the mine’s impact on wildlife.”

What do you think of this?

Source: The Federalist Papers

Source: The Federalist Papers

more recommended stories

%d bloggers like this: