As a poster of absolutely no influence, I agree that sentiment! I suppose one would expect such an article in that mouthpiece for environmentalists, the Star Tribune, but the extreme language deployed suggests an element of desperation in the author. The headline fanfares 'catastrophe', while we are informed that the Draft Permit is 'deeply flawed'. The author then drones on about 'best practice' without explaining what that means in legislative terms. Polymet and the DNR have conducted probably the most exhaustive and bureaucratic scrutiny ever undertaken anywhere in the world for such a project. The many years that have passed are down to the fact that everything has been done within the extant legal framework. If the author wishes to change the law, then his energy should be directed towards that, not scaremongering rhetoric.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
