The thing is, the power source is what tree huggers consider "Green Energy"
Court filings reveal secret agreement between Biden admin, eco groups seeking to tear down key power source
'The U.S. Government chose for months to hold secret negotiations and refused to share any details with us,' lead industry groups say in joint statement
A group of House lawmakers representing the Pacific Northwest made public a
court-approved confidential mediation between the Biden administration and environmental groups pushing to remove four hydroelectric dams in Washington to protect salmon.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/court-f...wer-source#
This is not a good article. Is the Biden administration siding with the salmon or with the dams? Article doesn't say. Which administrative unit is doing this? Article doesn't say. Article says the plaintiff wanted dams "breached" but doesn't say if this was to be permanent or not, or full or partial.
Basically all the article says is "Republicans criticize Democrats for negotiating in secret." Ok. So what?
(11-29-2023, 09:06 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]This is not a good article. Is the Biden administration siding with the salmon or with the dams? Article doesn't say. Which administrative unit is doing this? Article doesn't say. Article says the plaintiff wanted dams "breached" but doesn't say if this was to be permanent or not, or full or partial.
Basically all the article says is "Republicans criticize Democrats for negotiating in secret." Ok. So what?
What I get from reading that article is that the questions you ask cannot be answered
because the negotiations were carried out in secret. And that's the point.
I agree with the critics. They shouldn't have negotiated in secret and they shouldn't have left out so many other stakeholders.
(11-30-2023, 07:12 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (11-29-2023, 09:06 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]This is not a good article. Is the Biden administration siding with the salmon or with the dams? Article doesn't say. Which administrative unit is doing this? Article doesn't say. Article says the plaintiff wanted dams "breached" but doesn't say if this was to be permanent or not, or full or partial.
Basically all the article says is "Republicans criticize Democrats for negotiating in secret." Ok. So what?
What I get from reading that article is that the questions you ask cannot be answered because the negotiations were carried out in secret. And that's the point.
I agree with the critics. They shouldn't have negotiated in secret and they shouldn't have left out so many other stakeholders.
The negotiations are secret because they haven't been finalized yet. Obviously any agreement they make would have to be brought to a judge, and at that point any interested party who disagrees with the outcome can start their own suit. Government agents negotiate in secret all the time.
(11-30-2023, 08:16 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (11-30-2023, 07:12 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]What I get from reading that article is that the questions you ask cannot be answered because the negotiations were carried out in secret. And that's the point.
I agree with the critics. They shouldn't have negotiated in secret and they shouldn't have left out so many other stakeholders.
The negotiations are secret because they haven't been finalized yet. Obviously any agreement they make would have to be brought to a judge, and at that point any interested party who disagrees with the outcome can start their own suit. Government agents negotiate in secret all the time.
How would you feel if the government negotiated in secret to remove the Matthews Bridge? Or to sell the JEA?
What could possibly be the reason they wanted to negotiate this in secret?
I admit I don't know any more about this situation other than what I read in this one article, but it seems to me the critics have a very good point about such a thing being negotiated in secret, leaving out a whole bunch of people who would be affected by the removal of these dams.
(11-30-2023, 09:27 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (11-30-2023, 08:16 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The negotiations are secret because they haven't been finalized yet. Obviously any agreement they make would have to be brought to a judge, and at that point any interested party who disagrees with the outcome can start their own suit. Government agents negotiate in secret all the time.
How would you feel if the government negotiated in secret to remove the Matthews Bridge? Or to sell the JEA?
What could possibly be the reason they wanted to negotiate this in secret?
I admit I don't know any more about this situation other than what I read in this one article, but it seems to me the critics have a very good point about such a thing being negotiated in secret, leaving out a whole bunch of people who would be affected by the removal of these dams.
They did negotiate in secret to sell the JEA and that wasn't the problem. The problem was that the public statements they did make about it were fraudulent.