Create Account



The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
Biden admin, eco groups seeking to tear down key power source

#1

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#
[Image: review.jpg]
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#2

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?
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#3
(This post was last modified: 11-30-2023, 07:25 AM by The Real Marty. Edited 2 times in total.)

(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.
Reply

#4

(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.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#5

(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.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#6

(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.

They do?
Reply

#7

(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.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply




Users browsing this thread:
2 Guest(s)

The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.


ABOUT US
The Jungle Forums is the Jaguars' biggest fan message board. Talking about the Jags since 2006, the Jungle was the team-endorsed home of all things Jaguars.

Since 2017, the Jungle is now independent of the team but still run by the same crew. We are here to support and discuss all things Jaguars and all things Duval!