What he does is conflate not very controversial iron and steel projects with a very controversial sulfide copper mining project. Then he phrases a poll question: "Do you support responsible expansion of precious and strategic metal mining operations in MN?" The choices are yes, no, and not sure. My gosh, most people are for responsible operations of any kind, but is the Poly Met project a responsible operation?
Rep. Cravaack implies it is because a panel he assembled says "Mining without harm is the only way to build a sustainable, responsible minerals-exploration industry in northern Minnesota." One, he doesn't say if the panel stated if the PolyMet project would be without harm. Two, he doesn't say in the email or the web page who is on the panel. Did it include town boards who will have to maintain the limited weight roads damaged by heavy equipment? Did it include the Indian tribes who say wild rice yields will be adversely affected? Did it include all the guides and outfitters who will see their business evaporate?
Let's draw the curtain aside and look at who's supporting this project and another sulfide mining project. Tony Hayward, CEO of BP when the Deep Horizon oil rig blew up, was hired as the "executive expert in charge of environment and safety" for Glencoe, one of the backers of the PolyMet project. Twin Metals is proposing a sulfide mine near the Boundary Waters Canoe Area; it has hired URS Corporation to do an environmental impact study. URS Corporation declared the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis safe six months before it collapsed. URS cut corners because it was too expensive to do a proper job. See "Proposed mining operations get their environmental advice from strange quarters" by C. A. Arneson in MPR News. I recommend that you follow all the links you can, especially to Don Shelby's article at http://www.minnpost.com/donshelby/2011/07/26/30314/remember_bps_tony_hayward_hes_trying_to_get_his_life_back_in_northern_minnesota.
"It is by this superior knowledge of [the merchants and manufacturers] own interest that they have frequently imposed upon [the country gentleman's, often a member of Parliament] generosity, and persuaded him to give up both his own interest and that of the public, from a very simple but honest conviction, that their interest, and not his, was the interest of the public." - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
