Recently a lone writer from Big Bay sent out, to undisclosed recipients, two of his short articles about the failure of environmentalism and in particular accused Save the Wild U.P. of lying in some of its outreach material. If you received such a message from Charles Glossenger, this response is for you.

Last fall Mr. Glossenger embarked on what he characterized as a two-month investigation of the Eagle Project (mine and mill), researching the “spin” put on economic projections by Lundin Mining (exaggerated, he said), the user-unfriendly nature of the Community Environmental Monitoring Program’s website (maintained by Superior Watershed Partnership), and the accusations of environmental pollution at the Eagle Mine and Humboldt Mill (there is no pollution, he concluded). The reports “for everyone” that came out of this investigation were shared with some SWUP Board members, among others. The reports were reasoned and readable, like the Letters to the Editor that Mr. Glossenger has written from time to time, especially on CR 595. He acknowledged that discussions of technical data and permits often led to disagreements; he did not argue that the company, the regulators, or the critics were deceitful, fraudulent, or lying in disagreeing with one another.

The latest articles sent by Mr. Glossenger in March 2016 are different. He has now drifted into attack mode against environmental organizations, from the large national ones (NWF, TNC, Sierra Club) to the smaller grassroots ones, like SWUP. They have apparently failed to change the world in any measurable way, whether on climate change or the size of individual ecological footprints. SWUP, he claims, is a small elitist clique prone to lying, and its actions have had no impact on sulfide mining. In his wild accusations he has undermined his own credibility as a commentator. Apparently he can not stand being ignored, and has broadcast his unhappiness far and wide.

SWUP has evolved into the most hard-hitting, thorough and factually correct critic of state permits related to mining, whether dealing with water discharge, mining applications, or leasing of state land. Hundreds of hours have gone into researching and writing public commentary on these permits (the Aquila Back Forty commentary alone was 40+ pages), and hundreds more into educational forums and hikes. To no effect? If Eagle Mine is a clean, small, and progressive operation, as Mr. Glossenger contends, it is due in part to the vigilance and persistence of its critics, who have not gone away. Similarly, the MDEQ knows that its every move is being watched, and has worked together with local environmental stakeholders to improve communication; they even attend some SWUP events. SWUP has thousands of supporters on its listserv for action alerts (yes, you read that right, thousands), and has engaged dozens of volunteers and student leaders in its past work.

The SWUP Board will not be responding to Mr. Glossenger directly, but if any of you SWUP readers/supporters have questions, please feel free to contact a Board member or leave a message on the website.