Re: "Let's be realistic . . . ."No such thing amongst
the tiny cabal of radical greenies that will surely post their snarky comments
suggesting it IS realistic to turn the entire Intermountain West into an
off-limits petting zoo for their back-East and Left-coast overlords.A rigidly enforced leftist orthodoxy has produced a great dearth of realistic
thinking among liberals, academics, and assorted other
"progressives."And, its killing America.
The problem, Mr. South, is that there are many contrary opinions as to what
"responsible" use entails. Figure out how to resolve that definition
amongst everyone and you may be eligible for a Nobel Prize.
What is responsible use?What might seem "responsible" today
might actually result in polluted water, destroyed lands, dirty air, etc
tomorrow. In other words, completely irresponsible use of the land.I
mean, just look, in the 50s many folks considered experimenting on desert lands
in Nevada using the A-bomb as "responsible." Ask down winders in St.
George how that worked out for them.Lets get off big oil and get
working to more progressive and environmentally safe solutions.
Nothing is prohibiting responsible use.
The letter writer doesn't get it. The earth does not exist for our
unlimited, insatiable consumption. Also, there is no such thing as multiple use;
just multiple ways to destroy pristine landscapes. Similarly, responsible energy
extraction is a misnomer because damage to world-class landscapes is permanent
and irreversible, and only erodes the boundaries between nature and civilization
to where they become indistinguishable. We don't need more oil. We need to
use less of it. We dodged a bullet when Romney lost the election because
repairing the econmomy at the expense of the natural world would have been too
high a price to pay. With the climate events we are witnessing, we are already
paying a premium for our past and present greed and ignorance. Don't we
The impacts of most energy extraction (except open-pit mining) are in fact
temporary and reversible. If that were not true, no one could live in much of
Los Angeles and there would not be orchards and vineyards in large parts of
California's central valley.We do in fact need more oil.
It's what fuels the economies of the world right now, and the world is
growing. We are, in fact, using less of it (per use) as technologies increase
efficiency.Oil and gas production has less impact on the land than
building a house. There is no substantiated tie between the "climate events
we are witnessing" and CO2. Yes, we do learn, at least when
@Demo Dave The earth does not exist for a small group of elitists
with lots of free time to enjoy "pristine landscapes", whatever that is.
The earth must provide seven going on ten billion people with food, water,
shelter, and energy. If "pristine landscapes" must be sacrificed to do
that, so be it.
Corn DogNew York, NY said: The earth does not exist for a small group of
elitists with lots of free time to enjoy "pristine landscapes", whatever
that is. The earth must provide seven going on ten billion people with food,
water, shelter, and energy. If "pristine landscapes" must be sacrificed
to do that, so be it.So a guy who lives in one of the most densely
populated area in the US says "pristine landscapes", whatever that
is."come on out west and I'll show you.You also say:
If "pristine landscapes" must be sacrificed to do that, so be it."
New York is NOT what the people of Utah think we should aspire to, but hey enjoy
you pristine city.