Farmer77 Posted December 12, 2017 Author #51 Share Posted December 12, 2017 Just now, joc said: The land belongs to the states! Not the Federal Government. The Antiquities Act gave a clear understanding that we needed to protect some things for posterity...but it also gave the Fed Gov only permission to take the bare minimum necessary to do so. It never was meant to allow any President to claim hundreds of millions of acres of land as Federal Land. IM gonna be completely transparent here. I don't give two ****s what the original intent of the act was not even a little, if it can be used to stop the development of wild lands I'm all for it. 2 minutes ago, joc said: Trump’s decision to relabel 2 million acres sounds like a lot until you realize that the Obama administration set aside 554 million acres and the George W. Bush administration set aside another 215 million acres. That makes sense in a vacuum but you have to realize that what happens on those 2 million acres isn't happening in a vacuum. Everything that happens on that acreage will have an impact on the land surrounding it. Especially downstream in locales where water runs. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+joc Posted December 12, 2017 #52 Share Posted December 12, 2017 6 minutes ago, Farmer77 said: IM gonna be completely transparent here. I don't give two ****s what the original intent of the act was not even a little, if it can be used to stop the development of wild lands I'm all for it. That makes sense in a vacuum but you have to realize that what happens on those 2 million acres isn't happening in a vacuum. Everything that happens on that acreage will have an impact on the land surrounding it. Especially downstream in locales where water runs. Well, thanks for your transparency. I happen to believe that the States own the lands and that they have the Constitutional Right to do with them what they will. Of course, you can't pollute the rivers and streams downstream....that isn't going to change. Here is a map of Fed Land Surface and Subsurface, meaning...they not only grabbed the land but also all the mineral rights to the land. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farmer77 Posted December 12, 2017 Author #53 Share Posted December 12, 2017 (edited) 17 minutes ago, joc said: Well, thanks for your transparency. I happen to believe that the States own the lands and that they have the Constitutional Right to do with them what they will. For me moving from AK to the Midwest was an alterative experience. I was a grown man at that point, a registered republican originally from the Midwest but had spent the majority of my life in AK. I'll never forget the sadness and claustrophobia as I thought "Ill bet this place used to be beautiful" over and over again as we made the last couple days of that 5k mile trek into the heart of the MW. No the fed government might not be the best possible steward of the lands but at least there the lands are likely to get locked up in bureaucracy and remain untouched. I'm not really an extremist, I like air conditioning and cars and whatnot, I just think we can have those things without needing to further spread our imprint on the earth. Oh and I really like fly fishing in pretty places! Edited December 12, 2017 by Farmer77 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+joc Posted December 12, 2017 #54 Share Posted December 12, 2017 1 minute ago, Farmer77 said: For me moving from AK to the Midwest was an alterative experience. I was a grown man at that point, a registered republican originally from the Midwest but had spent the majority of my life in AK. I'll never forget the sadness and claustrophobia as I thought "Ill bet this place used to be beautiful", over and over again was we made the last couple days of that 5k mile trek into the heart of the MW. No the fed government might not be the best possible steward of the lands but at least there they're likely to get locked up in bureaucracy and remain untouched. I'm not really an extremist, I like air conditioning and cars and whatnot, I just think we can have those things without needing to further spread our imprint on the earth. Oh and I really like fly fishing in pretty places! There are always going to be beautiful places no matter where you go....we don't need the Feds to micromanage our lands in that regard. My opinion. People have always flocked to cities....that in itself destroys the countryside...paved paradise and put up a parking lot. Some things, like the Grand Canyon...should be kept pristine...but not all places. For instance...you can drill for oil in ANWR and still not destroy the serenity and beauty of millions upon millions of acres of land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farmer77 Posted December 12, 2017 Author #55 Share Posted December 12, 2017 2 minutes ago, joc said: For instance...you can drill for oil in ANWR and still not destroy the serenity and beauty of millions upon millions of acres of land. For me a lot of the time these situations really come down to examining the worse case scenario. I know firsthand that the oil companies give serious lip service to the environmental aspects of their industry and that they have serious precautions and restrictions in place so I understand it from that point of view , but , what happens if the worse case scenario were to happen? What happens if a massive earthquake strikes and destroys the oil field? What happens if there is a terrorist attack? Can the land recover? Can the wildlife recover? Will the nation have the will to force an oil company to clean up any mess they do make in one of the most isolated places on earth? To me the risks outweigh the benefits, today. I add the qualifier today because I do believe that a true national or global emergency could change the outcome of that risk benefit analysis, but it would have to be a truly extraordinary situation. I landed on the worse case scenario argument during the beginning of the heinous Pebble Mine debate and while it has its flaws I think its workable in a common sense way in the 21st century. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+joc Posted December 12, 2017 #56 Share Posted December 12, 2017 1 hour ago, Farmer77 said: For me a lot of the time these situations really come down to examining the worse case scenario. I know firsthand that the oil companies give serious lip service to the environmental aspects of their industry and that they have serious precautions and restrictions in place so I understand it from that point of view , but , what happens if the worse case scenario were to happen? What happens if a massive earthquake strikes and destroys the oil field? What happens if there is a terrorist attack? Can the land recover? Can the wildlife recover? Will the nation have the will to force an oil company to clean up any mess they do make in one of the most isolated places on earth? To me the risks outweigh the benefits, today. I add the qualifier today because I do believe that a true national or global emergency could change the outcome of that risk benefit analysis, but it would have to be a truly extraordinary situation. I landed on the worse case scenario argument during the beginning of the heinous Pebble Mine debate and while it has its flaws I think its workable in a common sense way in the 21st century. Like the Exxon Valdez For those who don't remember: The Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred in Prince William Sound, Alaska, March 24, 1989, when Exxon Valdez, an oil tanker owned by Exxon Shipping Company, bound for Long Beach, California, struck Prince William Sound's Bligh Reef and spilled 10.8 million US gallons of crude oil over the next few days ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`` But see that whole Worse Case Scenario....that is something that needs to always be taken into one's thought process about anything. However, when Fear of the Worst Case Scenario takes control of the mind...it is a negative not an attribute. And the argument of, OMG, what if the unthinkable earthquake happens...too scary...can't allow drilling in case...omg a terrorist attack...can't risk it....is exactly that...fear based. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted December 13, 2017 #57 Share Posted December 13, 2017 hmmm .... Quote ~ 25 Years After Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, Company Still Hasn't Paid For ... https://thinkprogress.org/25-years-after-exxon-valdez-oil-spill-company-still-hasnt-pa... Jul 15, 2013 - The long-term plan for rehabilitating damaged resources has yet to be implemented a full quarter century after the Exxon Valdez oil tanker ran aground in Prince William Sound, Alaska, spewing more than 11 million gallons of crude oil into the surrounding ecosystem. According to documents released ... ~ US, Alaska End Pursuit of Additional Payout Over Exxon Valdez Oil Spill gcaptain.com/u-s-alaska-end-pursuit-of-additional-payout-over-exxon-valdez-oil-spill/ U.S., Alaska End Pursuit of Additional Payout Over Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. October 15, 2015 by Reuters. Exxon Valdez aground on Bligh Reef. Photo: NOAA. Reuters By Victoria Cavaliere. Oct 14 (Reuters) – U.S. and Alaska state officials announced on Wednesday they will no longer seek an additional $92 million from ... ~ Exxon Valdez oil spill payout 'a knife in the gut' www.smh.com.au › News › Environment After a 14-year battle, the final verdict has left plaintiffs reeling. WHEN the Exxon Valdez ran aground in 1989, Andrew Wills was a successful herring fisherman in Alaska and the owner of three canneries. The oil spill, caused when the supertanker piloted by a drunken captain ran aground in Prince William Sound, sent a ... ~ ... at least they were decent enough not to push it in from the behind ... ~ 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farmer77 Posted December 27, 2017 Author #58 Share Posted December 27, 2017 Kind of ironic that we were discussing the Exxon Valdez In Bid to Save Big Oil $900M, Trump Moves to Scrap Offshore Drilling Safety Rules Quote The rules in question were put in place following the Deepwater Horizon explosion in 2010, which killed 11 people, injured 16, and caused the worst oil spill in U.S. history. Siding with the fossil fuel industry, which has complained safety regulations are overly broad, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) has proposed scrapping or changing some major requirements, according to the Wall Street Journal. The rules to be changed include one that orders companies to take steps to prevent oil-well blowouts, part of what caused British Petroleum's (BP) Deepwater Horizon disaster. The BSEE argued that the word "safe" should be taken out of the rule, to stop regulators from "interpreting the term in a way to withhold certain drilling permits." 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farmer77 Posted January 27, 2018 Author #59 Share Posted January 27, 2018 Pebble mine is a proposed copper mine in the heart of Bristol Bay, AK home of one of the largest wild salmon runs on earth. For a short while at least there is a small reprieve on its death sentence Pebble Mine Moral Victory Quote As a result of Administrator Pruitt’s actions last summer, proponents of mining in the region were allowed to apply for a permit with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Today, after hearing directly from stakeholders and the people of Alaska, EPA is suspending its process to withdraw those proposed restrictions, leaving them in place while the Agency receives more information on the potential mine’s impact on the region’s world-class fisheries and natural resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now