What do say you?

[maverick]

Is this something we should or really need to do? Do we need to drill in such a pristine location? Is opening up logging in the Tongass National Forest needed, will it not have a bigger cost to the environment and humanity in the long run?


https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate- ... ing-trump/

https://www.outsideonline.com/2418325/t ... nal-forest

[rlown]

Need fossil fuels and lumber from somewhere. Doesn't really need to be from there, but the NIMBY thing is real as there are resources in the lower states to get that.

No real infrastructure to break away from fossil fuels, and lumber is a necessity (just look around at the houses being built.)

[Wandering Daisy]

No we really do not "need" more fossil fuel sources, we just "want" them. Look at oil and gas wholesale prices right now- oil producers cannot even get enough to cover their costs, because there is a glut on the market. As for lumber for houses? There are alternatives and do we need house of 3,000 sq ft with five bathrooms for one small family? Do we "need" to drive as much as we do now?

We need enough fossil fuel to transition to renewable energy and we need some to be set aside for raw material for numerous things. There are some plastic items that are very useful and necessary. But do we need millions of plastic toys, used a few months, and thrown out? Having our economy depend on over-consumerism sucks.

I worked at a coal mine for 10 years. There ARE a lot of environmental considerations in mining and having environmentally astute people in the production is a good thing. I always felt that it was not the mining that was the environmental culprit (at least where I worked), but the burning of the fuel. It was a demand problem, environmentally. Too much to write about here, but modern mining techniques (not what has been historically done) are pretty good. Same with modern oil drilling. It is not the drilling, but the associated infrastructure like roads and the burning of the fuel that is environmentally a problem. It is not the mines, oil companies, or even government leases as the root of the problem: it is us and our overblown life style- and over population. I see a lot of environmentalism in word only; most over-use and waste about as much as red-necks. Any of us who backpack KNOW what is really necessary and what is just fluff.

Trumps last ditch selling of leases is simply politics- and the fact that politicians are in the pockets of special interests. Reform political campaigning funding! (that is another entire subject). But more important, reduce the demand and drilling goes away.

[CAMERONM]

Certainly, preserving pristine wilderness is important and many areas should be off-limits completely. But not all.
"Conservation" has never been an easy subject. Most people accept the Mammoth resort, but I am glad that the Disney Mineral King resort did not happen.
Lumbering has some value. Just look at all that area that burned between Lake Huntington and Lake Edison. That was an already heavily harvested area. The harvesting may have helped, just as those chain of artificial lakes also add some value.
But drilling, well no and no. I am convinced that we have to go full headlong into reducing carbon no matter where it comes from. This article from the recent Harvard Magazine is pretty convincing:
https://harvardmagazine.com/2020/11/fea ... thermostat

[rlown]

https://www.wri.org/blog/2020/02/greenh ... try-sector

A fun site..

A side note, Look at how much goes into building your current vehicle. Takes steel, oil, electricity, etc. Even Lithium for batteries requires the same.
To the OP's point, there are places that welcome mining, drilling and lumber harvesting, and there are places that shouldn't be touched.

[balzaccom]

I'm with Daisy on this one. We've refused to invest enough in the future, and now China, not the USA, is the global leader in renewable energy. Instead of investing in industries that inflict massive damage on the climate, we need to take that leadership back by investing in the energy if the future...not if the past.

[rlown]

Suggest your investment, P. that cruise ship you were on didn't build itself fossil-fuel free.
Where do you get the money to overhaul?

[The Other Tom]

No we really do not "need" more fossil fuel sources, we just "want" them. Look at oil and gas wholesale prices right now- oil producers cannot even get enough to cover their costs, because there is a glut on the market.

The reason there's an oil glut now is because the US uses fracking to produce oil. Fracking is a controversial process. I agree we don't need to open up new areas for oil production, now, but we may need to "later". Biden has indicated he will restrict fracking. I also agree with your comments that we need to transition to renewables so that "later" doesn't come.

[Wandering Daisy]

United States is a net oil exporter now. A large percentage of our coal goes to China, needing rail transportation to west coast shipping, then sea transport to China. Much of our logging is also export to Asia. Our domestic produced oil goes into a worldwide pot. Oil companies are international companies, with no loyalty to any country. With the permafrost melting I do not even know how the oil companies will be able to effectively work the area they would be leasing.

Our wildernesses are our national treasures! Do we want to destroy them just for a quick buck? Federal leases are ways to generate money; for what? another stupid war we do not need to be in? a political slush fund? tit-for-tat political favors? or simply a fulfillment of a political promise that would be handy for another election four years down the road? Wilderness is more than just something nice to look at: they are critical to many forms of life. So why take the chance if it is not even needed?

[balzaccom]

Preaching to the choir, here Daisy. I couldn't agree more.