NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/rec/backcoun/9133

Text File | 1992-11-21 | 4.5 KB | 95 lines

Newsgroups: rec.backcountry
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!netcomsv!credence!jeffw
From: [e-mail] (Jeff Winslow)
Subject: Re: KILL THE BEARTOOTHS!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: amazon
Organization: Credence Systems Corp. Beaverton, OR
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 07:01:39 GMT
Lines: 82

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Warford) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> "John B. Randolph" <[e-mail]> writes:

|>Yellowstone.  It is the largest expanse of alpine tundra in the lower 48.
|>It is an incredibly beautiful place - I thought more so than Yellowstone
|>itself.  The forest service, in their less-than-infinite wisdom wants to
|>open 177,000 acres to oil and gas development.

|Have you by chance been to that area.  If memory serves me right, it is
|adjacent to an area which has been raped by developers who bought large
|ranches, subdivided them and then sold them in 5-10 acre plots to all
|the Californians with big money.  Are you one of those proud landowners
|perchance?

What does that have to do with whether the area should be leased or not?

As it happens, I *have* been to the Beartooths, though some years ago.
They are a beautiful and remote alpine area, with far more in the way
of mountains than Yellowstone, although of course without the thermal
features. They're too many miles from any road to be in anybody's "backyard".
On the other hand, I have no idea just where in relation to the mountains
themselves the area proposed for leasing is, so your mileage may vary.

|     Does anybody else find it kind of ironic that even though we are the
|largest per capita consumers of petroleum and natural gas based
|products in the world we are the first to scream "NOT IN MY BACKYARD"?

So what's your point? That if someone comes forth with a plan to dam the
Grand Canyon, and local residents object, they're just being NIMBYs and
nobody should pay attention to their arguments?

|     If we all were to send in our applications and try to procur the
|leases and then refuse to sell the rights to the large oil companies
|unless they sign an agreement to explore and/or drill in a manner
|which does the least damage (minumum roads, no garbage dumps, replacement
|of topsoil, replanting, etc.) to the environment it would be more
|beneficial.

A much better idea is to buy the leases and sit on them. Period. Heh.

|oil or natural gas are going to be exploited.  Prevention of development
|is a short term win because when the pumps in the mideast start
|pumping sand instead of oil all areas of the US which contain oil
|will be developed.

You have no idea what will happen. People could develop natural gas
conversion, there may be a breakthrough in electric cars, oil and gas
might be found any number of places not as environmentally fragile as
the area under consideration, nuclear power may regain popularity, a
vast epidemic of a hitherto unknown disease may decimate world
population.  For a self-proclaimed realist, you don't display much
skepticism of your power to predict the future.

Even if the process you claim begins, the least expensive and politically
sensitive areas will be developed first. And as the oil runs out, eventually
it will become so expensive (supply and demand, right Mr. Realist?),
economically and politically, that other sources of energy will become
cheaper, and some remaining areas will not be exploited. How do you know
this area wouldn't be one of them?

|Do you actually believe that we won't postphone
|running out of oil until the last possible drop is squeezed from the
|earth?  Do you believe that the kids growing up now who are so self-
|centered that they will kill someone because they told them not to
|lean against their car or they bumped into them in the mall or they
|happen to want your car or bomber jacket will give a shit about the
|environment when we are running out of oil?

Do you believe that people like that make up the majority of voters?
And that even they will be like that when (and if) they get older?
Realism, remember.

|--jimiii (not an enviro-raper but rather an enviro-realist)

Yeah, yeah, everybody thinks he's a realist.

What I want to know is, where's your realism when the oil companies figure
they can make so much money off their find that they and their lawyers
can afford to laugh in the face of you and your "agreement"?  They might
give you a lesson in real realism.

                        Jeff Winslow