... you may want to get involved and write a few letters because drilling applications were filed last week. I don't need to tell this group how diverse and sensitive this habitat is.
I prefer we not drill in an area I frequent for outdoor activities, especially my fall color trips. I understand the need for oil and that I'm an unfortunate user myself, sometimes a lot on long trips. Unfortunately the there is no right way in that area, nor would it be done if it existed.
I've seen enough fragmented habitat, human suffering, habitat loss, associated wildlife decline, and really senseless development in sensitive places that are lost forever under the guise that because we use energy, we have no say in where these industrial scale developments are sited. It's completely the opposite - our lands are intended for multiple use, and industrial fracking zones, taking a million of gallons of water or so for each frack job, turn public lands into single use industrial wastelands for decades. Then who cleans it up? Our grandkids? I'm not on some crusade to stop energy development, but we have a voice and there's a process - images combined with advocacy are one of our most effective conservation tools. Consider that with the Piceance (Roan) well-developed, and a new plan to drill heavily in the Meeker area on the north Piceance, that adding Thompson Divide will turn nearly the entire northwest corner of Colorado into a gas field. Is that responsible land management?
Posted by Ron Bailey on February 5, 2013 at 11:34 PM
Well, start riding a bike and do your part to 'stop the madness'.
The old 'not in my backyard' scene plays out again. I'm not for drilling at Maroon Bells, but it can be done in areas that are sensitive and done well.
Talking Points on SG Interests’
Application to Drill in Garfield County
Here are some talking points you can draw from when speaking or writing to the Garfield
County Commissioners about SG Interests’ application to drill southwest of Sunlight Ski
Area, in the vicinity of Beaver Creek.
We encourage you to comment on this application if you reside or have financial interests
in Garfield County, or if your recreational activities would be impacted by the proposed
drilling. Comments from people who don’t have a direct interest in the matter probably
won’t be viewed favorably by the commissioners.
Please be respectful of the commissioners and the process. There are no bad guys; the
proposal is simply not in the interest of their constituents.
• The Thompson Divide is not an appropriate place for oil and gas development.
The thriving recreation and agricultural economy in the Thompson Divide has
helped to ensure vibrant and healthy local economies. These values are too
important to jeopardize with industrial development.
• The proposed drill site is located 2 miles southwest of the Sunlight ski area and
just over the hill from Marion Gulch at about 9,730 feet elevation. Drilling this
well would send hundreds of trucks (including trucks transporting huge drilling
rigs, produced water and fracking chemicals) along Grand Avenue in Glenwood
Springs and up the Fourmile Road past Sunlight Ski Area – past homes, schools
and businesses.
• An alternative access up East Divide Creek would have huge impacts as well –
requiring road reroutes or substantial improvements to 4x4 roads in critical
wildlife habitat, near rural homes and ranches, adding volume to traffic in areas
already experiencing huge amounts of drilling traffic and extending those impacts
well into backcountry areas.
• The volume of traffic necessary to drill and complete this well, and the
snowplowing necessary to preserve year round access to this drill site, will have
substantial and long-term impacts on recreation, including hunting and fishing,
resort and backcountry skiing, snowmobiling, snowshoeing, biking, and just about
every other existing use in the Thompson Divide.
• The proposed well is in the heart of sensitive wildlife habitat, being an elk calving
area and prime lynx habitat. The proposed site also sits within a Colorado River
cutthroat trout watershed, abutting or overlapping a restricted occupancy zone,
and may pose a threat to a genetically pure population of Colorado River
cutthroats.
• There are permitted water wells within 1.5-2 miles of the proposed well site.
There are grazing permittees that run cattle in the area during summer months and agricultural operations that depend upon water flowing from the area for livestock
and hay production.
• The lease on which this development is proposed was issued in violation of the
law and the applicable Forest Plan. Not only did the BLM and Forest Service fail
to undertake adequate review pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), but the agencies also issued this
lease over the top of the Sunlight Ski area – which had been permanently
withdrawn from availability for leasing. It wasn’t until advocates for protection of
the Thompson Divide brought this to the attention of the Forest Service that the
agency eliminated those portions of the lease overlapping the ski area. To date,
neither agency has rectified inadequacies associated with NEPA or the ESA. Like
most leases in the Thompson Divide, this lease was issued at a time when both the
BLM and FS leasing programs were broken.
More information on the proposed well is available here: http://garfieldcounty.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=3&event_id=82.
Thanks Jason for posting so much great info. Why not drill Maroon Bells Ron? Is that not an admission that some places are too special? The problem is we think we can draw a line around something, a National park, high altitude wilderness, or watershed and develop right up to the edge. But these are complicated, functioning ecosystems with wildlife cores and corridors, and an important role in maintaining diversity while serving as recreation hubs. Jason detailed the sensitive wildlife habitat. The question of our time is "what do we want the West to be?" And what are we going to do to shape the future?
I didn't answer the question of where would I prefer we drill? We already have sacrifice zones in the seven major gas fields of the Intermountain West. So, drill there first. The Bakken will be drilled out for oil (Lewiston, ND) for many years, sacrificed. Drill there. PA is going like crazy because there's so much gas in the Marcellus shale that's easier to get to, but that drilling is on split estates, literally in backyards and the impacts are extreme. It's a terrible situation. As for CO and WY, we need stronger leadership at BLM to direct these projects away from places that are too special, or too wild to drill. We think the West is big, but when you travel on BLM lands and see how chopped up things have become, you realize that it's disappearing rapidly. Natural gas is an extraordinarily dirty fuel to get out of the earth by fracking, some say no cleaner than coal. Bottom line is: It's up to us to be engaged and have the courage to tell industry you can't have it all - you can't have all of the public lands, you can't have all of our water, and we have a right to pass on some of our natural heritage inheritance to our kids.
Posted by Ron Bailey on February 7, 2013 at 2:20 AM
What admission? You sound like the typical confrontational tree hugger. I think people need to chill out and get the facts, not the bullshi* they so readily consume from questionable sources. Then again, I think for myself.
Not every piece of land should be off limits. Not every piece of land should be drilled. There is a balance that can be found, nurtured and maintained.
The only 'sacrifice' I'm NOT seeing are the from the folks who want everyone else to 'get out of my back yard'.
Posted by Jack Garrett on February 7, 2013 at 12:38 PM
We are getting into some politics here which can explode so I am putting a temporary "hold" on posting until Adam has a chance to look at the post and make a determination...thanks for understanding.
Rules of Conduct
NPN is strictly dedicated to the art and technique of nature photography and all conversation should pertain directly to it. While on-topic spirited debate is welcome, please keep all conversation congenial, professional and non-judgemental of other's abilities and integrity. Discussion of religion, politics/political activism or any other controversial subject that has little or nothing to do with ther art and technique of nature photography is subject to deletion without notice. We suggest that you review the basic rules of Netiquette for additional information on effectively communicating with others over the Internet. If you have any issues or concerns with any aspect of forum activity, please contact the forum moderator(s) using their email contacts at the top of the forum page. You may also contact NPN administration directly at editor@naturephotographers.net.
Jack
Posted by Dan Roberts on February 8, 2013 at 4:29 PM
The OP of this thread is by its very nature political. Based on the rules stated above this thread should not be allowed at all. Has nothing to do with photography. Is pure poilitical activism.
Posted by Stan Rose on February 24, 2013 at 12:29 PM
My, i woud have missed the original post--fortunately it's been moved here!
I agree with Dave 100%
Dan--"pure politcal activism" has EVERYTHING to do with NATURE Photography, which is what this site promotes ifyou hadn't noticed. Don't believe me? Then I suggest you start by reading up on one of the greats of the genre, a little known photographer by the name of Ansel Adams. There are many more in his footsteps.
Ron--you are setting up a strawman by telling people to ride bikes (a good idea, however...) It's like telling people to write in their cousin Louie if they're not happy with the two presidential candidates--as if that is going to change the outcome in the election. We have a growing popuation (another underlying huge problem) which will continue to pressure the massive corporations (over which we have no control) to make shoddy decisions that make the rich richer and the rest of us poorer in the long run. You talk about balance, but the balance has already been tipped! Look at an aerial view of Colorado and many other states and you can see that easily enough It's no longer about 'balance'--but saving what little we can. And when we try to do that, we're labeled with the prejorative "tree-hugger". You're right, Ron---it is madness!
What we need is a greater awareness of the destruction by a larger number of people who can then mobilize to make their voices heard--that is the purpose of Dave's call to action. Telling people to ride a bike is counterproductive unless you really do wan't to see Maroon Bells paved over next.
Posted by Stan Rose on February 24, 2013 at 12:36 PM
Incidentally I notice you that while you make an impassioned dismissal of the NIMBY argument, you never come out and say whether you are for or against the project as it is laid out--well, are you, Ron?? Lay your cards on the table.
Posted by Dan Roberts on February 24, 2013 at 4:24 PM
I generally try to stay out of these things. But sometimes one can't help oneself for whatever reason. So here goes...
I'm a technical person by trade, education, and I suppose natural bent. Consequently, for me photography is not a creative process but a technical one. I hang around forums like this in order to learn from those with more creative/artistic natures and to then incorporate those learnings into my technical process of capturing imagery. I only provide this explanation as background for what follows. Which is... I will now repay the favor by sharing my technical knowledge/perspective with some of you that either aren't so inclined or allow the emotional side of the brains to suppress the logical.
First, though it is anathema to political discussion, let me offer a few facts.
There are over seven billion people on the planet. People are big users of energy. Some examples:
- If every household in the world only consumes the equivalent electricity of one 60watt lightbulb running 24 hours/day(ten percent of the average US household), adjusted for generation/transmission efficiency that is the rough equivalent of almost 800 Million barrels of crude oil burned per year.
- If every cell phone on the planet gets fully charged once per week, that's about 100,000 barrels of crude oil equivalent per year.
In the context of climate change caused by the green house effect, there is only one truly "green" fuel currently viable. That is nuclear fissionable material. In a perfectly efficient combustion process, all forms of fuel other than hydrogen produce the same amount of CO2 to produce a given amount of usable energy output (like move a car or generate electricity). Hydrogen is worse on net because it takes more energy to produce than it returns when combusted.
Natural gas is considered to be greener than coal. But coal is typically burned in steam generation plants which are overall about 80-85 percent efficient at converting heat to electricity. Gas on the otherhand is typically burned in combustion turbine generators which are typically about 30-35 percent efficient. So twice as much BTU equivalent for the same amount of power therefore twice as much CO2 produced (just the facts).
Solar and wind energy while viable are not mobile and are substantially more costly ways of producing electricity than by burning hydrocarbons. Plus there are other downsides which will be demonstrated before the end of my dissertation.
Ok, now getting back to the topic at hand. One can assume that if one of the evil for profit megacorporations is seeking drilling permits, they have some knowledge suggesting that they will find recoverable hydrocarbons. So for the sake of argument, let's assume that there are in fact recoverable energy reserves equivalent to 1000 barrels per day of oil production. But let's also assume that due to the political activity started here on this site, federal, state, and local politicians strike a deal with the evil megacorporation that the drilling permits can be exchanged for rights to develop equivalent alternative/renewable energy production facilities on the same land. Can we all agree that would be a good thing? Is that something we can all get behind? No trucks running up and down the roads, no nasty holding ponds for waste material from wells etc. By all means, yes. Let's shout it out loud. What a victory we've achieved. Not only have we struck a blow on the side of climate change, but it is going to cost the evil megacorporation a lot more to install the solar power generation alternative than it would have cost them to drill. Ha ha ha (evil grin of our own).
What a triumph. I think I'll sit down with a nice glass of chardonay and a bean sprout sandwich on gluten free bread. And just for grins I'll look over the agreement we forced those greedy capitalists to sign. Hmmmm, what's this? The agreement requires the evil megacorporation to install the equivalent of 1000 barrels of oil per day in solar power generation. Wait this has to be a mistake, a typo. They're going to clear the land and install 5,400 acres of solar panels which is equivalent to the 1000 barrels per day. Plus another 1000 acres for "support facilities". AND they have a right of way to install a power transmission line! AND the local power company has approval to increase rates by 50 percent.
Oh, well. It was all well intended activism and is sure seemed like a good thing stopping that drilling. Just glad I was involved by internet and the solar isn't in my backyard.
Posted by Stan Rose on February 24, 2013 at 10:59 PM
Thanks for your response, Dan.
I was with you for the first half of your comment--i have a technical background myself (MS,JD). In Law school when i studied the debacle of environmental regulations I wrote a huge paper on Yucca Mountain--the king of NIMBYs. Since my father was a nuclear physicist i had factual knowlege that gave me a bit of perspective that people irrationally afraid of anything labeled "nuclear" may not have had. Facts trump emotions, no doubt about it.
It's the second half of your comment where we part ways. Besides the fact that it would never go down that way, my whole point (and Dave's??) is that there are places that should be off limits-from ALL harmful development. That's what wilderness areas have been set aside for. The area in question here may not be strictly wilderness--but as Dave point out, it is an important place. We have to draw the line somewhere.
As slight aside, I always find it disturbing that the argument in favor of development always turns to the necessity of meeting demand--as if demand is ordained by God or statistics. We can all get by with less--if we realize what it is we will lose if we don't get by with less. That is why I personally believe we have a duty as nature photographers to speak out in favor of saving our subject matter. At Great Sand Dunes NP, one of my favorite spots if you were not aware of my book on the subject, the park and it's supporters fight a yearly battle to fight the mining and drilling interests that constantly put pressure on the boundary of the park--it really is an oasis from the surrounding pollutions of all forms--light, noise etc. In the name of 'green' energy, one of the recent proposals was for massive solar panels in the heart of the valley--which would destroy a lot of the aesthetics of the place aside from the power issues. What doesn't get publicized is how many people in the valley are off the grid, and how many use solar and wind energy on the individual or small scale. It's a very significant figure. Instead, the message is "well, we have to provide energy in large quantities somehow, and solar is 'green'..." BS--it really is all about who is given the loudest voice. You may think it's paranoid to label the corporation's motives as evil--but I would argue it is the very definition of evil--putting profits ahead of what is best for the environment. We shouldn't "assume" our plea will promote deals to be cut by politicians and businessmen--we should hope our voice as the voice of reason is heard by everyone involved.
Posted by Dan Roberts on February 25, 2013 at 2:24 AM
Clearly the second half of my post was intended strictly to make a point. In reality it isn't likely that the 5400 necessary acres would actually be occupied on the same land after it had become a public debate. In reality the solar array would be constructed quietly in someone elses back yard. Someone without any political clout and econimically depressed so they would be happy to have the jobs in their area.
Regardless of how disturbing you find the argument about demand, it is true and factual. No demand, no profit in supply. Basic economics. And anyone who decries the concept of profit by the very nature is being hypocritical. We all seek profit every day, monetary or otherwise.
Putting corporate profits ahead of the environment isn't the issue. That's simply the issue that people fabricate in order not to face their own greedy consumption. No consumption, no demand, no supply, no profit. That is the real inconvenient truth. If one truly wants to make a difference, we can all attack the demand side of the equation. Problem is very few are willing to do even the smallest things if it is inconvenient. Or they do the wrong things because it's cool in their social click. Like driving an electric car or some other "green" scam. Actually I'm being unfare. Most people are willing to separate their recyclable trash. Just don't ask them to carpool or use public transit. And even if they do, every day there are another 250,000 people in the world who are going to want their share.
By the way, I've personally worked for several major corporations. Corporations are simply people. Over the course of my career I've worked with hundreds of those people. And I've yet to meet one that I would describe as evil or who would do something to knowingly damage the environment as part of their job. Granted that's based on my limited statistical sample.
We all seek profit every day, monetary or otherwise.
Correct, but profit need not be at the expense of others---particularly non-monetary profit (like spiritual profit!)
I agree with you on paragraph three--which is why i'm so cynical
By the way, I've personally worked for several major corporations.
Am curious...how well did you know the CEOs of those "major corporations"? I agree to a point with your conclusion--which is why i don't buy most conspiracy arguments. But history is overloaded with true stories of corporate greed and its unfortunate impact on the environment--the mining and lumber industry comes to mind.
Discussion
17 repliesHere's an article and map: http://www.postindependent.com/article/20130201/VALLEYNEWS/130139979/1083&ParentProfile=1074
Thompson Divide Coalition is doing a great job of building a coalition of resistance.
Thanks for getting involved.
* The attached image from McClure was chosen because gas fields are never dark, nor quiet.
It can be done if it is done the right way.
The old 'not in my backyard' scene plays out again. I'm not for drilling at Maroon Bells, but it can be done in areas that are sensitive and done well.
Talking Points on SG Interests’
Application to Drill in Garfield County
Here are some talking points you can draw from when speaking or writing to the Garfield
County Commissioners about SG Interests’ application to drill southwest of Sunlight Ski
Area, in the vicinity of Beaver Creek.
We encourage you to comment on this application if you reside or have financial interests
in Garfield County, or if your recreational activities would be impacted by the proposed
drilling. Comments from people who don’t have a direct interest in the matter probably
won’t be viewed favorably by the commissioners.
Please be respectful of the commissioners and the process. There are no bad guys; the
proposal is simply not in the interest of their constituents.
• The Thompson Divide is not an appropriate place for oil and gas development.
The thriving recreation and agricultural economy in the Thompson Divide has
helped to ensure vibrant and healthy local economies. These values are too
important to jeopardize with industrial development.
• The proposed drill site is located 2 miles southwest of the Sunlight ski area and
just over the hill from Marion Gulch at about 9,730 feet elevation. Drilling this
well would send hundreds of trucks (including trucks transporting huge drilling
rigs, produced water and fracking chemicals) along Grand Avenue in Glenwood
Springs and up the Fourmile Road past Sunlight Ski Area – past homes, schools
and businesses.
• An alternative access up East Divide Creek would have huge impacts as well –
requiring road reroutes or substantial improvements to 4x4 roads in critical
wildlife habitat, near rural homes and ranches, adding volume to traffic in areas
already experiencing huge amounts of drilling traffic and extending those impacts
well into backcountry areas.
• The volume of traffic necessary to drill and complete this well, and the
snowplowing necessary to preserve year round access to this drill site, will have
substantial and long-term impacts on recreation, including hunting and fishing,
resort and backcountry skiing, snowmobiling, snowshoeing, biking, and just about
every other existing use in the Thompson Divide.
• The proposed well is in the heart of sensitive wildlife habitat, being an elk calving
area and prime lynx habitat. The proposed site also sits within a Colorado River
cutthroat trout watershed, abutting or overlapping a restricted occupancy zone,
and may pose a threat to a genetically pure population of Colorado River
cutthroats.
• There are permitted water wells within 1.5-2 miles of the proposed well site.
There are grazing permittees that run cattle in the area during summer months and agricultural operations that depend upon water flowing from the area for livestock
and hay production.
• The lease on which this development is proposed was issued in violation of the
law and the applicable Forest Plan. Not only did the BLM and Forest Service fail
to undertake adequate review pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), but the agencies also issued this
lease over the top of the Sunlight Ski area – which had been permanently
withdrawn from availability for leasing. It wasn’t until advocates for protection of
the Thompson Divide brought this to the attention of the Forest Service that the
agency eliminated those portions of the lease overlapping the ski area. To date,
neither agency has rectified inadequacies associated with NEPA or the ESA. Like
most leases in the Thompson Divide, this lease was issued at a time when both the
BLM and FS leasing programs were broken.
More information on the proposed well is available here: http://garfieldcounty.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=3&event_id=82.
I didn't answer the question of where would I prefer we drill? We already have sacrifice zones in the seven major gas fields of the Intermountain West. So, drill there first. The Bakken will be drilled out for oil (Lewiston, ND) for many years, sacrificed. Drill there. PA is going like crazy because there's so much gas in the Marcellus shale that's easier to get to, but that drilling is on split estates, literally in backyards and the impacts are extreme. It's a terrible situation. As for CO and WY, we need stronger leadership at BLM to direct these projects away from places that are too special, or too wild to drill. We think the West is big, but when you travel on BLM lands and see how chopped up things have become, you realize that it's disappearing rapidly. Natural gas is an extraordinarily dirty fuel to get out of the earth by fracking, some say no cleaner than coal. Bottom line is: It's up to us to be engaged and have the courage to tell industry you can't have it all - you can't have all of the public lands, you can't have all of our water, and we have a right to pass on some of our natural heritage inheritance to our kids.
Not every piece of land should be off limits. Not every piece of land should be drilled. There is a balance that can be found, nurtured and maintained.
The only 'sacrifice' I'm NOT seeing are the from the folks who want everyone else to 'get out of my back yard'.
Rules of Conduct
NPN is strictly dedicated to the art and technique of nature photography and all conversation should pertain directly to it. While on-topic spirited debate is welcome, please keep all conversation congenial, professional and non-judgemental of other's abilities and integrity. Discussion of religion, politics/political activism or any other controversial subject that has little or nothing to do with ther art and technique of nature photography is subject to deletion without notice. We suggest that you review the basic rules of Netiquette for additional information on effectively communicating with others over the Internet. If you have any issues or concerns with any aspect of forum activity, please contact the forum moderator(s) using their email contacts at the top of the forum page. You may also contact NPN administration directly at editor@naturephotographers.net.
Jack
I agree with Dave 100%
Dan--"pure politcal activism" has EVERYTHING to do with NATURE Photography, which is what this site promotes ifyou hadn't noticed. Don't believe me? Then I suggest you start by reading up on one of the greats of the genre, a little known photographer by the name of Ansel Adams. There are many more in his footsteps.
Ron--you are setting up a strawman by telling people to ride bikes (a good idea, however...) It's like telling people to write in their cousin Louie if they're not happy with the two presidential candidates--as if that is going to change the outcome in the election. We have a growing popuation (another underlying huge problem) which will continue to pressure the massive corporations (over which we have no control) to make shoddy decisions that make the rich richer and the rest of us poorer in the long run. You talk about balance, but the balance has already been tipped! Look at an aerial view of Colorado and many other states and you can see that easily enough It's no longer about 'balance'--but saving what little we can. And when we try to do that, we're labeled with the prejorative "tree-hugger". You're right, Ron---it is madness!
What we need is a greater awareness of the destruction by a larger number of people who can then mobilize to make their voices heard--that is the purpose of Dave's call to action. Telling people to ride a bike is counterproductive unless you really do wan't to see Maroon Bells paved over next.
I'm a technical person by trade, education, and I suppose natural bent. Consequently, for me photography is not a creative process but a technical one. I hang around forums like this in order to learn from those with more creative/artistic natures and to then incorporate those learnings into my technical process of capturing imagery. I only provide this explanation as background for what follows. Which is... I will now repay the favor by sharing my technical knowledge/perspective with some of you that either aren't so inclined or allow the emotional side of the brains to suppress the logical.
First, though it is anathema to political discussion, let me offer a few facts.
There are over seven billion people on the planet. People are big users of energy. Some examples:
- If every household in the world only consumes the equivalent electricity of one 60watt lightbulb running 24 hours/day(ten percent of the average US household), adjusted for generation/transmission efficiency that is the rough equivalent of almost 800 Million barrels of crude oil burned per year.
- If every cell phone on the planet gets fully charged once per week, that's about 100,000 barrels of crude oil equivalent per year.
In the context of climate change caused by the green house effect, there is only one truly "green" fuel currently viable. That is nuclear fissionable material. In a perfectly efficient combustion process, all forms of fuel other than hydrogen produce the same amount of CO2 to produce a given amount of usable energy output (like move a car or generate electricity). Hydrogen is worse on net because it takes more energy to produce than it returns when combusted.
Natural gas is considered to be greener than coal. But coal is typically burned in steam generation plants which are overall about 80-85 percent efficient at converting heat to electricity. Gas on the otherhand is typically burned in combustion turbine generators which are typically about 30-35 percent efficient. So twice as much BTU equivalent for the same amount of power therefore twice as much CO2 produced (just the facts).
Solar and wind energy while viable are not mobile and are substantially more costly ways of producing electricity than by burning hydrocarbons. Plus there are other downsides which will be demonstrated before the end of my dissertation.
Ok, now getting back to the topic at hand. One can assume that if one of the evil for profit megacorporations is seeking drilling permits, they have some knowledge suggesting that they will find recoverable hydrocarbons. So for the sake of argument, let's assume that there are in fact recoverable energy reserves equivalent to 1000 barrels per day of oil production. But let's also assume that due to the political activity started here on this site, federal, state, and local politicians strike a deal with the evil megacorporation that the drilling permits can be exchanged for rights to develop equivalent alternative/renewable energy production facilities on the same land. Can we all agree that would be a good thing? Is that something we can all get behind? No trucks running up and down the roads, no nasty holding ponds for waste material from wells etc. By all means, yes. Let's shout it out loud. What a victory we've achieved. Not only have we struck a blow on the side of climate change, but it is going to cost the evil megacorporation a lot more to install the solar power generation alternative than it would have cost them to drill. Ha ha ha (evil grin of our own).
What a triumph. I think I'll sit down with a nice glass of chardonay and a bean sprout sandwich on gluten free bread. And just for grins I'll look over the agreement we forced those greedy capitalists to sign. Hmmmm, what's this? The agreement requires the evil megacorporation to install the equivalent of 1000 barrels of oil per day in solar power generation. Wait this has to be a mistake, a typo. They're going to clear the land and install 5,400 acres of solar panels which is equivalent to the 1000 barrels per day. Plus another 1000 acres for "support facilities". AND they have a right of way to install a power transmission line! AND the local power company has approval to increase rates by 50 percent.
Oh, well. It was all well intended activism and is sure seemed like a good thing stopping that drilling. Just glad I was involved by internet and the solar isn't in my backyard.
I was with you for the first half of your comment--i have a technical background myself (MS,JD). In Law school when i studied the debacle of environmental regulations I wrote a huge paper on Yucca Mountain--the king of NIMBYs. Since my father was a nuclear physicist i had factual knowlege that gave me a bit of perspective that people irrationally afraid of anything labeled "nuclear" may not have had. Facts trump emotions, no doubt about it.
It's the second half of your comment where we part ways. Besides the fact that it would never go down that way, my whole point (and Dave's??) is that there are places that should be off limits-from ALL harmful development. That's what wilderness areas have been set aside for. The area in question here may not be strictly wilderness--but as Dave point out, it is an important place. We have to draw the line somewhere.
As slight aside, I always find it disturbing that the argument in favor of development always turns to the necessity of meeting demand--as if demand is ordained by God or statistics. We can all get by with less--if we realize what it is we will lose if we don't get by with less. That is why I personally believe we have a duty as nature photographers to speak out in favor of saving our subject matter. At Great Sand Dunes NP, one of my favorite spots if you were not aware of my book on the subject, the park and it's supporters fight a yearly battle to fight the mining and drilling interests that constantly put pressure on the boundary of the park--it really is an oasis from the surrounding pollutions of all forms--light, noise etc. In the name of 'green' energy, one of the recent proposals was for massive solar panels in the heart of the valley--which would destroy a lot of the aesthetics of the place aside from the power issues. What doesn't get publicized is how many people in the valley are off the grid, and how many use solar and wind energy on the individual or small scale. It's a very significant figure. Instead, the message is "well, we have to provide energy in large quantities somehow, and solar is 'green'..." BS--it really is all about who is given the loudest voice. You may think it's paranoid to label the corporation's motives as evil--but I would argue it is the very definition of evil--putting profits ahead of what is best for the environment. We shouldn't "assume" our plea will promote deals to be cut by politicians and businessmen--we should hope our voice as the voice of reason is heard by everyone involved.
Regardless of how disturbing you find the argument about demand, it is true and factual. No demand, no profit in supply. Basic economics. And anyone who decries the concept of profit by the very nature is being hypocritical. We all seek profit every day, monetary or otherwise.
Putting corporate profits ahead of the environment isn't the issue. That's simply the issue that people fabricate in order not to face their own greedy consumption. No consumption, no demand, no supply, no profit. That is the real inconvenient truth. If one truly wants to make a difference, we can all attack the demand side of the equation. Problem is very few are willing to do even the smallest things if it is inconvenient. Or they do the wrong things because it's cool in their social click. Like driving an electric car or some other "green" scam. Actually I'm being unfare. Most people are willing to separate their recyclable trash. Just don't ask them to carpool or use public transit. And even if they do, every day there are another 250,000 people in the world who are going to want their share.
By the way, I've personally worked for several major corporations. Corporations are simply people. Over the course of my career I've worked with hundreds of those people. And I've yet to meet one that I would describe as evil or who would do something to knowingly damage the environment as part of their job. Granted that's based on my limited statistical sample.
Correct, but profit need not be at the expense of others---particularly non-monetary profit (like spiritual profit!)
I agree with you on paragraph three--which is why i'm so cynical
By the way, I've personally worked for several major corporations.
Am curious...how well did you know the CEOs of those "major corporations"? I agree to a point with your conclusion--which is why i don't buy most conspiracy arguments. But history is overloaded with true stories of corporate greed and its unfortunate impact on the environment--the mining and lumber industry comes to mind.