Comments on: Energy and conservative environmentalism http://sutherlandinstitute.org/news/2012/04/19/energy-and-conservative-environmentalism/ News and views on Utah public policy Wed, 22 May 2013 15:50:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 By: Derek H Monson http://sutherlandinstitute.org/news/2012/04/19/energy-and-conservative-environmentalism/#comment-1621 Derek H Monson Mon, 23 Apr 2012 21:43:00 +0000 http://www.sutherlandinstitute.org/news_old/?p=3004#comment-1621  The “acceptable level of environmental impact” is, of course, a topic of significant debate, so there will be differences of opinion on this and I can respect that. To me, the reality is that modern society requires oil to function, meaning that without reliable sources of oil, people can’t afford to drive to work, food prices skyrocket due to ridiculous shipping prices, and other of life’s necessities become very difficult to obtain. This all impacts the opportunities available to low and middle-income families and individuals the most – and we see that every year when gas prices naturally spike due to seasonal demand for oil.

In that context, I think it is something of a stretch to say that the environmental impact from tar sand development will be “undue and unnecessary,” without qualification or exception. And your statement about the worth of the land and its ecosystems doesn’t make any sense to me unless you believe that the preservation of the land does more for society than does using that land to create opportunities for economic and social advancement for low and middle-income families. But to me that’s just more radical environmental thinking in action – valuing human life as similar to the existence of rocks, plants, and landscapes, and both degrading human life and making people’s lives more difficult in the process.

I guess we’ll just have to see if Utah’s recently passed public lands legislation is unconstitutional or not.

]]> By: Derek H Monson http://sutherlandinstitute.org/news/2012/04/19/energy-and-conservative-environmentalism/#comment-1781 Derek H Monson Mon, 23 Apr 2012 21:43:00 +0000 http://www.sutherlandinstitute.org/news_old/?p=3004#comment-1781  The “acceptable level of environmental impact” is, of course, a topic of significant debate, so there will be differences of opinion on this and I can respect that. To me, the reality is that modern society requires oil to function, meaning that without reliable sources of oil, people can’t afford to drive to work, food prices skyrocket due to ridiculous shipping prices, and other of life’s necessities become very difficult to obtain. This all impacts the opportunities available to low and middle-income families and individuals the most – and we see that every year when gas prices naturally spike due to seasonal demand for oil.

In that context, I think it is something of a stretch to say that the environmental impact from tar sand development will be “undue and unnecessary,” without qualification or exception. And your statement about the worth of the land and its ecosystems doesn’t make any sense to me unless you believe that the preservation of the land does more for society than does using that land to create opportunities for economic and social advancement for low and middle-income families. But to me that’s just more radical environmental thinking in action – valuing human life as similar to the existence of rocks, plants, and landscapes, and both degrading human life and making people’s lives more difficult in the process.

I guess we’ll just have to see if Utah’s recently passed public lands legislation is unconstitutional or not.

]]> By: The Reasonable Road to a Clean Environment: Avoiding Policy Potholes | Sutherland Daily http://sutherlandinstitute.org/news/2012/04/19/energy-and-conservative-environmentalism/#comment-1780 The Reasonable Road to a Clean Environment: Avoiding Policy Potholes | Sutherland Daily Fri, 20 Apr 2012 22:11:40 +0000 http://www.sutherlandinstitute.org/news_old/?p=3004#comment-1780 [...] addition to energy development, transportation policy is another illustration of the damage that radical environmental thinking [...]

]]> By: rmwarnick http://sutherlandinstitute.org/news/2012/04/19/energy-and-conservative-environmentalism/#comment-1618 rmwarnick Fri, 20 Apr 2012 17:27:00 +0000 http://www.sutherlandinstitute.org/news_old/?p=3004#comment-1618 The phrase “acceptable level of environmental impact” is where it all comes apart.  Gov. Herbert seems to believe that tar sands development in Utah would result in an acceptable level of environmental impact.  I would argue that not only would the impact be unacceptable, but it would even be illegal under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) prohibition against “undue and unnecessary degradation” of public lands. 

The land itself and its ecosystems are worth more than the natural resources that can be extracted from it.  That is why the FLPMA prohibition exists – to prevent the permanent destruction of our public lands.  Of course, right-wing Republicans are proposing an unconstitutional land grab to circumvent federal law.  That’s not going to work any better than the so-called Sagebrush Rebellion did.

]]> By: rmwarnick http://sutherlandinstitute.org/news/2012/04/19/energy-and-conservative-environmentalism/#comment-1779 rmwarnick Fri, 20 Apr 2012 17:27:00 +0000 http://www.sutherlandinstitute.org/news_old/?p=3004#comment-1779 The phrase “acceptable level of environmental impact” is where it all comes apart.  Gov. Herbert seems to believe that tar sands development in Utah would result in an acceptable level of environmental impact.  I would argue that not only would the impact be unacceptable, but it would even be illegal under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) prohibition against “undue and unnecessary degradation” of public lands. 

The land itself and its ecosystems are worth more than the natural resources that can be extracted from it.  That is why the FLPMA prohibition exists – to prevent the permanent destruction of our public lands.  Of course, right-wing Republicans are proposing an unconstitutional land grab to circumvent federal law.  That’s not going to work any better than the so-called Sagebrush Rebellion did.

]]>