Trump Has Decided To Destroy Federal Land For Profit

Submitted by: zeegrr 2 months ago in News & Politics


We're fucked.

An excerpt from Yahoo! News: The Department of Interior is quietly preparing to offer hundreds of thousands of acres of public land for leasing to energy companies, a move critics have charged is being undertaken with minimal public input and little consideration for ecological and cultural preservation.

According to data compiled by environmental groups, the Bureau of Land Management will put 2.9 million acres up for potential leasing in the next four months. Because the land in question — in states including New Mexico, Colorado and Arizona — lacks designation as a national park or monument, it can be used for commercial purposes such as mining for minerals and drilling for oil and gas. Supporters say that bolstering the extractive industries will ensure energy independence for the United States, though shifting energy preferences and falling oil prices appear to undermine that assertion.
There are 75 comments:
6,813
I remember reading that the Democrats pulled this shit back in 1804.
But everybody thinks it's okay then but somehow they think this is different. Even though this is happened non-stop ever since 1492.
-1
Reply
Male 1,975
dm2754 "I remember reading that the Democrats pulled this shit back in 1804."
Ah, memories. The Democratic party was founded in 1828.
0
Reply
6,813
semichisam01 
I'm sorry if it was over your head. Maybe some further reading may help you. But nothing can cure your lack a sense of humor
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson
0
Reply
Male 1,975
dm2754 Ah, wikipedia. It's a fact that the party founded by Jefferson is now being referred to, especially by wikipedia, as the 'Democratic-Republican' Party, but at the time it was simply the Republican Party. The Democratic party was founded in 1828.

My research on this particular topic was done for a homework assignment in High School in 1955. All the facts were known then. But that was before wikipedia and the rise of opinion-based 'facts' and pages that can be erased and rewritten without a trace.

I still do most of my research in books (I'm sure you've heard of them). This way only I know what I'm researching (and sometimes my research librarian, but she ain't talking).

It is true that nothing can cure the lack of a sense of humor.

0
Reply
Male 1,688
dm2754 Happening in Europe for 2000 years... roughly. They're still around eh?
1
Reply
Male 7,138
Not sure if anyone cares but guess what has come storming back in a new epidemic?

BLACK LUNG!

Yup, worst it has been in the last 25 years, read more about it here if you like
https://www.ecowatch.com/black-lung-epidemic-2538494787.html

What ever happened to CLEAN COAL?
0
Reply
Male 2,737
daegog   So it's a good reason not to use coal and to use oil, it causes less health problems among workers and is cleaner to burn. Especially propane and propane products. It is bad that black lung is on the rise but that's a regulatory problem not an environmental problem.    
  And as "insaneai" said you don't get black lung in a year and a half so the problem has been going on for some time and is now only coming to become a problem.    
0
Reply
Male 2,130
So when we tried to expose Harry Reid and his contracts with China to drill on public land during the BLM crap (Bureau of Land Management) nobody wanted to hear about it.

Now that it's coming to fruition under Trump instead of Obama, now it's an issue?
(Not blaming Obama)
2
Reply
Male 1,688
insaneai Yes: when Democrats do it? They're creating jobs! When Repubs do it? They're (like the hysterical headline says) Destroying the Earth!!!
2
Reply
66
yaho news is not real news. YOU STOOPS OR SOMETHING?
-4
Reply
Male 1,975
andy_bart Yah! Dem yahos must be stoops.
0
Reply
Female 6,611
andy_bart 
2
Reply
Male 9,309
andy_bart What, exactly, do you think Yahoo News gets wrong?

Simply declaring news you dislike or disagree with "not real" is a waste of everyone's time. Specifics, please?
3
Reply
Male 7,138
Every other nation, including oil producers, are trying to shift to solar energy and here we are, still trying to dig up more oil.  China has now become the world's biggest solar energy producer.

Did the Average Roman in the 400s know that Roman Hegemony was dying or were they as clueless as Americans are today?
2
Reply
Male 764
daegog http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5650 
0
Reply
Male 5,239
daegog Solar still has some major problems in the manufacture and recycle/disposal of some of the components that have a larger carbon footprint than anything else among other issues. Not saying it does not have some promise but we are a long way off from being able to use it to the extent you suggest without creating an eco-disaster of it's own.


https://www.i-am-bored.com/2018/02/future-of-solar-power-obstacles-problems
1
Reply
Male 9,309
daegog I would guess they were loudly chanting, "S.P.Q.R.! S.P.Q.R.! WE'RE NUMBER I! WE'RE NUMBER I!"
0
Reply
Male 18,342
squrlz4ever the irony is that Senatus Populusque Romanus refers to the authority of the Roman government as representing the democratic government and people of the republic, whereas Trump fancies  himself Caesar.
1
Reply
Male 871
daegog given that their civilization collapsed, I'm going to guess they were as clueless as today's Republicans.
0
Reply
Male 724
With more and more countries using wind and sun energy, Trump is too stupid to see the future. Trump followers are just as stupid. Me? I'll be dead soon, but my grand-kids all have solar-powers chargers for phones and devices.
1
Reply
6,813
zeegrr solar and wind consume more energy than they produce. And contribute to high amounts of pollution but I wouldn't expect you to know that
0
Reply
Male 724
dm2754 Stop smoking crack.

0
Reply
Male 1,975
dm2754 And the tooth fairy is real, but I wouldn't expect you to know that.
0
Reply
Male 871
dm2754 Where'd you get this nonsense?  If you care to read some simple, fact-based articles to help you avoid future embarrassment, I've provided a few links below. 

Smithsonian Magazine - RE: Wind Turbines
Popular Science - RE: Solar Panels
Also, here's a link to a nice myth/fact article on Solar Energy. The link takes you to a website of an industry member, which would have made it suspect if they didn't cite actual data from non-industry studies. 

As a side note, I'm not sure why you righties insist on humiliating yourselves over and over again.  I mean, a simple search provides scores of information from reputable sources that refute this kind of nonsense.  Can you shed some light on this for me?  I'm genuinely interested in learning why.
0
Reply
6,813
skeeter01 so let me guess you have absolutely no idea what goes into making a wind turbine or a solar panel. I'm also willing to bet you've never work with such a quipment. How much did you pay for your solar panels and how much energy do they produce every day?
It is even begin to talk about the direct damage they have on the environment of killing wildlife.
-1
Reply
Male 871
dm2754 sigh... let ME guess, you didn't bother to read the articles I linked?  Were there too many words?  Is that it?  Or does the fact that all those words are spelled correctly and placed in proper grammatical order make it too confusing for you?
0
Reply
Male 5,239
dm2754 Too easy for them to ignore.
0
Reply
Male 4,062
Whaddaya expect from a businessman?
Lets just hope he doesn't spend public funds to put up those gaudy 'Trump' signs in Yellowstone.
0
Reply
Male 156
captkangaroo no, Yellowstone's been earmarked for a geothermal power station.
3
Reply
Male 724
agurney That would actually be welcome, so of course it will never happen.
-1
Reply
6,813
What else is  new?
0
Reply
Male 1,688
Hysteria. The problem is American dependence on foreign oil and minerals, geez Louise get it right. 2.9M acres is peanuts. That's 4,600 square miles (out of 3.8 million) and remember only a fraction of that will actually be used. 

Unless the Greenies know how to turn wind into steel? Mining will continue for the next 1000 years.
-4
Reply
Male 1,975
gohikineko "Unless the Greenies know how to turn wind into steel?"
We all know that you believe name-calling is a form of argument. I'm not interested in trying to disabuse you of that peculiar idea, but I need a little help here: what is a greenie?
On a separate issue: why exactly do you believe that every acre on Earth is functionally equivalent to every other acre?
Finally, what is your inside source of information that allows you to guarantee that 'only a fraction'  will be used?
0
Reply
Male 1,688
semichisam01 Boo hoo, from someone who calls people who believe in science "deniers"... or looks the other way while others constantly do so.

Look at the title: "Destroy Federal Land"? What tripe! Utter nonsense! Yet you let that slip past don't you...

Look at an oil field: covers dozens of square miles yes? On a map. But in reality there's farming going on in the middle of it all: the actual roads & structures are a very small % of the land. Mines? They have a shaft and a trailing pile: again not dozens of square miles of 100% usage: a few of them spaced far apart. This is common sense stuff...
The 'tar sands' are a unique situation, but 90% of our oil comes from those tiny pumps that dot (not blanket) the farmlands...
0
Reply
Male 1,975
gohikineko Three questions. No answers. Just more personal attacks.
0
Reply
Male 1,688
semichisam01 Your questions are just stupid. That's why there's no point answering them. You don't answer any of mine.
-If you don't know what a 'greenie' is? Why are you even speaking about this subject?
-Where did I say that? That's just stupid. To falsely claim I said things is bloody rude. Obviously they are not identical, sweet Jesus on a stick!
- I just need one source: common sense! It is reality! If you actually believe that 100% of the 4600^Miles will be completely destroyed? There's no helping you...
0
Reply
Male 1,791
gohikineko "The problem is American dependence on foreign oil and minerals." Except its not actually a problem.  There is nothing actually wrong with buying materials from other countries.  Its called international trade.  US energy companies didn't like having their profits reduced by having to compete with lower cost overseas providers, so they lobbied to have oil (which can be sources from all over the world, including nations that would never be a wartime opposition) declared a strategic resource. 
1
Reply
Male 909
punko Buying oil is no problem, but "bringing democracy" do despots not wanting to sell is, and supporting militia usurpers where a democracy does not want to sell is, too.

What I wrote above is wrong, since needing to be good friend with dictators and IS-friendly Scheiks in order to keep buying oil is a problem, too.
0
Reply
Male 1,791
7eggert Learn to separate business and politics;  or find another source.  Lots of folks in the world sell oil. If you are worried that by buying oil from a particular country leads only to violence and misery within that country, go somewhere else.  The extra price you pay is the cost of believing you are dong the right thing.  I don't shop at Walmart, ever.  never been to the one in town and I've lived here for nearly 30 years. Do I pay more?  probably.  But I have the means to make my stand and vote with my wallet.

I've never understood the concept of "bringing democracy" to other countries.  Perhaps it is just built-in for some folks - preach the Word, whether the Word is religion, politics, or whatever.
1
Reply
Male 909
punko There is no separation nor another source. Our politicians bend their backs in front of the Scheiks and Dictators to make business, and if they don't, they use politics and war to make them.
Our oil companies, backed by this politics, will mix the oil, offer us that or nothing, and we are forbidden to create our own oil as it's a tax offense.
0
Reply
Male 2,730
punko So you spend 10% more to buy the same Chinese crap at Target? I shop Walmart because it’s the only store for miles. I do shop Bi-Lo for groceries. 
1
Reply
Male 1,791
scheckydamon I don't shop at Target either.  Of course, Target had to leave Canada after declaring bankruptcy of its Canadian operations less than 2 years by having utterly and completely misread the Canadian marketplace and by making related insanely stupid management decisions.

But to answer the primary point of your question, yes, I willingly pay more for the same (or similar) products so as to avoid Wal-mart.  I am "voting with my wallet" by supporting other retailers.

It may be an infinitesimal gesture in the grand scheme of things, but it is my gesture and a slightly negative position toward Wal-mart is 100% better than a slightly positive one - for me.  Wal-mart isn't the only retailer/business/company that I avoid.

0
Reply
Male 2,730
punko I don't have any problem with what you're doing. We all do something for something we feel strongly about. I live in a very rural are and I don't really have many choices. I do try to look at country of origin when I purchase and will pay more for a product not made in China.
0
Reply
Male 21,778
gohikineko "The problem is American dependence on foreign oil and minerals."

Which is exactly why the US government should be more concerned about alternative energy (biofuels?, hydrogen?, solar?, geothermal?) that won't require tearing into the earth.
2
Reply
3,633
fancylad dependence? 
That's very light way of putting it. We got rid of the gold standard so we could trade on oil, there have been multiples wars because some dude in the middle east thought they could start trading oil for gold. Make no mistake about it, the US is a trade empire and oil is big part of that. 

And for this post. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Pursuit of happiness is fancy talk for owning land, this is nothing new.
3
Reply
Male 1,688
fancylad Nuclear is the only green electricity option: all the rest depend on fossil-fuel back-ups.

Obama's biofuel experiment was an unmitigated disaster, everyone agrees. If the entire food crop of America was converted into biofuel? It still wouldn't meet demand... and there'd be no food. Until technology improves a lot? We will have to keep using traditional fuels.

I think 'geothermal' involves a bit of digging ;-) into the earth, don't you? Lolz (and it costs a fortune! It never pays for itself afaik)
0
Reply
Male 13,169
gohikineko Solar. Solar. Solar.
1
Reply
Male 1,688
holygod Backup. Backup. Backup.
Unless you like it when the power goes out repeatedly...
0
Reply
Male 13,169
gohikineko Batteries are sufficient now. You can be off grid with a solar array, battery backup, and gas generator in case of emergencies. 
0
Reply
Male 1,688
holygod B-b-b- batteries? You're going to run a power grid off batteries? :-O NOW?

No, seriously, that's just too funny. Imagine the billions and trillions spent on building and installing batteries, with all those "rare earth minerals" that cause massive environmental damage to dig up, then they need to be replaced entirely every 6-7 years? For more billions/trillions and more damage? Assuming they didn't run out entirely!
Staggering.

If you can get a city off grid? I'd like to see that, and an accounting of the price too. Individuals can spend $20,000 to go "off grid" sure. Now multiply that by 300,000,000 (counting offices, businesses and public buildings too, roughly eh?) buildings and that's a lot more than anyone can afford. (6 trillion by my math, for America, not one city eh? And that cost comes every 6 years, forever)
Aside from the environmental damage...

Gas/diesel generators are the highest pollution electricity you can have, worse than oil even. 

And remember! ALL those fuel-burning cars will be replaced (they tell us) with electricity-gulping ones, making a massive increase in electrical use... just where will that power come from?
0
Reply
Male 1,791
gohikineko <sigh>  Nuclear is considered 'green' because it is not fossil fuel based and does not generate greenhouse gasses (directly).  However, the long term disposal issues of nuclear waste can be addressed, especially if we avoid the U-238 plants (the ones in current use)  There are better reactions and better reactor designs out there.

as for Cities off the grid, there are hundreds of cities not connection to national grids.  They use their own generating stations and maintain their own grid.  They use a mix of energy sources.  And yes, batteries.  energy storage comes in many forms, including water reservoirs, mine air storage, and centrifugal.  Most energy storage facilities are low on the energy/mass spectrum (like water reservoirs) which is a good thing.  Nothing screams "target" more than high energy/mass storage systems.
0
Reply
Male 1,688
punko There's a perfect place to store all the N-waste in America and all they'll generate for the next 100+ years: but Obama killed it.

Islands eh? But they also have back-up power or they experience brown and blackouts, like one particular British island does... regularly.

I've never seen a water energy storage system on the megawatt scale, not even theoretical. Those others are even more tiny. Just saying that small systems and huge systems (gigawatt!) need different solutions...
0
Reply
Male 13,169
gohikineko 

1. Obviously I'm talking individuals.
2. Batteries and solar panels would get more advanced and cheaper as need goes up just like what happened with computers.
3. Your math is a little silly. You don't need that setup PER PERSON. Just per household. My solar setup takes care of almost all my family's electrical needs and we have 5 people. Plus plenty of public buildings / businesses aren't open at night so there would be less need for battery backup.
4. Cost comes every 6 years? How do you figure? The solar panels last longer than that.
0
Reply
Male 1,688
holygod 1.Well, we're talking larger scales eh?
2. Probably, but if the materials to make them are in limited supply? And they are! Then making more (increasing demand) would actually drive the costs up.
3. My calcs are per household... and business and other buildings: I thought I was very clear about it...
4. Wind and solar last about 20 years, then rapidly decrease in output. 25 years effective lifespan for panels, tops. The batteries however? They last 6-7 years mostly, and then cease to work at all. Remember: the batteries in those electric cars cost around $4K or more, ones that are building sized would cost a hell of lot more...
0
Reply
Male 13,169
gohikineko 

3. My bad. You did. I think that number is way high though. I don't think there is a home or business for every man / woman / child in the country. However, I have no idea where to find that data.
4. Really? Tesla's powerwall has a 10 year warranty and guarantees minimum 70% capacity after 10 years. Your 6-7 years is not accurate information.

0
Reply
Male 1,688
holygod 3. Actually that came up in gas station conversation a while back :-)
We were figuring out how many toilets there were in our city and that depends on how many buildings there are... so we tried to figure out that too. We came up with roughly 1 building per person, a little less maybe. That's counting houses, businesses, stores and such things. Not counting sheds or other places that didn't have a toilet in them... or outhouses :->

4. never heard that before: doesn't Tesla's battery cost a lot more than say a Prius one? I based my numbers on those more common cars, didn't know about Tesla's lifespan, thx! Interesting.
But still: every 10 years then, trillions! On top of replacing the wind and solar every 20~odd years too. N-plants last for 80+ years, more or less.

Of course technology might will improve that, suddenly or over time, but dogmatic government orders usually make matters worse.
0
Reply
Male 13,169
gohikineko Well my Prius is 11 years old and the battery is still good.
0
Reply
Male 1,688
holygod Really? That's great, but all I remember is the auto-news talking about how the Prius-Volt type batteries needed replacing every 6 years :/ 

A little quick look shows the early expectations were wrong, and 10 years is about average now, my mistake!
0
Reply
Male 1,791
gohikineko Nuclear plants are not designed for 80 years of continuous operation.  As a bare minimum there are major scheduled refurbishments.  You keep nuclear plants running as long as possible, because the cost to build a new one is astronomical, let alone the NIMBY issues about siting one in the first place.

Yes, nuclear is a good option for baseline power for major grids (certainly better than coal or oil).  It isn't perfect at all, and even the best possible fusion reactors will still have negative effects.

But, the more power generation that can be off loaded and generated locally makes the entire system far more robust.
0
Reply
Male 1,688
punko Of course all power stations shut down now and then, even hydro power can be lower in a drought for example. You have to replace fuel rods every so often too, naturally...

Even with the 'astronomical' cost? They're still far cheaper than wind or solar. Remember: those have huge (taxpayer) subsidies in the first place. And we have to take into account the back-up power stations required, something NO proponent ever does...

In an example from the UK: a proposed gas plant has the cost of transmission lines included in the price, but an off-shore wind farm? Nope, even though the cost of that line was 5X as much... the Gov't OK'd the wind power. Of course the farm itself 2-3 times more expensive, AND they (quietly) built the gas plant anyhow as back-up :/ But they still built that wind farm, which never came close to its projected power output...
The UK is (last I heard) building a bunch of N-plants now...

Yes, NIMBY is the #1 problem with N-power, sadly the greenie propaganda machine has terrified everyone into thinking they're all Atomic Bombs just waiting to go off. :/

0
Reply
Male 1,975
holygod Shhh! gohikineko hasn't heard about Kauai!
0
Reply
Male 871
gohikineko Nuclear energy is anything BUT green... unless by the word green you mean the radioactive glow that all the aging nuclear waste storage will give off in a few decades or so. 
-1
Reply
Male 1,688
skeeter01 There's a perfect place for America to store ALL it's N-waste and all it would generate for 100 years to come. It's been studied for decades, unfortunately Obama killed it (one of the first things he did) so it all sits spread out everywhere at massive expense and higher risk.
Madness.
Anyhow, tell that to the French who generate a lot of their power with Nuclear (and sell it to the 'green Germans' when theirs goes out) and the British who (last I heard) were building a bunch of Nuclear stations.
0
Reply
Male 2,730
skeeter01 So let’s start using that big hole in the ground in BFE Nevada that we spent about a gazillion dollars digging and that bought off Harry Reid.
1
Reply
Male 1,791
skeeter01 colour depends on a bunch of different things.  I have photos of really cool blue scatter light from storage pool holding cobalt isotopes (I got them to turn the lights out when I was in the pool room, which is a strictly unsafe and bad thing to do, as folks outside can't clearly see if anyone is in the pool).  In reality, you need to dive about 20 feet down into the pool water to get to a point where the radiation dose would be fatal in the time the average person can hold their breath.
1
Reply
Male 909
gohikineko It's rather orange :-)

Turning crop into fuel makes sense, since on bad years, you can use it for food, and on good years, you'll buy less oil. 

The main problem ist people whining about "It's food, you must not do that" ... but throwing food away is OK? Or selling it below market price in Africa?

Second: Do you use more fossile energy to create bio-fuel than you create bio-fuel? Then you have a problem.
0
Reply
Male 1,688
7eggert It makes perfect sense to turn 'crop waste' into fuel. But crops are (you know) already used, and most "waste" goes into animal feed, so there's little left over really.

Did you miss just how much (100% of it) you'd need to fuel America? Wasted post-production food is another matter, and serious too, but unrelated.
0
Reply
Male 909
gohikineko That's why we need to reduce waste of energy.
A car using Gas will use 195 MJ / 100 km
A car using Diesel will use 160 MJ / 100 km
An electric car will use 53 MJ / 100 km (but not the XXL SUVs you buy to flatten children in case of an accident)

A classic 40 W bulb will, until it bursts on average, produce more waste than it takes to create an LED light and use it instead, and then the LED will still be working. (Don't buy the cheap ones from China though).
0
Reply
Male 21,778
gohikineko I don't know anything about Obama's biofuel experiment. It might've failed, but I'd hope one failure wouldn't stop people a lot smarted than me and you from trying to find smarter alternatives.
1
Reply
Male 1,688
fancylad That's the point: government-ordered program just caused a huge "price shock" (in all grains) around the world sending millions of poor people into danger of starvation. Their (also poor) governments and international agencies had to act quickly, at great expense.

Then the whole "it's just as good as gas" turned out to be (you guessed it!) a big fat lie: you needed more bio-fuel to go the same distance. Thus the "savings" were cut.
And it would take 100% of America's food production to meet fuel demand, probably more, which is hopefully a "no-brainer" eh?

Sure, research and such is great! And the "big oil" companies are all over it! But top-down government dictatorship ended badly, as it usually does: at massive cost.
0
Reply
Male 2,737
fancylad   Bio fuel which in the parlance is Alcohol does not have the btu (British thermal units)that gas has so for one gallon of biofuel you get 10 miles and one gallon of gas you get 15 miles thats miles per gallon and its food, the actual difference is not how I put it but it's an analogy so you might understand better. When Obama tried to get interest going for biofuel made from corn there was suddenly a shortage of corn to export and there were actual riots over it in South America. As I believe it even caused the price of cattle feed and corn based products to go up. Of course the farmers loved it because they were making a killing.
0
Reply
Male 1,688
casaledana Everything went up, including rice which producers suddenly started charging a lot more for & shipping it to America. This caused several nations to open their emergency storage because there was literally no food in the markets of many places.

When corn shot up? buyers started looking at other grains for animal feed, and those grains all went up too. Simple economics that Obama's administration never seems to have learned... they still haven't actually.
0
Reply
Male 270
gohikineko thats a little exaggerated.
0
Reply
Male 1,688
elgabalo They went back down eventually... mostly... not entirely.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/409214/the-price-of-biofuels/

"More alarming, the boom in ethanol production is driving up the price of food. Of the record 93 million acres of corn planted in the United States in 2007, about 20 percent went to ethanol. Since most of the rest is used to feed animals, the prices of beef, milk, poultry, and pork are all affected by increases in the cost of corn. The international Organization for Economic Coöperation and Development (OECD) recently warned that the “rapid growth of the biofuels industry” could bring about fundamental shifts in agricultural markets worldwide and could even “cause food shortages.”"

For just one example.

Graphs:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qfBB_wn8QdE/TrPjX9eDAAI/AAAAAAAAEmw/6apZ6pB70vc/s1600/exhibit13-10.png

https://farmpolicynews.illinois.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Screen-Shot-2017-11-07-at-6.24.02-PM.png
Not ALL the changes are caused by this one thing: but all grains are clearly closely related in price fluctuations. Because, as I said, if one gets too expensive? People buy others until they get too expensive too! EZ economics.

0
Reply
Male 724
fancylad Failed? No. There was no commercial interest, so it died on the vine. Neil Young has a car that runs on veggie oil. it Doesn't go too fast and the people behind him always suddenly want french fries.
2
Reply