Originally Posted By: rocky mtn bill
Energy development, whether it's coal or shale oil, will most certainly destroy enormous areas of public lands. It has already done so in North Dakota, northeastern Montana, and Wyoming. It does produce huge income for the lessees and short-term jobs for miners and other laborers. The energy boom in the West is a sad repetition of the region's history, an extractive exploitation that leaves behind abandoned communities and a devastated landscape. The future of fossil fuel consumption is a dead end. There's not much point in worrying about recreational access if we're willing to cede dominion of public lands to the coal and oil industries.


Can you post a photo of the enormous areas of "destroyed" public land in any of these states? What is your definition of "destroyed"? The only things I have actually seen are new well heads and increased truck traffic on un-improved roads. This hardly constitutes "destruction". This notion of "destruction" of land is a hint of someone who thinks what occurs to a section of land in their lifetimes is significant in geological time, which, is most certainly not the case. This is often a liberal's erroneous viewpoint.
What will said land look like in 1 million years? 10 million years? The dinosaurs existed for 55 million years, give or take, and land was created and actually destroyed throughout that period, with no input from mankind. This is a bit more significant than the view that land can be "destroyed" in the coarse of a man's lifetime, which, is, of coarse, silly.

Another point, if I may? The way I see it, your own breathing and digestion are, in fact, "dead ends". They cannot and will not be sustained to infinity. None the less, I'm going to go out on a limb, and guess that you are interested in them continuing as long as possible, despite them being a complete "dead end".

Such is where we find ourselves with petroleum and it's by products.


Best,
Ted