It is incompatible with the water resources of the SW, period. I saw an exchange between an activists and an oil man. The oil man claimed water can be "clean" but not drinkable, they should not exempt to the Clean Drinking Water Act. A lot of damage has been done in the last decade, even 20 more would be devastating. They need want to develop the shale deposits in more and more sensitive areas.
It doesn't matter what anybody thinks, sooner or later the fossil fuel will all be gone. It may take a couple of hundred years, but that's not long. Only in terms of a human lifespan does it seem like a relatively long time. Big Oil has been around for four or five generations now, but it only has six to ten left, then it's gone for good..
Preserving wilderness is actually kind of a strange concept, really, in light of continental drift, subduction, erosrion, etc.
It's all going to go-away eventually, and new geologic formations and bio-zones will take it's place. What we have right now is just a snapshot of the ever-changing surface of earth. National Parks aren't forever.
Is this idea just too long-term to have any meaning for here and now? Perhaps.
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Erik Hansen <erikhansen@thebluezone.net>wrote:
Big Oil does not see this as a bridge fuel, they think it is the answer.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".