Patagonia boycotts Outdoor Retailer show in support of Bears Ears...

Mark Rolofson wrote:I don't have the actual numbers, but my educated guess is that outdoor recreation brings in far more money into the overall economy. Think about all the different types of outdoor recreationalist that use these lands including tourist who just sightsee. They all bring in a lot of money to local businesses (hotels, restraunt & shops). Oil & gas crews & miners aren't helping these local towns like Moab or Monticello nearly as much. The fossil fuel industry is funding the campaigns of many politicians. For the few oligarchs like the Koch Brothers & Rex Tillerson (our new Secretary of State & former ExxonMobil CEO) oil & gas development is extremely profitable. The money generated from fossil fuels benefits the 1% much more than the 99%. We are no longer in an oil boom, so this rabbid desire to develop signifigantly more of this resource is based on pure speculation & the desire to maintain the status quo, rather than move aggressively toward a green economy & renewable energy.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the energy industry heavily subsidized, too.

The real difference is that the Outdoor industry invests money into the local economy, and the Oil industry invests money into local politician's pockets. It's hard to fight corruption without stooping to corruption. But really, Salt Lake sucks, and if I can avoid ever going there again I will. So I have a bit of a vested interest in this discussion.

JNE wrote: Lol. Sycophant, I have been using it regularly in print for well over a year now, slightly before you saw it show up on CNN or any of their affiliates. .

Lol, the joke is on you, I only watch Faux news, that's why I can smell such bullshit terms through the internet thousands of miles away. I know a faux neuds term when I hear it.

Yes Jon, you are correct. The subsidies that the fossil fuel industry receives are staggering. In 2010, ExxonMobil made more profit than any company in the history of the world. They paid no federal corporate income tax but recieved 155 million subsidy from the IRS.

There is a lot of irony here. First, Republicans dislike the so called welfare state, but when it come to corporate welfare they are fully on board. The subsidies for the fossil fuel industry & funding the military industrial complex are gigantic. Just imagine if they were significantly reduced. Our federal deficit would be reduced & our taxes could be lowered.

JNE wrote: For one, what does DAPL have to do with the Bears Ears? Does not DAPL reduce the demand for resources which would otherwise be extracted from Bears Ears, thus it's existence can be seen as a boon for the cause of protecting the Bears Ears? Also, is there a possible world/future in which we get natural resources from neither transporting it via the DAPL or mining some part of the Bears Ears, and are still able to have the economic freedom to significantly or entirely reduce our military presence in the ME?

Clearly, you haven't studied these issues closely. What's most disappointing is your total callous disregard for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe & 14 million people who will be adversely effected when a leak from the pipeline pollutes the Missouri River. It is not not a question of IF but rather of WHEN. A recent pipeline rupture happened in North Dakota & luckily not near water. Energy Transfer has a poor record for pipeline breaks. Most oil spill clean ups are really oil spill cover ups & the negative health effects to people & animals is cancer & leukemia often resulting in death.

Secondly. if you think DAPL is about providing oil for domestic use, then you need to stop watching CNN & the Mainstream (lamestream) media. Turn on Democracy Now & TYT Politics, who have actually have sent investigative journalist to North Dakota to cover the protests & interview the tribe & their allies that include US veterans, over 200 other Native American tribes, environmentalist, celebrities, ranchers & farmers, concerned citizens & politicians like Bernie Sanders & Tulsi Gabbard. The Dakota Access pipeline is being built so the crude oil from Bakken oil fields can be exported & sold on the world market. There are already pipelines from this region for domestic use. DAPl will send the crude oil to illinois & then it will take an existing pipeline to the Gulf Of Mexico for export.

Oil extraction from the Bakken oil shale has dropped to 25% of what it was at its peak in 2014. Some say it is on its death bed. So building this pipeline doesn't make much sense. The demand for oil is questionable when it comes to drilling in Bear Ears region as well.

Five Native American tribes were also strong advocates for the Bear Ears region & asked President Obama to declare it a National Monument. There are many cultural & sacred Native American sites in this region. The same issues apply at Bear Ears as in Standing Rock: Protecting water that is used by wildlife, livestock & humans, protecting cultural & sacred sites & protecting the natural environemnt.

Both defending Bear Ears & Standing Rock are battles in the same war against reckless corporate greed that is destroying our planet & causing climate change.

Lastly, our military involvement in the Middle East is most questionable & doesn't seem to be bringing us much new oil resources. The US has been an ally with Saudi Arabia since when FDR was president, for the purpose of getting oil. Today we do not rely on Saudi Arabia for most of our oil. Obama did sell them a record number of arms, that benefited only our arms industry. Saudi Arabia has sponsored terrorist groups like ISIS & Al Qaeda including the 9/11 hijackers. If our government wanted to stop terrorism, overthrow the most ruthless dictatorship & secure a large oil reserve, then the US would have invaded Saudi Arabia. The only real beneficiary of our Middle Eastern military involvement is the defense (offense) industry.

My advice is to wake up & stop being spoon fed propaganda. We have a long fight in front of us to protect Bear Ears National Monument, Standing Rock & our planet from a fascist agenda.

Mark Rolofson wrote: Clearly, you haven't studied these issues closely....

Clearly you make far too many assumptions. I advocate for a trucking depot to transport the oil meant for the DAPL, which will create more jobs, be less of a physical ecological impact (so less mess to clean up at some point), and provide a platform for developing green technology for shipping. Not likely to happen, but this might have been a better target to shoot for. As evidenced by yourself however, people like you don't listen to what you think of as "people like me", hence our political problems. It's never to late to change this...

As far as where any DAPL oil ends up, we will see what happens if/when it happens. Everything at this point is speculation, and smart people know the market will dictate the call, not reporters for news agencies.

As far as ME military involvement, I suggest you drop the naivete regarding my knowledge of that as well. You are right that the current and recent military actions are currently most of the bread and butter of the military, we pick THAT as the bread and butter for our military due to its relationship to oil.

Now if you want to talk more shit on "deplorables" all while trying to stir up the "dark energy" to create WWIII, all while trying to label me into the "deplorable" category, then come around here and talk about punching "those people" in the mouth...I suggest you knock that shit off.

JNE wrote: Clearly you make far too many assumptions. I advocate for a trucking depot to transport the oil meant for the DAPL, which will create more jobs, be less of a physical ecological impact (so less mess to clean up at some point), and provide a platform for developing green technology for shipping. Not likely to happen, but this might have been a better target to shoot for. As evidenced by yourself however, people like you don't listen to what you think of as "people like me", hence our political problems.

Well at least now I know where you're coming from. First, I haven't used the word "deplorable throughout this thread. If this means you're a Trump supporter, I'm not calling all of his supporters deplorable. That was Hillary Clinton who said that & I didn't vote for her either. I get why many people voted for Trump. The neoliberal establishment of the Clintons had thrown average working people under the bus. Trump appeared to be the anti-establishmemt candidate who favored the disenfranchised working class. I think he represents the wealthiest of the wealthy & his supporters got hoodwinked. The election involved a crook vs. a crook, unless you voted for a third party. Both Trump & Hillary are deplorable.

As for saying you advocate for a trucking company..., I assume that's your job. Trying to say DAPL will have "less of a physical ecological impact" is absurb. There is numerous accounts to prove that all pipelines eventually leak & the consequences are often very serious. As for jobs created it will be minimal at best. A green revolution will create far more. As "providing a platform for developing green shipping" I am not even comprehending what you mean by this.

What I do find deplorable is your apparent disregard for the rights of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, whose sacred burial grounds were destroyed by the construction of this pipeline. This land used to be their land under past treaties from the 1800s & since. Treaties that the US government broke when they were no longer convenient. This part of US history is very shameful. Apparently as a nation, we haven't learned anything from our shameful past. Energy Transfer, North Dakota government & Trump are continuing on the same path of complete disregard for the rights of the Indian Tribes. Trump even wants to privatize Indian Reservations to make it easier to extract the resources. That's ruthless & evil!

Mark Rolofson wrote:As "providing a platform for developing green shipping" I am not even comprehending what you mean by this.

Using trucks would provide an opportunity for energy transfer partners to try to save some money by investing in green technology, namely electric trucks with an overall smaller carbon footprint compared to petroleum running trucks. This is the kind of thing that helps fuel a green revolution, one I helped get going since several years ago, before any politicians were talking about it, I got online and loudly advocated for a "green infrastructure" project as an economic replacement for the war you are trying to drum up support for.

Mark Rolofson wrote:What I do find deplorable is your apparent disregard for the rights of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, whose sacred burial grounds were destroyed by the construction of this pipeline. This land used to be their land under past treaties from the 1800s & since. Treaties that the US government broke when they were no longer convenient. This part of US history is very shameful...

And there you go shoving your foot down your throat again. I don't disregard this, but I can tell you that making a protest camp in a rivers flood plain in order to conduct a protest against the will of every petroleum using American was a poor idea from the get go and was doomed to eventual failure. It breaks my heart how that all went down, and it makes me mad that they did that to the Souix when a more appropriate location was originally found (and rejected) near a bunch of petroleum using Americans. The thing which really needs holding onto IMO however is the original Americans social and agricultural advances. I think this knowledge is what is needed to solve many of the social and agricultural problems contemporary America faces. The other stuff is important, but pales in comparison to that.

Thank you for explaining to me about the electric trucks & its most commendable on your part to be involved in this JNE. Advocating for a Green Infrastructure project for an economic replacement for the defense industry is something I totally agree with. Its partly why I voted for Jill Stein. That was part her platform.

As for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, you haven't muttered a word about them until now, so it appeared you didn't care. I guess I was wrong.

Where I disagree is about the protest at Standing Rock. I think it has been a success. In fact, I think most petroleum using Americans side with the Indians & not Energy Transfer or the North Dakota government. Putting a pipeline under the Missouri River is a bad idea. Not doing an EIS is also wrong. By not doing the EIS the Army Corps of Engineers is breaking federal law.

Mark Rolofson wrote:Where I disagree is about the protest at Standing Rock. I think it has been a success. In fact, I think most petroleum using Americans side with the Indians & not Energy Transfer or the North Dakota government. Putting a pipeline under the Missouri River is a bad idea. Not doing an EIS is also wrong. By not doing the EIS the Army Corps of Engineers is breaking federal law.

You are welcome. And thank you for finally letting me be me.

As for the protest being a success thus far, I 100% disagree. The land has been torn up so the damage to any artifacts is mostly done, and any political will to relocate it or change plans is now much more challenging to come upon. Additionally, at this point opposing it means stopping it from happening (outside of the remote possibility of running the pipeline to where it meets the Missouri and moving the oil by truck from there, which would be my advice), and that would increase demand from petroleum from other places, which then gives our military political capital to maintain its current existence, which is the point (whether the protesters are aware of it or not) of the protest at this point. Thus my reference to the "dark energy" needed for WWIII.

Well we obviously don't agree on everything, but I think we agree on much more than I originally thought. I still don't understand with oil extraction at its current low in the Bakken how there's enough oil to fill this pipeline. If oil production hits another boom & this oil goes on the world market, it will accelerate climate change & drive energy prices up. The military will still move forward as its the number one user of fossil fuels. The only way forward that makes any sense to me is leave that oil in the ground & move aggressively toward a green revolution to replace defense industry & oil industry jobs.

Kind of ironic when we talk about all the horrible wars started in Africa just to profit the arms dealers. We do the same thing, except on a much larger scale.

Letter to Governor Herbert

Signed by all the companies looking to move the OR.

Western society makes me laugh. People screaming to lock up millions upon millions of acres while using more resources than anyone on the planet in the history of humans. 99% of everything you own and work with comes from mining, drilling, and forestry. Same with all the power you use. At least the state is balancing its budget unlike the federal government who is trillions upon trillion in debt but no one here is crying over that. Leave that for the next ten generations to pay off.

rging wrote:Western society makes me laugh. People screaming to lock up millions upon millions of acres while using more resources than anyone on the planet in the history of humans. 99% of everything you own and work with comes from mining, drilling, and forestry. Same with all the power you use. At least the state is balancing its budget unlike the federal government who is trillions upon trillion in debt but no one here is crying over that. Leave that for the next ten generations to pay off.

The feds aren't in debt because of maintaining public lands. They're in debt because of the trillions of dollars spent on the military even though we aren't even fighting a war.

Do climbers use oil? Yes, just like 99+% of Americans. But most of them tend to be more environmentally conscious and make efforts to reduce their impact, unlike the majority of Americans who consume endlessly without ever thinking about how their choices affect the environment. Plus, look at how much oil the military consumes compared to the average American.

;)

Fossil fuels make up 81% of our energy use, not 99%

--- Invalid image id: 112495865 ---

RockinOut wrote: Letter to Governor Herbert Signed by all the companies looking to move the OR.

That's good stuff. Put your political/economic capital to the test. If you don't have the influence you hoped for then get the hell outta dodge.

rging wrote:Western society makes me laugh. People screaming to lock up millions upon millions of acres while using more resources than anyone on the planet in the history of humans. 99% of everything you own and work with comes from mining, drilling, and forestry. Same with all the power you use. At least the state is balancing its budget unlike the federal government who is trillions upon trillion in debt but no one here is crying over that. Leave that for the next ten generations to pay off.

Screaming to lock up resources is probably the smartest thing you could do for future generations. Should we talk about the oil and mining resources you are leaving for 10 generations from now?

But. Your. Post. Was. So. Amusing. And indicative of why the outdoor industry hates the electorate in your state.

jason.cre wrote: Screaming to lock up resources is probably the smartest thing you could do for future generations. Should we talk about the oil and mining resources you are leaving for 10 generations from now? But. Your. Post. Was. So. Amusing. And indicative of why the outdoor industry hates the electorate in your state.

Easy answer... 10 gens from now we should have 0 need for oil and mining tech should be developed so as not to obliterate the environment above deposits. Next...

Morgan Patterson wrote: Easy answer... 10 gens from now we should have 0 need for oil and mining tech should be developed so as not to obliterate the environment above deposits. Next...

Ah ok, no need to plan for the future. Technology will solve everything. So high minded.

Morgan Patterson wrote: Easy answer... 10 gens from now we should have 0 need for oil and mining tech should be developed so as not to obliterate the environment above deposits. Next...

How are we going to do that?

"screaming to lock up millions upon millions of acres while using more resources than anyone on the planet"

This is precisely the irony of the Outdoor crowd acting like we are so environmentally minded, and less impactful than "the others". It might be just the opposite. All the traveling, gear, and other logistics associated with upper-crust white-priviledge adventuring is very consumptive.

Alternate energy would be great -- but for now the energy is coming out of the ground .... somewhere.....