Patagonia

[LURE]

Well what's more damaging to the ecology, National Monument status, or opening up the land for future mining, drilling, and logging?

don't forget wind farms and solar energy fields

both of those are on the same playing field as your aforementioned activities when it comes to destruction of habitat, migrations corridors, aesthetics, and profiteering off public land with undervalued leases that rip off public land owners

[justiner]

Well what's more damaging to the ecology, National Monument status, or opening up the land for future mining, drilling, and logging?

don't forget wind farms and solar energy fields

I wasn't aware that the Department of the Interior had plans to lease land in the former Bears Ears National Monument for these activities - can you provide a link? Or why am I being asked to not forget about something that's not actually on the table?

[justiner]

Oh good, even the clothing manufacturers are politicizing their products.

Patagonia has been extremely vocal about their stance on a variety of topics, not least of which is access and protection of public lands. To the point that they've been described as, "environmental company thinly disguised as an outdoor apparel manufacturer" and that's not by one of their detractors; that's the Vice President of Marketing.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/sto ... Id=9968475

[Dave B]

Well what's more damaging to the ecology, National Monument status, or opening up the land for future mining, drilling, and logging?

don't forget wind farms and solar energy fields

both of those are on the same playing field as your aforementioned activities when it comes to destruction of habitat, migrations corridors, aesthetics, and profiteering off public land with undervalued leases that rip off public land owners

AFAIK, the vast majority of wind turbines (~95%) and solar farms (>99%) are on private land.

They also do not emit carbon at anywhere near the same rate as coal and natural gas extraction (and burning) or forestry. But, ultimately, the problem is that there is no *good* solution to our demands for energy.

[highpilgrim]

From shrinking National Monuments to having a Zinke be a trainwreck of a Secretary of the Interior, to blaming California for fire management on National Forest Land to opening open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling. It goes on and on and on. It really does:

Don't forget about the salmon fishery in Bristol Bay.

https://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/w ... %20culture.

[tmud]

https://www.pbsutah.org/whatson/pbs-uta ... bears-ears.

Here it is^

They mention in here of the 287 drilling explorations that have already happened in the monument, only 9 produced anything and none were considered viable enough to pursue further. There are a number of reasons the area hasn't already been pillaged of its natural resources, a relative lack thereof in the area of the monument, is one of them. Not to mention, the long term economic prospects for new oil exploration are continually decreasing, given our greening economy.

Honestly, the shrunken monument is fine for what it is with the recent boom in outdoor tourism. In my opinion, the biggest threat to the area are the increased amounts of people who will visit it as hikers/outdoors people rather than oil and mining co's. Unfortunately, being a monument means it gets the attraction and marketing of a national park with half the physical resources and rangers. A recipe ripe for increased destruction of the land and probably more looting unfortunately.

[markf]

Oh good, even the clothing manufacturers are politicizing their products.

I dread the day we have to pick between liberal and conservative toothpastes, clothing, etc.

Manufacturers and other corporations have always politicized their products one way or another. They take the profits from the goods and services they sell you and spend part of it buying influence in various ways to benefit their own short term interest. Patagonia is just being more open about what they're doing.

[justiner]

Honestly, the shrunken monument is fine for what it is with the recent boom in outdoor tourism. In my opinion, the biggest threat to the area are the increased amounts of people who will visit it as hikers/outdoors people rather than oil and mining co's. Unfortunately, being a monument means it gets the attraction and marketing of a national park with half the physical resources and rangers. A recipe ripe for increased destruction of the land and probably more looting unfortunately.

Monument status gives legal protection against the looting, vandalism, and grave robbing in the area - more so than just keeping the land BLM. This was the original reason of creating the Antiquities Act. But again, the current administration doesn't care. Consider how they're handling the destruction of Native American burial sites to build the border wall.

[IntrepidXJ]

Honestly, the shrunken monument is fine for what it is with the recent boom in outdoor tourism. In my opinion, the biggest threat to the area are the increased amounts of people who will visit it as hikers/outdoors people rather than oil and mining co's. Unfortunately, being a monument means it gets the attraction and marketing of a national park with half the physical resources and rangers. A recipe ripe for increased destruction of the land and probably more looting unfortunately.

Monument status gives legal protection against the looting, vandalism, and grave robbing in the area - more so than just keeping the land BLM. This was the original reason of creating the Antiquities Act. But again, the current administration doesn't care. Consider how they're handling the destruction of Native American burial sites to build the border wall.

All the the Cultural sites within the Monument were already protected by various federal laws on the books. Laws were never an issue, it's the enforcement that is, and no additional funds were added with the Monument status. Now there are more people interested in this area with no additional resources...

[SkaredShtles]

AFAIK, the vast majority of wind turbines (~95%) and solar farms (>99%) are on private land.

They also do not emit carbon at anywhere near the same rate as coal and natural gas extraction (and burning) or forestry. But, ultimately, the problem is that there is no *good* solution to our demands for energy.

Yeah? Well the truth won't fit into LURE's narrative. So let's ignore the facts.

[ker0uac]

While I support the causes that Patagonia takes up, I am always wary of profit-making enterprises claiming to have a conscience. It feels like a manipulation strategy - "look at all the good I am doing over there, and don't look over here" - like Google's "Do the right thing".

Patagonia's profit margin is higher than all the other competitors and has only been growing. So is this just a marketing gimmick? If it's not, then they take the credit for these initiatives by overcharging their customers? One could argue, "who cares if they are doing the right thing?" Well, maybe I am just a cynical misathrope, but I hate the feeling of being manipulated.

The other day, I went to a restaurant who noted on their menu - "we apply a 5% overcharge to help close the wage gap between front of and back of the kitchen employees". To me, that means the restaurants wants to be a social justice warrior at my expense? If the owners really felt strongly about it, why didn't they take 5% out of their own profits?

[LURE]

AFAIK, the vast majority of wind turbines (~95%) and solar farms (>99%) are on private land.

They also do not emit carbon at anywhere near the same rate as coal and natural gas extraction (and burning) or forestry. But, ultimately, the problem is that there is no *good* solution to our demands for energy.

Yeah? Well the truth won't fit into LURE's narrative. So let's ignore the facts.

what truth?

i'm really not concerned with any carbon footprint argument. whether wind farms produce more or less co2 makes no difference to me

i'm more concerned with habtiat destruction and the proliferation (or not) of environment and wildlife. in wyoming they can be particularly harmful to pronghorn migrations, sage grouse, and even mule deer.

what about the land fills filling up with wind farm turbine blades? so green.

i'm not okay with green lighting wind farms on public land simply because they're not O&G or mining

there are many areas i don't filled up with O&G batteries or hardrock mines either

but to put wind energy on a pedestal because it's not O&G is simply retarded. as public opinion tends to sway these days

we should be filling our urban areas that already destroyed habitat and environment with backyard wind turbines and rooftop solar panels, but nah, it makes more sense to destroy more habitat.