Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Population of a state has nothing to do with surplus land. Obviously your travels didn't provide you with clues to figure that out.
The logic or lack thereof in your comment is amazing.
In my travels I did know enough to understand that just because there isn't someone standing on every acre of land holding up a sign proclaiming ownership doesn't mean no one owns the land or that they aren't using it.
I think the subject was use of public land. I do find plenty of private land ownwers ready and willing to lease wind easements.
Ultimately I benefit from more wind towers. I just hate to look at the things.... The more that go up the more fossil fueled power plants I get to build!
The goal isn't to stop all fossil fuel plants from being built. The goal is to get rid of dirty coal.
The goal isn't to stop all fossil fuel plants from being built. The goal is to get rid of dirty coal.
Let me complete your thoughts.
The goal is to get rid of dirty coal first. Then we move on all fossil fuel plants.
The same people who are fighting over a two dollar raise in min wage in the name of helping the poor have no trouble driving entire states into poverty by banning an entire energy source.
So the answer is no but if it is your pet project the sanctity of land is out the window. Let the Terexes roll.
There is land where no ATV should be allowed. There is land where limited ATV use is appropriate. There is land where nobody gives a damn about what ATV owners want to do.
I don't see why we should have sport ATVs operate in National Parks. People can hike in.
I am fine with modest use in National Forests, but not fine with ATV tearing up the soil on the slopes. That will lead to erosion.
I'm fine with concessions setting up ATV parks on some federal land after an environmental assessment.
The goal is to get rid of dirty coal first. Then we move on all fossil fuel plants.
The same people who are fighting over a two dollar raise in min wage in the name of helping the poor have no trouble driving entire states into poverty by banning an entire energy source.
You should just leave my words alone. Your intellect isn't strong enough to project.
I'm fine with concessions setting up ATV parks on some federal land after an environmental assessment.
How come laying down a 3ft wide pipeline needs 10 years of "environmental assessment" with no end in sight but thousands of acres of land go under solar panels seemingly overnight? Where are the environmental studies there? What happened to critters and rats that are now denied sunlight?
How come laying down a 3ft wide pipeline needs 10 years of "environmental assessment" with no end in sight but thousands of acres of land go under solar panels seemingly overnight? Where are the environmental studies there? What happened to critters and rats that are now denied sunlight?
You obviously are a low information poster. All renewable energy projects on federal land are check in advance with either an environmental assessment or and environmental impact statement. The same law as applies to a pipeline. All the environmental studies are filed along with the records of decision.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
