U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 09:41 AM
 
Location: Bellingham, WA
996 posts, read 1,147,675 times
Reputation: 1102

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
and that "super volcano" if tapped properly not only could power the entire western hemisphere, but by tapping it, you reduce the risk of an eruption


https://www.nationalgeographic.com/s...celand-hawaii/


https://newsela.com/read/Yellowstone...-energy-source

It's said that if Yellowstone's super volcano erupted it would be an end-of-all-life-event, for the massive amounts of ash put into the atmosphere. If we can tap that and prevent it from having a massive eruption that would be a win-win.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 09:48 AM
 
39,799 posts, read 41,173,151 times
Reputation: 16483
Quote:
Originally Posted by usayit View Post
I think there are lands that contribute to the country as a whole and shouldn't be subject to the will of just a small group of people (state).

Once you get west of the Texas/Kansas/ND line about half the land is controlled by the feds. Liberals are going to try and portray this as "mining Yellowstone" as the one poster did above. That just sensationalist BS trying to appeal to someone's naivety. Fact is you are talking about vast tracts of lands without any particular significance. You can drive for hours in these areas and there is whole lot of nothing....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 09:51 AM
 
37,835 posts, read 16,374,284 times
Reputation: 8573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbones View Post
They shouldn't. The state that the land resides in should own it.
I agree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 09:57 AM
 
32,967 posts, read 16,869,442 times
Reputation: 17810
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbones View Post
They shouldn't. The state that the land resides in should own it.
Then all it takes is to get in one "business-friendly" state government to open for resource extraction, and poof, away goes something irreplaceable. At least it takes serious money to bribe DC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 09:59 AM
 
32,967 posts, read 16,869,442 times
Reputation: 17810
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottomobeale View Post
So we have another Ajit Pai.
Sad but unsurprising.
Hey, those redwoods are just standing around doing nothing, when sawing them up could make a very rich guy fractionally richer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 10:02 AM
 
13,310 posts, read 4,577,479 times
Reputation: 6528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
Then all it takes is to get in one "business-friendly" state government to open for resource extraction, and poof, away goes something irreplaceable. At least it takes serious money to bribe DC.
Another who thinks the Feds are so much more benevolent than state gov's. BTW, at some point those resources will have to be extracted anyway due to population explosion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 10:03 AM
 
39,799 posts, read 41,173,151 times
Reputation: 16483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
Then all it takes is to get in one "business-friendly" state government to open for resource extraction, and poof, away goes something irreplaceable. At least it takes serious money to bribe DC.

640 million acres is controlled by the feds, is it all irreplaceable? For perspective the entire state of CA is 104 million . Roughly they control an area the size of 6 California's .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 10:10 AM
 
Location: Long Island
33,688 posts, read 14,195,969 times
Reputation: 7223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracer View Post
President Barack Obama has seized more land for the federal government than any other president in American history. To date, he has unilaterally taken over 260 million acres of land and water, giving control and ownership over to the feds.


Obama used the antiquities act to bypass congress and shut out public input into the use and management of those lands


'Western states are particularly sensitive to federal land ownership..."


the refrain for decades has been complaints about Washington elite making decisions about the management of western lands.


Well it makes sense to have the policy makers where the policies will be implemented.


why did Obama do it?


not because of his love for the environment, it was payback for votes to the environmental lobby and to ď..... systematically abused executive powers through unilateral rules, orders and memorandums designed to make energy and resource development uneconomical.Ē remember his promise to cause energy prices to skyrocket????


the pendulum keeps on swinging
I think it was Teddy Roosevelt that set aside more federal lands than any president. Plenty of presidents increased park land and others going back a century because the want to protect the land.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 10:14 AM
 
Location: Long Island
33,688 posts, read 14,195,969 times
Reputation: 7223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbones View Post
There is nothing wrong with preserves, it should be the state's responsibility to preserve them since it's within their borders. Why do you act like the fed gov is so much more benevolent than state gov's? They both can be compromised due to the consequences of elections. That's why voting matters.
Look at Duke Power in North Carolina with the pollution of rivers, do you think the state is going put industry or the environment first. If Florida had the opportunity it would develop the Everglades. No I donít trust the states and developers and industry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 10:18 AM
 
32,967 posts, read 16,869,442 times
Reputation: 17810
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbones View Post
Another who thinks the Feds are so much more benevolent than state gov's.
Not by much. But they are less likely to act capriciously and more expensive to bribe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top