the environmental cost of mining in the desert

[Sal]

above you see the Borax mine at Boron, Ca. now owned by Rio Tinto in London. They will NEVER have to restore this area even after all the ore is gone (in another 30 years)

If the cost of restoration could be subracted from the profits made, the net worth would be less than zero.

Very much like shale oil or coal tar sands producing viable amounts of fuel.

[Ken@WonderValley]

Here you go Sal. Dont say I never helped you.

[Pharo]

Looks like it will make for some good riding once they move out.

Later,

PBiZ

[Dan]

Interesting to note that even if we all lived in mud huts, we are still altering the landscape in some massive ways. If the ultimate goal is that we can't alter the landscape to provide for raw materials to make humans more comfortable, we can't fulfill our right to live our lives in convenience and progressively better our standard of living. The ultimate end game of the environmental movement is that we not be allowed to mine raw materials, cut lumber, clear brush, move rocks, blend chemicals, build or drive cars, build homes, recreate, or travel freely throughout this nation's backcountry.....without their approval and restrictions. They ultimately want all human economic activity to either cease, or only continue under their permission and strict supervision.

This is where it's ultimately headed whenever we hand people like Sal the reins. This is unacceptable in a democracy. Environmentalism is economically unsustainable.

[Kevin]

I've been recording and watching a series called "How the earth was made". Watch it and you won't spend anymore time worried about the planet

Peace,

Kevin

[Dan]

How about this, Sal? Would you consider this to be irreparable damage?

http://www.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&m ... 93da558f50

The environmental cost of environmentalism in the desert.

[Goldseeker]

Ya know Sal, you can piss and moan about ORV's all you want, it will do you no good anyway, but when you start in on miners/prospectors, my advice to you is back off. They are a much different breed than ORV people, will not tolerate those of your narrow minded kind, and will eat you for breakfast, and regurgitate you at lunch. Back off fool.

[Sal]

The photo posted by Dan was of the wind farms near Tehachapi. The roads leading to the towers look nearly as bad as an area impacted by unregulated OHV use. There are a couple of big differences. Wind farms are made on property either leased or bought by the companies running them. The roads were made with permission and environmental oversight. Nevertheless they are ugly and do impact the desert ecology (though not to the extent of OHV use with noxious fumes, horrendous noise and the raising of dust).

Wind towers are there to produce energy for use in homes and businesses. My feeling is that these wind towers and other alternative energy sources such as solar panels should be installed on the roofs and nearby where the energy will be used. I do not support using the desert as a place to install solar plants and wind machines. However, it will be a lot easier to restore these roads than it will be to restore open pit mines or OHV barrens.

[LeeVW]

The one thing about mining that I can't seem to understand is why foreign companies are allowed to extract our natural resources. They exploit our land for their own profit. It would be a little different if the companies were American-owned. I guess that's just not how the United States works.

Dan, that's a great example of how so-called "green" power is destructive to the desert ecology. The density of roads around those infernal machines is much higher than any OHV area I have ever been to. The image doesn't even show the atrocious numbers of birds and bats that get killed by those awful machines every year. Solar farms are even worse, as the land they occupy is bladed "laser level", with every plant and animal in the way decimated in the process. It is easy to support "renewable energy" when you live in the city and have never seen the devastation it brings to our wild areas.

Sal, I am also a supporter of rooftop solar. The only thing getting in the way of its implementation is cost and corporate greed. If all the money that has been spent on the war in the Middle East and all the money that was given to the executives in the form of bailouts had been spent on rooftop solar and *gasp* nuclear power, we would have been energy independant by now. Again, that's not how the United States works.

Lee

[Dan]

How about this one, Sal? Is this a good use of "pristine" desert lands? At 5-10 acres per megawatt, we could cover the desert with these things and still not replace fossil fuels.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q ... iwloc=addr

When we begin to understand that solar and wind generated energy is not economically feasible as we thought, and ends up doing more damage to the earth than more efficient and cleaner fossil fuel burning technologies, we begin to understand that these "passive" forms of energy aren't quite so benign as environmental groups would have us believe.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/03/18-3

But of course, the new goal of environmental groups will become to force "economic feasibility" by punishing those who don't develop and utilize their chosen form of technology. Just as long as it makes enviros feel good about their choices, their advocacy, and their methods of forcing their views on other segments of society, it's ok, right?