Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Then we get rolled.It really is incalculable to understand what the true long term costs of something are, or there enviromtental impacts. Its mostly a "political football" as @Big Fin would say. A great case in point is texas - known well as a deeply red state - it has the highest renewable output in the country.
The ecological impact/damage from a solar farm comes primarily from mining. The precious metals mined are mined with ugly practice and terrible for the enviroment, no doubt. Recycling them well is also not practiced, at the moment. Which represents its own set of issues and complications, obviously.
However, the area the panels are on is static - with a typical design life of 30-40 years. In that time frame - to generate the same electricity - the area disturbed to mine that much coal or extract that much gas would be much larger. The mine uses fuel, equipment, and all sorts of other things that ultimately came out of the dirt too.
It is exceedingly difficult (especially because info is typically politically charged to overstate one side of the facts) to weigh all options and understand the true impacts/costs/benefits of x vs y in energy development and conservation.
Our effort as hunters should be focused on defining critical areas and scientific justifications for them. If thats in as many as areas as possible - win. But going wholesale "No development" isnt going to be an argument that sells well enough to make a difference against public interest in goods/power/water and corporate interest in profit.
It isnt explicitly right and left - again look at texas.Then we get rolled.
Explain the difference in what's happening now.
On one side we have the Mike Lee crowd.
Now we have the other side, who traditionally have been much better on public ground, who have found their way to use it as a revenue source.
I think that is why I end up most liking candidates that are not extreme left or right. The closer they are to the middle of the spectrum, they higher likelihood they support the sportsman's ideology.It isnt explicitly right and left - again look at texas.
Sort of do, actually. We are a huge minority. When any minority starts from a position of "I'm a bad ass and I'm going to fight" it turns away people that might be sympathetic to the cause and typically results in the minority getting its ass kicked."WE", actually don't have to be agreeable.
Texas has 2% public land. It's not a good comparisonIt isnt explicitly right and left - again look at texas.
Those guys wearing red ties greenlighted that. Thats the point. It is a good comparison - development is development to wildlife. Worrying about public land only - and negelecting a lot of superior habitat is on private land.Texas has 2% public land. It's not a good comparison
Sort of do, actually. We are a huge minority. When any minority starts from a position of "I'm a bad ass and I'm going to fight" it turns away people that might be sympathetic to the cause and typically results in the minority getting its ass kicked.
And I can think of a lot of BLM that is better used as a solar farm than putting it on private land that is ideal wintering ground.
Private land has advocatesThose guys wearing red ties greenlighted that. Thats the point. It is a good comparison - development is development to wildlife. Worrying about public land only - and negelecting a lot of superior habitat is on private land.