Windmills coming to public land near you
- Thread starter Scott85
- Start date
Northwoods Labs
Well-known member
A real shame. Seems like so many of these groups get too big chasing big dollars and big donors that they lose their way and forget about the average member. See Ducks Unlimited as an example. BHA was the only national org I still supported and am a member of.
D
Deleted member 18333
Guest
This one makes perfect sense to me. Over the last decade renewables and energy efficiency improvements have continued to eat away at FF's chunk of the energy production pie. Coal has gotten smaller in that timeframe, much smaller. Particularly western coal. Has the Gas industry? A huge reason for both is that gas has great avenue to be exported, western coal does not. The only growth potential for western thermal coal is exports to Asia. Without a viable west coast port the industry has seen bankruptcy after bankruptcy. Gas can be exported now and that is the where the growth is. If anyone thinks this Bill will generate more renewable energy that will therefore decrease the need for O&G development in the US they are dreaming. Any Kw produced from renewable that displaces a Kw from gas will just causes that gas to go to another country. And it doesn't matter who is President. It happened under Obama, continued under Trump and will continue on when AOC is eventually President.
MO Betta
Well-known member
I'll be putting myself out to pasture if that ever happens.
Great post.
As a side note, one of the funniest things I've ever witnessed is a lobbyist for Cloud Peak tell a room full of Legislators that South Korea was going to save the coal industry. That lobbyist is now working for the MT Chamber of Commerce. The legislators ate it up.
antelopedundee
Well-known member
Why can't they be ground up and mixed with concrete for non-critical uses like sidewalks, traffic barriers?
@JM77 Are you saying that you were told to support grizzly delisting but not hunting?...or was it a typo and you couldn't support grizzly delisting?
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
...while now becoming an exporter of LNG & petroleum....
Hugely complicated, the main thing to keep in mind is that you are talking about global supply chains, with multinational countries, and that there is a ton of variability in hydrocarbon products and we utilize them to various extents. Asking why we export and import is similar to saying why we import/export food when we produce enough beef and corn to provide for the caloric requirements of the US population. Gotta get my avocados for my toast bro.
This article does a decent job explaining the issue.
https://www.api.org/news-policy-and-issues/blog/2018/06/14/why-the-us-must-import-and-export-oil
are we glossing over the international security benefits of being energy independent?
meh, that's heading further towards the ditch... oh well
i'm sure the EU is so thrilled to rely on russia for an actually rather significant portion of their gas
just of note. if people are wondering why exporting gas is such a big deal i'd think that would be something to care about.
meh, that's heading further towards the ditch... oh well
i'm sure the EU is so thrilled to rely on russia for an actually rather significant portion of their gas
just of note. if people are wondering why exporting gas is such a big deal i'd think that would be something to care about.
D
Deleted member 18333
Guest
Hell yes you did! And you didn't even need an Instagram account to make it happen. You guys accomplished some great things when the focus wasn't have another Pint Night.
This assumes that
1.) The energy produced here in the form of raw materials (i.e. LNG, Oil, Coal) will stay in the US.
2.) That the companies who develop these resources will be amenable to remaining in politically capped markets, rather than wanting to market their product abroad.
It was the energy sector that lobbied extensively to lift the petroleum export prohibition. If it were about energy security, then congress should have said no, sell it here only. We will not be "energy independent" so long as we continue to have a global energy market and supply chain. It's a political sobriquet to lull us into relaxing protections for fish & wildlife on public lands while we eat the costs of development. We're an exporter of energy. We're a colony to be exploited by the companies who have purchased politicians at the state and federal level.
Since 2000, we've had the following campaigns:
Energy Security (Bush II era)
Energy Independence (Obama)
Energy Dominance (Trump)
All of those, including the Obama administration, put significant value on making it look like we were developing energy for our own nation, when in fact it was always for export abroad - because that's the economic institution of the vast majority of trade in the world - global markets. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was a major cheerleader for exporting our energy (LNG) and the fracking technology to other countries. None of those campaigns were ever about their generic slogans, but for more profit for the companies developing the resource.
Wind, Solar, etc will be no different once they figure out storage well enough, and they already have the transmission capacity for sending it elsewhere (out of state of production).
beginnerhunter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,320
Thats a colorful way of putting it! The deregulation tendencies of the libertarian-led GOP and neoliberals has put us at the mercy of oligopolies. Trump was elected partly because he promised to roll that back. Unfortunately, his admin continues to approve massive mergers in all sectors of the economy. It creates a sick codependency that nobody has the resources to fight. Parks and Rec had it right:
Gellar
Well-known member
JM77
Well-known member
That's not a typo. They wanted the Wyoming Chapter to take a position supporting delisting. Nothing else.
We didn't comply with that request by the way. Buzz sent a great letter in full support of state management of grizzlies by the Wyo Game & Fish Dept, including hunting as a management tool.
Was their pushback from national for this?
JM77
Well-known member
Not that I recall. It may not have gotten any further than the state coordinator.
Wind Gypsy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2017
- Messages
- 2,044
Maybe my reading comprehension is off, but I took your other post to indicate that Land or BHA in general didn’t want you taking a stance that supported hunting the GYE griz?
JM77
Well-known member
That is correct. I'm not sure where the confusion is about this. Wyoming took it upon ourselves to support WY G&F management, including hunting. National wanted us to say we supported "delisting".
I do believe now the BHA statement supports state control, without mentioning hunting.
Hey all, see below from John Gale our director of conservation:
The short of it is we’re not opposed to oil and gas energy development on public lands any more so than we are renewable energy development. Ultimately, we’re interested in helping direct policies that ensure wildlife habitat is not negatively impacted by energy development of all kinds. This bill helps do that while also providing a funding source to help mitigate impacts.
www.trcp.org
That is what was sent my chapter. BHA is completely freaking tone deaf on this one. How do they expect to ever be taken seriously on energy develop ment again? How do they expect any of us to be taken seriously when we push the cause?
"Just tell Land we will send some money to Wildlife"
I'm still waiting to talk to a BHA member supporting this. Not sure one exists, outside of Missoula.
The short of it is we’re not opposed to oil and gas energy development on public lands any more so than we are renewable energy development. Ultimately, we’re interested in helping direct policies that ensure wildlife habitat is not negatively impacted by energy development of all kinds. This bill helps do that while also providing a funding source to help mitigate impacts.
Sportsmen's Groups Throw Support Behind Renewable Energy Legislation | Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
Today's House hearing will consider a measure that sportsmen’s coalition says will help protect wildlife and public lands with thoughtful planning and revenue for conservation.
www.trcp.org
That is what was sent my chapter. BHA is completely freaking tone deaf on this one. How do they expect to ever be taken seriously on energy develop ment again? How do they expect any of us to be taken seriously when we push the cause?
"Just tell Land we will send some money to Wildlife"
I'm still waiting to talk to a BHA member supporting this. Not sure one exists, outside of Missoula.
D
Deleted member 18333
Guest
Replace the words "wind, solar and renewable energy" in this bill with "Oil, gas and fossil fuel energy". Keep every other word in the bill the same and ask yourself would BHA, TU and TRCP sign on as supporters? I asked John Gale that very question and he has yet to answer it. He has replied but has never answered that question. BTW, doing that would result in less surface disturbance acreage and far more money for F&W, the State, the County and the Fed deficit fund.
