North Dakota near Tipping Point for Development

April 3, 2013

Posted by greenman3610
Filed in Crock of the Week

13 Comments »

13 Responses to “North Dakota near Tipping Point for Development”

North Dakota near Tipping Point for Development | Sustain Our Earth | Scoop.it Says:

April 3, 2013 at 2:19 am
[…] with Peter Sinclair (by Daniel LaLiberte) […]

Reply
mrsircharles Says:

April 3, 2013 at 2:34 am
“Only when the last tree has died, the last river has been poisoned and the last fish has been caught will we realize that we cannot eat money.”

Reply
rayduray Says:

April 3, 2013 at 4:20 am
Time to reunite the tribes?

May 23:

https://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/goldman/adbusters-tactical-briefing-41.html

Reply
- andrewfez Says:
  
  April 3, 2013 at 5:49 am
  (Off topic)
  
  Re: Bankster Shenanigans:
  
  http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/02/18/289652/iran-sentences-4-to-death-in-scam-case/
  
  Notice in the comments section of this article, one is hard pressed to find a Western commenter who does not disagree with Iran laying down the law on their fraudsters; in fact, they’re cheering them on.
  
  ————————————————————————————————-
  
  Re: the ND video:
  
  The dude at the end says, “But when there’s that much oil, and that much profit and that much employment, we as an ENLIGHTENED people can afford to say ‘We don’t have to do ALL of it – we can choose a FEW really magnificent and fragile places that we agree to save’.”.
  
  Does that not strike anyone else as insane?
  
  I almost hear the last inhabitants of Easter Island saying, “Well, when there’s that much sustenance, shelter and wealth from these trees, we can agree to save a few of them, being the very wise people that we are, but more farmland we must have”.
  
  Reply
  - Jeremy Nathan Marks Says:
    
    April 5, 2013 at 10:53 pm
    I think you are quite right. But I also think that we now face energy demands so overwhelming that any form of compromise is going to come with oil development. I wish this were not so.
    
    The fallacy in the statement you have quoted is the belief that we can save a few places at the expense of many others. The air, water and wildlife we want to see preserved do not confine themselves to a few special places. If we destroy other parts of the ecosystem there is no way to ensure that what is preserved within the bounds of Theodore Roosevelt National Forest will remain intact.
    
    Reply
    - andrewfez Says:
      
      April 6, 2013 at 4:29 pm
      Yup, just looking at one of the International Energy Agency’s oil production graph projections, it’s apparent that in order just to keep crude oil production flat for the next few decades, huge amounts of ‘yet to be developed crude’ fields and ‘yet to be discovered crude’ fields have to be exploited to replace the crude that’s already surfing down the Hubbard curve. Unconventional oil, a small area under the curve on the graph, has to continue to grow, and as well Nat Gas liquids, in order for the overall curve to see a bit of growth. Couple that with the fact that IEA often (>50% of the time) is over optimistic in its projections, and that’s a recipe for all national parks to be sucked dry at some point.
      
      Reply
      - Jeremy Nathan Marks Says:
        
        April 6, 2013 at 5:38 pm
        That is how it has appeared to me as well. Thank you for the information.
        
        I think it comes down to the fact that for a great many people (entrpreneurs or not) the beauty and pristineness off our national parks is secondary to so-called “energy independence.” I think part of the problem is that the parks -which are true treasures- remain “out there” and apart from the day-to-day lives of many people. Unless people start considering how these exploitative operations are affecting their proximate environment the national parks will remain at great risk. And then of course there is fracking which is also a growing threat to air and water quality everywhere.
Alexander Ač Says:

April 3, 2013 at 1:13 pm
Well. elswhere in US (Texas), there is NO WATER:

Reply
- rayduray Says:
  
  April 4, 2013 at 2:27 am
  This was 10 months ago. They’ve gotten out of this mess.
  
  Reply
neilblanchard Says:

April 3, 2013 at 3:17 pm
We can get more jobs from renewable energy, and more benefits – with almost none of the risks of oil and coal and gas. We have to leave at least 4/5ths of the fossil fuels *in the ground*.

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/how-many-gigatons-of-co2/

Neil

Reply
rayduray Says:

April 4, 2013 at 2:32 am
Among cognoscenti who live in the region. drought is pronounced as if it were spelled drough-th. You know you’re talkin’ to local when you get that -th at the end.

What you’ll get from Paul at WeatherNation is the current conditions.

Not so good in South Dakota at the moment. Where they are pronouncing the dry lands as “a bit lackin’ in moisture”. They love understatement out thataway.

Reply
Jeremy Nathan Marks Says:

April 5, 2013 at 10:45 pm
Reblogged this on The Sand County and commented:
This needs to be shared too. I think many of us know where this is going. . . .

Reply
Jeremy Nathan Marks Says:

April 5, 2013 at 10:47 pm
It is just stunning that people think that the future does not matter. That there will be people in the future who will have to live in the remains of this exploitation. Once the oil is gone and burned off, that will be it. And what will be left but scarred, barren land and poverty.

Reply