I would call myself a pragmatic environmentalist.
Sandi Nishikawa

A balanced approach? What planet do you live on?

Private mining companies take public lands and extract whatever they want. You may not have taken college level ecology classes, so I would suggest that you are ignorant that it can take up to 300 years for niches to recover from even moderately conscious projects.

You want Ecologists to get on their knees to thank the industry for spinning as you did here with CoGen or the comparing ag-potheads?

Those lands that got messed up in the Standing Rock protest were tribal lands that US feds should actually have no jurisdiction over. Their legally acknowledged control over these lands was abrogated by the Corp. — and you go and point to the impacts of the camp? Yes, it permanently polluted the Missouri with oil, asbestos or uranium! Right!

Just look at where your head is. Your comment here, crocodile tears, as extractive industry’s rake the cash in and leave the long term impacts out of sight. Bait and switch arguments over the hard science of impacts and its costs to life should and can never be mitigated.

Hey, did you know that in the 80’s the U.S. government figured out your body is worth a couple of dollars of minerals. Governments should not be allowed to mitigate life for dollars! The objectification (Locke et al.) of the natural world needs to be reversed not further exploited.

You definitely have the latest industry spin docs at hand! Love that “ its only a tiny GHG part of the global problem” tactic. That is until you run over the areas via satellite showing the scale of what your industry is doing. Some estimates put the global energy industry at $5 Trillion a year. By trivializing very large projects on a global context backfires, as it shows to anyone with eyes just how big the climate/fossil problem is, not how much you can belittle the issue.

I apologize for the state of your eco-activists in Canada. There is a difference between formally trained scientists and most environmental activists. As mentioned previously, and not responded to either, groups that can’t afford legal teams, let alone staff scientists are caught in a real problem. And I mentioned this weakness earlier; scholars, lawyers and scientists do not work for peanuts. So should we play fair when the extractive industry never has, nor will the nuks in Ottawa set up a fair regulatory playing field? The public should be demanding things, but are they even going to know how to do this, when their media are playing the same gatekeeping jobs that the US media does when it comes to buttering their bread — keeping the public distracted Wizzard of Oz style.

Its not that hard to see who has the cash and how the games are played. Maybe if you claimed that people do more than talk, that you yourself be more than a prag and go and make a difference rather than letting the system continue on in such an unethical manner — where people like yourself can claim things and use those claims to damage the issue even further due to lake of action! Yeah, let those poor oafs go fix it as they made the mess political mess — and don’t know how to convert popular dissent into real regulatory reform, especially since they are mostly outsiders with signs rather than real decision makers that are just making fun of them.

Talk about an unfair balance! We have seen how geology departments, let alone other hard science dept. play games with this. Imagine, for example, if you want to be a health physicist in the U.S. or Canada for that matter. For you to get that far up the Ivory Tower you have to be a pro-nuclear ideologist or you will never have a chance getting a degree! The same goes for other departments that have biased funding regimes.

Its wonderful that you have the jargon and reading level down, but then it took decades of criminal manipulation by the media to undo the damages of Lucy Arnez and the smoking industry’s science skeptics strategy, let alone what we see with the climate. How many scientists sell out, or worse are destroyed by the failed ethics that result in programs that help moderate the expansion of extraction rather than stop it. Hell, we will help keep a stream off the Hudson clean in exchange for polluting 10 others! Mitigation has become the art of legal small talk that takes teams of lawyers and activists to undo and you speak about fair?

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.