Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jimmy Carter asks court to defend Alaska’s ‘unrivaled wilderness’

alaskapublic.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 187 posts

Re: Jimmy Carter asks court to defend Alaska’s ‘unrivaled wilderness’

#21

Post by notch656a »

mod wrote: post #17
notch656a wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A well connected, wealthy person with no real worries about their own access to medical professionals and no real roots in Alaska feigning to act for the good of nature but in the process acting against the interest of these communities? Say it aint so.

What does 97 year old Jimmy Carter have to gain from making a stand here? I cannot come up with any motivations besides the guy actually just wants to protect the wild. He grew up close to the land, so that makes sense to me.

He gets to look like he's saving the wilderness while denying advancement in access to medical care to majority native/Asian community.

Re: Jimmy Carter asks court to defend Alaska’s ‘unrivaled wilderness’

#24

Post by IanDrake »

mod wrote: post #11
notch656a wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

45% of households in King Cove have children who had no choice in whether the road is there or not 40 years ago. It's hard to just blame them that "they knew the roads weren't there" when they were born thus they're not allowed roads to medical care the way I (and probably you) are.

I would sooner take the children away or force the residents to move than pave a road through the Alaskan wilderness. I wouldn't do those things either, though. People get to choose where and how to raise their children. Children don't get a say so in virtually anything that affects them. "Think of the children" is not a good argument. Also the whole population is like 1200 people. We're talking about a relative hand…

No post body was provided.

Re: Jimmy Carter asks court to defend Alaska’s ‘unrivaled wilderness’

#25

Post by WalterBright »

notch656a wrote: post #4
CA0DA wrote: post #2

For those simply upvoting without reading the article, this case is more nuanced than the headline may sound: > Residents in the community of King Cove want to exchange land to build a gravel road through the refuge to provide access to an all-weather airport in nearby Cold Bay for medical transports.

A well connected, wealthy person with no real worries about their own access to medical professionals and no real roots in Alaska feigning to act for the good of nature but in the process acting against the interest of these communities? Say it aint so.

The Alaskan wilderness belongs to all of us.

The people there are welcome to enjoy the wilderness. Not pave it.

Re: Jimmy Carter asks court to defend Alaska’s ‘unrivaled wilderness’

#26

Post by ivanhoe »

mod wrote: post #11
notch656a wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

45% of households in King Cove have children who had no choice in whether the road is there or not 40 years ago. It's hard to just blame them that "they knew the roads weren't there" when they were born thus they're not allowed roads to medical care the way I (and probably you) are.

I would sooner take the children away or force the residents to move than pave a road through the Alaskan wilderness. I wouldn't do those things either, though. People get to choose where and how to raise their children. Children don't get a say so in virtually anything that affects them. "Think of the children" is not a good argument. Also the whole population is like 1200 people. We're talking about a relative hand…

We destroyed our local wilderness long time ago to make our lives safer and easier and more comfortable - and now we're judging others for wanting the same for their town...

Re: Jimmy Carter asks court to defend Alaska’s ‘unrivaled wilderness’

#27

Post by notch656a »

WalterBright wrote: post #25
notch656a wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A well connected, wealthy person with no real worries about their own access to medical professionals and no real roots in Alaska feigning to act for the good of nature but in the process acting against the interest of these communities? Say it aint so.

The Alaskan wilderness belongs to all of us. The people there are welcome to enjoy the wilderness. Not pave it.

King cove is almost 50% ethnically native, not to mention the rest of whom have have that as their home regardless of the home of their ancestors. Considering that and their historical ties to the land, I'd say they have a little more say than the average lower 48er.

Re: Jimmy Carter asks court to defend Alaska’s ‘unrivaled wilderness’

#28

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

Read Carter's amicus brief

https://www.cartercenter.org/resources/pdfs/amicus-brief-jim...

Carter's argument: Regardless of any facts surrounding the purpose of a road, the 1980 ANILCA did not authorise (Trump's) Secretary of the Interior to review and permit development in refuges on an ad-hoc basis, via section 2192(h)(1) land exchanges. A majority of a three-member panel of the Court of Appeals got it wrong. The Court needs to reconvene, en banc.

"But the decision of the panel majority in this case rests on a grave misunderstanding of the fundamentals of this vital law. In enacting ANILCA, Congress did not, as the decision concluded, vest the Secretary with discretion to decide whether lands like the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge should be retained in their natural state or whether the economic and social benefits of road-building or other development outweigh the ecological and subsistence harms that such activities would inflict.

That is precisely what ANILCA disallowed when it expressly designated particular lands for conservation and subsistence, legislative decisions that carry corresponding, enduring protections. Those designations were not based on the assumption that these lands lacked economic value. Just the opposite: ANILCAs framers and supporters knew there would forever be claims, often advanced by organized and well-financed interests, that they should be put to immediate use for local economic development and other purposes. Valuable benefits to the Nation as a whole, to subsistence users, and to future generations would fare poorly in an ad hoc balancing."

Carter is 97 years old.

Re: Jimmy Carter asks court to defend Alaska’s ‘unrivaled wilderness’

#29

Post by WalterBright »

MomoXenosaga wrote: post #13
mod wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally don't consider that nuanced. I live five miles from pavement, an hour from a hospital, so I understand these concerns. I would be absolutely disgusted if they paved through my local national forest for some quicker access to... Anything. Literally anything. Those people all have the choice to leave. Living in remote places comes with many, many tradeoffs and inconveniences. There's no safety in the wilde…

We know from history that the destruction of the jungle's began with roads making them accessible to illegal loggers, miners and hunters. The road to hell...

A lot of illegal logging of old growth goes on in Washington State adjacent to the roads.

Re: Jimmy Carter asks court to defend Alaska’s ‘unrivaled wilderness’

#30

Post by ivanhoe »

WalterBright wrote: post #20
ivanhoe wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they've either been without that road for 40 years, or moved there knowing the situation. It's a really weird argument, you're basically saying that people shouldn't be allowed to upgrade their infrastructure ever? Imagine saying that for some poor country: "Oh, well, they either had no running water before, or they knew the situation before moving there, so screw them, they can just continue walking 5 miles every…

> people shouldn't be allowed to upgrade their infrastructure ever? In a wilderness area? No.

Whole US were a wilderness once... you're basically punishing them for not destroying their nature earlier on, like the rest of us did...
Post reply on HN