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

101–110 of 187 posts

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

#101

Post by throwaway290 »

Victerius wrote: post #74
weeksie wrote: post #50

Atrocious to me that anybody would want to block that road. A mine? Sure. Logging? Yup. Oil exploration? Yeah. A gravel road to an airport in Alaska? Come on. I haven't lived in Rural Alaska in 20 years but I was born and raised in a fishing village. People in the lower 48 have no understanding of the vastness of Alaska and how small a concession this really is. These specious environmental lawsuits are why no infras…

Quoted post unavailable.

Absolutely. The sustainable future is with dense urban living. Reducing humanity's footprint is key.

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

#102

Post by [deleted] »

rayiner wrote: post #88
kinnth wrote: post #5

Yes the resident logic is a bait and switch for further developments. Wilderness should stay wild. Leave it as is and do nothing. It's amazing how many powerful politicians and obviously lobbied individuals keep trying to change that.

Blaming “politicians” is a canard. People in Alaska want to develop their land for the same reason people in New York and California did—for economic development and jobs. If other folks value the wilderness so much, they should pay folks in Alaska not to develop their land.

[deleted]

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

#104

Post by lovich »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #91
Victerius wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

This "we don't negotiate with terrorists" type thinking is going to come back to bite you the nanosecond the tables are turned and it's some interest you care about that's seeking some tiny compromise.

I think the point is that it’s not a tiny compromise in aggregate. Pointing to the one instance here and treating the decision like it’s in a vacuum is not what the people against the road believe will happen, based on the points in the article about how this will lead to further development

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

#106

Post by lovich »

rayiner wrote: post #88
kinnth wrote: post #5

Yes the resident logic is a bait and switch for further developments. Wilderness should stay wild. Leave it as is and do nothing. It's amazing how many powerful politicians and obviously lobbied individuals keep trying to change that.

Blaming “politicians” is a canard. People in Alaska want to develop their land for the same reason people in New York and California did—for economic development and jobs. If other folks value the wilderness so much, they should pay folks in Alaska not to develop their land.

> If other folks value the wilderness so much, they should pay folks in Alaska not to develop their land.

We did.

Congress used our tax dollars to purchase Alaska and then later on carved out part of that purchase as this reserve. It is in no way more their land than it is the New Yorker’s or the Californian’s.

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

#107

Post by frosted-flakes »

thrdbndndn wrote: post #90
DennisP wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Close to the land" does not mean "close to that particular land."

Sorry for being obtuse, I genuinely don't get what that means. Don't almost every single person live close to the land?

Living "close to the land" means to be familiar and comfortable with, and reliant on, what "the land" (that is, nature) has to offer. The opposite of a city-dweller, basically.

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

#108

Post by lovich »

tastyfreeze wrote: post #78
jfoutz wrote: post #15

Looking at google maps, there's a ferry about 30 mile ride on the water. I don't know the route they're proposing, but maybe 60 miles over mountains. Ugh. The ambulance isn't going to be going 60 over washboard roads. The good people of Alaska can do whatever they want, but if the concern is medical emergencies, they should seriously consider keeping a plane at the airport, illuminate the airport, and make sure the r…

The people of Alaska can't actually do what they want. Every attempt to develop resources is stopped by people that dont live in the state screaming about protecting the wilderness.

It’s a national park paid for with national tax dollars. The Alaskans don’t have a greater claim to it due to their proximity.

What they actually want to do is use our property to support their lifestyle. It should not be surprising that others have a problem with that

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

#109

Post by lovich »

VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #52
literallyWTF wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

I care! I care about this kind of stuff. I would like DDG to be better...

I wasn’t one of the ones who flagged you, but imo the comment came off more as someone with a personal axe to grind on an unrelated topic, rather than simply wanting ddg to produce better results.

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

#110

Post by rayiner »

weeksie wrote: post #50

Atrocious to me that anybody would want to block that road. A mine? Sure. Logging? Yup. Oil exploration? Yeah. A gravel road to an airport in Alaska? Come on. I haven't lived in Rural Alaska in 20 years but I was born and raised in a fishing village. People in the lower 48 have no understanding of the vastness of Alaska and how small a concession this really is. These specious environmental lawsuits are why no infras…

> Atrocious to me that anybody would want to block that road.

Environmentalists are like “hold my beer.” I actually spent much of law school taking environmental law classes. There’s a lot of good work done by environmental organizations. But “regulation by litigation” is broken. Activist organizations are incentivized to pursue cases that tug the most on heart strings (“protecting pristine Alaska wilderness”) instead of those that best balance costs and benefits.

Post reply on HN