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

111–120 of 187 posts

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

#111

Post by rayiner »

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.

Comparing a rural community that wants better access to medical treatment to a “cancer cell” is abhorrent. If you want to pay these people to leave, the pony up the money. But until then let them have the basic necessities of civilization and development.

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

#112

Post by thrdbndndn »

frosted-flakes wrote: post #107
thrdbndndn wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> "the land" = nature

Thanks for your kind explanation. This is the part I didn't know.

In my defence, I did check the dictionary [1] but didn't find anything to suggest land means nature/rural/etc.

[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/land#Noun

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

#114

Post by jfoutz »

CircleSpokes wrote: post #85
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 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 runway stays plowed. Anchorage is about 900 miles away. A helicopter ride over to cold bay, then on a plane to Anchorage might be easier if they can keep a pilots on hand. The issue is they can't get there.. the airpor…

I was unclear. Make the airport in king cove all weather. 4 miles out of town.

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

#115

Post by z9znz »

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.

> People in Alaska want to develop their land

In many cases, the "people" who want to develop things are actually not people but rather businesses or agents of businesses.

Go to rural or remote places which have been upgraded and you will find locals lamenting about the changes which invited industry. Many people like their environment undisturbed.

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

#116

Post by askin4it »

asdfk-12 wrote: post #93
Victerius wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Your view seems fundamentally misanthropic - instead of autochthonous population having access to a resource that you take for granted, you would rather kick them out into an expensive urban area where their life is disrupted? All for a perceived risk to a comparitively tiny corridor?

This is about the holy trinity of living today: being correct, being on the right team, and getting your way all the time, every time. It's only a matter of time before it won't be enough to let them call the shots on everything. You know what's after that, you'll either like all this stuff or you'll be part of the reason why it isn't ushering in utopia.

Misanthropic is 100% accurate.

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

#117

Post by [deleted] »

lovich wrote: post #109
VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#118

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#119

Post by rayiner »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #83
1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #28

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 C…

One wonders how the judges misinterpreted it.

First of all they’re going to read the legislative history and understand that Carter’s brief is definitely putting a spin on what happened: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/03/16/2.... Pp. 14-15.

The amicus brief immediately raised alarm bells on first reading, suggesting that Congress didn’t intend the Secretary to consider economic values. Congress basically never does that in an environmental law. They are always a compromise that requires balancing conservation goals with economic needs.

That’s true especially in this context, where native land is at issue.

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

#120

Post by dereg »

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.

How is this anything other than a slippery slope fallacy? Can you provide some examples of where the development of a rural, gravel road led to unstoppable, cancerous development?
Post reply on HN