Eric T

Outstanding!!!

Great job by that sabatour to "hit it again"; kinda like Hans Gruber. I'd love to read his manifesto or hear his ideas on capitalism.

Rad, That ted talk wasn't encouraging. Basically that very informed scientist says the future is a big shit sandwich and we're all taking a bite.

There's two problems with nuclear. 1. It makes electricity. 2. We'll eventually run out of fuel. Without digging up the footage when the vice provost of Physics at Cal Tech was asked about nuclear he said if we seriously ramped it up the fuel would last 2 decades. Oil is every ship, plane, truck, tractor, bulldozer, plastics, fertilizer, pesticides, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and 100's of different petro chemicals that go into thousands of manufacturing processes. Electricity is basically a luxury, the most important thing electrical does for us is pump our water followed closely by the internet. We can't just dump oil for electricity. The four truest words ever spoken are "we run on diesel."

The following is fron MIT Engineer Saul Griffith. The world currently runs on about 16 terawatts (trillion watts) of energy, most of it burning fossil fuels. To level off at 450 ppm of carbon dioxide, we will have to reduce the fossil fuel burning to 3 terawatts and produce all the rest with renewable energy, and we have to do it in 25 years or it’s too late. Currently about half a terawatt comes from clean hydropower and one terawatt from clean nuclear. That leaves 11.5 terawatts to generate from new clean sources. That would mean the following. (Here I’m drawing on notes and extrapolations I’ve written up previously from discussion with Griffith): “Two terawatts of photovoltaic would require installing 100 square meters of 15-percent-efficient solar cells every second, second after second, for the next 25 years. (That’s about 1,200 square miles of solar cells a year, times 25 equals 30,000 square miles of photovoltaic cells.) Two terawatts of solar thermal? If it’s 30 percent efficient all told, we’ll need 50 square meters of highly reflective mirrors every second. (Some 600 square miles a year, times 25.) Half a terawatt of biofuels? Something like one Olympic swimming pools of genetically engineered algae, installed every second. (About 15,250 square miles a year, times 25.) Two terawatts of wind? That’s a 300-foot-diameter wind turbine every 5 minutes. (Install 105,000 turbines a year in good wind locations, times 25.) Two terawatts of geothermal? Build 3 100-megawatt steam turbines every day-1,095 a year, times 25. Three terawatts of new nuclear? That’s a 3-reactor, 3-gigawatt plant every week-52 a year, times 25.”

https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/16/climate-change-champions-still-pursuing-devastating-policies-new-study-reveals Here it is from the latest climate report. It's ethnocentric to think we control the outcome of this thing. What's scary is once you come to that truth the next is we don't control the outcome. Now if you wanna read something even worse... https://cleantechnica.com/2018/11/22/peak-oil-drastic-oil-shortages-imminent-says-iea/ What's concerning is the iea was the softest on peak oil, they said 2070, then 2050, look what they're saying now.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/271748/the-largest-emitters-of-co2-in-the-world/ Yes per capita, but that's changing fast and we still put out half of China. The point being it's global and and not a if we just use good light bulbs it will all go away kinda problem. What are you really going to change about your life?

It's not the 330 million in the US that matter, it the 7.5 billion and growing that cause the strain. https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2012-07-china-co2-person-europe.amp Chinese people now make as much carbon as Europeans. There's 1.4 bllion Chinese people, it's 4 plus USA's. There's almost a billion people I Europe now, 3 USA's. Let's not forget the 1.4 billion people in India that are using more and more. Nothing we do matters. Just live your life and take the lumps as they come.

We're simply caught in the tide of history, there's no spinning this, it's spun. "Everything that's been predicted has happened" then the tipping points should be on deck and that's the big points round. Anyone who thinks renewable enegry will keep our lifestyles a float is delusional and hasn't looked at the numbers. Here they are in the below link from a MIT Engineer. http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Saul+Griffith Or perhaps the celebrated American author Kurt Vonnegut said it best. http://inthesetimes.com/article/cold_turkey

I've been to the base of it as well, right at the slide debris. It's loose and scary.

One whom must be helo plucked rescued from the Mt Si Haystack whilst impromptu freesoloing has truly reached the pinnacle of embarrassment.

After digesting the above information and realizing that our National Parks have been compromised by a corporation that is more interested in profit than preservation, then it makes me wonder what some "conservation groups" are doing. https://www.climbing.com/news/climb-the-hill-2018-climbers-take-their-message-to-washington-d-c/ The AAC and the Access Fund have famous climbers go to Washington DC and speak to Congress members about preserving public lands. At face value that seems super nobel. But in a round about way those climbers are lobbying for the Delaware Corp as they stand to profit from future park development. Take the Bears Ears as an example. Here we have a fight over oil and gas corps wanting access to reserves on the other hand we have a National Monument that will someday become a National Park. With a strong corporate influence who knows what the Park Service would do to Indian Creek or the surrounding area. Would Indian Creek look like Arches with mile long lines of motor-homes waiting to pay at a gate with big parking lots and little shops and food courts? Would it forever alter the way you see places like Moon House and commercialize them? As wildly unpopular thing it may be to say, i'd guess the oil and gas corps would have less impact on the land and bring less vehicles and people than the NPS. This is why i flipped out a few years back when some famous local climbers wanted to expand the North Cascade National Park. The only real preservation we have left as a Nation is The 1964 Wilderness Act.

The NPS was called America's best Idea by Wallace Stegner in 1983, he didn't see what happened in the 30 years that followed and i'm sure Mr. Stegner would have a much different take on today's park. It's not just Chongo, Bob and I that have a strong wilderness ethic; please read the below article detailing where the park lost it's way and was corrupted by corporate interests. Bottom line, there was a core group of Park Employees who wanted a strong wilderness effort and they were ran off by some corporation that, to this day, peddles the gate and sells lodging and knick knacks to make a buck on our nations most treasured places. It's a multi billion a year industry. Do you think the Delaware Corp cares if there's a traffic jam in Yosemite? Have you ever slowed down to consider that they want those traffic jams in our National Corporate Parks??? THE PARK THEMSELVES WANTED MORE WILDERNESS!!!!! http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article55465600.html The commercialism of the Yosemite name grab by Delaware North is getting national publicity, but the battle for the heart of Yosemite National Park was lost decades ago. For much of the late 1970s, the National Park Service went to extremes to draft a master plan that would guide Yosemite National Park through the years. Thousands of park loyalists were involved in that effort, and hearings and planning sessions were held throughout California. Yosemite Valley was the spiritual home and cradle of the American preservation ethic. Countless suggestions were advanced, including banning cars, removing buildings and restoring natural systems. The park was a national shrine and citadel, and it was no place for small dreams. After much hand-wringing and controversy, the 1980 general management plan was adopted with the aim of “de-urbanizing” the park and providing the guidelines for a more natural park experience. Under then-Superintendent Robert O. Binnewies, several buildings were removed. It was an auspicious start. Then things went terribly wrong. The Yosemite Park & Curry Co., the park concessionaire and MCA affiliate at the time, saw the management plan as a threat to its bottom line – and Binnewies was terminated under some spurious, trumped-up charges. After that, it was downhill for the management plan and the concept of a more natural park. Today, the de-urbanized Yosemite is in shambles. Echoes of “Disneyland North” or “Yosemite World” once again rumble through the land. Some park veterans admit that Yosemite Valley is a “lost cause” and they are just trying to preserve the rest of the park. What happened? After spending countless millions of dollars and a couple of decades of dreaming and planning, MCA and the Reagan White House – and a compromised National Park Service – torpedoed the dream of a restored Yosemite. Gradually the dots came together. Binnewies and his stewardship were sent packing, and the Yosemite Master Plan was shoved to the back burner. AFTER SPENDING COUNTLESS MILLIONS AND A COUPLE OF DECADES OF DREAMING AND PLANNING, MCA AND THE REAGAN WHITE HOUSE – AND A COMPROMISED NATIONAL PARK SERVICE – TORPEDOED THE DREAM OF A RESTORED YOSEMITE. Back in his Hollywood days, Ronald Reagan had Lou Wasserman as his agent. Now, fast forward to the Reagan White House. Wasserman and his MCA hirelings didn’t need an appointment to see the president. Today, Yosemite Valley lies far removed from the vaunted general management plan. Instead of removing facilities, the park service adds more. Through a succession of park superintendents and an indifferent public, the “nibbling away” at the Yosemite dream continues. Those concerns are evident today as one walks through the urban jungle of Yosemite Valley. A more natural park has become little more than wishful thinking. The ongoing construction of a new restroom facility near Ahwahnee Meadow is a case in point. While the project ostensibly complied with the management plan, the prolonged review transcended the intent of the plan. The transformation of the area across from Camp Four into an unplanned parking lot is a blight upon the land. The relocation, instead of removal, of the tent cabins from the rock fall area is another indignity to the spirit of the master plan. More facilities will only demand even more. A more natural park … dream on. The new concessions contract with Aramark – with an estimated value of $2 billion – underscores that premise. Against ever-increasing park visitation, that new contract should have required a gradual reduction in the number of overnight units – a staged reduction – that would, perhaps in a century, offer a more natural Yosemite Valley. Overnight accommodations need to be moved outside the park to the gateway communities. Back in 1990, Herb Ewing, a third-generation “Park Service brat,” saw the gradual erosion of the preservation mission. Park use and visitation began driving park management. He believed that the Park Service had become lost in the wilderness of Washington, D.C., and had become part of the bureaucracy. Money and commerce became the master plan. The park’s founding mission of preservation was pushed aside. TODAY, PARK APOLOGISTS CLAIM THAT THE AGENCY SUFFERS UNDER A DUAL OR CONFLICTING MISSION, THAT IS, PRESERVING THE PARK WHILE PROVIDING FOR VISITOR USE AND ENJOYMENT. THE PARK SETS QUOTAS FOR ITS WILDERNESS AREAS BUT NO LIMITS ON ITS ITS CASH REGISTERS. It was a hundred years ago when Stephen Mather and Horace Albright – both graduates of the University of California and Yosemite advocates – lent their collective energies and personal wealth toward the creation of a new American institution: a National Park Service. As the first two directors, they saw the future – and it was the preservation of the best of America. Yosemite was central to their efforts to create a greater national park system of the nation’s most significant lands and cultural areas. Essentially, the park charter was to hold these national treasures inalienable for all times while providing for reasonable public use. Today, park apologists claim that the agency suffers under a dual or conflicting mission – that is, preserving the park while providing for visitor use and enjoyment. The park sets quotas for its wilderness areas but no limits on its cash registers. Binneweis’ heart is still in Yosemite. In his book, “Your Yosemite,” he maintains that the national parks have become the pawns of the politicians and money changers. Later this year, the National Park Service will mark its 100th year under the lofty banner that it was “The best idea this country ever had.” With the approaching centennial, the Park Service need to revisit its stated mission. That is: “to regulate the use of the … national parks … (whose) purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” Unimpaired – Yosemite is not. Compromised – the National Park Service is. Gene Rose is a former Fresno Bee reporter and photographer who covered the Sierra and has written several books on Yosemite. Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article55465600.html#storylink=cpy

Kirk, Please allow me clarify my statement on the NPS and our natural lands. I strongly feel that the National Park Service should be disbanded and all of the lands that they have been keeping made into Wilderness Area and protected under the 1964 Wilderness act. Num1mc pointed out that there're a number of Park properties that aren't wilderness like the Statue of Liberty or that granite mural project in the Dakotas or some civil war battle fields. However, all of the big parks out west should have every building and road removed. Parks like Arches, Zion and especially Yosemite. When we have traffic jams in Yosemite where it takes 3 hours to get from the gate to the first point you can turn around or a mile plus long line of motor homes waiting outside Arches these are strong indicators of mismanagement. People will still come to these places, they'll simply have to hike in. Making people walk in won't slow down use, look at places like the John Muir Trail as an indicator. The best thing that could ever happen to the North Cascades would for the Park service to quietly walk away and simply have far less access in the way of roads. Momma Nature doesn't need a hand managing wilderness. At some point in our distant past the Park Service was a good idea, times have changed and the park hasn't changed with them. We don't need hundreds of motor homes streaming into wild places we're trying to protect so the park can peddle the gate. It's disgusting. No person that works for the NPS can call themselves an environmentalist or naturalist. Anybody that works for the NPS peddles our most special natural places to make a living. That's my biggest issue, it's bigger than the harassment from amateur hour LEO's or some 20yo kid from Ohio trying to explain how my bag should be hung from bears or the dick that Kozak ran into. Basically, from a climbers perspective, the park isn't just zero value added, they're a problem and they've got to go. Ansel Adams said, "We should kick the money changers out of the temple."

A 3 month school and riding around for 3 more in a park doesn't make a law enforcement officer. Working as a city police officer, a Sheriff's deputy or in the State Patrol gives you real experience. Real cops don't waste time on petty crap, that's the biggest difference. Real cops deal with real situations and have perspective on what's important and what's a waste of time. I spend months on end traveling in parks climbing and the things you see park and blm enforcement do is juvenile and annoying. I'm a middle aged white man saying this. The NPS has had issues getting minorities to come to the parks. And why would they? $$$ huge gate fees only to be harresed by some overly zelious amature wannabe "cops".