mark hartless

mark hartless 18 hours, 14 minutes ago on Tom Schatz: An environmental waste of breath

I'd keep the windmills a-commin. Wind power will become more and more reliable because Colorado is starting to suck and blow more and more every year...

0

mark hartless 1 day, 19 hours ago on Gary Hofmeister: History redux

Many correctly understand that our government has indeed screwed things up in the middle east to the point of having ZERO credibility left.

What I can't understand is why so many Americans who understand THAT fact are nevertheless so willing to accept government here at home as the answer for so many things.

Why do so many who rightly blame government for acting like a bull in a china shop overseas, still seek to dismiss and even stigmatize those of us here at home who wish to reduce our involvement with that same blundering government??????

0

mark hartless 5 days, 12 hours ago on Routt County commissioners hesitate to invest public monies in community solar garden

"Seems to me, that government red tape is one of the largest detriments to sustainability."

From your lips to God's ears, John. Can't say it any better than that. And that condition runs right on up the scale from county to city to state to the feds.

0

mark hartless 5 days, 14 hours ago on Celebrating 50 years of the Wilderness Act

Scott,

Jesus spoke more about Hell than about Heaven.Today's theologians are as irrelevant to God as those who lived 200 years ago.

Jesus told a parable about a man who hired some workers to work all day in his field. He hired others to work a half day and still others to work just one hour. Come quittin time he paid them all the same wage, a wage the hardest workers had agreed on, so nobody got shorted.

When those who worked the longest began to murmer the man said "it is lawful for me to do what I will with that which is mine; is your eye evil because I am good".

The point is that God's Kingdom belongs to God, and He gives it to whomsoever He will.

There will be no debating or compromising our way into Heaven, and there is a Hell.

0

mark hartless 5 days, 14 hours ago on Moffat County grills EPA about Clean Power Plan on Wednesday

"2.So if government says it is bad to shoot yourself in the head then you'll do the opposite and shoot yourself in the head?"

Government is the one DOING the shooting in the head, Scott. Ever heard of Ruby Ridge, ID? Or Waco?...

Experts from within and outside of gubbamint told us in the 1970's that we should prepare for the comming ice age. If we had set about to preemptively warm up the planet back then, where would we be today???

Now see if you can get this, Scott...

The costs of scrubbing the atmosphere run along a bell curve. The curve ITSELF moves along a timeline of history into the future.

For example, it would have cost way more in 1970 to produce the clean energy we do today. And it will cost less in 20 years to produce energy with the same level of pollution that we do today.

As long as we keep cleaning our energy at the rate technology allows then our relative costs will remain static. Insisting on producing WAY, WAY cleaner energy RIGHT NOW pushes costs to the high end of the bell curve where we reach what's known as a point of "diminishing returns". Savvy???

Yes, energy companies cry and moan and want to produce the same old status quo because their costs get recovered and their profit is realized sooner. But you must also admit that if it were left up to the religious environmentilists our air would get cleaner way faster but our costs would SOAR.

The middle ground is where we are now and it allows the poor to afford energy and still buy food, shelter and clothing for their kids while gradually cleaning the air.

Now, if you'd admit that if China and India don't soon start playing along we here in the USA are moving forward for little benefit, ie diminishing return, no??

0

mark hartless 1 week ago on Moffat County grills EPA about Clean Power Plan on Wednesday

Tim,

Very few people deny that Earth's climate is changing. Where many of us differ from you is that we understand that the Earth's climate has ALWAYS changed. Therefore, we are NOT convinced by some chicken little, tempest in a teacup tantrum tossing hysterics. It just don't sway us... kind of like the Gospel of Christ apparently ain't gonna sway you.

A HUGE reason for this??? We know for a FACT that it changed dramatically BEFORE industrialization. This FACT puts a huge crimp in the cause-effect relationship you folks want to cast in concrete. HUGE crimp.

Secondly, many people believe that government simply uses any crisis it can drum up to accumulate power. That FACT also causes many like myself to take sort of a "default" position that whatever government says-I want the opposite. Having been screwed by gubbamint every trip-of-the-train since they were old enough to pay attention does that to many folks.

Third, Many people know climate changes, but do not believe man can significantly impact this reality. Everything you are doing in Northwest Colorado is doodly squat compared to the big boys like China and India, and they aint even close to our clean energy standards. Maybe man IS causing the climate to change, but man as a whole ain't gonna roll up his sleeves and do enough about it to STOP the change from happening.

Finally, many people also have longer memories and know we have cleaned up the environment quite a bit; many believe we are already is the "sweet spot" between cleaning the environment and paying huge sums for just a wee bit more. There IS a point of diminishing return to any such endeavor and I believe we have reached a good "jumping off" point.

0

mark hartless 1 week, 1 day ago on Moffat County grills EPA about Clean Power Plan on Wednesday

We are NOT going to change global usage.

This otherwise pointless excercise means different things to different people.

Tree huggers in northwest Colorado (and all over america) get to feel good about "saving the planet". They ride their bikes in the snow. They insist the coal-fired ski lifts they ride are powered by wind and sun, and gleefully force the rest of us to "sacrafice" right along with them; as if anyone in the western world knows a damned thing about real suffering. Then they get to feel like a good about themselves; kind of like a bapist walking out of church on sunday afternoon.

Big corporations have positioned themselves to profit from the transition to ever-cleaner energy. You want coal? They got it. You want solar panels and windmills? Got them too! Want us to tell you your coal-fired ski lift runs on rainbows and unicorns? Here's the advretising! Bam! Just that easy! They couldn't care less which one you buy They stamp out whatever you want in their factories in China and India (just out of sight of the "church"), then they pass their costs (whether they be taxes, fees, fines, or carbon penalties) on to consumers and laugh all the way to the bank.

Legislators/politicians get another excuse to raise taxes, control the masses and empower and enrich themselves and their cronies, wives, families, friends , etc.

Nobody, I mean ABSOLUTELY NOBODY, is affecting pollution on a global scale here in northwest Colorado. Anyone who thinks they are is just fooling themselves.

However, ignorance is bliss so most want no part of the discussion about the reality of China and India's growing emissions.

0

mark hartless 1 week, 2 days ago on Celebrating 50 years of the Wilderness Act

Not exactly.

I made an argument against more wilderness that NONE of you seemed able to refute. It was based in facts and logic.

You resorted to basically name-calling and exagerations and mockery like "you want a McDonalds on the Devil's Causeway" or, saying of me: "some of us are entitled"- "the World is ours (to foul)". Heck, one of you great statesmen even mocked me by saying "nice facts..." as if FACTS had no place in a debate about wilderness.

What I said about our Creator, I meant... every word.

You folks can't handle truth or anything that goes against what you WANT to be truth. Therefore, I had some fun with you by telling you all how I use "our" wilderness.

I understand that you want more wilderness for YOUR OWN gratification. However, few of you folks' words were used to explain why more wilderness would help nature, the economy, or your fellow man. Most of your words were used to mock, ridicule and belittle the "troll".

The Wilderness must feel real safe with towering intellects such as yourselves defending her...

0

mark hartless 1 week, 4 days ago on Celebrating 50 years of the Wilderness Act

Rhys,

You have expressed in this forum that you have spent time in jail. How do you get to jail without ignoring some laws of your own? Pot-kettle, methinks.

Jim,

As laws become more and more draconian and un-respectable, many people will increasingly ignore them. This fact transcends environmental law.

Sure, many people will blindly obey all rules, whether they be silly, or whether they be matters of life and death, (like jews who willingly boarded the trains to Auschwitz and like the person the other day that insisted that it's NEVER ok to even slightly and momentarily cross a yellow line, even to pass a cyclist).

Some folks are simply hung up on blind conformity and they never consider the SOURCE of the mandates they haplessly follow.

Others make a big deal out of rules being violated when it's a rule THEY enjoy. For example, I'd be willing to bet a fair sum that if new wilderness reg's were proposed which forbid ALL human activity, including the kind many anti-snowmobilers are fon of, then MANY pro-wilderness folks who talk the good game would revolt.

And just because I like to fret you crazies doesn't mean I'm actually snowmobiling in the Wilderness. Maybe I just like pulling your chains.

Again, I believe I have made a good case that the wilderness we have is a good thing but that we do not need more; that many who want it expanded operate out of selfish and ulterior motives; that expanding wilderness and putting resources "off-limits" hurts economies which hurts individuals which is the definition of "selfish"; and that resources can be utilized and areas can be used without being "destroyed", "decimated", and all those other silly Chicken Little assertions. Despite the silly arguments put forth above, nobody is gonna put a McDonalds on the Devil's Causeway or on Farewell, even though many so-called "environmentalists have rode a coal-fired ski lift up, and had some good food atop Mt Werner.

0

mark hartless 1 week, 4 days ago on Celebrating 50 years of the Wilderness Act

How is riding a snowmobile 5 feet above the ground in a place where most of the animals are hibernating or at lower elevations "flagrant abuse"??

This is exactly why so many people are now getting off the environmental bandwagon; because many people like you seek to define simple uses of land and resources as "flagrant abuse" or "destruction" or some other ridiculously FALSE characterization.

Using something isn't always "destroying" it. Ever pick an apple? Was that "flagrant abuse" of the apple tree? Or was it using an apple that would otherwise have rotted on the vine and helped no one??

I'm not advocating cutting the orchard down and burning it, Jim; just picking the darned apples while they are ripe and putting them to good use as a good steward ought to do.

0

Prev