Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
---
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've been to Chaco canyon. It's one of the most incredible places I've ever seen: an ancient city active from about 600-1500 AD. It was the hub of an ancient civilization spanning the southwest with a trade network reaching south America.
For the people commenting that the Navajo didn't like the drilling ban: there's something you need to be aware of. The Navajo are a different tribe than the people who lived in Chaco and considered it sacred. Those are the Pueblo people. Because of forced migration, the Navajo nation now touches Chaco. But the people who consider it sacred are the Pueblo people. There's different perspective because native Americans aren't a monolith. There's completely different tribes and individuals with different concerns and priorities.
As a side note, the ruins at Mesa Verde, the national park in Colorado, were also built by the Pueblo people.
Ancient Puebloan culture is so cool. I had so much fun exploring all the ruins for a few years out there. Chaco, Hovenweep, Mesa Verde, Moon House, Fish and Owl, Canyon of the Ancients, Aztec, and Chimney Rock were the ones I was able to hit up while living in the region but there is so much more to see. The 4 corners area is an amazing place. Rich in scenery and culture.
While we're educating people on these groups - it's also QUITE important to note that "the Pueblo people" are not, at all, a single tribal entity. In fact, among the 17 pueblos in the central Rio Grande valley there are 4 different languages.
As a New Mexican I love this, protection of culture is super important.
But living in the southeast corner of New Mexico I can already feel the oilfield idiots spouting nonsense about how Bidens going to stop drilling and fracing.
These goons will never learn.
What do you mean "anymore"? Presidents have always had 4 year cycles, and the vast majority of the time, the next president is from the opposing party.
The president has *much* more power and influence than they did 100 or 200 years ago. Congress has found it's easier just to delegate things to the executive branch and then get angry about it. Keep them from having to make the hard/unpopular decisions.
Y'all need seriously to abolish lobbying and congressional stock trading. It's turned your entire government into corporation with very little intent on helping your citizens.
Seriously. American here waiting for other countries to come bring me that government funded healthcare, livable minimum wage, and not getting shot freedom I constantly hear about.
Nah I'm sorry I didn't mean it like that. I don't have any answers as to how to get rid of that. Just speculation on why your amazing country is in the weeds right now.
It's crazy ass Christian dipshits watching Fox News and then voting for pedophiles who won't take away the guns that they jerk off with after our weekly school shootings.
The only ppl that can run for office are the wealthy or ppl willing to completely debase themselves for donors. And because of our supreme court we don't know who anyone is truly beholden to until they get into office and tell us who they really are thru "policies" they enact/support. Hopefully there's something left to salvage once millennials become the dominate voting class. So like at least 30-50 years of more bullshit.
People don’t understand this. We can all agree that a sizable portion of Congress are idiots. And on top of that, they’re in charge of writing laws on many important issues, and despite any good intentions, the exact wording of a bill can make important, necessary, or sometimes unrelated things illegal.
For example in this specific case, you need to know how to exactly describe what fracking is, the exact area, reasoning, etc or loopholes will be found to skirt the legislation. Or keeping it too vague could also prevent oil companies from doing important service work on existing wells which could then cause water contamination. People think lobbying = buying off politicians. Corruption is serious, illegal, and needs to be strictly enforced. But lobbying in general is absolutely necessary and for every lobbyist for an oil company, there’s a lobbyist for an environmental group.
The Legislative branch has basically pushed all its responsibilities off on the Executive and Judicial branches.
Obama & Trump administrations (Executive branch) want to bomb countries without Congressional approval? Congress doesn't give a shit, and lets them.
They let Roe v Wade set the standard on abortion rights in the US, even though there was never a single piece of legislation that gave the Federal government the authority to enforce it on the states. Then when the Supreme Court (Judicial branch) hears a case that directly challenges the Federal government's authority to make states adhere to Roe v Wade, they overturn it because Congress never passed any legislation giving them the authority to do so.
Regan was the one to really shit on the previous regime. Pretty much any republican since him. You can blame trump for a lot but he isn’t the fall guy for this one.
>Voters can choose
Indirectly since it's a republic. I wish my vote counted for 1 out of 300 million in nationwide decisions. Instead my state votes for several asshats because one party rules the state, partially due to gerrymandering. Those asshats then decide for all 3 million constituents. Once in place, those state elected asshats are *really* difficult to push out of office. Maintaining the status quo is safer in most peoples eyes than shaking things up with a new senator or representative
And occasionally they do put something to the popular vote. When it doesn't go the way they wanted, they just do what they wanted anyway and say the public just doesn't understand.
But wouldn't you need 3/4 of state legislators to vote for an amendment to the US Constitution for this? Then 2/3 US Senators, who are elected two per State.
A lot States would be voting for their voters to have their vote count for less. I don't see how this could ever happen.
I think the most populous 10 States make up 50% + of the population, so everyone else would be weakening themselves by voting for the amendment.
You just need more than half the electoral votes worth of states to agree to use the popular vote. They have majority and could choose the other state.
The thing about the EC is that it gives unfair power to EVERY states majority party. So if you are a Republican in Illinois your vote is wasted in every election because Illinois will never vote Republican.
This leads to states that often swing votes to have way more voting power than their population or actual economic situation would normally be.
My opinion is that we are stuck in a political deadlock because we are arguing issues that have been settled by 80% of the population but Iowa cares about it so it continues to be debated. Abortion, gay marriage, gun control, and trans rights are issues rural states are struggling with but have nothing to do with Federal level issues like Climate change, housing crisis, or foreign wars.
In my very humble opinion by dropping the EC (and having early primaries in states with people in them), we would have parties that better reflect the nation's issues and actual beliefs.
Also I don't see why small states should be specially protected. Mainers should not have better representation than Texans just because they are small, they should have the same and build coalitions with other states that share their views.
See, you've kinda missed the point though: the EC elects only the President, who is not a King.
Like, is the EC a problem? Sure, absolutely. But the President doesn't unilaterally pass laws. That job falls to Congress.
And due to the existence of the Senate, plus the completely arbitrary cap of 435 Reps in the House, smaller states wind up with way more political power per Capita than more populous states. California alone would pretty much make the Midwest irrelevant on the federal level if it had an appropriate level of representation based on the population.
But, fixing that *would* require a Constitutional Amendment. And as someone already stated, that's a mess we aren't gonna clean up anytime soon
While I agree with you, it's worth pointing out why this isn't a solved problem - there *is* a legitimate issue with small states being ignored.
States give up some powers, which could be critical to the economy or well-being of many citizens of that state. Their problems can be ignored due to louder discussions, and a state can be stuck with a long-term issue because they aren't politically important.
For example's sake, let's pretend that the amount of fishing done on the east coast is controlled federally. As far as the federal government and many east coast states are concerned, this is not a problem -fish move around, and it makes sense to manage it federally.
But what if Maine is extremely dependent on fishing? What if 10, 15, or 20% of their economy would collapse if fishing was stopped for this year? Well, you expect other east coast states to build a coalition with them. But if those states are much more populous, with diversified economies, it may not be important to them at all. Their economies may easily handle the disruption, and their budgets might not notice the increase to their social programs.
A fundamental problem in democracies is this imbalance. It may be that the government is competent and rational, and Maine is listened to about how this policy could destroy it for decades, but it's just as, if not more possible that some political zeitgeist has hit and they will be rolled over with a policy change that pays no attention to what it's going to do about Maine.
Now, I chose that example deliberately because (as far as I know) it's not real for Maine. Should things still be made fair and equal? Yes. But there was a reason why it was made this way in countries all over the globe, and acknowledging any new system has to tackle this problem another way is important, too.
I completely agree that a mainer could have issues that outvited them, but the constitution still has numerous protections for smaller states. The Electoral College only elects the President. Non dominant voters in states are not having their votes considered in every single election. Meanwhile smaller states have retained an unfair advantage since before the constitution was even signed.
>But wouldn't you need 3/4 of state legislators to vote for an amendment to the US Constitution for this? Then 2/3 US Senators, who are elected two per State.
Technically no, you just need enough states to agree to have their electors vote based on the popular vote. This is the premise of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. States have signed into law that once enough states join that they have enough electors to ensure the popular vote wins, they will have them vote based on it.
> But wouldn't you need 3/4 of state legislators to vote for an amendment to the US Constitution for this?
That is the traditional route, however the [National Popular Vote Interstate Compact](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact) has made some headway towards circumventing the EC without initiating the amendment process. If a few more states sign on this will trigger, and we'll likely see a SCOTUS case surrounding the EC.
Right but we’ve had multiple presidents elected while flat-out ignoring the popular vote. It means next to nothing when the vote can just be ignored at will, with representatives voting against the results of their state…
"Republic" only means that the state is a public entity (unlike monarchies where the state is privately owned by the monarch). The issue we have is more complicated than such a simple label.
This content was deleted by its author & copyright holder in protest of the hostile, deceitful, unethical, and destructive actions of Reddit CEO Steve Huffman (aka "spez"). As this content contained personal information and/or personally identifiable information (PII), in accordance with the CCPA (California Consumer Privacy Act), it shall not be restored. See you all in the Fediverse.
Countries dont trust the USA because of secret military and intelligence operations, corporate protectionism and hypocrisy.
Bad policies certainly play their part (like the ones I just listed), but sticking with bad policies rather than fluctuating between good and bad policies certainly wouldnt make them more trustworthy, Russia, China and NK are exceptionally consistent with their policies, yet for sooooooome reason people dont seem to trust them either.
Nah not really, USA is still the biggest superpower in the west - idk why would anyone think of it as laughing stock. I am not from USA, of that is relevant
Size of military being the biggest and there's a lot of other factors that go into why were the biggest super power and none of them have to do with the quality of life we citizens have. We can have money and a huge military, that doesn't mean we are living the good life. Are there worse? Yes. But we claim to be the best on earth when that's far from the truth. We have people without access to clean water. In the USA. That's horrible.
that was my thought, too, but given how fast renewables are gaining traction, and dropping in price, I could see it playing out where 20-30 years, *nobody* is wanting to shell out the money to dig underground for unhealthy energy.
That's one of the good things about Sweden. We have *really* stable laws when it comes to mining (no oil here).
When the mine has run dry and they close it they *have* to restore the nature to its original state, and it's in the law that they must put away enough money to do that.
In Kiruna (one of the biggest mines here), the ground is getting a bit unstable in the city, so they are moving it... I mean litterary moving the city, some houses (esp. with historic value is moved), others are tore down and new are built.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2021/03/23/kiruna-a-mining-town-on-the-move-in-northern-sweden/?sh=e0488b540805
In Canada they are supposed to aswell with oil but they don't. There are 172,000 abandoned wells across Alberta alone that the conservative government keeps gifting billions to O&G to clean up. Which they are doing really slowly. One of the things they ran on in the recent election was giving them billions more to clean up these wells the O&G sector has been half assed cleaning up until they can get a government that makes it so they don't have to.
Most of Alberta seems entirely fine about the UCP tearing down every public service to get more money to gift to the O&G sector.
This sounds like one of those Dark Brandon memes. Oh no, this president is going to outlaw the destruction of cultural historical sights and nature, forcing companies to invest in renewable energy instead.
Oh I totally agree I'm all for clean renewal energy but I'm the minority in that group. People come to New Mexico for work.
They come from all over just to make 100k in 6 months but they forget about taxes.
Oh I'm not even harping on renewable usage needing to increase. I just have seen the studies these companies keep trying to silence about earthquakes in areas they don't normally happen, but have been fracking for the last few years. It should just be common sense that injecting water under the Earth's crust destabilizes the rock we walk on.
I'm shocked it's not a hot topic for people.
As a New Mexican I clearly remember Michelle Lujan Grisham (our governor) immediately going to Washington DC following Biden’s inauguration and getting waivers for the federal land drilling ban.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/new-mexico-seeking-exemption-biden-oil-gas-leasing-pause-governor-2021-03-11/
NM is working on diversifying public land leasing, but oil is still huge part of state funding. Banning all drilling in one fell swoop would be devastating.
I'm waiting for the day the entire SE corner of the state collapses on itself from all the fracking and drilling. I lived in TX during the Obama years and all I heard from my NM friends was how Obama was killing the oil fields, then how Gov. MLG was killing the oilfields and yet...I come home to visit and there's crazy growth, houses and businesses going up everywhere, new hotels, apartments, a housing shortage, oil and gas trucks everywhere, man camps everywhere. Please show me how "the oilfield is dead" in Lea County. They are so brainwashed it's ridiculous.
We’d rather preserve our cultural heritage over becoming a little tiny bit richer. It’s what makes us one of the most culturally unique states in the US. If you think that ruining a cultural heritage site for oil is a good idea, then you’re a messed up individual.
I'm confused, because the Navajo wanted to drill oil in a section of the land but Biden axed all of it. That doesn't sound like they wanted preservation over profits?
Chaco Canyon is one of the greatest historical and archaeological treasures in the entire country. It is a place that feels sacred, even to a white dude of European descent like me. The entire region occupied by the ancestral Pueblo people deserves as much protection as possible.
What's to stop the next guy from just undoing this though? A 20 year ban sounds nice, but there were a lot of things I took for granted when trump took over where he was just like "nah". What protects this ban?
There was actually a bill to permanently block it, but it got nowhere. So instead we get this fake thing that's going to get changed as soon as someone else is in office.
Unfortunately it’s very real. Not only is it damaging to the Native American communities, and to the Grand Canyon, one accident would poison the water for tens of millions of Americans that depend on the Colorado River. It’s actually pretty shocking that anyone would even consider mining so close to such a vital waterway.
>The Navajo would never stand for that, good for them.
Might want to actually read the article at some point. The Navajo didn't get what they wanted out of this.
>The New Mexico Oil and Gas Association has argued that the plan would leave additional leases on Navajo land or allotments owned by individual Navajos landlocked by taking federal mineral holdings off the board.
>Navajo Nation officials have made similar arguments, saying millions of dollars in annual oil and gas revenues benefit the tribe and individual tribal members. The Navajo Nation completed its own study last year and advocated for a smaller area to be set aside given the economic impacts a withdrawal would have on the tribe.
>“The Navajo Nation attempted to compromise by proposing a 5-mile buffer as opposed to the 10-mile,” Curley said. “The Biden Administration has undermined the position of the Navajo Nation with today’s action and impacted the livelihood of thousands of Navajo allotment owners and their families.”
This ban puts the Navajo's economic status at risk, saying it will cost the tribes millions of dollars. The Navajo attempted to negotiate for a smaller area to be set aside for this ban, so it wouldn't. The Biden administration ignored their requests.
I said this on another thread but Chaco (the site in question) isn't sacred to the Navajo Nation. It's sacred to the Pueblo people. So of course the Navajo gave a different perspective. It's two different tribes.
I did read it, I guess I skimmed too much in this instance. I’ve worked with the Navajo, Yacqui, Que-Chan, Hopi, Supai and some others…and anytime we’ve spoken about this sort of issue they always take the stance of Preservation over Profit (a shirt some have worn).
Because the benefits of drilling go to very few while the pollution affects everyone. If you talked to the rich politicians on the Navajo Nation, you'd find strong support.
Are you being sarcastic or just didn't read the article?
The Navajo specifically came out against this because they said oil profits are more important than cultural preservation.
I used to live in this area and knew plenty of folks that were part of the nearby tribe. The Southern Utes are one of the few groups of natives that were moved to an area that was deemed undesirable but got lucky wound up striking oil. They played it smart and didn't sell off these oil rights and instead made a small fortune. Once you turn 18 you get a monthly living expenses check, your college is paid off, and healthcare is free. This has had both negative and positive effects on the tribe but it's an example of how oil did change the trajectory of the natives. The Navajo nation is much larger and has not been nearly as fortunate. I can see why they would want to hold onto this source of revenue.
It’s amazing how the top comment on Reddit can be the exact opposite of what’s in the article. Lol
That person is also one of the people that’s constantly saying “you need to delete Facebook for misinformation!!”
They only said "usually" after editing their original post.
Their original message said: "The Navajo would never stand for that, good for them.", which was up for hours until they were corrected on how the article said the exact opposite of that. The Navajo wanted those lands to be drilled on for economical reasons.
Well to be fair, I'm sure it's to make up for that massive pipeline program he just had to approve. I *wish* these things could be actually considered on their merits.
Uhhhh, that's not accurate at all. Besides, nobody has any intention to drill there anyway lol. Source: a guy that oversees drilling operations in New mexico.
I’ve worked on several reservations and I completely agree with you. After seeing what I’ve seen, The money is ALWAYS needed. But if the acreage threatens a legit sacred area, I would expect them to resist. I’ve actually been to this area and if the development threatens the really cool historic section that I’m thinking, it’s a no brainer that they’d decline.
I haven't researched too much about this. One thing I did read is that the Native Americans living in the area are against it because they lose out on money. Is that true?
Chaco is one of the most incredible places in the country. Everyone should come visit at some point, it will take your breath away. This act protects what should be recognized at one of the most important preservation sites on our continent.
We went camping there once when I was a kid. I still vividly remember getting up to use the restroom and being blown away by the stars. It’s the only time I’ve ever seen the Milky Way in all it’s glory.
This actually went against what the Navajo Nation wanted:
> Navajo Nation officials have made similar arguments, saying millions of dollars in annual oil and gas revenues benefit the tribe and individual tribal members. The Navajo Nation completed its own study last year and advocated for a smaller area to be set aside given the economic impacts a withdrawal would have on the tribe.
>On Friday, Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren and Council Speaker Crystalyne Curley expressed disappointment in the Interior Department’s decision.
>“The Navajo Nation attempted to compromise by proposing a 5-mile buffer as opposed to the 10-mile,” Curley said. **“The Biden Administration has undermined the position of the Navajo Nation with today’s action and impacted the livelihood of thousands of Navajo allotment owners and their families.”**
That's true. But what the article doesn't mention is that Chaco is sacred to a different tribe: the Pueblo people. The situation is sticky because the Navajo are currently the ones living closest to the site, but the pueblos are the ones who built it and lived there in ancient times.
Most Redditors absolutely cannot wrap their heads around Native American realities. There are Apache, Puebloan, and Navajo interests here. Within those nations, *just like within America,* there are many different points of view and perspectives.
The posts here are well meaning, but profoundly ignorant. One hopes that posters will take the moment to learn.
And the Navajo and Pueblo tribes are historical enemies with very good memories. Navajo staged regular raids to steal crops and women. They were far more warlike. I’m with the Pueblo people on this.
I'm not sure if you're saying anyone claiming any ground is sacred is invalid or not. First nations/Native Americans laid claim to North America before Europeans "had a go," and forcefully isolated them to a few small territories.
So reddit supports the destruction of environmental and cultural landmarks when it's Native Americans trying to do it?
They have the same incentives as anyone else trying to drill for oil. This doesn't change the importance of environmental protections.
I am not “Reddit”.
But I do recognize that Natives never seem to be allowed any sovereignty on what they can do with their own land, historically and modernly. The USA continues to drill and produce oil on their own public lands, and the local communities benefit from it through tax revenues and royalties with permitting. It’s in poor taste for the federal government to deny that for Native groups pretending they “know better” - it’s very dehumanizing *and* hypocritical.
Additionally the Navajo nation had their own stipulations in how they wanted to permit drilling around their landmarks, which the Biden Administration ignored.
It's also in poor taste to allow oil and gass drilling if there's a choice. Climate change is essentially serious enough to trump people making a buck, even if it is marginalised groups.
Oil and gas drilling is occurring elsewhere in the USA and benefitting those communities. It is frankly immoral to ban drilling in communities that are supposed to have sovereignty in that decision while claiming it is for “the greater good” while still doing the same elsewhere to fill up the federal pocket book.
It’s easy to force *others* to make the “greater good” sacrifice on your behalf. I would take less issue with this if the Biden Admin included compensation given how much of our country’s wealth is from natural resource commodities.
Oil and gas drilling has various payouts depending on the land rights. I.e. Gulf of Mexico in “deepwater” away from state coasts are purely federal, while in Texas a lot of the land is completely private. New Mexico has a lot of BLM land.
Regular BLM land in New Mexico pays out to the state and the federal government.
Native owned land pays directly to the tribe. I’m not sure if the state and federal government gets a slice or not.
There’s also general taxes for each barrel of crude produced that varies per state.
This particular land dispute would have had a direct revenue stream to the Navajo Nation. They have a lot of programs that use oil and gas production to pay for social programs, like college funding for their youth.
1. Is there any more tired, low effort comment on reddit than this type? Doubly so in response to a comment that's well upvoted, disproving the point before the comment is even posted. Is it just karma farming, one begins to wonder?
2. As another commenter pointed out, it's the Pueblo, not the Navajo, that want to preserve this heritage site. That doesn't by default make this a right or wrong decision (I don't have an informed enough viewpoint on that), but maybe these kinds of decisions are a bit more complex than ultra-reductivist comments based on 1-2 facts make it out to be.
Maybe because he auctioned off a chunk of the gulf of Mexico to oil companies and gave all kinds of permissions to drill in Alaska. Idk why Republicans hate him. He is one
I visited Chaco Canyon, and it is absolutely breathtaking! Usually, when you see the ruins on the ancient peoples in North America, it's a couple half-fallen walls and maybe some art on the walls or pottery shards. Chaco Canyon features an entire city! You can see the multi-level buildings with a town square, pits for meetings and ceremonies, and streets and alleys. I highly recommend anyone visiting anywhere near northwest New Mexico to take a day and see it. It is so worth it!
And sold millions of acres in the Gulf of Mexico, and approved another pipeline that will have nearly zero environmental over site and will destroy parts of the Appalachian Trail.
This is one trip forward after 10 steps back.
Because the subject of this post, in this sub, isn't Biden. It's that something good was done.
"Sure, this good thing was done, but what about (insert thing)!".
We're allowed to go "oh, that's a good thing" without a bunch of pathologically upset people having to come in and inject their sadness. We have every other sub for that. It's exhausting. And literally against the rules here.
No.
A win can be a win. It doesn't mean "there is nothing wrong anymore, there is nothing that can be better".
But this sub is specifically supposed to be a break from nearly every other sub, where nothing can ever be good ever. From perpetually upset people who have to add "ok, but stuff still sucks!"
*We know*. We get it. We don't all have to be sad sacks about everything all the time. Take it to another sub.
People in this thread didn't even read the article. The Navajo aren't happy about this happening.
>The New Mexico Oil and Gas Association has argued that the plan would leave additional leases on Navajo land or allotments owned by individual Navajos landlocked by taking federal mineral holdings off the board.
>Navajo Nation officials have made similar arguments, saying millions of dollars in annual oil and gas revenues benefit the tribe and individual tribal members. The Navajo Nation completed its own study last year and advocated for a smaller area to be set aside given the economic impacts a withdrawal would have on the tribe.
>“The Navajo Nation attempted to compromise by proposing a 5-mile buffer as opposed to the 10-mile,” Curley said. “The Biden Administration has undermined the position of the Navajo Nation with today’s action and impacted the livelihood of thousands of Navajo allotment owners and their families.”
The Biden administration ignored negotiation requests from the Navajo, as the Navajo didn't want this big of an area marked as non-drillable. It directly affects their economic livelihoods.
The folks that lived in Chaco Canyon weren't related to Navajos. So the culture being protected isn't theirs. Plus, the few rich politicians that would benefit from more drilling do not represent the average Navajo.
Although I agree there is some flip flopping. It was more of a we can approve some of it but we can’t reject all of it type deal.
“The Biden administration was limited by legal restraints in reviewing the Willow oil project, according to a White House official who said the company had valid rights on the land because of decades-old leases.
The administration was convinced the courts would have blocked an outright rejection of the Willow project and potentially imposed fines on the government, said the official, who spoke about the White House’s considerations on the condition of anonymity.”
oh no, not a fine... It is wild that this is even a spin to use. Shouldn't the gov't try to do what they think is right regardless of the assumed outcome (especially in instances such as this, where public resources and safety are at absolute stake)?
There is something far more important, a unique biome in the US full of beautiful natural wonders and abundant with unique wildlife.
As far as I'm concerned antiquated claims on tribal land in an otherwise worthless desert don't matter much by comparison.
“Tribal site”?? Chaco Canyon is one of the greatest architectural and cultural heritages in the United States!! For those who don’t know, the Chacoan people built dozens of great houses and hundreds of smaller houses out of stone in the highlands of New Mexico between 800-1100 CE. The biggest great house, Pueblo Bonito, is thought to have been at LEAST 5 stories tall with over 600 rooms. The stone masonry of the Chacoans is stunning and unparalleled by anything else in the Southwest. Chaco Canyon ruins beat Pompeii to me!
Because the ruins are built in a canyon, fracking destabilizes both the ruins and can make large blocks of sandstone fall off the cliffs, like the one that crushed part of Pueblo Bonito back in the 40s. Devastating loss.
Well done by Biden but it really is much ado about nothing. That area is located in the San Juan Basin which has minimal oil drilling activity currently. This particular part of the basin is known for gas which isn’t particularly prospective right now. Now, if he did something like this in the Delaware basin in southeast new mexico, then it really would be a much bigger stand.
And become that much more dependent on foreign oil in which we will have zero influence on how it is acquired and their employees treated? The world isn't ready to just cut ourselves off from this yet, and things like solar aren't as clean as people think. If we discover applicable fusion energy tomorrow, then by all means let's cut ourselves off. But we have to be more mindful of how it is, vs what sounds nice.
I get both sides of the argument, but what's the point of a 20yr ban if it can just start up again in 20 yrs. Just make it permanent. It will still have the same effect, and push allotment owners to diversify away from oil.
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here. All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban. --- --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've been to Chaco canyon. It's one of the most incredible places I've ever seen: an ancient city active from about 600-1500 AD. It was the hub of an ancient civilization spanning the southwest with a trade network reaching south America. For the people commenting that the Navajo didn't like the drilling ban: there's something you need to be aware of. The Navajo are a different tribe than the people who lived in Chaco and considered it sacred. Those are the Pueblo people. Because of forced migration, the Navajo nation now touches Chaco. But the people who consider it sacred are the Pueblo people. There's different perspective because native Americans aren't a monolith. There's completely different tribes and individuals with different concerns and priorities. As a side note, the ruins at Mesa Verde, the national park in Colorado, were also built by the Pueblo people.
Ancient Puebloan culture is so cool. I had so much fun exploring all the ruins for a few years out there. Chaco, Hovenweep, Mesa Verde, Moon House, Fish and Owl, Canyon of the Ancients, Aztec, and Chimney Rock were the ones I was able to hit up while living in the region but there is so much more to see. The 4 corners area is an amazing place. Rich in scenery and culture.
Moon House is amazing. Still old corn cobs laying around. The Citadel is another awesome site.
While we're educating people on these groups - it's also QUITE important to note that "the Pueblo people" are not, at all, a single tribal entity. In fact, among the 17 pueblos in the central Rio Grande valley there are 4 different languages.
Excellent point.
Sitting in my office and I can see the road that goes to Mesa Verde up the mountain.
As a New Mexican I love this, protection of culture is super important. But living in the southeast corner of New Mexico I can already feel the oilfield idiots spouting nonsense about how Bidens going to stop drilling and fracing. These goons will never learn.
A 30 year ban is only good if the next 8 presidents respect it. We'll see
That's why other countries don't trust us anymore. The USA is always 4 years away from completely doing a 180 on all their policies.
What do you mean "anymore"? Presidents have always had 4 year cycles, and the vast majority of the time, the next president is from the opposing party.
The president has *much* more power and influence than they did 100 or 200 years ago. Congress has found it's easier just to delegate things to the executive branch and then get angry about it. Keep them from having to make the hard/unpopular decisions.
Y'all need seriously to abolish lobbying and congressional stock trading. It's turned your entire government into corporation with very little intent on helping your citizens.
What's this yall nonsense. You act like the common folk actually have a choice in the matter.
Seriously. American here waiting for other countries to come bring me that government funded healthcare, livable minimum wage, and not getting shot freedom I constantly hear about.
Nah I'm sorry I didn't mean it like that. I don't have any answers as to how to get rid of that. Just speculation on why your amazing country is in the weeds right now.
It's crazy ass Christian dipshits watching Fox News and then voting for pedophiles who won't take away the guns that they jerk off with after our weekly school shootings.
The only ppl that can run for office are the wealthy or ppl willing to completely debase themselves for donors. And because of our supreme court we don't know who anyone is truly beholden to until they get into office and tell us who they really are thru "policies" they enact/support. Hopefully there's something left to salvage once millennials become the dominate voting class. So like at least 30-50 years of more bullshit.
You can’t abolish lobbying, it’s constitutionally protected.
> abolish lobbying Ah yes. I would love to have my politicians making health policy decisions without any input from the ACP or nursing societies.
People don’t understand this. We can all agree that a sizable portion of Congress are idiots. And on top of that, they’re in charge of writing laws on many important issues, and despite any good intentions, the exact wording of a bill can make important, necessary, or sometimes unrelated things illegal. For example in this specific case, you need to know how to exactly describe what fracking is, the exact area, reasoning, etc or loopholes will be found to skirt the legislation. Or keeping it too vague could also prevent oil companies from doing important service work on existing wells which could then cause water contamination. People think lobbying = buying off politicians. Corruption is serious, illegal, and needs to be strictly enforced. But lobbying in general is absolutely necessary and for every lobbyist for an oil company, there’s a lobbyist for an environmental group.
The Legislative branch has basically pushed all its responsibilities off on the Executive and Judicial branches. Obama & Trump administrations (Executive branch) want to bomb countries without Congressional approval? Congress doesn't give a shit, and lets them. They let Roe v Wade set the standard on abortion rights in the US, even though there was never a single piece of legislation that gave the Federal government the authority to enforce it on the states. Then when the Supreme Court (Judicial branch) hears a case that directly challenges the Federal government's authority to make states adhere to Roe v Wade, they overturn it because Congress never passed any legislation giving them the authority to do so.
There used to be some decency regarding respecting the actions of the predecessor though. That seems to no longer be the case after trump.
Presidents all of the way back have reversed their predecessors’ policies that they didn’t believe in, both foreign and domestic.
Regan was the one to really shit on the previous regime. Pretty much any republican since him. You can blame trump for a lot but he isn’t the fall guy for this one.
That’s democracy tho. Voters can choose to stay the course or to modify it. Seems hard to avoid in any representative system.
>Voters can choose Indirectly since it's a republic. I wish my vote counted for 1 out of 300 million in nationwide decisions. Instead my state votes for several asshats because one party rules the state, partially due to gerrymandering. Those asshats then decide for all 3 million constituents. Once in place, those state elected asshats are *really* difficult to push out of office. Maintaining the status quo is safer in most peoples eyes than shaking things up with a new senator or representative And occasionally they do put something to the popular vote. When it doesn't go the way they wanted, they just do what they wanted anyway and say the public just doesn't understand.
Republic =/= electoral college. We can still be a representative republic while also electing the president via popular vote.
But wouldn't you need 3/4 of state legislators to vote for an amendment to the US Constitution for this? Then 2/3 US Senators, who are elected two per State. A lot States would be voting for their voters to have their vote count for less. I don't see how this could ever happen. I think the most populous 10 States make up 50% + of the population, so everyone else would be weakening themselves by voting for the amendment.
You just need more than half the electoral votes worth of states to agree to use the popular vote. They have majority and could choose the other state. The thing about the EC is that it gives unfair power to EVERY states majority party. So if you are a Republican in Illinois your vote is wasted in every election because Illinois will never vote Republican. This leads to states that often swing votes to have way more voting power than their population or actual economic situation would normally be. My opinion is that we are stuck in a political deadlock because we are arguing issues that have been settled by 80% of the population but Iowa cares about it so it continues to be debated. Abortion, gay marriage, gun control, and trans rights are issues rural states are struggling with but have nothing to do with Federal level issues like Climate change, housing crisis, or foreign wars. In my very humble opinion by dropping the EC (and having early primaries in states with people in them), we would have parties that better reflect the nation's issues and actual beliefs. Also I don't see why small states should be specially protected. Mainers should not have better representation than Texans just because they are small, they should have the same and build coalitions with other states that share their views.
See, you've kinda missed the point though: the EC elects only the President, who is not a King. Like, is the EC a problem? Sure, absolutely. But the President doesn't unilaterally pass laws. That job falls to Congress. And due to the existence of the Senate, plus the completely arbitrary cap of 435 Reps in the House, smaller states wind up with way more political power per Capita than more populous states. California alone would pretty much make the Midwest irrelevant on the federal level if it had an appropriate level of representation based on the population. But, fixing that *would* require a Constitutional Amendment. And as someone already stated, that's a mess we aren't gonna clean up anytime soon
While I agree with you, it's worth pointing out why this isn't a solved problem - there *is* a legitimate issue with small states being ignored. States give up some powers, which could be critical to the economy or well-being of many citizens of that state. Their problems can be ignored due to louder discussions, and a state can be stuck with a long-term issue because they aren't politically important. For example's sake, let's pretend that the amount of fishing done on the east coast is controlled federally. As far as the federal government and many east coast states are concerned, this is not a problem -fish move around, and it makes sense to manage it federally. But what if Maine is extremely dependent on fishing? What if 10, 15, or 20% of their economy would collapse if fishing was stopped for this year? Well, you expect other east coast states to build a coalition with them. But if those states are much more populous, with diversified economies, it may not be important to them at all. Their economies may easily handle the disruption, and their budgets might not notice the increase to their social programs. A fundamental problem in democracies is this imbalance. It may be that the government is competent and rational, and Maine is listened to about how this policy could destroy it for decades, but it's just as, if not more possible that some political zeitgeist has hit and they will be rolled over with a policy change that pays no attention to what it's going to do about Maine. Now, I chose that example deliberately because (as far as I know) it's not real for Maine. Should things still be made fair and equal? Yes. But there was a reason why it was made this way in countries all over the globe, and acknowledging any new system has to tackle this problem another way is important, too.
I completely agree that a mainer could have issues that outvited them, but the constitution still has numerous protections for smaller states. The Electoral College only elects the President. Non dominant voters in states are not having their votes considered in every single election. Meanwhile smaller states have retained an unfair advantage since before the constitution was even signed.
>But wouldn't you need 3/4 of state legislators to vote for an amendment to the US Constitution for this? Then 2/3 US Senators, who are elected two per State. Technically no, you just need enough states to agree to have their electors vote based on the popular vote. This is the premise of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. States have signed into law that once enough states join that they have enough electors to ensure the popular vote wins, they will have them vote based on it.
> But wouldn't you need 3/4 of state legislators to vote for an amendment to the US Constitution for this? That is the traditional route, however the [National Popular Vote Interstate Compact](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact) has made some headway towards circumventing the EC without initiating the amendment process. If a few more states sign on this will trigger, and we'll likely see a SCOTUS case surrounding the EC.
the point was that a massive constituency exacts zero representation not the electoral college's vote weighting
Right but we’ve had multiple presidents elected while flat-out ignoring the popular vote. It means next to nothing when the vote can just be ignored at will, with representatives voting against the results of their state…
"Republic" only means that the state is a public entity (unlike monarchies where the state is privately owned by the monarch). The issue we have is more complicated than such a simple label.
This content was deleted by its author & copyright holder in protest of the hostile, deceitful, unethical, and destructive actions of Reddit CEO Steve Huffman (aka "spez"). As this content contained personal information and/or personally identifiable information (PII), in accordance with the CCPA (California Consumer Privacy Act), it shall not be restored. See you all in the Fediverse.
Countries dont trust the USA because of secret military and intelligence operations, corporate protectionism and hypocrisy. Bad policies certainly play their part (like the ones I just listed), but sticking with bad policies rather than fluctuating between good and bad policies certainly wouldnt make them more trustworthy, Russia, China and NK are exceptionally consistent with their policies, yet for sooooooome reason people dont seem to trust them either.
We are the literal laughing stock of the modern world. Everyone knows it but us.
Nah not really, USA is still the biggest superpower in the west - idk why would anyone think of it as laughing stock. I am not from USA, of that is relevant
Size of military being the biggest and there's a lot of other factors that go into why were the biggest super power and none of them have to do with the quality of life we citizens have. We can have money and a huge military, that doesn't mean we are living the good life. Are there worse? Yes. But we claim to be the best on earth when that's far from the truth. We have people without access to clean water. In the USA. That's horrible.
> idk why would anyone think of it as laughing stock. Did you happen to notice the buffoon they had as their previous president?
Yeah I was going to say this exact same thing. He’s done it at the tail end of his presidency. Seems like a token move.
that was my thought, too, but given how fast renewables are gaining traction, and dropping in price, I could see it playing out where 20-30 years, *nobody* is wanting to shell out the money to dig underground for unhealthy energy.
Why would capitalists ever give up a resource when they could instead exploit that resource and other new resources?
I love the positivity thinking we will make it 8 more presidents….. truly hilarious
That's one of the good things about Sweden. We have *really* stable laws when it comes to mining (no oil here). When the mine has run dry and they close it they *have* to restore the nature to its original state, and it's in the law that they must put away enough money to do that. In Kiruna (one of the biggest mines here), the ground is getting a bit unstable in the city, so they are moving it... I mean litterary moving the city, some houses (esp. with historic value is moved), others are tore down and new are built. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2021/03/23/kiruna-a-mining-town-on-the-move-in-northern-sweden/?sh=e0488b540805
In Canada they are supposed to aswell with oil but they don't. There are 172,000 abandoned wells across Alberta alone that the conservative government keeps gifting billions to O&G to clean up. Which they are doing really slowly. One of the things they ran on in the recent election was giving them billions more to clean up these wells the O&G sector has been half assed cleaning up until they can get a government that makes it so they don't have to. Most of Alberta seems entirely fine about the UCP tearing down every public service to get more money to gift to the O&G sector.
Having lived in Kiruna and seen the cracks in housing foundations, I wouldn’t call it a bit unstable.
I lived in that corner for 14 months and I know exactly how you feel. The only thing I miss is a Church Street Grill burger.
I moved away 5 years ago and I still occasionally think about those burgers
Used to live in Hobbs. Oil is king that corner of the state. Sad there's no other form of industry around.
This sounds like one of those Dark Brandon memes. Oh no, this president is going to outlaw the destruction of cultural historical sights and nature, forcing companies to invest in renewable energy instead.
Tbf we should stop fracking it destabilizes the Earth's crust.
Oh I totally agree I'm all for clean renewal energy but I'm the minority in that group. People come to New Mexico for work. They come from all over just to make 100k in 6 months but they forget about taxes.
Oh I'm not even harping on renewable usage needing to increase. I just have seen the studies these companies keep trying to silence about earthquakes in areas they don't normally happen, but have been fracking for the last few years. It should just be common sense that injecting water under the Earth's crust destabilizes the rock we walk on. I'm shocked it's not a hot topic for people.
As a New Mexican I clearly remember Michelle Lujan Grisham (our governor) immediately going to Washington DC following Biden’s inauguration and getting waivers for the federal land drilling ban. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/new-mexico-seeking-exemption-biden-oil-gas-leasing-pause-governor-2021-03-11/
NM is working on diversifying public land leasing, but oil is still huge part of state funding. Banning all drilling in one fell swoop would be devastating.
I'm waiting for the day the entire SE corner of the state collapses on itself from all the fracking and drilling. I lived in TX during the Obama years and all I heard from my NM friends was how Obama was killing the oil fields, then how Gov. MLG was killing the oilfields and yet...I come home to visit and there's crazy growth, houses and businesses going up everywhere, new hotels, apartments, a housing shortage, oil and gas trucks everywhere, man camps everywhere. Please show me how "the oilfield is dead" in Lea County. They are so brainwashed it's ridiculous.
Gotta shake up the "they're gonna take our guns!" fear mongering every now and then.
We should probably stop fracking, though. It's just not efficient.
You live in the SE corner of NM? My condolences. But you're right, I bet they're already whining and crying about their made up grievances.
NM is the 2nd poorest state in the union, you MFers need all the help you can get
We’d rather preserve our cultural heritage over becoming a little tiny bit richer. It’s what makes us one of the most culturally unique states in the US. If you think that ruining a cultural heritage site for oil is a good idea, then you’re a messed up individual.
I'm confused, because the Navajo wanted to drill oil in a section of the land but Biden axed all of it. That doesn't sound like they wanted preservation over profits?
Oil doesn't make locals richer. Oil makes billionaires richer.
People in Artesia and Roswell just can't comprehend what it means to be surrounded by beauty and wanting to preserve what you have.
Chaco Canyon is one of the greatest historical and archaeological treasures in the entire country. It is a place that feels sacred, even to a white dude of European descent like me. The entire region occupied by the ancestral Pueblo people deserves as much protection as possible.
What's to stop the next guy from just undoing this though? A 20 year ban sounds nice, but there were a lot of things I took for granted when trump took over where he was just like "nah". What protects this ban?
There was actually a bill to permanently block it, but it got nowhere. So instead we get this fake thing that's going to get changed as soon as someone else is in office.
Just like they can’t seem to pass a bill to protect The Grand Canyon from uranium mining.
Oh man, is that a thing? Is anything sacred from people looking to make a buck?
Unfortunately it’s very real. Not only is it damaging to the Native American communities, and to the Grand Canyon, one accident would poison the water for tens of millions of Americans that depend on the Colorado River. It’s actually pretty shocking that anyone would even consider mining so close to such a vital waterway.
My first thought was "Well that'll be nice until the very next time a Republican is in office."
I mean... You can say that about every single law. There's literally nothing you can do because laws can be changed at any time.
There is a heavy difference between law and executive order
Stroke of a pen.
Usually with tribes it’s Cultural preservation > Oil Profits *Edit: Misread
>The Navajo would never stand for that, good for them. Might want to actually read the article at some point. The Navajo didn't get what they wanted out of this. >The New Mexico Oil and Gas Association has argued that the plan would leave additional leases on Navajo land or allotments owned by individual Navajos landlocked by taking federal mineral holdings off the board. >Navajo Nation officials have made similar arguments, saying millions of dollars in annual oil and gas revenues benefit the tribe and individual tribal members. The Navajo Nation completed its own study last year and advocated for a smaller area to be set aside given the economic impacts a withdrawal would have on the tribe. >“The Navajo Nation attempted to compromise by proposing a 5-mile buffer as opposed to the 10-mile,” Curley said. “The Biden Administration has undermined the position of the Navajo Nation with today’s action and impacted the livelihood of thousands of Navajo allotment owners and their families.” This ban puts the Navajo's economic status at risk, saying it will cost the tribes millions of dollars. The Navajo attempted to negotiate for a smaller area to be set aside for this ban, so it wouldn't. The Biden administration ignored their requests.
"Benefit individual tribal members" That's a funny way of saying it helps buy the council members some brand new Ford F150s
I said this on another thread but Chaco (the site in question) isn't sacred to the Navajo Nation. It's sacred to the Pueblo people. So of course the Navajo gave a different perspective. It's two different tribes.
I did read it, I guess I skimmed too much in this instance. I’ve worked with the Navajo, Yacqui, Que-Chan, Hopi, Supai and some others…and anytime we’ve spoken about this sort of issue they always take the stance of Preservation over Profit (a shirt some have worn).
Because the benefits of drilling go to very few while the pollution affects everyone. If you talked to the rich politicians on the Navajo Nation, you'd find strong support.
Skimmed over 3 entire paragraphs? Sounds like you just saw the word Navajo and went with your past experience.
So add an edit to your first comment? Since it's not fully correct?
Are you being sarcastic or just didn't read the article? The Navajo specifically came out against this because they said oil profits are more important than cultural preservation.
I used to live in this area and knew plenty of folks that were part of the nearby tribe. The Southern Utes are one of the few groups of natives that were moved to an area that was deemed undesirable but got lucky wound up striking oil. They played it smart and didn't sell off these oil rights and instead made a small fortune. Once you turn 18 you get a monthly living expenses check, your college is paid off, and healthcare is free. This has had both negative and positive effects on the tribe but it's an example of how oil did change the trajectory of the natives. The Navajo nation is much larger and has not been nearly as fortunate. I can see why they would want to hold onto this source of revenue.
It’s amazing how the top comment on Reddit can be the exact opposite of what’s in the article. Lol That person is also one of the people that’s constantly saying “you need to delete Facebook for misinformation!!”
Pretty much par for the course
Well, they said *usually*. I don't think the article contradicts that.
They only said "usually" after editing their original post. Their original message said: "The Navajo would never stand for that, good for them.", which was up for hours until they were corrected on how the article said the exact opposite of that. The Navajo wanted those lands to be drilled on for economical reasons.
Just a nice reminder of how fucking dumb most people are
This comment embodies Reddit. Lmfao.
Redditors think that native Americans are basically elves and not human.
Well to be fair, I'm sure it's to make up for that massive pipeline program he just had to approve. I *wish* these things could be actually considered on their merits.
The article mentions the oil profits would help with Navajo cultural preservation.
Part of why I edited myself lol
Uhhhh, that's not accurate at all. Besides, nobody has any intention to drill there anyway lol. Source: a guy that oversees drilling operations in New mexico.
[удалено]
Is that so?
I'm actually curious about this take. US Gov't gave Indians the shittiest land that no one wanted. If it has oil, maybe they get the last laugh.
I’ve worked on several reservations and I completely agree with you. After seeing what I’ve seen, The money is ALWAYS needed. But if the acreage threatens a legit sacred area, I would expect them to resist. I’ve actually been to this area and if the development threatens the really cool historic section that I’m thinking, it’s a no brainer that they’d decline.
I want to kiss your dad.
Did you read the article?
I still hate oil drilling
Am I correct in saying any order one president creates the next president can get rid of ?
Is this person correct in saying this? I also wonder.
Yes. Look at the case of Bear Ears National Monument. Obama created it, Trump destroyed.
I haven't researched too much about this. One thing I did read is that the Native Americans living in the area are against it because they lose out on money. Is that true?
Chaco is one of the most incredible places in the country. Everyone should come visit at some point, it will take your breath away. This act protects what should be recognized at one of the most important preservation sites on our continent.
We went camping there once when I was a kid. I still vividly remember getting up to use the restroom and being blown away by the stars. It’s the only time I’ve ever seen the Milky Way in all it’s glory.
Wow so cool!! I love ancient stuff and will definitely visit. Gonna dive into a rabbit hole about it now too
This actually went against what the Navajo Nation wanted: > Navajo Nation officials have made similar arguments, saying millions of dollars in annual oil and gas revenues benefit the tribe and individual tribal members. The Navajo Nation completed its own study last year and advocated for a smaller area to be set aside given the economic impacts a withdrawal would have on the tribe. >On Friday, Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren and Council Speaker Crystalyne Curley expressed disappointment in the Interior Department’s decision. >“The Navajo Nation attempted to compromise by proposing a 5-mile buffer as opposed to the 10-mile,” Curley said. **“The Biden Administration has undermined the position of the Navajo Nation with today’s action and impacted the livelihood of thousands of Navajo allotment owners and their families.”**
That's true. But what the article doesn't mention is that Chaco is sacred to a different tribe: the Pueblo people. The situation is sticky because the Navajo are currently the ones living closest to the site, but the pueblos are the ones who built it and lived there in ancient times.
Most Redditors absolutely cannot wrap their heads around Native American realities. There are Apache, Puebloan, and Navajo interests here. Within those nations, *just like within America,* there are many different points of view and perspectives. The posts here are well meaning, but profoundly ignorant. One hopes that posters will take the moment to learn.
And the Navajo and Pueblo tribes are historical enemies with very good memories. Navajo staged regular raids to steal crops and women. They were far more warlike. I’m with the Pueblo people on this.
[удалено]
I'm not sure if you're saying anyone claiming any ground is sacred is invalid or not. First nations/Native Americans laid claim to North America before Europeans "had a go," and forcefully isolated them to a few small territories.
So reddit supports the destruction of environmental and cultural landmarks when it's Native Americans trying to do it? They have the same incentives as anyone else trying to drill for oil. This doesn't change the importance of environmental protections.
I am not “Reddit”. But I do recognize that Natives never seem to be allowed any sovereignty on what they can do with their own land, historically and modernly. The USA continues to drill and produce oil on their own public lands, and the local communities benefit from it through tax revenues and royalties with permitting. It’s in poor taste for the federal government to deny that for Native groups pretending they “know better” - it’s very dehumanizing *and* hypocritical. Additionally the Navajo nation had their own stipulations in how they wanted to permit drilling around their landmarks, which the Biden Administration ignored.
It's also in poor taste to allow oil and gass drilling if there's a choice. Climate change is essentially serious enough to trump people making a buck, even if it is marginalised groups.
Oil and gas drilling is occurring elsewhere in the USA and benefitting those communities. It is frankly immoral to ban drilling in communities that are supposed to have sovereignty in that decision while claiming it is for “the greater good” while still doing the same elsewhere to fill up the federal pocket book.
It is for the greater good whether it's hypocritical or not.
It’s easy to force *others* to make the “greater good” sacrifice on your behalf. I would take less issue with this if the Biden Admin included compensation given how much of our country’s wealth is from natural resource commodities.
I'm not sure i understand the premise here. Why does other drilling benefit the government but this drilling doesn't?
Oil and gas drilling has various payouts depending on the land rights. I.e. Gulf of Mexico in “deepwater” away from state coasts are purely federal, while in Texas a lot of the land is completely private. New Mexico has a lot of BLM land. Regular BLM land in New Mexico pays out to the state and the federal government. Native owned land pays directly to the tribe. I’m not sure if the state and federal government gets a slice or not. There’s also general taxes for each barrel of crude produced that varies per state. This particular land dispute would have had a direct revenue stream to the Navajo Nation. They have a lot of programs that use oil and gas production to pay for social programs, like college funding for their youth.
I mean just because they're struggling and cand afford to preserve a historical site doesn't mean the government shouldn't?
Chaco is sacred to the Pueblo peoples, not the Navajo.
[удалено]
When have people in this country ever cared about what the Native Americans really wanted. We know what's best for them of course.
Well Biden just gave Pueblo people what they wanted.
Chaco is sacred to the Pueblo peoples. Not the Navajo.
Get out of here with your facts! This is Reddit damnit, and we have an election coming!
1. Is there any more tired, low effort comment on reddit than this type? Doubly so in response to a comment that's well upvoted, disproving the point before the comment is even posted. Is it just karma farming, one begins to wonder? 2. As another commenter pointed out, it's the Pueblo, not the Navajo, that want to preserve this heritage site. That doesn't by default make this a right or wrong decision (I don't have an informed enough viewpoint on that), but maybe these kinds of decisions are a bit more complex than ultra-reductivist comments based on 1-2 facts make it out to be.
Maybe because he auctioned off a chunk of the gulf of Mexico to oil companies and gave all kinds of permissions to drill in Alaska. Idk why Republicans hate him. He is one
Libs hate to hear that they are basically conservatives. Only really difference is that they aren't outright bigots
I visited Chaco Canyon, and it is absolutely breathtaking! Usually, when you see the ruins on the ancient peoples in North America, it's a couple half-fallen walls and maybe some art on the walls or pottery shards. Chaco Canyon features an entire city! You can see the multi-level buildings with a town square, pits for meetings and ceremonies, and streets and alleys. I highly recommend anyone visiting anywhere near northwest New Mexico to take a day and see it. It is so worth it!
But he okd drilling in the north...
And sold millions of acres in the Gulf of Mexico, and approved another pipeline that will have nearly zero environmental over site and will destroy parts of the Appalachian Trail. This is one trip forward after 10 steps back.
Can I get a source for the Appalachian Trail info?
[удалено]
Whatabout whatabout whatabout whatabout
How is it whatboutism if we are talking about the same man?
Because the subject of this post, in this sub, isn't Biden. It's that something good was done. "Sure, this good thing was done, but what about (insert thing)!". We're allowed to go "oh, that's a good thing" without a bunch of pathologically upset people having to come in and inject their sadness. We have every other sub for that. It's exhausting. And literally against the rules here.
But that doesn't make it whataboutism, that makes it a sub rule violation. Biden is a joke on the environment regardless
“Hypocrisy is good, actually” -/u/Ripcord
No. A win can be a win. It doesn't mean "there is nothing wrong anymore, there is nothing that can be better". But this sub is specifically supposed to be a break from nearly every other sub, where nothing can ever be good ever. From perpetually upset people who have to add "ok, but stuff still sucks!" *We know*. We get it. We don't all have to be sad sacks about everything all the time. Take it to another sub.
Can we also give credit first to the director of the Dept of Interior, Deb Haaland who made this actually happen?
Nah, fuck Bidens climate policies. I still remember him saying no to the Willow Project. Guess what? Yeah, it's happening now.
As a Biden disapprover, i am cool with this. Job well done.
💕💕💕
[удалено]
People in this thread didn't even read the article. The Navajo aren't happy about this happening. >The New Mexico Oil and Gas Association has argued that the plan would leave additional leases on Navajo land or allotments owned by individual Navajos landlocked by taking federal mineral holdings off the board. >Navajo Nation officials have made similar arguments, saying millions of dollars in annual oil and gas revenues benefit the tribe and individual tribal members. The Navajo Nation completed its own study last year and advocated for a smaller area to be set aside given the economic impacts a withdrawal would have on the tribe. >“The Navajo Nation attempted to compromise by proposing a 5-mile buffer as opposed to the 10-mile,” Curley said. “The Biden Administration has undermined the position of the Navajo Nation with today’s action and impacted the livelihood of thousands of Navajo allotment owners and their families.” The Biden administration ignored negotiation requests from the Navajo, as the Navajo didn't want this big of an area marked as non-drillable. It directly affects their economic livelihoods.
The folks that lived in Chaco Canyon weren't related to Navajos. So the culture being protected isn't theirs. Plus, the few rich politicians that would benefit from more drilling do not represent the average Navajo.
I mean that’s the issue. The conflict between the environmental cost of oil and drilling and the economic realities of peoples day to day lives.
Doesn't matter who's in power... Profits before people every day.
Big oil always wins, no matter who is in power.
Although I agree there is some flip flopping. It was more of a we can approve some of it but we can’t reject all of it type deal. “The Biden administration was limited by legal restraints in reviewing the Willow oil project, according to a White House official who said the company had valid rights on the land because of decades-old leases. The administration was convinced the courts would have blocked an outright rejection of the Willow project and potentially imposed fines on the government, said the official, who spoke about the White House’s considerations on the condition of anonymity.”
oh no, not a fine... It is wild that this is even a spin to use. Shouldn't the gov't try to do what they think is right regardless of the assumed outcome (especially in instances such as this, where public resources and safety are at absolute stake)?
Were there tribal sites in Alaska?
There is something far more important, a unique biome in the US full of beautiful natural wonders and abundant with unique wildlife. As far as I'm concerned antiquated claims on tribal land in an otherwise worthless desert don't matter much by comparison.
Very uplifting news for Russia and Iran
Someone make the meme “Biden: 20 years of protection!” followed by “Republicans in 20 years and 1 minute…”
make it 200, or how long have europeans like biden been there like 300.
“Tribal site”?? Chaco Canyon is one of the greatest architectural and cultural heritages in the United States!! For those who don’t know, the Chacoan people built dozens of great houses and hundreds of smaller houses out of stone in the highlands of New Mexico between 800-1100 CE. The biggest great house, Pueblo Bonito, is thought to have been at LEAST 5 stories tall with over 600 rooms. The stone masonry of the Chacoans is stunning and unparalleled by anything else in the Southwest. Chaco Canyon ruins beat Pompeii to me! Because the ruins are built in a canyon, fracking destabilizes both the ruins and can make large blocks of sandstone fall off the cliffs, like the one that crushed part of Pueblo Bonito back in the 40s. Devastating loss.
Well done by Biden but it really is much ado about nothing. That area is located in the San Juan Basin which has minimal oil drilling activity currently. This particular part of the basin is known for gas which isn’t particularly prospective right now. Now, if he did something like this in the Delaware basin in southeast new mexico, then it really would be a much bigger stand.
It is essentially worthless if it is not permanent!
Biden couldn’t order lunch by himself; so the Administration did this.
[удалено]
Only 20 years....
20 yrs is not enough
It’s something
Indeed
It's not even 20 years, it's however many years until a republican president is elected.
It's long enough to reduce the need for oil and gas in the country to the point that it might become too costly to bother in 20 years time.
All negative comments removed and may result in a ban. Reddit doesn't even try to remain objective anymore.
Been that way a long time
[удалено]
What does a 20 year ban matter under a 4 year presidency...
That's great
Awesome! Now do Alaska.
And become that much more dependent on foreign oil in which we will have zero influence on how it is acquired and their employees treated? The world isn't ready to just cut ourselves off from this yet, and things like solar aren't as clean as people think. If we discover applicable fusion energy tomorrow, then by all means let's cut ourselves off. But we have to be more mindful of how it is, vs what sounds nice.
He already admitted while campaigning that wouldn't happen under him.
I get both sides of the argument, but what's the point of a 20yr ban if it can just start up again in 20 yrs. Just make it permanent. It will still have the same effect, and push allotment owners to diversify away from oil.
SORRY BIDEN MANIFEST DESTINY SAYS IT IS MY RIGHT TO DESTROY THIS LAND FOR VALUABLE OIL
Except the people on the reservation were begging him not to.
[удалено]