A Brief "Forever"

This article appalled me for several reasons: 1) It shows the damage that can be done when mineral development is allowed on someone else's private property, against the landowner's wishes. 2) The way they decided to resolve the issue was to seek removal of the conservation easement, instead of trying to get the energy company booted off the land for damaging the conservation usage. 3) It sets an extremely dangerous precedent, in which "forever" in a legal context can mean "until someone feels like changing it."

So many Americans have no grasp of deep time. They aren't even good at planning to the end of their own lifetimes. *fume*

A Brief "Forever"

This article appalled me for several reasons: 1) It shows the damage that can be done when mineral development is allowed on someone else's private property, against the landowner's wishes. 2) The way they decided to resolve the issue was to seek removal of the conservation easement, instead of trying to get the energy company booted off the land for damaging the conservation usage. 3) It sets an extremely dangerous precedent, in which "forever" in a legal context can mean "until someone feels like changing it."

So many Americans have no grasp of deep time. They aren't even good at planning to the end of their own lifetimes. *fume*

A Brief "Forever"

This article appalled me for several reasons: 1) It shows the damage that can be done when mineral development is allowed on someone else's private property, against the landowner's wishes. 2) The way they decided to resolve the issue was to seek removal of the conservation easement, instead of trying to get the energy company booted off the land for damaging the conservation usage. 3) It sets an extremely dangerous precedent, in which "forever" in a legal context can mean "until someone feels like changing it."

So many Americans have no grasp of deep time. They aren't even good at planning to the end of their own lifetimes. *fume*

A Brief "Forever"

This article appalled me for several reasons: 1) It shows the damage that can be done when mineral development is allowed on someone else's private property, against the landowner's wishes. 2) The way they decided to resolve the issue was to seek removal of the conservation easement, instead of trying to get the energy company booted off the land for damaging the conservation usage. 3) It sets an extremely dangerous precedent, in which "forever" in a legal context can mean "until someone feels like changing it."

So many Americans have no grasp of deep time. They aren't even good at planning to the end of their own lifetimes. *fume*