Appreciate the emphasis on pragmatic, “all-of-the-above” solutions. Ensuring reliable, affordable energy while lowering emissions will look different across regions, especially where grid resilience and economic growth are still fragile. I’m curious: which policies or market incentives do you see as most effective for scaling advanced nuclear and next-gen geothermal alongside traditional sources, without locking in emissions-heavy infrastructure long-term? A nuanced roadmap that phases technologies in and out based on local baselines could bridge the realism–climate gap you describe.
though I am not surprised at your dislike of the move, how does transferring $900 million from NPS to the states hurt the park system. Am I mistaken to assume that money would be spent on maintenance by the states as well? Moving control (maintenance only) of these parks to a local entity seems like a good idea.
do you see this as a precursor to shrinking the National Park System? releasing the land from federal control entirely? if so, do you think energy concerns are behind the move (open up drilling), or is it more an issue of budget?
Some NPS land - if this tees up transference - might be sold off to investment firms or converted for affordable housing, which is worrisome to me. You, however, need Congressional approval to transfer from federal to state management. Given the numbers in Congress - and even GOP opposition to selling off public lands - this won't be in the final budget, as I noted. Senator Daines and Zinke - both Trump allies - will oppose any language that gives off appearance of land transference. https://www.eenews.net/articles/republicans-weigh-sales-of-public-land-in-reconciliation/
The NPS can be reformed - which Trump did in 1.0 by permanently funding the Great American Outdoors Act. There is inherent value to public lands access. Many people out West depend on these lands for food and recreation. Most countries don't have this luxury like us, with everything being pay-to-play. The lands can be stewarded better and remain open to the public for multiple uses. Biden closed down public lands by adding restrictions to use. The other extreme would be privatizing everything. There's a healthy medium that was maintained before during Trump 1.0.
Fiscally speaking, it won't make a serious dent on reducing the debt and deficit - and that land access is gone forever. Unless entitlements are tackled, you'll never reduce the debt and deficit.
Appreciate the emphasis on pragmatic, “all-of-the-above” solutions. Ensuring reliable, affordable energy while lowering emissions will look different across regions, especially where grid resilience and economic growth are still fragile. I’m curious: which policies or market incentives do you see as most effective for scaling advanced nuclear and next-gen geothermal alongside traditional sources, without locking in emissions-heavy infrastructure long-term? A nuanced roadmap that phases technologies in and out based on local baselines could bridge the realism–climate gap you describe.
nicely done, thank you.
though I am not surprised at your dislike of the move, how does transferring $900 million from NPS to the states hurt the park system. Am I mistaken to assume that money would be spent on maintenance by the states as well? Moving control (maintenance only) of these parks to a local entity seems like a good idea.
do you see this as a precursor to shrinking the National Park System? releasing the land from federal control entirely? if so, do you think energy concerns are behind the move (open up drilling), or is it more an issue of budget?
Some NPS land - if this tees up transference - might be sold off to investment firms or converted for affordable housing, which is worrisome to me. You, however, need Congressional approval to transfer from federal to state management. Given the numbers in Congress - and even GOP opposition to selling off public lands - this won't be in the final budget, as I noted. Senator Daines and Zinke - both Trump allies - will oppose any language that gives off appearance of land transference. https://www.eenews.net/articles/republicans-weigh-sales-of-public-land-in-reconciliation/
The NPS can be reformed - which Trump did in 1.0 by permanently funding the Great American Outdoors Act. There is inherent value to public lands access. Many people out West depend on these lands for food and recreation. Most countries don't have this luxury like us, with everything being pay-to-play. The lands can be stewarded better and remain open to the public for multiple uses. Biden closed down public lands by adding restrictions to use. The other extreme would be privatizing everything. There's a healthy medium that was maintained before during Trump 1.0.
Secretary Burgum claims our federal lands are valued at $1 - $2 trillion. (Though he's not for selling all lands, or most. ) One source says "debt held by the public at the end of fiscal year 2024 was $28.2 trillion." https://www.pgpf.org/article/how-much-is-the-national-debt-what-are-the-different-measures-used/
Fiscally speaking, it won't make a serious dent on reducing the debt and deficit - and that land access is gone forever. Unless entitlements are tackled, you'll never reduce the debt and deficit.
I hope that clarifies my position.
It does. Thank you.