Geologists estimate that there are 800 billion barrels of oil locked away in the shale rocks of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. But there are some serious obstacles to unlocking that oil, not the least of which are the formidable political forces that oppose oil shale development. If you want to learn more, there was an excellent story in this past Sunday’s Denver Post about the technological, economic, social, and ecological feasibility of developing oil shale in the western U.S. [Read more]

[Originally published at Red, Green, and Blue] On Tuesday, the Bush administration moved to accelerate oil-shale development across the Rocky Mountain West. Along with calls to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling, and open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, Tuesday’s release of proposed rules for shale exploration (pdf) by the Bureau of Land Management was merely another shot across the bow in the political blame game over $4-per-gallon gas. [Read more]

Even Professor Christopher Stone would have some difficulty extending moral consideration to coal, oil, or gas (I think). Stone first posed an ethical question in the pages of the University of Southern California Law Review 45 (1972) that has remained a perennial favorite for nearly two generations of environmental philosophers, ethicists, law school professors and the like; Stone’s question: “Should Trees Have Standing?”

Bad pun aside, Stone was able to hang his academic hat on that question. Although I don’t really remember the exact logic of his argument, I don’t think he successfully argued that trees should be extended moral (or legal) rights.

Everywhere it is occurring, the development of mineral resources for fuel (i.e. coal, gas, coalbed methane) presents a deluge of social and ecological challenges for policymakers and citizens alike. But I find it to be particularly troublesome when land use planning officials can successfully claim that coal has any sort of legal right. Unfortunately, it is also the case that in many mostly western U.S. states that, while the mineral itself does not have any inherent right, there’s a good chance that someone or something has the legal right to get at it — and that something is usually the federal government.

So-called “split estates” are legally binding mechanisms by which a land title is considered as completely separate from the title to the underlying minerals, including oil, gas and coal. According to the High Country News, forty-eight percent of Wyoming’s private land is split estate, and the Bureau of Land Management began leasing the minerals under tens of thousands of acres of this private land. Once the subsurface rights are leased, surface owners have little recourse against the traffic explosion on freshly bulldozed roads. Energy exploration and development (and most mining practices more broadly) threaten the quality of the air and water, they disrupt and fragment wildlife habitat, they have contributed to boom-and-busty cycles with often devastating economic consequences. And, as recent events in Utah and elsewhere have reminded us, energy development endangers the health and safety of the humans who live and work amongst it.

As miners and oil and gas industry workers toil away at their dangerous and pursuits, and as labor and environmental groups make efforts to make those jobs safer, western ranchers are fighting a different kind of fight altogether. For example, Shaun Andrikopoulos (pictured) and a group of his neighboring ranchers have been engaged in a battle to regain control use of their surface rights in Sublette County, Wyoming (photo: Justin Fantl, for Planet Jackson Hole).

Owners of the lands’ surface have little they can do about the noxious fumes, flair-offs, noise from drill rigs, diesel generators and seismic exploration, add the addition of city-like skylines created by the illumination of drill rigs and their necessary outbuildings at night, and you’ve got some pretty disappointed landowners.

Thankfully, the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition has publicized some of these problems in a powerful series of pictures of mountaintop removal mining and information as well as a collection of quotes from energy industry representatives, company execs and public officials. Below is one of the most memorable ones (and ultimately, the inspiration for this post):

What is that old adage about the grass being greener on the other side? Well, there is certainly some truth to that statement, but it depends on which side the person is on when those words are uttered. A little while back I attended a lecture given by conservation biologist Michael Soule. He showed several slides the land bordering fencelines along park boundaries. The images he showed were of highly overgrazed lands next to much more healthy lands on the other side of the fence. Surprisingly, the overgrazed land was within park boundaries, while the healthy land was outside the boundaries. The images Soule showed were of Rocky Mountain National Park in central Colorado, where the dominant land management practice in the park has been to let the elk populations thrive. With wolves all but erradicated from the Colorado landscape, the elk have no ecological forces keeping their populations in check. But in terms of the wolf, there are myriad political forces keeping their populations in check. There are many options on the table, ranging from birth control for elk, to allowing limited hunting. But one of the more controversial proposals would bring wolves back to Colorado. Why is it controversial? Because a wee bit of politics has mixed with some science to create (no, not political science)– the strikingly familiar dynamics of environmental politics in the U.S.

Let me explain: elk have become the meal-ticket for RMNP, the National Park Service, and the firmly entrenched tourism industry in the gateway town of Estes Park. Elk parade through the streets of Estes, munching on grass at McDonalds and lazing on the lawn of the Stanley Hotel. Tourists stop and snap photos of the large, charismatic herbivores; sometimes the lucky folks can even do so from the air-conditioned comfort of their adventurously named Land Rovers, Explorers, Expeditions, and Navigators; or perhaps their more aptly named Suburbans. Additionally, a rather vociferous alliance of anti-wolf forces (mostly ranchers fearing the cow-snacking tendencies of the gray wolf)has gained a stable foothold in the ag-friendly state of Colorado.

My point is not that there is something wrong with elk, actually I find them to be rather stunning creatures. Nor is my point that people should actually get out of their cars to appreciate wildlife (at least not my central point). My point is that we must be watchful of the power politics can have over scientific evidence. Science may not always be able to provide the “best” answer, but we must be watchful of our political leaders obscuring empirical evidence necessary to sound policymaking. Sound familiar?

I could not locate the slides that Prof. Soule showed that day, but I am often reminded of the landscape and ecological impacts of fences, borders and boundaries. These images are absolutely stunning examples of how land management practices around the world can have a sometimes devastating effect on ecological systems. Enjoy these images, my guess is that you will not always be able to guess on which side the park sits! Looks can be deceiving!