What bugs me is that if we don't try something, we don't know if it's sure to fail...or why it fails, if it does. Since I don't have the irrefutable talking points about energy and why a) we have to max out on it *without any concern for what it destroys* I'm stuck with trying to stop the destruction while not knowing how that affects the "BAU" economy.

For instance, I can see ways to drill for oil that would halve the destruction drilling does to the land. In fact, Bush I said something about caribou nestling up with pipelines that SOUNDED reasonable at the time. If the issue is to keep BAU going as long as possible, why can't it be done while losing as few as possible of the natural/cultural resources that are after all needed in some way too.?

To what extent is it that people who disregard preventing breakage while doing BAU simply do not KNOW the value of what is being broken or how to reduce such breakage?

And b) why is the economy created around reducing breakage (tourism, conservation, etc.) not valuable along with other aspects of BAU that cannot be worked around?