SITLA is supposed to operate for the benefit of Utah schools and students. That means more than just generating revenues in the short term.
Utah's air quality has already deteriorated significantly — and not just along the urban Wasatch Front. And much of that deterioration is due to drilling, mining, fracking and the overall burning of fossil fuels. Most Utah kids and teachers understand that, even if their public officials and SITLA board members may not.
It’s not a choice of schoolchildren vs. hunters. It’s a choice of schoolchildren vs. the growing pollution and deterioration of our state.
The Deseret News ran an article the other day which included, “It’s no secret that the world will have to make the transition from fossil fuels to something more sustainable” ("The ethanol strategy," Aug. 13).
Why doesn’t SITLA take the lead — in the interests of all Utah residents — and manage the lands for renewable, sustainable, minimally polluting, minimally degrading activities — even if it means the "return" might be a little less.
Salt Lake City
- Join the discussion: Is feminism misunderstood?
- Doug Robinson: Violence against women is...
- In our opinion: The Affordable Care Act needs...
- Can a news channel 'solve problems'?
- Dan Liljenquist: The economic impact of...
- In our opinion: Federal contracting executive...
- In our opinion: Timing is right for the...
- My view: Balancing personal conviction and...
- Lawrence and Windsor won't trump Utah... 114
- In our opinion: The Affordable Care Act... 79
- My view: Balancing personal conviction... 53
- In our opinion: The long-term outlook... 51
- Can a news channel 'solve problems'? 46
- Letter: Policy disagreement 45
- My view: A global warming solution to... 36
- Join the discussion: Is it impossible... 33