I would understand if this was about mining in a forest or near a city, but what is the value of a desert where nothing grows and no one lives? Would people be also opposed to building canals and converting the desert to agricultural land?
Yes I absolutely would oppose converting the desert to agricultural land. We have more than enough existing agricultural land. No need to wreck the desert.
You want section 3.3 "Biological Resources", which shows that it is not "devoid of life", though one of the sections is "on sandy soils with no discernable aspect."
Note however that this is for exploration. It doesn't assess long-term effects of commercial mining. Also, as the L.A. Times article points out, this ...:
> "does not include mapping of floodplain boundaries, nor any hydrologic modeling or analysis," the response read. "There is no discussion of the risks to cross contamination from the deep brines to the freshwater aquifer, and the drill site reclamation practices do not appear to have taken this risk into account."
"Devils Hole pupfish has much to teach scientists about adaptation to adverse conditions. It has adapted to survive in very warm water with very low oxygen content.
Envision each living thing on Earth, including humans, as being a thread in a piece of cloth. Each time a species goes extinct, a thread is removed and the fabric is weakened. As more threads disappear, one-by-one, the strands separate and fall away. Eventually, the original piece of cloth falls apart and disappears.
All living things are part of a complex, often delicately balanced network called the biosphere. The earth’s biosphere, in turn, is composed of countless ecosystems, which include plants and animals and their physical environments. No one knows how the extinction of organisms will affect the other members of its ecosystem, but the removal of a single species can set off a chain reaction affecting many others. Only time will tell."
Separately there is the simple act of conserving a species for its own sake, but that's a separate topic from its helpfulness for material human needs.
I agree that deserts are fascinating ecosystems, but at the same time they are very sparse and very miserable places. And it's hard to find a better place for a mine other than ocean floor (for which we do not have a good technologies yet, unfortunately).
Arctic region is not even in its natural state, but is a result of human intervention from 10K years ago, when by eliminating mammoths we converted highly productive savanna-like arctic steppe into mosquito infested empty place it is now.
Of course any mine anywhere must be controlled to produce as little pollution as possible, and rare species must be protected, or their genomes must be digitized.
But if it was technologically feasible, i would even support terraforming both of this regions to make them habitable.
"The Southern part of Nevada" is not feasible. Lithium is concentrated among the salt of dry lake beds. Southern Nevada drains to the ocean rather than concentrating salt on land.
Have you ever been to Death Valley National Park? I was never interested in it until my SO dragged me there. Never did I imagine it would be as incredible as it was. It is otherworldly; surreal; lunar (or martian - if you prefer). It almost feels like you are no longer on Earth.
Ubehebe crater is a geological monument. The alluvial fans are so vast as to be almost incomprehensibly large. Surprise canyon is gorgeous. The racetrack playa is home to wandering stones that seemingly migrate of their own accord. Teakettle junction is a fantastic reminder of the trials of many generations of settlers. Badwater basin, Telescope peak, Artists' Palette, Zabriskie Point, Golden Canyon, the wildflower blooms, unique wildlife, etc. etc. are all amazing sights and features of a desert that's apparently not "much more worthy of protection" that are found nowhere else on Earth.
Death Valley is a severely underrated and under-visited national park that is, in my opinion, far more impressive than Joshua Tree NP, for example. Or Pinnacles NP. Or Cuyahoga NP or Acadia NP or others.
If I were you, I would go visit DVNP.
Do you think these places were less impressive/worse 10K years ago when they had forests and lakes? And why must we preserve them in current desolate state instead of restoring to the older state when they could sustain more life?
My viewpoint seems to be highly unpopular here, but i didn't see any good argument why significantly reducing the number of deserts on earth is not a good thing.
Death valley doesn't even have any features that would be lost because of trees unlike for instance rainbow mountains in china.
I don't even know how to address this. Are you suggesting that DV was "covered in trees" or heavily forested 10k years ago? That is irrefutably incorrect.
> Death valley doesn't even have any features that would be lost because of trees unlike for instance rainbow mountains in china.
What? Again, you've never even been there. You have zero idea of "what features would be lost". You expose your ignorance more and more with each sentence. Educate yourself on the history, geology, and ecology of the area before you talk out of your ass about places you've never been to.
I have never been to death valey, and i live far enough from it to make traveling there not worth the time. But with the invention of books, images, and videos one doesn't have to be at a place to know about it.
You seem to have a very strong emotional attachment to the place, but i would argue that it only adds bias to your judgement.