Saw a similar plan to run trucks carrying sand in Iceland every 15 minutes round the clock from the mine to a harbor 100 miles away:

https://www.icelandreview.com/nature-travel/proposed-sand-mi...

Gulp, an island decides to export sand while see levels are rising

A geology student in Iceland told me that actually the new land is rising faster than the sea-level rise - the Eurasian and North American tectonic plates grow apart there and mantle is being pushed to the surface.

no way to do this better with rail??

The job market is a tad different there than in SF. Or used to be, anyway.

If the choice is drinking yourself to death out of boredom, or having a job…

There is also a lot of Alaska. More Alaska than most humans would be able to see in a lifetime of trying.

Instead of unkind words I'll just quote the State Constitution.

Alaska State Constitution Article 8 Section 1

It is the policy of the State to encourage the settlement of its land and the development of its resources by making them available for maximum use consistent with the public interest.

That does seem to clearly describe the problem.

Every state in the union enjoyed the same policy until 1970. Resource development is the base of the economy. We don't maintain our modern way of life without it. We either develop our own resources or pay somebody else for theirs.

In Encounters with the Archdruid Charles Park is described as believing that “if copper were to be found under the White House, the White House should be moved.” I've struggled with that idea and gone back and forth on how I stand about it. But the line has stuck with me for years.

Go look for some mines or other developed resources from 100 years ago. They are not easy to find despite most of them being well documented. I live in a rainforest so things get swallowed by the forest quickly. 100 years here means all exposed wood is nearly gone, iron is a pile of rust and the trees are almost 2 feet across.

Seeing first hand how the environment recovers after disruption tempers the environmental protectionism proclivity. Sure blatant disregard for the environment like dumping barrels of waste in a river is bad. That doesn't mean all resource use and development is.

Go look for some mines the desert sometime. 100 years here is nothing, wood barely decomposes and iron lasts basically forever.

Alaska is massive, and their commodities driven economy is what allows them to provide UBI to all their residents.

It’s (I think) misleading to characterize the AK permanent fund dividend as UBI, even if only because many people perceive UBI conceptually as meeting basic needs. $1500 a year pre-tax (give or take) isn’t much at all. At best it’s a less-than-adequate COLA even in the most developed towns. Presently, the statutory amount is occasionally hitting double that but somehow the state has contrived to skim it for the budget shortfalls. However, many Alaskans think it preferable to garnish the dividend payout before seeing a state-level income or sales tax implemented. As the resource development moves overseas, the economy in AK will only shrink and these choices will become more difficult, ultimately ending in worst of both worlds (no dividend and new taxes).

The Alaska PFD has decreased poverty within Alaska by 20% [0]. An extra $2-3k can have a massive impact in a state where a significant minority lives in rural/isolated regions and/or reservations. That additional $2-3k added with SNAP benefits has helped thousands of Alaskans a year keep food on their table.

In addition, Native Corporations (ANSCA) help alleviate poverty further by spreading commodities income to all members of that native tribe (eg. all Inuit from Utquiatvik will get a check from the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation thanks to revenue generated by Shell and Cheveron).

[0] - https://iseralaska.org/static/legacy_publication_links/2016_...

Any idea or any studies on how that (the UBI) is working out?

It's complicated. This is a fairly good read. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/9/5/20849020/alaska-...

Some takeaways:

- It's a fairly modest payout

- The payout is very dependent on oil revenues in a given year. (Alaska doesn't have income tax or sales tax revenue sources.)

- It probably does some good in a state with a large rural population and high unemployment

- It influences politics

Thanks