Daily Wire: Career "Burners" or Burning Man attendees are raging over a Bureau of Land Management environmental impact report that accuses Burning Man of being a major environmental nuisance, and requests the weeklong festival in the Nevada desert take major measures to control trash, drug use, and crowds before expanding to accommodate more attendees.
4 comments:
I think it would be interesting to get my hands on this report and actually read it through. A lot of what the Bureau of Land Management is asking for makes sense. Dumpsters, barricades, better security. These all seem like helpful things. I do agree that the idea of paying for road maintenance seems to be a bit of a stretch. I think the biggest question here is if the supposed environmental impact of the festival is as bad as this report says it is. I’m confused how a festival can have a ‘leave no trace’ culture and produce such a large amount of negative impact at the same time. It means someone is exaggerating, or both sides are. Either way, I don’t see why Burners are ‘raging’. The idea of reducing your environmental impact is always a positive thing. Even if the BLM is exaggerating, it’s still good to be actively analyzing your impact.
This is a really interesting conundrum. On one hand, I understand the fear that has inspired heightening security, on the other hand, I fully understand the want to protect the integrity and “mission” of the festival. That being said the environmental impact is something that I don’t see the festival being able to make an argument against. If this is supposed to be a celebration of life, art, and humanness, a lack of respect for the earth that they are on is irresponsible and slightly infuriating. The barrier around the festival could be a bit much, but I find it wildly improbable that the festival leaves the desert completely untouched. I want to hear more about the specifics of the report. That being said, drugs are undeniably a part of the burning man experience, and added security could literally just end in a whole bunch of people getting in trouble. The question of funding is really challenging because while some of these things are protection of people, which seems like something that is a state interest if they are going to force certain steps. Otherwise, I have difficulty asking the state to pay for such an extravagant mess that Burning Man can be, a la the 747 aircraft. The ecological damage is really challenging.
I admittedly don’t know enough about the burning man festival to really have an opinion one way or another on who is right in this scenario. I’m sure that their “leave no trace” policy isn’t 100% followed, but considering the strong burning man culture around that concept, I would imagine that they get pretty close. And while I am sure that there are large expenses for local authorities when burning man happens, I also cannot imagine that the influx of people from burning man isn’t a major stimulant to the local economy every year. It seems like screening for drugs would basically kill the festival, but a terrorist attack is a real concern and could be devastating. It seems like both sides of this issue have room to compromise, and a happy medium can be achieved. Burning man should submit to (or at least try) the recommendations that would make people safer and have positive ecological impact, and the BLM should back off on the other items.
This article has left me wanting to take both sides. I, like many people, have always heard about the Burning Man community “leaving no trace” after the event. As stated in the article, it is what they pride themselves on. I know that the festival takes several precautions to make sure that trash and waste are properly disposed of at the end of the event. For example, the fence that is placed around the perimeter of the venue is something that already exists and is arguably one of the only reason why trash doesn’t escape to the desert. As for the drugs I’m pretty indifferent, the attendees know the risks involved and should be able to hold themselves accountable for their actions.
The only real problem I have that goes against the Burning Man community is the upkeep of the roads that lead to the site. Given the number of people that attended the event, it is not unreasonable to expect money to be allocated to the local communities. After a short google search, it wasn’t hard to find private entities that do contribute to the public works and the community they directly affect.
Post a Comment