Good piece, as usual. For me, the best angle to view the differences is through the lens of trade-offs. From your description, Mulvaney is unwilling to make any trade-off. But the problem is that advocating for a maximalist view of preservations (i.e., no "environmental" usage) runs headlong into the actual choices (and needs) of humans on an everyday basis. It suffers from the Nirvana fallacy. People will absolutely use the environment, and if you don't have "Wise Use" the reality is unwise use.
Good piece, as usual. For me, the best angle to view the differences is through the lens of trade-offs. From your description, Mulvaney is unwilling to make any trade-off. But the problem is that advocating for a maximalist view of preservations (i.e., no "environmental" usage) runs headlong into the actual choices (and needs) of humans on an everyday basis. It suffers from the Nirvana fallacy. People will absolutely use the environment, and if you don't have "Wise Use" the reality is unwise use.