I thought that Abbey had a much more puritanical view of wilderness than the writers of the previous two readings. He shows a great dislike for humanity, and puts a great divide between humans and nature, suggesting it is something to be forever untouched and explored in minimal ways-without cars or other luxuries (let’s just make nature only accessible for able-bodied, healthy people, right). He still shows a desire to be connected to the animals and plants around him in a way that almost personifies them, despite his calling out anthropomorphism in the book earlier. In the scene with the deer and the coyote tracks, he literally tells the deer he wants to talk to them, and then leaves his signature for the coyote to see, as if the animals could possibly undeerstand these things. I guess I understand what he was getting at, that there is a connection we have to nature that we can find through animals and plants, but I thought it showed an incongroousness with his general misanthropy.
We live in an utterly, pardon my French, fucked time right now in America when it comes to politics and environmental policies and even though I can’t actually just move to another country it’s nice to see how other countries are making efforts to reduce carbon emissions. Nordic countries are doing a great job through trade and agreements with other countries and through municipal efforts, which sets an example for America (once we impeach a long line of people). I think that the municipal efforts, especially, is something American cities need to consider. With the counrty itself being so obstinant it comes down to state and local politicians to try and make changes in the way we use energy.