Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Dawn, my objection is pure principle. Two actually.

1) If publicly owned wildlife refuges are sold to exploitation simply because there is a commercial need, eventually, there will be no wildlife refuges or pristine wilderness. Greed is pushing for ANWR drilling, pure and simple.

2) Why are we investing in oil production 10 years out which only plans on remaining dependent upon oil. Instead, a far, far greater return on investment would be in alternative fuels, especially of the non-petroleum kind. There is speculation by investors that the Saudi fields may be drying up over the next 20 years prompting the Saudis to maximize profits while they can accounting for the new $40 minimum floor per barrel for oil established by OPEC, a 100% increase over just a few years ago.

Planning on and investing in long term oil production is about as useful as investing in 8 track after cassette has been announced in development.

I am 100% in favor of drilling in ANWR. The U.S. has good laws in place that industries take seriously against wanton environmental degradation. Environmentalists said all the same things about the trans-Alaska pipeline, which is now a huge boon to the state’s economy and has not caused appreciable environmental degradation.

The delay in receiving oil is relevant, but it should make us want to move this faster, not slow it down! If we’re in an oil squeeze now, just imagine what it could look like in 2015!

Chops, if we keep investing in oil 15 years from now, we will still be dependent upon it 15 years from now.

You know, the only way to lose weight is to begin eating less and quit looking forward to glut sessions. Same with oil. We have to start now swapping oil investments for alternative investments, and swapping oil use for alternative fuel use, NOW!

David -
I’m all in favor of pursuing alternative fuels, but I don’t think that a diet is a good thing for the world economy. We’re beginning our “oil diet” already, as more developing consumers (esp. China) claim their share of the supply. The growing number of claimants will force us to find new sources anyway, and the cost will be enormous. The cost of transfer will be enormous, and keeping oil prices reasonable* is one way to prevent a worldwide depression.

* reasonable = $2-per-gallon gas; I’m not in favor of the low prices of the 80’s and 90’s.

While I’m for finding alternative fuels,we have more than eonugh oil to be completly independant on forign oil. So why souldn’t we use it while developing these alernative fuels?
Then OPEC can swim in their oil. Maybe that would force them to lower their prices.
And whats wrong with $1.50 a gallon gas? $2.00 is way out of line.

So, from what I can tell, there’s between 3.2 and 6 billion barrels, which is about 6 months to a year or so at our present rate. If we assume that we only use half domestic, and half import, that will give us between 1 and 2 years worth or oil. Even if we factor in a Bullshit rate of 50%, we’re only up to 2 to 4 years. 2-4 years, 10 years from now. That’s not a great return, especially considering the risk involved to the habitat. I’m also a little wary when I read ‘only 2000 of the 15 million acres will be used…’ and then find out that this is not contiguous, doesn’t account for roads, and only includes the actual ground contact of a given drilling site or pipeline. For example, since the pipeline is above ground, only the place where the supports touch the ground is counted in the used acreage number. In the end, this is neither here nor there, but it leaves me wondering: what else aren’t they telling me?

I’m just not sure what I, as an average US citizen gets out of this. I know what oil companies get out of it. I know Alaskan citizens get out of it. But I’m not really sure what I get out of it.

Justin -
The “so many years” argument is a straw man: we won’t be able to remove all the oil instantly like that, it’ll take years and years. And it won’t fill half our supply, rather, it will augment the dozens of sources we have internally and externally. I think it’s a good idea because the world economy needs more oil to keep growing. If we prevent new drilling, we’re just cramming more crisis into less time and forcing the world to make a change it’s not technologically ready for. We need to make that change, but we should do it in a gradual way with minimal recession.

I envy Chops’ trust in the American oil industry. In a post-Enron world, can we really assume that they’ll take the necessary precautions, even if it cuts into thier bottom line?

Rules are made to be broken, and technology never works entirely as planned. The whole point of the National Parks system is to preserve the wilderness against development, to preserve it and the wildlife within it against modern industry.

I know this all too well. My area use to be a very well forested area. Now, everywhere I look, I see half-empty strip malls, clear-cut mudflats, and gated communities where stands of woods used to be.

While some development and resource exploitations are necessary for the economy and the society, we got to learn to value the land for more than just energy or commercial value. Capitalism cannot replace nature, nor can it replace wisdom and humanity. Life on Earth, ours and all the rest, needs to be preserved against blind greed and carelessness.

This government had better start thinking what to do in a post petroleum world now, before we have to deal with it from a position of weakness.

David,

What if part of the requirements would be that the environment be restored to it’s original state? like is required of strip mining. No it isn’t like it was - but close.

Requiring part of the profits be given to us - the owners of the land - would remove some of the greed associated with the oil companies.
I just don’t want our wonderful politicians blowing the money on stupid things.
I guess you agreed with the part about alternative fuels and new technologies. Things that I believe could be on the market before the oil ever would.

I agree 100% with David and I am completely against any kind of drilling in ANWR.

Stephen:
“This government had better start thinking what to do in a post petroleum world now, before we have to deal with it from a position of weakness.”

Global Warming is real and we should already be living in a post petroleum world. We are also already in a position of weakness - our soldiers are fighting wars for oil on behalf of The Bush Crime Family oil dynasty.
The only way out and up for our economy, our people and our environment is alternative fuels - that, and never allowing another Bush family member to become president of the US.

There is one thing not discussed here: Oil is used to make fertilizer for agricultural products. Even if we switch to electric or fuel cell based cars and nuclear powered plants,we still need it to grow food. We are currently dependent on the Middle East for our economic engine, can you imagine if we had to depend on them for food?

So with or without the Alaskan drilling, the world will probably be out of oil well before our SS crisis hits in 2047?

1. What relevance does the statement ?The Bush Crime Family oil dynasty? have to do with anything? Can anything be discussed on here without insulting someone?

2. I heard the same arguments against the oil pipeline in Alaska. It appears the pipeline has quadrupled the size of the deer herd, due to the heat.

3. I also heard yesterday that oil companies could produce oil from shale for a cost of $30 a barrel. The problem is, when a company invests & the facilities are built, the OPEC countries would drop oil prices to put oil from shale companies out of business.

Re: needing Oil for fertilizer —
The best Fertilizer is plain ol’ nitrogen, — and there is more than enough of that from feedlots thruout the Midwest (as well as a source of methane gas) — just keep eating beef!

ANWR — the point about the TRUE size of the impact vs the footprint is right on, other impacts to consider
Workers required to build the facility
infrastructure required to support those people
they do not spend 24/7 on the site working — they “wander” or their ATV’s “wander”
there must be roads to get the material there
there will be crews working the fields —
Hmmm, where will all the “output” (Garbage, wastes, etc ) go? — Prudoe bay facility is known as a VERY TOXIC area as a result of waste product, both human AND from the drilling (another thing they don’t tell you — drilling waste products)
The crews need to be supplied — hmmm, trucks and roads
The crews don’t work on site 24/7 — again there will be impacts on the land from their activities with ATV’s — wildlife harrasement, etc
but the Land is so HUGE and our space is so SMALL!
Anyone who has been to the arctic realizes how delicate it really is — scars do not grow over and heal, they remain for decades, if not centuries.
Continuing:
Petroleum sites give off air contaminants
Being remote, there is little in the way of public monitoring — out-of-sight out-of mind
and This is just the tip of the iceberg
If you really think about what it takes to operate one of these sites I am sure you will be able to come up with many more impacts (that they don’t mention)
By the way, check out the REALITY at Prudoe before you comment on it
It is a cesspool — yet they call it an example of “success”.

“The deer herds have grown due to the heat”
I love all these “observers” with their hominy’s about how these impacts are really NOT affecting the wildlife.
Sorry the only thing that counts is scientific research re: any impact’s cause and effects
Regardless of all the heat in the world, the herds will not increase without a sustained increase in food supply.
Animal populations go thru cycles of increase and decline for numerous reasons that need to be studied to be properly understood and explained — for untrained casual observers to think they can even begin to understand the true cause and effect relationship based on casual observation (or worse, third hand stories that border on “urban myth”) is ridiculous.

By the way
Nobody has mentioned the number of times the Alaska pipline has leaked, ruptured, broken, etc
also note that it is rarely covered by the media when it does happen.
Just one more impact — there will be leaks, spills, releases, accidents, etc etc etc
not a matter of if, only when

Some body call the wah-wambulance!

Oh, I imagine alternative energy sources that do not exist will replace oil in less time than it takes to drill the oilfields in Alaska. I guess we can thank David for dreaming that one up. It isn’t real and it would be quite impossible for his dream to come true in less than tens years, but hey, David said it in print so it must be twue!

In fact there are no alternatives energy sources online to be in production in ten years time. David is a socialist who would like to see the United States bankrupt and broken. He hates the US and anything he can do to harm this country is what he will propose. I proprose we keep the US strong. Davids says, lets go bankrupt and pretend it isn’t happening.

Not!

“there will be leaks, spills, releases, accidents, etc etc etc not a matter of if, only when”

I bet we can blame “The Bush Crime Family oil dynasty” for that too.
Talk about “third hand stories that border on urban myth.”

Dawn, David or Stephen
Can any of you offer a good site, thats not propaganda, that discusses the positive and negative impacts of drilling in ANWR?
I’ve looked around alittle and only come up with “assumptions” from both sides.
Thanks.

The US drilling in ANWR for oil reminds me of a smoking addict looking in the trash for a cigarette butt.
Sad and Desperate

Something else not being considered re: future world with oil
There is a global effort to industrialize, to “bring up” the underdeveloped countries — to “bless them” with an improved standard of living (and let them make enough to buy our products)
Hmmm, sounds nice — hunger gone, poverty gone, etc
Small problem
Consider — The current “crisis” was caused merely by China growing and requiring more oil to support their growth
Consider
The US has only about 5% of the population
What is the percentage of population of all the Current “1st world”?? 10% — 15% whatever
look at supply and demand now, and look at available supplies now-
Now consider the rest of the world “catching up”
as well as OUR demand going up at the same time.
AND consider
The supply of oil is FINITE (maybe huge, but still FINITE)
It WILL Runout — not if, only when
and with the entire world guzzling, it will only happen sooner.
and it won’t be pretty.
The one person who commented that we need to keep going on oil cause alternatives won’t be online in 10 years??
With that type of thinking, no one will even begin, until it is too late.

Even human waste can be composted for manure.

One of the major problems is Congress. ALL public holdings which will be leased, sold, or used for purposes not originally intended should require a minimum 60-40 vote, not a simple majority, which would better reflect a majority of American will to change the status of the properties their taxes have supported.

This is one of those deals where Capitalism fails. A day will come when oil will cost $80 to $100 a barrel. Capitalism will wait until it reaches or exceeds the cost alternative fuels, before it invests in the research to create alternative fuels, which means we will pay that $80-100 a barrel for quite sometime while we invent something cheaper.

The President was right to anticipate the SS shortfall and force the nation to address it now when the cost to deal with it will be smaller and avoid the the harsh impact of inaction.

This exact same principle logically should apply to oil. We know the price will continue to rise, it has been continuously rising since the 1930’s. It is at $57 a barrel now. Why should we stand around with our thumbs up our butts until it hits $100 a barrel? Why can’t the President see the wisdom of investing a some now into alternative technologies inventing and creating them even though they are not cost competitive with oil yet. Then, when the cost is competitive, we already have the technology and alternative fuels to advantage our independence of oil when it becomes more expensive than our alternative options.

The 2006 budget should be investing 3-4 times what it is in alternative fuel research as well as fuel efficient SMART DESIGN. Earth Bermed homes would save Americans billions upon billions of dollars in home heating and cooling costs. The technology has already been refined and even reduces the costs building materials, and such homes will last 2 to 3 times longer than conventional homes. Yet, living in them feels no different than living in a conventional home, except that they are quieter.

Where is the push by this Government to lead the building industry in this direction as an investment in our national security as well as energy independence? The only reason Bush et.al are not leading in that direction is because that is not where their profits come from. It is insane.

Russ, quite right. I also see in your comments Bush’s appointee to the world bank having incentive to depress third world growth surreptitiously in order to stabilize oil prices and protract the longevity of its profitable supply.

Leaks, spills and accidents —
Urban myth??
How many of you were aware of just this one incident??

USA: Pipeline Leaks Oil on Alaska Tundra

by Yereth Rosen, Reuters
April 17th, 2001


ANCHORAGE, Alaska — A hole in a pipeline used for transporting by-products at the Kuparuk oil field on Alaska’s North Slope has resulted in the biggest spill of industrial material onto the tundra in recent years, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) said on Tuesday.

The leak, discovered on Sunday night, caused a spill of 92,400 gallons of so-called ”produced water,” a mixture of salty water and oil, DEC said.

Although there have been bigger spills on the North Slope, ”This is probably the biggest spill to tundra that we’ve had,” said Ed Meggert, the Fairbanks-based manager of spill response for DEC.

Although no more than 3 percent of the produced water’s volume is oil, and that oil has been stripped of many of its properties, the material is harmful to the tundra nonetheless, Meggert said.

Saltwater, if it seeps into the earth, kills the tundra plants and has lingering effects, he said.

”It’s about the same toxicity as diesel,” he said.

It is suspected that the leak came from a corroded part of the pipe, Meggert said. But the exact cause remains unknown because the breach occurred in section that runs through a culvert, under a road, and investigation will have to wait for completion of some of the cleanup, he said.

Or the one about the bullet piercing the pipeline and causing a
Bullet pierces pipeline
Alaskan arrested as 70,000 gallons of crude oil pours onto land north of Fairbanks

By Ben Spiess
Anchorage Daily News

Published: October 5th, 2001
Last Modified: October 5th, 2001 at 05:52 PM

Steve, back those statements up with some quotes. If you don’t, most here will know you for the absolutely foolish remarks and unfounded conclusions you have drawn.

Steve, your comments directed towards David violate our Critique the Message, Not the Messenger policy. Your privileges to comment here are no longer available.

kctim,

Good luck finding anything that is not propagandized concerning any issue on either side.
We just get to wade thru all the crap and decide for ourselves what to believe.

The reason for the assumptions??? because nobody has the answers. Depending on their point of view … you get info promoting their side.
It would be nice if there were more people who can see the good and bad of any issue and come up with a solution.

I’m sure you know all this.

I’d just like to point out that any individual could have taken substantial profits from buying an oil company’s stock. Seriously, the industry as a whole has been up 20% or so in the past year alone, and more companies than I can count on my fingers have tripled in price.

Dawn, you said,

My suggestion is that the profits should be shared with the American people.

This doesn’t sound very Republican to me… O_o
After all, why should lazy people who don’t bother to go out and invest in something be allowed to reap benefits from it?

Thank you Russ. There will be nothing pristine about that area of ANWR when Bush and companies are done. Wildlife refuges are not just to be kept pristine for wildlife, but, for humans too, who are rapidly running out of pristine wilderness absent telephone and electrical lines, pipelines, concrete, machinery, buildings, commercial traffic etc. ANWR will be no different under these supposed TRUSTEES of American tax payer assets and those fewer and fewer areas described in the song Oh, Beautiful! Some patriots! They haven’t a clue what that word really means.

I think everyone needs to look at reality of the alternative fuels arguement.

Anything even remotely on the market, or soon to be on the market, is extreamly limited in travel range and power.
Basicly limited to near and around citys.

In and around big citys masstransit can work, the problem there is everyone wants to live in the “burbs”.

Many people can’t afford a tiny lil car for the drive to work, and another that will haul the 3.2 family, tow the camper/boat.
ect.
Once you digest that, look around your home at everything made of plastic (oil),how will you replace all that?

Ever drive on a paved road?
Unless its concrete its made from oil.

I would like to see more elec. nuke plants built to try to convert to all elec. heating/cooling in the short term, with the modern tech. I think that can be done safely, and right now nothing is more cost effective.

I’ll bet that unless those typing here a naked, they are wearing products produced from some oil?

This could be a good debate if we look at reality and don’t bash eachother along partisan lines.

Let me start with some rebuttals.

Adrienne said:

Global Warming is real and we should already be living in a post petroleum world. We are also already in a position of weakness - our soldiers are fighting wars for oil on behalf of The Bush Crime Family oil dynasty.

Two points: 1) I don’t dispute the existence of global warming, but I do question the causes. Are you ready to have your gas bill tripled so that we can immediately move off petroleum? I’d rather do it gradually. 2) It constantly surprises me that liberals in 2003 opposed Alaskan drilling while simultaneously saying that we were fighting a “war for oil”. Surely Alaskan drilling would help save the U.S. political clout when we go to war in the middle east. (FYI our biggest imports are from Canada and Venezuela; Saudi Arabia only comes in at third or fourth on the list).

Blaine said:

…Oil companies could produce oil from shale for a cost of $30 a barrel. The problem is, when a company invests & the facilities are built, the OPEC countries would drop oil prices to put oil from shale companies out of business.

David said:

This is one of those deals where Capitalism fails. A day will come when oil will cost $80 to $100 a barrel. Capitalism will wait until it reaches or exceeds the cost alternative fuels, before it invests in the research to create alternative fuels, which means we will pay that $80-100 a barrel for quite sometime while we invent something cheaper.

Actually, in a pure capitalist model with unlimited supply, the prices for both artificial and crude oil would reach an initial equilibrium betwen $30 and $57 a barrel. Competition would then set in, driving prices down. I can’t imagine OPEC dropping below $30 a barrel just to drive shale oil out of business; it’s not enough of a threat to them, and there are many other alternative energy sources they will have to compete with eventually - so why lose their profits before they have to. The shale production process (being newer in the industry) probably hasn’t reached full efficiency, so its prices could go down even further when produced in larger quantities.

But America doesn’t have a pure capitalist model so David’s points are legit.

David said:

The President was right to anticipate the SS shortfall and force the nation to address it now when the cost to deal with it will be smaller and avoid the the harsh impact of inaction.

This is a good analogy, and I respect your being willing to raise it. I agree with you, though I also agree with Chops that sudden changes are not a smart way to go about changing energy policy (just as sudden changes with SS aren’t smart either… we both agree on that).

Russ said:

Regardless of all the heat in the world, the herds will not increase without a sustained increase in food supply.

This is a rather short-sighted response. Did you think the deer population increased because they were warmer, and fewer of them froze to death? I don’t think so. My theory is that the extra heat increased vegetation - a food source for the deer.

Nobody has mentioned the number of times the Alaska pipline has leaked, ruptured, broken, etc

You cited two articles from 2001 that combined for 160,000 gallons of oil being spilled. (The bullet incident shouldn’t be counted because it’s an act of arson, but I’ll give it to you anyway). Can you put that number in perspective for us? (That is, how big is Alaska, and how frequently do we have spills? 2001 was quite some time ago.)

I’m seeing quite a few what-ifs and maybes about potential damage to Alaskan land, but there doesn’t seem to be much factual basis to them. So let me propose a compromise. Let’s press ahead with drilling in Alaska, and by the time ten years have passed (when the Alaskan crude starts to arrive) we’ll have phased out Saudi oil. Iraqi oil contracts by that time will also help reducing dependency on other Middle Eastern countries for oil.

In the interim we double govt. investment into alternate energy development, taking that money from a reduction in airline, farming and steel subsidies (well, farming and steel don’t have much to do with this, but since I’m a Republican let’s get rid of them anyway). The end result: all subsidies are eliminated, there are fewer restraints on domestic drilling, and dependency on Middle East oil is at a minimum. The savings from this can then be used to eliminate the gas tax, which amounts to a flat tax reduction that mainly benefits the poor and middle classes.

Beagle -

I have to take exception to you saying that everyone wants to live int eh ‘burbs’. The day I leave the city is the same day they put me in the ground. ;-)

As for people and their cars, I think its possible that Americans might have to come to terms with the idea we cannot continue down the road we’re on forever. I know there are people who need an F150 (excuse my ignorance if thats not a huge truck…you know what I mean), but, most people, suburbian or city, can get the kids, dog and groceries home in less gigantic truck. At some point, something is going to have to change. Thats a fact with or without ANWR. The same is true with plastics. It’s not just whats in our house, or what we wear, think about how much the medical industry depends on plastic. Again though, I really don’t see how ANWR helps here. I’m not trying to ‘…bash eachother along partisan lines.’, I just really dont see what we gain. A few billion barrels? A few months? A couple years? Then what? Then where? There is no best time to start undoing our dependance on oil, but why not start now? Why not say ‘This is the line we’re not going to cross’? Maybe you’re right, maybe we need to look back at nuclear, I’m not sure. But I just really don’t see a ton of upside to ANWR.

I’m going to ask this again, because it seems that if my understanding is correct, retirement is going to be the least of our worries:

So with or without the Alaskan drilling, the world will probably be out of oil well before our SS crisis hits in 2047?

Beagle,

We’ll probably never end our dependence on oil, but we can GREATLY reduce it. Between hybrid cars, nuclear power, biodiesel, and other alternatives, we can limit our oil production enough to remove any reliance we have on Middle East oil.

As long as oil is the cheapest option, the private sector will not seriously pursue alternatives. This is where the government needs to intervene — in areas where the market doesn’t really know best.

Justin, nuclear is not an option right now. An article a couple days ago reports scientists or engineers falsified documents on Yucca Mt. to make it appear suitable.

We Do NOT yet have a means of nuclear waste disposal that will not come back to haunt us down the road with any degree of certainty. So far, the only safe option is cost prohibitive: jettison it into space or the sun.

Taylor, Medicare, Medicaid are enroute to bankrupting long before SS given the current inflationary pressures on medical costs. Then there is our constant net loss of exportable goods and services to job markets with better competitive advantage. The only way to offset it is for the US to make a huge investment in the world’s #1 national education system which will create the inventive and creative and entrepreneurial assets we desperately need to continually invent new exports which no other nations have yet.

Also, for the first time I think since the Post WWII era, American lifespan longevity is going to decrease as a result of the obesity epidemic taking place in the US. This is good for SS and Medicare and Medicaid decades down the road since fewer payees will live long enough to collect benefits, but, it is definitely going to jack up even more our sprialling health care and insurance costs over decades to come.

There seems to be no capability by this administration to prioritize either budgets or policies or problems facing the nation, save for Afghanistan - that one it got right.

I have never been to ANWAR and have no intention of ever going. I say let the Alaskans drill. If they foul it up and a natural disaster takes place, I am sure the Public will be happy to clean it up.

Gandhi:

Sorry I didn’t have the time the part about heat. The article I saw was about the heat from the Alaska pipeline causing more growth of vegetation. Which increased the amount of food.

Justin:

An F150 is not a large truck. I have a 2500 Dodge Ram 4x4, powered by a Cummins diesel and I really need it to pull my 18’ walleye boat that has a 150 HP Mercury outboard. I say dig more wells & pump more oil so I can enjoy the pristine wilderness & eat more fish.

Gandhi: I’ll show you how to get rebuttals.

The Alaska Permanent Fund invests the money from oil production in Alaska and distributes it to the people of Alaska. Every resident of Alaska receives payments and the rest of the fund pays for the expenses of the state government. My cousins who live in Alaska are reasonably happy with the arrangement. It allows revenues from the natural resource to go to the people of Alaska, not the government, which is not always that same thing.

Drilling in ANWR won’t solve our dependance on forign oil, or the fact that oil is used for far more things than most ever think about, but it may help in the short term.

The yucca mnt. disposal plan may have been distorted/hyped, but the fact remains that mostly it can be safe if we can find a way to dispose of the by-products safely. We already have nuke plants and wastes to deal with, we can workout a plan for that if yucca mnt. don’t work for that.

Red Column-
Science and technology have long been some of my favorite subjects, so I know some things from experience.

Machines fail. Parts wear out, people use them incorrectly, and accidents, of course, are inevitable. Scientists cannot anticipate every problem, and machines rely on humans to preven them from making mistakes. Best case scenarios, like the ones that Republicans are using to justify ANWR drilling, are naive at best, and cynical at worst.

Points made about the expansion of the footprint by human traffic are dead on. You can tell people not to venture out, you can tell the world it won’t happen, but human beings are explorers, and human beings love to be contrary, especially when they think the reasons why people disagree with them are too academic or irrelevant to their making their day’s wages of good-old fashion work, or their years profit from “cost-cutting” measures and whatnot.

Truth is, a great number of people are stuck in their own reality, where they don’t have to worry about Mother Nature will do, or what the environment will suffer. I mean, hey, we humans are above that, right?

Right?

Maybe not. According to a recent news report, if you live near a power plant, every thousand pounds of mercury pumped into the air increases the incidence of Autism and other developmental disorders by 17%. Or maybe, if you drop the population of certain local creatures enough, your problems with their insect prey multiply. Maybe it’s fish that you can catch but not eat, ground that you can plant in but brings out weak, sickly looking produce.

We may think we are above nature, but we are stuck in it, and with today’s science and technology, we have the capacity to do a great deal of damage merely through carelessness, and yet be unable to escape the consequences.

Global Warming, if it continues, will be a prime example of this. We will lose coastal cities, see more storms in some places, and dessication in others. Some folks would like to believe it won’t matter, the way folks who spend a lot on credit cards believe it won’t matter if they get that next item on their shopping list.

But the truth is, what we do out there will matter, and it is best that we learn now when we have the luxury of being able to take care of some of our problem, than later, when we have to do so out of hardship.

kctim,
I like this one …
Committee on Resources

“The total acreage of ANWR is 19.6 million acres. Energy exploration and production would occur on 2000 acres of the coastal plain, or just 0.01% of the total ANWR acreage.”

“Only 45% (or just 19 out of 42 gallons) of every barrel of oil goes to make gasoline. The rest goes towards producing food, heating homes, and making products like medicines, plastics, surgical devices, and more.

Oil is a key ingredient in making thousands of products that make our lives easier – and in many cases – help us live better and longer lives.

Here are just a few examples:

Antihistamines
Antiseptics
Artificial Hearts
Aspirin
Audiocassettes
Baby Strollers
Balloons
Bandages
Blenders
Cameras
Candles
CD Players
Clothing
Compact Discs
Computers
Containers
Crayons
Credit Cards
Dentures
Deodorant
Diapers
Digital Clocks
Dinnerware
DVDs Dyes
Eyeglass Frames
Fertilizers
Food Preservatives
Food Storage Bags
Footballs
Foul Weather Gear
Furniture
Garbage Bags
Glue
Golf Balls
Hair Dryers
Hang Gliders
Heart Valve Replacements
House Paint
Infant Seats
Ink
Insecticides
Life Jackets
Lipstick
Luggage
Medical Equipment
Nylon Rope
Pacemakers
Pantyhose Patio Screens
Perfumes
Photographic Film
Photographs
Piano Keys
Roller Blades
Roofing
Safety Glass
Shampoo
Shaving Cream
Shower Curtains
Slippers
Soft Contact Lenses
Sunglasses
Surfboards
Surgical Equipment
Syringes
Telephones
Tents
Toothpaste
Toys
Umbrellas
Vitamin Capsules “

I can live without the golfballs and the lipstick.

For those of you out there who worry about so called global warming (a myth) do you think it will go away if we don’t drill for oil in alaska? maybe you should go to the middle east and stop their oil prodution, then we can all ride our bikes to work, shut down the trucking industry so our food stores can’t get restocked,there would be no amblances,police cars,fire trucks or planes to fly in. try to convince the whole world to live a life like that. alternative fuel would be great if that technology was there,until then we need oil.

It’s easy to come up with a list of oil based products, just copy and past from a Target web page. Plastic comes from oil.
It’s easy to dismiss global warming as a myth. It’s real science, unlike the deniers with the ostrich answer and no hard data to back it up.
It’s easy to excuse how we won’t be destroying a pristine environment (pretending accidents and criminal neglect won’t happen is naive).
Our reality is that no matter what we do to get it, we are the last generation of humans to base their life style on a petroleum based economy. Seeing ANWR as a 6 month supply or a 5% buffer for 10 years won’t change that. Nor will that little bit of energy change the end results.
In the end, we’re obviously trying to answer a simple question: Is it worth it? In ten years we get some oil. If we haven’t developed alternative fuels by then, we’re screwed anyway. Do we destroy something irreplaceable (clean nature) as a short term answer to having depleted something else that is (energy)? Drilling is messy and dirty, if it becomes critical in 5-7 years, then we can go get it in short order. Until then, let the ACE explore and define the fields, but leave the land alone. All oil and profits should belong to the public domain.

I wil be retiring in 21 months. How long can I expect to be able to haul my boat around the country with my truck? Don’t tell me I’ve worked 35 years & won’t be able to get gas or diesel fuel. If you tell me this, I will be forced to adopt the gloom & doom attitude of the left:)

Dave,
Have you found something that will replace plastic?
Do share.

global warming FACT scientists have different views of global warming it’s all a theory,back in the 1970’s it was global cooling or another ice age another theory the fact is our earth goes thru several warming and cooling trends records prove that. their are billions of barrels of oil every day that are shipped in tankers across delicate oceans long long distances with little or no problems,no we don’t live in a perfect world accidents do happen but caution can be taken and the fact is very little of ANWR will be used, lets not paint a picture of doom and gloom the envionmentalist would like you to think, oil is a necessity not a luxury as far as how much oil we get no one knows, the environmentalists again mislead you into thinking their is very little and it’s just a waist of time, the reason behind environmentalism is to destroy capitalism at any cost.

Dawn: What’s your point? No oil = no plastic. I get it, it’s not my point.
Alan: Theories evolve over time. Global warming is now generally accepted as fact. Some people still believe the earth is flat. Are you one? Oil tankers crash every year. I live in NE, off the coast of RI there was a minor accident just a couple of years ago and you can still find globs on the beach. Maybe you can pick them up to heat your house or make some golf balls. Environmentalists serve the environment and are not against capitalism. That’s pointless name calling and insinuation. How’s this: it’s generally childless people who don’t care about the next generation, those younger than 40 who never had to run inside to avoid smog, or hard core greedy money huggers who don’t want to balance economy and environment.
As far as doom and gloom, have any of you calculated
Oil reserves / Yearly use of oil * Increase in oil usage rates?
Also, did you forget that Shell(?) admitted it had overstated its reserves by a substantion fraction. There are not that many years left of oil. Why do you think Bush let oil prices rise while buying for the strategic reserves when Gore just threatened to open the valve and the price dropped. It’s time to give America a reality check. Sorry Blaine, you’ll need a real solid IRA to pay for your gas soon. But, at leat you’ll have SSI.
To repeat the gist of my post: It’s the country’s nature preserve and oil, it should serve the country in it’s current state until there are no alternatives. If it must be drilled, then oil should be owned by the gov’t for the public good. We must remove the profit motive from the equation here. Meanwhile, we MUST get alternatives developed sooner than later.

Red Column-
It seems like the GOP answer to any potential environmental threat is minimization, denial, or emotional blackmail. Either the threats not that bad, is “junk science” or is not worth as much to confront as all the poor joes you’ll put out of work by not letting the market take it’s natural course.

It’s either the answer you guys want to hear, or nothing at all. I think you guys should forget about what you want to hear, and start considering what might be the case. Your personal incredulity is irrelevent This is science, not cinema. Tastes are not a factor. Physics are. You can’t talk carbon dioxide out of being a great absorber of heat.

…and the ‘blue’s’ answers to all the problems right now are ???

“The ‘reds’ are wrong and we have to stop them. No matter what they do we have to do and say the opposite. Even if they say the grass is green, we have to prove them wrong. If we don’t do something we may never gain power again. Raise taxes.”

That is what the ‘Blue Agenda’ sounds like to a lot of us.

This is all our fault to begin with - our government that is (blue & red)- sending jobs away, helping the economies of other countries grow, giving ‘support’ to the dictators in oil rich nations - it is all coming back to haunt us and now we have to? drill oil in ANWR?

Our government has made many mistakes. Something could have been started to fix these problems in the 90’s but instead our government sat back and enjoyed the ‘bubble’ and thought things were good to go for years and years to come.

What a fine job they’ve (blue & red) done.

Not all of our government was setting back in the 90’s. Some were in the oval office establishing a legacy.

Our position is simple, dawn, so simple that it’s background: leave ANWR alone, and invent the technologies that will allow our economy and way of life to outlive the petrochemical era.

We have our positions. If like being dishonest with yourself and everybody else, keep on saying we don’t.

“and invent the technologies that will allow our economy and way of life to outlive the petrochemical era”

I do believe I’ve heard this out of others along with Democrats.

…and when did this become a priority for Democrats? Just think where we’d be if it had been done 10 years ago while a Democrat was President.

In the words of another great Republican President, “Well there you go again”. Dawn, you insist on bringing up Clinton again. When will you ever learn, that was then & this is now.

Right Stephen?

Silly me. Blaine. No fooling you by using dem prez and not naming names.

He (Clinton) was a President? Wasn’t he?

Here is a take on this from a person that stands to profit from drilling in Anwar. An American that buys gas.

I think it should be noted that no new competent, feasible alternative to gasoline is on the horizon. There for right now our concern should yes be in finding that substitute, but we can’t depend on that. No matter if Anwar proves to exceed it’s projected reserves, or if it falls short, it is there.

And we can get it in an enviromentally friendly matter. I work in the oil and gas fields of Wyoming. I have worked on drilling rigs and came behind and worked on old well locations. The damage? None.

Matter of opinion but to me it seems that drilling would help the wild-life out in the long run. See after you put a hole in the ground it does not just flow oil, you have to pump the crude up. Here in Wyoming you see pump jacks all over. Here we have a lot of flat ground. And the wind can be fierce. So now our antelope have a windbreak, and heck shade in the summer. I bet on that tundra the wind blow much harder than round here, and when it’s coupled with stormy conditions I bet those caribou would love to have a little spot out of the wind.

alternative fuel would be great i don’t think anyone has a problem with that, we would’nt have to import foriegn oil local jobs would be created and their would be a lot of pluses (but)until the technology comes you can’t just shut down the world economy stop drilling for oil and pretend everything will be alright, environmentalists would like that they will go to any measure to get that even if it means telling lies to get their way, they say their not against capitalism but when it comes to profits from oil they believe it should go to the people,not the oil companys who actually are the ones who invest in all the equipment and labor but are given the name (greedy oil companys)they tell us that there is only a 6 month supply in anwr, no body knows how much there is but should that stop us from even trying you can’t shut down the world economy until technology provides a better fuel we need oil or there won’t be future generations.

scare the people into believing that oil drilling will destroy alaska.the oil spills that have happened have not been as serious as they make them out to be and have been cleaned at least 99% with little environmental problems (oil a product of the earth from the earth)not a man made chemical toxic as radiation,yes maybe an eyesore,if you can tell me reasonably how it hurts polar bears,caribou etc maybe i’ll think differently but don’t tell me they will drink it and die don’t tell me any spill will cover the whole anwr after all did’nt the oil come out of the ground to begin with? it’s safer than spilling oil at sea. environmentalism is liberalism is socialism (destroy capitalism) you may call this pointless name calling but people need to know what is happening here if you don’t believe it (at least play devils advocate) and question what is being said to further the environmentalist cause. you can call this a lie to promote you’re cause but you’re not going to convince me otherwise the world economy needs oil.