Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Heh… yah… it’s gonna suck big time when those seemingly indisposible oil deposists all run out. I’d bet ten bucks, nay 100 bucks, that a major war will erupt in the near future over oil. Anyways, I’m not exactly certain whose on the other side of this particular debate. Every now and then a tree hugger comes along but that’s about it… Meh.

I, myself, can’t wait until an accident happens that wipes out those silly animals in ANWAR. Who cares about those Buffalo look-alikes? I much prefer an Exxon-Valdez type Incident. More and BETTER Reality TV!!!

I am sure the American Taxpayer will be willing to pay the cost anyway. What’s a few billion more of deficit?

By the way, Matthew. I don’t think you have ever been to Alaska? Well. It’s Green. It’s Forests are the most beautiful in the world. The Air is almost as pure as New Zealand’s. Watch National Geographic for once.

Drilling in Alaska is backward thinking. Look to your own future. You are putting a bandaid on a crater. In 10 years you might have some usable oil from ANWR. But what then? Look for more oil somewhere else? What about alternatives - what about putting billions of dollars into fuel cells, or nuclear fusion, or tidal power, or wind power, or geothermal power. The more you cling to the past, the less hold you have on the future. Oil is old and busted. Sustainable is the new hotness.

Get with the program.

Drilling in ANWR is a stopgap measure which is delaying real money from real projects that could provide real fuel and more and better jobs for our economy.

First off, yes, Alaska is very green, until you get up north. Up north it’s all very… dead.

And secondly, we’re looking at about thirty years of oil at about a million barrels a day. Not enough to completely replace forign oil, but enough to suppliment it heavily.

Qouted from “Homeland Insecurity” by THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
=====================

On energy, the Bush team’s obsession with drilling in the Alaskan wilderness to increase supply is mind-boggling. “I am sure China will be thrilled with the Bush decision to drill in Alaska,” said the noted energy economist Philip Verleger Jr. “Oil in Alaska cannot easily or efficiently be shipped to our Gulf Coast refineries. The logical markets are on the West Coast of the United States and in Asia. Consumers in China and Japan, not the U.S., will be the real beneficiaries of any big Alaska find.

“With a big find, China and Japan will be able to increase imports from a dependable supplier - the U.S. - while consumers in the U.S. will still be at the mercy of unreliable suppliers, such as Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. It is simple geography. [Also], a big find will lead to lower prices in the short term, promoting more emissions and more warming.”

Moreover, focusing exclusively on squeezing out a little more supply will only discourage conservation, Mr. Verleger added, setting the stage for higher prices again in three or four years - “when exhausting oil reserves and burgeoning demand from China and India will drive the price of oil to well above $100 a barrel.” That will put even more money in the pockets of some of the world’s worst governments.

Aldous said;
“By the way, Matthew. I don’t think you have ever been to Alaska? Well. It’s Green. It’s Forests are the most beautiful in the world. The Air is almost as pure as New Zealand’s. Watch National Geographic for once.”

Glad you said, “Watch National Geographic for once.”, Aldous.

Your quote from ‘The Ravens of ANWR’:
“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.”

Have you breathed the air of New Zealand?

You are mighty passionate about the Alaskan tundra while stating you have never been and never will be going there.
Seems you want to be ‘in the fight’ without any real personal issues. Just going along with the crowd?
Do you have any new inventions that may save us from ourselves?
I take it you won’t volunteer your time to clean up the oil spills you envision.

It’s my understanding that most of the oil already being pumped from Alaska is going to Asia.
I don’t suppose that our oil buddies in Congress really expect that any oil from ANWAR will save the US economy.
This again is all about profit.
Why search for alternitive fuels, when you can soak the American taxpayer for even more money?

Matthew -

It is good. It is very good.

Rocky,
The problem has been going on for years whether it is a red or blue in office.
Our oil, jobs, technology and now IBM is selling out to China in secret?
Our politicians have jobs. For now.
They have nice retirements,health insurance, and contacts in the ‘outside world’ where they will make tons of money. ALL OF THEM.
They all talk a good game while running for office. Too bad the ones that start new, with good intentions, never get anywhere except to be corrupted by those who have been there ALL their lives.
TERM LIMITS! NO Retirement.
‘So and so’ has dedicated his whole life to ‘public service’… Sacrificed to help the American people … blah blah blah.

NEVER HAPPEN Dawn,
At least not until the public gets feed up with these jokers.

Dawn -
Taking away politicians’ retirement plans would not be a good idea. It would mean they would have to find other sources of income, which would be a strong temptation to illegal quid-pro-quo activities. For example, a state rep could push for a tax break or something for a specific company, and then get hired by that company right after he left. Giving them retirement funds at least raises the ante on corrupting influences.

Chops,
…and since they are ALL honest and sincere we shouldn’t have to worry our silly little average joe citizen heads about such things.

“What about alternatives - what about putting billions of dollars into fuel cells, or nuclear fusion, or tidal power, or wind power, or geothermal power.”

Best point made on this topic yet.

The billions spent in ANWAR could easily produce clean, sustainable energy sources. Ones of which are already in development, but do not have quite enough funding to expedite them into public usefullness. Oh poo, I forget, big oil can’t make as much money on them. Oh, forget about it, that’s not a good plan at all! If big oil can’t make money on it, it must not work.

I hate to pull your thinking away from “big Oil” & the “Bush crime oil syndicate”, but don’t the auto manufacturers have a part in this equation. If & when we find an alternate fuel, how long will it take the auto producers to design, retool their factories, & begin productions orf these wondermobiles? Then, how long will it take the public to step out by faith & buy the first 4 or 5 years of experimental lemons? Finally, who is going to pay for these vehicles for low income families? I know you don’t plan on the “Haves” to own them & the “Have Nots” to not own them.

I thought most of the good inventions came as a result of private development and investment.

High oil prices will drive greed which will drive innovation. Or something like that.

I am all for nuclear power, now can where can we put one? Seems everyone wants clean power, but no one wants one in their yard. I think that if we replaced all power plants with Nuclear we would have more oil for the autos. By the by, Less than 5% of people use mass transit(Even in NY City it is still less than 25%) so hate to break it to everyone the auto is here to stay. I like my car, it does what I want it to, and I do not have to ride the train with the bums, and dregs, and little people, we would not be amused, if it were that way. Looking forward to the revolution.
MAY GOD ALMIGHTY SAVE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

The Kennedy clan is for alternate fuels, but don’t put wind generators between them & their view of the ocean. They will take you to court.

Typical of the hollywood, gun totting, SUV driving, private jet flying croud. Do as we say, not as we do!!!

You probably live in California and have built one of those houses plagued by mudslides and forest fires year after year, yet you keep rebuilding in the same unsafe spot… all for the view.

Anyone who doubts the low level of intelligence in America need only to watch the news or allow yourself to be brainwashed by Rove’s falsely republican agenda.

As echoed in the above posts.. if you knew anything about ANWR and global oil policy you would know just because it is drilled on American soil doesn’t mean America gets the oil or Americans are drilling for the oil.

Has it every occurred to any lib to actually go out in the marketplace and compete? Build the better mousetrap, I’ll buy.

I am not too concerned about drilling in ANWR - the areas that would be opened are a very small fraction of the whole and the methods used would limit the impact to the environment.

I am concerned with a bit of realism about the affect it will have on our foreign oil dependance…

A report by the US Energy Information Agency found that ANWR would yield 876,000 barrels of crude oil per day. We currently import more than 10 million barrels a day. By 2020 that number will be more like 16 million barrels a day. The Energy Information Agency tells us that opening ANWR to drilling will reduce our oil imports after 2020 by only 4%. Drilling ANWR is NOT the solution to our energy problems.

Three points:

1. Check out the Jonah Goldberg flashback at http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/goldberg200503180758.asp - great description of the “pristine” habitat about which we are speaking.

2. I am bit confused by the “China is the best market for this oil” argument. Alaska has to be closer to the US mainland than Saudi Arabia, no? Russia? And even if it all does go to China, so what. An increase in supply will drive down the global price of oil - that helps US consumers. And more supply outside of OPEC reduces their power and clout - which ought to be a good thing.

3. The billions spent to drill in ANWR will be repaid with profit to the drillers by a bunch of consumers eager to buy the product - oil. Of course if we had a national oil company, like Mexico, our country could theoretically make a fortune selling this oil at over $50 per barrel. Regardless, this argument has never been about US gov’t expenditure, it has been about protecting the “pristine wilderness”.

Hm, if what you guys say is true, I might still buy some oil company stocks.

Oh, and Brett, the price of oil is not likely to go down just because a gargantuan gas-guzzling country like China has another source of oil. The world price of oil per barrel is likely to stay where it is (or perhaps go higher?).

Econ 101:

All else being equal, increased supply lowers cost. We create more supply, oil prices fall.

All else being equal, increased demand raises prices. Chinese people drive more and more cars, oil prices rise.

And, by the way, a lot of smart people have made a lot of money owning stock in oil companies the last couple years. Increased supply may hurt some companies (drive down the value of the oil they own), as would a slow down in the Chinese economy. I am a bit apprehensive about buying in to the sector now.

Brett,
I read the article you linked to. The writer chiefly seems to be saying that ANWR is unbearable because there is no alcohol, no people, and it stays dark in the wintertime. Obviously not a nature lover. Also, he seems to think that the caribou don’t want to live because they have insect parasites. It’s amazing that someone can be both a writer for the National Review and an Animal psychic.
Where I am from is a desert. Most non “nature freaks” would consider it a barren wasteland. However, upon closer examination, you see that there is incredible beauty in the rocks and the stubborn plants that manage to live there. Look a little closer and you see that the ground itself is alive—a crust of organisms working together to survive in the most unlikely places. There are animals there that live nowhere else. There are plants there that live nowhere else. It is a unique place.

The author of that article sees the pools left over from the receeding ice cap as nothing more than a breeding ground for mosquitoes, but I bet there are entire ecosystems in those ponds. Sometimes you have to look close to find the beauty of wild places, but it’s always there.

I think that places like that have value. Many other people feel the same way. I’m lucky enough to be both religious and a biologist, so I can love places like that as a masterwork of how God fills even the most unlikely places with beauty, and as an example of the interrelated nature of life, the wonders of adaptation, and the sheer bull-headedness of DNA.

Our wilderness areas and reserves have value because they protect places like that. The whole point is that we acknowledge that people will want whatever resources they can find, to recognize the value of such places, and to protect them.

I haven’t seen anyone post here or anywhere that the value to drilling in ANWR would be more than a temporary few cent’s reduction in the price of gas in ten years, or a mild holding off of the inevitable energy crisis. So, the value in drilling is primarily to the oil company.

I recognize that the somewhat ethereal, though very real, value of diverse places must sometimes be sacrificed for the greater good. However, I am sad to think that the greater good has been defined as oil company executives and stockholders.

God’s creation is amazing, and I agree that there is beauty and wonder in all of nature, even in mosquito-infested pools in northern Alaska. But if we can’t drill there, where can we drill? Can will drill in the Gulf of Mexico? It is all about tradeoffs.

Can we put a nuclear powerplant in your desert, or store nuclear was there? How about 10,000 windmills in the mountains of Montana, or off the Atlantic coast? Convert the entire American auto fleet to 100% ethanol, and turn every available acre into corn fields? Or should we abandon our American way of life, all move into large metro areas, and ride bikes and public transportation?

Nobody is for destroying the environment, but you have to cut down trees to build a house. Humans are part of the ecosystem too.

Brett, the key word in your little, “econ 101,” lesson was the phrase, “all else being equal.” The fact is, China’s steel and oil consumption will not remain static, it is still growing (though the % growth rate has slowed somewhat). So stop patronizing me with your lesson and just look at the reality of the situation.

Just because it’s an expanse of desolate grasslands doesn’t mean it’s worthless as wilderness. This what you get, up near the arctic circle. Just because the wilderness doesn’t please your aesthetic sensibilities doesn’t make it wise or right to despoil the land, short of the greatest need.

Nobody is for destroying the environment, but you have to cut down trees to build a house. Humans are part of the ecosystem too. - Brett

Humans are the one animal who doesn’t really live in synch with nature. Aside from needing resources, we can completely warp our environment to make us more comfortable, and still survive by our ingenuity. But we’re learning that we NEED to be more in synch with nature - that we can’t just rape the world because, then what?

All life fights for an easier existence - a coyote will chase a rabbit in front of a car for an easy kill, wolves will walk in the snow using old footprints to save energy, humans will use horses, cars, planes to get around instead of walking.

But as humans, the more intelligent of the Earth’s races (on occasion), we should be able to devise ways both to increase our comforts, and be able to sustain those comforts over the long term. And here’s news - humans may be the smartest, but we’re also likely to be the most short-lived of all the creatures on Earth, not in lifespan, but in existence of our race. A few hundred thousand years (if that) so far? And we’re likely to snuff ourselves out in the next thousand…jiminy, even sharks have been around millions of years. Happy shark, not so happy human.

So what are we supposed to do then?

Sell our cars? Ban electricity? Outlaw oil? Live in caves? Hunt deer? Grunt like caveman?

So what are we supposed to do then?

Sell our cars? Ban electricity? Outlaw oil? Live in caves? Hunt deer? Grunt like caveman?

Nothing so dramatic (though some find the latter three suggestions completely normal and even fun). We should just not spend our money, time, and most importantly direction on a failing source of energy. We know it won’t last. We need to put our resources towards future energy sources, better energy conservation.

It’s not too tough. Just spend the money somewhere else - there are universities who are furthering research into more efficient sustainable energies, communities who want homes with alternative energies, town governments demanding better public transportation, even developers who would love to be subsidized and allowed to make solar/geothermal powered homes.

Do we need to live in caves? No (though they’re well insulated). But there’s no question we’ll need to start developing for the future and not for the present. Otherwise there will be no future for humanity.

I like to deer hunt. It helps to relieve some of my agressive behavior. Some of you Dems should try it & then maybe you won’t come across so aggressive in your writing. Fishing helps too.

I can’t believe what I am reading. I have read alot of extremely audacious stuff but this really adds a smell to the heap. Lets start with the author taking the liberty of assuming what GOD would say regarding the matter, not suprising since the right wing seems to think they can put words in his mouth. Invoking religion for personnal gain is about as bad as burning the bible, lets see if we can think of any other groups who have tried to do the same(ex. KKK, Hitler, every despot in human history, etc, etc.).
Then all this B.S. about ANWR being a wasteland. There is a reason why it was made into a WILDLIFE REFUGE, tundra does not mean lifeless. There is an entire culture of people up there that have no forms of agriculture because they don’t need any, it teams with wildlife, they’re called the Gwetchin people (Gwetchin means caribou). In fact they have no need of our damned economic bliss that we’ll jam down there throats, they dont have to buy there subsistance, GOD provides it direct.
And how about the authors admitted ignorance of all things scientific and factual regarding ANWR, almost boasting it. I dont feel I have the right to even formulate an opinion on anything unless I have atleast some of the facts, but to actually sit down and write while claiming GOD agrees really is asking for a thunder bolt, but I guess he deals his punishment post mortem.
Next on some of the comments about Americans not being able to come up with better, safer, smarter, and more economical options to carbon based energy sources (or anything else for that matter) has me livid. If I was to hear someone tell me America can’t accomplish ANYTHING, to my face, I would be hard pressed keep from busting his head. Thats not the America I live in and I’ll be damned if its the kind of American I’ll ever be, but I guess after you burn a bible a flag is easy.
The facts are that ANWR was the last remaining bit of protected coastline along the entire northern coast of the North American continent, thats Alaska and Canada. No estimates have said anything about supplying us with 30 years of oil (which is still extremely short sighted), at our rate of consumption it would give us from 1 month to maybe a years worth of oil. None of which will be available for atleast a decade. And finally, the bulk of our oil in Alaska is sent to asian markets, there is nothing in this budget, that ANWR was sneakily placed into, that prevents this from happening to every drop we sqeeze out of ANWR.
I hope your able to see why, yes this is a “black and white issue”, and why we just made a huge mistake that won’t do the American people a damn bit of good. I hope you all can sleep tonight, I’m going to have a hard time with the sound of gritting teeth keeping me up.

Maybe someone will educate me, I’ve read that the oil collected will be, at most, 4-5% of our needs. The revenues collected will be split 50-50 between Alaska and the oil companies. All the oil will go to the highest bidder (probably China) and since Alaska already has the most pork of any state, this would be an added bonus for the piggies. I don’t understand how spending billions will help the American people (excluding Alaskans and oil companies).

@Sharon
Think outside the box. Sometimes to become a beneficiary of something you need to get off your duff. (And what’s wrong with helping all the Alaskan piggies?)

@Feral
It’s true that America can “accomplish” just about anything, but generally the only things we seek to accomplish are for our own benefit. Most people don’t see any value in an unmolested coastline (much less all the way up in Alaska), but see a pot of gold sitting out in the Alaskan tundra just waiting to be harvested. I can just see the mental struggle now:
ARGH! Pot of gold? Coastline? Pot of gold? Coastline? DUH, POT OF GOLD! MMMM money…

Zeek, The issue here is not about “pots of gold” or coastlines. The fact that you think you can negatively effect one part of the world without screwing up other parts of it is telling of how little thought your willing to put into this. A quick example being that some of the oil refineries already in operation in Alaska spew more air polution than the entire city of Washington DC daily. Theres a phenomenom that moves that pollution to every part of the globe, its called “wind”. Another example is all the migratory wildlife that season there. The caribou travel all over northern alaska, by the hundreds of thousands, and feed the people and carnivores of the region which sets off a whole other set of chain reactions which have occured for eons, lets not mess with them. The birds which nest there travel to every continent on the globe, including Antarctica, every year. The state of Montana gets a huge “pot of gold” every year when geese return from ANWR and thus hunters. Entire towns base there economies on the return of geese. But of course they dont count because they aren’t rich already.
As far as the native population “getting off there duffs”, how hard to do you think you have to work in order to survive in Northern Alaska? I have a feeling you couldn’t do it.
Lastly, you talk as if you are personnally going to receive one of those “pots of gold”. Well it isn’t going to happen. Rich people are rich because they aquire money and then keep it. Thats why trickle down economics is such a farce and why giving more money to the “piggies” in Alaska is not going to do anyone but them any good. Of course that nickel a gallon you save on gas for a few months before will be a real windfall for you. I on the other hand am a nature photographer and used to be a Park Ranger/firefighter before funding was cut for the National Park Service. Every time I look around I see potential sources of money for me and tourism economies disappearing. Tourism provides alot more money than resource extraction. A good example is the region around Tongass Nat. Forest in Alaska. After logging in the roadless areas there had been stopped (albeit temporarily) the eco-tourism economy shot up to over a billion and a half dollars a year, logging was bringing only 350 million, and most of that wasn’t going to the small businesses that support a stable econonmy. This is not an extreme example, it is the norm.
I hope to retire in Alaska some day, but if I have to put up with smog and the like my money is going elsewhere.

Oh yeah, and as far as telling Sharon to “think outside the box”. Are you kidding me, who is repeating just what they’ve been told to think by our politicians and companies WHO ARE IN THE FREAKIN’ OIL BUSINESS. Give me a break, take a lesson from Sharon, think for yourself and stop being so naive.

feral, I suppose your accusations of me would be fair had you not completely misunderstood just about everything I said.

some of the oil refineries already in operation in Alaska spew more air polution than the entire city of Washington DC daily […] Another example is all the migratory wildlife that season there. The state of Montana gets a huge “pot of gold” every year when geese return from ANWR and thus hunters.

Do you honestly think Shrub or the oil companies give a damn about Montana or air polution? Well, they don’t. Also, I didn’t say that ANWR drilling wouldn’t adversely affect global air, I just left that bit out because THAT DIDN’T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH MY POINT.

As far as the native population “getting off there duffs”, how hard to do you think you have to work in order to survive in Northern Alaska?

I wasn’t talking about the Northern Alaskans. So everything you said relating to that was moot.

Lastly, you talk as if you are personnally going to receive one of those “pots of gold”. Well it isn’t going to happen. Rich people are rich because they aquire money and then keep it. Thats why trickle down economics is such a farce and why giving more money to the “piggies” in Alaska is not going to do anyone but them any good. Of course that nickel a gallon you save on gas for a few months before will be a real windfall for you.

This has to be the most ridiculous part of your whole post. First, when I said “piggies” I meant actual pigs (Sus domesticus). It was a JOKE. And if you could just GRASP the concept of “getting off your duff” you’d understand that I don’t just sit around and expect some windfall or trickle down from rich people(which is indeed a load of horse crap). I go out and invest in oil companies that have Northern Alaskan deals. Thus, while not being part of the company, I can nonetheless benefit from their success.

As for your second post:

Oh yeah, and as far as telling Sharon to “think outside the box”. Are you kidding me, who is repeating just what they’ve been told to think by our politicians and companies WHO ARE IN THE FREAKIN’ OIL BUSINESS. Give me a break, take a lesson from Sharon, think for yourself and stop being so naive.

I don’t think I’ve ever heard my angle on ANWR from anyone before. Besides that, I rarely listen to the crap politicians or corporate America say so how the hell could I repeat them? All my opinions were formulated by ME and are one hundred percent original. I think you simply interpreted my post as you wanted and ran with it.

Let me bring up a different point.

Now, exactly what percentage of ANWR is being opened up to drilling? After someone tells me that, then answer this: what percentage of the state of Alaska is ANWR? From what I’ve seen, it seems that the part of ANWR opened is extremely small.

If I’m completely incorrect, please, tell me. I just want my facts straight on how much land is actually going to be “marred” by drilling.

By the way, anybody who is so uptight about the state of Alaska getting money for the oil produced should go there and see how the people are benefited by that money. Last I heard, the people receive checks from the state from the oil fund. So, anybody who wants to get in on it should move up to Alaska. True, it is kinda out of the way of the rest of the country, but there are pros and cons of every situation. Pro = Checks, Con = Remoteness.