Well, lets spoil one of the last pristine wildlife reserves, so that we can produce enough oil to sustain us for six months. Oh, and did I forget to mention that we won't see any of this oil for ten years? Great plan...way to go. I just don't see how this serves the interests of the American public in any way...
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
But the people who live in Alaska are overwhelmingly in favor of it -- which really surprised me. I thought if anyone wanted to "protect" their wilderness, it would be the Alaskans themselves..
I, too, hate to see them start this policy, but I also don't know for sure just how disruptive it will be to the area, or if it won't be very disruptive. You hear both sides giving different scenarios..
Farmgirl
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Look for the people who have nothing to gain financially, and you'll get a better cost/benefit analysis of the situation.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
1. Define spoil, and define the reserve. If only a small part is disturbed, and the rest of the reserve is still pristine, has the whole been damaged?
2. That's enough to run the country with no other sources for 6 months. That's a significant amount of oil, and the effects on the market will last longer than 6 months because it will never be our sole source.
3. Until someone comes up with reasons for not drilling here that don't preclude drilling everywhere else drilling doesn't occur already, I'll continue to be skeptical of arguments about this particular refuge.
Dagonee
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dagonee -
I don't know how much you'll but this argument, but I remember posting it on another thread about this a short while ago.
My biggest problem with this is that when ANWR was considered out of reach then there was still a chance that the Republicans in Congress would get serious about a renewable energy and conservation plan. If they felt that ANWR couldn't be driled, they might feel pressured to get more energy through this long term plan, rather than a quick fix that really doesn't do much for American in the long run.
But now that ANWR is open for business, they'll slap each other on the backs and quietly push the problem of American energy independence into a closet for the next few years until they realize that, oops, this isn't a long term solution. Environmental impact aside, I think that is the more important issue.
[ March 16, 2005, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
quote:But the people who live in Alaska are overwhelmingly in favor of it -- which really surprised me. I thought if anyone wanted to "protect" their wilderness, it would be the Alaskans themselves..
I wonder if it's because if there's anything that Alaska has enough of, it's wilderness.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Farmgirl, it's not really that surprising. It's difficult, I think, for people who have never been there to really get a grasp of how large Alaska really is. It's not like the redwoods of California or the rainforests of Washington State. For example, it takes about 6 to 8 hours to drive from Anchorage to Fairbanks. It's 360 miles. If you look at a map, that's not even halfway up the state. ANWR covers far, far more territory.
It's a vast plain of almost nothing. It's not like the sweeping aerial shots you see on Alaska cruise commercials -- that's the very scenic southeast part of Alaska. ANWR is further north. There are animals, and it is a delicate ecosystem, but the oil companies up there learned with decades in Prudhoe Bay how to drill safely and with care for the environment. I'm not saying they're perfect, and they should definitely be regulated, but they're not going into this ignorant. Understand that Alaska's economy is heavily *heavily* dependant on oil. Fish and timber are very inconsistant and tourism isn't nearly enough $.
A favorite bumper sticker in Alaska is "Please God, let there be another oil boom. We promise not to p*ss it away this time."
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I'll repeat it in this thread,:
Alaskan citizens get a kick-back every year, from oil profits in the state. I'm sure some goes to the state and the like, but I bet many of the supporters I cheering with their wallets held high.
[ March 16, 2005, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Lyrhawn, that's an argument against opening any oil reserves in the U.S., and there's some merit to it.
Are you opposed to allowing drilling expansion anywhere as a way to prevent political diversion from the larger oil-dependence issue? I'm not sure I agree, but at least that's a self-consistent position that can be discussed.
Dagonee
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
quote: My biggest problem with this is that when ANWR was considered out of reach then there was still a chance that the Republicans in Congress would get serious about a renewable energy and conservation plan.
But what is the renewable source? Any such plan (thats worthwhile) will not have an instant switchover, and we'll still need oil during that period.
I'm not so sure that these two things are linked. Without a doubt we need to look at conservation and renewable sources, but oil is still needed for energy and its a rather useful substance even when we're not burning it (think asphalt and plastics).
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Bok, IMO, you'd pretty much have to be paid to live in Alaska. There isn't enough money in that reserve to drag me back.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
HE: we have lots of oil, this is about getting more oil.
And the reason we might want to not do it is not because having more oil is somehow bad, but because in doing it politicians somewhat averse to renewable energy and conservation become less likely to support those things, because now we have "longer to wait". For why problems of this kind can be really problematic, consider reading Tuf Voyaging, by George R. R. Martin.
Imagine two situations:
1) ANWR drilling goes through and we don't support renewable energy and conservation more than the pathetic amount we currently do.
2) ANWR drilling doesn't happen, but we save enough/produce enough (from alternate sources) energy that the lifetime of our oil consumption is extended the same amount or more than if we had drilled ANWR (this is readily possible based on energy saving possibilities).
There's a reasonable likelihood that is a dichotomy we have. Which is better?
Dag: if the politicians aren't particularly aware of a drilling expansion, its okay (under the argument), as it doesn't change their perception of "how much we're doing to shore up our energy situation".
On a side note as to why government intervention is necessary and justifiable in the cases of alternative means of production (of energy and of plastic-substitutes) and in conservation, its for a very simple reason: markets are not (which is expected) dealing well with the Oil Will Run Out In The Forseeable Future externality.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
There are some pretty good responses to this, both pro and con. Work is keeping me from doing anything more than occasionally reading comments, but I'll try to post a more detailed response later.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
jeni, that may be true, but it also shows why there should be no surprise that most Alaskans are for it. Who wouldn't want an extra 50 bucks in their wallet?
-Bok
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Bok, I was being somewhat tongue in cheek in my response, though I am also dead serious that there isn't enough money to make me want to live in Alaska again. I don't even particularly like visiting.
Less tongue in cheek, it's not the sort of place you live for the money. I've known a lot of people in Alaska...grew up there myself. The people who stay are the ones who love it for itself. They're not in it for the money -- they love the wildness of it, for its rusticness, for the wildlife, for the seasons. Alaskans are a breed apart. It's hard to put into words, but it is absolutely unmistakable. I've known people in the lower 48 with the Alaska 'tude, but you don't find many long term Alaskans with a Lower 48 outlook on life.
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
We use 20 million barrels of oil/day, and this can provide us with 1 million/day at it's peak, which isn't that much, to me. The oil isn't going anywhere. I say let the wildlife refuge be, that way no harm is done there, and also there will be a decent amount of oil for the future generations, should they need it.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I don't even particularly like visiting.